Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BENBROOK LAW GROUP, PC BRADLEY A. BENBROOK (SBN 177786) STEPHEN M. DUVERNAY (SBN 250957) 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1610 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 447-4900 Facsimile: (916) 447-4904 [email protected] [email protected] EUGENE VOLOKH (SBN 194464) UCLA School of Law 405 Hilgard Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90095 Telephone: (310) 206-3926 Facsimile: (310) 206-7010 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FIREARMS POLICY COALITION SECOND AMENDMENT DEFENSE COMMITTEE; FIREARMS POLICY COLAITION; KRIS KOENIG; STEPHEN CHOLLET; MICHAEL SCHWARTZ; and TIM DONNELLY,
Plaintiffs,
v. KAMALA D. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California,
Defendant.
Case No.: 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Hearing Date: TBD Judge: Morrison C. England, Jr.
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 2
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
-1-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TO THE PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiffs will and hereby do move the Court for a
temporary restraining order.
Plaintiffs respectfully request a temporary restraining order enjoining Defendant from
enforcing California Government Code section 9026.5, which prohibits the use of the public video
feed from the California State Assembly “for any political or commercial purpose,” because it
violates the First Amendment.
This motion shall be based on this notice of motion and motion, the memorandum of points
and authorities in support, the declarations and evidence filed concurrently herewith, and upon any
further matters the Court deems appropriate.
Dated: May 27, 2016 BENBROOK LAW GROUP, PC
By /s Bradley A. Benbrook
BRADLEY A. BENBROOK Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6 Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 2
MEMO. OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BENBROOK LAW GROUP, PC BRADLEY A. BENBROOK (SBN 177786) STEPHEN M. DUVERNAY (SBN 250957) 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1610 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 447-4900 Facsimile: (916) 447-4904 [email protected] [email protected] EUGENE VOLOKH (SBN 194464) UCLA School of Law 405 Hilgard Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90095 Telephone: (310) 206-3926 Facsimile: (310) 206-7010 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FIREARMS POLICY COALITION SECOND AMENDMENT DEFENSE COMMITTEE; FIREARMS POLICY COLAITION; KRIS KOENIG; STEPHEN CHOLLET; MICHAEL SCHWARTZ; and TIM DONNELLY,
Plaintiffs,
v. KAMALA D. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California,
Defendant.
Case No.: 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Hearing Date: TBD Judge: Morrison C. England, Jr.
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-1 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 11
MEMO. OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
-1-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I. INTRODUCTION
This is a facial and as-applied First Amendment challenge to California Government Code
section 9026.5, which prohibits the use of the public video feed from the California State
Assembly “for any political or commercial purpose, including . . . any campaign for elective public
office or any campaign supporting or opposing a ballot proposition submitted to the electors.” Id.,
subd. (a). Remarkably, Section 9026.5 purports to criminalize political speech that uses material
placed in the public domain by being streamed live and stored on the Internet, broadcast live on
Cable TV, or rebroadcast on the nightly news. While news organizations can freely rebroadcast
video of Assembly proceedings under an exemption in the statute, those hoping to use the same
material for political speech are committing a crime.
Section 9026.5 criminalizes political speech in a content-based and speaker-based way. It
is therefore unconstitutional unless the State meets its burden under strict scrutiny analysis by
showing the law is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest—a test it cannot possibly
satisfy. Plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order to allow them to produce and distribute
videos and political advertisements related to the upcoming election that include footage from
Assembly committee hearings.
II. BACKGROUND
THE SPEECH BAN AND THE PLAINTIFFS RESTRICTED BY IT
Beginning in 1991, proceedings of the California State Legislature have been publicly
broadcast through public-access television networks throughout the state.1 Plaintiffs intend to
produce and distribute videos and political advertisements that include footage from hearings of
the California State Assembly that are publicly broadcast and archived on the Internet.2 They are
1 For millions of California households, the feed is prominently broadcast through the California Channel, “a public service funded entirely by California’s cable television operators as a means to provide Californians direct access to ‘gavel-to-gavel’ proceedings of the California Legislature.” The California Channel, About, online at http://www.calchannel.com/about/. Public broadcast of legislative proceedings was spurred in significant part by a research study and proposal by the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School of Communications and the Center for Responsive Government. Tracy Westen & Beth Givens, Ctr. for Responsive Gov’t, The California Channel: A New Public Affairs Television Network For the State (1989). 2 The California Channel maintains a searchable on-demand archive available online at http://www.calchannel.com/video-on-demand/.
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-1 Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 11
MEMO. OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
prohibited from doing so, however, by California Government Code section 9026.5, which
provides as follows:
(a) No television signal generated by the Assembly shall be used for any political or commercial purpose, including, but not limited to, any campaign for elective public office or any campaign supporting or opposing a ballot proposition submitted to the electors. As used in this section, “commercial purpose” does not include either of the following: (1) The use of any television signal generated by the Assembly by an accredited news organization or any nonprofit organization for educational or public affairs programming. (2) As authorized by the Assembly, the transmission by a third party to paid subscribers of an unedited video feed of the television signal generated by the Assembly. (b) Any person or organization who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Section 9026.5 has chilled Plaintiffs’ exercise of core political speech and inhibited the free
flow of discussion about public issues. As set forth below, each Plaintiff desires to use Assembly
footage in connection with the discussion of public issues and would do so, but for Section 9026.5
and the threat of criminal sanctions.
