UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 10, 2011
RAM NEHARA, AN INDIVIDUAL,
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge
ORDER RE: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND VACATING THE MARCH 14, 2011 HEARING
Defendant North Kern State Prison ("NKSP") moves to dismiss Plaintiff Ram Nehara's second amended complaint on grounds, among others, that it is immune from liability under the Eleventh Amendment. In connection with its motion to dismiss, Defendant NKSP requests the Court take judicial notice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201(a), of five pages of web content that appear on the California Department of Correction's Internet website. According to Defendant NKSP, this internet content establishes North Kern State Prison "as one of the thirty three adult prisons operated by CDCR and the State of California." It is therefore immune from suit in this Court based on the RJN.
Plaintiff objected to NKSP's request for judicial notice, arguing that "[it] does not detail when the website was printed [,] when the website was last edited [and] does not establish NKSP's status during the pertinent times alleged in the SAC." Doc. 62 at Plaintiff's objections are well-founded. While Courts do take judicial notice of information found on government agency websites, see Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. McPherson, 2008 WL 4183981, at 5-6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2008), that does not suspend Fed. R. Evid. 201's requirement that the facts being requested for judicial notice not be in dispute or their accuracy reasonably questioned. NKSP's request differs from the typical request for official government documents, see, e.g., United States ex rel. Dingle v. BioPort Corp., 270 F. Supp. 2d 968, 972 ("government documents are generally considered not to be subject to reasonable dispute"), and information posted on government websites regarding common side effects of medications or weather.
For these reasons, NKSP has until April 8, 2011 to supplement the evidentiary basis for its motion. Upon the filing of the supplement, the Court will deem the Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 58, to be renewed. Any written opposition to the supplemental filing is due April 22, 2011 and shall not exceed five (5) pages. No reply shall be filed.
The March 14, 2011 hearing is VACATED and will be reset shortly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.