A quick search of Bloomberg Law dockets produces at least a dozen other orders from this same judge with this same language.
So what about Bloomberg Law.com? Or Google Scholar? Or Fastcase? Justia? May any/all of them include the order?
Or is it just the strength of the Wexis duopoly and the judge really means he does not want the order published online anywhere.
LexisNexis and Westlaw have been the big players for decades. But Google really could be a game-changer. As a review article in the March 8, 2010 issue of The Recorder (“Worthy Adversary”) by Oliver Benn of Google Scholar points out:
If Google wants to devote its resources to addressing its current limitations, the future of legal research could become very different. Many courts accept briefs electronically. Why not hyperlink cited cases in the brief to the cases’ free Google pages?
Matz, A Howard reference * Short Description * United States federal judge
Comment * A. Howard Matz (born 1943) is an American lawyer and judge. He has sat on the United States District Court for the Central District of California since 1998.
label * Howard Matz
Howard Matz
Category: Judges of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Category: United States district court judges appointed by Bill Clinton
Category: 1943 births * Category: Living people
Given name Alvin Howard
Name * A. Howard Matz, A Howard Matz
Matz, A. Howard
Born 1943 in Brooklyn, NY
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Central District of California
Nominated by William J. Clinton on October 20, 1997, to a seat vacated by Harry L. Hupp; Confirmed by the Senate on June 26, 1998, and received commission on June 29, 1998.
Professional Career:
Law clerk, Hon. Morris E. Lasker, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 1969-1970
Private practice, New York City, 1970-1972
Private practice, Los Angeles, CA, 1972-1974
How dare he issue any decisions at all which are not definitive or exhaustive. Is the admission that he is issuing such decisions an admission that some litigants are getting the shaft based upon a cursory and perhaps incorrect reading of the law? And if it is correct, why isn’t it definitive.
Since others can still disseminate Matz’s orders, the request is impractical, Cleveland says. It’s also inappropriate to try to create a secret body of law…
Unpublished opinions are often the only indication a practitioner has regarding a judge’s politics, former practice background, or record of ruling on similar issues. The judge’s ruling won’t keep major firms from keeping databases of old opinions and orders, which may ultimately put smaller or newer practitioners who come before his court at a disadvantage.
my thoughts on the article were that maybe the Judge requested it not be published so that he would get the publicity (reverse psychology). For some people bad publicity is better than none.
Mar 12, 2010 9:00 AM CDT
As I read the story, the Judge did not say “Don’t print this . . . .” My reaction is that the sentence quoted in the story, alone, on its face, does NOT prohibit publication by Westlaw or Lexis—but simply states that the Court does not intend that it be published. Thus—if Westlaw or Lexis should decide to publish it anyway, seems to me they likely have NOT violated any enforceable court order; and if other research engines can publish it, or are publishing it, then it also seems to me that equity would be on the side of Westlaw and Lexis in any action to “enforce” the Judge’s stated intent. However, it’s probably never a real good idea to take a chance on annoying a Judge, whether or not such annoyance is actionable.
Mar 14, 2010 8:51 PM CDT
Peter Lomtevis, imagine how they would have treated you or your client if you pled the Antipeonage Act and that not only do they not have the right to make your client a slave based on any debt or obligation, 42 U.S.C. 1994, but that it is a FELONY to do so, 18 U.S.C. 1581!
And yes, both Washington and the federal appellate courts preferred to bury my claims with unpublished deciaions (sometimes quite irrational with Alice in Wonderland logic) that the supreme courts could ignore by denying review and certiorari.
What is amazing is that only Westlaw, Lexis, and Pacer may have these opinions. When lawyers use them, they are using stuff that may not be available to the public. What that means is that the public once again is left out of the legal process and it again becomes the exclusive domain of the legal professionals.
There should be rules of court that require lawyers and judges who cite to unpublished opinions to supply copies of the entire decisions.
Recently, the ABA published an article about the divergence of decisions in EEOC complaints based on a judges sex, and ethnicity. The results were statistically significant but the articles authors still believe that there is a rule of law?
In addition to a court’s rulings, Lexis, Westlaw and Pacer should allow either of the litigants to submit a response that may question an opinion and be in opposition to the judicial opinion.
Many opinions contain judicial fiction that is used to dismiss actions and possibly to sanction participants. (I look back at the history of SCOTUS where the court has reversed itself after many years. Think about Brown v Board of Ed and its predecessors. another example would be Bowers v Hardwick, and Lawrence v Texas, or death penalty cases where a mental deficiency existed or age was a factor in determining death sentences.)
I looked at a case I had that was decided by SCOTUS, and I lost 9-0 - but the opinion had questionable factual statements. I was upset by the decision, but even more upset because it reflect errors in facts that protected the judiciary and legal profession.
In many actions where a non-attorney is involved, a judge is more likely to favor a lawyer. There are many reasons for this result.
a. It is easier for a judge to clear his docket - by using a submission by a lawyer. Lawyers are good writers and it is just easier for a judge to adopt these writings.
b. A judge may not want to rock the boat! When there are novel areas of law, it is more likely to be brought by a non-lawyer since they have more to lose in court than members of the legal profession.
d. Many of the reasons give in the comments above are ones that question the process and that is something that is critical to our legal system. that is not what judges want published.
As an example, I sued a state court judge for failure to properly maintain files. The federal judge found that the action was frivolous and sanctioned me. However, I did submit studies and a letter from the Judicial conference of the United States approving imaging projects in Federal courts.
The federal judge did not read the electronic submissions - and of course protected the state court judge. it was not just protecting the state court but the state system of maintaining files that may not work. Only after being in the system for a long time have I been exposed to :
a. Lawyers who fail to send all papers to all parties (purposely.)
b. Court files that fail to include documents from earlier judges.
c. Misfiling of court files (electronically maintained case files, once filed correctly, are not going to be misfiled after being used.)
d. Insure that a party who takes out part of a file doesn't destroy the history of an action.
I could continue this type of critic but it might be several pages, and it most likely would impact me just as some of my past writings and actions have impacted me.
Mar 15, 2010 7:34 AM CDT
#39—There’s no institutional bias against pro pers. Go read Gideon v. Wainwright. But there is a bias against people, licensed or not, that don’t know what the heck they’re doing. In most courts that ratio is expnentially higher for non-lawyers than for lawyers.
Mar 15, 2010 11:11 PM CDT
In response to AndytheLawyer
I did read Gideon and also the history behind Gideon. Try Anthony Lewis - who talks bout how the lawyer who defended Gideon played poker with Justice Douglas. (He later became a supreme court justice (Abe Fortise). Gideon’s Writ was hand written and was about three pages long.
At the time that SCOTUS reversed - the majority of states had already decided the same issue. Scotus only affirmed what the majority of states were doing.
As to being able to interpret law, I still believe that if all of the RPC were strictly enforced there would be about 50% fewer lawyers practicing law. One problem with our legal system is that many judges have a presumption that a pro se is not competent. that is not starting from any scale of justice that i know.
The recent issues being raised by Scotus and the President shows just how political courts have become.
If you look at one of the recent ABA reports about bias in EEOC cases, you should question why the SD between decisions is based on sex and race of the judges. What I found amusing was that the authors still believe that there is a rule of law!
Unpublished opinions often show up in online databases, but one federal judge in Los Angeles is apparently trying to do something about it.
Judge A. Howard Matz has added this line to at least 15 recent orders: “This order is not intended for publication or for inclusion in the databases of Westlaw or Lexis.” The blog Legal Research Plus noted the unusual request and wondered why only two digital databases were mentioned.
Unpublished opinions are withheld from the official reports and traditionally treated as not having any precedential effect. But Matz's request referencing databases is out of the ordinary, according to David Cleveland, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University’s Shepard Broad Law Center.
“The practice of declaring the court's opinion not only ‘unpublished,’ but not for publication in Westlaw or Lexis, is certainly new to me,” Cleveland tells the ABA Journal in an e-mail.
Stephen Montes, Matz’s courtroom deputy clerk, says the language is intended as a signal—and is not a command to Westlaw or Lexis.
He points out that the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure were recently amended to bar courts from prohibiting or restricting citation to newly issued unpublished opinions. He also notes the E-Government Act of 2002 requiring courts to make available all written opinions on their websites.
Since others can still disseminate Matz’s orders, the request is impractical, Cleveland says. It’s also inappropriate to try to create a secret body of law, he says.
Cleveland doubts that Westlaw or Lexis will comply with the judge’s request. He appears to be right. The ABA Journal turned up 15 cases in which Westlaw apparently ignored Matz and published his unpublished orders in its electronic database. In each case, Matz’s unfulfilled request was printed at the bottom of the document.
Montes emphasizes that the language is not an order to the publishers, and the judge doesn't always include it. "Judge Matz never has ordered any attorney, party, database (including Westlaw and Lexis) or publication not to print any order of his, and he would never do so," Montes says. At least out loud.
Judge Matz prefers to phrase the questions instead as, ""What would be the capacity of law enforcement and of the courts to SUPRESS this kind of SPEECH?" -2002, Judge A. Howard Matz, Pretrial Hearing Of Killercop.com
Henry Louis Gates' Contempt Of Cop Emptywheel - At tonight's nationally televised press conference, a reporter asked President Obama a question about the July 16 arrest of famed Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates. Obama set off...
Contempt of Cop' by William Norman Grigg - The police are to the government as the edge is to the knife, insists sociologist David Bayley, who apparently couldn't explain why the typical...
Welcome to America Now step inside the jail cell - The audio exchange in this video was apparently recorded at the U.S. Canada border after a Canadian displayed contempt-of-cop towards the American law enforcement officer asking questions.
Contemptible police tactics - Cops raid the home of a licensed medical marijuana provider in Washington, handcuff the fourteen year old son and put a gun to his head, and search the nineteen year old daughter and take the contents of her mickey-mouse wallet.
How To Survive Traffic Stops in America, Submit, Instantly! - What the cops want is immediate obedience and submission. Many cops are ex-military and view the civilian motorists of America about like they viewed the hapless peasants of Iraq and Afghanistan, that is, with contempt, not as fellow citizens deserving of civility and respect. It is a possibly lethal mistake to do anything other than submit, instantly and obey! Or be ready to shoot first. But aim high.