Firearms Policy Coalition Second Amendment Defense Committee
Plaintiff Firearms Policy Coalition Second Amendment Defense Committee (the “FPC
PAC”) is a political action committee organized to oppose a proposed statewide ballot initiative
(officially titled the “Safety for All Act of 2016” (the “Initiative”)) that has been submitted for
qualification to appear on the ballot for the November 8, 2016 general election. Declaration of
Brandon Combs ISO TRO, ¶ 3.
FPC PAC has launched a political campaign against the Initiative, which it fears will
drastically undermine the civil rights of California citizens. Id., ¶ 5. In connection with its
political campaign, the PAC will distribute the videos to the public on television and online,
including, but not limited to, on Facebook, on YouTube, on Instagram, and at
http://www.fpcsadc.org (the FPC PAC website developed to oppose the Initiative). Id.
FPC PAC is in the final stages of producing a video that includes Assembly television
footage of past and current bill committee hearings, floor discussion, debates, and votes as well as
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-1 Filed 05/27/16 Page 3 of 11
MEMO. OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
footage from a May 3, 2016 joint Senate and Assembly Public Safety Committee hearing on the
Initiative. Id., ¶ 6. FPC PAC intended to publish the video starting in May 2016 and to continue
using the video as part of its ongoing campaign through the general election in November. Id.
While in the final stage of production, however, FPC PAC became aware of Section
9026.5’s prohibition on the use of Assembly video footage for “any political . . . purpose,”
including “any campaign . . . opposing a ballot proposition.” Id., ¶ 7. Because the advertisement
would violate Section 9026.5, the committee has halted final production of the video and delayed
its distribution plans until it gets the relief requested herein. Id. In addition to this video, FPC
PAC intends to produce and distribute additional political advertisements opposing the Initiative
that use footage from Assembly hearings. Id., ¶¶ 7, 9.
Firearms Policy Coalition
FPC is a 501(c)4 non-profit public benefit organization that serves its members and the
public through direct and grassroots advocacy, legal action, education, and other efforts. Combs
Decl., ¶ 4. The purposes of FPC include defending the United States Constitution and the People’s
rights, privileges and immunities deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition, especially the
fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Id. FPC opposes the Initiative and is lobbying, directly
and through grassroots efforts, dozens of active measures in the California Legislature. Id. FPC
spends time and resources informing the public about matters of constitutional interest and civil
rights. Id.
FPC is producing an online video news program (“FPC News”) that focuses on legal and
political developments that affect the civil rights of millions of law-abiding people. Id., ¶ 8. FPC
wants to use Assembly television footage for FPC News, but has refrained from doing so since it
learned of Section 9026.5 because it fears prosecution for using such footage for “political
purposes.” Id. FPC also wants to use Assembly video footage to produce additional videos
relating to issues in the upcoming election and ongoing legislative matters in the future. Id., ¶ 4.
Kris Koenig and Stephen Chollet
Kris Koenig and Stephen Chollet are Emmy-award winning filmmakers. Declaration of
Kris Koenig ISO TRO, ¶ 2; Declaration of Stephen Chollet ISO TRO, ¶ 2. Koenig and Chollet
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-1 Filed 05/27/16 Page 4 of 11
MEMO. OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
-4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
have contracted with FPC PAC to develop and produce political advertisements opposing the
Initiative. Koenig Decl., ¶ 2; Chollet Decl., ¶ 2. They have also contracted with FPC to develop
and produce FPC News. Koenig Decl., ¶ 2; Chollet Decl., ¶ 2. Koenig and Chollet would include
footage from the Assembly video feed in these video productions, but both Plaintiffs fear that
doing so could subject them to liability under either the “commercial purposes” or “political
purposes” prohibition of Section 9026.5. Koenig Decl., ¶ 2; Chollet Decl., ¶ 2.
Michael Schwartz
Plaintiff Michael Schwartz is the Executive Director of San Diego County Gun Owners
PAC. Declaration of Michael Schwartz ISO TRO, ¶ 1. Schwartz would like to use Assembly
footage in the PAC’s political advertisements opposing the Initiative, but has refrained from doing
so because of Section 9026.5. Id., ¶ 2.
Tim Donnelly
Plaintiff Tim Donnelly is a candidate for Congress in California’s eighth congressional
district. Declaration of Tim Donnelly ISO TRO, ¶ 3. Donnelly served as a member of the
California State Assembly from December 2010 to December 2014, and would like to use
Assembly video footage in political advertisements in support of his congressional campaign and
in opposition to other political candidates and issues. Id., ¶¶ 2–3. However, during his 2014
campaign for Governor, when he used video footage of a hearing in which he participated, the
Assembly Rules Committee threatened an enforcement proceeding under Section 9026.5. Id., ¶ 2.
But for Section 9026.5, Donnelly would use Assembly video in his active congressional campaign.
Id., ¶ 3.
III. NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS
Pursuant to Local Rule 231 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, Plaintiffs have given Defendant notice
of their intention to seek a temporary restraining order and the nature of the relief they request in
this motion. Declaration of Bradley A. Benbrook ISO TRO, ¶¶ 2–3. Plaintiffs’ counsel will serve
this motion and supporting documents on Defendant’s counsel by e-mail and personal delivery.
Id., ¶ 4.
///
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-1 Filed 05/27/16 Page 5 of 11
MEMO. OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
-5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IV. ARGUMENT
“In general, the showing required for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary
injunction are the same.” Hofer v. Grail Semiconductor, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-02207-MCE-EFB,
2015 WL 6502696, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2015) (citing Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. John
D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir.2001) (a court’s “analysis is substantially
identical for [an] injunction and [a] TRO”)). A plaintiff “must establish that he is likely to succeed
on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that
the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Am.
Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter
v. Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). Alternatively, injunctive relief “is
appropriate when a plaintiff demonstrates that serious questions going to the merits [are] raised
and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v.
Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011).
“[I]n the First Amendment context, the moving party bears the initial burden of making a
colorable claim that its First Amendment rights have been infringed, or are threatened with
infringement, at which point the burden shifts to the government to justify the restriction.” Doe v.
Harris, 772 F.3d 563, 570 (9th Cir. 2014).
A. Plaintiffs Are Likely To Establish That Section 9026.5 Violates The First Amendment.
1. Section 9026.5 Is Presumptively Unconstitutional Because It Is A Content-
Based Prohibition On Protected Speech.
“Discussion of public issues” is “integral to the operation of the system of government
established by our Constitution. The First Amendment affords the broadest protection to such
political expression in order ‘to assure [the] unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about
of political and social changes desired by the people.’” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 14 (1976)
(quoting Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484 (1957)). “[I]nteractive communication
concerning political change” is “core political speech” for which the First Amendment’s protection
is “at its zenith.” Buckley v. Am. Const. Law Found., 525 U.S. 182, 186–87 (1999) (quoting Meyer
v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 422, 425 (1988)). Plaintiffs seek to use video footage of Assembly
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-1 Filed 05/27/16 Page 6 of 11
MEMO. OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
-6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
proceedings in connection with the discussion of public issues, but are prevented from engaging in
such core political speech—on pain of criminal sanctions—by California Government Code
section 9026.5.
By imposing a content-based restriction on the use of video, Section 9026.5 violates the
First Amendment. The government “has no power to restrict expression because of its message,
its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218, 2226 (2015)
(citation omitted). “Content-based laws—those that target speech based on its communicative
content—are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves
that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.” Id.
Section 9026.5 is a content-based restriction that criminalizes core political speech. The
statute expressly limits itself to speech based on its content: video footage of television signals
generated by the Assembly, which consists of video recordings of Assembly proceedings. Section
9026.5 does not limit or restrict the use of video footage from other sorts of television signals. It is
therefore content-based. See Reed, 135 S. Ct. at 2227 (holding that a distinction between political
signs and other signs was content-based).
Moreover, “defining regulated speech by its function or purpose,” the Supreme Court has
held, also makes a restriction “content based.” Id. Section 9026.5 does this by expressly barring
only the use of Assembly-generated signals “for any political or commercial purpose,” whereas
certain other uses of the footage—for instance, use in nonprofits’ nonpolitical “educational or
public affairs programming”—are not prohibited.
In McCullen v. Coakley, for example, the Supreme Court held that a law is “content based
if it require[s] ‘enforcement authorities’ to ‘examine the content of the message that is conveyed to
determine whether’ a violation has occurred.” 134 S. Ct. 2518, 2531 (2014); see also Regan v.
Time, Inc., 468 U.S. 641, 649 (1984) (“A determination concerning the newsworthiness or
educational value of a photograph cannot help but be based on the content of the photograph and
the message it delivers.”). To determine whether a speaker is “us[ing]” a “television signal
generated by the Assembly . . . for any political . . . purpose,” or instead for “educational” or
“public affairs” purposes, enforcement authorities must examine the content of the speaker’s
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-1 Filed 05/27/16 Page 7 of 11
MEMO. OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
-7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
message: They must examine it to decide whether the message uses an Assembly-generated signal,
and they must examine it to decide whether the message uses the signal for a political, educational,
or public affairs purpose.
Section 9026.5 also contains an impermissible speaker-based classification. “Because
‘[s]peech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to
control content,’” the Supreme Court has “insisted that ‘laws favoring some speakers over others
demand strict scrutiny when the legislature’s speaker preference reflects a content preference.’”
Reed, 135 S. Ct. at 2230. Section 9026.5 distinguishes “accredited news organization[s]” and
“nonprofit organizations” from other organizations. The only explanation for this speaker
preference consistent with the structure of Section 9026.5 is that the Legislature prefers
nonpolitical “news” content to other content, such as “campaign[s] for . . . office” or “campaign[s]
support or opposing . . . ballot proposition[s].”
Any of these reasons, even standing alone, would render Section 9026.5 content-based.
Put together, they illustrate the content discrimination even more clearly.
2. Section 9026.5 Cannot Withstand Strict Scrutiny.
Because section 9026.5 expressly criminalizes political speech in a content- and speaker-
based way, it is “presumptively unconstitutional” and is subject to strict scrutiny. Reed, 135 S. Ct.
at 2226–27; see also Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 340 (2010) (“Laws
that burden political speech are subject to strict scrutiny.”) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). This means that the statute is unconstitutional unless it “furthers a compelling interest
and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” Reed, 135 S. Ct. at 2231 (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
There is no compelling state interest in criminalizing the dissemination of Assembly
hearings and debates for political or commercial purposes. To the contrary, California law
recognizes in various ways that the state’s interest is served by promoting dissemination of public
proceedings. The California Constitution declares that “[t]he proceedings of each house [of the
Legislature] and the committees thereof shall be open and public.” Cal. Const., art. IV, § 7(c)(1);
see also Cal. Const., art. I, § 3(b)(1) (“The people have the right of access to information
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-1 Filed 05/27/16 Page 8 of 11
MEMO. OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
-8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and
the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.”).3 The Legislature
itself has acknowledged that “access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s
business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.” Cal. Gov. Code §
6250. To that end, the Legislature has declared on multiple occasions that the People’s right to
know what its government is doing is essential to our system of democratic self-governance:
The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.
