This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye

By Brian Cardile | Jan. 6, 2017

Appellate Practice

Jan. 6, 2017

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye

California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye offers insight on effective appellate advocacy; Michael Risher (ACLU) describes why the state high court should rule that PRA requests can reach info on private devices of public employees.


For our first episode of 2017, the podcast has the privilege of welcoming our state's foremost jurist, California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye. The Chief Justice discusses a broad range of matters, from her time growing up in the shadow of the state capitol, to her rise through the prosecutor and jurist ranks. Most pertinent to our program, she offers her thoughts on what makes appellate practice most effective. She'll describe what approaches she finds most (and least) effective in petitions, briefs and at oral argument. As to the latter, the Chief Justice will explain the room for persuasion that exists at oral argument, and why attorneys there should, above all, be cognizant of the force of California Supreme Court precedent and the effect the legal rule they're arguing for will have on future cases before the court.

After hearing from the Chief Justice, we'll hear from Michael Risher, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU, about a major pending California Supreme Court matter, City of San Jose v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Country. There, the high court is debating whether communications pertaining to public business, but stored on public employees' private accounts and devices should be reachable by Public Record Act requests. Mr. Risher, who submitted an amicus brief on the matter, will describe why he thinks law and policy considerations demand that such communications be deemed reachable public records.

Don't forget CLE credit is available for listeners; see below for a link to a short true/false test.

Have thoughts on the show? Ideas for a segment? Interested in being a guest, or recommending another person to be a guest? Contact the host at <!-- Weekly Appellate Report Podcast -->


Brian Cardile

Rulings Editor, Podcast Host, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reporter

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390

Send a letter to the editor: