Opinion
CV-23-70-H-BMM
03-19-2024
ORDER
Brian Morris, Chief District Judge
INTRODUCTION
Defendants Christi Jacobsen, in her official capacity as Montana Secretary of State, Austin Knudsen, in his official capacity as Montana Attorney General, and Chris Gallus, in his official capacity as Montana Commissioner of Political Practices (collectively “Defendants”) filed a motion requesting the Court take judicial notice on March 13, 2024. (Doc. 62.) Defendants request the Court take judicial notice of a transcript of proceedings held in the case League of Women Voters of Montana v. Knudsen et al., Cause No. DV-23-1072, in the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, Montana. (Id. at 2.)
It appears that League of Women Voters of Montana similarly considers House Bill 892, which is at issue in this action. The transcript contains testimony from Regina Plettenberg, Dana Corson, and Connor Fitzpatrick for the defendants in that action. (Id.) The transcript provided also contains testimony from Dr. Alex Steel for the plaintiffs in that action.
The Court “may take judicial notice of proceedings in other courts, within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to the matters at issue. Morrison v. Cnty. of Yellowstone, No. CV 23-56-BLG-SPW, 2023 WL 3727531, at *2 (D. Mont. May 30, 2023), appeal dismissed, No. 23-35444, 2023 WL 9060995 (9th Cir. Dec. 19, 2023) (citing Trigueros v. Adams, 658 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2011)); Reyn's Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006). The Court determines that it proves prudent to take judicial notice of the League of Women Voters of Montana transcript. The matter at issue, House Bill 892, proves to be the same. The testimony of the witnesses proves to be directly relevant to the issues presented before the Court. The Court also recognizes that taking judicial notice of that transcript will promote judicial economy and reduce the need for the parties to put on cumulative, repetitive evidence.
ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
1. Defendants' motion for judicial notice (Doc. 62) is GRANTED. The Court takes judicial notice of the transcript attached to Doc. 62. (Id. at 5-191.).