Cal. Gov. Code § 54950; id., § 11120.4
The Assembly carries on the legislative business on behalf of the citizens of California and
it creates video footage that captures those proceedings. California cannot restrict its citizens from
sharing that footage with fellow citizens in furtherance of their fundamental speech rights.
The video footage is simply a recording of the events taking place in the Legislature. For
more than a century, the primary record of those proceedings was produced in written form – a
transcript of a floor debate, for example. It is inconceivable in the American constitutional system
that a citizen could ever have been prevented from copying and disseminating those transcripts to
his or her fellow citizens in connection with a message critical – or supportive – of what was
recorded in those proceedings. Yet that is exactly what Section 9026.5 purports to do to the
modern equivalent of those transcripts.
Plaintiffs are thus left to guess what “compelling interest” the State may identify in trying
to resuscitate Section 9026.5, and in discharging its burden of justifying its speech restriction. See
Doe v. Harris, 772 F.3d at 570. If the government articulates a government interest in response to
3 The inclusion of the public’s right of access within Article I, Section 3 is significant, as it reinforces the fact that access to information is central to the people’s “right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good.” Cal. Const., art. I, § 3(a). 4 These declarations were included in the Ralph M. Brown Act, passed in 1953 (which governs public access to local agencies), and the Bagley-Keene Act, passed in 1967 (which governs public access to proceedings of state agencies).
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-1 Filed 05/27/16 Page 9 of 11
MEMO. OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
-9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
this motion, Plaintiffs request the opportunity to respond to such argument in a reply brief.
B. Plaintiffs Will Be Irreparably Harmed In The Absence Of A Temporary Restraining Order.
Plaintiffs are irreparably harmed by the threat of enforcement of Section 9026.5. “Both
[the Ninth Circuit] and the Supreme Court have repeatedly held that ‘[t]he loss of First
Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable
injury.’” Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196, 1207–08 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Elrod v.
Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976)). “The harm is particularly irreparable where, as here, a plaintiff
seeks to engage in political speech, as ‘timing is of the essence in politics’ and ‘[a] delay of even a
day or two may be intolerable . . . .’” Id. at 1208 (citations omitted).
Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit has long recognized that constitutional violations in general,
and First Amendment violations in particular, constitute irreparable harm. See, e.g., Stormans, Inc.
v. Stelecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1138 (9th Cir. 2009) (“‘[C]onstitutional violations cannot be
adequately remedied through damages and therefore generally constitute irreparable harm.’”)
(citation omitted); Goldie’s Bookstore, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir. 1984)
(“[P]urposeful unconstitutional suppression of speech constitutes irreparable harm for preliminary
injunction purposes.”).
C. The Balance Of Equities Tips In Plaintiffs’ Favor.
“The fact that a case raises serious First Amendment questions compels a finding that there
exists ‘the potential for irreparable injury, or that at the very least the balance of hardships tips
sharply in [claimants’] favor.’” Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist. Ct., 303 F.3d 959, 973 (9th Cir.
2002) (citation omitted). That is particularly the case here, where Plaintiffs are faced with a choice
between modifying political speech or facing criminal sanctions. “[T]he threat of criminal
prosecution . . . can inhibit the speaker from making [protected] statements, thereby ‘chilling’ a
kind of speech that lies at the First Amendment’s heart.” Sanders Cnty. Republican Cent. Comm.
v. Bullock, 698 F.3d 741, 748 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted).
California, on the other hand, is not harmed by an injunction: the State “can derive no
legally cognizable benefit from being permitted to further enforce an unconstitutional limit on
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-1 Filed 05/27/16 Page 10 of 11
MEMO. OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
-10-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
political speech.” Id. at 749.
D. A Temporary Restraining Order Is In The Public Interest.
The Ninth Circuit has “consistently recognized the ‘significant public interest’ in upholding
free speech principles, as the ‘ongoing enforcement of the potentially unconstitutional regulations
. . . would infringe not only the free expression interests of plaintiffs, but also the interests of other
people’ subjected to the same restrictions.” Klein, 584 F.3d at 1208 (quoting Sammartano, 303
F.3d at 974). Conversely, enforcement of an unconstitutional law is against the public interest.
E.g., Scott v. Roberts, 612 F.3d 1279, 1297 (11th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he public, when the state is a
party asserting harm, has no interest in enforcing an unconstitutional law.”); Gordon v. Holder,
721 F.3d 638, 653 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (“[E]nforcement of an unconstitutional law is always contrary
to the public interest.”); Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 240, 251 n.11 (3d Cir.
2003) (same).
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court should issue a temporary restraining order that
prevents Defendant from enforcing California Government Code section 9026.5.
Dated: May 27, 2016 BENBROOK LAW GROUP, PC
By /s Bradley A. Benbrook
BRADLEY A. BENBROOK Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-1 Filed 05/27/16 Page 11 of 11
BENBROOK DECL. IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BENBROOK LAW GROUP, PC BRADLEY A. BENBROOK (SBN 177786) STEPHEN M. DUVERNAY (SBN 250957) 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1610 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 447-4900 Facsimile: (916) 447-4904 [email protected] [email protected] EUGENE VOLOKH (SBN 194464) UCLA School of Law 405 Hilgard Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90095 Telephone: (310) 206-3926 Facsimile: (310) 206-7010 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FIREARMS POLICY COALITION SECOND AMENDMENT DEFENSE COMMITTEE; FIREARMS POLICY COLAITION; KRIS KOENIG; STEPHEN CHOLLET; MICHAEL SCHWARTZ; and TIM DONNELLY,
Plaintiffs,
v. KAMALA D. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California,
Defendant.
Case No.: 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC DECLARATION OF BRADLEY A. BENBROOK IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Hearing Date: TBD Judge: Morrison C. England, Jr.
