Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 07/21/2020 09:39 AM Sherri R.

Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by A. Miro,Deputy Clerk

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

John B. Quinn (Bar No. 090378)
2 johnquinn@quinnemanuel.com
Kristen Bird (Bar No. 192863)
3 kristenbird@quinnemanuel.com
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
4 Los Angeles, California 90017-2543
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
5 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100

6 Attorney for Academy of Motion Picture Arts and

Sciences
7

9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

10 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

11 CENTRAL DISTRICT

12 ROMAN POLANSKI, an individual, Case No. 19STCP01398

13 Petitioner,
NOTICE OF RELATED FILING
14 vs.

15 ACADEMY OF MOTION PICTURE ARTS The Hon. Mary H. Strobel, Dept. 82

AND SCIENCES, a California corporation,
16 Action Filed: April 19, 2019
Respondent.
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. 19STCP01398

ACADEMY’S NOTICE OF FILING
 1 TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

2 Please take notice that on July 21, 2020, Defendant Academy of Motion Picture Arts and

3 Sciences (“Academy”) filed the document hereto attached as Exhibit A—titled Academy’s

4 Objection to Motion to Unseal the Deposition of DDA Roger Gunson and Send the original

5 Transcript to Department 82 of the Los Angeles Superior Court—in People of the State of

6 California v. Roman Raymond Polanski, Case No. A334139.

7 The Academy believes this filing is also related to the present proceedings and therefore

8 hereby gives notice.

10

11 DATED: July 21, 2020 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &

SULLIVAN, LLP
12

13

14 By
Kristen Bird
15 Attorney for Academy of Motion Picture Arts and
Sciences
16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-1- Case No. 19STCP01398

ACADEMY’S NOTICE OF FILING
EXHIBIT A
 1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
John B. Quinn (Bar No. 090378)
2 johnquinn@quinnemanuel.com
Kristen Bird (Bar No. 192863)
3 kristenbird@quinnemanuel.com
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
4 Los Angeles, California 90017-2543
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
5 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100

6 Attorney for Academy of Motion Picture Arts and

Sciences
7

9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

10 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

11 CENTRAL DISTRICT

12 Case No. A334139

13
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACADEMY’S OBJECTION TO MOTION
14 OF ROMAN POLANSKI TO UNSEAL
Plaintiff, THE DEPOSITION OF DDA ROGER
15 GUNSON AND SEND THE ORIGINAL
vs. TRANSCRIPT TO DEPARTMENT 82 OF
16 THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
ROMAN RAYMOND POLANSKI, a
17 California corporation,
Date: July 21, 2020
18 Defendant. Time: 8:30 am
Place: Department 100
19 Foltz Criminal Justice Center

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. A334139

ACADEMY’S OBJECTION TO UNSEALING AND SENDING TO DEPT. 82
 1 OBJECTION TO UNSEALING AND SENDING OF DEPOSITION1
2 The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (“Academy”) has learned that Roman

3 Polanski, by the motion before the Court, is seeking to use his civil mandamus proceeding

4 challenging his expulsion from the Academy (Case No. 19STCP01398 in Department 82) as a

5 pretext and vehicle for unsealing and publicly filing the transcript of the deposition of Roger

6 Gunson. The Academy is not a party to Mr. Polanski’s criminal case and takes no position on

7 whether it was or was not appropriate for the Court to seal the transcript of Mr. Gunson’s

8 deposition, nor does the Academy have any interest in the success or failure of Mr. Polanski’s

9 long-running effort to unseal that transcript. However, the Academy does object to Mr.

10 Polanski’s request that the transcript – sealed or unsealed -- be sent to and/or lodged with

11 Department 82 for civil case No. 19STCP01398. Regardless of its contents, the Gunson

12 transcript is utterly irrelevant to Mr. Polanski’s writ proceeding against the Academy. The

13 transcript should not be interjected into that proceeding or sent to the fact-finder in that case absent

14 a motion in Department 82 and an opportunity for the Academy to be heard there.

15 Mr. Polanski’s action against the Academy is a writ of mandamus challenging his 2019

16 expulsion from the Academy on the basis of his criminal conviction in this case. In such a writ

17 proceeding, material that was not before the decision makers – in this instance, the Academy’s

18 Board of Governors – is not relevant to the request for mandamus.

19 Evidence that was not available to the decision-makers is irrelevant as matter of well-

20 established law: “extra-record evidence can never be admitted merely to contradict the evidence

21 the administrative agency relied on … or to raise a question regarding the wisdom of that

22 decision.” W. States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court, 9 Cal. 4th 559, 579, 888 P.2d 1268, 1279

23 (1995) (in an ordinary write proceeding); Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. Dep't of Health Servs., 38

24
1
25 The Academy regrets it could not bring its position to Court’s attention at an earlier date.
When Mr. Polanski’s counsel raised the issue of bringing the Gunson deposition into the writ
26 proceedings in June, the Academy’s counsel made clear it would strongly object and requested
notice of any filings on the issue so that it could be heard. Nonetheless, the Academy was not
27
provided with timely notice of this motion. Mr. Polanski’s motion to unseal and the People’s
28 Opposition was first provided to the Academy last Friday.

-1- Case No. A334139

ACADEMY’S OBJECTION TO UNSEALING AND SENDING TO DEPT. 82
 1 Cal. App. 4th 1574, 1597–98, 45 Cal. Rptr. 2d 822, 836–37 (1995) (same in an administrative writ

2 proceeding). The reason is that a writ of mandamus proceeding for expulsion from a private

3 institution can only challenge the choice made by the decision-makers based on the evidence that

4 was before them; they cannot be held to account for information they did not have or rely upon.

