Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 349

188 

HOLLINGSWORTH  v.  PERRY 

Per Curiam 

revision  of  Rule  77–3  was  removed  and  replaced  with  a 
third version of the announcement.  This third version 
stated  that  the  revised  Rule  was  “effective  December  22, 
2009,”  and  that  “[t]he  revised  rule  was  adopted  pursuant  to 
the ‘immediate need’ provision of Title 28 Sec. 2071(e).”  Id., 
Exh. 19, at 3. 

On  January  6,  2010,  the  District  Court  held  a  hearing  re­
garding  the  recording  and  broadcasting  of  the  upcoming 
trial.  The  court  announced  that  an  audio  and  video  feed  of 
trial  proceedings  would  be  streamed  live  to  certain  court­
houses  in  other  cities.  It  also  announced  that,  pending  ap­
proval  of  the  Chief  Judge  of  the  Ninth  Circuit,  the  trial 
would  be  recorded  and  then  broadcast  on  the  Internet.  A 
court technician explained that the proceedings would be re­
corded  by  three  cameras,  and  then  the  resulting  broadcast 
would be uploaded for posting on  the Internet, with a delay 
due to processing requirements. 

On  January  7,  2010,  the  District  Court  ﬁled  an  order  for­
mally  requesting  that  Chief  Judge  Kozinski  approve  “inclu­
sion  of  the  trial  in  the  pilot  project  on  the  terms  and  condi­
tions  discussed  at  the  January  6,  2010  hearing  and  subject 
to  resolution  of  certain  technical  issues.”  Id.,  Exh.  1,  at  2. 
Applicants  ﬁled  a  petition  for  a  writ  of  mandamus  in  the 
Court  of  Appeals,  seeking  to  prohibit  or  stay  the  District 
Court from enforcing its order.  The following day, a three-
judge panel of the Court of Appeals denied the petition. 

On  January 8,  2010, Chief  Judge Kozinski  issued an  order 
approving  the  District  Court’s  decision  to  allow  real-time 
streaming of the trial to certain federal courthouses listed in 
a  simultaneously  issued  press  release.  Five  locations  had 
been  selected:  federal  courthouses  in  San  Francisco,  Pasa­
dena,  Seattle,  Portland,  and  Brooklyn.  The  press  release 
also  indicated  that  “[a]dditional  sites  may  be  announced.” 
Federal  Courthouses  To  Offer  Remote  Viewing  of  Proposi­
tion 8 Trial, online at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/ 
general/2010/01/08/Prop8_Remote_Viewing_Locations.pdf