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-2 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 6
BENBROOK DECL. IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
-1-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I, Bradley A. Benbrook, declare:
1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California. I am an
attorney at Benbrook Law Group, PC, counsel of record for Plaintiffs in this matter. I have
personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration, and would be able to testify
competently to these facts if called as a witness.
2. On May 26, 2016, I contacted Douglas Woods, Senior Assistant Attorney General,
to inform him that we had filed a complaint in this case and that Plaintiffs would soon be filing a
motion for relief. (Mr. Woods serves as head of the Government Section in the Attorney General’s
office and, to my understanding, typically supervises litigation challenging the constitutionality of
state statutes.) Mr. Woods confirmed that he received the message and that he would forward our
papers to the “right hands.” Later that day my office provided an electronic copy of the summons
and complaint to Mr. Woods by e-mail. A true and correct copy of the e-mail to Mr. Woods is
attached as Exhibit “A.”
3. On May 27, 2016, I e-mailed Mr. Woods to provide notice that Plaintiffs intended
to file a motion for temporary restraining order enjoining the enforcement of California
Government Code section 9026.5. A true and correct copy of my e-mail exchange with Mr.
Woods is attached as Exhibit “B.”
4. My firm will serve all papers supporting the motion for a temporary restraining
order on Defendant by hand delivery and by e-mail service to Mr. Woods on May 27, 2016.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed May 27, 2016 in California.
s/Bradley A. Benbrook
BRADLEY A. BENBROOK
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-2 Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 6
EXHIBIT A
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-2 Filed 05/27/16 Page 3 of 6
Friday,May27,2016at11:55:25AMPacificDaylightTime
Page1of1
Subject: FirearmsPol'yCoali/onSecondAm.DefenseComm.v.Harris(2:16-cv-01144)Date: Thursday,May26,2016at8:03:42PMPacificDaylightTimeFrom: SteveDuvernayTo: [email protected]: BradleyBenbrook
Doug: Here are the summons and complaint in Firearms Pol’y Coalition Second Am. Defense Comm. v. Harris (2:16-cv-01144), which we plan to serve by hand tomorrow.
Sincerely,
Steve Stephen DuvernayBenbrook Law Group, PC400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1610Sacramento, CA 95814(916) [email protected]
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-2 Filed 05/27/16 Page 4 of 6
EXHIBIT B
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-2 Filed 05/27/16 Page 5 of 6
Friday, May 27, 2016 11:53:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Page 1 of 1
Subject: Re: New complaint/TRODate: Friday, May 27, 2016 11:43:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: Bradley BenbrookTo: Douglas Woods
Doug: Further to my message from yesterday, we are planning to file a motion for a TRO today, asking the Court to enjoin enforcement of California Government Code section 9026.5. According to JudgeEngland’s courtroom deputy, the Judge will review the papers and determine whether to set a hearing. In addition, the Eastern District's TRO checklist calls for us to state whether we discussed alternatives to seeking a TRO and whether the State would stipulate to a TRO. Given that Plaintiffs are challenging the constitutionality of a state statute, I suspect that this is a nonstarter. In any event, please let me know the State’s position in this regard. We will e-mail and personally serve copies of the TRO papers this afternoon. Let me know if we should copy anyone else on our service copies. Thanks very much.
Brad
Bradley BenbrookBenbrook Law Group, PC400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1610Sacramento, CA 95814(916) 447-4900
From: Douglas Woods <[email protected]>Date: Thursday, May 26, 2016 5:30 PMTo: Brad Benbrook <[email protected]>Subject: New complaint
Brad, got your message, yes, thanks for the heads-‐up. Best to email copies to me, and I’ll make sure it gets into the right hands. Thanks Doug
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-2 Filed 05/27/16 Page 6 of 6
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
BENBROOK LA W GROUP, PC BRADLEY A. BENBROOK (SBN 177786) STEPHEN M. DUVERNAY (SBN 250957) 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1610 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 447-4900 Facsimile: (916) 447-4904 [email protected] [email protected]
EUGENE VOLOKH (SBN 194464) UCLA School of Law 405 H ilgard AYe. Los Angeles, CA 90095 Telephone: (310) 206-3926 Facsimile: (310) 206-70 I 0 [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
FIREARMS POLICY COALITION SECOND 16 AMENDMENT DEFENSE COMMITTEE;
FIREARMS POLICY COLAITION; KRIS 17 KOENIG; STEPHEN CHOLLET; MICHAEL
SCHW ARTZ; and TIM DONNELLY, 18
19
20
Plaintiffs,
Y.
KAMALA D. HARRIS, in her official capacity 21 as Attorney General of California,
22
23
25
26
27
28
Defendant.
Case No.: 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC
Hearing Date: TBD Judge: Morrison C. England, Jr.
KOENIG DECL. IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
BENBROOK LA W GROUP, PC BRADLEY A. BENBROOK (SBN 177786) STEPHEN M. DUVERNAY (SBN 250957) 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1610 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 447-4900 Facsimile: (916) 447-4904 [email protected] [email protected]
EUGENE VOLOKH (SBN 194464) UCLA School of Law 405 H ilgard AYe. Los Angeles, CA 90095 Telephone: (310) 206-3926 Facsimile: (310) 206-70 I 0 [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
FIREARMS POLICY COALITION SECOND 16 AMENDMENT DEFENSE COMMITTEE;
FIREARMS POLICY COLAITION; KRIS 17 KOENIG; STEPHEN CHOLLET; MICHAEL
SCHW ARTZ; and TIM DONNELLY, 18
19
20
Plaintiffs,
Y.
