3:09-cv-02292 #230

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document230 Filed10/15/09 Page1 of 26
1 COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC

Charles J. Cooper (DC Bar No. 248070)*
2 ccooper@cooperkirk.com
David H. Thompson (DC Bar No. 450503)*
3 dthompson@cooperkirk.com
Howard C. Nielson, Jr. (DC Bar No. 473018)*
4 hnielson@cooperkirk.com
Nicole J. Moss (DC Bar No. 472424)*
5 nmoss@cooperkirk.com
Jesse Panuccio (DC Bar No. 981634)*
6 jpanuccio@cooperkirk.com
Peter A. Patterson (Ohio Bar No. 0080840)*
7 ppatterson@cooperkirk.com
1523 New Hampshire Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
8 Telephone: (202) 220-9600, Facsimile: (202) 220-9601
9 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO

Andrew P. Pugno (CA Bar No. 206587)
10 andrew@pugnolaw.com
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630
12 ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND

Brian W. Raum (NY Bar No. 2856102)*
13 braum@telladf.org
James A. Campbell (OH Bar No. 0081501)*
14 jcampbell@telladf.org
15100 North 90th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
16 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH,

GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM,
17 MARK A. JANSSON, and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM – YES ON 8, A
PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL
18
* Admitted pro hac vice
19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
20 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
21 KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL

T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO,
22
CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
Plaintiffs,
23
The Honorable Vaughn R. Walker, Chief
24 v. Judge
25 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official

capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G.
26 BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Attorney NOTICE OF APPEAL
27 General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his

official capacity as Director of the California
28 Department of Public Health and State Registrar of
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM ORDER OF OCTOBER 1, 2009

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document230
Document221
Document222 Filed10/09/09 Page2 of 26
Filed10/15/09
1 Vital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her official

capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information
2 & Strategic Planning for the California Department
of Public Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his
3
official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County
4 of Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his official
capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for
5 the County of Los Angeles,
6 Defendants,
7 and
8 PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J.
9 KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-
SHING WILLIAM TAM, and MARK A.
10 JANSSON; and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM –
YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA
11 RENEWAL,
12 Defendant-Intervenors.
13
Additional Counsel for Defendant-Intervenors
14
ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND
15 Timothy Chandler (CA Bar No. 234325)
tchandler@telladf.org
16 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630
Telephone: (916) 932-2850, Facsimile: (916) 932-2851
17
Jordan W. Lorence (DC Bar No. 385022)*
18 jlorence@telladf.org
Austin R. Nimocks (TX Bar No. 24002695)*
19 animocks@telladf.org
801 G Street NW, Suite 509, Washington, D.C. 20001
21 * Admitted pro hac vice
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM ORDER OF OCTOBER 1, 2009

Document221
Filed10/15/09
A-11 (rev. 7/00) Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document230
Document221
Filed10/15/09 Page 1 of 2
USCA DOCKET # (IF KNOWN)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CIVIL APPEALS DOCKETING STATEMENT
PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES IF NECESSARY.
TITLE IN FULL: DISTRICT: N. Dist. of California JUDGE: Hon. Vaughn Walker, C.J.
DISTRICT COURT NUMBER: 09-CV-2292 VRW

KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al., v. ARNOLD IS THIS A CROSS APPEAL?
DATE NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED:
SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity
as Governor of California, et al. Oct 7, 2009 YES
IF THIS MATTER HAS BEEN BEFORE THIS COURT PREVIOUSLY,

(Please see Attachment A for full title.) PLEASE PROVIDE THE DOCKET NUMBER AND CITATION (IF ANY):
No. 09-16959
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF ACTION AND RESULT BELOW:
The underlying action is a federal constitutional challenge to a provision of the California Constitution defining marriage as
between a man and a woman. The order under review involves a denial of a First Amendment privilege raised by
Defendant-Intervenors.
PRINCIPAL ISSUES PROPOSED TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL:
Whether participants in a referendum campaign have a valid First Amendment privilege shielding from discovery nonpublic
and/or anonymous documents reflecting core political speech and associational activity with little or no relevance to the
merits of the case.
PLEASE IDENTIFY ANY OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDING THAT MAY HAVE A BEARING ON THIS CASE (INCLUDE
PENDING DISTRICT COURT POST-JUDGMENT MOTIONS):
DOES THIS APPEAL INVOLVE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

Possibility of Settlement
Likelihood that intervening precedent will control outcome of appeal
Likelihood of a motion to expedite or to stay the appeal, or other procedural matters (Specify)
Defendant-Intervenors are currently seeking a stay of discovery in the district court and will seek expedited appeal.
Any other information relevant to the inclusion of this case in the Mediation Program
Possibility parties would stipulate to binding award by Appellate Commissioner in lieu of submission to judges
Document221
Filed10/15/09
Document221
Filed10/15/09
Attachment A
TITLE IN FULL:
KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J.

ZARRILLO,
Plaintiffs
and
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
Plaintiff-Intervenor
v.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as Governor of

California; EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Attorney
General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of
the California Department of Public Health and State Registrar of Vital Statistics;
LINETTE SCOTT, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health
Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health;
PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County
of Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his official capacity as Registrar-
Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles,
Defendants
and
PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH,

GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARKTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM,
and MARK A. JANSSON; and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM—YES ON 8, A
PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL,
Defendant-Intervenors.
Document221
Filed10/15/09
REPRESENTATION AND SERVICE LIST
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Kristin M. Perry,

Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and
Jeffrey J. Zarillo: Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor City
and County of San Francisco:
Theodore B. Olson
Matthew C. McGill Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney
Amir C. Tayrani Therese Stewart, Chief Deputy City
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP Attorney
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Danny Chou, Chief of Complex and Special
Washington, D.C. 20036 Litigation
(202) 955-8668 Vince Chhabria, Deputy City Attorney
Fax: (202) 467-0539 Erin Bernstein, Deputy City Attorney
tolson@gibsondunn.com Christine Van Aken, Deputy City Attorney
Mollie M. Lee, Deputy City Attorney
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
Christopher D. Dusseault FRANCISCO
Ethan D. Dettmer OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Theane Evangelis Kapur 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Enrique A. Monagas Room 234
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP San Francisco, CA 4102-4682
333 S. Grand Avenue (415) 554-4708
Los Angeles, CA 90071 Fax: (415) 554-4655
(213) 229-7804 Therese.stewart@sf.gov.org
Fax: (213) 229-7520
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
David Boies Attorneys for Defendants Governor

Theodore H. Uno Arnold Schwarzenegger, Director Mark
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP B. Horton, and Deputy Director Linette
333 Main St Scott:
Armonk, NY 10504
(914) 749-8200 Kenneth C. Mennemeier
Fax: (914) 749-8300 Andrew Walter Stroud
dboies@bsfllp.com MENNEMEIER GLASSMAN & STROUD
LLP
980 9th St, Ste 1700
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 553-4000
Fax: (916) 553-4011
kcm@mgslaw.com
Document221
Filed10/15/09
Attorneys for Defendant Attorney Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenors

General Edmund G. Brown, Jr.: Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight,
Martin F. Gutierrez, Hak-Shing William
Gordon Bruce Burns Tam, Mark A. Jansson, and
Attorney General’s Office, Dept. of Justice ProtectMarriage.com—Yes on 8, A
1300 I Street, 17th Floor Project of California Renewal:
(916) 324-3081 Charles J. Cooper
Gordon.Burns@doj.ca.gov David H. Thompson
Howard C. Neilson, Jr.
Tamar Pachter Nicole J. Moss
Office of the California Attorney General Jesse Panuccio
455 Golden Gate Ave, Suite 11000 Peter A. Patterson
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
(415) 703-5970 1523 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Fax: (415) 703-1234 Washington, D.C. 22036
Tamar.Pachter@doj.ca.gov (202) 220-9600
Fax: (202) 220-9601
ccooper@cooperkirk.com
Andrew P. Pugno
Attorney for Defendant Clerk-Recorder LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO
Patrick O’Connell: 101 Parkshore Dr., Ste. 100
Folsom, CA 95630
Claude Franklin Kolm (916) 608-3065
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA andrew@pugnolaw.com
1221 Oak Street, Suite 450
Oakland, CA 94612-4296 Brian W. Raum
(510) 272-6710 James A. Campbell
claude.kolm@acgov.org ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND
15100 N. 90th St.
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
(480) 444-0020
Attorney for Defendant Registrar- braum@telladf.org
Recorder Dean C. Logan:
Judy Whitehurst
OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL –
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
500 West Temple St
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 974-1845
JWhitehurst@counsel.lacounty.gov
Document214
Document221
Document222 Filed10/01/09 Page9
Filed10/09/09
Filed10/15/09 Page1 of 26
18
1
2
3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6 KRISTIN M PERRY, SANDRA B STIER, No C 09-2292 VRW
PAUL T KATAMI and JEFFREY J
7 ZARRILLO, ORDER
8 Plaintiffs,
9 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
10 Plaintiff-Intervenor,
For the Northern District of California
11 v
United States District Court
12 ARNORLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his

official capacity as governor of
13 California; EDMUND G BROWN JR, in
his official capacity as attorney
14 general of California; MARK B
HORTON, in his official capacity
15 as director of the California
Department of Public Health and
16 state registrar of vital
statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her
17 official capacity as deputy
director of health information &
18 strategic planning for the
California Department of Public
19 Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his
official capacity as clerk-
20 recorder of the County of
Alameda; and DEAN C LOGAN, in his
21 official capacity as registrar-
recorder/county clerk for the
22 County of Los Angeles,
23 Defendants,
24 DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J

KNIGHT, MARTIN F GUTIERREZ,
25 HAKSHING WILLIAM TAM and MARK A
JANSSON, as official proponents
26 of Proposition 8,
27 Defendant-Intervenors.
/
28
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW
Document221
Document222
Document214 Filed10/15/09
Filed10/09/09
Filed10/01/09 Page10
Page2 of
of18
26
1 The defendant-intervenors, who are the official

2 proponents of Proposition 8 (“proponents”) move for a protective
3 order against the requests contained in one of plaintiffs’ first
4 set of document requests. Doc #187. Proponents object to
5 plaintiffs’ request no 8, which seeks “[a]ll versions of any
6 documents that constitute communications relating to Proposition 8,
7 between you and any third party, including, without limitation,
8 members of the public or the media.” Doc #187 at 8. Proponents
9 also object to all other “similarly sweeping” requests. Id at 8 n
10 1. Proponents argue the discovery sought: (1) is privileged under
11 the First Amendment; (2) is not relevant; and (3) places an undue
12 burden on proponents. Doc #187 at 9. Plaintiffs counter that the

13 discovery sought is relevant and not privileged. Doc #191.
14 During the course of briefing the dispute for the court,
15 the parties appear to have resolved at least one issue, as
16 proponents now agree to produce communications targeted to discrete
17 voter groups. Doc #197 at 6. The agreement appears only partially
18 to resolve the parties’ differences. Because of the broad reach of
19 request no 8 and the generality of proponents’ objections, the
20 unresolved issues will almost certainly arise in other discovery,
21 as well as to require resolution of the parties’ differences with
22 respect to request no 8. Accordingly, the court held a lengthy
23 hearing on September 25, 2009 and seeks by this order not only to
24 address the parties’ remaining dispute with respect to request no 8
25 but also provide guidance that will enable them to complete
26 discovery and pretrial preparation expeditiously.
27 \\
28 \\
2
Document221
Document222
Filed10/09/09
Page3 of
of18
26
1 I
2 As an initial matter, and because plaintiffs’ request no
3 8 is quite broad, the court must determine what discovery remains
4 disputed. Proponents object to disclosing documents that fall into
5 five categories: “(i) communications between and among
6 [d]efendant-[i]ntervenors, campaign donors, volunteers, and agents;
7 (ii) draft versions of communications never actually distributed to
8 the electorate at large; (iii) the identity of affiliated persons
9 and organizations not already publicly disclosed; (iv) post-
10 election information; and (v) the subjective and/or private
11 motivations of a voter or campaign participant.” Doc #187 at 9.

