MAINSTREAM LOUDOUN, et al.     )

                               )

                Plaintiffs     )

        v.                     ) Case No. CA-97-2049-A

                               ) 

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE       )

LOUDOUN COUNTY LIBRARY, et al. )

                               )

Defendants.                    )

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO THE ACLU MOTION TO INTERVENE

Defendants, by and through counsel, submit this response to the Motion to Intervene filed by the ACLU on behalf of certain Internet publishers.

Defendants submit that the proper disposition of this Motion depends on the Court’s disposition of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the original complaint which will be argued on February 20, 1998. If that motion is granted, then this Motion should be denied. If the ACLU and their clients still wished to participate in the litigation of these issues, they could then do so in an amicus capacity in any further appellate proceedings. If, on the other hand, the Motion to Dismiss were to be denied in its entirety, the interests of judicial economy, as well as the practical interests of the Defendants, would warrant granting the Motion to Intervene because a denial of that motion would probably lead to the filing of a second, largely duplicative, complaint that would then be consolidated with this action.

Defendants do not, of course, concede that the proposed Intervenors have stated a valid cause of action in their proposed Complaint, or that they have standing to assert their claims. The Motion to Intervene is not, of course, the proper place to address those issues^1/. If intervention is allowed, Defendants will, of course, raise all proper defenses and arguments in support of the Internet Policy adopted and implemented by the Loudoun County Library Board.^2/

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated, the Motion to Intervene should either be denied if the Motion to Dismiss is granted, or granted if the original Complaint proceeds to trial.
 

Respectfully submitted,

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LOUDOUN

COUNTY LIBRARY, et al.

By:                   

Kenneth C. Bass, III (VSB #1021)

VENABLE, BAETJER AND

HOWARD, LLP

2010 Corporate Ridge, Suite 400

McLean, Virginia 22012

(703) 760-1600

Counsel for Defendants

February 12, 1998

^1/For the same reason we do not address the arguments on the merits discussed in Section III of the Proposed Intervenors’ Brief. That section on its face acknowledges that it is a response to some of the arguments advanced by the Defendants in our Motion to Dismiss. We anticipate that essentially the same arguments will be advanced in the Plaintiffs’ Opposition, and we will respond to those arguments in our reply which will be filed in a timely manner before the February 20, 1998 argument.
 
 

^2/Counsel would note, because of the public interest in this matter, that the Complaint erroneously asserts that the websites operated by the proposed Intervenors have been blocked by the Loudoun County Library System. Counsel for Defendants represent to this Court that those allegations are mistaken and that the specific websites identified as "blocked" in the proposed Complaint are not blocked and, to the Library’s knowledge, were not blocked on February 2, 1998.