[00:00:00] Speaker 05: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:00:02] Speaker 05: May it please the Court. [00:00:03] Speaker 05: My name is Mario Valenzuela with the Advocates' Law Forum, Pro Bono Council for Appellant Maria Luna. [00:00:10] Speaker 05: With the Court's permission, may I have three minutes for rebuttal? [00:00:18] Speaker 05: Yes. [00:00:20] Speaker 05: Yeah. [00:00:20] Speaker 05: I first want to start. [00:00:21] Speaker 05: My fundamental argument for this case is that the District Court would have been correct in its decision had there not been any material facts [00:00:30] Speaker 05: dispute it, but in this case, there was material facts disputed in the case. [00:00:35] Speaker 05: Therefore, the appellee did not meet its burden under federal FRCP 56. [00:00:43] Speaker 05: There was ample disputes. [00:00:45] Speaker 05: One of the first disputes I want to raise to the court was there was no need for a special master, nor did any of the policies of the special master play any role in this case. [00:00:56] Speaker 05: That was raised in summary judgment, indicating that the special master would prohibit a transfer to another facility for her reasonable accommodations. [00:01:05] Speaker 05: That was not the case here. [00:01:06] Speaker 05: There was no such restriction. [00:01:09] Speaker 05: Also, the special master guidelines provide that if the individual has a disorder, the inmate in this case, that should be treated first. [00:01:18] Speaker 05: There was no record at all that the clinician actually made a diagnosis. [00:01:23] Speaker 05: And in fact, the special mass, I mean, in fact, the clinicians' notes were just a compilation of other notes. [00:01:30] Speaker 05: There was no actual, I guess, analysis for this particular incident that happened on February 18th. [00:01:38] Speaker 03: Well, do any of these disputed issues you're referencing, do they bear on the question of whether or not the ensuing conduct after the initial incident and the response to the incident, whether the ensuing conduct, meaning the three stalking incidents, whether those rose to the level of creating a hostile work environment for which the defendant would be responsible? [00:02:08] Speaker 05: I believe it does, Your Honor. [00:02:09] Speaker 05: And I'm going to continue on, if I may. [00:02:11] Speaker 05: They do raise that. [00:02:13] Speaker 05: And I'll just, to answer the court's question, yes. [00:02:15] Speaker 05: Because the action that was taken at this time for the first incident, the Nisan exposure incident, was basically to stop the action, which was appropriate. [00:02:25] Speaker 05: And they put a 90-day series of punishments for the inmate here. [00:02:32] Speaker 05: But none of that stopped him from being. [00:02:34] Speaker 03: Well, but no such incident ever occurred again. [00:02:37] Speaker 03: Is that correct? [00:02:38] Speaker 05: no similar incident occurred, other incidents occurred, the stalking and the- Correct, but they're of a much lesser magnitude. [00:02:46] Speaker 05: That is correct. [00:02:48] Speaker 05: Okay. [00:02:48] Speaker 05: But you got to keep in mind that this individual had seven prior incidents that included masturbation, ejaculation, all these kinds of hostilities that existed that [00:03:00] Speaker 03: Some of those incidents were quite dated, as I understand. [00:03:03] Speaker 05: They were quite dated, but it doesn't diminish the danger or the hostility that this incident of February took place. [00:03:13] Speaker 05: She's in a room at the end of a hallway with no guards near her, 14 inmates with her. [00:03:21] Speaker 05: It is not like the case in Morris where there was guards at the door right there to help her. [00:03:27] Speaker 05: This is completely different. [00:03:29] Speaker 05: but I just like to continue on with the other distinctions. [00:03:32] Speaker 05: They applied a 2021 policy here, and this incident happened in 2018. [00:03:40] Speaker 05: The January 2021 sexual misconduct reduction plan was applied, and for both reasons, the palli indicates that they followed the process. [00:03:50] Speaker 05: They followed the procedures. [00:03:52] Speaker 05: In my motion to accept the late filing, I attached a 2017 misconduct plan that [00:03:58] Speaker 05: allowed for the inmate to be sent to a different facility. [00:04:02] Speaker 05: It's not part of the record, but I only bring it up to illustrate. [00:04:05] Speaker 05: Just like that's not part of the record, so too should the January 2021 policy not be part of this record, and that in itself makes it a material dispute that the Court should have never considered. [00:04:16] Speaker 05: You can't have it both ways. [00:04:18] Speaker 