12 But in their reply memorandum, proponents explain that they only

13 object to “nonpublic and/or anonymous communications” (emphasis in
14 original), “drafts of documents that were never intended to, and
15 never did, see public light” and “documents created after the Prop
16 8 election.” Doc #197. Plaintiffs have stated they “do not seek
17 ProtectMarriage.com’s membership list or a list of donors to the
18 ‘Yes on 8' cause.” Doc #191 at 13.
19 Plaintiffs have told proponents that they are seeking
20 communications between proponents and “their agents, contractors,
21 attorneys, donors or others” to the extent the communications are
22 responsive and not otherwise privileged. Doc #187-6 at 2.
23 Plaintiffs argue that the election materials put before the voters
24 are insufficient to discern the intent or purpose of Prop 8. The
25 questions whether Prop 8 was passed with discriminatory intent and
26 whether any claimed state interest in fact supports Prop 8 underlie
27 plaintiffs’ Equal Protection challenge, at least in part. See,
28 e g, Doc #157 at 12. Proponents assert that Prop 8 was intended
3
Document221
Document222
Filed10/09/09
Page4 of
of18
26
1 simply to preserve the traditional characteristic of marriage as an

2 opposite-sex union. See, e g, Doc #159 at 5. As a result of these
3 conflicting positions, the intent or purpose of Prop 8 is central
4 to this litigation. The issue on which resolution of the present
5 discovery dispute turns is whether that intent should be divined
6 solely from proponents’ public or widely circulated communications
7 or disseminations or whether their communications with third
8 parties not intended for widespread dissemination may also
9 illuminate that intent. Before deciding that issue, the court
10 first addresses the grounds on which proponents seek a protective
11 order.
12
13 II
14 Proponents seek to invoke the First Amendment qualified
15 privilege to refrain from responding to any discovery that would
16 reveal political communications as well as identities of
17 individuals affiliated with the Prop 8 campaign whose names have
18 not already been disclosed. Doc #197 at 14. The free
19 associational prong of the First Amendment has been held to provide
20 a qualified privilege against disclosure of all rank-and-file
21 members of an organization upon a showing that compelled disclosure
22 likely will adversely affect the ability of the organization to
23 foster its beliefs. National Ass’n for A of C P v Alabama, 357 US
24 449, 460-63 (1958) (“NAACP”); see also Adolph Coors Co v Wallace,
25 570 F Supp 202, 205 (ND Cal 1983). This qualified privilege has
26 been found especially important if the disclosures would subject
27 members to reprisals for the exercise of their associational rights
28 under the First Amendment or otherwise deter exercise of those
4
Document221
Document222
Filed10/09/09
Page5 of
of18
26
1 rights. Here, however, plaintiffs are not seeking disclosure of

2 membership lists. Doc #191 at 13. Indeed, many names associated
3 with ProtectMarriage.com and the Yes on 8 campaign have already
4 been disclosed. See ProtectMarriage.com v Bowen, 09-0058-MCE Doc
5 #88 (ED Cal Jan 30, 2009).
6 The California Political Reform Act of 1974 requires
7 disclosure of a great deal of information surrounding the Prop 8
8 campaign, including the identity of, and specific information
9 about, financial supporters. Cal Govt Code § 81000 et seq.
10 Proponents have not shown that responding to plaintiffs’ discovery
11 would intrude further on proponents’ First Amendment associational

12 rights beyond the intrusion by the numerous disclosures required

13 under California law — disclosures that have already been widely
14 disseminated. Proponents asserted at the September 25 hearing that
15 these California state law disclosure requirements extend to the
16 outer boundaries of what can be required of political actors to
17 reveal their activities. But the information plaintiffs seek
18 differs from that which is regulated by these state disclosure
19 requirements.
20 The First Amendment qualified privilege proponents seek
21 to invoke, unlike the attorney-client privilege, for example, is
22 not an absolute bar against disclosure. Rather, the First
23 Amendment qualified privilege requires a balancing of the
24 plaintiffs’ need for the information sought against proponents’
25 constitutional interests in claiming the privilege. See Adolph
26 Coors, 570 F Supp at 208. In this dispute, the interests the
27 parties claim are fundamental constitutional rights. Proponents
28 argue that their First Amendment associational rights are at stake
5
Document221
Document222
Filed10/09/09
Page6 of
of18
26
1 while plaintiffs contend that Prop 8 violates their Equal

2 Protection and Due Process rights and that denial of their
3 discovery request jeopardizes the vindication of those rights. The
4 claimed rights at issue thus appear to be of similar importance.
5 One tangible harm that proponents have claimed, and
6 events made known to the court substantiate, lies in threats and
7 harassment proponents claim have been suffered by known supporters
8 of Prop 8. Identifying new information about Prop 8 supporters
9 would, proponents argue, only exacerbate these problems. Doc #187.
10 The court is aware of the tendentious nature of the Prop
11 8 campaign and of the harassment that some Prop 8 supporters have

12 endured. See Doc #187-11. Proponents have not however adequately

13 explained why the discovery sought by plaintiffs increases the
14 threat of harm to Prop 8 supporters or explained why a protective
15 order strictly limiting the dissemination of such information would
16 not suffice to avoid future similar events. In sum, while there is
17 no doubt that proponents’ political activities are protected by the
18 First Amendment, it is not at all clear that the discovery sought
19 here materially jeopardizes the First Amendment protections.
20 Furthermore, whether the First Amendment qualified privilege should
21 bar all or any part of plaintiffs’ discovery request is open to
22 question under the circumstances of this case.
23 The key Supreme Court case upon which proponents rely,
24 NAACP v Alabama, supra, involved a civil contempt against the NAACP
25 for its failure to reveal the names and addresses of “all its
26 Alabama members and agents, without regard to their positions or
27 functions in the Association.” 357 US at 451. As noted,
28 plaintiffs do not here seek the names and addresses of proponents’
6
Document221
Document222
Filed10/09/09
Page7 of
of18
26
1 rank-and-file members or volunteers. More importantly, the

2 protection against disclosure afforded by the holding in NAACP
3 appears fairly restricted.
4 Alabama sought “a large number of the Association’s
5 records and papers, including bank statements, leases, deeds, and
6 records of all Alabama ‘members’ and ‘agents’ of the Association.”
7 357 US at 453. The NAACP produced “substantially all the data
8 called for” except for its lists of rank-and-file members. Id at
9 454. Notably, the NAACP did not object “to divulging the identity
10 of its members who are employed by or hold official positions” in
11 the organization or to providing various other business records.

12 Id at 464-65. The Court contrasted the NAACP’s extensive

13 disclosures with that in an earlier case in which another
14 organization made no disclosures at all. Id at 465-66. Alabama’s
15 request for rank-and-file membership lists in NAACP was predicated
16 solely on its interest in enforcement of the state’s foreign
17 corporation registration statute. Id at 464.
18 The Court observed that the disclosure of the names of
19 rank-and-file members seemed to lack a “substantial bearing” on
20 whether the NAACP, as a foreign corporation, should be authorized
21 to do business in Alabama. Id at 464. The interest of Alabama in
22 disclosure of rank-and-file membership lists thus was insubstantial
23 relative to the significant interests of the NAACP and its members
24 in carrying out their First Amendment and other activities that
25 included – in 1956 – “financial support and [ ] legal assistance to
26 Negro students seeking admission to the state university” and
27 support of “a Negro boycott of the bus lines in Montgomery to
28 compel the seating of passengers without regard to race.” Id at
7
Document221
Document222
Filed10/09/09
Page8 of
of18
26
1 452.
2 Similarly, in a later case, the Supreme Court upheld a
3 qualified First Amendment privilege against disclosure of NAACP
4 membership lists where there was “no relevant correlation” between
5 the purpose for which the lists were sought, enforcement of
6 occupational license taxes, and the identity of NAACP rank-and-file
7 members. Bates v Little Rock, 361 US 516, 525 (1960). On like
8 grounds, the Supreme Court reversed a contempt conviction of the
9 president of the NAACP Miami branch who refused to produce NAACP
10 membership lists at a 1959 hearing of a state legislative committee
11 investigating “infiltration of Communists” into various

12 organizations. Gibson v Florida Legislative Committee, 372 US 539

13 (1963). No evidence in that case suggested that the NAACP was
14 “either Communist dominated or influenced,” id at 548, undermining
15 the required nexus between the membership lists and the purpose for
16 which they were sought. Furthermore, at the hearing, the branch
17 president answered questions concerning membership in the NAACP and
18 responded to questions about a number of persons previously
19 identified as communists or members of communist front or other
20 affiliated organizations. Id at 543. Here, too, the qualified
21 First Amendment privilege protected only membership lists, and the
22 NAACP or its officials made significant disclosures apart from
23 membership lists.
24 These cases from the civil rights struggles of the 1950s
25 would thus appear to offer proponents scant support for refusing to
26 produce information other than rank-and-file membership lists which
27 plaintiffs, in any event, do not seek. Nor does proponents’
28 position gain much traction from McIntyre v Ohio Elections Comm’n,
8
Document221
Document222
Filed10/09/09
Page9 of
of18
26
1 514 US 334 (1995), which reversed petitioner’s conviction, upheld

2 by the Ohio Supreme Court, for anonymously distributing leaflets
3 regarding a referendum on a proposed school tax levy in violation
4 of a statute prohibiting unsigned campaign materials. Petitioner
5 “acted independently,” not as part of a campaign committee or
6 organization. Id at 337. Proponents, by contrast, are the
7 official proponents of Prop 8 with responsibility under state law
8 for compliance with electoral and campaign requirements. See Cal
9 Election Code § 342; Cal Gov’t Code § 8204.7.
10 Proponents, moreover, have not demonstrated that the
11 procedure for invoking any First Amendment privilege applicable to

12 their communications with third parties differs from that of any

13 other privilege, such as the attorney-client privilege and trial
14 preparation or work product protection. A party seeking to
15 withhold discovery under a claim of privilege must “describe the
16 nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not
17 produced or disclosed * * * in a manner that, without revealing
18 information itself privileged or protected, will enable other
19 parties to assess the claim.” FRCP 26(b)(5)(A)(ii). Proponents
20 have failed to aver that they have prepared a privilege log that
21 would comply with the requirement of FRCP 26(b)(5)(A)(ii), a
22 necessary condition to preservation of any privilege. This failure
23 ordinarily could be fatal to any assertion of a privilege.
24 Burlington Nort & Santa Fe Ry v Dist Ct, Mt, 408 F3d 1142, 1149
25 (9th Cir 2005).
26 Proponents suggested at the September 25 hearing that the
27 enumeration requirement of FRCP 26 does not apply to a First
28 Amendment privilege, based as it is on fundamental constitutional
9
Document214
Document221
Filed10/09/09
18
1 principles rather than common law, the origin of the attorney-

2 client privilege and work product protection. Proponents contend
3 that as the communications regarding Prop 8 involve political
4 speech or association, Doc #197 at 11-12, they are entitled to a
5 greater degree of confidentiality than common law privileges. In
6 fact, as noted, it appears that any First Amendment privilege is a
7 qualified privilege affording less expansive protection against
8 discovery than the absolute privileges, such as the attorney-client
9 and similar privileges. The First Amendment privilege proponents
10 seek to invoke requires a balancing of interests that simply are
11 not weighed in the area of attorney-client communications, and that

12 balancing tends to limit or confine the First Amendment privilege

13 to those materials that rather directly implicate rights of
14 association.
15 In striking the appropriate balance, the court notes that
16 in addition to the substantial financial and related disclosures
17 required by California law, a rather striking disclosure concerning
18 campaign strategy has already voluntarily been made by at least
19 one, if not the principal, campaign manager-consultant employed by
20 proponents. Plaintiffs have attached to their memorandum a
21 magazine article written by Frank Schubert and Jeff Flint, whose
22 public affairs firm managed the Yes on 8 campaign. Doc #191-2. In
23 the article, Schubert and Flint refer specifically to campaign
24 strategy and decisions, noting that they needed to convince voters
25 “that there would be consequences if gay marriage were to be
26 permanently legalized.” Id at 3. Schubert and Flint make clear
27 that their goal in the campaign was to “rais[e] doubts.” Id. They
28 explain the campaign’s “three broad areas” of focus as “religious
10
Document214
Document221
Filed10/09/09
18
1 freedom,” “individual freedom of expression” and “how this new

2 ‘fundamental right’ would be inculcated in young children through
3 the public schools.” Id. Schubert and Flint refer to the help of
4 “a massive volunteer effort through religious denominations.” Id.
5 The article describes, in great detail, how Schubert and Flint
6 conceptualized the Yes on 8 television advertising campaign,
7 culminating with “the break of the election”: footage of
8 “bewildered six-year-olds at a lesbian wedding.” Id at 4-5.
9 These extensive disclosures about the strategy of
10 proponents’ campaign suggest that relatively little weight should
11 be afforded to proponents’ interest in maintaining the

12 confidentiality of communications concerning campaign strategy. If

13 harm is threatened from disclosure of proponents’ campaign
14 strategy, it seems likely to have been realized by the candid
15 description of the Prop 8 campaign’s strategy already disseminated
16 by Schubert and Flint. In any event, the unfortunate incidents of
17 harassment to which proponents point as having occurred appear
18 mostly to have been directed to proponents’ financial supporters
19 whose public identification was required by California law.
20
21 III
22 Proponents argue that the discovery sought is not
23 relevant and therefore not discoverable. Under FRCP 26(b)(1),
24 discovery is limited to “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant
25 to any party’s claim or defense,” but “[r]elevant information need
26 not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably
27 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
28 Accordingly, the court need not determine at this juncture whether
11
Document214
Document221
Filed10/09/09
18
1 the information sought would be admissible at trial; instead, the

2 court must determine whether the information sought is “reasonably
3 calculated” to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.
4 Plaintiffs assert that the discovery sought is relevant
5 to “the rationality and strength of [proponents’] purported state
6 interests and whether voters could reasonably accept them as a
7 basis for supporting Prop 8,” as well as other factual disputes.
8 Doc #191 at 8. Additionally, plaintiffs believe the discovery will
9 lead to “party admissions and impeachment evidence.” Id.
10 Plaintiffs’ strongest argument appears to be that some of
11 the information sought about proponents’ communications with third

12 parties may be relevant to the governmental interest that

13 proponents claim Prop 8 advances. Id. Relevant information may
14 exist in communications between proponents and those who assumed a
15 large role in the campaign, including the campaign executive
16 committee and political consultants, as that information well may
17 have been conveyed to the ultimate decision-makers, the voters, and
18 thus discloses the intent Prop 8 serves.
19 Key in this regard is the extent to which the requested
20 discovery could be relevant “to ascertain the purpose” of Prop 8.
21 Doc #187 at 10. Legislative purpose may be relevant to determine
22 whether, as plaintiffs claim, Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection
23 Clause. Washington v Davis, 426 US 229, 239-41 (1976) (holding
24 that a law only violates the Equal Protection component of the
25 Fifth Amendment when the law reflects a “discriminatory purpose,”
26 regardless of the law’s disparate impact); see also Personnel Adm’r
27 of Massachusetts v Feeney, 442 US 256, 274 (1979) (“purposeful
28 discrimination is the condition that offends the Constitution.”)
12
Document214
Document221
Filed10/09/09
18
1 (citation omitted). The analysis remains the same whether the

