1:13-cv-00482 #113

MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES THROUGH MAY 23, 2014
1
Deborah A. Ferguson, ISB No. 5333
The Law Office of Deborah A. Ferguson, PLLC
202 N. 9
th
Street, Suite 401 C
Boise, Idaho 83702
Tel.: (208) 484-2253
d@fergusonlawmediation.com

Craig Harrison Durham, ISB No. 6428
Durham Law Office, PLLC
910 W. Main Street, Suite 328
Boise, ID 83702
Tel.: (208) 345-5183

Shannon P. Minter
Christopher F. Stoll
National Center for Lesbian Rights
870 Market Street, Suite 370
San Francisco, California 94102
Tel.: (415) 392-6257
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

SUSAN LATTA and TRACI EHLERS,
LORI WATSEN and SHARENE WATSEN,
SHELIA ROBERTSON and ANDREA
ALTMAYER, AMBER BEIERLE and
RACHAEL ROBERTSON,

Plaintiffs,

v.

C.L. "BUTCH" OTTER, as Governor of the
State of Idaho, in his official capacity, and
CHRISTOPHER RICH, as Recorder of Ada
County, Idaho, in his official capacity,

Defendants,
and

STATE OF IDAHO,

Defendant-Intervenor.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00482-CWD

PLAINTIFFS MOTION
FOR REASONABLE
ATTORNEYS FEES AND
EXPENSES THROUGH
MAY 23, 2014

Case 1:13-cv-00482-CWD Document 113 Filed 05/27/14 Page 1 of 4
2
COME NOW the Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, and respectfully move this
Court, pursuant to Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and District of Idaho Local
Civil Rules 54.1 and 54.2 to order Defendants to pay attorney fees and costs to the Plaintiffs in
the above entitled action. This Motion is made under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 1988.
This Motion is based upon the record herein, and the memorandum and declarations filed
in support.
Respectfully submitted this 27th day of May 2014.

______________/s/____________
Deborah A. Ferguson

Craig Harrison Durham,

Shannon P. Minter


3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 27th day of May, 2014, I filed this (1) Motion, together
with the attached (2) Plaintiffs Memorandum in Support of Motion for Reasonable Attorneys
Fees and Expenses Through May 23, 2014; (3) Summary of Claimed Fees and Costs; (4)
Declaration of Deborah A. Ferguson in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Reasonable Attorneys
Fees and Expenses Through May 23, 2014; (5) Declaration of Shannon P. Minter in Support of
Plaintiffs Motion for Reasonable Attorneys Fees and Expenses Through May 23, 2014; (6)
Declaration of Craig H. Durham in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Reasonable Attorneys Fees
and Expenses Through May 23, 2014; (7) Declaration of Debora K. Kristensen in Support of
Plaintiffs Motion for Reasonable Attorneys Fees and Expenses; and (8) Declaration of Lauren
I. Scholnick in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Reasonable Attorneys Fees and Expenses;
electronically through the CM/ECF system, which caused the following parties or counsel to be
served by electronic means, as more fully reflected on the Notice of Electronic Filing:

Attorneys for Defendant Rich and Intervenor State of Idaho:

Steven Lamar Olsen
steven.olsen@ag.idaho.gov

Clay R Smith
clay.smith@ag.idaho.gov

W Scott Zanzig
scott.zanzig@ag.idaho.gov

Attorneys for Defendant Governor Otter:

Thomas C. Perry
tom.perry@gov.idaho.gov

4
Cally Ann Younger
cally.younger@gov.idaho.gov

____________/s/___________
Deborah A. Ferguson

PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND
EXPENSES THROUGH MAY 23, 2014 - 1
202 N. 9
th
Street, Suite 401 C
Boise, Idaho 83702
Tel.: (208) 484-2253

Boise, ID 83702
Tel.: (208) 345-5183

Shannon P. Minter
Tel.: (415) 392-6257


RACHAEL ROBERTSON,

Plaintiffs,

v.


Defendants,
and

STATE OF IDAHO,



PLAINTIFFS
MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR REASONABLE
ATTORNEYS FEES AND
EXPENSES THROUGH
MAY 23, 2014

Case 1:13-cv-00482-CWD Document 113-1 Filed 05/27/14 Page 1 of 13
INTRODUCTION
In this action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983, Plaintiffs have successfully challenged
Idahos constitutional and statutory prohibition on marriage for same sex couples. When
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint, no federal court post-United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 12
(2013), had yet ruled on the merits of the novel and complex constitutional issues presented in
this case. Counsel agreed to represent Plaintiffs without charging fees of any sort, and the risk
that counsel might never be compensated for their time was high. The demands on the attorneys
time over several months proved to be immense, as the case proceeded on an expedited track and
resulted in thousands of pages of legal filings in a short period of time. Ultimately, Plaintiffs
prevailed on each claim in their Complaint, and this Court has permanently enjoined the State of
Idaho from enforcing Article III, 28 of the Idaho Constitution, Idaho Code 32-201 and 32-
209, and any other laws or regulations to the extent they do not recognize same-sex marriages
validly contracted outside Idaho or prohibit otherwise qualified same-sex couples from marrying
in Idaho. (Dkt. 101, pp. 1-2.)
Given the high degree of skill, experience, willingness to accept risk, and dedication
necessary to reach this very successful conclusion, Plaintiffs now move this Court to order
Defendants to pay $467,843.08 for their reasonable attorneys fees and expenses through May
23, 2014, pursuant to District of Idaho Local Civil Rules 54.1 and 54.2, and 42 U.S.C. 1988.
STANDARD OF LAW
In an action to enforce the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 1983, the court, in its discretion,
may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorneys fee as part
of the costs . . . 42 U.S.C. 1988(b). A prevailing party under 1983 is entitled to reasonable
attorneys fees unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust. Hensley v.
Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429 (1983).
The court must begin by determining a lodestar amount, which is the number of hours
reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. Hensley, 461 U.S.
at 433. Fee applicants have the burden of producing evidence to establish that their requested
rates are in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of
reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation. Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial,
Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 980 (9th Cir. 2008). The relevant community is typically the forum in which
the district court sits. Id. at 979.
1
Affidavits from the Plaintiffs attorneys and other attorneys in
the community are satisfactory evidence of the prevailing market rate. United Steelworkers of
America v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 1990).
The court also has the discretion to adjust the amount based upon the factors set forth in
Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67 (9th Cir. 1975) (the Kerr factors), that have not
already been subsumed in the lodestar calculation. Mendez v. County of San Bernardino, 540
F.3d 1109, 1126 (9th Cir. 2008).
2

The most critical factor in determining the reasonableness of a fee award is the degree of
success obtained. See, e.g., Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 114 (1992).

1
Although NCLR attorneys could request San Francisco and Washington, D.C. billing rates for
this case based on their expertise and experience, see, e.g., Barjon v. Dalton, 132 F.3d 496, 501-
502 (9th Cir. 1997); Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1405 (9th Cir. 1992), they seek rates
consistent with those in the Boise legal market. See also Declaration of Shannon P. Minter In
Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Reasonable Attorneys Fees and Expenses Through May 23,
2014 (Minter Dec.) at 21-22.

2
The Kerr factors include: (1) the time and labor required of the attorneys, (2) the novelty and
difficulty of the questions involved, (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly,
(4) the preclusion of other work by the attorney due to acceptance of the case, (5) the customary
fee for similar cases, (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time limitations imposed by
the client or the circumstances, (8) the amount of money, or the value of the rights involved, and
the results obtained, (9) the experience, reputation and ability of counsel, (10) the
undesirability of the case, (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the
client, and (12) awards in similar cases. Kerr, 526 F.2d at 70.
ARGUMENT
This Court ruled in Plaintiffs favor on all four claims raised in the Complaint and
granted Plaintiffs all of the relief that they sought. There can be no dispute that Plaintiffs are the
prevailing party under 1988(b), and are entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys fees and
expenses. For the reasons that follow, all of the fees and expenses that they have requested are
reasonable.
A. Plaintiffs Lodestar Calculation is Reasonable.
The Court must first calculate the lodestar amount by multiplying a reasonable hourly
rate by the number of hours expended on the case.
1. Hourly Rates
Plaintiffs have submitted the following rates for six attorneys who worked substantially
on this case: Deborah A. Ferguson, $400 per hour; Shannon P. Minter, $400 per hour; Craig
Durham, $325 per hour; Christopher Stoll, $325 per hour; Amy Whelan, $275 per hour, and
Jaime Huling Delaye, $175 per hour (See Declaration of Deborah A. Ferguson in Support
Plaintiffs Motion for Reasonable Attorneys Fees and Expenses Through May 23, 2014
(Ferguson Dec.), at 21; Declaration of Craig H. Durham in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for
Reasonable Attorneys Fees and Expenses Through May 23, 2014 (Durham Dec.), at 15;
Minter Dec., at 19, 21.) As shown below, each of these attorneys has unique skills, which
created an efficient and complementary legal team that eliminated redundancy and maximized
Plaintiffs chances of success.
Deborah A. Ferguson, lead counsel, has developed extensive federal civil litigation
experience over her 28-year career. For almost twenty-one years, she served as an Assistant
United States Attorney, first in the Civil Division of the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago),
from 1991-1995 and then in the District of Idaho from 1995-2012. (Ferguson Dec., at 3-4.)
During those two decades with the U.S. Department of Justice, she was lead counsel on hundreds
of federal civil cases on behalf of a wide array of agencies and individuals, before the federal
District Court of Idaho and the Northern District of Illinois, and on appeal before the Ninth and
Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeals. (Id.) As lead counsel, she handled and tried a wide variety
of complex federal civil litigation, such as constitutional torts, environmental challenges, medical
malpractice defense and other torts. (Id.) In 2012, she left the U.S. Department of Justice to
return to private practice and formed her own firm. Based on her extensive litigation experience,
her practice concentrates on representing clients in civil litigation, and mediating litigated
disputes. From November 2012 until June 2013, she was appointed to serve as a Special Master
by a federal Senior District Judge in a complex international electronic discovery dispute that
arose in a commercial litigation in the District of Idaho. (Id. at 4.) Ms. Ferguson is also an
active in the legal community in Idaho and have served as a member and/or officer of a number
of professional organizations such as the Idaho State Bar (Past President 2011 and Bar
Commissioner, 2008-2011), the Federal Bar AssociationIdaho Chapter and a recipient of the
Exemplary Service Award 2013, and the Idaho Academy of Leadership for Lawyers (Founding
Chair of Steering Committee, 2011- current). (Id. at 5.) She is also the Idaho State Bar
Delegate to the American Bar Association, and a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation. (Id.)
Shannon Minter is the Legal Director of the National Center of Lesbian Rights (NCLR).
Mr. Minter, who has over 20 years of legal experience, was lead counsel for same-sex couples in
the landmark California marriage equality case, In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (2008),
(Minter Dec., at 7.) He was also counsel for Respondent-Intervenor in Christian Legal Society
v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661 (2010), which upheld student group policies that prohibited
discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and rejected the argument that
such polices violated a student groups rights to freedom of religion, association, and speech.
Mr. Minter has been recognized many times for his expertise. In 2009, he was named California
Lawyer of the Year by California Lawyer magazine, and in 2008 he received the Dan Bradley
Award from the National Gay and Lesbian Bar Association for his work in the marriage cases.
(Exhibit A to Minter Dec., p. 5.) In 2005, Mr. Minter was one of 18 people to receive the Ford
Foundations Leadership for a Changing World award. (Id.)
Craig Durham has been an attorney for over 17 years, and he brought a wealth of
research and writing experience, and, more specifically, civil rights expertise to Plaintiffs team.
For the first six years after he graduated from law school, he was an appellate public defender,
where he researched and wrote over 150 briefs and orally argued dozens of cases in the appellate
courts of Kansas and Idaho. (Durham Dec., 3.) During that time, he also represented clients
who had been sentenced to death, navigating the complicated and high stakes world of modern
death penalty jurisprudence. (Id. at 3-4.) Between 2003 and 2013, he was a death penalty law
clerk and a staff attorney with the Prisoner Litigation Unit at the United States District Court in
Boise. (Id. at 5-6.) Prisoner cases make up about 25% to 33% of the District Courts total
civil caseload from year-to-year, and the majority of the cases are brought 42 U.S.C. 1983. (Id.
at 6.) In his nearly ten years at the Court, Mr. Durham gained extensive experience in
procedural and substantive civil rights law, and the bulk of his current private practice now
involves plaintiffs side civil rights and related cases.
Christopher Stoll, Amy Whelan, and Jaime Huling Delaye, all of the NCLR, also brought
significant experience to Plaintiffs legal team. Mr. Stoll, a Senior Staff Attorney at the NCLR,
has practiced law for over 19 years since his graduation from Harvard Law School. (Minter
Dec., at 21.) Before joining the NCLR, he worked in the litigation department at the
international law firm of Heller Ehrman LLP. (Exhibit D to Minter Dec., p.2.) Ms. Whelan, also
a Senior Staff Attorney, has been practicing since 2001, and she has been with the NCLR since
2011. (Id. at 5.) Before that, she worked at the San Francisco firm of Rosen, Bien & Galvan
LLP, where she represented individuals, organizations, and classes of people in litigation before
federal and state courts and administrative agencies, principally in the area of civil rights. (Id.)
Ms. Huling Delaye has been an attorney for five years. (Minter Dec., 21.) She joined the
NCLR in 2013 after clerking for Judges A. Wallace Tashima of the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals and Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of California. (Exhibit D to Minter Dec.,
p. 8.)
In addition to this diverse and deep well of expertise, the requested hourly rates are also
justified by the unique nature of this litigation and the risk that the attorneys might have worked
hundreds of hours without compensation. The pool of attorneys willing to take such a risk is
small, which supports a rate on the higher end of the range for the local community. Both Ms.
Ferguson and Mr. Durham have recently opened law practices, and they took a significant risk
when they agreed to represent the Plaintiffs. Further, they were required to turn aside other
matters that could have generated fees for their new firms to concentrate on this case. (Ferguson
Dec., 15-16; Durham Dec., 9-10.)
Plaintiffs counsel have also supported their requested rates with the declarations of
Debora Kristensen and Lauren Scholnick, highly respected attorneys who practice civil litigation
in the local community. Both attorneys state that the hourly rates are reasonable in light of the
risk involved and the skill necessary to successfully complete the case. (Declaration of Debora
K. Kristensen in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Reasonable Attorneys Fees and Expenses
(Kristensen Dec.); Declaration of Lauren I. Scholnick in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for
Reasonable Attorneys Fees and Expenses (Scholnick Dec.) As stated in the declaration of
Ms. Kristensen, [t]hese are not ordinary matters, and there is little encouragement for the
private bar to prosecute these complex and demanding constitutional claims. (Kristensen Dec.
8.) Further, [m]ost Idaho attorneys or firms are simply unable to undertake a contingency fee
case of this nature.. (Kristensen Dec. 10).
Moreover, the issues in this case were complex, the timeframe for litigation was short,
and counsel worked hard to divide tasks so that their effort was not duplicative. Plaintiffs
counsel conducted much of their business during telephone conferences and through email,
which served as a cost-effective means to divide tasks between the attorneys and staff while
eliminating the need for expensive travel by out-of-state counsel.
The case also involved eight plaintiffs, each with unique backgrounds and life histories,
multiplying exponentially the investigative, drafting, and communication efforts that were
required. Defendants choices and actions increased the workload. Initially, two governmental
officials were named as defendants, but the Idaho Attorney General later sought, and was
granted, permission to intervene on behalf of the State of Idaho. The State filed its own
dispositive motion, a Motion to Dismiss, while the Governor filed a separate Motion for
Summary Judgment. Idaho governmental officials were not speaking with one voice, adding a
layer of complexity, and Plaintiffs were required to address assorted claims and arguments
coming from different directions. The State and Defendant Rich were represented by three
attorneys from the Attorney Generals Office, and the Governor assigned two attorneys to the
case, for a total of at least five attorneys on behalf of the defense.
Finally, Plaintiffs have exercised billing judgment, and all attorneys have excluded hours
that could have been billed. (Ferguson Dec., 18; Durham Dec., 13; Minter Dec., 22.) For
example, as lead counsel, Ms. Ferguson excluded all of her extensive pre-filing activity as well
as additional billable time. (Ferguson Dec., 18). Many other individuals have worked on the
case for whom Plaintiffs do not request an award of fees. Additional attorneys, paralegals, and
support staff at the NCLR provided numerous hours of researching, drafting, cite-checking, and
proofreading drafts in this case, and Plaintiffs do not seek payment for their time. (Minter Dec.,
22.) Perhaps most notably, David Codell, the Constitutional Litigation Director at the NCLR,
who was co-counsel in the successful California Marriage Cases, contributed many hours of his
time for which Plaintiffs are not seeking any compensation. (Id.)
For support that the claimed rates are reasonable, this Court need look no further than its
recent decision awarding attorneys fees in Community House, Inc., v. City of Boise, et al., 1:05-
cv-00283-CWD. While Community House involved successful claims under the Fair Housing
Act (FHA), the case provides helpful guidance because the analysis for granting fees under the
FHA is similar to 1988.
In Community House, the Court awarded lead counsel, Howard Belodoff, $400 per hour
for his work after 2009. (1:05-cv-00283-CWD, Dkt. 447, p. 13.) In doing so, the Court noted
the length and complexity of the case, and the unlikelihood that other Boise attorneys would
have taken the case. (Id.) The Court also relied on evidence from two respected local attorneys
Walter Sinclair and Thomas Banducci to find that Mr. Belodoffs request was in line with
similar litigation work in the Boise community for attorneys with comparable experience to Mr.
Belodoff, who had been an attorney for 34 years. (Dkts. 393, 394.)
In many ways, the present case is similar in difficultly, complexity, and risk. Plaintiffs
are members of a group that has been historically disadvantaged, and historically disadvantaged
groups often need private attorneys general to vindicate their rights. This case involved
complex constitutional issues that required a high level of skill and expertise to litigate, without
clear federal precedent when it was filed. Ms. Fergusons training, skill, and experience is
comparable to Mr. Belodoffs; she has been a civil litigation attorney for 28 years and has been
involved in hundreds of cases over that time. Similarly, Mr. Minter is a preeminent attorney in
his field, having advocated for equal rights for gay, lesbian, and transgender people in civil cases
for 21 years. Mr. Durhams and Mr. Stolls experience is analogous to Vaughn Fisher in
Community House. The Court approved Mr. Fishers rate of $325 per hour, which it found was
within a reasonable range of $275 to $325 per hour for attorneys in the Boise area with at least
15 years of experience. Ms. Whalens 13 years, and Ms. Huling Delayes 5 years, would support
rates $275 and $175 per hour within the Boise area.
Indeed, this case could compel higher rates and fees than those permitted in Community
House. The expedited nature of this case put significant time constraints on counsel and while
Community House undoubtedly was a major victory for the plaintiffs, the Courts decision in this
case vindicates the constitutional rights of thousands of Idahoans whose relationships have
heretofore been labeled as second class by the State.
Accordingly, the prevailing rate in the community for cases that pose a similar risk and
require a similarly high degree of skill, experience, and dedication justifies the reasonableness of
the rates that have been requested.
2. Number of Hours
The moving party also bears the burden of establishing the reasonableness of the hours
claimed, and the party must carry that burden by submitting adequate documentation of those
hours. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437. The Court should not grant a fee award for hours that are
excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary. Id. at 43334.
All of Plaintiffs attorneys have stated under oath in their declarations that the hours
claimed were reasonable and necessary to complete the tasks in the case at hand and were not
expended on tasks unrelated to the case. (Ferguson Dec., 18; Minter Dec., 22-23; Durham
Dec., 14-15.) They have also provided detailed time sheets to the Court to document the
hours and the tasks that were completed. See id.
As the Court is aware, the case involved the production of thousands of pages of legal
filings on complex constitutional issues of first impression on an expedited basis (for example,
the Governor filed a 79-page Memorandum in Support of his Motion for Summary Judgment
that contained an appendix with over 1000 pages). (Dkt. 57-2, 57-3.) Plaintiffs counsel have
conscientiously avoided duplication of effort, and time constraints required counsel to divide and
delegate tasks. Phone conferences were absolutely necessary to accomplish this division of labor
and confer and review, and, in the end, saved time and expense. The NCLR excluded many
hours, both for its staff and for the attorneys who are seeking fees here, reducing the fee amount
significantly. Likewise, Idaho counsel Deborah Ferguson and Craig Durham have also excluded
time from their fee request. (Ferguson Dec., 18; Durham Dec., 14.)
The hours claimed are not excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, and the Court
should turn aside any contention by Defendants to the contrary. As noted by Chief Judge
Kozinski, [b]y and large, the court should defer to the winning lawyer's professional judgment
as to how much time he was required to spend on the case; after all, he won, and might not have,
had he been more of a slacker. Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1112 (9th Cir.
2008).
3. Requested Lodestar
The lodestar amount in this case is $463,480 ($282,480 for Ms. Ferguson, $131,470 for
NCLR, and $49,530 for Mr. Durham). There is a presumption that this is a reasonable fee,
Jordan v. Multnomah County, 815 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1987), but the Court has the
discretion, after applying Kerr factors, to adjust the amount. Mendez v. County of San
Bernardino, 540 F.3d 1109, 1126 (9th Cir. 2008).
Although many of the Kerr factors could support a request for an upward adjustment,
Plaintiffs do not seek one. According to Ms. Lauren Scholnick, [a]warding multipliers under
these circumstances ensures meritorious cases will be brought to enforce important constitutional
rights, despite the risk involved, and that the decision not to seek an enhancement in this case
further supports the reasonableness of the hourly rates requested. (Scholnick Dec., 12.)
The most important factor is the degree of success that the attorneys have obtained for
their clients. Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 114 (1992). Where a plaintiff has obtained
excellent results, his attorney should recover a fully compensatory fee. Hensley, 461 U.S. at
435. Defendants cannot dispute that counsels efforts resulted in a very high level of success.
The Court concluded that Idaho statutory and constitutional provisions deprived the married and
unmarried Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights both under the Due Process Clause and the
Equal Protection Clause. There were no claims lost or partial victories achieved.
3