KAMALA D. HARRIS, in her official capacity 21 as Attorney General of California,
22
23
25
26
27
28
Defendant.
Case No.: 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC
Hearing Date: TBD Judge: Morrison C. England, Jr.
KOENIG DECL. IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-3 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 2
2
3 to
I, Koenig, declare:
l. personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration, and would be
competently to these facts if called as a witness.
4 I am a filmmaker, producer, and director. I have contracted with the Firearms
5 Policy Coalition Second Amendment Defense Committee and the Firearms Policy Coalition to
6
7
8 under
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
26
27
and produce videos political advertisements. I would like to use Assembly video
III
is true
videos and advertisements, but I that doing so could subject me to liability
Government Code section 9026.5, because it prohibits using such footage
and "political purposes."
penalty of perjury under the laws of the of California that the
correct. Executed May
KOENIG DECI , IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
-1-
2
3 to
I, Koenig, declare:
l. personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration, and would be
competently to these facts if called as a witness.
4 I am a filmmaker, producer, and director. I have contracted with the Firearms
5 Policy Coalition Second Amendment Defense Committee and the Firearms Policy Coalition to
6
7
8 under
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
26
27
and produce videos political advertisements. I would like to use Assembly video
III
is true
videos and advertisements, but I that doing so could subject me to liability
Government Code section 9026.5, because it prohibits using such footage
and "political purposes."
penalty of perjury under the laws of the of California that the
correct. Executed May
KOENIG DECI , IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
-1-
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-3 Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 2
CHOLLET DECL. IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BENBROOK LAW GROUP, PC BRADLEY A. BENBROOK (SBN 177786) STEPHEN M. DUVERNAY (SBN 250957) 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1610 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 447-4900 Facsimile: (916) 447-4904 [email protected] [email protected] EUGENE VOLOKH (SBN 194464) UCLA School of Law 405 Hilgard Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90095 Telephone: (310) 206-3926 Facsimile: (310) 206-7010 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FIREARMS POLICY COALITION SECOND AMENDMENT DEFENSE COMMITTEE; FIREARMS POLICY COLAITION; KRIS KOENIG; STEPHEN CHOLLET; MICHAEL SCHWARTZ; and TIM DONNELLY,
Plaintiffs,
v. KAMALA D. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California,
Defendant.
Case No.: 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC DECLARATION OF STEPHEN CHOLLET IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Hearing Date: TBD Judge: Morrison C. England, Jr.
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-4 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I, Stephen Chollet, declare:
1. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration, and would be
able to testify competently to these facts if called as a witness.
2. I am a filmmaker, producer, and director. I have contracted with the Firearms
Policy Coalition Second Amendment Defense Committee and the Firearms Policy Coalition to
develop and produce videos and political advertisements. I would like to use Assembly video
footage in these videos and advertisements, but I fear that doing so could subject me to liability
under California Government Code section 9026.5, because it prohibits using such footage for
“commercial purposes” and “political purposes.”
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed May 25, 2016 in California.
________________________________STEPHEN CHOLLET
CHOLLET DECL. IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER-2-
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-4 Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 2
DONNELLY DECL. IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BENBROOK LAW GROUP, PC BRADLEY A. BENBROOK (SBN 177786) STEPHEN M. DUVERNAY (SBN 250957) 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1610 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 447-4900 Facsimile: (916) 447-4904 [email protected] [email protected] EUGENE VOLOKH (SBN 194464) UCLA School of Law 405 Hilgard Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90095 Telephone: (310) 206-3926 Facsimile: (310) 206-7010 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FIREARMS POLICY COALITION SECOND AMENDMENT DEFENSE COMMITTEE; FIREARMS POLICY COLAITION; KRIS KOENIG; STEPHEN CHOLLET; MICHAEL SCHWARTZ; and TIM DONNELLY,
Plaintiffs,
v. KAMALA D. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California,
Defendant.
Case No.: 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC DECLARATION OF TIM DONNELLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Hearing Date: TBD Judge: Morrison C. England, Jr.
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-5 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 2
2
3
9
10
12 I was
3 3,
15
matters set In
to as a
as a member of
penalty of perjury
correct
DONNELL Y DELL IN Sm'PORT OF TEMI'ORAR Y RESTRAINING ORDER
I
to
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-5 Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 2
COMBS DECL. IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BENBROOK LAW GROUP, PC BRADLEY A. BENBROOK (SBN 177786) STEPHEN M. DUVERNAY (SBN 250957) 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1610 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 447-4900 Facsimile: (916) 447-4904 [email protected] [email protected] EUGENE VOLOKH (SBN 194464) UCLA School of Law 405 Hilgard Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90095 Telephone: (310) 206-3926 Facsimile: (310) 206-7010 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FIREARMS POLICY COALITION SECOND AMENDMENT DEFENSE COMMITTEE; FIREARMS POLICY COLAITION; KRIS KOENIG; STEPHEN CHOLLET; MICHAEL SCHWARTZ; and TIM DONNELLY,
Plaintiffs,
v. KAMALA D. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California,
Defendant.
Case No.: 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC DECLARATION OF BRANDON COMBS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Hearing Date: TBD Judge: Morrison C. England, Jr.
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-6 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 3
COMBS DECL. IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -1-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I, Brandon Combs, declare:
1. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration, and would be
able to testify competently to these facts if called as a witness.
2. I am the Chairman and Principal Officer of Firearms Policy Coalition Second
Amendment Defense Committee (the “FPC PAC”) and the President of Firearms Policy Coalition
(“FPC”).