5 Mr. Polanski was provided with an essentially unlimited amount of time to present any materials

6 he believed were important to the Academy. Over many months in 2018, Mr. Polanski, through

7 his counsel, provided the Academy with several hundred pages of materials, a video statement, a

8 DVD of a documentary, and a letter from his lawyer advocating his position. He did not seek to

9 provide the Gunson transcript.

10 Further, Mr. Polanski’s mandamus does not dispute the evidence supporting the ultimate

11 decision of the Academy – nor does he dispute the underlying conduct giving rise to his criminal

12 conviction -- but rather whether he was provided fair and reasonable procedural protections under

13 the circumstances. No testimony from Mr. Gunson from ten years ago will inform that analysis.2

14 As a result, the Gunson transcript is neither necessary or appropriately part of Mr.

15 Polanski’s action against the Academy and that action should not be used as a pretext for the

16 unsealing of the deposition. The Academy respectfully requests that – whatever decision is made

17 with respect to unsealing – the transcript not be unilaterially sent to Department 82, which may

18 carry with it the implication that this Court has read the transcript and deems it pertinent to the

19 proceedings between Mr. Polanski and the Academy.

20

21

22
2
Nor could the testimony be relevant to whether Mr. Polanski is disentitled to pursue his civil
23
mandamus claim against the Academy. Regardless of any testimony Mr. Polanski seeks to
24 proffer, it is not a defense to fugitive status that one was “justified” in fleeing. See, e.g., Willis v.
Mullins, No. CIV-F-04-6542AWIGSA, 2009 WL 1657451, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 12, 2009)
25 (listing the equitable issues considered in applying doctrine, which do not include procedural
defects in the prosecution). Not even innocence is a defense to fugitive disentitlement, though Mr.
26 Polanski has not asserted he is innocent. In re Scott’s Estate, 150 Cal. App. 2d 590, 592 (Ct. App.
1957) (“The fact that he may be innocent does not change his fugitive status.”). The Court
27
therefore has ample information to evaluate any disentitlement in the dispute with the Academy
28 without access to a sealed deposition transcript.

-2- Case No. A334139

ACADEMY’S OBJECTION TO UNSEALING AND SENDING TO DEPT. 82
 1 DATED: July 20, 2020 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
2

4 By
Kristen Bird
5 Attorney for Academy of Motion Picture Arts and
Sciences
6

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-3- Case No. A334139

ACADEMY’S OBJECTION TO UNSEALING AND SENDING TO DEPT. 82
 1
PROOF OF SERVICE
2

3 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 865 South Figueroa
4 Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543.

5 On July 20, 2020, I served true copies of the document described as

6 ACADEMY’S OBJECTION TO MOTION OF ROMAN POLANSKI TO UNSEAL

THE DEPOSITION OF DDA ROGER GUNSON AND SEND THE ORIGINAL
7 TRANSCRIPT TO DEPARTMENT 82 OF THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

8 on the interested parties in this action as follows:

9 Harland Braun, Esq. (Bar No. 41842)

BRAUN & BRAUN LLP
10 10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 1020
Los Angeles, CA 90067
11 Telephone: (310) 277-4777
Facsimile: (310) 507-0232
12 Email: harland@braunlaw.com
(Counsel for Defendant Roman Raymond
13 Polanski)

14 Michele Hanissee (Bar No. 187430)

Deputy District Attorney
15 MAJOR CRIMES DIVISION
211 W. Temple Street, Suite 1100
16 Los Angeles, CA 90012
Telephone: 213-257-2052
17 Email: MHanisee@da.lacounty.gov
(Counsel for the People of California)
18
BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: I emailed the documents to the persons at the email addresses listed
19 in the above service list. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any
electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
20
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
21 foregoing is true and correct.

22 Executed on July 20, 2020 at Los Angeles, California.

23

24

25 Kristen Bird
26

27

28

-4- Case No. A334139

ACADEMY’S OBJECTION TO UNSEALING AND SENDING TO DEPT. 82
 1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of
3 eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 865 South Figueroa
Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543.
4
On July 21, 2020, I served true copies of the document described as
5
ACADEMY’S OBJECTION TO MOTION OF ROMAN POLANSKI TO UNSEAL
6 THE DEPOSITION OF DDA ROGER GUNSON AND SEND THE ORIGINAL
TRANSCRIPT TO DEPARTMENT 82 OF THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
7
on the interested parties in this action as follows:
8
Harland Braun, Esq. (Bar No. 41842)
9 BRAUN & BRAUN LLP
10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 1020
10 Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 277-4777
11 Facsimile: (310) 507-0232
Email: harland@braunlaw.com
12
(Counsel for Petitioner Roman Polanski)
13

14 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: I emailed the documents to the persons at the email addresses listed
in the above service list. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any
15 electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.

16 BY EXPRESS MAIL: Per normal business procedures, I caused an envelope containing these
documents to be delivered to a FedEx service carrier, with delivery fees provided for next day
17 delivery.

18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
19
Executed on July 21, 2020 at Los Angeles, California.
20

21

22
Kristen Bird
23

24

25

26

27

28

-2- Case No. 19STCP01398

ACADEMY’S NOTICE OF FILING