05: The temporary separation of the inmate was correct at the initial conduct. [00:04:23] Speaker 05: The Pelley Rays and their brave step [00:04:27] Speaker 05: she agreed that the process is correct. [00:04:29] Speaker 05: Yes, she agreed the process correct on February 9, 2018, but that's not the entire process. [00:04:34] Speaker 05: That's just the one day of the incident. [00:04:36] Speaker 05: Captain Mokley, which was their, um, uh, uh, designee captain, indicated that he found, not her words, his words, found the lack of such man and reasonable. [00:04:49] Speaker 05: This is a CDCR employee indicating this. [00:04:52] Speaker 05: So it's hard to [00:04:54] Speaker 05: suggest that there was no material dispute here. [00:04:57] Speaker 05: There was material disputes. [00:04:59] Speaker 05: There was no evidence that the special master would prohibit a transfer. [00:05:04] Speaker 05: In fact, Captain Mokley again says that they should have reviewed the classification scale of the inmate and determine whether he could be located to another facility. [00:05:15] Speaker 05: They never even took those steps to investigate or see if there was reasonable accommodations that could be made. [00:05:20] Speaker 05: They just applied a 2021 policy that did not apply. [00:05:25] Speaker 05: and did nothing. [00:05:27] Speaker 05: So I think just these points point to the fact that there were material disputes. [00:05:32] Speaker 05: So let's go on to the hostile work environment. [00:05:34] Speaker 05: Was there a hostile work environment? [00:05:36] Speaker 05: I think the question is, was this incident pervasive enough? [00:05:41] Speaker 05: My argument to the court, it was. [00:05:43] Speaker 05: You have to look at it on the totality of circumstances. [00:05:48] Speaker 05: The lens of summary judgment shouldn't, especially a lens with, with, with as muddy with material [00:05:55] Speaker 05: disputes, shouldn't have been the lens to review this case. [00:05:58] Speaker 05: She should have had her revealed in court and the totality of circumstance should have been looked at so that the court could have truly assess whether witnesses or other information would have came forth to allow the court to determine whether this event was pervasive enough by itself. [00:06:17] Speaker 05: But coupled with the other events, I think it was pervasive. [00:06:22] Speaker 05: This person was allowed to roam freely [00:06:24] Speaker 05: in the O-Wing with the guard still at a very far distance. [00:06:29] Speaker 05: A doctor a couple times, he snuck in the room and frightened her to the point where he did not listen initially. [00:06:37] Speaker 05: She had to raise his voice and compose herself, and then she ran out scared. [00:06:41] Speaker 05: So that should be reviewed in the totality of circumstances. [00:06:44] Speaker 05: Was that enough? [00:06:45] Speaker 05: I think that that should have been left to trial fact at a trial, not at summary judgment in light of the material disputes in this case. [00:06:58] Speaker 02: Council, is the standard, is the question whether the defendant did, whether their response to the incident reasonable or is it whether they could have, whether they could have done more? [00:07:15] Speaker 05: I don't think it was reasonable and they didn't do, certainly they didn't do what they were supposed to do because they applied a policy that didn't apply. [00:07:23] Speaker 05: They gave the district court disingenuous information about [00:07:28] Speaker 05: what a special master indicates should be the proper procedure, and that wasn't the case here. [00:07:34] Speaker 05: So I don't think, I mean, there's no record of any kind of combination offered. [00:07:39] Speaker 05: There's no record that they even considered relooking an individual or investigating whether his assessment level was, you know, [00:07:47] Speaker 05: sufficient that he wouldn't be a danger elsewhere. [00:07:49] Speaker 05: They just didn't do anything. [00:07:51] Speaker 01: I mean, I guess to follow on with Judge Sung's question, what is the legal authority that you have to indicate that they needed to provide some sort of accommodation as opposed to taking the disciplinary action and other steps that they took? [00:08:04] Speaker 05: Well, the legal authority has to take accommodations to prevent the future hostility from continuing. [00:08:12] Speaker 01: So can you be more specific about that? [00:08:15] Speaker 01: Is there a case specifically that you're relying on to say that an accommodation was essential here? [00:08:22] Speaker 05: I go to my notes, Your Honor. [00:08:24] Speaker 05: Well, the Free Tag Heirs case, I think, talks about that one incident could cause