This is a landmark decision that fully vindicated Plaintiffs critical constitutional rights,
and it is in the vanguard of a wave of civil rights victories sweeping the country. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs are entitled to fully recover the reasonable attorneys fees that have been requested.
B. Summary of Fees
ATTORNEY RATE HOURS AMOUNT
Deborah Ferguson $400 706.2 $282,480.00
Shannon Minter $400 119.3 $47,720.00
Craig Durham $325 152.4 $49,530.00
Christopher Stoll $325 139.9 $45,467.50
Amy Whelan $275 82.7 $22,742.50
Jaime Huling Delaye $175 88.8 $15,540.00

3
Although the Court did not credit Plaintiffs argument that gender discrimination supported a
heightened standard of review, that was a legal theory in support of a claim for relief an equal
protection violation on which Plaintiffs did prevail.

C. Plaintiffs Are Entitled To Costs
Plaintiffs are also entitled to an award of costs for expenses that would normally be billed
to fee-paying clients. 42 U.S.C. 1988 (b). Plaintiffs counsel have incurred a total of
$4,363.08 in costs related to the case, as supported by the Declaration of Shannon P. Minter.
(Exhibit B to Minter Dec., p. 9.) The total amount of reasonable fees and costs requested is
$467,843.08.
Plaintiffs have attached to this Memorandum a three-page summary of the claimed fees
and costs, divided among the three law offices representing the Plaintiffs.
Respectfully submitted this 27th day of May, 2014.

______________/s/____________
Deborah A. Ferguson

Craig Harrison Durham

Shannon P. Minter


CLAIMED
FEES COSTS
NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS $131,470.00 $4,363.08
LAW OFFICE OF DEBORAH A. FERGUSON $282,480.00 $0.00
LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG DURHAM $49,530.00 $0.00
TOTAL $463,480.00 $4,363.08
TOTAL FEES AND COSTS $467,843.08
Latta v. Otter
Summary of Claimed Fees and Costs
(Through May 23, 2014)
Actual
Hours
Claimed
Hours Rates Actual Total Claimed Total
Shannon Price Minter (SPM) 119.30 119.30 $400.00 $47,720.00 $47,720.00
Christopher F. Stoll (CFS) 139.90 139.90 $325.00 $45,467.50 $45,467.50
Amy Whelan (AW) 82.7 82.7 $275.00 $22,742.50 $22,742.50
Jaime Huling-Delaye (JHD) 106.2 88.8 $175.00 $18,585.00 $15,540.00
Total Hours 448.10 430.70 Total Fees $134,515.00 $131,470.00
Deborah Ferguson (DF) 745.50 706.20 $400.00 $298,200.00 $282,480.00
Craig Durham (CHD) 152.40 152.40 $325.00 $49,530.00 $49,530.00
Latta v. Otter
Summary of Attorneys' Fees Through May 23, 2014
Actual
Expenses
Billing
Judgments
Claimed
Expenses
Travel (plane tickets, hotels, cabs, etc.) $3,470.32 0.00 $3,470.32
Meals during travel $278.58 0.00 $278.58
Pro Hac Vice Fees (Minter, Stoll) $450.00 0.00 $450.00
FedEx Charges $125.18 0.00 $125.18
Fee for Deed of Plaintiff $39.00 0.00 $39.00
Expert Fees (Dr. Michael Lamb) $2,975.00 $2,975.00 $0.00
Total $7,338.08 $2,975.00 $4,363.08
Latta v. Otter
Summary of Expenses Through May 23, 2014

DECLARATION OF DEBORAH A. FERGUSON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR
REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES - Page - 1

202 N. 9
th
Street, Suite 401 C
Boise, Idaho 83702
Tel.: (208) 484-2253

405 S. 8th Street, Suite 372
Boise, Idaho 83702
Tel.: (208) 345-5183
craig@chdlawoffice.com

Shannon P. Minter
Tel.: (415) 392-6257
sminter@nclrights.org
cstoll@nclrights.org



SUSAN LATTA and TRACI EHLERS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,
v.
C.L. BUTCH OTTER, as Governor of the
State of Idaho, in his official capacity, et al.,

Defendants,
and
STATE OF IDAHO,



DECLARATION OF
DEBORAH A. FERGUSON
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS
MOTION FOR REASONABLE
ATTORNEYS FEES AND
EXPENSES THROUGH
MAY 23, 2014


DECLARATION OF DEBORAH A. FERGUSON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS
MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES - Page - 2

I, Deborah A. Ferguson, hereby declare and state as follows:
1. I am lead counsel in this action and represent the Plaintiffs, along with my
co-counsel. I am a member in good standing of the Idaho State Bar, and am admitted to
practice before this Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of
the United States. I am submitting this declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion for
Reasonable Attorneys Fees and Expenses, which has been filed concurrently. I have
personal knowledge of the matters stated in this declaration and could competently testify
to these facts.
MY LEGAL BACKGROUND
2. I am a 1986 graduate of Loyola University Chicago School of Law, where
I was a member of the Law Review. I have practiced law in the area of civil litigation for
28 years. I first received a license to practice law in Illinois, in September 1986. I worked
initially at a Chicago law firm specializing in litigation, and then from 1987-1991 for the
law firm, Katten Muchin & Zavis, in its litigation department, where I tried cases in federal
and state court.
3. Then I left private practice and for almost twenty-one years, I served as an
Assistant United States Attorney, first in the Civil Division of the Northern District of
Illinois, (Chicago) from 1991-1995 and then in the District of Idaho from 1995-2012.
During those two decades with the U.S. Department of Justice, I was lead counsel on
hundreds of federal civil cases on behalf of a wide array of agencies and individuals, before
the United States Court for the District Court of Idaho and the Northern District of Illinois,
and on appeal before the Ninth and Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeals. As lead counsel, I
handled and tried a wide variety of complex federal civil litigation, such as constitutional


torts, environmental challenges, medical malpractice defense and other torts. Attached as
Exhibit A is a copy of my curriculum vitae, which contains a general summary of some of
my significant cases.
4. In 2012, I left the U.S. Department of Justice to return to private practice
and form my own firm. Based on my extensive litigation experience, my practice
concentrates on representing clients in civil litigation, and mediating litigated disputes.
From November 2012 until June 2013, I was appointed to serve as a Special Master by a
federal Senior District Judge in a complex international electronic discovery dispute that
arose in a commercial litigation in the District of Idaho.
5. I am active in the legal community in Idaho and have served as a member
and/or officer of a number of professional organizations such as the Idaho State Bar (Past
President 2011 and Bar Commissioner, 2008-2011), the Federal Bar AssociationIdaho
Chapter, (Recipient of 2013 Exemplary Service Award), the Idaho Academy of Leadership
for Lawyers (Founding Chair of Steering Committee, 2011- current) and the American Inns
of Court. I am also the Idaho State Bar Delegate to the American Bar Association, and a
Fellow of the American Bar Foundation.
MY ROLE AS LEAD COUNSEL IN THIS LITIGATION
6. I was retained in this litigation by the Plaintiffs, along with co-counsel, on
a fully contingent basis to challenge Idahos laws prohibiting the issuance of marriage
licenses to same-sex couples and prohibiting recognition of valid marriages of same-sex
couples entered in other jurisdictions. The individual Plaintiffs in this action did not have
the resources to retain private legal counsel and could not financially afford paying the
attorney fees and expenses necessary to proceed with this action. Plaintiffs are not being


charged a fee to represent them. Plaintiffs have agreed that any awarded attorney's fees and
costs will belong to and be paid to Plaintiffs counsel.
7. Shortly after the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of
Marriage Act in Windsor v. United States, 570 U.S. 12 (2013), one of the Plaintiff couples
approached me about representing them and other similarly situated couples in a challenge
to Idahos constitutional and statutory prohibition of same sex marriage. In July and August
2013 I researched that possibility. At that time no federal court in the country had struck
down a state same sex marriage ban, and the federal court for the District of Nevada had
upheld Nevadas marriage ban, an appeal of which is still currently pending. I attended the
American Bar Associations annual meeting in early August, 2013 in San Francisco, as the
Idaho State Bar Delegate. I arrived two days early, at my own expense, to attend several
CLEs on the Supreme Courts recent rulings regarding marriages of same-sex couples. I
introduced myself to Mr. Shannon Minter after his appearance as a speaker on a panel
discussing those cases, and briefly discussed the possibility and feasibility of challenging
Idahos marriage ban. This later developed into a formal co-counsel arrangement with the
NCLR. Soon after I asked Mr. Craig Durham to join as co-counsel as well, to assist me in
Idaho on the case.
8. As lead counsel, I orchestrated the litigation since its inception,
coordinating both the efforts of the legal team, and the communication with our clients. It
was necessary for me to spend a significant amount of time vetting the potential Plaintiffs
who were referred to me, requiring extensive interviews with them and responding to
questions and concerns about litigation into uncharted territory and its potential impact on
their families, careers and reputations. Plaintiffs completed an extensive questionnaire I


drafted, and several weeks of time were devoted to my selection of the most appropriate
Plaintiffs with consideration given to numerous factors. I have been the primary point of
contact with the eight Plaintiffs during the rapidly evolving course of the litigation and
have had communicated extensively with each of them. I drafted the eight detailed
Plaintiffs declarations in support of our summary judgment motion, based upon multiple
individual discussions. I also contributed extensively to all pleadings and briefs. I prepared
the initial draft of the Complaint and, along with Mr. Craig Durham, portions of the
summary judgment briefing, particularly those portions dealing with Idaho law and
legislative history. In order to combat Defendants social science arguments about the
suitability of gay and lesbian persons to parent, Mr. Shannon Minter and I also worked
with Dr. Michael Lamb, a preeminent world-renowned social science expert who
specializes in child development and adjustment. Dr. Lamb submitted two declarations in
this case, with our assistance. I also reviewed and analyzed the Defendants 1,889 pages of
filings. I also presented the oral arguments on the dispositive motions and the Attorney
Generals request to intervene. I intensively prepared for the oral argument on the merits
of the case, including three moot courts, to hone my presentation and anticipate the Courts
potential questions.
THE ROLE OF MY CO-COUNSEL
9. Due to the complexity of the legal issues raised in the action it was
necessary for me to assemble a very knowledgeable legal team to pursue Plaintiffs claims
so that the Complaint could be filed in a short period of time. The hours of co-counsel are
being submitted separately through the declarations of Mr. Shannon Minter, on behalf of
the NCLR, and Mr. Craig Durham.


10. Plaintiffs counsel litigated this case efficiently and without unnecessary
duplication of effort. Because of its long experience with the important federal
constitutional issues involved in this case, the NCLR took primary responsibility for
preparing initial drafts of many of the pleadings and briefs, including the briefing regarding
the dispositive motions.
11. Mr. Craig Durham prepared initial drafts of important portions of the
briefing on the dispositive motions, reviewed all pleadings, assisted in my intensive
preparation for oral argument on the dispositive motions and contributed his knowledge of
practice and procedure in the District of Idaho. While I served as lead counsel, both NCLR
and Mr. Durham were very involved in overall strategy and decision making for the case.
THE COMPLEXITY, RISK AND UNIQUE DEMANDS
OF THE LITIGATION
12. This complex litigation was expedited over a very short time period. Cross-
motions for summary judgment were filed by the Governor and the Plaintiffs.
Simultaneously, Plaintiffs responded to Defendants and Intervenor-Defendants motions
to dismiss. The motions, oppositions, replies, and the oral argument, occurred within a
between January and May of 2014. The case was developed, filed and briefed on
dispositive motions, and a final Decision issued on the merits in the course of nine months-
from August, 2013 to May, 2014.
13. Defendants also increased the workload in the case. Initially, two
governmental officials were named as defendants, but the Idaho Attorney General later
sought, and was granted, permission to intervene on behalf of the State of Idaho. The State
filed its own dispositive motion, a Motion to Dismiss, while the Governor filed a separate
Motion for Summary Judgment. Idaho governmental officials were not speaking with one


voice, adding a layer of complexity, and Plaintiffs were required to address claims coming
from different directions. The State and Defendant Rich were represented by three
attorneys from the Attorney Generals Office, and the Governor assigned two attorneys to
the case, for a total of five attorneys on the defense side. All total, Defendants submitted
1,889 pages of legal filings requiring Plaintiffs response.
14. The case also presented complex and novel issues of first impression.
Change has occurred rapidly, requiring me and my co-counsel to be in frequent contact and
to communicate and adjust quickly to new developments. Plaintiffs counsel conducted
much of their business during telephone conferences and through email, which served as a
cost-effective means to divide tasks between the attorneys and staff while eliminating the
need for travel by out-of-state counsel.
15. Because my firm is still relatively new and growing, I took a large and
significant financial risk when I agreed to represent the Plaintiffs. There was no assurance
at the time that we would prevail or that I would ever be compensated for my work. But I
believed that Plaintiffs and their constitutional rights deserved to be zealously represented
and that their cause was just.
16. This case has since moved on an exceptionally fast track, demanding a
significant and often compressed commitment of time. This is evident from the docket, as
the case has generated thousands of pages of legal filings in a matter of months. Since
September 2013, I have turned away other fee-paying matters so that I could focus my
attention on this challenging and expedited litigation as lead counsel, and have not had the
time available to further develop and market my law and mediation practice.



THE EXCELLENT RESULTS OBTAINED
17. Despite these demands and challenges, the efforts of Plaintiffs counsel
produced an excellent result, as we prevailed on all claims in our Complaint, and
invalidated an amendment to the Idaho Constitution. The lives of the Plaintiffs and
thousands of Idaho families have been forever altered as a result of the Courts Decision in
this case, recognizing their fundamental rights to due process and equal protection under
the U.S. Constitution.
MY BILLING RATE AND REASONABLE HOURS SPENT
18. The detailed time records I maintained for this case are attached in two
parts: work on the merits is attached as Exhibit B and work on the fee petition is attached
as Exhibit C. I have devoted over 717.5 hours to the merits of this case. I also committed
at least 40 hours of my time for pre-filing activities, such as research, review, and
communications as set forth in Paragraph 7 of my declaration, that I believe I could
reasonably request in this fee request, that I did not include. In addition, I have carefully
reviewed my time records, and further exercised my billing judgment and have not charged
for 39 hours recorded on my time records, reducing my billable hours to 678.2. The hours
listed in my time records are based upon contemporaneous records, and were necessary to
the prosecution of this action. Averaged over the course of the nine months of this
litigation, I am requesting less than 20 hours a week in compensable time, although in many
respects serving as lead counsel in this case has often required weeks of my full time
attention.
19. I am requesting to be compensated for 706.2 hours at a rate of $400 per
hour, which I believe is reasonable within this legal community given my background,


experience, and skill. Further this rate is reasonable given the exceptionally rare
congruence of complexity, risk, and time demands of the case, as well as the degree of
success achieved.
20. This hourly rate is based upon my own hourly billable rate in non-
contingency fee cases, and what other attorneys with similar skill, reputation and
experience charge in Boise for similar work. See Declarations of Debora K. Kristensen and
Lauren Scholnick filed concurrently in Support of the Motion to Award Reasonable
Attorney Fees and Expenses. Notably, as stated in the declaration of Ms. Kristensen,
These are not ordinary matters, and there is little encouragement for the private bar to
prosecute these complex and demanding constitutional claims. Further, Most Idaho
attorneys or firms are simply unable to undertake a contingency fee case of this nature..
Kristensen Declar. 8, 10.
21. My hourly billable rate is $250-$300 an hour in non contingency fee cases.
For my services as a mediator, I charge a flat daily rate of $1,800, not including certain
travel expenses. In 2012-2013 in my duties as Special Master, I charged $300 an hour for
my services. This rate is comparable to the $400 hourly rate I request here, when the factors
surrounding the rates are compared. As a Special Master, I was assured of payment for my
services, without any contingency whatsoever. Likewise, I was paid each month without
delay, upon a submission of my invoice, and without the need to submit a petition for fees.
22. In all, I am seeking an award of $282,480.00 (706.2 hours at $400 per hour).
This includes my work as lead counsel on the merits of this case of 678.2 hours and an
additional 28 hours for my work on the attorney fee petition in this matter, through May
23, 2014. (See Exhibits B and C).