3. The FPC PAC is a political action committee organized to oppose the proposed
statewide ballot initiative sponsored by California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom (officially
titled the “Safety for All Act of 2016”) (the “Initiative”) that has been submitted for qualification
to appear on the ballot for the November 8, 2016 general election.
4. FPC is a 501(c)4 non-profit public benefit organization that serves its members and
the public through direct and grassroots advocacy, legal action, education, and other efforts. The
purposes of FPC include defending the United States Constitution and the People’s rights,
privileges and immunities deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition, especially the
fundamental right to keep and bear arms. FPC and the FPC PAC oppose the Initiative.
Additionally, FPC is lobbying, directly and through grassroots efforts, dozens of active measures
in the California Legislature. FPC spends time and resources informing the public about matters
of constitutional interest and civil rights through its FPC News video program. FPC News
programming includes messages that urge its members and the public to take political and
grassroots lobbying actions. FPC wants to use Assembly television footage to produce FPC News
videos relating to urgent legislative issues as well as the Initiative in the upcoming election.
5. The FPC PAC and FPC believe the Initiative will drastically and negatively affect
the civil rights of law-abiding people, including millions of Californians and visitors travelling to
California. In connection with its political campaign, the FPC PAC will produce and distribute
video advertisements opposing the initiative. FPC PAC will distribute the videos to the public on
television and online, including, but not limited to, on Facebook, on YouTube, on Instagram, and
at http://www.fpcsadc.org (the FPC PAC website developed to oppose the initiative).
6. FPC PAC is in the final stages of producing a video that includes Assembly
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-6 Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 3
COMBS DECL. IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
television footage of past and current bill committee hearings, floor discussion, debates, and votes
as well as footage from a May 3, 2016 joint Senate and Assembly Public Safety Committee
hearing on the proposed initiative. The committee intended to publish the video starting in May
2016 and continue to use the video as part of its ongoing campaign through the general election in
November.
7. While in the final stage of production, however, FPC PAC became aware of
California Government Code section 9026.5’s prohibition on the use of Assembly video footage
for “any political . . . purpose,” including “any campaign . . . opposing a ballot proposition.”
Because the advertisement would violate section 9026.5, the committee has halted final production
of the video and delayed its distribution plans until it gets the relief requested herein. In addition
to this video, FPC PAC intends to produce and distribute additional political advertisements
opposing the initiative that use video footage from various Assembly hearings.
8. FPC produces a video news program (“FPC News”) that focuses on legal and
political developments that affect the civil rights of millions of law-abiding people. FPC wants to
use Assembly television footage for FPC News, but has refrained from doing so since it learned of
Section 9026.5 because it fears prosecution for using such footage for “political purposes.”
9. FPC PAC and FPC have identified video footage generated by the Assembly that
they would like to use in connection with their various political advocacy videos, including, but
not limited to: May 12, 2016 Assembly Floor Session on Assembly Bill 2510; June 10, 2014
Assembly Floor Session on Senate Bill 396; Aug. 29, 2014 Assembly Floor Session on Senate Bill
53; June 10, 2014 Assembly Committee Public Safety hearing on Senate Bill 53.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed May 27, 2016 in California.
________________________________ BRANDON COMBS
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-6 Filed 05/27/16 Page 3 of 3
SCHWARTZ DECL. IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BENBROOK LAW GROUP, PC BRADLEY A. BENBROOK (SBN 177786) STEPHEN M. DUVERNAY (SBN 250957) 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1610 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 447-4900 Facsimile: (916) 447-4904 [email protected] [email protected] EUGENE VOLOKH (SBN 194464) UCLA School of Law 405 Hilgard Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90095 Telephone: (310) 206-3926 Facsimile: (310) 206-7010 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FIREARMS POLICY COALITION SECOND AMENDMENT DEFENSE COMMITTEE; FIREARMS POLICY COLAITION; KRIS KOENIG; STEPHEN CHOLLET; MICHAEL SCHWARTZ; and TIM DONNELLY,
Plaintiffs,
v. KAMALA D. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California,
Defendant.
Case No.: 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC DECLARATION OF MICHAEL SCHWARTZ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Hearing Date: TBD Judge: Morrison C. England, Jr.
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-7 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 2
1 I, Michael A. Schwartz, declare:
2 1. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration, and would be
3 able to testify competently to these facts if called as a witness.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
3.
I am the Executive Director of San Diego County Gun Owners PAC.
The San Diego County Gun Owners PAC is a political action committee that
advocates in favor of constitutional rights with a particular focus on the Second Amendment to the
United States Constitution. The PAC opposes a proposed statewide ballot initiative (officially
titled the "Safety for All Act of 2016") that has been submitted for qualification to appear on the
ballot for the November 8, 2016 general election. The committee would like to use Assembly
footage in political advertisements opposing the initiative, but has refrained from doing so because
of California Government Code section 9026.5
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed May 25th, 2016 in California.
MICHAEL A. SCHWARTZ
SCHWARTZ DECL. IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
-1-
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-7 Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 2
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BENBROOK LAW GROUP, PC BRADLEY A. BENBROOK (SBN 177786) STEPHEN M. DUVERNAY (SBN 250957) 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1610 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 447-4900 Facsimile: (916) 447-4904 [email protected] [email protected] EUGENE VOLOKH (SBN 194464) UCLA School of Law 405 Hilgard Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90095 Telephone: (310) 206-3926 Facsimile: (310) 206-7010 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FIREARMS POLICY COALITION SECOND AMENDMENT DEFENSE COMMITTEE; FIREARMS POLICY COLAITION; KRIS KOENIG; STEPHEN CHOLLET; MICHAEL SCHWARTZ; and TIM DONNELLY,
Plaintiffs,
v. KAMALA D. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California,
Defendant.
