New Docket Entry:
... you know the drill ...
01/11/2010 Open Document
RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FILED  by Joseph R. Biden, Jr. and Barry Soetoro in 09-5080, 09-5161 to motion for judicial notice [1224526-2] [Service Date: 01/11/2010 by email] Pages: 1-10. [09-5080, 09-5161]
Edit: Link is currently acting funky - hopefully should be resolved shortly. In the meantime, the brief is very short and sweet:
On January 7, 2009, Appellants Hollister and Hemenway filed a second Motion to Take Judicial Notice ("Motion"), asking the Court yet again to take notice of materials irrelevant to the present appeal. The Court should deny this motion.
As Appellees argued the last time that Appellants requested judicial notice, see Doc. No. 1213344 at 1; see also Doc. No. 1220734 at 2, the issues on appeal in this case are (1) whether Appellant Hollister stated a claim under the interpleader statute by alleging a cognizable stake and by meeting interpleader's adversity requirement; and, relatedly, (2) whether the district court abused its discretion in reprimanding Appellant Hemenway for filing a frivolous suit. The district court did not reach the "merits" of Hollister's claim, see Corrected Appellants' Joint Appendix at 256, and the "merits" are not properly before this Court. The documents attached to Appellants' Motion have absolutely no bearing on the issues before this Court and therefore judicial notice should not be taken. See Larson v. Dep't of State, 565 F.3d 857, 870 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ("We deny the plaintiffs' request for judicial notice . . . because those articles are irrelevant to our inquiry; taking notice of them would not affect our opinion."); see also, e.g., Trans-Sterling, Inc. v. Bible, 804 F.2d 525, 528 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting that a court need not take judicial notice of irrelevant facts); United States v. Byrnes, 644 F.2d 107, 112 (2d Cir. 1981) (holding that a trial court properly refused to take judicial notice of regulations that were irrelevant).