2 challenged measure was enacted by a legislature or directly by
3 voters. Washington v Seattle School Dist no 1, 458 US 457, 484-85
4 (1982).
5 Proponents point to Southern Alameda Span Sp Org v City
6 of Union City, Cal, 424 F2d 291, 295 (9th Cir 1970) (“SASSO”), and
7 Bates v Jones, 131 F3d 843, 846 (9th Cir 1997) (en banc), for the
8 proposition that the subjective intent of a voter is not a proper
9 subject for judicial inquiry. In SASSO, the court determined that
10 “probing the private attitude of the voters” would amount of “an
11 intolerable invasion of the privacy that must protect an exercise

12 of the franchise.” 424 F2d at 295. In Bates, the court looked

13 only to publicly available information to determine whether voters
14 had sufficient notice of the effect of a referendum. 131 F3d at
15 846. While these cases make clear that voters cannot be asked to
16 explain their votes, they do not rule out the possibility that
17 other evidence might well be useful to determine intent.
18 Plaintiffs’ proposed discovery is not outside the scope
19 of what some courts have considered in determining the intent
20 behind a measure enacted by voters. The Eighth Circuit has held
21 that courts may look to the intent of drafters of an initiative to
22 determine whether it was passed with a discriminatory intent.
23 South Dakota Farm Bureau, Inc v Hazeltine, 340 F3d 583, 594 (8th
24 Cir 2003). At least one district court in this circuit has
25 considered drafter intent along with voter intent. City of Los
26 Angeles v County of Kern, 462 F Supp 2d 1105, 1114 (CD Cal 2006).
27 The parties acknowledge that the line demarking relevance in this
28 context is not clearly drawn. The difficulty of line-drawing stems
13
Document214
Document221
Filed10/09/09
18
1 from the fact that, as the California Supreme Court put it well,
2 “motive or purpose of [a legislative enactment] is not relevant to
3 its construction absent reason to conclude that the body which
4 adopted the [enactment] was aware of that purpose and believed the
5 language of the proposal would accomplish it.” Robert L v Superior
6 Court, 30 Cal 4th 894, 904 (2003).
7 In the case of an initiative measure, the enacting body
8 is the electorate as a whole. The legislative record for an
9 initiative cannot, therefore, be compiled with the precision that
10 the legislative history of an enactment by a legislative body can
11 be put together. This would seem to suggest, as the Eighth Circuit

12 implied in South Dakota Farm Bureau, that the scope of permissible

13 discovery might well be broader in the case of an initiative
14 measure or a referendum than a law coming out of a popularly
15 elected, and thus democratically chosen, legislative body. However
16 that may be, the mix of information before and available to the
17 voters forms a legislative history that may permit the court to
18 discern whether the legislative intent of an initiative measure is
19 consistent with and advances the governmental interest that its
20 proponents claim in litigation challenging the validity of that
21 measure or was a discriminatory motive.
22 Proponents have agreed to disclose communications they
23 targeted to voters, including communications to discrete groups of
24 voters. Doc #197 at 6. But at the September 25 hearing,
25 proponents stated that they did not believe “non-public”
26 communications to confirmed Prop 8 supporters or to those involved
27 in the Prop 8 campaign could be relevant to the intent
28 determination. Proponents point out that those communications were
14
Document214
Document221
Filed10/09/09
18
1 not directly before the voters. But it does appear to the court
2 that communications between proponents and political consultants or
3 campaign managers, even about messages contemplated but not
4 actually disseminated, could fairly readily lead to admissible
5 evidence illuminating the messages disseminated to voters. At
6 least some of these contemplated, but not delivered, messages may
7 well have diffused to voters through sources other than the
8 official channels of proponents’ campaign. Furthermore, of course,
9 what was decided not to be said in a political campaign may cast
10 light on what was actually said. The line between relevant and
11 non-relevant communications is not identical to the public/non-

12 public distinction drawn by proponents. At least some “non-public”

13 communications from proponents to those who assumed a large role in
14 the Prop 8 campaign could be relevant to the voters’ understanding
15 of Prop 8 and to the ultimate determination of intent.
16 While it appears that plaintiffs’ request no 8 seeks
17 relevant disclosures, the request itself is broader than necessary
18 to obtain all relevant discovery. Proponents point out that even
19 if some of the discovery sought by plaintiffs might be relevant,
20 “virtually every communication made by anyone included in or
21 associated with Protect Marriage” cannot be relevant. Doc #197 at
22 7. The court agrees. Further, of course, no amount of discovery
23 could corral all of the information on which voters cast their
24 ballots on Prop 8. Proponents’ undue burden objection is thus
25 well-taken. It should suffice for purposes of this litigation to
26 gather enough information about the strategy and communications of
27 the Prop 8 campaign to afford a record upon which to discern the
28 intent underlying Prop 8's enactment. Plaintiffs’ request no 8,
15
Document214
Document221
Filed10/09/09
18
1 currently encompassing any communication between proponents and any

2 third party, is simply too broad.
3 Narrowing of plaintiffs’ request is required. In their
4 discussions, the parties have focused on the appropriate
5 distinction — that between documents which relate to public
6 communications with third parties and purely private communications
7 among proponents. Hence, discovery directed to uncovering whether
8 proponents harbor private sentiments that may have prompted their
9 efforts is simply not relevant to the legislative intent behind
10 Prop 8. That does not mean that discovery should be limited
11 strictly to communications with the public at large. Documents

12 pertaining to the planning of the campaign for Prop 8 and the

13 messages actually distributed, or contemplated to be distributed,
14 to voters would likely to lead to discovery of admissible evidence,
15 as such documents share a clear nexus with the information put
16 before the voters. Communications distributed to voters, as well
17 as communications considered but not sent appear to be fair
18 subjects for discovery, as the revision or rejection of a
19 contemplated campaign message may well illuminate what information
20 was actually conveyed to voters. Communications that took place
21 after the election date may similarly be relevant if they are
22 connected in some way to the pre-election messages conveyed to the
23 voters. But discovery not sufficiently related to what the voters
24 could have considered is not relevant and will not be permitted.
25 Plaintiffs are therefore DIRECTED to revise request no 8
26 to target those communications most likely to be relevant to the
27 factual issues identified by plaintiffs.
28 \\
16
Document214
Document221
Filed10/09/09
18
1 While it is not the province of the court to redraft

2 plaintiffs’ request no 8 or to interpose objections for proponents,
3 the foregoing highlights general areas of appropriate inquiry. It
4 seems to the court that request no 8 is appropriate to the extent
5 it calls for (1) communications by and among proponents and their
6 agents (at a minimum, Schubert Flint Public Affairs) concerning
7 campaign strategy and (2) communications by and among proponents
8 and their agents concerning messages to be conveyed to voters,
9 without regard to whether the voters or voter groups were viewed as
10 likely supporters or opponents or undecided about Prop 8 and
11 without regard to whether the messages were actually disseminated

12 or merely contemplated. In addition, communications by and among

13 proponents with those who assumed a directorial or managerial role
14 in the Prop 8 campaign, like political consultants or
15 ProtectMarriage.com’s treasurer and executive committee, among
16 others, would appear likely to lead to discovery of admissible
17 evidence.
18
19 IV
20 Proponents motion for a protective order is GRANTED in
21 part and DENIED in part. Doc #187. Proponents have not shown that
22 the First Amendment privilege is applicable to the discovery sought
23 by plaintiffs. Because plaintiffs’ request no 8 is overly broad,
24 plaintiffs shall revise the request and tailor it to relevant
25 factual issues, individuals and entities. The court stands ready
26 to assist the parties in pursuing specific additional discovery in
27 line with the guidance provided herein and, if necessary, to assist
28 the parties in fashioning a protective order where necessary to
17
Document214
Document221
Filed10/09/09
18
1 ensure that disclosures through the discovery process do not result

2 in adverse effects on the parties or entities or individuals not
3 parties to this litigation.
4
5
6 IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
9 VAUGHN R WALKER
United States District Chief Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18
CAND-ECF Page 1 of 45
Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document230-1 Filed10/15/09 Page1 of 45
ADRMOP, APPEAL, E-Filing
U.S. District Court

California Northern District (San Francisco)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:09-cv-02292-VRW
Internal Use Only
Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al Date Filed: 05/22/2009

Assigned to: Hon. Vaughn R. Walker Jury Demand: None
Demand: $0 Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Case in other court: 9th Circuit, 09-16959 Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff
Kristin M. Perry represented by Theodore B Olson
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
1050 Connecticut Ave, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-5306
202-955-8668
Fax: 202-467-0539
Email: tolson@gibsondunn.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amir Cameron Tayrani

1050 Connecticut Ave NW, Ste 900
Washington, DC 20036
202-887-3692
Email: ATayrani@gibsondunn.com
PRO HAC VICE
Christopher Dean Dusseault

333 S Grand Ave
213-229-7855
Email: cdusseault@gibsondunn.com
David Boies
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
914-749-8200
Fax: 914-749-8300
https://ecf.cand.circ9.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?775764779998728-L_950_0-1 10/15/2009
PRO HAC VICE

Enrique Antonio Monagas

333 South Grand Avenue
213-229-7804
Email: emonagas@gibsondunn.com
Ethan D. Dettmer
213-229-7804
Email: edettmer@gibsondunn.com
Matthew Dempsey McGill

1050 Connecticut Ave., NW
202-955-8668
Email: mmcgill@gibsondunn.com
PRO HAC VICE
Rosanne C. Baxter
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
914-749-8200
Fax: 914-749-8300
Email: rbaxter@bsfllp.com
PRO HAC VICE
Sarah Elizabeth Piepmeier

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
555 Mission Street
Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 393-8270
Fax: (415) 374-8404
Email: spiepmeier@gibsondunn.com
Theane Evangelis Kapur


213-229-7804
Theodore J. Boutrous , Jr.

Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
213-229-7804
Fax: 213-229-7520
Email: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
Theodore Hideyuki Uno

1999 Harrison St, Ste 900
Oakland, CA 94612
510-874-1000
Email: tuno@bsfllp.com
PRO HAC VICE
Plaintiff
Sandra B. Stier represented by Theodore B Olson
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
202-955-8668
Fax: 202-467-0539
Email: tolson@gibsondunn.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE

(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE

David Boies
PRO HAC VICE

Ethan D. Dettmer
Josh Schiller
575 Lexington Avenue
7th Floor
New York, NY 10022
212-446-2300
Fax: 212-446-2350
Email: jischiller@bsfllp.com
PRO HAC VICE

PRO HAC VICE
Richard J. Bettan
575 Lexington Avenue
7th Floor
New York, NY 10022
212-446-2300
Fax: 212-446-2350
Email: rbettan@bsfllp.com
PRO HAC VICE




Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
1999 Harrison Street
Oakland, CA 94612
510-874-1000
PRO HAC VICE
Plaintiff
Paul T. Katami represented by David Boies
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
Theodore B Olson
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE

PRO HAC VICE


Ethan D. Dettmer
Josh Schiller
PRO HAC VICE

PRO HAC VICE
Richard J. Bettan
PRO HAC VICE




1999 Harrison St, Ste 900
Oakland, CA 94612
510-874-1000
Fax: 510-874-1460
PRO HAC VICE
Plaintiff
Jeffrey J. Zarrillo represented by Theodore B Olson
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE

PRO HAC VICE

David Boies
PRO HAC VICE

Ethan D. Dettmer
Josh Schiller
PRO HAC VICE

PRO HAC VICE
Richard J. Bettan
PRO HAC VICE




PRO HAC VICE
V.
Intervenor Pla
Our Family Coalition represented by Alan Lawrence Schlosser
ACLU Foundation of Northern California,
Inc.
39 Drumm Street
415-621-2493
Email: aschlosser@aclunc.org
Christopher Francis Stoll

National Center for Lesbian Rights
870 Market Street, Suite 370
415-392-6257
Email: cstoll@nclrights.org
Ilona Margaret Turner

National Ctr for Lesbian Rights
870 Market St, Ste 370
415-392-6257
Email: iturner@nclrights.org
James Dixon Esseks

ACLU Foundation
2 Charlton St #14H
New York, NY 10014
212-549-2623
Email: jesseks@aclu.org
Jennifer Carol Pizer

Lambda Legal Defense and Education
Fund, Inc.
3325 Wilshire Blvd.Ste 1300
213-382-7600
Email: jpizer@lambdalegal.org
Jon Warren Davidson

Fund
3325 Wilshire Blvd Ste 1300
(213) 382-7600, ext. 229
Email: jdavidson@lambdalegal.org
Matthew Albert Coles

ACLU LGBT & AIDS Project
125 Broad St.
New York, NY 10004
212-549-2624
Email: mcoles@aclu.org
Shannon Minter
National Center For Lesbian Rights
870 Market Street, Ste 570
415-392-6257
Email: sminter@nclrights.org
Tara Lynn Borelli

Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund
3325 Wilshire Blvd #1300

213-382-7600
Email: tborelli@lambdalegal.org
Intervenor Pla
Lavender Seniors of the East Bay represented by Alan Lawrence Schlosser

415-392-6257

James Dixon Esseks


Jon Warren Davidson

Fund
3325 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 1300
(213) 382-7600, ext. 229

Shannon Minter
415-392-6257
Tara Lynn Borelli

Intervenor Pla
Parents, Families, and Friends of represented by Alan Lawrence Schlosser
Lesbians and Gays (See above for address)

870 Market St Suite 370
415-392-6257

National Ctr for Lesbian Rights
870 Market St, Suite 370
415-392-6257
Email: iturner@nclrights.org
James Dixon Esseks