23. In the event Defendants dispute Plaintiffs fee petition, Plaintiffs counsel
will submit supplemental time records, at the appropriate time, for any time incurred after
May 23, 2014.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed in Boise, Idaho on this 27th day of May 2014

_______/s/__________
Deborah A. Ferguson

Exhibit A

Curriculum Vitae

Deborah A. Ferguson

202 North 9th Street, Suite 401 C
Boise, Idaho 83702

Phone: (208) 484-2253
Email: d@fergusonlawmediation.com
Website: www.fergusonlawmediation.com

Professional Experience:
Principal, The Law Office of Deborah A. Ferguson, PLLC, Boise, Idaho 2012-Present

Litigating and advising in civil cases and administrative matters, before federal and state
courts and agencies. Significant case experience attached.
Mediating civil cases such as employment matters, contracts, torts, statutory
construction issues, and environmental disputes.
Appointed Special Master in commercial litigation in federal district court to manage
complex international electronic discovery dispute.

Assistant United States Attorney, District of Idaho, Civil Division, Boise, Idaho 1995-2012

Represented the United States as lead trial counsel in over 200 federal district court civil
cases including environmental challenges, complex torts and constitutional litigation.
Briefed and argued numerous appeals before the United States Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Participated in over fifty mediations and other dispute resolution processes.
Assistant United States Attorney, Northern District of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois 1991-1994
Represented the United States as lead trial counsel in federal civil litigation, including
medical malpractice, employment discrimination, and asset forfeiture cases.
Briefed and argued numerous appeals before the United States Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Associate, Katten Muchin & Zavis, Litigation Department, Chicago, Illinois 1987-1991
Assisted in civil commercial litigation and trial advocacy in federal and state courts.
Bar Admissions and Mediation Certifications:
United States Supreme Court
United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
United States District Court for the District of Idaho
Idaho State Bar
Civil Mediator, Roster of Idaho Supreme Court and United States District Court for the
District of Idaho

Legal Education and Mediation Training:
Loyola University Chicago School of Law, Juris Doctor, Law Review 1986
Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, Pepperdine University School of Law 2012
Civil Mediation Certification Northwest Institute for Dispute Resolution 2012
20
th
Annual Northwest Dispute Resolution Conference, University of Washington 2013
U.S. Department of Justice National Advocacy Center, Columbia S.C. 1995-2011

Professional Service and Awards:

Exemplary Service Award, Idaho Chapter of Federal Bar Association 2013
Idaho State Bar President 2011
American Bar Association, Idaho State Bar Delegate 2013-2014
Idaho State Bar Commissioner 2008-2011
Idaho Academy of Leadership for Lawyers, Chair, Steering Committee 2011-2014
Idaho Supreme Court Judicial Recruitment Committee 2010
Idaho Women Lawyers, Board of Directors 2005-2012
American Inns of Court, Inn No. 130, Bencher 2005-2014
American Bar Association, Member 2008-2014
American Bar Foundation, Fellow 2010-2014
American Bar Association Law Days, Washington D.C 2010-2012
Federal Bar Association, Idaho Chapter, Member 2006-2014
Idaho Business Review, Women of the Year 2008

Selected Publications and Presentations:

Participating in a Mediation- A Guide for Attorneys, The Advocate
(The Official Publication of the Idaho State Bar)
2013
Eight Benefits of Mediation, The Advocate 2012
Preparing Your Client for Mediation, The Advocate 2012
The University of Idaho College of Law, ProfessionalismSpeaker Series 2012
Idaho State Bar, swearing in new attorneys, Guest Speaker 2011
Monthly State Bar Presidents Column, The Advocate 2011
Last Place is No Place to Be Women in the Idaho Judiciary, The Advocate 2011
The Long and Winding Road- Restoration of Sherlock Creek, The Advocate 2008
Environmental Litigation in District of Idaho, Federal Bar Association 2007
Electronic Discovery under New Federal Civil Rules, Inns of Court 2007

Significant Cases:

Represented the United States Department of Energy in a challenge to the continued
operation of the nuclear Advanced Test Reactor at the Idaho National Laboratory under the
National Environmental Policy Act. The claims were successfully defeated.

Defended the United States Department of Transportation before the federal district court
and in an expedited appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a challenge to the
construction of U.S. Highway 95, brought under the National Environmental Policy Act and
the National Historic Preservation Act. The major public project was completed as planned.

Represented a federal employee accused of violating the constitutional rights of an
employee who died in a work related accident on a national forest. The Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals upheld the defense judgment.

Represented the United States Forest Service in an action to stop an illegal mining operation
on the national forest that impaired the habitat of an endangered species. The operation was
permanently shut down, and the area restored.

Defended a federally insured health care provider at trial under the Federal Tort Claims Act,
after an eight-year-old child died for the failure to diagnose spinal meningitis.

Represented six federal agents in their individual capacities, accused of executing an illegal
search warrant in a southeast Idaho home. The case was dismissed.

Defended a challenge to grazing on over a million acres of public lands in southeast Idaho
alleging violations under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act. After a ten day evidentiary hearing, the federal district court
found in favor of the Bureau of Land management in five of the six causes of action.

Represented the United States in a contested land exchange in the Yellowstone ecosystem in
exchange for the base property of a major ski resort. After defending two appeals to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the land transfer was upheld.

Represented a federal agent accused of violating the constitutional rights of an individual
who was accidently shot and killed during an arrest. The trial court found in favor of the
agent.

Defended the United States Forest Service in the seminal Lands Council v. McNair
litigation, which challenged a forest restoration project under the National Environmental
Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act. After successfully defending a
preliminary injunction, an appeal was taken. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals initially
reversed and remanded to the district court. An en banc Ninth Circuit review was granted
and its prior decision vacated.

Represented two land management agencies in a challenge to domestic sheep grazing in the
Salmon River Canyon area over a threat to wild big horn sheep.


Exhibit B
Lattav.Otter1:13cv00482CWD
DeborahFergusonTime
DATE DESCRIPTION HOURS
BILLED
HOURS
CHARGED
BILLING
JUDGMENT
REDUCTIONS
8/15/2013 ResearchIdaho'smarriagebanlawsresamesexcouples 3.5 3.5 0.0
8/16/2013 PhoneconferencewithShannonMinter,LegalDirectorofNCLRon
challengeto
Idaho'sban
0.5 0.5 0.0
8/16/2013 ReviewofWindsorS.Ct.decisionandprepforphoneconferencewithNCLR
onlitigationstrategy
2.5 2.5 0.0
8/27/2013 ResearchandreviewmarriagecomplaintsfiledinN.Carolina,Nevada,W.
Virginia,OhioandPennsylvania
4.0 3.0 1.0
8/28/2013 ResearchIdahomarriagebanandadoptionstatutes 3.1 3.1 0.0
8/30/2013 ReviewandresearchIdahomarriagelicensurelaw,androleofrecorders 2.3 2.3 0.0
8/30/2013 PhoneconferencewithNCLRcounselonIdaholitigation 1.0 1.0 0.0
8/31/2013 ReviewofNevadaDist.Ctopiniononmarriagechallenge 0.5 0.5 0.0
8/31/2013 MeetingwithpotentialPlaintiffsAandSonIdaholitigation 2.3 2.3 0.0
9/2/2013 MeetingwithpotentialPlaintifffamilyonIdahochallenge 2.2 2.2 0.0
9/3/2013 DraftoutlineofproposaltoNCLRtoassistascocounsel 2.5 1.5 1.0
9/3/2013 ResearchIdaholawonconstitutionalauthoritytoissuemarriagelicenses 2.8 2.8 0.0
9/4/2013 InterviewwithpotentialPlaintiffs 0.5 0.5 0.0
9/4/2013 FinalizecocounselproposaltoNCLR 1.5 0.0 1.5
9/9/2013 ReviewNCLRresponse,andreplytosame 0.4 0.0 0.4
9/10/2013 MetwithPlaintiffAAre:statusofcasedevelopment 0.5 0.5 0.0
9/11/2013 Phoneconferwithcocounseloncasestrategyandlegalissues 1.4 1.4 0.0
9/11/2013 MeetingwithpotentialPlaintiff 1.5 1.5 0.0
9/12/2013 InterviewwithpotentialPlaintiffs 1.6 1.6 0.0
9/13/2013 Meetingwithconsultantattorneyonstrategy 1.3 0.0 1.3
9/16/2013 Discussionwithpotentialplaintiffs 0.5 0.5 0.0
9/17/2013 Draftclientinterviewquestionnaire 1.2 1.2 0.0
9/18/2013 PhoneconferencewithNCLRcocounseloncasestatusandstrategy 1.0 1.0 0.0
9/23/2013 InterviewpotentialPlaintiffsBM/BGregardingcaseandforcomplaint
details
2.5 2.5 0.0
9/23/2013 Phoneconferencewithadoptionspecialistattorneyre:potentialplaintiffs 0.8 0.8 0.0
9/23/2013 ClientmeetingwithLW/SWonadoptionissues,caseimplications 1.3 1.3 0.0
9/23/2013 EmailswithclientsLW/SWonjoiningcase 0.4 0.4 0.0
9/23/2013 ResearchIRPR1.7rerepresentingmultipleclients 1.0 1.0 0.0
9/24/2013 FinalizedcocounselagrementwithNCLR 0.6 0.0 0.6
9/24/2013 Researchlegislativehistory 2.0 2.0 0.0
9/24/2013 PhoneconfwithAAonstatusupdate 0.2 0.2 0.0
9/24/2013 RespondtoclientquestionsonparticipationasPlaintiff 0.7 0.7 0.0
9/24/2013 Preparepotentialplaintifftrackingchart 1.0 1.0 0.0
9/25/2013 Emailwithconstitutionalscholar 0.2 0.0 0.2
9/25/2013 SchedulestatusconferencewithNCLR,questiononlegislativehistory 0.2 0.0 0.2
9/25/2013 Conferenceonvettingpossibleplaintiffsforreferral 0.3 0.3 0.0
9/25/2013 Preparedraftofclientengagementletter 1.0 1.0 0.0
9/30/2013 ReviewandresponsetoemailfromNCLRonsecondparentadoptionissue 0.6 0.6 0.0
9/30/2013 Respondtorequestformeetingonplaintiffs;setupsame 0.2 0.0 0.2
9/30/2013 Draftmemoonstatusupdateforcocounselandquestionsre:same 1.2 1.2 0.0
9/30/2013 Followupemailsto2potentialPlaintifffamilies 0.2 0.2 0.0
9/30/2013 RespondtoquestionsfromPlaintiffandrequestfor2ndmeeting 0.2 0.2 0.0
10/1/2013 Emailswithreferralsandmeetingsscheduled 0.6 0.0 0.6
10/1/2013 Emailswithcocounselonresponsestostatusreport,scheduledconference
call
0.4 0.4 0.0
10/1/2013 ResearchandreviewrecentcomplaintfiledinARonmarriageequalityissue 0.8 0.8 0.0
1
DeborahFergusonTime
BILLED
HOURS
CHARGED
BILLING
JUDGMENT
REDUCTIONS
10/1/2013 Researchre:serviceandstandingissues 4.5 4.5 0.0
10/1/2013 MeetingwithreferralsourceanddiscussionaboutpotentialPlaintiffs 1.0 1.0 0.0
10/2/2013 Phoneconferencewithcocounselonadoptionappealstrategy 0.9 0.0 0.9
10/2/2013 EmailswithL.Wonagreementtoparticipateinsuit,andreferrals 0.5 0.5 0.0
10/2/2013 Researchprohacvicerequirements,phonecalltoCourtClerkwith
questionsregardingsame
0.3 0.0 0.3
10/2/2013 ReviewedconfidentialclientquestionnairesubmittedbyAAandSR 0.3 0.3 0.0
10/2/2013 InterviewofplaintiffsA.B.andR.R. 1.2 1.2 0.0
10/2/2013 Preparedoutlineforconferencecallwithcocounsel 1.0 1.0 0.0
10/2/2013 Updatedclienttrackingchartandscheduledclientinterview 0.5 0.5 0.0
10/3/2013 ConferonIdahosecondparentadoption 0.4 0.4 0.0
10/3/2013 ReviewinfofromIdahoStateTaxCommission 0.3 0.3 0.0
10/4/2013 ReviewofPlaintiffs'questionnaires,chart,emailstosame,researchre:
Idahostatutes
4.0 4.0 0.0
10/6/2013 ReviewSJbriefinfederalDOMAchallenge 2.0 2.0 0.0
10/7/2013 ReviewIRPCissuesoncommonrepresentation 0.4 0.0 0.4
10/7/2013 StatusupdatePlaintiffAAphone 0.1 0.1 0.0
10/7/2013 ClientinterviewwithKPandJC,responsetofurtherquestions 1.0 1.0 0.0
10/7/2013 InitialclientvettinginterviewwithTEandSS 1.0 1.0 0.0
10/7/2013 Revisionstoclientengagementletterwithcocounsel 1.2 1.2 0.0
10/9/2013 Finalizeplaintiffselection,emailsregardingsame,prepareagendare10/10
conferencecallwithCocounsel
0.3 0.3 0.0
10/9/2013 ReviewarticleonIDTaxCommissionrulechangetococounsel 0.3 0.3 0.0
10/10/2013 ReviewandresearchmarriageequalitybriefingfiledinVirginia 2.0 2.0 0.0
10/11/2013 Legalresearchonmarriageequalityissues 2.2 2.2 0.0
10/12/2013 Emailcocounselonmarriagelicenseapplications,emailedunmarried
couplesre:sameandstatus,emailmarriedcouplesonstatusupdate
1.0 1.0 0.0
10/12/2013 Finalizedraftofclientengagementletter,emailedsametococounsel 1.5 1.5 0.0
10/14/2013 EmailforLWonsecondparentadoptionandresponsetosame 0.3 0.3 0.0
10/14/2013 PhoneconferencewithAAonlicenseapplication,statute 0.2 0.2 0.0
10/15/2013 ReviseandfinalizeclientengagementletterwithNCLR 1.0 1.0 0.0
10/15/2013 Emailclientquestionnairestoteam,organizationofsame 0.5 0.5 0.0
10/17/2013 Phoneconferencewithcocounselrecomplaint;researchresame 2.5 2.5 0.0
10/17/2013 Finalizedandsentclientengagementlettersandcoverletters;conferred
withNCLRre:sameandrecaseissues
3.0 2.0 1.0
10/18/2013 Receivedandreviewedsignedclientengagementletters 0.4 0.4 0.0
10/18/2013 Prepareoutlineforattorneymeeting 1.4 1.4 0.0
10/18/2013 Meetingwithcounseloncasebackground 1.5 1.5 0.0
10/20/2013 ResearchandpreparationfordraftingofComplaint 1.5 1.5 0.0
10/21/2013 Phoneconferencewithcocounseloncasestrategyandcomplaint 0.6 0.6 0.0
10/22/2013 Forwarded4clientengagementletterstoNCLRforsignature 0.2 0.0 0.2
10/22/2013 Emailtoclientsonstatusandquestionsre:Complaint 0.4 0.4 0.0
10/22/2013 EmailcocounselonIdahoissuesforComplaint 0.3 0.3 0.0
10/23/2013 Preparationandmeetingwithcocounseloncasestrategy 3.0 3.0 0.0
10/24/2013 Researchanddraftingcomplaintsections 4.0 4.0 0.0
10/25/2013 Researchanddraftingcomplaint 4.6 4.6 0.0
10/27/2013 Emailclientswithquestions,andresearch 1.1 1.1 0.0
10/28/2013 ConferencewithcocounselCD,draftingadditionalcomplaintsections,
reviewingIdahoissues
6.5 6.5 0.0
10/29/2013 Finalizeeditstocomplaint,emailstoclientsresame 7.0 7.0 0.0
10/30/2013 Incorporateeditsandfurtherrevisionstocomplaint,emailclientswith
followupandrespondtoquestions
3.5 3.5 0.0
10/31/2013 Emailsto/fromclientsre:clientmeetings,revisionstoengagementletter 0.8 0.8 0.0
10/31/2013 Attorneyconferencetoreviewdraftcomplaint 2.0 2.0 0.0
2
DeborahFergusonTime
BILLED
HOURS
CHARGED
BILLING
JUDGMENT
REDUCTIONS
10/31/2013 Prepareforattorneymeetingandresearchquestionsonservice,andfiling
procedures
1.5 1.5 0.0
11/2/2013 Emailstoclientsonprefilingissues,conferwithcocounselonsame 3.6 3.6 0.0
11/3/2013 Revieweditstodraftcomplaint,researchandrevisions.Emailedrelevant
portionstoallplaintiffsforreview
3.2 3.2 0.0
11/4/2013 Reviewofplaintiffstatementsforpressrelease 0.1 0.1 0.0
11/4/2013 RevisionsandeditstoComplaint,emailedsametococounsel,
incorporationofplaintiffcomments,researchserviceissuesforsame
6.4 6.4 0.0
11/6/2013 ConferencewithNCLRmediacoordinatorrepressissues 0.3 0.0 0.3
11/6/2013 Draftmotionsforprohacviceadmission 0.8 0.8 0.0
11/6/2013 EditandproofrevisionstoComplaint,escortedunmarriedplaintiffsto
recorder'sofficetoapplyformarriagelicenses,preparationand
coordinationre:same,respondtoplaintiffs';questionsre:same;draftcivil
coversheet,draftmotionsprohacvice
7.7 7.7 0.0
11/7/2013 RevisionandreviewofComplaint,conferenceswithcocounsel,emailwith
plaintiffs,
reviewplaintiff'sstatements,respondtoclientquestions;researchservice
issues,draftsummons
8.8 7.5 1.3
11/8/2013 Mediainterviews,responsetomediaquestions,supervisingclientmedia
encounters,respondtoclients'questions
2.5 1.5 1.0
11/8/2013 FinalproofandeditofComplaint,CivilCoversheet,summons,Motionspro
HacVice;openingofcivlcaseonECFsystem,filingofallinitialpleadings,
caseassignment
docketnumberandjudge,communicationwithcocounselandclientsre
same;phoneconferencewithAG'sOfficeonserviceissues,alsowithAda
Countyserviceissues,
6.2 5.5 0.7
11/9/2013 PhonecallfromAG'sOfficewithupdateonserviceonGovernor 0.1 0.1 0.0
11/9/2013 Reviewofmediaresponseoncases,discussionswithcocounselandclients
re:same
2.7 2.0 0.7
11/10/2013 Emailswithcocounseloncaseassignmentandmediaissues,multipleemail
withclientsonmedia
2.6 2.0 0.6
11/11/2013 Discussionswithcocounselonmediaissuesandserviceofprocess,phone
callfromAG'sofficeonservice
2.9 1.0 1.9
11/12/2013 Discussionswithcocounselre:serviceondefendants,filedaffidavitof
servicere:Otter,filedaffidavitofserviceonRich,phoneconferencefrom
counselforAdaCounty.
3.4 3.4 0.0
11/12/2013 Phoneconferencewithclientonmediaissue 0.7 0.7 0.0
11/12/2013 Responsetoclientslitigationquestions 1.0 1.0 0.0
11/13/2013 FilederratareserviceaffidavitonDefendantOtter 0.2 0.2 0.0
11/13/2013 Phoneconferencewithcocounselrecasestrategyandprepforsame 2.2 2.2 0.0
11/14/2013 Responsetoclientquestionsoncommunications 0.4 0.4 0.0
11/15/2013 PhonecallfromcounselforGov.,questionsre:issueswithservice,emails
anddiscussionsre:same,conferwithcocounselresame,stipulation
proposal,emailtootherdefensecounselre:stipulation
2.5 2.5 0.0
11/15/2013 Phoneconferencewithcocounseloncasestrategy,expertsandlitigation
issues
1.0 1.0 0.0
11/16/2013 EmailfromCountyattorneyre:stiponservice,reviewdraftstipulation,
emailwithclientsonmeeting,conferwithcocounselonlistserveand
serviceupdate
1.6 1.6 0.0
11/16/2013 Researchrecentrulingre:Bakermotiontodismiss 0.5 0.5 0.0
11/17/2013 Researchonsummaryjudgmentmotion 4.0 4.0 0.0
11/17/2013 Emailswithcounselonstipulation 0.2 0.2 0.0
11/20/2013 Researchonsummaryjudgement 2.3 2.3 0.0
11/20/2013 Reviewemailswithdefensecounselandstipulation 0.2 0.2 0.0
11/21/2013 ReviewDocketNo.13,131,132,andstipulation,DocketNo.12.Send
sametodefensecounselandproposalofinitialdeadlines.
0.8 0.8 0.0
3
DeborahFergusonTime
BILLED
HOURS
CHARGED
BILLING
JUDGMENT
REDUCTIONS
11/22/2013 Casemeetingonstrategy,expertsandlitigationplan 3.3 3.3 0.0
11/22/2013 Reviewmaterialsoninitialdisclosures,preparationformeetingwithco
counseloncasematters
1.8 1.5 0.3
11/22/2013 Emailtoclientsonstatusupdate 0.4 0.4 0.0
11/22/2013 ResearchonAGOpinions,emailwithcocounselresame 0.3 0.3 0.0
11/23/2013 ResearchamicusbriefingfiledinDOMAcaseonsamesexparentingissues
andexperts,emailstococounselre:same
2.4 2.4 0.0
11/25/2013 DocketingdatesforDecemberandJanuary,schedulingp/cwithcocounsel,
emailonreimbursementandmedia
0.5 0.0 0.5
11/25/2013 LegalresearchonIdahoforeignmarriagerecognitionissues 0.8 0.8 0.0
11/25/2013 Legislativeresearch(originaldocumentsavailableonly)atstatecapitallaw
library
2.5 2.5 0.0
11/26/2013 Reviewoflegislativematerialsforlegislativelibrary,emailre:expert 0.6 0.6 0.0
11/30/2013 Reviewofpotentialexpertcredentials 0.3 0.3 0.0
12/1/2013 Researchre:newfederalmarriageequalitycases 1.1 1.1 0.0
12/2/2013 Conferencewithcocounseloncasestrategy 1.5 1.5 0.0
12/2/2013 Filedconsentre:Magistratejudge,conferre:same 0.3 0.3 0.0
12/2/2013 Coordinationwithcocounselpotentialamicusbriefing 0.3 0.3 0.0
12/2/2013 Draftandcirculatetococounselalitigationplan. 0.6 0.6 0.0
12/2/2013 PhonecallfromAG'sOfficeoninterventionmotion,conferredwithco
counsel,
emailsre:samewithAG'sOffice
1.2 1.2 0.0
12/3/2013 PhoneconferencewithCocounselonamicusbrief 1.5 1.5 0.0
12/3/2013 Emailsconcerningstate'sintervention,andreviewofdatesfordraft
litigationplan
0.4 0.4 0.0
12/4/2013 ConferencewithCocounseloncasedevelopments 1.3 1.3 0.0
12/4/2013 Revisionstoschedulingplan 0.3 0.3 0.0
12/4/2013 ReviewdraftofoutlineofSJbrief 0.5 0.5 0.0
12/5/2013 Discussionsreexpert,reviewofDr.Lamb'sreport,declarations,c.v.,email
resame
2.8 2.0 0.8
12/6/2013 ReviewofIdahoSCtadoptionbriefing,emailsre:same 1.6 1.0 0.6
12/6/2013 Reviewofproposedinterventionmotion,memoandproposedanswer,
conferwithCocounsel,researchre:sameandresponse
4.0 4.0 0.0
12/9/2013 Preparationforp/cwithcocounsel,draftagendaandemailsame 1.3 1.3 0.0
12/9/2013 Emailtoexpertrepossiblereport 0.1 0.1 0.0
12/9/2013 Emailtococounselreamicus 0.1 0.1 0.0
12/10/2013 ConferwithAG'sOfficeonitsmotiontoIntervene 0.3 0.3 0.0
12/10/2013 Conferencecallwithcocounselreintervention,consenttomagistrate,and
caseissues
0.7 0.7 0.0
12/12/2013 ReviewofMotiontoIntervene,MemoinSupportandproposedAnswer,
DocketNo.s18,181,2
0.6 0.6 0.0
12/12/2013 Discussionwithcocounseloninterventionissues 0.5 0.5 0.0
12/13/2013 Discussionwithcocounselandresearchonoppositiontointervention
motion
1.5 1.5 0.0
12/13/2013 EmailtoAG'sOfficere;oppositiontomotiontointervene 0.3 0.3 0.0
12/17/2013 EmailsonquestionsconcerningPlaintiffWatsens'adoptiondenial 0.3 0.3 0.0
12/17/2013 EmailtodefensecounselremeetandconferandPlaintiffs'proposed
litigationplan,consultwithcocounselre:same
0.8 0.8 0.0
12/18/2013 Emailtodefensecounselproposedlitigationplanandagendaformeetand
conferconference
0.5 0.5 0.0
12/19/2013 ResearchNewMexicomarriageequalitydecision 0.8 0.8 0.0
12/19/2013 Coordinationofmeetandconferconferenceanddiscussionwithcocounsel 0.4 0.2 0.2
12/19/2013 RespondtorequestforNPRinterview,clientpreparationre:same,
interview
2.5 1.0 1.5
4
DeborahFergusonTime
BILLED
HOURS
CHARGED
BILLING
JUDGMENT
REDUCTIONS
12/20/2013 Conferwithcocounselpriortomeetandconferconference,meetand
confer
conferencewithallcounsel;postconferencediscussiononproposals
4.2 4.2 0.0
12/20/2013 DraftnewcrossSJbriefingschedule,distributeforcomments 0.3 0.3 0.0
12/20/2013 ResearchUtahmarriageequalitycase 0.5 0.5 0.0
12/20/2013 Conferwithcocounselonmediaissues;adviseclientsre:same 0.2 0.0 0.2
12/20/2013 Conferwithcocounseloninitialdisclosuresandexperttestimony 0.2 0.2 0.0
12/20/2013 Conferwithcocounselonresponsetomotiontointervene 0.4 0.4 0.0
12/20/2013 Updateclientsonrecentcasedevelopments 0.4 0.4 0.0
12/22/2013 Researchresummaryjudgementmotion 2.5 2.5 0.0
12/23/2013 ReviewdraftoppositiontoState'smotiontointervene,researchre:same,
conferwithcocounsel
1.0 1.0 0.0
12/23/2013 PhoneconferencetoClerk'sOfficeonconsententriesondocket,emailto
defensecounselre:sameonmissingconsent
0.3 0.3 0.0
12/24/2013 RevisionstobriefinoppositiontoState'sintervention,filingofsame 4.5 4.5 0.0
12/24/2013 Emailre:thirdconsent,emailfromdefenseonschedule 0.2 0.2 0.0
12/26/2013 Researchandreviewofmediaarticles 0.6 0.3 0.3
12/26/2013 DiscussionswithAPreporteronPlaintiffs'positiononintervention 0.4 0.2 0.2
12/26/2013 Emailtoconstitituionalexpert,andreviewofsame,conferwithcocounsel 0.3 0.0 0.3
12/26/2013 Emailfromcourtclerk,draftandfilecertificateofserviceonresponseto
intervention
0.3 0.0 0.3
12/30/2013 Prepareoutlineforplaintiffs'declarationsISOMSJ,reviewbackground
materials,draftfourquestionnaires,emailsamewithadditionalinformation
6.7 6.7 0.0
12/30/2013 Emailre:Dr.Lambondeclarations 0.1 0.1 0.0
12/30/2013 ReviewofSOF,consultwithcocounselresame 0.8 0.8 0.0
12/31/2013 ReviewplaintiffsWatsens';responsesandoutlineLWdeclarationISOSJ 3.5 3.5 0.0
1/1/2014 ReviewofUtahmotionfiledwithS.Ctandadditionalsampledeclarations 2.2 2.2 0.0
1/2/2014 Draftandrevisefirstdeclaration,questionsre:samewithclient 3.3 3.3 0.0
1/3/2014 ReviewresponseofSRonquestionnairefordeclaration 0.4 0.4 0.0
1/3/2014 ReviewDocketNo.26,conferwithcocounsel 0.4 0.0 0.4
1/3/2014 RevisedeclarationofLWwithedits 0.5 0.5 0.0
1/3/2014 FirstdraftofSWdeclaration 1.2 1.2 0.0
1/4/2014 Draftingdeclarationforeachof8PlaintiffsISOMSJ 4.8 4.8 0.0
1/5/2014 DraftingPlaintiffdeclarations 6.1 6.1 0.0
1/6/2014 Metandconferconference,followupcallwithcocounsel,messagefrom
Gov.'scounsel,emailsresame
1.5 1.5 0.0
1/7/2014 Reviselitigationplanandconfer,preparesummaryandstatusreport,
researchforsame
3.5 3.5 0.0
1/7/2014 EditstodeclarationsofLW,SW,SR,AA 1.5 1.5 0.0
1/7/2014 Conferonlitigationplan,reviewandrevise,draftExA 1.5 1.5 0.0
1/7/2014 ReviewdraftsectionforSJbriefingonIdahomarriagelaws,researchre:
same
3.5 3.5 0.0
1/7/2014 ReviewUtahstaygrantedbySCt 0.4 0.4 0.0
1/8/2014 DraftdeclarationofSL,revisionstosame 3.8 3.8 0.0
1/8/2014 Reviewclientresponsesredeclaration,proofandrevisesame 1.0 1.0 0.0
1/8/2014 ReviewcommenttoSLdeclarationandedits,emailresme 0.5 0.5 0.0
1/8/2014 Conferwithcocounselonschedulingconference,p/ctochambersonsame 0.2 0.2 0.0
1/9/2014 ReviewofDefendantGov.Otter'sproposedlitigationplan,reviewofAda
County'sproposedlitigationplan
0.4 0.4 0.0
1/9/2014 ReviewreplybriefinsupportofinterventionofStatefiledbyAGO,contact
chamberonschedulingconference
2.1 2.1 0.0
5
DeborahFergusonTime
BILLED
HOURS
CHARGED
BILLING
JUDGMENT
REDUCTIONS
1/9/2014 ConferwithcocounselonsectionofSJbriefing,editsandrevisionsre:same 3.5 3.5 0.0
1/9/2014 ReviewMotiontodismiss,memoinsupportand8exhibits 2.5 2.5 0.0
1/10/2014 RevisionsandproofingofdeclarationsofSLandTE,emailsre:same,further
consultationondeclarationofLW,revieweditstosectionofSJbriefingand
distributionofsametococounsel
3.4 3.4 0.0
1/11/2014 DraftdeclarationofAB,revisionstosame 2.3 2.3 0.0
1/11/2014 Reviewofmotiontodismiss,researchre:same 2.5 2.5 0.0
1/11/2014 Preparationofagendaforcocounselconference 1.0 1.0 0.0
1/11/2014 RevisionstoSLandTEdeclarations 1.0 1.0 0.0
1/11/2014 DraftdeclarationofRR,andrevisionstosame 2.0 2.0 0.0
1/12/2014 Prepareagendaformeetingwithcocounsel,reviewmotiontodismiss 2.9 2.9 0.0
1/13/2014 ReceivedECFnoticeofincourtschedulingconferenceandhearingon
motiontointervene,conferwithcocounselresame
0.5 0.5 0.0
1/13/2014 Statusconferwithcocounselonmotiontodismissresponse,SJ,motionto
intervene,consents,andschedulingconference
1.2 1.2 0.0
1/13/2014 Conferwithcocounselontaxcommissionhearingonsamesexmarriage
issue,respondtoclientquestionsontestifing
0.4 0.4 0.0
1/13/2014 EmailwithABandRRclientsondeclarationrevisions 0.4 0.4 0.0
1/13/2014 Preparationforstatusmeetingwithcocounsel 1.0 1.0 0.0
1/13/2014 Draftmotionforleavetofilesurreplyandproposedsurreplyon
intervention
2.0 2.0 0.0
1/14/2014 Prepareforhearingonmotiontointervene 3.0 3.0 0.0
1/14/2014 Emailclientupdateonhearing 0.2 0.2 0.0
1/14/2014 ResearchrulingoffederaldistrictctinOklahomastrikingmarriageban 2.0 1.0 1.0
1/14/2014 ReviewAnswerofDefendantGov.Otter 1.0 1.0 0.0
1/15/2014 Prepareforhearingonmotiontointervene 6.0 6.0 0.0
1/15/2014 ReviewerratafiledbyDefendantRichonmotiontodismiss 0.2 0.2 0.0
1/15/2014 ConferwithcocounselonOKdecisionandimplications 0.5 0.5 0.0
1/16/2014 DebrieifngwithcocounselandPlaintiffsreinterventionhearing 1.2 1.0 0.2
1/16/2014 Preparationfororalargumentonmotiontointervene,reviewbriefing,
research,conferwithcocounsel
4.5 3.5 1.0
1/16/2014 Courtappearancehearingonmotiontointerveneandlitigationscheduling
conference
1.5 1.5 0.0
1/17/2014 Emailstoclientswithstatusupdatesonhearingandlitigationplan,respond
toquestions
0.5 0.5 0.0
1/17/2014 Reviewordercasemanagementplan,emailsametoclients 0.2 0.2 0.0
1/17/2014 Researchonamendmentissuesconcerningdeed 2.0 2.0 0.0
1/18/2014 Emailsclientrerevisionstodeclarations,researchondeedsandownership,
conferwithclientsre:same
2.5 2.5 0.0
1/19/2014 Researchrestandingissuesforamendedcomplaint 2.0 2.0 0.0
1/19/2014 Researchondeeds,consultwithrealestateexpertre:same,gifttaxissue,
respondto
clientquestions,conferwithcocounsel
2.0 2.0 0.0
1/20/2014 ReviewOklahomadecisionrestanding 1.0 1.0 0.0
1/21/2014 Emailtococounselonstrategy 0.3 0.3 0.0
1/22/2014 Researchcommunitypropertywithrightofsurvivorship,triptoRecorder's
Officetoobtaindeed,conferonnewdeed,emailwithTEresamefor
amendedcomplaint
2.9 2.9 0.0
1/22/2014 Phoneconferencewithcocounselonamendmentofpleadings 1.5 1.5 0.0
1/23/2014 Reviewdraftofdeed,followupquestions;conferwithcocounselre:same,
respondtoquestionsofLWandSWontitletoproperty
1.5 1.5 0.0
1/24/2014 Reviewandrespondtoclientemailsondeedquestions;furtherinstructions
ondeeds
1.6 1.6 0.0
1/24/2014 ResearchonHB375andconfercocounselre:same 0.5 0.5 0.0
1/24/2014 Reviewemailre;expertDr.Lambandourrequests 0.2 0.2 0.0
6
DeborahFergusonTime
BILLED
HOURS
CHARGED
BILLING
JUDGMENT
REDUCTIONS
1/25/2014 Revisionsto8plaintiffdeclarationsISOMSJ 4.3 4.3 0.0
1/26/2014 ReviewemailwitheditsfromRRandABondeclarations,revisionstoboth
declarations,proof8declarations,emailsametococounsel
1.5 1.5 0.0
1/26/2014 ReviewmediacoverageonHouseBill375onbanonStateJointIncome
taxes,researchre:same
0.7 0.7 0.0
1/27/2014 Emailclientonconsentorder 0.2 0.2 0.0
1/27/2014 FollowupwithexpertDr.Lambonquestionsregardingdeclaration 0.4 0.4 0.0
1/27/2014 Researchre:legislativeactionandtrackingwithHO0375andSenate 0.6 0.6 0.0
1/27/2014 Reviewamendedcomplaint,editstosame,conferwithcocounselon
amendmentofcomplaintandprocedure
1.3 1.3 0.0
1/27/2014 Conferwithpotentialamicus 0.3 0.3 0.0
1/27/2014 Reviewandcopyexecuteddeeds,discusswithcocounsel,appearanceat
Recordersofficesanddiscussonrequesttorecord,followupwithclients
andcocounsel
2.2 2.2 0.0
1/28/2014 Conferwithcocounselonhearingpreparation,requesttranscripts 0.4 0.4 0.0
1/28/2014 Conferwithcocounselonfilingofamendedcomplaint,suggestionsre:
same
1.2 1.2 0.0
1/28/2014 ReviewfilingofAG'sMotiontoDismiss,docketNo.41,411 1.0 1.0 0.0
1/29/2014 OriginalrecordeddeedsreturnedtoPlaintiffsTEandSLandLWandSW 0.3 0.0 0.3
1/29/2014 EditandreviewAmendedComplaint,filingofsame 2.3 2.3 0.0
1/29/2014 PhoneconferencewithRecorderRich,acceptingdeedsforrecording,filing
ofsame
0.9 0.9 0.0
1/30/2014 ReviewDocketNo.43andconferwithcocounsel 0.3 0.3 0.0
1/31/2014 ReviewDocketNo.44,AnswertoAmendedComplaint 0.5 0.5 0.0
2/1/2014 EmailswithPlaintiffs,schedulingclientmeeting 0.5 0.0 0.5
2/1/2014 DraftoutlineofStatementofFacts 2.2 2.2 0.0
2/4/2014 RevieweditstoTEDeclaration,revisions,emailtoclientondeclarationsand
taxquestion
2.4 2.4 0.0
2/4/2014 EmailtoLWontaxissues,injuries 0.3 0.3 0.0
2/5/2014 Conferwithcocounselondetailedreviewof8Plaintiffdeclarationsand
editstosame,researchonstatusofIdahotaxbillbeforeSenate
6.5 6.5 0.0
2/6/2014 AdditionaleditstoPlaintiffs'declarations,additionofvariousexhibitsin
support
6.2 6.2 0.0
2/6/2014 ReviewofsummaryofUtah10thCir.brieffiledbyState 0.2 0.2 0.0
2/8/2014 Researchre:summaryjudgmentbriefing 3.5 3.5 0.0
2/10/2014 ReviewIdahoS.Ct.decisiononsecondparentadoption,conferwithco
counsel,emailclientsre:same
2.5 2.5 0.0
2/10/2014 EmailfromGovernor'scounselonpagelimitationsforbriefs 0.2 0.2 0.0
2/11/2014 PhoneconferencewithPlaintiffABtorevieweditstodeclaration 0.5 0.5 0.0
2/11/2014 Conferwithcocounselonpagelimitations 0.2 0.2 0.0
2/11/2014 Respondtopressinquiry 0.2 0.0 0.2
2/11/2014 Revieweditsto8declarations,revisionstosame,emailedtoclientsfor
review,researchre:Idahoadoptioncodeforsame
2.5 2.5 0.0
2/11/2014 Phoneconferencewithcocounselonstatusofsummaryjudgmentbriefing,
declarations
1.1 1.1 0.0
2/12/2014 ReviewofPlaintiffcomments(LWandSW)onrespectivedeclarations,
revisionstosame,emails,conferwithcocounselonedits
1.8 1.8 0.0
2/12/2014 ReviewofeditsofABdeclarationsandrevisionsre;same 1.1 1.1 0.0
2/12/2014 Phoneconferencewithdefensecounsel(Gov.)repagelimitationonbriefs 0.2 0.2 0.0
2/12/2014 ReviewdecisionfederaldistrictcourtKentucky 1.0 1.0 0.0
2/12/2014 FollowupemailtoPlaintiffswithadditionalinstructionsonexecuting
declarations
0.3 0.3 0.0
2/12/2014 ReviewofdeclarationeditsfromTE,revisions,emailresame. 0.6 0.6 0.0
2/12/2014 ReviewofeditsfromRRdeclaration,editsame,conferwithcocounsel,
emailwithRR
0.8 0.8 0.0
7
DeborahFergusonTime
BILLED
HOURS
CHARGED
BILLING
JUDGMENT
REDUCTIONS
2/12/2014 ReviewofheightenedscrutinysectionofSJbrief,researchresame 1.5 1.5 0.0
2/13/2014 ResearchandreviewforMSJ 2.0 2.0 0.0
2/13/2014 Revisionstodeclarations,emailswithclientsresame,draftStatementof
Facts,revisionstosame,conferwithcocounsel,researchIdahotax
implications
8.3 8.3 0.0
2/14/2014 ReviewandeditSJbriefrecognitionsection,conferwithcocounselre;
same
2.0 2.0 0.0
2/14/2014 ReviewofsectionsofSJbriefing,declarationofDr.Lamb 3.5 3.5 0.0
2/14/2014 ConferwithPlaintiffAAondeclaration 0.4 0.4 0.0
2/14/2014 Finalizealldeclarationsandexhibitsforcocounsel,followupemailswith
clientsonexecutionofdeclarations
1.2 1.2 0.0
2/15/2014 ReviseandeditSJbriefing,conferwithcocounselre;same 6.0 6.0 0.0
2/16/2014 ReviewandeditSJbriefing,conferwithcocounselre:sameandfilingissues 7.5 7.5 0.0
2/17/2014 ReviewandreviseSJfilings;conferwithcocounsel 5.0 5.0 0.0
2/18/2014 Finalrevisionstoandfilingofmotionforsummaryjudgment,memorandum
insupport,statementoffacts,declarationofDr.Lamb,Declarationsof
Latta,Ehlers,L.Watsen,S.Watsen,Altmayer,S.Robertson,Beierle,R.
Roberston,andmotiontotakejudicialnotice
10.5 8.0 2.5
2/19/2014 Reviewcorrectivedocketentry,conferwithcocounsel,reviewofportionof
DefendantOtter'sbriefinsupportofSJ
3.5 3.5 0.0
2/20/2014 ContinuedreviewofDefendantOtter'sSJbriefing 3.0 3.0 0.0
2/20/2014 PreparationforconferencewithcocounselonresponsetoGov.Otter'sSJ
motion,researchforsameonIdahostatistics
1.8 1.8 0.0
2/21/2014 ReviewemailfromplaintiffLWonissueconcerningdeed,responsetosame. 0.3 0.3 0.0
2/21/2014 PhoneconferencewithCocounselre:responsetocrossSJmotion 1.0 1.0 0.0
2/21/2014 RequestfromcounselatCornerstoneFamilyCouncilforleavetofileamicus
brief.Conferwithcocounselre:same;emailresponsetorequest
0.4 0.4 0.0
2/21/2014 Draftoutlineformorningconferencewithcocounsel 0.8 0.8 0.0
2/21/2014 EmailtoexpertDr.Lambre:Gov.Otter'sSJbrief,requestreviewofsame
andquestions
0.2 0.2 0.0
2/24/2014 MeetingwithcocounseltodiscussresponsestrategytoGov.Otter'sSJ
motion
1.2 1.2 0.0
2/24/2014 ReviewresponseofexpertDr.LambtoDefendants'SJmemorandumand
additionalresearch;emailtococounselre:same
1.5 1.5 0.0
2/24/2014 ReviewportionofGov.'sappendixtoSJmotion 4.0 4.0 0.0
2/25/2014 ReviewDocketNo.66,amicusbriefofCC 1.0 1.0 0.0
2/25/2014 Reviewdocketno.s64and65,CornerstoneFoundation,motiontofile
amicus
0.4 0.4 0.0
2/26/2014 Conferencecallwithcocounselre:responsetoGov.'sSJbrief 0.8 0.8 0.0
2/26/2014 ReviewTexasfederaldecision 1.2 1.2 0.0
2/26/2014 ConferandemailDr.Lambre:seconddeclarationinsupportofopposition
toGov.'sSJbrief;reviewGov.'sSJappendix
2.3 2.3 0.0
2/26/2014 Preparationforconferencewithcocounsel 0.5 0.5 0.0
2/26/2014 ReviewUtahPlaintiffs'responsebriefin10thCircuitappealinmarriage
equalitycase
3.0 0.0 3.0
2/27/2014 RespondtoemailsfromPlaintiffsre:statusandmedia 0.3 0.3 0.0
2/27/2014 Researchre:responsetoGov.'sSJmotion 2.5 2.5 0.0
2/27/2014 ConferwithDr.Lambandcocounselre:expertsupplementaldeclaration 0.8 0.8 0.0
2/28/2014 Consultwithplaintiffandcocounselonmediainquires 0.3 0.3 0.0
3/3/2014 Reviewandrespondtoplaintiffquestionsoncasestatus,researchand
review10thCir.Kitchencasebriefingre:responsetoSJbrief
2.1 2.1 0.0
8
DeborahFergusonTime
BILLED
HOURS
CHARGED
BILLING
JUDGMENT
REDUCTIONS
3/4/2014 ReviewexperttestimonyinresponsetoSJresponseandDr.Lamb'ssecond
declaration
1.8 1.8 0.0
3/4/2014 Researchre:SJresponsebriefing 1.5 1.5 0.0
3/4/2014 InterviewwithPlaintiffsRRandABconcerningcasestatus 1.4 1.4 0.0
3/4/2014 Emailswithcocounselonplaintiffs'interviews 0.3 0.3 0.0
3/4/2014 EmailwithPlaintiffsonstatusandrequestsforinterviews 0.2 0.2 0.0
3/4/2014 MeetingwithcocounselonresponsetoSJ 1.2 1.2 0.0
3/5/2014 ConferwithCocounselonstrategyofresponsebrief,discusscomments 2.0 2.0 0.0
3/5/2014 Researchtestimonyre:Regernusre:seconddeclarationofDr.Lamb 0.5 0.5 0.0
3/5/2014 ReviewofDocketNo.578,portionofAppendixinsupportofGov.SJ
motion
1.2 1.2 0.0
3/5/2014 Emailtococounseloncommentsonappendix,reviewofsame 1.5 1.5 0.0
3/5/2014 Coordinationwithplaintiffsoninterviews 0.4 0.4 0.0
3/6/2014 Responsetococounselonlocalruleissue 0.3 0.0 0.3
3/6/2014 PrepareSWplaintiffforinterview 0.5 0.5 0.0
3/6/2014 Requestpageextensionfromopposingcounsel 0.2 0.2 0.0
3/6/2014 Responseandreplytopageextensionrequest 0.1 0.1 0.0
3/6/2014 Coordinateinterviewandscheduling 0.3 0.0 0.3
3/7/2014 ConferwithCocounselonseconddeclarationofDr.Lamb 1.0 1.0 0.0
3/7/2014 Schedulingwithplaintiffsandcocounselforinterviews 0.2 0.0 0.2
3/8/2014 ConferwithcocounselonstatusofappealinSmithkline 0.3 0.3 0.0
3/8/2014 ReviewVirginiaoralargumenttranscripts 1.0 1.0 0.0
3/8/2014 Reviewofdraftbriefandcommentsre:same 3.6 3.6 0.0
3/10/2014 ConferwithcocounselonresponsetoMSJ 0.5 0.5 0.0
3/10/2014 ReviewrevisionstoDr.Lambdeclaration 0.5 0.5 0.0
3/11/2014 Emailfromclientoninterviewandarticle 0.3 0.3 0.0
3/11/2014 ReviewrevisionstoSJresponsebrief 1.2 1.2 0.0
3/11/2014 Conferwithcocounselondrafts,plaintiffinterviews 0.8 0.4 0.4
3/11/2014 ReviewrevisionstoLambDeclaration;conferwithcocounsel 0.8 0.8 0.0
3/12/2014 Conferwithcocounselonneedforstipulationoncrossmotions,response
tosame
0.3 0.3 0.0
3/12/2014 ReviewdraftofsupplementaldeclarationofDr.Lamb,responsetosame 0.5 0.5 0.0
3/13/2014 ReviewandconferwithcocounselonrevisionstoLambdeclarations 0.3 0.3 0.0
3/13/2014 ReviewdraftresponsetoSJmotion 1.0 1.0 0.0
3/14/2014 ReviewrevisionstoDrLambdeclaration,comments 1.0 1.0 0.0
3/15/2014 ReviewdraftofSJresponsebrief 2.0 2.0 0.0
3/17/2014 ReviewdocketNo.s70,71,responsestoRTJnoticesfromdefendants 0.3 0.3 0.0
3/18/2014 ReviewadditionalchangestoDr.Lambdeclarations,commentsre:same 0.7 0.7 0.0
3/18/2014 RequestfromGov.'scounselforadditionalpagesforbrief 0.2 0.2 0.0
3/19/2014 ReviewandreviseRTJnoticedraftanddeclarationinsupport,conferwith
cocounsel
1.8 0.5 1.3
3/19/2014 Dr.LambDeclaration,reviewoffinal 0.3 0.3 0.0
3/19/2014 ReviewexhibitsAandBtodeclarationinsupportofRTJnotice 1.6 1.6 0.0
3/19/2014 ConferwithcocounselonrequestfromGov.'scounselforadditionalpages,
respondtosame
0.3 0.3 0.0
3/19/2014 RevisionsandcommentstoSJresponsebrieffinaldraft 3.5 3.5 0.0
3/20/2014 FinalproofreadandfilingofmemoranduminoppositiontoSJ,responseto
SOFofGov.,requesttotakejudicialnotice,declarationinsupportand
exhibits,proposedorder,motionforexcesspagesandproposedorder
1.0 1.0 0.0
3/20/2014 FinalizedeclarationinsupportandRTJnotice 1.2 0.7 0.5
3/20/2014 ReviewdraftofOppositiontoGov.'sSOF 1.5 1.5 0.0
9
DeborahFergusonTime
BILLED
HOURS
CHARGED
BILLING
JUDGMENT
REDUCTIONS
3/20/2014 Reviewdraftmotionforrequestforadditionalpages,draftproposedorder
re:same
0.5 0.5 0.0
3/20/2014 ConferwithcocounselonfilingofSJresponsebrief,reviewoffinalversion 3.2 3.2 0.0
3/21/2014 ReviewDefendantsRichandAG'scombinedSJresponseandreplyto
motiontodismiss,andmotionforjudicialnoticedocketno.s73,731,74
and75
3.5 3.5 0.0
3/21/2014 EmailtoPlaintiffsonstatusupdateandrecentfilings 0.3 0.3 0.0
3/21/2014 ReviewGov.'srecentfilingsdocketNo.s81,811,812 2.5 2.5 0.0
3/21/2014 ReviewMichiganfederalmarriagedecision 1.0 1.0 0.0
3/22/2014 Researchonnewdecisions 1.0 0.0 1.0
3/23/2014 Emailtococounselonclientrequest,preparationforphoneconference 0.5 0.5 0.0
3/23/2014 ReviewGov.briefinoppositiontoSJ,commentsre:same 2.0 2.0 0.0
3/24/2014 Conferwithcocounseloncommentsre:Gov.'sSJresponsebrief 0.5 0.5 0.0
3/24/2014 Phoneconferencewithcocounselonreplybrief 1.0 1.0 0.0
3/24/2014 Requestregardingresearchforhearingpreparation 0.2 0.0 0.2
3/24/2014 ReviewDocket73and81inpreparationforconferencecallonreplybriefing 1.5 1.5 0.0
3/24/2014 EmailresponsetoPlaintiffSL,conferre:samewithcocounsel 0.3 0.3 0.0
3/25/2014 Conferwithcocounselonstrategyforreplybriefing,discussionof
defendants'SJresponses
1.5 1.5 0.0
3/25/2014 Researchre:replybrief 1.2 1.2 0.0
3/25/2014 Emailtocounselfordefendantsre:procedureforhearing 0.2 0.2 0.0
3/26/2014 DraftoutlineofreplybriefinsupportofSJ 1.2 0.0 1.2
3/26/2014 FollowuponstatusofPlaintiffinterviewsNPR 0.3 0.0 0.3
3/27/2014 ResearchonIdaholegislativehistoryofconstitutionalamendment,confer
withcocounselre:same
0.5 0.5 0.0
3/27/2014 Researchoncurrentstatusofpendingfederalappealsonsamesex
marriagebans
0.5 0.5 0.0
3/27/2014 Conferwithcocounselonstatusofdraftreplybrief 0.2 0.2 0.0
3/27/2014 ConferwithcocounselonupdateonSmithklineenbancreviewby9thCir. 0.2 0.2 0.0
3/27/2014 Prepandresearchforhearing 1.5 1.5 0.0
3/28/2014 Research,reviewforhearing 2.0 2.0 0.0
3/29/2014 OutlineandreviewofQ&Aforhearing 2.5 2.5 0.0
3/31/2014 Preparation,researchforhearing 1.8 1.8 0.0
3/31/2014 EmailreNPRinterviews,emailtococounsel 0.2 0.2 0.0
3/31/2014 Conferwithcocounselonreplybrief 0.2 0.2 0.0
4/1/2014 ReviewofdraftreplybriefinsupportofSJandeditsre:same 2.5 2.5 0.0
4/2/2014 DraftresponsetoDefendantRichandState'sStatementofFacts,circulate
withcocounsel
1.2 1.2 0.0
4/2/2014 DraftresponsetoDefendantRichandState'sRJN,circulatewithcocounsel 0.8 0.8 0.0
4/2/2014 Conferwithcocounselonhearingpreparationmaterials 0.3 0.3 0.0
4/2/2014 ReviewemailfromexpertDr.Lambandrespondtosame 0.2 0.2 0.0
4/2/2014 EditstoreplybriefinsupportofSJ,conferwithcocounsel 1.5 1.5 0.0
4/3/2014 Emailfromopposingcounselre:requestforpageextensionofreply,confer
withcocounsel,respondtosame
0.2 0.2 0.0
4/3/2014 Researchandpreparationforhearing 2.0 2.0 0.0
4/4/2014 ReviewandeditofPlaintiffs'ReplybriefinsupportofSJ,filingofsame 2.0 2.0 0.0
4/4/2014 EmailstoPlaintiffsoffilingsandupdateofcasestatus 0.2 0.2 0.0
4/4/2014 FinalizereviewandfilingofResponsetoDefendantRichandState'sRequest
forJudicialNotice.
0.6 0.6 0.0
10
DeborahFergusonTime
BILLED
HOURS
CHARGED
BILLING
JUDGMENT
REDUCTIONS
4/4/2014 FinalreviewandfilingofResponsetoDefendantRichandState'sStatement
of
Facts
0.6 0.6 0.0
4/5/2014 ReviewDocketNo.90,Gov.'sreplyinsupportofSJ,conferwithcocounsel 2.8 2.8 0.0
4/6/2014 ReviewmaterialsreferencedinGov.'sSJreplybrief 1.2 1.2 0.0
4/7/2014 Preparationfororalargument 1.5 1.5 0.0
4/10/2014 Conferwithcocounselonargumentissues 0.4 0.4 0.0
4/10/2014 Legalresearchlistento10thCir.OralargumentinUtahKitchencase 1.2 1.2 0.0
4/11/2014 ConferwithCocounselonhearing 1.2 1.2 0.0
4/11/2014 Conferwithcocounselonargument 0.5 0.5 0.0
4/11/2014 Researchre:legislativefacts 0.5 0.5 0.0
4/15/2014 ReviewIowamarriagerecognitionfederaldecision,conferwithcocounsel. 1.0 1.0 0.0
4/16/2014 Draftoutlineoforalargument 2.0 2.0 0.0
4/17/2014 Revisionstooutline,researchreview,listento10thCir.Oralargumentsin
Oklahoma
3.5 3.5 0.0
4/18/2014 ReviewSJbriefingandcrossSJbriefinginpreparationfororalargument;
ReviewOhiofederaldecision
3.5 3.5 0.0
4/21/2014 Phoneconferenceswithcocounselonoralargumentstrategy,and
preparation
3.0 3.0 0.0
4/22/2014 Researchandrevisiontooutline,preparationfororalargument 4.0 4.0 0.0
4/24/2014 Preparationfororalargument,conferwithcocounsel 8.6 8.6 0.0
4/25/2014 DraftandfilePlaintiffs'noticeofadditionalauthorityinsupportofSJ 1.0 1.0 0.0
4/29/2014 ReviewofDocketNo.93,Gov.'ssupplementalauthority 0.1 0.1 0.0
4/29/2014 Preparationfororalargument,conferwithCocounselre:same 5.8 5.8 0.0
4/30/2014 Mootcourtwithcocounsel,furtheroralargumentpreparationandreview 6.1 6.1 0.0
5/1/2014 Preparationfororalargument;emailtocourtroomdeputyre:logistics,
phonetoCourtITre:testofmicrophone
4.6 4.6 0.0
5/2/2014 Preparationfororalargument;livetestcourtroomaudio,2ndmootcourt
withcocounselandothers
7.5 7.5 0.0
5/2/2014 CommunicationswithPlaintiffsonmediaandmeeting,chamberadvisedof
courtroomchange
0.4 0.4 0.0
5/2/2014 ReviewGov.'sresponsetoPlaintiffs'noticeofadditionalauthority,Docket
94
0.1 0.1 0.0
5/4/2014 Preparationfororalargument,conferwithcocounsel 4.5 4.5 0.0
5/5/2014 Oralargumentonalldispositivemotions,debriefingwithcocounseland
plaintiffs
4.1 4.1 0.0
5/8/2014 Discussionwithcocounselandresearchrestayissues. 0.4 0.4 0.0
5/8/2014 EmailfromGov.'scounseltochambers,forwardedsametococounsel,
discussionofsame
0.6 0.6 0.0
5/9/2014 Researchandconferonstayissues;Conferwithcocounselonstrategy
whendecisionreleased,media,andplaintiffs.AdvisePlaintiffsre:possible
scenarios,respondtoquestionsregardingsame.
2.4 2.4 0.0
5/10/2014 ReadArkansasdecision.Reviewdraftpressrelease,andmediaplan.
RespondtoPlaintiffs'inquiresre:same.
2.3 2.3 0.0
5/12/2014 Revisionstopressrelease,emailclientre:quotesforsame 0.4 0.0 0.4
11
DeborahFergusonTime
BILLED
HOURS
CHARGED
BILLING
JUDGMENT
REDUCTIONS
5/12/2014 ReviewofDocketNo.97Gov.'srequestforstayifdecisionisadverse,and
supportingStewartDeclaration,DocketNo.971.Emailsre:same
2.0 2.0 0.0
5/12/2014 Emailfromchambersregardingtimingofdecision,forwardedthesameto
cocounselandclient,coconferandrespondtoquestions
0.4 0.4 0.0
5/13/2014 ConferwithcocounselandplaintiffsawaitingreleaseofDecision,
discussionsregardingstaycontingenciesandnextsteps,respondto
Plaintiffs'inquiries;InitialreviewofCourt'sDecision,meetingwithPlaintiffs
resame
2.5 2.5 0.0
5/13/2014 Coordinateresponsestomedia,reviewpressreleases,phonecallfrom
chambersonreleaseofdecision.
0.5 0.5 0.0
5/13/2014 Multiplepressinterviews 5.3 3.0 2.3
5/13/2014 ReviewedGov.'srequestforemergencyhearingonrequestforstay 0.2 0.2 0.0
5/14/2014 Respondtomultiplemediainquiresonstatusofstayrequest 1.5 1.5 0.0
5/14/2014 ReviewDecision,advisePlaintiffsofsameanddiscuss,conferwithco
counselonstayandnextsteps,addressmediaonDecisionandGov.'s
requestforStay,reviewofFinalJudgmentorder.Appealfiled
4.0 4.0 0.0
5/14/2014 ReviewAG'semergencymotionforastaypendingappealaff'd,andconfer
withcocounselonmotionsandresponsetosame,respondtopress
inquiresresame
2.8 2.8 0.0
5/15/2014 Meetingwithcocounselonresponsetostay. 0.8 0.8 0.0
5/15/2014 Reviewdraftresponseopposingmotionforstay,editsre:same,phoneto
emergencymotionunitof9thCir.,filedresponsewith9thCir.;review
Gov.'sreplyinsupportofstayrequest,review9thCir.'sordergrantinga
temporarystay,conferwithcocounsel,respondtomultiplemedia
requests,interviewsre:same,advisePlaintiffonstatusofappealandeffect
oftemporarystay
6.0 6.0 0.0
5/16/2014 RespondtoPlaintiffs'inquiresonnextsteps 1.2 1.2 0.0
5/20/2014 ReviewOregonmarriageDecision 0.3 0.0 0.3
Totals 717.5 678.2 39.3
12

Exhibit C

Latta v. Otter - 1:13-cv-00482-CWD
Deborah Ferguson Fees-for-Fees Time
BILLED
HOURS
CHARGED
BILLING
JUDGMENT
ADJUSTMENTS
5/8/2014 Discussion with co-counsel and research on potential recovery of fees. 0.8 0.8 0
5/12/2014 Confer with Co-counsel on fees petition issues. 0.7 0.7 0
5/12/2014 Conference call with co-counsel on fee petition issues. 1.1 1.1 0
5/15/2014 Meeting with co-counsel on fee issues. 0.7 0.7 0
5/16/2014 Phone conferences re: affidavits in support of fee petition and fee petition
research
4 4 0
5/16/2014 Confer with co-counsel on fee petition, and research same 2.3 2.3 0
5/18/2014 Review time sheets, organization of fee petition materials 6.5 6.5 0
5/19/2014 Confer with co-counsel NCLR on fee petition issues 0.8 0.8 0
5/19/2014 Preparation for phone conference with co-counsel 0.3 0.3 0
5/19/2014 Research re: fee petition 0.5 0.5 0
5/19/2014 Phone conference with co-counsel (CD) on fee petition preparation 1.3 1.3 0
5/20/2014 Reviewed Court's order granting emergency request for a stay pending
appeal, advised Plaintiffs of same and briefing schedule; conferred with co-
counsel
0.4 0.4 0
5/21/2014 Revisions to draft supporting declarations of Kristensen and Scholnick 0.5 0.5 0
5/22/2014 Review of time sheets since case inception and billing adjustment reductions 2 2 0
5/22/2014 Review and edit memorandum in support of fee petition 0.8 0.8 0
5/22/2014 Meeting with co-counsel to discuss memorandum, and fee petition 1 1 0
5/22/2014 Email and confer with attorneys providing declarations in support of fee
petition
0.2 0.2 0
5/23/2014 Draft declaration in support of the fee petition, review of Durham
declaration, review of draft of Minter declaration, review of Scholnick
declaration, review of Kristensen declaration, confer with co-counsel on fee
petition filings
4.1 4.1 0
Totals 28.0 28 0
1

202 N. 9
th
Street, Suite 401 C
Boise, Idaho 83702
Tel.: (208) 484-2253

Boise, Idaho 83702
Tel.: (208) 345-5183

Shannon P. Minter
Tel.: (415) 392-6257




Plaintiffs,
v.

Defendants,
and
STATE OF IDAHO,



DECLARATION OF SHANNON
P. MINTER IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR
REASONABLE ATTORNEYS
FEES AND EXPENSES
THROUGH MAY 23, 2014

1

I, Shannon P. Minter, hereby declare and state as follows:
1. I am an attorney admitted pro hac vice before this Court and represent the Plaintiffs
in this action. I am a member in good standing of the California State Bar and am admitted to
practice law in California state and federal courts, several U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the Supreme
Court of the United States. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated in this Declaration
and could and would competently testify to these facts.
2. This Declaration is filed concurrently with Plaintiffs Motion for Reasonable
Attorneys Fees and Expenses Through May 23, 2014.
3. I am a 1993 graduate of Cornell University School of Law, and have been a licensed
attorney since that year. Since 2000, I have been the Legal Director of the National Center for
Lesbian Rights (NCLR), which is a national legal organization committed to advancing the civil
and human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and their families. In particular,
NCLR is committed to litigating precedent-setting cases at the trial and appellate court levels
throughout the country. A more complete recitation of my experience and background in civil
rights cases is included below and in my curriculum vitae, a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
MY MOST RELEVANT GENERAL BACKGROUND
4. NCLR maintains a diverse legal practice and I have litigated a variety of complex
cases in state and federal courts during my twenty-one year tenure at the organization. For
instance, I have litigated complex child custody, adoption, youth, immigration, employment
discrimination, and civil rights matters. I have also argued cases before trial and appellate courts,
including state supreme courts and federal circuit courts of appeal.
2

5. I am an expert on legal matters involving lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
(LGBT) people and frequently teach or lecture regarding these topics. For example, I have taught
courses on LGBT legal issues at Berkeley, Stanford, Santa Clara, American University
Washington College of Law, and several other laws schools.
6. I have authored several treatises and publications on legal issues related to the
LGBT community, including in the areas of family law, constitutional rights, employment
discrimination, and immigration / asylum, and frequently lecture around the country and abroad
regarding LGBT civil and human rights. For example, last September, I traveled to El Salvador
to meet with various governmental agencies about hate violence against LGBT people at the
request of the U.S. Department of State.
7. I also have extensive experience litigating challenges to state laws that prohibit
marriages by same-sex couples or recognition of valid marriages of same-sex couples performed
in other jurisdictions. NCLR was lead counsel for same-sex couples in In re Marriage Cases, 43
Cal.4th 757, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384 (2008), representing fifteen (15) same-sex couples
in the case that made California the second state in the country to allow same-sex couples to
marry. I argued the case on behalf of the couples before the California Supreme Court, which
ruled in May 2008 that the California Constitutions guarantees of due process and equal protection
prohibited the state from barring same-sex couples from marriage. The decision was also the first
ruling by a state supreme court that laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation are
subject to strict scrutiny under the equal protection guarantee of a state constitution. The decision
followed more than four years of litigation in the California courts, including briefing and
argument by NCLR and its co-counsel in the San Francisco Superior Court and California Court
of Appeal. I was substantially involved in the briefing and strategy for the case throughout the
3

process, as was Senior Staff Attorney Christopher Stoll, who was then a partner at Heller Ehrman
LLP, one of the law firms that worked with NCLR on the case, and Constitutional Litigation
Director David Codell, who had his own firm at that time.
8. NCLR was also lead counsel in Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal. 4th 364, 207 P.3d 48
(Cal. 2009). I argued that case before the California Supreme Court, which held that the marriages
of same-sex couples who legally married in California before the enactment of Proposition 8 were
valid.
9. In 2012, NCLR litigated Port v. Cowan, 426 Md. 435, 44 A.3d 970 (Md. 2012). I
argued that case before the Maryland Court of Appeals, the highest state court in that state, which
held that Maryland must recognize the marriages of same-sex couples who validly married in other
jurisdictions.
10. In 2011 through 2013, NCLR also successfully litigated Cozen OConnor, P.C. v.
Tobits, et al., No. 110045, 2013 WL 3878688 (E.D. Penn. Jul. 29, 2013) in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania establishing the validity of a marriage of a same-sex couple. In that case, Jennifer
Tobits lost her wife to a four-year battle with cancer. When she sought distribution of her wifes
employee pension plan, the employer refused to distribute the funds based on the federal Defense
of Marriage Act. Relying on the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in United States v. Windsor, the
federal judge ruled that Jennifer was a legal spouse entitled to her wifes pension plan.
11. NCLR also represented same-sex couples in Griego v. Oliver, a lawsuit challenging
New Mexicos failure to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In that case, we secured a
unanimous decision from the New Mexico Supreme Court ruling that the New Mexico
Constitution requires the state to allow same-sex couples to marry and to recognize the valid
marriages of same-sex couples performed outside the state.
4

12. In 2013, NCLR served as amicus counsel for the Leadership Conference on Civil
and Human Rights, the American Association of University Women, the Hispanic National Bar
Association, the Japanese American Citizens League, the League of United Latin American
Citizens, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Southern Poverty Law
Center and other civil rights organizations in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013).
13. I, along with Christopher Stoll, Amy Whelan, and other NCLR legal staff, currently
serve as Plaintiffs counsel in multiple marriage cases around the country, including in Utah,
Florida, Tennessee, Idaho, and Wyoming. We have prevailed on dispositive motions in Tennessee,
Utah, and here in Idaho, have a summary judgment motion pending in Florida, and will file a
summary judgment motion in Wyoming soon. Because of our extensive experience and expertise
litigating these cases, we have also provided legal assistance and research to numerous other
attorneys around the country who are litigating marriage cases in both state and federal courts.
SUMMARY OF THE LITIGATION AND THE
EXCELLENT RESULTS OBTAINED
14. NCLR was retained in this litigation, along with co-counsel, on a fully contingent
basis to challenge Idahos laws prohibiting the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples
and prohibiting recognition of valid marriages of same-sex couples entered in other jurisdictions.
Ms. Ferguson served as lead counsel, and NCLR and Mr. Durham were actively involved in
overall strategy, drafting of key briefs and documents, and decision making for the case. All
counsel worked hard to divide tasks so that their effort was not duplicative. Plaintiffs counsel
conducted much of their business during telephone conferences and through email, which served
as a cost-effective means to divide tasks between the attorneys and staff while eliminating the
need for expensive travel by NCLR.
5

15. Plaintiffs counsel litigated this case efficiently and without unnecessary
duplication of effort. Because of NCLRs long experience with the important constitutional
issues involved in this case, we took primary responsibility for preparing initial drafts of many of
the pleadings and briefs, including the briefing regarding the dispositive motions, which were
reviewed and edited by co-counsel. Ms. Ferguson prepared the initial draft of the complaint and,
along with Mr. Craig Durham, portions of the summary judgment briefing, particularly those
portions dealing with Idaho law and legislative history. Ms. Ferguson presented the oral
arguments on behalf of the Plaintiffs for the dispositive motions and the Attorney Generals
request to intervene. She vetted potential Plaintiffs and also took primary responsibility for the
extensive interviews of and communications with the eight Plaintiffs during the rapidly evolving
course of the litigation. She drafted the eight detailed Plaintiffs declarations in support of the
summary judgment motion, and contributed extensively to all pleadings and briefs. In order to
combat Defendants social science arguments about the suitability of gay and lesbian parents,
Ms. Ferguson and I also worked with Dr. Michael Lamb, who submitted two declarations in this
case. Dr. Lamb is a preeminent, world renowned social science expert who specializes in
childrens development and adjustment.
12. Mr. Durham prepared initial drafts of important portions of the briefing on the
dispositive motions, reviewed all pleadings, assisted in the preparation for oral argument on the
dispositive motions and contributed his knowledge of practice and procedure in the District of
Idaho.
13. Despite this relatively short time period, the litigation was quite complex. There
were cross-motions for summary judgment filed by the Governor and the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also
had to respond to Defendants and Intervenor-Defendants motions to dismiss. All of that work,
6

including motions, oppositions, replies, and the oral argument, occurred within a short time frame
between January and May of 2014. The case was developed, filed and briefed on dispositive
motions, and a final Decision was issued on the merits, in the nine month period between August,
2013 and May, 2014.
14. The Defendants and the State, as an Intervenor in the case, aggressively litigated
this case, requiring Plaintiffs counsel to incur additional fees. For instance, the Governor filed a
separate dispositive motion, distinct from Recorder Christopher Rich and the Attorney General.
In total, Defendants submitted 1,889 pages of legal filings in response to Plaintiffs claims.
Defendant Richs motion attached numerous social science documents that purported to support
his argument that Idahos marriage laws are justified because they encourage stable biological
parents households. In order to combat these arguments, Plaintiffs retained and worked with Dr.
Michael Lamb, who submitted two declarations in this case.
15. Plaintiffs counsel also litigated this case efficiently by using legal research and
briefing from NCLRs other marriage cases around the country, where it was relevant and
applicable. This was not possible to do, however, for legal research regarding Idahos specific
laws prohibiting marriage by same-sex couples, the legislative history regarding those laws,
Idahos otherwise longstanding history recognizing valid marriage performed elsewhere, and the
specific state laws affecting married couples.
16. Based on my extensive litigation experience, the results obtained in this case are
excellent. Plaintiffs prevailed on all of their claims, including that Idahos laws violate their rights
to due process and equal protection of the laws, and also secured all of the relief requested.

7

BILLING RATES, RECORDS, REDUCTIONS, AND CHARTS
17. As a non-profit litigation firm, NCLR does not charge our clients for legal services.
We do, however, seek reasonable attorneys fees and expenses in cases where there are fee-shifting
statutes and our clients are the prevailing parties. NCLR and our co-counsel have incurred all
costs in this matter and Plaintiffs have agreed that any awarded attorneys fees and costs shall
belong to and be paid to Plaintiffs counsel.
18. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and accurate transcription of NCLRs time
and expenses in this case from the beginning of the case through May 23, 2014. That time reflects
our work on the following major categories of work: (1) review and editing of the complaint, the
amended complaint, and other related documents; (2) preparation of Plaintiffs successful
oppositions to Defendants motions to dismiss; (3) preparation of Plaintiffs successful motion for
summary judgment and related documents, including supporting affidavits and evidence, and; (4)
preparation of Plaintiffs successful oppositions to Defendants motions for summary judgment.
19. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and accurate transcription of NCLRs fees-
for-fees time in this case through May 23, 2014. This time reflects NCLRs work moving for
reasonable attorneys fees and costs in this case.
20. I have been assisted in this case by the following persons for whose work fees are
claimed: NCLRs Senior Staff Attorneys Christopher F. Stoll and Amy Whelan, and Staff
Attorney Jaime Huling Delaye. Mr. Stolls, Ms. Whelans and Ms. Huling Delayes resumes are
attached hereto as Exhibit D. NCLRs Constitutional Litigation Director, David Codell, also
worked more than 50 hours on this case. Mr. Codell is a highly-skilled expert in constitutional
law who clerked for the U.S. Supreme Court and has been litigating complex civil rights and other
matters for nearly twenty years. Although other NCLR staff members also worked on this case,
8

we are not seeking compensation either for Mr. Codells time or for their time as an exercise of
billing judgment, as described more fully below.
21. The current billing rates we seek in this case are as follows: $400 per hour for
myself, $325 per hour for Christopher Stoll, who has 19 years of litigation experience, $275 per
hour for Amy Whelan, who has 13 years of litigation experience, and $175 per hour for Jaime
Huling Delaye, who has five years of litigation experience. Although NCLR could seek our San
Francisco and Washington, D.C. billing rates for this case based on our expertise and experience,
see, e.g., Barjon v. Dalton, 132 F.3d 496, 501-502 (9th Cir. 1997); Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d
1392, 1405 (9
th
Cir. 1992), we are seeking rates consistent with those in the Boise legal market.
As a result, our fee request is markedly lower than that permitted under Ninth Circuit law. For
example, my 2014 market rate in Washington, D.C. is $650 per hour, Mr. Stolls and Ms. Whelans
market rates in San Francisco are between $510 and $600 per hour, and Ms. Huling Delayes rate
is $410 per hour.
22. NCLR and our co-counsel performed work efficiently, effectively, with extreme
diligence, and without unnecessary duplication. Based on my experience litigating complex civil
rights cases, I believe the hours recorded by NCLR staff on this case to be extremely conservative.
We have nevertheless made billing judgment reductions for the purpose of eliminating any
possible duplication, overstaffing or overwork. First, we did not record significant amounts of
time we spent drafting and revising briefs, communicating about strategy and emailing with co-
counsel about various litigation-related issues and strategy. Second, we made discrete deductions
of time based upon the same careful review of billing records that a lawyer would do before
sending a bill to a fee-paying client. These deductions appear in the Billing Judgment Reduction
columns on our timesheets. Third, we do not seek fees for approximately 90 hours of work that
9

five NCLR attorneys performed on the case, including approximately 50 hours spent by NCLRs
Constitutional Litigation Director, David Codell. Mr. Codell is a highly-skilled expert in
constitutional law who served as a Supreme Court law clerk for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. He
has been litigating complex civil rights and other matters for nearly twenty years. Finally, we do
not seek fees for the two paralegals in our office who worked on this case.
23. Following the exercise of the various billing judgment reductions described above,
NCLRs total claimed lodestar for merits work and fees-for-fees work through May 23, 2014 is
$131,470. We also seek $4,363.08 in expenses, for a total request of $135,833.08.
24. At the appropriate time, we will submit time records for time committed since May
23, 2014.
Executed in Washington, D.C. on this 27th day of May 2014.