Case No.: 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC [PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT BE PRELIMINARYLIY ENJOINED FROM ENFORCING CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE § 9026.5 Judge: Morrison C. England, Jr.
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 2
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
-1-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that
California Government Code section 9026.5 violates their First Amendment rights. Plaintiffs have
also established that this harm is irreparable, the balance of equities weighs in their favor, and
injunctive relief will promote the public interest. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Motion
for a Temporary Restraining Order should be GRANTED.
Because Defendant will not suffer monetary hardship by the issuance of the temporary
restraining order and because the matter involves a constitutional violation, the Court will require a
nominal bond in the amount of $1.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that
Defendant is hereby ordered to cease and are hereby temporarily restrained from enforcing
California Government Code section 9026.5, beginning at _______ a.m./p.m. on
________________, 2016. This order shall remain in effect until _______ a.m./p.m. on
________________, 2016.
Defendant is hereby ordered to show cause at _______ a.m./p.m. on ________________,
2016, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, before the Honorable Morrison C. England,
Jr., United States District Court, Eastern District of California, 501 I Street, Sacramento, CA
95814, why Defendant should not be preliminarily enjoined from enforcing California
Government Code section 9026.5.
Defendant shall file and serve its responsive papers, if any, by ________________, 2016
Plaintiffs’ counsel shall serve a copy of this order on Defendant by personal delivery and e-
mail by _______ a.m./p.m. on ________________, 2016.
Date: ____________________ ________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER(TRO)
CHECKLIST
NOTE: When filing a Motion for a TRO with the court, you must choose Motion for TRO. You mustcomplete this document and attach is to your motion as an attachment in CM/ECF. If you havequestions, please call the CM/ECF Help Desk at 1-866-884-5525 (Sacramento) or 1-866-884-5444 (Fresno).
(A) Check one. Filing party is represented by counsel G
Filing party is acting in pro se G
(B) Has there been actual notice, or a sufficient showing of efforts to provide notice to the affected party? See Local Rule 65-231 and FRCP 65(b).
Did applicant discuss alternatives to a TRO hearing?
Did applicant ask opponent to stipulate to a TRO?
Opposing Party:
Telephone No.:
(C) Has there been undue delay in bringing a TRO?
Could this have been brought earlier?
Yes: G No: G
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 2
TRO Checklist - Page 2
(D) What is the irreparable injury?
Why the need for an expedited hearing?
(E) Documents to be filed and (unless impossible) served on affected parties/counsel:
G (1) Complaint
G (2) Motion for TRO
G (3) Brief on all legal issued presented by the motion
G (4) Affidavit detailing notice, or efforts to effect notice, or showing why it should not be given
G (5) Affidavit in support of existence of irreparable harm
G (6) Proposed order with provision for bond
G (7) Proposed order with blanks for fixing:
G Time and date of hearing for motion for preliminary injunction
G Date for filing responsive papers
G Amount of bond, if any
G Date and hour of issuance
G (8) For TROs requested ex parte, proposed order shall notify affected parties they canapply to the court for modification/dissolution on 2 days notice or such shorter notice asthe court may allow. See Local Rule 65-231 and FRCP 65(b)
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-9 Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 2
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BENBROOK LAW GROUP, PC BRADLEY A. BENBROOK (SBN 177786) STEPHEN M. DUVERNAY (SBN 250957) 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1610 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 447-4900 Facsimile: (916) 447-4904 Attorney for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FIREARMS POLICY COALITION SECOND AMENDMENT DEFENSE COMMITTEE; FIREARMS POLICY COLAITION; KRIS KOENIG; STEPHEN CHOLLET; MICHAEL SCHWARTZ; and TIM DONNELLY,
Plaintiffs,
v. KAMALA D. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California,
Defendant.
Case No.: 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC PROOF OF SERVICE Hearing Date: TBD Judge: Morrison C. England, Jr.
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-10 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 3
-2- PROOF OF SERVICE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
Case No. 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC
The undersigned hereby certifies as follows:
I am an employee of the law firm of Benbrook Law Group, PC, 400 Capitol Mall, Suite
1610, Sacramento, California. I am over 18 years of age and am not a party to the within action.
On May 27, 2016 I served a true copy of the following documents:
1. PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER 2. PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
3. DECLARATION OF BRADLEY A. BENBROOK IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
4. DECLARATION OF STEPHEN CHOLLET IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 5. DECLARATION OF BRANDON COMBS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 6. DECLARATION OF TIM DONNELLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 7. DECLARATION OF KRIS KOENIG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
8. [PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT BE PRELIMINARYLIY ENJOINED FROM ENFORCING CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE § 9026.5
on the party(ies) in this action by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope(s), addressed as
follows:
Kamala D. Harris
Office of the Attorney General
1300 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
X X (PERSONAL SERVICE) by sending a true copy thereof in an envelope addressed as indicated above, and by then sealing said envelope(s) and giving the same to a messenger for personal delivery
(BY MAIL) I placed such sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid for first-class mail, for collection and mailing at Benbrook Law Group, PC, Sacramento, California following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the practice of Benbrook Law Group, PC for collection and processing of correspondence, said practice being that in the ordinary course of
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-10 Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 3
-3- PROOF OF SERVICE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
business, correspondence is deposited in the United States Postal Service the same day as it is placed for collection.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: May 27, 2016 s/Kelly McConnen
Kelly McConnen
Case 2:16-cv-01144-MCE-AC Document 6-10 Filed 05/27/16 Page 3 of 3