CCSF’s RJN ISO Opp. to Mot. for Reconsider. 

CCSF v. President Trump, et al; Case No. 17-00485

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 

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669

City Attorney 

JESSE C. SMITH, State Bar #122517 Chief Assistant City Attorney 

RONALD P. FLYNN, State Bar #184186 Chief Deputy City Attorney 

YVONNE R. MERÉ, State Bar #173594

Chief of Complex and Affirmative Litigation 

CHRISTINE VAN AKEN, State Bar #241755 

TARA M. STEELEY, State Bar #231775

MOLLIE M. LEE, State Bar #251404 

SARA J. EISENBERG, State Bar #269303

MATTHEW S. LEE, State Bar #295247

NEHA GUPTA, State Bar #308864 

Deputy City Attorneys 

City Hall, Room 234 

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, California 94102-4602 

Telephone: (415) 554-4748 

Facsimile: (415) 554-4715 

E-Mail: brittany.feitelberg@sfgov.org 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United 

States, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

JOHN F. KELLY, Secretary of United States 

Department of Homeland Security, 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General of the United States, DOES 1-100, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00485-WHO 

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN 

SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF CITY AND 

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO’S 

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION, OR IN THE 

ALTERNATIVE, CLARIFICATION OF THE 

COURT’S ORDER OF APRIL 25, 2017 

Date Filed: January 31, 2017 

Trial Date: April 23, 2018 

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 109 Filed 06/06/17 Page 1 of 4
 

CCSF’s RJN ISO Opp. to Mot. for Reconsider. 

CCSF v. President Trump, et al; Case No. 17-00485

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 

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

 Plaintiff City and County of San Francisco hereby respectfully requests, pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Evidence 201, that this Court take judicial notice of the following materials in support of its 

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration, or in the Alternative, Clarification of the 

Court’s Order of April 25, 2017: 

 1. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Section 523(d) of the 

Appendix to the “Budget of the U.S. Government Fiscal Year 2018,” issued by the Office of 

Management and Budget within the Executive Office of the President. Section 523(d) appears at page 

544 of the Appendix. As of June 5, 2017, the Appendix is posted in full on the WhiteHouse.Gov 

official website, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Appendix. 

 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Defendants’ Opposition to 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed before this Court as Docket No. 16 on April 18, 

2017 in the case of Richmond v. Trump et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01535-WHO. 

 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency’s web page titled “Earthquake Grants.” This web page is posted on the 

Agency’s official website as of June 5, 2017, at https://www.fema.gov/earthquake-grants. 

 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency’s web page titled “Welcome to the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program.” 

This web page is posted on the Agency’s official website as of June 5, 2017, at https://www.fema.gov/ 

welcome-assistance-firefighters-grant-program. 

 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency’s web page titled “California Rim Fire (DR-4158).” This web page is posted on 

the Agency’s official website as of June 5, 2017, at https://www.fema.gov/disaster/4158. 

 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of the Department of Justice 

Office on Violence Against Women’s web page titled “Grant Programs,” which states in part that its 

“grant programs are designed to develop the nation’s capacity to reduce domestic violence, dating 

violence, sexual assault, and stalking by strengthening services to victims and holding offenders 

accountable.” This web page is posted on the Department’s official website as of June 5, 2017, at 

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 109 Filed 06/06/17 Page 2 of 4
 

CCSF’s RJN ISO Opp. to Mot. for Reconsider. 

CCSF v. President Trump, et al; Case No. 17-00485

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 

https://www.justice.gov/ovw/grant-programs#tsev. 

 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of the Department of Justice’s 

Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Assistance web page titled “Edward Byrne Memorial 

Justice Assistance Grant Program,” which states in part that “[t]he JAG Program provides states, 

tribes, and local governments with critical funding necessary to support a range of program areas 

including law enforcement, prosecution, indigent defense, courts, crime prevention and education, 

corrections and community corrections, drug treatment and enforcement, planning, evaluation, 

technology improvement, and crime victim and witness initiatives.” This web page is posted on the 

Bureau’s official website as of June 5, 2017, at https://www.bja.gov/jag/. 

 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of the Department of Justice’s 

Community Oriented Policing Services web page titled “About,” which states in part that “[t]he COPS 

Office awards grants to hire community policing professionals, develop and test innovative policing 

strategies, and provide training and technical assistance to community members, local government 

leaders, and all levels of law enforcement.” This web page is posted on the Department of Justice’s 

official website as of June 5, 2017, at https://cops.usdoj.gov/about. 

 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of a Memorandum from the 

Attorney General to the Heads of All Federal Departments and Agencies dated February 17, 2011 and 

titled “Agency Implementation of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.” As of June 5, 2017, the 

Memorandum is posted on the Department of Justice’s official ADA.Gov website, at https://www.ada. 

gov/508/index.html, and is directly available at https://www.ada.gov/508/AGSection508Memo.pdf. 

 Each of these exhibits is a matter of public record and is therefore subject to judicial notice. 

Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (a court may 

judicially notice matters of public record unless the matter is a fact subject to reasonable dispute). 

Exhibits A, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I are judicially noticeable because government memoranda, 

bulletins, letters and statements are matters of public record appropriate for judicial notice. See Brown 

v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 933 n.9 (9th Cir. 2005) (judicially noticing an administrative bulletin); Mack 

v. S. Bay Beer Distribs., Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986) (court may take judicial notice of 

records and reports of state administrative bodies), overruled on other grounds by Astoria Fed. Sav. & 

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 109 Filed 06/06/17 Page 3 of 4
 

CCSF’s RJN ISO Opp. to Mot. for Reconsider. 

CCSF v. President Trump, et al; Case No. 17-00485

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 

Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104, 111 (1991); Interstate Nat. Gas. Co. v. S. Cal. Gas. Co., 209 

F.2d 380, 385 (9th Cir. 1953) (judicially noticing government agency records and reports).

 Exhibits A, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I are also judicially noticeable because they are posted to 

official government websites. See Daniels–Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998–99 (9th Cir. 

2010) (judicially noticing information contained on a government website); Paralyzed Veterans of 

America v. McPherson, No. C 06–4670 SBA, 2008 WL 4183981, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2008) 

(finding that courts commonly take judicial notice of information and documents on government 

websites, and citing cases from various jurisdictions). Thus the statements of government departments 

and agencies contained within these exhibits are not subject to reasonable dispute, as the statements 

“can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 

questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. § 201(b)(2). 

Exhibit B is judicially noticeable because it is a court record from a proceeding that raises 

issues relevant to this litigation. U.S. ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 

F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (A court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within 

and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.”) 

Dated: June 6, 2017 

DENNIS J. HERRERA 

City Attorney 

RONALD FLYNN 

JESSE C. SMITH 

YVONNE R. MERÉ 

CHRISTINE VAN AKEN 

TARA STEELEY 

MOLLIE M. LEE 

SARA J. EISENBERG 

MATTHEW S. LEE 

NEHA GUPTA

Deputy City Attorneys 

By: /s/ Sara J. Eisenberg 

SARA J. EISENBERG 

 Deputy City Attorney 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 109 Filed 06/06/17 Page 4 of 4