discriminatory change in terms of conditions. [00:08:35] Speaker 05: So in other words, one event could generate a hostile environment. [00:08:39] Speaker 05: So if they would have [00:08:42] Speaker 05: steps to prevent that hostile environment, they would satisfy the pre-tag in this case. [00:08:49] Speaker 02: I guess to put a finer point on it, they did discipline the inmate, they did impose various restrictions on the inmate, and it seems to be your argument that all the things that the defendants did do was not enough to make it reasonable. [00:09:09] Speaker 02: And I guess what is your [00:09:11] Speaker 02: And it seems to me, your argument, that only a transfer of the inmate would have been a reasonable response. [00:09:18] Speaker 02: So what is your best authority or case for that assertion? [00:09:24] Speaker 05: A free tag, I think, is the case, Your Honor. [00:09:28] Speaker 05: And I think that it was worded that it was just her expectation that he should be removed. [00:09:35] Speaker 05: I'm saying we can't even review the question whether her expectations within the law are reasonable because they never were asked. [00:09:41] Speaker 05: They never investigated. [00:09:43] Speaker 05: And if you're going to have rules, you got to follow those rules, at least to the fullest extent of the law, to ensure that this individual employee, the rights are protected as well. [00:09:52] Speaker 05: There was a process for it. [00:09:53] Speaker 05: It wasn't followed. [00:09:54] Speaker 05: And I think doing nothing doesn't justify her [00:10:02] Speaker 05: being subjected to continued harassment in an hostile environment. [00:10:06] Speaker 01: I think that's the problem there. [00:10:08] Speaker 01: I mean, I'm looking at the Freetag case and the language that it talks about in terms of liability for third-party actions is where the defendant ratifies or acquiesces in misconduct it knows about. [00:10:21] Speaker 01: So clearly, there's knowledge here. [00:10:23] Speaker 01: And the question is whether the record here shows that it ratified or acquiesced in that. [00:10:29] Speaker 01: And so the assertion that the defendants did nothing is not correct, right? [00:10:35] Speaker 01: Because the record clearly shows they took responsive action immediately. [00:10:39] Speaker 05: Well, they did. [00:10:41] Speaker 05: I don't want to opinion that they did take no action, but the action they took was temporary. [00:10:44] Speaker 05: They didn't take any action that would end the hostility or make it permanent. [00:10:48] Speaker 05: And basically, analogy, somebody got injured, they gave them first aid, and that's it. [00:10:56] Speaker 05: They didn't resolve the overall problem. [00:10:58] Speaker 05: And this person was still free to roam in a facility with no control whatsoever. [00:11:07] Speaker 05: So they didn't eliminate the problem. [00:11:10] Speaker 05: And one way to eliminate the problem was the potential to transfer him or take the other reasonable accommodation. [00:11:15] Speaker 05: None of that was ever offered or discussed, and there's no record of it at least. [00:11:26] Speaker 05: And I think I might have mentioned this, but [00:11:29] Speaker 05: I think with the material disputes here, the court should have taken this case to trial and let additional testimony and witnesses be presented so the court could take a better assessment of the facts in this case. [00:11:42] Speaker 05: I understand the court was also the bench court, you know, but more information would have come out. [00:11:48] Speaker 05: It's muddied with material disputes right now, and it shouldn't have gone forward. [00:11:54] Speaker 05: With that in mind, I will speak on my rebuttal. [00:11:58] Speaker 05: Thank you. [00:11:58] Speaker 03: Thank you, counsel. [00:12:00] Speaker 03: We'll hear now from Mr. Call. [00:12:08] Speaker 04: You're muted. [00:12:10] Speaker 04: Thank you, Judge Collins. [00:12:12] Speaker 04: My name is Greg Call. [00:12:15] Speaker 04: I'm from the California Department of Justice, representing the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. [00:12:22] Speaker 04: Let me start first by addressing Mr. Valenzuela's first points about a claim disputed issue of fact. [00:12:30] Speaker 04: He identifies three issues that were in movement's papers or were mentioned in the district judge's opinion, but none of those three issues, the special master, whether the clinician made a diagnosis and this reference to the 2021 [00:12:50] Speaker 04: reduction plan. [00:12:52] Speaker 04: None of those were part of the district court's decision. [00:12:56] Speaker 04: In other words, district court's decision didn't turn on any of those things. [00:12:59] Speaker 04: They're not material facts in the case. [00:13:02] Speaker 04: They're arguments of counsel, references to documents. [00:13:06] Speaker 04: These aren't the material facts. [00:13:07] Speaker 04: The material facts are undisputed. [00:13:10] Speaker 04: What happened to appellant and what actions CDCR took in response to what happened to appellant, those are undisputed. [00:13:19] Speaker 04: And those are [00:13:21] Speaker 04: This court shouldn't be distracted by this claim of disputed facts when the facts are not in dispute. [00:13:26] Speaker 04: This is a hostile work environment case based on a single incident of indecent exposure by an inmate patient at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville. [00:13:36] Speaker 04: Appellant's a nurse who's worked in the department for 14 years, and this was the only exposure incident she experienced. [00:13:44] Speaker 04: The district court correctly granted summary judgment for two key reasons. [00:13:47] Speaker 04: First, the undisputed material facts establish [00:13:51] Speaker 04: that appellant was not subjected to a severe or pervasive harassing conduct that would constitute a hostile work environment. [00:14:00] Speaker 04: And second, the undisputed facts established that once the department learned of this inmate patient's illegal conduct, the department followed the applicable policies and regulations to prompt appropriate and effective measures. [00:14:15] Speaker 04: On the first point, appellant cannot show a hostile work environment because the facts establish that she was never subjected to pervasive harassing conduct. [00:14:24] Speaker 04: As I mentioned, this was her only incident of exposure. [00:14:26] Speaker 04: And as this court is held, when a claim is based on a single incident, the severity requirement is heightened. [00:14:34] Speaker 04: Here, the single incident, even combined with the subsequent encounters, [00:14:39] Speaker 04: six, seven, eight months later, were not enough to establish a severe and pervasively abusive work environment. [00:14:46] Speaker 04: On the second point, and more critically, the department cannot be liable. [00:14:50] Speaker 03: Oh, I mean, there may be ones that, you know, [00:14:57] Speaker 03: you know, the prison cannot be tagged for, but I'm not sure just if, you know, the conduct considered by itself wouldn't necessarily rise to the standard. [00:15:08] Speaker 03: I mean, if this had been, you know, a supervisor or a coworker who had done this, and then you're required to continue to work with that person afterwards, even after they're given some temporary discipline, that might be a very different case, don't you agree? [00:15:26] Speaker 04: I do think that's right. [00:15:27] Speaker 04: I think you've got to look at the top totality the circumstances here. [00:15:30] Speaker 04: If this was a supervisor. [00:15:31] Speaker 04: We have cases where supervisor did one extreme action and that was enough. [00:15:36] Speaker 04: Right. [00:15:37] Speaker 04: But here where we do have one extreme action admittedly [00:15:41] Speaker 04: And then we have some follow-up contact, but this is in a prison setting. [00:15:46] Speaker 04: This is a provider of psychiatric services who was victimized. [00:15:52] Speaker 04: This is a person who is not a supervisor, but is someone that's actually, to some extent, under the control of the appellant, right? [00:16:01] Speaker 04: She can direct his conduct. [00:16:04] Speaker 04: So if she has an alarm on her at all times, [00:16:08] Speaker 04: she can call guards to her assistants. [00:16:10] Speaker 04: So you have to consider all the circumstances. [00:16:13] Speaker 03: It seems pretty clear under Freytag that the prison can't be considered liable for the initial incident, that there's just no awareness that he's going to suddenly do this. [00:16:29] Speaker 03: The prison decides whether or not she's going to continue to have contact with someone who did something like that to her. [00:16:39] Speaker 03: And that's what I understand the nature of her claim to be that having you can't unring this bell. [00:16:46] Speaker 03: This is what he did to me. [00:16:47] Speaker 03: And then you're continuing to make me have to deal with him. [00:16:53] Speaker 03: So that's the issue as I see it. [00:16:57] Speaker 04: That's right. [00:16:57] Speaker 04: And that's why I think the more critical issue is whether the department acquiesced or ratified the conduct, as Judge Forrest mentioned, or whether it instead took adequate, reasonable and sufficient measures to adjust the conduct. [00:17:14] Speaker 04: The Frytag case is an important case. [00:17:17] Speaker 04: It led to changes. [00:17:19] Speaker 