Shannon P. Minter (pro hac vice)
Attorney for Plaintiffs

EXHIBIT A

SHANNON PRICE MINTER
Legal Director

EDUCATION AND BAR ADMISSIONS

Cornell Law School, J.D., 1993
Honors: Magna Cum Laude, Order of the Coif, Graduation Address
Activities: Symposium Editor, CORNELL INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL

Cornell University, Ph.D. program, English & American Literature, 1984-88
Honors: Mellon Fellow, Andrew White Fellow
University of Texas at Austin, B.A., 1983
Honors: Phi Beta Kappa

Bar Admissions: California (1993); admitted to CA state and federal courts, several U.S.
Courts of Appeals, and U.S. Supreme Court

EXPERIENCE

Legal Director, 2000-present; Senior Staff Attorney, 1996-1999
Legal director of national civil rights organization with offices in California and Washington,
D.C. with nationwide impact litigation and policy practice.
Litigation: Serve as lead counsel in state and federal impact cases, including child
custody, adoption, youth, immigration, employment discrimination, and other areas.
Supervise legal team of 13 in-house counsel and manage co-counsel relationships with
other legal organizations and law firms. Coordinate national network of 40 to 45 family
law and estate planning attorneys and legal scholars who develop new legal strategies for
protecting same-sex couples and their children.
Legislation: Draft local, state, and federal anti-discrimination and family recognition bills
and regulations affecting gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people.
Policy advocacy: Develop and implement national and state policy initiatives relating to
LGBT parents, students, youth, immigrants, elders, and prisoners. Examples include:
testimony as expert on gender identity discrimination before House Committee on
Education and Labor (June, 2008); development with Child Welfare League of America
of best practice guidelines for serving LGBT youth in foster care and juvenile justice
settings (2006); development of model safe school policies for San Francisco and Los
Angeles Unified school districts (2004).


2

National Association of Public I nterest Law Fellow, 1993-1995
Created national legal and public policy advocacy program to address abuse of gay, lesbian,
bisexual and transgender youth in mental health system.

American University Washington College of Law
Visiting Professor, Constitutional Law Summer Program, 2011-present

Whittier Law School
Visiting Professor, Transgender Rights, Summer 2010

Santa Clara Law School
Lecturer, Gender, Sexuality, and the Law, Spring 2004

University of San Francisco School of Law
Adjunct Professor of Law, Sexual Orientation and the Law, Fall 2003

University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall)
Adjunct Professor of Law, Gender, Sexuality and the Law, Spring 2003

Golden Gate School of Law
Adjunct Professor of Law, Sexual Orientation and the Law, Spring 2003

Stanford Law School
Adjunct Professor of Law, Gender, Sexuality, and the Law, Spring 2001

The Schomberg Library African-American Fiction and Periodicals Project
Editorial Assistant to Henry Louis Gates, Jr., 1988-1990
Responsible for identifying and preserving fiction and book reviews published in nineteenth
and early twentieth century African-American owned or edited newspapers in the U.S.

SAMPLE PUBLICATIONS
LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER FAMILY LAW. Coauthored with Courtney G.
Joslin (West Publishing 2012).

TRANSGENDER RIGHTS. Co-edited with Paisley Currah and Richard M. Juang (Minnesota
University Press 2006).

The Great Divorce: The Separation of Equality and Democracy in Contemporary Marriage
Litigation, 19 UNIV. OF SOUTHERN CALIF. REV. OF L. & SOCIAL JUSTICE 89 (2010)

Representing Transsexual Clients, in SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND THE LAW (West Publishing
2012).

Same-Sex Marriage and Its Implications for Employee Benefits, 9 EMPLOYEE RIGHTS AND
EMPLOYMENT POLICY JOURNAL 499 (2005).

Unprincipled Exclusions: The Struggle to Achieve Judicial and Legislative Equality for
Transgender People, (with Paisley Currah) 7 WILLIAM & MARY JOURNAL OF WOMEN AND

3

THE LAW 37 (2000). Published in Elizabeth Bernstein and Laurie Schaeffer, eds.,
REGULATING SEXUALITY (Routledge 2005).

Preface, SOCIAL SERVICES WITH TRANSGENDERED YOUTH, Gary Mallon, ed. (2000).

Beyond Second-Parent Adoption: The Uniform Parentage Act and Intended Parents, (with
Kate Kendell) 2 GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF GENDER AND THE LAW 29 (2000).

Do Transsexuals Dream of Gay Rights? Getting Real About Transgender Inclusion in the Gay
Rights Movement, 17 NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS 589 (2000).

TRANSGENDER EQUALITY. Coauthored with Paisley Currah (National Gay & Lesbian Task
Force 2000).

Lesbians and Gay Men as Adoptive Parents: A Child Welfare Perspective, in ADOPTION
FACTBOOK III (National Council for Adoption, 1999).

Diagnosis and Treatment of Gender Identity Disorder in Children, in Matthew Rottnek, ed.,
SISSIES AND TOMBOYS: GENDER NONCONFORMITY AND HOMOSEXUAL CHILDHOOD (NYU
Press 1999).

Lesbians and Political Asylum: Sexual Orientation, Gender, and Lesbian Human Rights, in A
RESOURCE GUIDE FOR ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING LESBIANS AND GAY MEN IN ASYLUM
CASES (International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission 1996).

Lesbian Rights in the United States, in Rachel Rosenbloom, ed., UNSPOKEN RULES: SEXUAL
ORIENTATION AND WOMEN'S HUMAN RIGHTS (Cassell 1996).

Sodomy and Public Morality Offenses Under U.S. Immigration Law: Penalizing Lesbian and
Gay Identity, 26 CORNELL INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL 771 (1993).
SELECTED PRESENTATIONS
Keynote: Realizing the Dream of Equality for All, New Mexico Bar Association, May 1,
2013

Winning Cases, Losing Children: The Human Impact of Litigation in LGBT Impact Cases,
Roundtable Discussion, Law & Society Conference, San Francisco, June 3, 2011.

LGBT Legal Issues in Utah, State Judges Annual Judicial Conference, Homestead, Utah,
May 5, 2011

Plenary, What the LGBT and Disability Rights Movements Can Learn from One Another,
Jacobus tenBroek Disability Law Symposium, Bridging the Gap between the Disability Rights
Movement and Other Civil Rights Movements, April 14, 2011

Panel, How Does it Get Better? New Directions in LGBT Equality, "Gay Rights as Human
Rights" Conference at the Harvard Kennedy School, April 15, 2011

The Relevance of Martin Luther King To LGBT Advocacy, Martin Luther King Memorial,

4

DePaul University College of Law, January 17, 2011

Keynote, Gay Rights, Democracy, and the United States Supreme Court, Minnesota
Lavender Bar Association, January 29, 2011

Keynote, Do Transsexuals Dream of Gay Rights?, Harvard Kennedy School, Carr Center for
Human Rights Policy, Nicholas Papadopoulos Lecture, April 23, 2010

Keynote, The Heart of Democracy: Marriage Equality for Same-Sex Couples, Conference:
Controlling Sexuality through Violence, Harassment and Intrusion: Implications and Prospects
for Fundamental Human Rights, Tanner Humanities Center, University of Utah, February 26,
2010

Keynote, The Legal and Political Implications of Proposition 8, Til Ballot Initiative Do Us
Part: Marriage Equality, Religion, and Civil Rights, American University Washington
College of Law, March 19, 2009

The Future of Marriage Equality in California, The Global Arc of Justice: Sexual Orientation
Law around the World, UCLA School of Law, March 14, 2009

Keynote, Why Gender Theory Should Not Determine Transgender Advocacy, Trans
Rhetorics Conference, Cornell University, March 7, 2009

The Struggle To Achieve Equality for Same-Sex Couples, Conference: Race, Class,
Ethnicity and Gender, University of North Carolina Law School, February 21, 2009

Keynote, The Concepts of Dignity and Privacy in Transgender Advocacy, Symposium:
Transgender Lives and the Law, Temple Law School, November 8, 2008

The Case Against Proposition 8, Levin Center for Public Service and Public Interest Law
Award, Stanford Law School, November 10, 2008

Relationship Recognition for Same-Sex Couples in California, Symposium: When Change
Comes Home: Legal Repercussions and Comparative Perspectives on Changing Structures of
American Households, Santa Clara Law School, February 15, 2008

Legal & Policy Issues Affecting Transgender Students, Faculty, and Staff, Conference:
Legal Issues in Higher Education, Vermont Law School, October 16, 2007

Gay Marriage in California: Legal and Political Prospects, Debate sponsored by the
Federalist Society, the American Constitution Society, the Pew Forum on Religion & Public
Life, and the USC Annenberg Knight Chair in Media and Religion, Los Angeles, California,
February 28, 2007

Plenary speaker, The Role of Ethics in Public Interest Law, University of Maryland Law
School, October 18, 2006


5

Do Transsexual Athletes Have A Right To Compete?, Sports Law Symposium, Marquette
Law School, October 6, 2006

The Evolution of Transgender Rights Nationally and Globally, Symposium: Transgender
Civil Rights Issues, Hastings Law School, July 21, 2006

Speaker, Panel on the Marriage Debate, The Charles R. Williams Project on Sexual Orientation
and Public Policy, UCLA School of Law, April 21, 2006

The Struggle to Achieve Marriage Equality for Same-Sex Couples, Cornell Law School,
November 16, 2005

The Salience of Gender-Based Humiliation in Human Rights Abuses Against Transgender
Prisoners in the United States and So-Called Enemy Combatants Abroad, Conference: Race,
Class, Gender, and Ethnicity, University of North Carolina Law School, February 18, 2005

Speaker, Panel on the California Frontier: Litigating Exclusions to Gay and Lesbian Adoption
and Marriage, Conference: Gay and Lesbian Adoption: Past, Present and Future, New York
Law School, September 21, 2005

The Current State of Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Law, Conference: Progress and
Promise in Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law, Pace Law School, April 21, 2003
SELECTED HONORS AND AWARDS
Distinguished Service Award, GayLaw D.C. Bar Association, 2010
One of California Lawyers of the Year, California Lawyer Magazine, 2009
One of Nations Top 8 Lawyers of the Year, Lawyers USA, 2009
One of Californias 100 Top Lawyers, Daily Journal, 2008
National Public Service Award, Stanford Law School, 2008
Exemplary Public Service Award, Cornell Law School, 2008
Award of Excellence, University of San Francisco Public Interest Law Foundation, 2008
Community Service Award, Elections Committee of the County of Orange, 2008
Advocacy Award, Bay Area Municipal Elections Committee, 2008
Dan Bradley Award, National Lesbian and Gay Law Association, 2008
Legal Advocacy Award, San Francisco State University National Sexuality Resource
Center, 2008
Visionary Award, Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, 2008
Community Service Award, Long Beach Lambda Democratic Club, 2008
Award, International Foundation for Gender Education, 2008
Community Advocacy Award, Gender Spectrum, 2007
Unity Award, Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, 2006
Leadership for a Changing World Award, Ford Foundation, 2005
Justice Award, Equality California, 2005
Advocacy Award, San Francisco Bar Association, 2004
Honorary Doctorate, City University of New York Law School, 2004

6

Anderson Foundation Prize, National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, 2003
National Service Award, Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual Transgender Bar Association of
Washington, D.C., 2002

COMMUNITY AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
American Bar Association Commission on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, 2007-
2009
Transgender Law and Policy Institute, Board of Directors, 2000-present
International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, Advisory Board, 2003-present
Council for Global Equality, 2008-present
Faith in America, Board of Directors, 2009-present
Aids Relief Fund for China, 2010-present
Gender Spectrum, 2010-present


