David Reimann

Thank you, Your Honor.

David Reimann representing the news media.

Mr. Judd and I represent different groups of clients, so I'm going to invite him if I miss anything to weigh in after I'm done.

My intent, the issues are basically the same, so my intent is to address them for all of the interveners at once, and I'll be very brief.

We have only ever sought, in this case, limited party status.

That is what we do in every high profile case that involves these type of closure issues.

We are not seeking to be parties for all purposes.

We are just seeking to be parties for the purpose of showing up

and being hurt, which we unquestionably have a right to do.

We unquestionably have standing.

That is settled law in Utah.

And the filing, the last filing at least, that we got from Mr. Robinson's team that just came in, I don't know if it was a couple days ago, basically gets there at the end where it says, look, if you're going to grant them intervener status, it should just be limited.

That's all we've ever sought.

And so the question that was raised in the only case that they cite, this FL case from the Utah Supreme Court

that addressed whether we wanted to allow full party status under Rule 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules in a criminal case.

They said we don't need to do that.

The woman in that case just needed limited party status.

So in a way, the state really hasn't disagreed with this either, but we're not really disagreeing with Mr. Robinson's team.

We have explained in our papers that we've cited

the court to extensive authority saying that this is the procedure to use.