04: The department has operations manuals, which have been [00:17:23] Speaker 04: that have very strict rules on how to treat this exact offense in decent exposure. [00:17:31] Speaker 04: They've been approved by federal courts and other decisions, and it's a balancing act. [00:17:38] Speaker 04: The procedures, the policies in place are a balancing act that balance [00:17:43] Speaker 04: the employees right to be free from an abusive atmosphere with the prisoners rights to receive mental health treatment with their due process rights and with other rights that the courts have said that prisoners do not forfeit when they come into state custody. [00:18:02] Speaker 04: Here the undisputed evidence shows that the department responded promptly and in accordance with these regulations and with its own policies. [00:18:15] Speaker 04: So here's what the department did, just so we're all clear, and none of these are in dispute. [00:18:19] Speaker 04: Directly after the incident, the department immediately placed the inmate patient in administrative segregation. [00:18:27] Speaker 04: In response to appellant-specific requests, the inmate was barred from taking classes from appellant. [00:18:32] Speaker 04: The inmate was subject to an examination where a clinician recommended appropriate sanctions and protections consistent with the applicable policies and regulations. [00:18:43] Speaker 04: the department held a disciplinary hearing, which resulted in a guilty finding. [00:18:46] Speaker 04: The department imposed the maximum penalties under the policies and regulations, including a loss of 90 days, good behavior credits, essentially lengthening the patients sentenced by three months. [00:18:58] Speaker 04: He lost phone privileges, package privileges, canteen privileges, appliance privileges for 90 days. [00:19:05] Speaker 04: In effect, for three months, the inmate essentially lost much of his ability to have any contact with the outside world. [00:19:12] Speaker 01: Council on the restriction for him not being in her classes anymore. [00:19:17] Speaker 01: Was that a temporary measure or was that an ongoing measure? [00:19:21] Speaker 04: Based on what we have in the record, that was an ongoing measure. [00:19:25] Speaker 04: He never was in her classes again. [00:19:29] Speaker 04: He had that contact with her. [00:19:32] Speaker 04: outside, you know, outside her classroom because he was in that building getting medical treatment, but he was never in her classes again. [00:19:37] Speaker 04: And that's what she had requested. [00:19:39] Speaker 04: And based on the record that we have, that was that was still in effect. [00:19:43] Speaker 03: Were any measures taken in response to the three stalking incidents? [00:19:52] Speaker 04: We don't have any indication on the record. [00:19:54] Speaker 04: We have an indication on the record that there was a 128B filed by plaintiff, but that's not a form where she made a record of these incidents. [00:20:05] Speaker 04: But that's not a form that rises up so that the prison can take action in response to it. [00:20:12] Speaker 04: So none of these violated any rules. [00:20:15] Speaker 04: There was no intervention needed from the prison from these three incidents. [00:20:19] Speaker 04: I understand they were uncomfortable, and it was unfortunate. [00:20:22] Speaker 04: But they were just the consequence of the fact that where this inmate was receiving medical care was in the same building and shared a hallway with the classrooms where appellant was teaching other inmate patients. [00:20:39] Speaker 01: Is there a procedure in this facility that would be something like a no contact order or something like that where having that kind of interaction or contact would trigger some sort of violation? [00:20:52] Speaker 04: I don't think it's not clear in the record that that was an option. [00:20:57] Speaker 04: The DOM sets out the security precautions that are permitted and sets out the disciplinary actions that are permitted. [00:21:08] Speaker 04: And a no contact order was not indicated by the department operations manual, nor was it [00:21:21] Speaker 04: suggested or recommended by the examining clinician who gave recommendations on the disciplinary measures that should be taken. [00:21:33] Speaker 04: The MA was also required to wear an exposure control jumpsuit for three months. [00:21:37] Speaker 04: He had screens placed on his cell. [00:21:40] Speaker 04: Obviously the incident didn't happen in his cell, it happened elsewhere, but still there's a deterrent measure in applying these punishments to those that commit this violation. [00:21:50] Speaker 04: And of course, the department also referred the matter to the district