UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b), Plaintiffs County of Santa Cruz, California; City of Santa Cruz, California; Valerie Corral; Eladio V. Acosta; James Daniel Baehr; Michael Cheslosky; Jennifer Lee Hentz; Dorothy Gibbs; Harold F. Margolin; and Wo/men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana (“Plaintiffs”) respectfully request that this Court take judicial notice of the following items:
(1) the newspaper article “Pot Raid Angers State, Patients,” John Ritter, USA Today (Sept. 16, 2002) (Exhibit 1);
(2) the newspaper article “Gov. Davis on Pot,” Orange County Register (Sept. 20, 2002) (Exhibit 2);
(3) the newspaper article “Santa Cruz Officials to Defy Feds, Hand out Medical Pot at City Hall,” Maria Alicia Gaura & Matthew B. Stannard, San Francisco Chronicle (Sept. 13, 2002) (Exhibit 3);
(4) the newspaper article “Crackdown on SF Pot Club,” Margie Mason, Associated Press Online (Feb. 13, 2002) (Exhibit 4);
(5) the newspaper article “DEA Chief Tells State to Expect More Pot Raids,” Brian Seals, Santa Cruz Sentinel (Oct. 2, 2002) (Exhibit 5);
(6) the newspaper article “San Jose Cops Off DEA Squad; Chief Doesn’t Want Them Raiding Pot Clubs,” Mark Simon, San Francisco Chronicle (Oct. 10, 2002) (Exhibit 6);
(7) the newspaper article “U.S. Warns Pot Doctors: Attack on Medicinal Marijuana Aimed at Patients, Too,” Louis Freedberg & Glen Martin, San Francisco Chronicle (Dec. 31, 1996) (Exhibit 7);
(8) the newspaper article “Feds Vow to Revoke Licenses of Doctors Prescribing Marijuana,” Kim Peterson, San Diego Daily Transcript (Dec. 31, 1996) (Exhibit 8);
(9) the newspaper article “Prosecution of Pot-Prescribing Doctors Urged Medicine: Agencies Call for Federal Pressure Against New Laws in California, Arizona to Target Physicians,” Richard A. Serrano, Los Angeles Times (Dec. 27, 1996) (Exhibit 9);
(10) the newspaper article “SF Leaders Attack Feds on Marijuana,” Martha Mendoza, Associated Press Online (March 14, 2002) (Exhibit 10);
(11) the newspaper article “Medical pot club raided as DEA leader visits S.F.,” Jim Herron Zamora & Michael Pena, San Francisco Chronicle (Feb. 13, 2002) (Exhibit 11);
(12) the newspaper article “Medical Marijuana Club in San Francisco is Raided by Federal Agents,” Dan Reed, San Jose Mercury News (Feb. 13 2002) (Exhibit 12);
(13) California Health & Safety Code § 11362.5, the Compassionate Use Act. (Exhibit 13);
(14) Santa Cruz County (California) Code §§ 7.122.010 to 7.122.060, the Santa Cruz County Medical Marijuana Ordinance (Exhibit 14);
(15) Santa Cruz (California) Municipal Code, § 6.90.010-6.90.090, City of Santa Cruz Personal Medical Marijuana Use Ordinance (Exhibit 15);
(16) Alaska Statutes Annotated §§ 11.71.090, 17.37.010 to 17.37.080, “Medical Uses of Marijuana” (Exhibit 16);
(17) Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-3412.01, “Prescribing Controlled Substances Included in Schedule I For Seriously Ill and Terminally Ill Patients” (Exhibit 17);
(18) Colorado Constitution Article XVIII, § 14, “Medical Use of Marijuana for Persons Suffering from Debilitating Medical Conditions” (Exhibit 18);
(19) Maine Revised Statutes Annotated, Title 22, § 2383-B5, “Medical Use of Marijuana, Exemptions” (Exhibit 19);
(20) Nevada Constitution Article 4, § 38, “Use of Plant of Genus Cannabis for Medical Purposes” (Exhibit 20);
(21) Oregon Revised Statutes §§ 475.300 to 475.346, “Oregon Medical Marijuana Act” (Exhibit 21);
(22) Washington Revised Code §§69.51A.005-69.51A.070 and §§69.51A.900-69.51A.902, “Medical Marijuana” (Exhibit 22);
(23) Hawaii Revised Statutes §§ 329-121 to 329-128, “Medical Use of Marijuana” (Exhibit 23).
Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b) provides that a court may take judicial notice of a fact “not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned.” Federal courts may take notice of the contents of newspaper articles. See Ritter v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 58 F.3d 454, 458-59 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that district court properly took judicial notice of newspaper article detailing widespread layoffs by defendant because existence of the layoffs “is a fact which would be generally known in Southern California and which would be capable of sufficiently accurate and ready determination.”). Exhibits 1 through 12, true and correct copies of which are attached to this Request for Judicial Notice, are articles that appeared in newspapers of wide circulation. The contents of each of these documents are matters of general knowledge within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and are not reasonably subject to dispute. Accordingly, this Court can and should consider them in deciding Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
Judicial notice of law, legislative facts, or factual matters is proper where there is no dispute as to the authenticity of those matters. See Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. New York, 691 F.2d 1070, 1086 (2nd Cir. 1982); see also Zimomra v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 111 F.3d 1495, 1503 (10th Cir. 1997). Exhibits 13 through 23, true and correct copies of which are attached to this Request for Judicial Notice, are public statutes and ordinances enacted by state and local legislative bodies. The contents of each of these documents are readily capable of verification and are not reasonably subject to dispute. Accordingly, this Court can and should consider them in deciding Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
Based upon the foregoing, this Court can and should take judicial notice of each of the documents described above and attached as exhibits hereto.
Copyright Women's Alliance for Medical Marijuana 2007 - 2008