In December the 9th Circuit livestreamed the oral arguments in five en banc cases. It is likely the court will schedule additional livestreaming in the future; visit the court's website www.ca9.uscourts.gov for current livestreaming information.
Digital files containing recordings of court proceedings, almost all audio-only, are available online at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/. This database of cases goes back as far as 2004.
Keep in mind that the courthouse is just a few blocks from UC Hastings, so you can attend these hearings live -- but if your schedule doesn't allow that, there is likely to be a recording available.
San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Ass’n., 12-15144+
Intervenor-defendants Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations and other conservation groups, plaintiffs San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority and other water agencies, State Water Contractors, intervenor-plaintiff California Department of Water Resources, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and federal officials and agencies appeal the district court’s judgment arising out of suits brought by entities that use water supplied by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Central Valley Project and the State of California’s State Water Project. Plaintiffs filed six consolidated actions challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service’s 2009 Salmonoid Biological Opinion and components of the “reasonable and prudent alternative” that may restrict water delivered to them.
Cataphora, Inc. v. Jerrold Parker, 12-15072+
Attorney Jerrold Seth Parker and other lawyers appeal the district court’s judgment following a jury trial awarding $317,113 to Cataphora, Inc. in Cataphora’s diversity action alleging breach of contract claims. Cataphora, which provides analytical document review services to lawyers, was appointed to act as fiduciaries to plaintiffs with property damage and personal injury claims in the Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana. Appellants are lawyers who contracted with Cataphora. The parties also appeal and cross-appeal the district court’s order awarding Cataphora attorneys’ fees and costs.
State of Arizona v. Raytheon Company, 12-15691
Intervenors Raytheon Company, Pima County, University of Arizona, Arizona Board of Regents, and others appeal the district court's order approving consent decrees in an action filed by the State of Arizona against Ashton Company and other defendants under CERCLA and the Arizona Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund. The State sought declaratory relief and recovery of costs of remediation of soil and groundwater contamination from the Broadway Pantano Landfill Site in Tucson. Appellants intervened as interested parties to the extent the State seeks to hold them jointly and severally liable for costs of remediation at the Site.
Western Watersheds Project v. Kenna, 12-15110
Western Watersheds Project appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the United States Bureau of Land Management and James Kenna, in his official capacity as Arizona State Director of BLM, in Western’s action under the National Environmental Policy Act challenging the adequacy of a Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement issued by BLM authorizing livestock grazing management in a 640,000-acre area in southwestern Arizona and parts of California.
Alvarez v. Betlach, 12-16425
Thomas Betlach, Director of the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, appeals the district court's judgment on the pleadings in an action brought by Peter Alvarez and other adult Medicaid recipients who asserted that the Arizona Medicaid program must supply them with incontinence supplies when medically necessary for preventative purposes. The district court held that AHCCCS’ policy not to cover incontinence briefs to eligible adult recipients violates well established interpretations of federal Medicaid law.
Green v. City & County of San Francisco, 11-17892
Denise Green appeals the district court's summary judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging she was falsely arrested and subjected to excessive force. This suit arises out of the mistaken belief that Green was driving a vehicle with a license plate that did not match her car. The Automatic License Plate Recognition System utilized by defendants indicated that the plate on Green’s Lexus matched a plate reported as belonging to a stolen GMC. Defendants stopped Green and ordered her from her car at gunpoint and handcuffed her.
Lindsay v. Bowen, 13-15085
Peta Lindsay, Richard Becker and the Peace and Freedom Party appeal the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim of their complaint alleging that California Secretary of State Debra Bowen violated their First and Fourteenth amendment rights by refusing to place Lindsay on the presidential primary ballot for the Peace and Freedom Party on the ground that she was 27 years old and therefore ineligible to hold the office of President.
In re Online DVD Rental Litigation, 11-18034+
In companion appeals, Andrea Resnick and other plaintiffs appeal the district court's summary judgment in their antitrust multi-district litigation against Netflix, Wal-Mart Stores, and Walmart.com USA. The district court directed the entry of judgment in favor of Netflix pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Plaintiffs, who paid subscription fees to Netflix to rent DVDs, alleged that in entering into a "Promotion Agreement," the defendants conspired to monopolize the online DVD rental market in violation of the Sherman Act. The plaintiffs also appeal, and Netflix cross-appeals, the district court's award of costs.
In re Online DVD Rental Litigation, 12-15705+
In several consolidated appeals, objectors appeal the district court's order approving settlement of an antitrust multi-district litigation alleging that Netflix, Wal-Mart Stores, and Walmart.com USA entered into a market allocation agreement to create a monopoly in the online DVD rental market in violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. The settlement was between Walmart and plaintiffs and provided for class members to choose either a cash payment or a gift card.