Fund, Inc.
3325 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1300
213-382-7600
Email: jpizer@lambdalegal.org
Jon Warren Davidson

Fund
3325 Wilshire Blvd Suite 1300

(213) 382-7600, ext. 229

Shannon Minter
415-392-6257
Tara Lynn Borelli

V.
Defendant
Arnold Schwarzenegger represented by Kenneth C. Mennemeier
in his official capacity as Governor of Mennemeier Glassman & Stroud LLP
California 980 9th St, Ste 1700
916-553-4000
Fax: 916-553-4011
Email: kcm@mgslaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Andrew Walter Stroud

Mennemeie Glassman & Stroud
980 9th Street, Suite 1700
Sacramento, CA 95814-2736
(916)553-4000
Email: stroud@mgslaw.com
Defendant
Edmund G. Brown, Jr. represented by Gordon Bruce Burns
in his official capacity as Attorney General Attorney Generals Office, Dept. of Justice
of California
1300 I Street, 17th Floor
916-324-3081
Email: Gordon.Burns@doj.ca.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
Tamar Pachter
Office of the California Attorney General
455 Golden Gate Ave, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
415-703-5970
Fax: 415-703-1234
Email: Tamar.Pachter@doj.ca.gov
Defendant
Mark B. Horton represented by Kenneth C. Mennemeier
in his official capacity as Director of the Mennemeier, Glassman & Stroud LLP
California Department of Public Health & 980 9th Street, Ste 1700
State Registrar of Vital Statistics Sacramento, CA 95814
916-553-4000
LEAD ATTORNEY

Mennemeier,Glassman & Stroud
980 9th Street, Suite 1700
Sacramento, CA 95814-2736
(916)553-4000
Email: stroud@mgslaw.com
Defendant
Linette Scott represented by Kenneth C. Mennemeier
in her official capacity as Deputy Director Mennemeier Glassman & Stroud LLP
of Health Information & Strategic 980 9th St, Suite 1700
Planning for the California Department of Sacramento, CA 95814
Public Health 916-553-4000
LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
Patrick O'Connell represented by Claude Franklin Kolm
in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder County of Alameda
for the County of Alameda 1221 Oak Street, Suite 450

Oakland, CA 94612-4296
510-272-6710
Email: claude.kolm@acgov.org
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Dean C. Logan represented by Judy Whitehurst
in his official capacity as Registrar- Office of County Counsel - County of Los
Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Angeles
Los Angeles 500 West Temple St
(213) 974-1845
Email:
JWhitehurst@counsel.lacounty.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
V.
Intervenor Dft
Proposition 8 Official Proponents represented by Austin R. Nimocks
Alliance Defense Fund
801 G Street NW, Ste 509
(202) 393-8690
Email: animocks@telladf.org
Brian W Raum
15100 N. 90th Street
480-444-0020
Email: braum@telladf.org
Charles J. Cooper
Cooper & Kirk
1523 New Hampshire Ave, N.W.
202-220-9600
Email: ccooper@cooperkirk.com
PRO HAC VICE
David H. Thompson
Cooper & Kirk PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Ave NW

(202) 220-9600
Email: dthompson@cooperkirk.com
Howard C. Nielson , Jr.

Cooper & Kirk PLLC
202-220-9600
Email: hnielson@cooperkirk.com
PRO HAC VICE
James A Campbell
15100 N. 90th Street
(480)444-0020
Fax: 480-444-0028
Email: jcampbell@telladf.org
PRO HAC VICE
Jesse Panuccio
Cooper & Kirk PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
202-220-9600
PRO HAC VICE
Jordan W. Lorence
801 G Street NW, Ste 509
(202) 393-8690
Email: jlorence@telladf.org
Peter A. Patterson
Cooper & Kirk PLLC
202-220-9600
Email: ppatterson@cooperkirk.com
PRO HAC VICE
Intervenor Dft
Dennis Hollingsworth represented by Andrew Perry Pugno

Law Offices of Andrew P Pugno
101 Parkshore Dr #100
Folsom, CA 95630-4726
Email: andrew@pugnolaw.com
Austin R. Nimocks
801 G Street NW, Suite 509
(202) 393-8690
Brian W Raum
Charles J. Cooper
PRO HAC VICE
David H. Thompson

PRO HAC VICE
James A Campbell
PRO HAC VICE
Jesse Panuccio
PRO HAC VICE
Jordan W. Lorence
801 G Street NW, Suite 509
(202) 393-8690
Peter A. Patterson
Cooper & Kirk PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Avenue NW
202-220-9600
Email: ppatterson@cooperkirk.com
PRO HAC VICE
Timothy D Chandler
101 Parkshore Dr., Suite 100
Folsom, CA 95630
916-932-2850
Email: tchandler@telladf.org
Intervenor Dft
Gail J. Knight represented by Andrew Perry Pugno
Austin R. Nimocks
Brian W Raum
Charles J. Cooper
PRO HAC VICE
David H. Thompson

PRO HAC VICE
James A Campbell
PRO HAC VICE
Jesse Panuccio
PRO HAC VICE
Jordan W. Lorence
Peter A. Patterson
PRO HAC VICE
Timothy D Chandler
Intervenor Dft
Martin F. Gutierrez represented by Andrew Perry Pugno
Austin R. Nimocks
Brian W Raum
Charles J. Cooper
PRO HAC VICE
David H. Thompson

PRO HAC VICE
James A Campbell
PRO HAC VICE
Jesse Panuccio
PRO HAC VICE
Jordan W. Lorence
Peter A. Patterson
PRO HAC VICE
Timothy D Chandler
Intervenor Dft
Hak-Shing William Tam represented by Andrew Perry Pugno
Austin R. Nimocks
801 G Street NW
(202) 393-8690
Brian W Raum
Charles J. Cooper
PRO HAC VICE
David H. Thompson

PRO HAC VICE
James A Campbell

PRO HAC VICE
Jesse Panuccio
PRO HAC VICE
Jordan W. Lorence
801 G Street NW
(202) 393-8690
Peter A. Patterson
PRO HAC VICE
Timothy D Chandler
Intervenor Dft
Mark A. Jansson represented by Andrew Perry Pugno
Austin R. Nimocks
Brian W Raum
Charles J. Cooper
PRO HAC VICE
David H. Thompson

PRO HAC VICE

James A Campbell
PRO HAC VICE
Jesse Panuccio
PRO HAC VICE
Jordan W. Lorence
Peter A. Patterson
PRO HAC VICE
Timothy D Chandler
Intervenor Dft
ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A represented by Andrew Perry Pugno
Project of California Renewal (See above for address)
Austin R. Nimocks
Brian W Raum
Charles J. Cooper
PRO HAC VICE
David H. Thompson

PRO HAC VICE

James A Campbell
PRO HAC VICE
Jordan W. Lorence
Peter A. Patterson
PRO HAC VICE
Timothy D Chandler
Intervenor Dft
Campaign for California Families represented by Jesse Panuccio
PRO HAC VICE
Mary Elizabeth McAlister

Liberty Counsel
100 Mountain View Rd Ste 2775
Lynchburg, VA 24502
434-592-7000
Email: court@lc.org
Rena M Lindevaldsen
Liberty Counsel
100 Mountainview Rd, Ste 2775
Lynchberg, VA 24502
434-592-7000
PRO HAC VICE
Amicus
City and County of San Francisco represented by Christine Van Aken
Office of the City Attorney
1390 Market St, 7th Floor
415-554-3875
Fax: 415-554-3985
Email: christine.van.aken@sfgov.org
Danny Yeh Chou

San Francisco City Attorney's Office
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
415-554-4655
Email: danny.chou@sfgov.org
Erin Brianna Bernstein

Office of the City Attorney of San
Francisco
1390 Market Street, 7th Floor
(415) 554-3975
Email: Erin.Bernstein@sfgov.org
Ronald P. Flynn
Office of the City Attorney
1390 Market Street, Seventh Floor
415 554-3901
Fax: 415 554-3985
Email: ronald.flynn@sfgov.org
Amicus
ACLU Foundation of Northern represented by Alan Lawrence Schlosser
California ACLU Foundation of Northern California,
Inc.
39 Drumm Street
415-621-2493
Fax: 415-255-8437
Email: aschlosser@aclunc.org
Elizabeth O. Gill
American Civil Liberties Union of No.
Calif.
39 Drumm Street
415-621-2493
Fax: 415-255-8437
Email: egill@aclunc.org
Amicus
Equality California represented by James J. Brosnahan
Morrison & Foerster LLP
425 Market Street
415-268-7000
Fax: 415-268-7522
Email: jbrosnahan@mofo.com
Tobias Barrington Wolff

University of Pennsylvania Law School
3400 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6204
(215) 898-7471
PRO HAC VICE
Amicus
National Center for Lesbian Rights represented by Shannon Minter
LEAD ATTORNEY

415-392-6257

Amicus
Most Rev. Dr. Mark S. Shirlau
Date Filed # Docket Text

05/22/2009 1 COMPLAINT for Declaratory, Injunctive or other Relief - [Summons Issued]
against Arnold Schwarzenegger, Edmund G. Brown, Jr, Mark B. Horton,
Linette Scott, Patrick O'Connell & Dean C. Logan, [Filing Fee: $350.00,
Receipt Number 34611032459] Filed by Plaintiffs Sandra B. Stier, Kristin M.
Perry, Paul T. Katami & Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on
5/22/2009) (tn, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on
5/26/2009: # 1 Complaint) (tn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/2009)
05/22/2009 2 SUMMONS Issued as to Defendants Arnold Schwarzenegger, Edmund G.

Brown, Jr, Mark B. Horton, Linette Scott, Patrick O'Connell & Dean C. Logan.
(tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2009) (tn, COURT STAFF). (Entered:
05/26/2009)
05/22/2009 3 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Joint Case Management Statement due
8/27/2009 & InitialCase Management Conference set for 9/3/2009 at 3:30
PM.. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2009) (tn, COURT STAFF). (Entered:
05/26/2009)
05/22/2009 4 CERTIFICATION of Interested Entities or Persons Filed by Plaintiffs Sandra
B. Stier, Kristin M. Perry, Paul T. Katami & Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (tn, COURT
STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2009) (tn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/2009)
05/22/2009 5 APPLICATION of Attorney Matthew D. McGill for Leave to Appear in Pro Hac
Vice -[Filing Fee: $210.00, Receipt Number 34611032460] Filed by Plaintiffs
Sandra B. Stier, Kristin M. Perry, Paul T. Katami & Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (tn,
COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2009) (tn, COURT STAFF). (Entered:
05/26/2009)
05/22/2009 6 [Proposed] Order Granting re 5 Application for Admission of AttorneyPro Hac
Vice Submitted by Plaintiffs Sandra B. Stier, Kristin M. Perry, Paul T. Katami &
Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2009) (tn, COURT
STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/2009)
05/22/2009 CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered:
05/26/2009)
05/26/2009 18 MOTION of David Boies for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 210,
receipt number 34611032473.) filed by Sandra B. Stier, Kristin M. Perry, Paul
T. Katami, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/26/2009) (gsa,
COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/29/2009)
05/27/2009 7 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Sandra B. Stier, Kristin M. Perry,
Paul T. Katami, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. Motion Hearing set for 7/2/2009 10:00 AM in
Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Katami
Declaration, # 2 Affidavit Perry Declaration, # 3 Affidavit Stier Declaration, # 4
Affidavit Zarrillo Declaration, # 5 Proposed Order Granting Preliminary
Injunction)(Boutrous, Theodore) (Filed on 5/27/2009) (Entered: 05/27/2009)
05/28/2009 8 MOTION to Intervene filed by Proposition 8 Official Proponents, Dennis
Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Hak-Shing William Tam,
Mark A. Jansson, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of California
Renewal. Motion Hearing set for 7/2/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th
Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C,
# 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9
Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14
Exhibit N, # 15 Proposed Order, # 16 Certificate of Service)(Chandler,
Timothy) (Filed on 5/28/2009) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
05/28/2009 9 Proposed Intervenors' ANSWER to Complaint byDennis Hollingsworth, Gail J.
Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Hak-Shing William Tam, Mark A. Jansson,
ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal.
(Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Chandler, Timothy) (Filed on

5/28/2009) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
05/28/2009 10 Certificate of Interested Entities by Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight,
Martin F. Gutierrez, Hak-Shing William Tam, Mark A. Jansson,
ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal
(Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Chandler, Timothy) (Filed on
5/28/2009) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
05/29/2009 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Sandra B. Stier, Kristin M. Perry, Paul T.
Katami, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo OF SUMMONS, COMPLAINT, MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, etc., ON EDMUND G. BROWN (Dettmer,
Ethan) (Filed on 5/29/2009) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, etc., ON PATRICK O'CONNELL (Dettmer,
Ethan) (Filed on 5/29/2009) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, etc., ON ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER
(Dettmer, Ethan) (Filed on 5/29/2009) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, etc., ON MARK B. HORTON (Dettmer, Ethan)
(Filed on 5/29/2009) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, etc., ON LINETTE SCOTT (Dettmer, Ethan)
(Filed on 5/29/2009) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, etc., ON DEAN C. LOGAN (Dettmer, Ethan)
(Filed on 5/29/2009) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
05/29/2009 17 ORDER by Chief Judge Vaughn R Walker granting doc 5 Motion Application
for Admission of Attorney Matthew McGill Pro Hac Vice representing the
Plaintiffs. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/29/2009) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
06/01/2009 19 ORDER by Judge Vaughn R Walker granting 18 Motion Application for
Admission of Attorney David Boies Pro Hac Vice representing Plaintiffs. (cgk,
COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2009) (Entered: 06/01/2009)
06/01/2009 20 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice - James A. Campbell ( Filing fee
$ 210, receipt number 34611032700.). (gsa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on
6/1/2009) (Entered: 06/05/2009)
06/01/2009 21 Proposed Order re 20 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee
6/1/2009) (Entered: 06/05/2009)

06/01/2009 22 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice - Brian W. Raum ( Filing fee $
210, receipt number 34611032701.). (gsa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on
6/1/2009) (Entered: 06/05/2009)
06/01/2009 23 Proposed Order re 22 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee
6/1/2009) (Entered: 06/05/2009)
06/09/2009 24 ORDER by Chief Judge Vaughn R Walker granting 20 Motion Application for
Admission of Attorney James A Campbell Pro Hac Vice representing
Proposed Intervenors. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/9/2009) (Entered:
06/09/2009)
06/09/2009 25 ORDER by Chief Judge Vaughn R Walker granting 22 Motion Application for
Admission of Attorney Brian W Raum Pro Hac Vice representing Proposed
Intervenors. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/9/2009) (Entered: 06/09/2009)
06/09/2009 26 Letter from Bill Plummer to the Honorable Judge Walker regarding Alliance
Defense Fund hearing 7/2/2009. (gsa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/9/2009)
(Entered: 06/10/2009)
06/11/2009 27 Statement of No Position to the 7 Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Dean C.
Logan. (Whitehurst, Judy) (Filed on 6/11/2009) Modified on 6/15/2009 (slh,
06/11/2009 28 Statement of No Position to 8 Motion to Intervene by Dean C. Logan.
(Whitehurst, Judy) (Filed on 6/11/2009) Modified on 6/15/2009 (slh, COURT
06/11/2009 29 Certificate of Interested Entities by Dean C. Logan (Whitehurst, Judy) (Filed
on 6/11/2009) (Entered: 06/11/2009)
06/11/2009 30 RESPONSE in Support re 7 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Defendant
Patrick O'Connell's Statement of Non-Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction and Certificate of Service filed byPatrick O'Connell.
(Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Kolm, Claude) (Filed on 6/11/2009)
(Entered: 06/11/2009)
06/11/2009 31 Statement of Non-Opposition to Proposed Intervenors' 8 Motion to Intervene
by Paul T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Olson,
Theodore) (Filed on 6/11/2009) Modified on 6/15/2009 (slh, COURT STAFF).
(Entered: 06/11/2009)
06/11/2009 32 Statement of Non-Opposition re 8 MOTION to Intervene filed byMark B.
Horton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linette Scott. (Related document(s) 8 )
(Mennemeier, Kenneth) (Filed on 6/11/2009) (Entered: 06/11/2009)
06/11/2009 33 Memorandum in Opposition re 7 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed
byMark B. Horton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linette Scott. (Mennemeier,
Kenneth) (Filed on 6/11/2009) (Entered: 06/11/2009)
06/11/2009 34 MEMORANDUM in Opposition Attorney General's Opposition to Plaintiffs' 7
Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Pachter,

Tamar) (Filed on 6/11/2009) Modified on 6/15/2009 (slh, COURT STAFF).
(Entered: 06/11/2009)
06/11/2009 35 Statement of Non-Opposition Defendant's Notice of Non-Opposition to
Proposed Intervenors' 8 Motion to Intervene filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
(Pachter, Tamar) (Filed on 6/11/2009) Modified on 6/15/2009 (slh, COURT
06/11/2009 36 Memorandum in Opposition re 7 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed
byMartin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight,
ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal, Hak-Shing
William Tam. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4
Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Proposed Order, # 8 Certificate of
Service)(Raum, Brian) (Filed on 6/11/2009) (Entered: 06/11/2009)
06/12/2009 37 Statement of Non-Opposition To 8 Proposed Intervenors' Motion to Intervene
filed byPatrick O'Connell. (Kolm, Claude) (Filed on 6/12/2009) Modified on
6/15/2009 (gsa, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/12/2009)
06/12/2009 38 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Patrick O'Connell re 37 Statement of Non-
Opposition To Proposed Intervenors' Motion to Intervene (Kolm, Claude)
(Filed on 6/12/2009) (Entered: 06/12/2009)
06/12/2009 39 ANSWER to Complaint of California Attorney General byEdmund G. Brown,
Jr. (Pachter, Tamar) (Filed on 6/12/2009) (Entered: 06/12/2009)
06/15/2009 40 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Edmund G. Brown, Jr (Pachter, Tamar) (Filed
on 6/15/2009) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
06/15/2009 41 ANSWER to Complaint byDean C. Logan. (Whitehurst, Judy) (Filed on
6/15/2009) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
06/15/2009 44 MOTION of Austin R. Nimocks for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee
$ 210, receipt number 34611033246) filed by Martin F. Gutierrez, Dennis
Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight, Proposition 8 Official
Proponents, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal,
Hak-Shing William Tam. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(slh, COURT
STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2009) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
06/15/2009 45 MOTION of Jordan W. Lorence for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee
06/16/2009 42 ANSWER to Complaint byPatrick O'Connell. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of
Service)(Kolm, Claude) (Filed on 6/16/2009) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
06/16/2009 43 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Patrick O'Connell re 30 Response in Support,
(Kolm, Claude) (Filed on 6/16/2009) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
06/16/2009 46 The Administration's ANSWER to Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive, or
Other Relief byMark B. Horton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linette Scott.

06/17/2009 47 Statement of Non-Opposition re Plantiff's 7 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction
filed by Patrick O'Connell. (Related document(s) 7 ) (slh, COURT STAFF)
(Filed on 6/17/2009) (Entered: 06/17/2009)
06/17/2009 48 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Patrick O'Connell re 47 Statement of Non-
Opposition. (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2009) (Entered: 06/17/2009)
06/17/2009 49 CLERKS NOTICE re: Failure to E-File and/or Failure to Register as an E-Filer
re 47 , 48 . (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2009) (Entered: 06/17/2009)
06/18/2009 50 MOTION to File Amicus Curiae Brief filed by City and County of San
Francisco. Motion Hearing set for 7/2/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th
Floor, San Francisco. (Van Aken, Christine) (Filed on 6/18/2009) (Entered:
06/18/2009)
06/18/2009 51 Proposed Order re 50 MOTION to File Amicus Curiae Brief by City and
County of San Francisco. (Van Aken, Christine) (Filed on 6/18/2009) (Entered:
06/18/2009)
06/18/2009 52 Reply Memorandum re 7 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed byPaul T.
Katami, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Olson, Theodore)
(Filed on 6/18/2009) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
06/18/2009 53 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Christine Van Aken on behalf of
City and County of San Francisco. (Van Aken, Christine) (Filed on 6/18/2009)
(Entered: 06/18/2009)
06/18/2009 54 Declaration of Mollie M. Lee in Support of 53 Amicus Curiae Appearance filed
byCity and County of San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - J)(Related
document(s) 53 ) (Van Aken, Christine) (Filed on 6/18/2009) (Entered:
06/18/2009)
06/19/2009 55 MOTION of Howard C. Nielson, Jr. for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (Filing
fee $ 210, receipt number 34611033459) filed by Martin F. Gutierrez, Dennis
06/19/2009 56 MOTION of Charles J. Cooper for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee
06/19/2009 57 MOTION of David H. Thompson for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee

06/19/2009 58 MOTION of Peter A. Patterson for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee
06/23/2009 59 MOTION to Appear by Telephone filed by Dean C. Logan. Motion Hearing set
for 7/2/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco.
(Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Whitehurst, Judy) (Filed on 6/23/2009)
(Entered: 06/23/2009)
06/25/2009 60 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Elizabeth O. Gill on behalf of ACLU
Foundation of Northern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gill,
Elizabeth) (Filed on 6/25/2009) (Entered: 06/25/2009)
06/25/2009 61 MOTION to File Amicus Curiae Brief filed by ACLU Foundation of Northern
California. Motion Hearing set for 7/2/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th
Floor, San Francisco. (Gill, Elizabeth) (Filed on 6/25/2009) (Entered:
06/25/2009)
06/25/2009 62 Brief re 61 MOTION to File Amicus Curiae Brief filed byACLU Foundation of
Northern California. (Related document(s) 61 ) (Gill, Elizabeth) (Filed on
6/25/2009) (Entered: 06/25/2009)
06/25/2009 63 MOTION of Tobias Barrington Wolff for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (Filing
fee $ 210, receipt number 34611033644) filed by Equality California.
(Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2009)
(Entered: 06/26/2009)
06/26/2009 64 MOTION for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae Equality California filed by
Equality California. Motion Hearing set for 7/2/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6,
17th Floor, San Francisco. (Brosnahan, James) (Filed on 6/26/2009) (Entered:
06/26/2009)
06/26/2009 65 Brief re 64 MOTION for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae Equality
California Brief of Amicus Curiae Equality California filed byEquality California.
(Related document(s) 64 ) (Brosnahan, James) (Filed on 6/26/2009) (Entered:
06/26/2009)
06/26/2009 66 Proposed Order re 64 MOTION for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae
Equality California [Proposed] Order Granting Motion for Leave to File Brief of
Amicus Curiae Equality California by Equality California. (Brosnahan, James)
(Filed on 6/26/2009) (Entered: 06/26/2009)
06/26/2009 91 MOTION to Intervene filed by Campaign for California Families. Motion
Hearing set for 9/3/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco.
(gsa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2009) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
06/26/2009 92 Declaration of Randy Thomasson in Support of 91 MOTION to Intervene filed
byCampaign for California Families. (Related document(s) 91 ) (gsa, COURT

06/26/2009 93 Proposed Order re 91 MOTION to Intervene by Campaign for California
Families. (gsa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2009) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
06/27/2009 67 ORDER by Judge Vaughn R Walker granting 50 motion to File Amicus Curiae
Brief (vrwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2009) (Entered: 06/27/2009)
06/27/2009 68 ORDER by Judge Vaughn R Walker granting 61 motion to File Amicus Curiae
Brief (vrwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2009) (Entered: 06/27/2009)
06/27/2009 69 ORDER by Judge Vaughn R Walker granting 64 motion for Leave to File
(vrwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2009) (Entered: 06/27/2009)
06/30/2009 70 ORDER by Judge Vaughn R Walker granting doc 55 Motion Application for
Admission of Attorney Howard C Nielson Jr. Pro Hac Vice representing
Proposed Intervernors. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2009) (Entered:
06/30/2009)
Admission of Attorney Charles J Cooper Pro Hac Vice representing Proposed
Admission of Attorney David H Thompson Pro Hac Vice representing
Proposed Intervenors. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2009) (Entered:
06/30/2009)
Admission of Attorney Peter A Patterson Pro Hac Vice representing Proposed
06/30/2009 74 ORDER by Judge Vaughn R Walker granting doc 59 Motion to Appear by
Telephone. Defendant's counsel may listen to the proceedings at the 7/2/09
hearing. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2009) (Entered: 06/30/2009)
Admission of Attorney Tobias Barrington Wolff Pro Hac Vice representing
amicus curiae Equality California. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2009)
(Entered: 06/30/2009)
06/30/2009 76 ORDER granting 8 Motion to Intervene, continuing hearing on preliminary
injunction in favor of a case management conference on 7/2/2009 at 10AM.
07/02/2009 77 Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 7/2/2009, Motion
Hearing held on 7/2/2009 before Chief Judge Vaughn R Walker re 7 MOTION
for Preliminary Injunction filed by Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo, Paul T.
Katami, Kristin M. Perry. The Court heard argument from counsel. The parties
to submit joint case management statement no later than August 7, 2009.The
matter is scheduled for further hearing on August 19, 2009 at 10:00 AM.
(Court Reporter Sahar McVickar.) (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed:
7/2/2009) (Entered: 07/06/2009)
07/02/2009 Set/Reset Hearings: Further Case Management Conference set for 8/19/2009
10:00 AM. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2009) (Entered: 07/06/2009)
07/02/2009 101 Letter from Citizen X (anonymous voter) to Chief Judge Vaughn Walker dated
6/22/2009. (gsa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2009) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
07/08/2009 78 Transcript of Proceedings held on 07/02/09, before Judge Vaughn R. Walker.
Court Reporter/Transcriber Sahar McVickar, Telephone number (415) 626-
6060/sahar_mcvickar@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and
Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks
Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court
Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript
Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of
Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days
from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/5/2009.
(McVickar, Sahar) (Filed on 7/8/2009) (Entered: 07/08/2009)
07/08/2009 79 MOTION to Intervene filed by ACLU Foundation of Northern California. Motion
Hearing set for 9/3/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco.
(Gill, Elizabeth) (Filed on 7/8/2009) (Entered: 07/08/2009)
07/08/2009 80 Declaration of Elizabeth Gill in Support of 79 MOTION to Intervene filed
byACLU Foundation of Northern California. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
Complaint in Intervention)(Related document(s) 79 ) (Gill, Elizabeth) (Filed on
7/8/2009) (Entered: 07/08/2009)
07/08/2009 81 Declaration of Judith K. Appel in Support of 79 MOTION to Intervene filed
byACLU Foundation of Northern California. (Related document(s) 79 ) (Gill,
Elizabeth) (Filed on 7/8/2009) (Entered: 07/08/2009)
07/08/2009 82 Declaration in Support of 79 MOTION to Intervene filed byACLU Foundation
of Northern California. (Related document(s) 79 ) (Gill, Elizabeth) (Filed on
7/8/2009) (Entered: 07/08/2009)
07/08/2009 83 Declaration of Jody Huckaby filed byACLU Foundation of Northern California.
07/08/2009 84 Proposed Order re 79 MOTION to Intervene by ACLU Foundation of Northern
California. (Gill, Elizabeth) (Filed on 7/8/2009) (Entered: 07/08/2009)
07/08/2009 85 MOTION to Shorten Time filed by ACLU Foundation of Northern California.
07/08/2009 86 Declaration of Elizabeth Gill filed byACLU Foundation of Northern California.
07/09/2009 87 NOTICE of Appearance by Alan Lawrence Schlosser (Schlosser, Alan) (Filed
on 7/9/2009) (Entered: 07/09/2009)
07/09/2009 88 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 85 MOTION to Shorten Time filed byPaul T.
Katami, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Related
document(s) 85 ) (Olson, Theodore) (Filed on 7/9/2009) (Entered: 07/09/2009)
07/10/2009 89 Memorandum in Opposition re 85 MOTION to Shorten Time filed byMartin F.
Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight,

William Tam. (Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 7/10/2009) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
07/10/2009 90 Declaration of Charles J. Cooper in Support of 89 Memorandum in Opposition,
filed byMartin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J.
Knight, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal, Hak-
Shing William Tam. (Related document(s) 89 ) (Cooper, Charles) (Filed on
7/10/2009) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
07/10/2009 94 NOTICE of Appearance by Christopher Francis Stoll (Stoll, Christopher) (Filed
on 7/10/2009) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
07/10/2009 95 Statement of Non-Opposition to Proposed Intervenors Our Families Coalition,
et al.'s Motion to Intervene and Motion to Shorten Time filed byEdmund G.
Brown, Jr. (Pachter, Tamar) (Filed on 7/10/2009) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
07/10/2009 96 NOTICE of Appearance by Shannon Minter (Minter, Shannon) (Filed on
7/10/2009) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
07/10/2009 97 NOTICE of Appearance by Ilona Margaret Turner (Turner, Ilona) (Filed on
7/10/2009) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
07/10/2009 98 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Gordon Bruce Burns (Attachments: # 1
Certificate of Service)(Burns, Gordon) (Filed on 7/10/2009) (Entered:
07/10/2009)
07/13/2009 99 NOTICE by Edmund G. Brown, Jr re 98 Notice of Change In Counsel
Certificate of Service (Burns, Gordon) (Filed on 7/13/2009) (Entered:
07/13/2009)
07/13/2009 100 Statement of Non-Opposition re 85 MOTION to Shorten Time Defendant
Patrick O'Connell's Statement of Non-Opposition to Motion to Shorten Time
and Motion to Intervene Filed by Our Family Coalition, Lavender Seniors of
the East Bay, and Parents, Friends, and Families of Lesbians and Gays filed
byPatrick O'Connell. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Related
document(s) 85 ) (Kolm, Claude) (Filed on 7/13/2009) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
07/13/2009 102 NOTICE of Appearance by James Dixon Esseks (Esseks, James) (Filed on
7/13/2009) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
07/13/2009 103 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew Albert Coles (Coles, Matthew) (Filed on
7/13/2009) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
07/13/2009 104 ORDER re motions to intervene. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on
7/13/2009) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
07/13/2009 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion. Motion Hearing re Docs #79 and 91 set for
8/19/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (cgk, COURT
Admission of Attorney Austin R. Nimocks Pro Hac Vice representing proposed
intervenors. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/14/2009) (Entered: 07/14/2009)
Admission of Attorney Jordan W. Lorence Pro Hac Vice representing
proposed intervenors. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/14/2009) (Entered:
07/14/2009)
07/21/2009 107 NOTICE of Appearance by Jennifer Carol Pizer (Pizer, Jennifer) (Filed on
7/21/2009) (Entered: 07/21/2009)
07/21/2009 108 NOTICE of Appearance by Jon Warren Davidson (Davidson, Jon) (Filed on
7/21/2009) (Entered: 07/21/2009)
07/23/2009 109 MOTION to Intervene Notice of Motion and Motion to Intervene as Party
Plaintiff; Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by City and County of
San Francisco. Motion Hearing set for 8/19/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6,
17th Floor, San Francisco. (Bernstein, Erin) (Filed on 7/23/2009) (Entered:
07/23/2009)
07/23/2009 110 Declaration of Erin Bernstein in Support of 109 MOTION to Intervene Notice of
Motion and Motion to Intervene as Party Plaintiff; Memorandum of Points and
Authorities Declaration of Erin Bernstein regarding Electronic Signatures on
Documents Filed in Support of Motion to Intervene as Party Plaintiff filed
byCity and County of San Francisco. (Related document(s) 109 ) (Bernstein,
Erin) (Filed on 7/23/2009) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
07/23/2009 111 Declaration of Therese M. Stewart in Support of 109 MOTION to Intervene
Notice of Motion and Motion to Intervene as Party Plaintiff; Memorandum of
Points and Authorities filed byCity and County of San Francisco.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3,
# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit
Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 8A, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 8B, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 9,
# 11 Exhibit Exhibit 10A, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit 10B, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit 11, # 14
Exhibit Exhibit 12A, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit 12B, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit 13, # 17
Exhibit Exhibit 18)(Related document(s) 109 ) (Bernstein, Erin) (Filed on
7/23/2009) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
07/23/2009 112 Proposed Order re 109 MOTION to Intervene Notice of Motion and Motion to
Intervene as Party Plaintiff; Memorandum of Points and Authorities [Proposed]
Order Granting Motion to Intervene by City and County of San Francisco.
(Bernstein, Erin) (Filed on 7/23/2009) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
07/24/2009 128 MOTION to File Amicus Curiae Brief filed by Mark S. Shirlau. (gsa, COURT
07/24/2009 129 Brief re 128 MOTION to File Amicus Curiae Brief filed byMark S. Shirlau.
(Attachments: # 1 2nd half of brief)(Related document(s) 128 ) (gsa, COURT

07/28/2009 115 Statement of Non-Opposition re 109 MOTION to Intervene Notice of Motion
and Motion to Intervene as Party Plaintiff; Memorandum of Points and
Authorities filed byMark B. Horton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linette Scott.
(Related document(s) 109 ) (Mennemeier, Kenneth) (Filed on 7/28/2009)
(Entered: 07/28/2009)
07/28/2009 116 Statement of Non-Opposition re 91 MOTION to Intervene Defendant Patrick
O'Connell's Statement of Non-Opposition to Motion to Intervene Filed by
Campaign for California Families filed byPatrick O'Connell. (Attachments: # 1
Certificate of Service)(Related document(s) 91 ) (Kolm, Claude) (Filed on
7/28/2009) (Entered: 07/28/2009)
Authorities Defendant Patrick O'Connell's Statement of Non-Opposition to
Motion to Intervene Filed by the City and County of San Francisco filed
byPatrick O'Connell. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Related
document(s) 109 ) (Kolm, Claude) (Filed on 7/28/2009) (Entered: 07/28/2009)
07/29/2009 118 *** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 121 . ***
MOTION to Intervene OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Motion Hearing set for 8/19/2009 10:00 AM in
Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Pachter, Tamar) (Filed on
7/29/2009) Modified on 7/29/2009 (feriab, COURT STAFF). Modified on
7/30/2009 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/29/2009)
07/29/2009 119 *** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 122 . ***
MOTION to Intervene OF CAMPAIGN FOR CALIFORNIA FAMILIES filed by
Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Motion Hearing set for 8/19/2009 10:00 AM in
Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Pachter, Tamar) (Filed on
7/29/2009) Modified on 7/29/2009 (feriab, COURT STAFF). Modified on
7/30/2009 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/29/2009)
07/29/2009 120 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Edmund G. Brown, Jr (Pachter, Tamar) (Filed
on 7/29/2009) (Entered: 07/29/2009)
Authorities filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 109 )
(Pachter, Tamar) (Filed on 7/29/2009) (Entered: 07/29/2009)
07/29/2009 122 Statement of Non-Opposition re 91 MOTION to Intervene filed byEdmund G.
Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 91 ) (Pachter, Tamar) (Filed on 7/29/2009)
(Entered: 07/29/2009)
08/03/2009 123 Statement re 79 MOTION to Intervene Statement of No Position by Dean C.
Logan. (Whitehurst, Judy) (Filed on 8/3/2009) (Entered: 08/03/2009)
08/03/2009 124 Statement re 109 MOTION to Intervene Notice of Motion and Motion to
Intervene as Party Plaintiff; Memorandum of Points and Authorities -

Statement of No Position by Dean C. Logan. (Whitehurst, Judy) (Filed on
8/3/2009) (Entered: 08/03/2009)
08/03/2009 125 Statement re 91 MOTION to Intervene - Statement of No Position by Dean C.
Logan. (Whitehurst, Judy) (Filed on 8/3/2009) (Entered: 08/03/2009)
08/03/2009 130 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 210, receipt
number 34611035060.) filed by Campaign for California Families. (gsa,
08/03/2009 131 Proposed Order - Rena M. Lindecaldsen re 130 MOTION for leave to appear
in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 210, receipt number 34611035060.) by
Campaign for California Families. (gsa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2009)
(Entered: 08/07/2009)
08/07/2009 126 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint Case Management Statement filed
by Dean C. Logan and Patrick O'Connell filed by Dean C. Logan. (Whitehurst,
Judy) (Filed on 8/7/2009) (Entered: 08/07/2009)
08/07/2009 127 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case Management Statement of The
Attorney General filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Pachter, Tamar) (Filed on
8/7/2009) (Entered: 08/07/2009)
08/07/2009 132 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Mark B. Horton, Arnold
Schwarzenegger, Linette Scott. (Stroud, Andrew) (Filed on 8/7/2009)
(Entered: 08/07/2009)
08/07/2009 133 NOTICE of Appearance by Tara Lynn Borelli (Borelli, Tara) (Filed on
8/7/2009) (Entered: 08/07/2009)
08/07/2009 134 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Paul T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry,
Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Olson, Theodore) (Filed on 8/7/2009)
(Entered: 08/07/2009)
08/07/2009 135 Memorandum in Opposition re 79 MOTION to Intervene, 109 MOTION to
Intervene Notice of Motion and Motion to Intervene as Party Plaintiff;
Memorandum of Points and Authorities, 91 MOTION to Intervene filed byPaul
T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit A)(Olson, Theodore) (Filed on 8/7/2009) (Entered: 08/07/2009)
08/07/2009 136 Memorandum in Opposition re 91 MOTION to Intervene filed byEdmund G.
Brown, Jr, Martin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J.
Knight, Proposition 8 Official Proponents, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A
Project of California Renewal, Hak-Shing William Tam. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit Exh. A - Declaration of James A. Campbell, # 2 Exhibit Exh. B -
VoteYesMarriage.com Amendment Comparison, # 3 Exhibit Exh. C - Bennet
v. Brown, No. S164520, # 4 Exhibit Exh. D - 11/18/08 Letter Brief to the
California Supreme Court)(Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 8/7/2009) Modified on
8/10/2009 (gsa, COURT STAFF). Modified on 8/10/2009 (gsa, COURT
08/07/2009 137 Memorandum in Opposition re 109 MOTION to Intervene Notice of Motion and
Motion to Intervene as Party Plaintiff; Memorandum of Points and Authorities

filed byMartin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J.
Knight, Proposition 8 Official Proponents, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A
Project of California Renewal, Hak-Shing William Tam. (Cooper, Charles)
(Filed on 8/7/2009) Modified on 8/10/2009 (gsa, COURT STAFF). Modified on
8/10/2009 (gsa, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/07/2009)
08/07/2009 138 Memorandum in Opposition re 79 MOTION to Intervene filed byMartin F.
Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight, Proposition
8 Official Proponents, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of California
Renewal, Hak-Shing William Tam. (Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 8/7/2009)
Modified on 8/10/2009 (gsa, COURT STAFF). Modified on 8/10/2009 (gsa,
08/07/2009 139 Statement of Case Management by Martin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth,
Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight, Proposition 8 Official Proponents,
William Tam. (Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 8/7/2009) (Entered: 08/07/2009)
Admission of Attorney Rena M Lindevaldsen Pro Hac Vice representing
proposed intervenor The Campaign. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on
8/11/2009) (Entered: 08/11/2009)
08/12/2009 141 ORDER to submit joint or separate case management statements not later
than August 17, 2009 at noon PDT. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on
8/12/2009) (Entered: 08/12/2009)
08/12/2009 142 NOTICE of Change of Address by Jordan W. Lorence (Lorence, Jordan)
(Filed on 8/12/2009) (Entered: 08/12/2009)
08/12/2009 143 NOTICE of Change of Address by Austin R. Nimocks (Nimocks, Austin) (Filed
on 8/12/2009) (Entered: 08/12/2009)
08/13/2009 144 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options and
Certificate of Service (Kolm, Claude) (Filed on 8/13/2009) (Entered:
08/13/2009)
08/13/2009 145 NOTICE of need for ADR Phone Conference (ADR L.R. 3-5 d) re 144 ADR
Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b)of discussion of ADR options and Certificate of
Service re document 144 ) (Kolm, Claude) (Filed on 8/13/2009) (Entered:
08/13/2009)
08/13/2009 146 NOTICE of Appearance by Danny Yeh Chou (Chou, Danny) (Filed on
8/13/2009) (Entered: 08/13/2009)
08/14/2009 147 Reply Memorandum re 91 MOTION to Intervene filed byCampaign for
California Families. (McAlister, Mary) (Filed on 8/14/2009) (Entered:
08/14/2009)
08/14/2009 148 RESPONSE in Support CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S REPLY
IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO INTERVENE AS PARTY PLAINTIFF filed
byCity and County of San Francisco. (Chou, Danny) (Filed on 8/14/2009)
(Entered: 08/14/2009)
08/14/2009 149 RESPONSE in Support of Motion to Intervene filed byACLU Foundation of
Northern California. (Gill, Elizabeth) (Filed on 8/14/2009) (Entered:
08/14/2009)
08/14/2009 150 ASSOCIATION of Counsel Gary G. Kreep by Campaign for California
Families. (McAlister, Mary) (Filed on 8/14/2009) (Entered: 08/14/2009)
08/17/2009 151 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Campaign for California
Families. (McAlister, Mary) (Filed on 8/17/2009) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
08/17/2009 152 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (Supplemental) filed by Mark B. Horton,
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linette Scott. (Mennemeier, Kenneth) (Filed on
8/17/2009) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
08/17/2009 153 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
SUPPLEMENTAL CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Edmund G.
Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 certificate of service)(Pachter, Tamar) (Filed on
8/17/2009) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
08/17/2009 154 AMENDED 7/2/2009 CASE MANAGEMENT CIVIL MINUTE ORDER. (Court
Reporter Sahar McVickar.) (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/17/2009)
(Entered: 08/17/2009)
08/17/2009 155 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (Supplemental) filed by Dean C. Logan.
(Whitehurst, Judy) (Filed on 8/17/2009) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
08/17/2009 156 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Supplemental Case Management
Statement of Defendant PatrickO'Connell, Clerk-Recorder of Alameda County
and Certificate of Service filed by Patrick O'Connell. (Kolm, Claude) (Filed on
8/17/2009) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
08/17/2009 157 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (Supplemental) filed by Paul T. Katami,
Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
A)(Olson, Theodore) (Filed on 8/17/2009) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
08/17/2009 158 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by ACLU Foundation of Northern
California. (Gill, Elizabeth) (Filed on 8/17/2009) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
08/17/2009 159 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (Supplemental) filed by Dennis
Hollingsworth. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -- Proposed Stipulations, # 2
Exhibit B -- Responses to Proposed Stipulations)(Cooper, Charles) (Filed on
8/17/2009) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
08/18/2009 163 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice, Mathew D. Staver, Esq., ( Filing
fee $ 210, receipt number 346110035676.) filed by Campaign for California
Families. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2009) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
08/19/2009 160 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 8/19/2009 before Chief Judge Vaughn R
Walker. PROCEEDINGS and RESULTS: The Court heard argument from
counsels and ruled as follows: 1. Motion to intervene as party plaintiffs filed by
the Our Family coalition, Doc #79 - denied. 2.Motion for intervention as
intervenor-defendant filed by Campaign for California Families, Doc # 91 -
denied. 3. Motion to intervene filed by City and County of San Francisco, Doc
#109 - granted in part to allow San Francisco to present issue of alleged effect
on governmental interests. 4.Trial setting and scheduling as follows:a).
Designation of witnesses presenting evidence under FRE 702, 703 or 705 and
production of written reports pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(2)(B): October 2, 2009;
b). Dispositive motions to be served and filed so as to be heard on October
14, 2009 at 10 AM; c). Completion of all discovery, except for evidence
intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter
identified by another party under FRCP 26(a)(2)(B): November 30, 2009; d).
Completion of discovery on the same subject matter identified by another
party under FRCP 26(a)(2)(B): December 31, 2009; see FRCP 26(a)(2)(C)(ii);
e). Pretrial conference: December 16, 2009 at 10 AM; f). Trial: January 11,
2010 at 8:30 AM. 5. With respect to any disputes regarding discovery, counsel
are directed to comply with Civ LR 37-1(b) and the court's standing order 1.5.
6. In the absence of the assigned judge, counsel are directed to bring any
discovery disputes before Magistrate Judge Joseph C Spero. (Court Reporter
Belle Ball.) (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/19/2009) (Entered:
08/19/2009)
08/19/2009 Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 10/14/2009 10:00 AM in
Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Pretrial Conference set for
12/16/2009 10:00 AM. Trial set for 1/11/2010 08:30 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th
Floor, San Francisco. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2009) (Entered:
08/19/2009)
08/20/2009 161 COMPLAINT in Intervention for Declaratory, Injunctive or Other Relief against
Edmund G. Brown, Jr, Mark B. Horton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linette Scott
(Filing fee $ 350.). Filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Flynn, Ronald)
(Filed on 8/20/2009) (Entered: 08/20/2009)
08/21/2009 162 Transcript of Proceedings held on August 19, 2009, before Judge Vaughn R.
Walker. Court Reporter/Transcriber Belle Ball, CSR, RMR, CRR, Telephone
number (415)373-2529, belle_ball@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order
No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at
the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court
Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript
Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of
Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days
from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/16/2009.
(Ball, Belle) (Filed on 8/21/2009) (Entered: 08/21/2009)
08/24/2009 164 PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Judge Vaughn R Walker on
8/21/2009. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2009) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
08/26/2009 168 NOTICE OF APPEAL re 160 Civil Minute Order by Campaign for California
Families. Filing fee $ 455.00. Receipt Number 34611035917. (Attachments: #
1 Civil Appeals Docketing Statement, # 2 Representation Statement) (gba,
08/28/2009 165 ANSWER to Complaint byMartin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A.
Jansson, Gail J. Knight, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of
California Renewal, Hak-Shing William Tam. (Cooper, Charles) (Filed on
8/28/2009) (Entered: 08/28/2009)

08/28/2009 166 ANSWER to Complaint in intervention byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Pachter,
Tamar) (Filed on 8/28/2009) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
09/02/2009 167 STIPULATION to Extend Time for the Administration Defendants to File and
Serve Answer to Complaint in Intervention by Mark B. Horton, Arnold
Schwarzenegger, Linette Scott. (Mennemeier, Kenneth) (Filed on 9/2/2009)
(Entered: 09/02/2009)
09/02/2009 171 MOTION for Admission of Attorney Nicole J. Moss Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $
210.00, receipt number 34611036190) filed by Campaign for California
Families, Martin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J.
Knight, Lavender Seniors of the East Bay, Our Family Coalition, Parents,
Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, Proposition 8 Official
Hak-Shing William Tam. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2009) (Entered:
09/09/2009)
Admission of Attorney Mathew D. Staver Pro Hac Vice representing Proposed
Intervenor. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2009) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
09/04/2009 169 The Administration's ANSWER to Complaint in Intervention for Declaratory,
Injunctive or Other Relief byMark B. Horton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linette
Scott. (Mennemeier, Kenneth) (Filed on 9/4/2009) (Entered: 09/04/2009)
09/04/2009 170 STIPULATION AND ORDER granting a two-day extension of time in which to
file its answer to the City's Complaint in intervention for declaratory, injunctive
or other relief, re doc 167 filed by Mark B. Horton, Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Linette Scott. Signed by Judge Vaughn R Walker on 9/4/2009. (cgk, COURT
09/09/2009 172 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Martin F. Gutierrez, Dennis
Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on
8, A Project of California Renewal, Hak-Shing William Tam. Motion Hearing
set for 10/14/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco.
(Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1 - Defendant-Intervenors' Notice of Motion and
Motion for Summary Judgment, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, # 2 Exhibit A -- D.C. Superior
Court Opinion, # 3 Exhibit B -- California Laws, # 4 Exhibit C -- AG Brown
Brief, # 5 Exhibit D -- AB 205 Legislative History, # 6 Proposed Order Granting
Motion to Exceed Page Limit, # 7 Proposed Order Granting Motion for
Summary Judgment)(Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 9/9/2009) (Entered:
09/09/2009)
09/09/2009 173 Declaration of Nicole J. Moss in Support of 172 MOTION for Leave to File
Excess Pages filed byMartin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A.
Jansson, Gail J. Knight, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of
California Renewal, Hak-Shing William Tam. (Related document(s) 172 )
(Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 9/9/2009) (Entered: 09/09/2009)
09/10/2009 174 Memorandum in Opposition re 172 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages
filed byPaul T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo.

(Olson, Theodore) (Filed on 9/10/2009) (Entered: 09/10/2009)
09/10/2009 175 Letter from Charles J. Cooper to Court re Request for Leave to File Mot. for
Protective Order. (Attachments: # 1 Enclosure (RFPs), # 2 Enclosure (Ltr.), #
3 Enclosure (Ltr.))(Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 9/10/2009) (Entered:
09/10/2009)
09/10/2009 176 Declaration of Matthew D. McGill in Support of 174 Memorandum in
Opposition of Motion for Administrative Leave to Exceed Page Limitations filed
byPaul T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Related
document(s) 174 ) (Olson, Theodore) (Filed on 9/10/2009) (Entered:
09/10/2009)
09/10/2009 177 Proposed Order re 174 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for
Administrative Leave to Exceed Page Limitations by Paul T. Katami, Kristin M.
Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Olson, Theodore) (Filed on
9/10/2009) (Entered: 09/10/2009)
09/10/2009 178 ORDER clarifying discovery dates. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on
9/10/2009) (Entered: 09/10/2009)
09/10/2009 179 Memorandum in Opposition City and County of San Francisco's Opposition to
Defendant-Intervenors' Motion for Administrative Leave to Exceed Page
Limitations filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Flynn, Ronald) (Filed on
9/10/2009) (Entered: 09/10/2009)
09/10/2009 180 Declaration of Therese M. Stewart in Support of 179 Memorandum in
Opposition, Declaration of Therese M. Stewart re City and County of San
Francisco's Opposition to Defendant-Intervenors' Motion for Administrative
Leave to Exceed Page Limitations filed byCity and County of San Francisco.
(Related document(s) 179 ) (Flynn, Ronald) (Filed on 9/10/2009) (Entered:
09/10/2009)
09/11/2009 181 Letter from Ethan D. Dettmer re Request for Leave to File Mot. for Protective
Order. (Dettmer, Ethan) (Filed on 9/11/2009) (Entered: 09/11/2009)
09/11/2009 182 Letter from Therese M. Stewart. (Flynn, Ronald) (Filed on 9/11/2009)
(Entered: 09/11/2009)
09/11/2009 183 ORDER re 172 GRANTING defendant-intervenors' motion for leave to file
their motion papers. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2009) (Entered:
09/11/2009)
09/11/2009 184 ORDER re 175 181 182 . Defendant-intervenors shall file motion for protective
order not later than 9/15/09. Plaintiffs shall file their opposition not later than
9/18/09. Defendant-intervenors may file a reply not later than 9/22/09. The
court will hear the matter on 9/25/09 at 10AM. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed
on 9/11/2009) (Entered: 09/11/2009)
09/11/2009 185 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Richard J. Bettan ( Filing fee $
210, receipt number 34611036579.) filed by Paul T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry,
Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(far,

09/11/2009 186 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Joshua Schiller ( Filing fee $
210, receipt number 34611036577.) filed by Paul T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry,
09/15/2009 NOTICE of Hearing: Hearing on Defendant-Intervenors' motion for leave to file
a motion for a protective order, doc #175, set for 9/25/2009 10:00 AM in
Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on
9/15/2009) (Entered: 09/15/2009)
09/15/2009 187 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Martin F. Gutierrez, Dennis
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -- Reply Br. for Aplt., Citizens United v. FEC, # 2
Exhibit B -- Prentice Declaration, # 3 Exhibit C -- Plaintiffs' First Set of
Requests for Production, # 4 Exhibit D -- Defendant-Intervenors' Response to
Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production, # 5 Exhibit E -- Letter of August
27, 2009, # 6 Exhibit F -- Letter of August 31, 2009, # 7 Exhibit G -- Moss
Declaration, # 8 Exhibit H -- Doe v. Reec Opinion, # 9 Exhibit I -- Schubert
Declaration, # 10 Exhibit J -- Jannson Declaration, # 11 Exhibit K -- Articles
Discussing Negative Effects of Public Disclosure, # 12 Exhibit L -- Tam
Declaration, # 13 Exhibit M -- Toupis Declaration, # 14 Proposed Order)
(Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 9/15/2009) (Entered: 09/15/2009)
09/15/2009 188 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Rosanne C. Baxter ( Filing fee
$ 210, receipt number 34611036688.) filed by Paul T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry,
09/16/2009 189 USCA Case Number 09-16959 9th Circuit for 168 Notice of Appeal, filed by
Campaign for California Families. (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2009)
(Entered: 09/16/2009)
09/17/2009 190 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE DISCOVERY OF EXPERT
WITNESSES by Paul T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J.
Zarrillo. (Monagas, Enrique) (Filed on 9/17/2009) (Entered: 09/17/2009)
09/18/2009 191 Memorandum in Opposition re 187 MOTION for Protective Order filed byCity
and County of San Francisco, Paul T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B.
Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit
C)(Olson, Theodore) (Filed on 9/18/2009) (Entered: 09/18/2009)
Admission of Attorney Rosanne C. Baxter Pro Hac Vice representing
Plaintiffs. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2009) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
09/21/2009 194 Statement of Non-Opposition to 187 Defendant-Intervenors' Motion for
Protective Order filed byMark B. Horton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linette
Scott. (Mennemeier, Kenneth) (Filed on 9/21/2009) Modified on 9/22/2009
(far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/21/2009)
09/21/2009 195 Letter from The Administration Formal Written Request to Appear by
Telephone at the Hearing on Defendant-Intervenors' Motion for Protective
Order. (Mennemeier, Kenneth) (Filed on 9/21/2009) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
09/22/2009 196 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY OF EXPERT
WITNESSES re doc 190 filed by Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo, Paul T.
Katami, Kristin M. Perry. Signed by Chief Judge Vaughn R Walker on
9/22/2009. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2009) (Entered: 09/22/2009)
09/22/2009 197 Reply Memorandum re 187 MOTION for Protective Order filed byMartin F.
Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight, Proposition
8 Official Proponents, Hak-Shing William Tam. (Attachments: # 1 Index of
Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit
E, # 7 Exhibit F)(Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 9/22/2009) (Entered: 09/22/2009)
09/22/2009 198 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Jesse Panuccio ( Filing fee $
210, receipt number 34611036917.) filed by Campaign for California Families,
Martin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight,
William Tam. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(far, COURT STAFF) (Filed
on 9/22/2009) (Entered: 09/23/2009)
09/23/2009 199 Statement in Response to Defendant-Intervenors' Motion for Summary
Judgment by Mark B. Horton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linette Scott.
09/23/2009 200 Joinder Defendant Attorney General's Joinder in Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-
Intervenors Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment by Edmund G.
Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Burns, Gordon) (Filed on
9/23/2009) (Entered: 09/23/2009)
09/23/2009 201 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Amendment to 200
Joinder Amended Certificate of Service. (Burns, Gordon) (Filed on 9/23/2009)
(Entered: 09/23/2009)
09/23/2009 202 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant-Intervenors' Motion for Summary
Judgment filed byCity and County of San Francisco, Paul T. Katami, Kristin M.
Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Olson, Theodore) (Filed on
9/23/2009) (Entered: 09/23/2009)
09/23/2009 203 Declaration of Christopher D. Dusseault in Support of 202 Memorandum in
Opposition to Defendant-Intervenors' Motion for Summary Judgment filed
byCity and County of San Francisco, Paul T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra
B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Related document(s) 202 ) (Olson, Theodore)
(Filed on 9/23/2009) (Entered: 09/23/2009)
09/23/2009 204 Declaration of Enrique A. Monagas in Support of 202 Memorandum in
Opposition filed byCity and County of San Francisco, Paul T. Katami, Kristin
M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit
G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, #
13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N)(Related document(s) 202 ) (Olson, Theodore)
(Filed on 9/23/2009) (Entered: 09/24/2009)
Admission of Attorney Nicole J. Moss Pro Hac Vice representing Intervenor
Defendants. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2009) (Entered: 09/25/2009)
Admission of Attorney Richard J. Bettan Pro Hac Vice representing Plaintiffs.
(cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2009) (Entered: 09/25/2009)
Admission of Attorney Joshua Schiller Pro Hac Vice representing Plaintiffs.
(cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2009) (Entered: 09/25/2009)
09/25/2009 208 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Martin F. Gutierrez, Dennis
(Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Nicole Jo Moss)(Cooper, Charles) (Filed on
9/25/2009) (Entered: 09/25/2009)
09/28/2009 209 ORDER granting 208 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Proponents'
reply shall not exceed 25 pages. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on
9/28/2009) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
Admission of Attorney Jesse Panuccio Pro Hac Vice representing Defendant-
09/29/2009 211 Minute Entry: Discovery Hearing re leave to file motion for protective order
held on 9/25/2009 before Chief Judge Vaughn R Walker (Date Filed:
9/29/2009). (Court Reporter Kelly Bryce.) (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed:
9/29/2009) (Entered: 09/29/2009)
09/30/2009 212 Transcript of Proceedings held on 09/25/09, before Judge Vaughn R. Walker.
Court Reporter/Transcriber Kelly Bryce, E-mail courtreporter232@aol.com
Telephone number (510)828-9404. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial
Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office
public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber
until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it
may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction,
if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing.
Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/28/2009. (Bryce, Kelly) (Filed on
9/30/2009) (Entered: 09/30/2009)
09/30/2009 213 Reply Memorandum re 172 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages and
Defendant-Intervenors' Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment,
and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary
Judgment filed byMartin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson,
Gail J. Knight, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of California
Renewal, Hak-Shing William Tam. (Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 9/30/2009)
(Entered: 09/30/2009)
10/01/2009 214 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 187 Motion for Protective Order
10/02/2009 215 Letter from Christopher Dusseault to the Honorable Chief Judge Walker.
(Piepmeier, Sarah) (Filed on 10/2/2009) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
10/02/2009 216 MOTION TO REALIGN DEFENDANT ATTORNEY GENERAL EDMUND G.
BROWN filed by Martin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson,
Gail J. Knight, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of California
Renewal, Hak-Shing William Tam. Motion Hearing set for 1/7/2010 10:00 AM
in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed
Order)(Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 10/2/2009) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
10/02/2009 217 Declaration of Jesse Panuccio in Support of 216 MOTION TO REALIGN
DEFENDANT ATTORNEY GENERAL EDMUND G. BROWN filed byMartin F.
Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight,
William Tam. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)
(Related document(s) 216 ) (Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 10/2/2009) (Entered:
10/02/2009)
10/05/2009 218 Letter from Charles J. Cooper to The Honorable Chief Judge Walker. (Cooper,
Charles) (Filed on 10/5/2009) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
10/05/2009 219 ORDER of USCA as to 168 Notice of Appeal, filed by Campaign for California
Families (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2009) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
10/08/2009 220 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal and/or Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed
by Martin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight,
Proposition 8 Official Proponents, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project
of California Renewal, Hak-Shing William Tam. Motion Hearing set for
1/7/2010 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments:
# 1 Exhibit A - Declaration of Jesse Panuccio, # 2 Proposed Order)(Cooper,
Charles) (Filed on 10/8/2009) Modified on 10/9/2009 (ewn, COURT STAFF).
(Entered: 10/08/2009)
10/09/2009 221 ERRONEOUSLY E-FILED, DISREGARD - SEE DOC 222
NOTICE by Martin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail
J. Knight, Proposition 8 Official Proponents, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8,
A Project of California Renewal, Hak-Shing William Tam of Appeal (Cooper,
Charles) (Filed on 10/9/2009) Modified on 10/9/2009 (ewn, COURT STAFF).
Modified on 10/9/2009 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2009)
10/09/2009 222 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 214 Order on Motion for Protective Order by
Martin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight,
William Tam. Filing fee $ 455, Receipt Number 34611037633.(far, COURT
10/13/2009 223 *** FILED IN ERROR. REFER TO DOCUMENT 225 . ***
Memorandum in Opposition re 220 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal and/or
Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed byCity and County of San Francisco, Paul
T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Olson,
Theodore) (Filed on 10/13/2009) Modified on 10/14/2009 (feriab, COURT
10/13/2009 224 Declaration of Christopher D. Dusseault in Support of 223 Memorandum in

Opposition, TO DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS MOTION FOR A STAY
PENDING APPEAL AND/OR PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS filed
B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3
Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 223 ) (Olson, Theodore) (Filed on 10/13/2009)
(Entered: 10/13/2009)
10/13/2009 225 Memorandum in Opposition re 220 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal and/or
Petition for Writ of Mandamus CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 223 . filed
B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Olson, Theodore) (Filed on 10/13/2009) (Entered:
10/13/2009)
10/14/2009 226 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 10/14/2009 before Chief Judge Vaughn
R Walker re doc 172 Defendant Intervenors' MOTION for summary judgment.
PROCEEDINGS: 1. Defendant-intervenors' motion for summary judgment,
Doc #172 - denied. 2. Defendant-intervenors shall file their reply
memorandum in support of the motion to stay, Doc #220, not later than
October 16, 2009. The court will submit the matter on the papers or hear
argument by telephone as necessary. 3. Plaintiffs and the Attorney General
shall file their oppositions to defendant-intervenors motion to realign the
Attorney General, Doc #216, not later than October 28, 2009. Defendant-
intervenors shall file their reply not later than November 4, 2009. The matter
will be submitted on the papers. (Court Reporter Lydia Zinn.) (cgk, COURT
STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/14/2009) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
10/15/2009 227 Transcript of Proceedings held on 10/14/2009, before Judge Vaughn R.
Walker. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lydia Zinn, Telephone number (415) 531-
6587. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript
may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased
through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of
Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any
Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5
business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for
1/11/2010. (Zinn, Lydia) (Filed on 10/15/2009) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
10/15/2009 228 Transcript of Proceedings held on 10/14/2009, before Judge Vaughn R.
Walker. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lydia Zinn, Telephone number (415) 531-
6587. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript
may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased
through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of
Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any
Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5
business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for
1/11/2010. (Zinn, Lydia) (Filed on 10/15/2009) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document230-2 Filed10/15/09 Page1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102
_____________
www.cand.uscourts.gov
Richard W. Wieking General Court Number
Clerk 415.522.2000
October 15, 2009
Clerk
U.S. Court of Appeals
For the Ninth Circuit
P.O. Box 193939
San Francisco, CA 94119-3939
CASE NUMBER: CV 09-02292 VRW
CASE TITLE: KRISTIN M. PERRY-v-ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER
USCA Case Number:
Dear Sir/Madam:
Enclosed is the Notice of Appeal in the above captioned case. Please acknowledge
receipt on the enclosed copy of this letter and return it to this office.
Sincerely,
RICHARD W. WIEKING, Clerk
by: Felicia Reloba

Case Systems Administrator
cc: Counsel of Record

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document230-3 Filed10/15/09 Page1 of 1
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOTICE OF APPEAL NOTIFICATION FORM
Please Fill Out Completely
October 15, 2009
CASE INFORMATION:
Short Case Title: Perry v. Schwarzenegger
Court of Appeals No. (leave blank if a unassigned
U.S. District Court, Division & Judge Name: No. District of CA, Civil Division, Judge Walker
Criminal and/or Civil Case No.: CV-09-2292 VRW
Date Complaint/Indictment/Petition Filed: 5/22/09
Date Appealed order/judgment entered 10/1/09
Date NOA filed 10/9/09
Date(s) of Indictment Plea Hearing Sentencing
COA Status (check one): 9 granted in full (attach order) 9 denied in full (send record)
9 granted in part (attach order) 9 pending
Court Reporter(s) Name & Phone Number: Sahar McVickar 415-626-6060, Belle Ball 415-373-2529,
Kelly Bryce 415-522-2102 and Lydia Zinn 415-531-6587
Magistrate Judge’s Order? If so, please attach.

FEE INFORMATION
Date Docket Fee Paid: 10/9/09 Date Docket Fee Billed:
Date FP granted: Date FP denied:
Is FP pending? 9 yes 9 no Was FP limited 9? Revoked 9?
US Government Appeal? 9 yes 9 no
Companion Cases? Please list:
Please attach copy of any order granting, denying or revoking FP.

COUNSEL INFORMATION (Please include email address)
Appellate Counsel: Appellee Counsel:
SEE DOCKET SHEET
9 retained 9 CJA 9 FPD 9 Pro Se 9 Other Please attach appointment order.

DEFENDANT INFORMATION
Prisoner ID: Address:
Custody:
Bail:
AMENDED NOTIFICATION INFORMATION

Date Fees Paid: 9th Circuit Docket Number:
Name & Phone Number of Person Completing this Form: Felicia Reloba
415-522-2000

3:09-cv-02292 #230

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

3:09-cv-02292 #230

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document230 Filed10/15/09 Page1 of 26

1 COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC

9 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO

12 ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND

16 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH,

21 KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL

25 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official

27 General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his

DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM ORDER OF OCTOBER 1, 2009

1 Vital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her official

DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM ORDER OF OCTOBER 1, 2009

USCA DOCKET # (IF KNOWN)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES IF NECESSARY.

DISTRICT COURT NUMBER: 09-CV-2292 VRW

IF THIS MATTER HAS BEEN BEFORE THIS COURT PREVIOUSLY,

PRINCIPAL ISSUES PROPOSED TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL:

DOES THIS APPEAL INVOLVE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as Governor of

PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH,

REPRESENTATION AND SERVICE LIST

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Kristin M. Perry,

David Boies Attorneys for Defendants Governor

Attorneys for Defendant Attorney Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenors

4 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

12 ARNORLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his

24 DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J

1 The defendant-intervenors, who are the official

12 burden on proponents. Doc #187 at 9. Plaintiffs counter that the

11 motivations of a voter or campaign participant.” Doc #187 at 9.

12 But in their reply memorandum, proponents explain that they only

1 simply to preserve the traditional characteristic of marriage as an

1 rights. Here, however, plaintiffs are not seeking disclosure of

11 would intrude further on proponents’ First Amendment associational

12 rights beyond the intrusion by the numerous disclosures required

1 while plaintiffs contend that Prop 8 violates their Equal

11 8 campaign and of the harassment that some Prop 8 supporters have

12 endured. See Doc #187-11. Proponents have not however adequately

1 rank-and-file members or volunteers. More importantly, the

11 the organization or to providing various other business records.

12 Id at 464-65. The Court contrasted the NAACP’s extensive

11 investigating “infiltration of Communists” into various

12 organizations. Gibson v Florida Legislative Committee, 372 US 539

1 514 US 334 (1995), which reversed petitioner’s conviction, upheld

11 procedure for invoking any First Amendment privilege applicable to

12 their communications with third parties differs from that of any

1 principles rather than common law, the origin of the attorney-

11 not weighed in the area of attorney-client communications, and that

12 balancing tends to limit or confine the First Amendment privilege

1 freedom,” “individual freedom of expression” and “how this new

11 be afforded to proponents’ interest in maintaining the

12 confidentiality of communications concerning campaign strategy. If

1 the information sought would be admissible at trial; instead, the

11 the information sought about proponents’ communications with third

12 parties may be relevant to the governmental interest that

1 (citation omitted). The analysis remains the same whether the

11 intolerable invasion of the privacy that must protect an exercise

12 of the franchise.” 424 F2d at 295. In Bates, the court looked

11 be put together. This would seem to suggest, as the Eighth Circuit

12 implied in South Dakota Farm Bureau, that the scope of permissible

11 non-relevant communications is not identical to the public/non-