attorney for a criminal prosecution, although the district attorney ultimately opted not to prosecute. [00:22:02] Speaker 04: These actions were not only wrong. [00:22:04] Speaker 02: I just wanted to follow up on Judge Forrest's question. [00:22:06] Speaker 02: Is there any indication in the record that the plaintiff ever requested a no-contact order as an alternative to transferring the inmate [00:22:18] Speaker 04: I don't believe so, nothing not in what I've seen. [00:22:21] Speaker 04: The specific request that she made when she reported this incident was that he not be in her classes anymore. [00:22:32] Speaker 04: These actions were not only prompt and reasonable, they were consistent with the applicable policies and regulations. [00:22:37] Speaker 04: They were also effective in that appellant did not have another indecent exposure incident with this inmate or with any other inmate during her time there. [00:22:47] Speaker 04: While Appellant did have these three subsequent encounters with the offending inmate, none of these involved sexually harassing conduct. [00:22:54] Speaker 04: There was no physical conduct. [00:22:56] Speaker 04: There were no offensive or derogatory or sexual comments. [00:22:59] Speaker 04: There were two brief visual interactions and one brief verbal interaction. [00:23:05] Speaker 04: None of them were rule violations. [00:23:07] Speaker 04: They were, as I mentioned, they were a result of the proximity of the classrooms with the medical treatment rooms. [00:23:14] Speaker 04: Under the undisputed facts, the defendant cannot be liable because it acted promptly, reasonably, and effectively in responding to this exposure incident. [00:23:24] Speaker 04: If Your Honors don't have any other further questions, I'll rest with that. [00:23:30] Speaker 03: All right. [00:23:31] Speaker 03: It appears not. [00:23:32] Speaker 03: Then we'll hear rebuttal from Mr. Valenzuela. [00:23:35] Speaker 05: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:23:37] Speaker 05: I just want to point out that [00:23:42] Speaker 05: there was prompt response to the initial incident, but there was not a resolution that, uh, she, uh, the pallent sought to have this individual no longer had in her classroom. [00:23:53] Speaker 05: Captain Mokley, I think, speaks best for this case. [00:23:58] Speaker 05: He indicated that he found the lack of such ban unreasonable, a ban of not having this inmate in her classroom. [00:24:04] Speaker 05: That's a 2ER 275 in the record. [00:24:07] Speaker 05: Uh, so it's, it's, that doesn't, uh, [00:24:10] Speaker 05: match up with what is represented to the court today. [00:24:14] Speaker 05: There was no measures, and there was plenty of reporting for the subsequent incidents. [00:24:17] Speaker 05: There was no investigation. [00:24:19] Speaker 03: Well, you're not contending that he later was in the classroom, was he? [00:24:22] Speaker 05: He was. [00:24:23] Speaker 05: He snuck into the classroom. [00:24:24] Speaker 03: Well, yes. [00:24:25] Speaker 03: But I mean, he was not, you know, assigned to go to the class. [00:24:30] Speaker 05: He was not assigned, Your Honor. [00:24:31] Speaker 05: That's correct. [00:24:32] Speaker 05: But he did sink. [00:24:33] Speaker 05: He had a free ability of roam that owing. [00:24:37] Speaker 05: and that's where the stock came in and also that when he stuck into the classroom. [00:24:41] Speaker 05: So to have a ban, a permanent ban was not unreasonable and it was never explored and it should have been explored in this case. [00:24:49] Speaker 05: And I just leave the court with, you know, you have an individual here that's a 5-4 with a 200 pound inmate, a leader of a radical group. [00:25:03] Speaker 05: This is a dangerous person. [00:25:06] Speaker 05: and you have officers at the entry of the O-Wing, you have to take all necessary steps to protect employees. [00:25:16] Speaker 05: That wasn't the case here. [00:25:17] Speaker 05: And as a matter of public policy, when you have this kind of rules that allow for somebody to be transferred, they should be explored. [00:25:26] Speaker 05: They should be explored to ensure the safety of employees is top priority. [00:25:31] Speaker 05: With that, I submit and I thank the court. [00:25:34] Speaker 03: Aye. [00:25:35] Speaker 03: Thank you, counsel. [00:25:36] Speaker 03: The case just argued will be submitted, and that concludes our session for today. [00:25:44] Speaker 00: All rise. [00:25:45] Speaker 00: Hear ye, hear ye. [00:25:46] Speaker 00: All persons having had business with the Honorable United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will now depart for this court for this session. [00:25:54] Speaker 00: Now stands adjourned.