T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T CTI A - TH E W I RELESS AS S OC I AT I ON , P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. C I T Y A ND C OU NT Y O F S AN F R A N C IS C O , C al i forni a, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 17707 D. C . No . 3 : 1 0 - c v - 0 3 2 2 4 - WHA ME MOR AN DU M *

CTI A - TH E W I RELESS AS S OC I AT I ON , P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. C I T Y A ND C OU NT Y O F S AN F R A N C IS C O , C al i forni a, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 17773 D. C . No . 3 : 1 0 - c v - 0 3 2 2 4 - WHA

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia 

# FI LED

SEP 10 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST he H on orabl e E dw ar d R . K orm an, S eni or U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ct ** J udge f orthe E a s t e rn D i s tr i c tof N e w Y ork, s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on.

2 W i l l i a m A l s up, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d A ugus t9, 2012 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B e f or e : S C H R O E D E R a nd C A L L A H A N , C i r c ui tJ udge s , a nd K O R M A N , S e ni or D i stri ctJudg e. ** T hi s i s an app ea l and cross appeal fr om the di stri ctcourt ’ s order pr e l i m i na r i l y e nj oi ni ng, i n pa rt , pr ovi s i ons of aS a n F r a nc i s c o or di na nc e r e qui r i ng ce l l ph on e s el l er s t o m ake c ert ai n d i sc l osures t o con sum er s abo utra di ofre qu ency e ne r gy e m i s s i ons f

r om c e l l phone s . S . F . O r di na nc e 156- 11 ( 1022) . U nde rthe s t a nda r d e s t abl i s he d i n Zau dere r v . O f f i ce of D isc i pl i na ryC ou nsel , 471 U . S . 626 ( 1 9 8 6 ) , a n y g o v e rn m e n ta llyc o m p e lle d d is c lo s u r e s to c o n s u m e r s m u s t b e “p u r e ly fa ctual and u ncon trovers i al . ” Id . a t651. T he di stri ctcourtfoun d the fa ctual st at em ent s i n the re vi se d fac tshee tw er e ac cura t e and no tm i sl ea di ng . A pp el l antC T IA corr ec t l y poi nt s out , ho w ever , that the re vi se d fac tshee tcont ai ns m ore than j ustfa ct s. Ital so cont ai ns S an F r a n c is c o ’s r e c o m m e n d a tio n s a s to w h a t c o n s u m e r s s h o u ld d o if th e y w a n t to r e duc e e xpos ur e t o r a di of r e que nc y e ne r gy e m i s s i ons . T hi s l a ngua ge c oul d pr ove t o be i nt e rpr e t e d by c ons um e r s a s e xpr e s s i ng S a n F r a nc i s c o’ s opi ni on tha tus i ng3

c e l l phone s i s da nge r ous . T he F C C , how e ve r , ha s e s t abl i s he d l i m i t s of ra di ofre qu encyener gy expo sure , w i thi n w hi ch i thas c on cl ud ed usi ng ce l l ph on es is s a f e . See, e. g. , G ui del i nes f or E valua t i ngthe E nvt ’l E f f ec t s of R ad i of re qu ency R adi at i on , 11 F . C . C . R . 15123, 15184 ( 1996) . M or e ove r , the f i ndi ngs m a de by the S a n F r a n c is c o B o a r d o f S u p e rv is o r s o n w h ic h th e c h a lle n g e d o r d in a n c e is pr e di c a t e d a c know l e dge s tha t“ [ t ] he r e i s ade ba t e i n the s c i e nt i f i c c om m uni ty about the heal th eff

ec t s of c el l ph on es , ” and the di stri ctcourtob se rved that“ S an F ranci sc o con ce des thatthere i s no evi dence of cancercaused by ce l l ph on es . ” W e cann otsay on the basi s of thi s r ec ord thatthe fa ctshee t , as m od i fi ed by the di stri ct court , i s both “ pu re l y f

ac tual and u ncon trovers i al . ” Zau dere r , 4 7 1 U .S . a t 6 5 1 . T he c ourtthe r e f

or e e rr e d i n hol di ng the c i ty c oul d c om pe l di s tr i but i on of the r e v is e d f a c t s h e e t. T he di s tr i c tc ourte nj oi ne d the or i gi na l or di na nc e c om pe l l i ng di s tr i but i on of b r o a d e rm a te r ia ls . Id . S an F ranci sc o cross -app ea l s thatorder, se eki ng t o enforce the ordi nance i n i t s e nt i re ty. S i nce the ordi nance com pel s s t at em ent s thatar e e ven m ore m i sl ea di ng and con trovers i al than the re vi se d fac tshee t , the ori gi nal in ju n c tio n m u s t b e a f

f irm e d .4

T h e o r d e rp r e lim in a r ilye n jo in in g e n f

o r c e m e n t o f

th e o r d in a n c e is A F F I R M E D . T h e c o u rt’s s u b s e q u e n t o r d e rm o d if y in g th e in

ju n c tio n is V A C A T E D . T he C i ty and C ou nty of S an F ranci sc o’ s m ot i on for j ud i ci al no t i ce fi l ed on J a nua ry 25, 2012, i s gr a nt e d. C o s ts w ill b e a w a r d e d to th e p la in if f - ap p e lla n t. A FFI R M ED in p a rt, VA C A TED i n pa rt , a nd R EM A N D ED .