EXHIBIT B
Shannon Minter Merits Time
BILLED
HOURS
CHARGED
BILLING
JUDGMENT
REDUCTIONS
8/30/2013 Phone conference with co-counsel re possible Idaho litigation 1 1 0
9/11/2013 Phone confer with co-counsel on case strategy and legal issues 1.4 1.4 0
9/18/2013 Phone conference with co-counsel re possible marriage litigation and
strategy
1 1 0
10/2/2013 Phone conference with co-counsel on adoption appeal strategy for
potential plaintiff
0.9 0.9 0
10/9/2013 Conference call with co-counsel re potential plaintiffs 0.3 0.3 0
10/17/2013 Phone conference with co-counsel re litigation strategy and plaintiffs 0.2 0.2 0
10/21/2013 Phone conference with co-counsel on case development 0.6 0.6 0
11/5/2013 Review and revise complaint; conf with team re same 2.5 2.5 0
11/7/2013 Travel to Boise for filing of case; final revisions to complaint; confs with
team re same and meeting with Plaintiffs
7.5 7.5 0
11/8/2013 Supervising client media encounters; respond to client questions with co-
counsel; meetings with co-counsel; travel from Boise to Washington D.C.
5 5 0
11/10/2013 Emails with co-counsel regarding case strategy and media issues 0.2 0.2 0
11/11/2013 Discussions with co-counsel re media issues and service of process 0.3 0.3 0
11/12/2013 Conference with co-counsel re: service on defendants 0.1 0.1 0
11/13/2013 Phone conference with co-counsel re case strategy 1.2 1.2 0
11/15/2013 Confer with co-counsel re service and strategy issues 0.2 0.2 0
11/16/2013 Email to/from co-counsel re service and court email list 0.1 0.1 0
11/22/2013 Team call re case strategy, experts, and litigation plan 3.3 3.3 0
11/22/2013 Email from/to co-counsel re AG opinions relevant to case 0.1 0.1 0
12/2/2013 Conference with co-counsel on case strategy 1.5 1.5 0
12/2/2013 Conferred with co-counsel re intervention motion 0.2 0.2 0
12/6/2013 Confer with Co-counsel re intervention motion 0.2 0.2 0
12/10/2013 Conference call with co-counsel re intervention, magistrate, and strategy 0.7 0.7 0
12/12/2013 Confer with co-counsel re intervention opposition 0.5 0.5 0
12/13/2013 Phone conference with co-counsel re intervention motion 0.3 0.3 0
12/17/2013 Confer with co-counsel re proposed litigation plan 0.7 0.7 0
12/20/2013 Confer with co-counsel re media issues 0.1 0.1 0
12/20/2013 Confer with co-counsel re response to motion to intervene, experts, and
initial disclosures
0.4 0.4 0
1/6/2014 Emails from co-counsel re meet and confer with parties 0.2 0.2 0
1/9/2014 Confer with co-counsel on SJ briefing 0.4 0.4 0
1/13/2014 Confer with co-counsel on motion to dismiss response, SJ, intervention
and strategy
1.2 1.2 0
1/15/2014 Confer with co-counsel on OK decision and implications 0.5 0.5 0
1/16/2014 Confer with co-counsel re prep for intervention hearing 0.4 0.4 0
1/22/2014 Phone conference with co-counsel re amendment of complaint 1.5 1.5 0
1/27/2014 Confer with co-counsel re amended complaint 0.3 0.3 0
1/28/2014 Confer with co-counsel on intervention hearing 0.2 0.2 0
1/28/2014 Confer with co-counsel on amended complaint and her revisions to same 1.2 1.2 0
1/29/2014 Review and revise first amended complaint; team conf re same 1 1 0
2/5/2014 Confer with co-counsel re draft Plaintiff decls ISO MSJ 1.2 1.2 0
2/11/2014 Research and draft due process section of MSJ 6.5 6.5 0
2/12/2014 Draft and revise MSJ 4.3 4.3 0
2/13/2014 Phone conf with CS, AW re MSJ 1 1 0
1
Shannon Minter Merits Time
BILLED
HOURS
CHARGED
BILLING
JUDGMENT
REDUCTIONS
2/14/2014 Draft and revise MSJ; confs with team re same 4.5 4.5 0
2/15/2014 Draft and revise MSJ; confs with team re same 5.5 5.5 0
2/16/2014 Team phone conf re MSJ; revise same 3.4 3.4 0
2/18/2014 Revise MSJ; confs with NCLR team re same 1.5 1.5 0
2/21/2014 Phone conference with Co-counsel re: response to cross SJ motion 1 1 0
2/26/2014 Conference call with co-counsel re: response to Gov.'s SJ brief; review of
same
1.2 1.2 0
3/5/2014 TC w/ DF, CD, CS, DC re opposition to MSJ 2 2 0
3/6/2014 Draft opp to Gov MSJ 2.5 2.5 0
3/7/2014 Confer with Co-counsel on second declaration of Dr. Lamb 1 1 0
3/8/2014 Confer with co-counsel on status of appeal in Smithkline 0.3 0.3 0
3/8/2014 Confer with Lamb on supp decl and drafted same 3.5 3.5 0
3/10/2014 Draft opp to Gov MSJ; Confer with co-counsel on opp to Def MSJ 6.6 6.6 0
3/18/2014 Review and revise opp to Gov's MSJ 3.5 3.5 0
3/19/2014 Review and revise opp to Gov's MSJ; confs re same 2.1 2.1 0
3/20/2014 Finalize opp to Gov's MSJ; confs with team re same 1.2 1.2 0
3/24/2014 Confs with DF, CS, DC re reply brief 1.5 1.5 0
3/24/2014 Review defs' opp to our MSJ 1.1 1.1 0
3/25/2014 Confer with co-counsel on strategy for reply briefing 0.3 0.3 0
3/27/2014 Confs with co-counsel re legislative history of idaho laws and reply brief 0.4 0.4 0
3/27/2014 Confer with co-counsel on update on Smithkline en bank review by 9th Cir. 0.2 0.2 0
4/1/2014 Review and revise our reply to MSJ; confs with team re same 4.3 4.3 0
4/2/2014 Confer with co-counsel on reply brief 0.3 0.3 0
4/3/2014 Review and revise our reply to MSJ; confs with team re same 5.2 5.2 0
4/4/2014 Finalize reply to MSJ; confs with team re same 1.2 1.2 0
4/5/2014 Review Gov.'s reply in support of SJ, confer with co-counsel 0.3 0.3 0
4/10/2014 Confer with co-counsel on strategy for oral argument 0.4 0.4 0
4/11/2014 Confer with Co-counsel on oral argument 1.2 1.2 0
4/11/2014 Confer with co-counsel on oral argument 0.5 0.5 0
4/21/2014 Phone conferences with co-counsel on oral argument strategy 0.3 0.3 0
4/24/2014 Confer with co-counsel re oral argument strategy 0.9 0.9 0
4/30/2014 Prepare for and participate in oral argument preparation session with DF,
CS, CD
2.5 2.5 0
5/2/2014 Prepare for and participate in oral argument preparation session with DF,
CS, CD
1.8 1.8 0
5/5/2014 Attended Oral argument on all dispositive motions, debriefing with co-
counsel and plaintiffs
4.1 4.1 0
5/8/2014 Conf with co-counsel re stay issues 0.2 0.2 0
5/9/2014 Confer with co-counsel on strategy for stay 0.3 0.3 0
5/12/2014 TC w/ DF, CS, AW re issuance of decision, stay motion 0.3 0.3 0
5/13/2014 Review decision; confs with co-counsel re same 0.9 0.9 0
5/15/2014 Meeting with co-counsel re response to stay 0.9 0.9 0
Totals 119.3 119.3 0
2
Chris Stoll Merits Time
BILLED
HOURS
CHARGED
BILLING
JUDGMENT
REDUCTIONS
10/1/2013 Emails with co-counsel on responses to status report 0.2 0.2 0
10/21/2013 Phone conference with co-counsel on case strategy and complaint 0.6 0.6 0
10/23/2013 meeting with co-counsel on case strategy 3 3 0
11/13/2013 Phone conference with co-counsel re case strategy 1.2 1.2 0
11/15/2013 Phone conference with co-cousel on case strategy, experts and
litigation issues
0.2 0.2 0
11/22/2013 Team call re case strategy, experts, and litigation plan 3.3 3.3 0
12/2/2013 Conference with co-counsel on case strategy 1.5 1.5 0
12/2/2013 Conferred with co-counsel re intervention motion 0.2 0.2 0
12/4/2013 Conference with Co-counsel on case developments 1.3 1.3 0
12/6/2013 Confer with Co-counsel re intervention motion 0.2 0.2 0
12/10/2013 Conference call with co-counsel re intervention, consent to
magistrate, and case issues
0.7 0.7 0
12/12/2013 Discussion with co-counsel on intervention issues 0.5 0.5 0
12/13/2013 Discussion with co-counsel re intervention opposition 0.3 0.3 0
12/30/2013 consult with co-counsel re draft complaint and email from/to co-
counsel re Dr. Lamb declaration
0.3 0.3 0
1/9/2014 Confer with co-counsel on SJ briefing 0.4 0.4 0
1/13/2014 Confer with co-counsel on motion to dismiss response, SJ, motion
to intervene, consents, and scheduling conference
1.2 1.2 0
1/16/2014 Confer with co-counsel on intervention hearing 0.4 0.4 0
1/22/2014 Phone conference with co-counsel on amendment of pleadings 1.5 1.5 0
1/27/2014 Confer with co-counsel on amended complaint 0.3 0.3 0
1/28/2014 Confer with co-counsel on hearing preparation for intervention 0.2 0.2 0
1/28/2014 Confer with co-counsel on amended complaint and suggested edits
to same
1.2 1.2 0
2/10/2014 Draft heightened scrutiny and revise rational basis sections of
summary judgment brief; research re same.
7.8 7.8 0
2/11/2014 Draft and revise rational basis section of summary judgment brief;
research re same; conferences re same.
6.5 6.5 0
2/12/2014 Draft and revise summary judgment brief; research re same. 6.2 6.2 0
2/13/2014 TC w/ SM, AW re MSJ 1 1 0
2/14/2014 Draft and revise summary judgment brief; research re same;
conferences re same.
8.5 8.5 0
2/15/2014 Draft and revise summary judgment brief; research re same;
9.8 9.8 0
2/16/2014 TC /w DF, SM, DC, AW re summary judgment brief; draft and revise
same.
1.8 1.8 0
2/17/2014 Confer with co-counsel re SJ draft 0.3 0.3 0
2/18/2014 Draft and revise summary judgment motion; confs with NCLR team
re same
3.3 3.3 0
2/21/2014 Phone conference with Co-counsel re: response to cross SJ motion 1 1 0
2/26/2014 Conference call with co-counsel re: response to Gov.'s SJ brief;
review of same
1.2 1.2 0
3/5/2014 TC w/ DF, CD, SM, DC re opposition to MSJ 2 2 0
1
Chris Stoll Merits Time
BILLED
HOURS
CHARGED
BILLING
JUDGMENT
REDUCTIONS
3/6/2014 Draft opposition to Otter's MSJ 3.7 3.7 0
3/7/2014 Draft opposition to Otter's MSJ; research re same. 4.3 4.3 0
3/8/2014 Confer with co-counsel on status of appeal in Smithkline 0.3 0.3 0
3/10/2014 Draft opposition to Otter's MSJ; research re same; confs re same 7.6 7.6 0
3/11/2014 Draft and revise opposition to Otter's MSJ 1.2 1.2 0
3/17/2014 Revise opposition to Otter's MSJ; research re same. 4.8 4.8 0
3/19/2014 Draft and revise opposition to Otter's MSJ; research re same;
3.3 3.3 0
3/20/2014 Revise and finalize opposition to Governor's MSJ; conferences re
same.
4.7 4.7 0
3/24/2014 Confs with DF, SM, DC re reply brief. 1.5 1.5 0
3/24/2014 Review Defendants' oppositions to plaintiffs' MSJ 1.8 1.8 0
3/31/2014 Draft and revise reply brief re plaintiffs' MSJ; research re same;
4.5 4.5 0
4/1/2014 Draft and revise reply brief re plaintiffs' MSJ; research re same;
6.7 6.7 0
4/3/2014 Revise reply in support of MSJ; conferences with team re same. 1.8 1.8 0
4/4/2014 Revise and finalize reply re MSJ; conferences with team re same. 2.3 2.3 0
4/30/2014 Prepare for and participate in oral argument preparation session
with DF, SM, CD.
2.5 2.5 0
5/2/2014 Prepare for and participate in oral argument preparation session
with DF, SM, CD.
1.8 1.8 0
5/5/2014 Attended Oral argument on all dispositive motions, debriefing with
co-counsel and plaintiffs
4.1 4.1 0
5/8/2014 Conf with co-counsel re stay issues 0.2 0.2 0
5/12/2014 TC w/ DF, SM, AW re issuance of decision, stay motion 0.3 0.3 0
5/13/2014 Review decision; draft response to motion to stay; confs with co-
counsel re same
1.6 1.6 0
5/14/2014 Draft response to motion to stay; research re same 11.3 11.3 0
5/15/2014 Review and revise response to motion to stay; confs re same 1.5 1.5 0
Totals 139.9 139.9 0
2
Amy Whelan Merits Time
Date Description Hours
Billed
Hours
Charged
Billing
Judgment
Reductions
1/13/2014 TC with DC, CS and SM re Idaho MSJ strategy and brief and opp to
Motion to Dismiss
1.4 1.4 0
1/13/2014 Reviewed Rich MTD and social science articles ISO same; email to SM
re expert rebuttals re same
1.2 1.2 0
1/13/2014 Review of sur-reply re motion to intervene and emails to/from team
re same
0.2 0.2 0
1/14/2014 Prep of EP / rational basis section of MSJ; LR re same 0.5 0.5 0
1/15/2014 Prep of EP / rational basis section of MSJ; LR re same 3.5 3.5 0
1/15/2013 LR for EP / rational basis and animus section of MSJ; review of Rich
brief re asserted rational bases for same
6.2 6.2 0
1/20/2014 Prep of rational basis and animus section of MSJ brief; LR re same 3 3 0
1/21/2014 Prep of EP / rational basis and animus section of MSJ brief; LR re
same
1.9 1.9 0
1/28/2014 Review of legislative history re challenged laws and const amend for
EP / animus section of brief
1.6 1.6 0
1/29/2014 Continued review of legislative history of challenged laws and const
amend for EP / animus section of MSJ
0.6 0.6 0
1/30/2014 Continued review of legislative history of challenged laws and const
amend for EP / animus section of MSJ; conf with DC re same
1.1 1.1 0
2/5/2014 Finalized review of legislative history for brief and prep of that
section re animus and background
4.1 4.1 0
2/10/2014 Email from/to SM re draft EP and animus section 0.1 0.1 0
2/13/2014 Conf with SM and CS re finalizing brief and to-do list for same 1 1 0
2/16/2014 Team conf re MSJ and revise same 0.9 0.9 0
2/17/2014 LR re RJN and prep of same; prep of legis hx for same 2.4 2.4 0
2/18/2014 Pre of animus / rational basis section of brief and reviwe of
legislative hx for same; conf with DC re same
1 1 0
2/18/2014 Continued prep of RJN for legislative hx excerpts; prep of decl ISO
same and LR re same
2.9 2.9 0
2/18/2014 NCLR team call re MSJ strategy 0.3 0.3 0
2/18/2014 Edits to brief and finalized RJN and Decl ISO same 3.5 3.5 0
3/10/2014 Prep of response to governor re legislative facts point; LR re same
and conf with EH re same
1.8 1.8 0
3/11/2014 Prep of section re Opp to MSJ re legislative facts and conf with EH re
same
0.9 0.9 0
3/11/2014 Edits and revisions to supp Lamb expert declaration for Opp to MSJ 1.8 1.8 0
3/17/2014 Revisions to supp Lamb expert decl for Opp to MSJ and review of
underlying studies / papers for same; conf with colleague re strategy
for same
1.3 1.3 0
3/19/2014 Finalized supp Lamb decl for opp to MSJ and emails with team re
same
0.5 0.5 0
3/19/2014 Edits to Opp to MSJ and revisions of same 3.9 3.9 0
3/20/2014 Finalized Opp to MSJ for filing and supervised support staff re
citechecking and input re edits for same
3.5 3.5 0
5/13/2014 review of decision; emails with team re same 0.5 0.5 0
Totals 51.6 51.6 0
1
Jaime Huling-Delaye Merits Time
BILLED
HOURS
CHARGED
BILLING
JUDGMENT
REDUCTIONS
11/13/2014 Review email from Shannon Minter re case strategy 0.2 0.2 0
11/14/2013 Review background materials in prep for conf call re case 3.5 3.5 0
11/15/2013 Phone call re strategy for filing Idaho case w/ Chris Stoll and local counsel 1 0 -1
11/22/2013 Phone call re strategy for filing Idaho case w/ Chris Stoll, Shannon Minter and
Local counsel
3.3 0 -3.3
12/11/2013 Review motion to intervene by Idaho Attorney General and LR re opposing
motion to intervene
5.5 5.5 0
12/12/2013 LR opposing motion to intervene 5 5 0
12/13/2013 LR opposing motion to intervene 2.5 2.5 0
12/14/2013 LR opposing motion to intervene 3.6 0 -3.6
12/17/2013 Draft opposition to motion for intervention by Idaho Attorney General 3.2 0 -3.2
12/18/2013 Draft opposition to motion for intervention by Idaho Attorney General 3.8 3.8 0
12/19/2013 Draft opposition to motion for intervention by Idaho Attorney General 2.1 2.1 0
12/22/2013 Email correspondence with SM, CS, and AW re opp to intervention; work on
same
1.6 1.6 0
12/23/2013 Cite-check opposition to motion for intervention 1.1 0 -1.1
12/23/2013 Email with team re finalizing opp to intervention 0.2 0.2 0
1/6/2014 Calendar deadlines re motion to invervene 0.5 0 -0.5
1/9/2014 Revise co-counsel agreement 0.7 0 -0.7
1/9/2014 Review Idaho Attorney General's Reply to motion to intervene 0.5 0.5 0
1/13/2014 Review Governor's Answer to Complaint 0.3 0.3 0
1/13/2014 Revise draft of sur-reply re Idaho Attoney General's motion to intervene 1.7 1.7 0
1/15/2014 Research and prep case summaries for DF use at oral argument re intervention 0.4 0.4 0
1/17/2014 Research re legal injuries to clients for complaint 4.4 4.4 0
1/21/2014 Review order re Idaho Attorney General's motion to intervene 0.2 0.2 0
1/29/2014 Preparation of First Amended Complaint 0.5 0.5 0
2/5/2014 Research local rules and requirements for MSJ, draft memo and email to team
re same
1.2 1.2 0
2/6/2014 LR for MSJ 5.8 5.8 0
2/13/2014 Draft MTD standard for MTD Opp 0.3 0.3 0
2/14/2014 Review correspondence and prior briefing re history of marriage laws for MSJ 0.2 0.2 0
2/14/2014 Research and Draft section on evolution of Idaho Marriage law for MSJ 1.5 1.5 0
2/15/2014 Research history of Idaho Marriage laws for MSJ 1.5 1.5 0
2/16/2014 Cite-check MSJ 6.1 3 -3.1
2/17/2014 Cite-check MSJ 1.9 1 -0.9
2/18/2014 Finalize documents for filing with MSJ; confs with team re same; final proofing 7.4 7.4 0
2/24/2014 Research local rules to calendar deadline 0.3 0.3 0
3/11/2014 Preparation of section of Lamb Decl. ISO MSJ 0.4 0.4 0
3/19/2014 Legal research for MSJ Reply/MTD Opp 4.8 4.8 0
3/20/2014 Cite Check MSJ Reply/MTD Opp, finalize for filing 5.2 5.2 0
4/28/2014 Review and prepare summary of key cases for MSJ oral argument prep 4.2 4.2 0
5/4/2014 Email Shannon Minter re MSJ oral argument prep 0.1 0.1 0
5/13/2014 Review summary judgment decision 1.5 1.5 0
1
Jaime Huling-Delaye Merits Time
BILLED
HOURS
CHARGED
BILLING
JUDGMENT
REDUCTIONS
5/14/2014 Reading Idaho's Emergency Motion for stay at 9th Cir., LR for opposition to
motion
3.10 3.10 0
Totals 106.2 88.8 -17.4
2
Actual
Expenses
Billing
Judgments
Claimed
Expenses
DATE DESCRIPTION
11/8/2013 Flight to Boise (Minter trip) $537.80 $0 $537.80
11/8/2013 PHV Fees (Minter, Stoll) $450.00 $0 $450.00
11/8/2013 Minter breakfast and dinner $30.22 $0 $30.22
11/8/2013 Hotel (2 nights)-Minter $282.95 $0 $282.95
11/8/2013 Lunch with Plaintiffs $130.00 $0 $130.00
11/9/2013 Cab to airport (Minter) $35.68 $0 $35.68
1/29/2014 Recording Deed-Plaintiff $39.00 $0 $39.00
4/1/2014 FedEx Charge to DF $65.08 $0 $65.08
4/1/2014 FedEx Charge to DF $60.10 $0 $60.10
4/2/2014 Dr. Michael Lamb Expert Fees $2,975.00 2,975.00 $0.00
4/24/2014 Plane tickets (Chris Stoll) $658.00 $0 $658.00
4/28/2014 Plane tickets (Shannon Minter) $1,096.00 $0 $1,096.00
4/30/2014 Hotel (1 night)-Stoll $179.68 $0 $179.68
5/1/2014 Lunch-Minter $9.23 $0 $9.23
5/2/2014 Breakfast, Lunch (Minter) $33.50 $0 $33.50
5/3/2014 Lunch, Dinner (Minter) $32.98 $0 $32.98
5/4/2014 Plane Ticket (Stoll) $200.00 $0 $200.00
5/4/2014 Lunch (Stoll) $12.41 $0 $12.41
5/4/2014 Lunch, Dinner (Minter) $30.24 $0 $30.24
5/5/2014 Hotel (Minter)--3 nights $402.28 $0 $402.28
5/5/2014 Taxi from airport (Minter) $32.14 $0 $32.14
5/5/2014 Taxi from airport (Stoll) $37.14 $0 $37.14
5/5/2014 BART to/from airport (Stoll) $8.65 $0 $8.65
Total $7,338.08 2,975.00 $4,363.08
Latta v. Otter
NCLR Expenses Through May 23, 2014

EXHIBIT C
Amy Whelan Fees-for-Fees Time Through May 23, 2014
Date Description Hours
Billed
Hours
Charged
Billing
Judgment
Reductions
5/12/2014 conf with NCLR and DF re fee petition 0.8 0.8 0
5/19/2014 prep of SM decl ISO fee motion; confs with team re same and review of case
materials for same
3.3 3.3 0
5/19/2014 prep of bill of costs 0.2 0.2 0
5/20/2014 drafted Scholnick and Kristensen supporting decls for fee motion; conf with
Scholnick re same; LMs for Kristensen re same and emails to team re same
2.3 2.3 0
5/20/2014 prep of NCLR timesheets and supporting documents ISO fee motion; confs
with team and support staff re same
6.8 6.8 0
5/21/2014 TC with DF re fee motion and supporting decls; prep of same 1 1 0
5/21/2014 prep of SM decl ISO fee motion; review of documents and case materials for
same; continued prep of supporting exhibits for same
7 7 0
5/22/2014 confs with support staff re exhibits to SM decl; continued prep of same and
billing judgment reductions to NCLR time; finalized NCLR resume exhibits for
motion
7.3 7.3 0
5/23/2014 continued prep of Minter Decl ISO fees and exhibits to same; emails with
team re same and conf with SM re same
2.4 2.4 0
Totals 31.1 31.1 0

EXHIBIT D

CHRISTOPHER F. STOLL
Senior Staff Attorney


Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, J.D. magna cum laude, 1994
Harvard Law Review, Supreme Court Editor, 1992-94

DePauw University, Greencastle, Indiana, B.A. summa cum laude, 1991
Political Science/Russian Area Studies

Bar Admissions: California (1995); admitted to CA state and federal courts, several U.S.
Courts of Appeals, and U.S. Supreme Court

LEGAL EXPERIENCE

National Center for Lesbian Rights, San Francisco, California
Senior Staff Attorney, 2008-present
Oversee NCLRs general litigation, policy, and public education work.
Supervise and manage legal team members on complex civil cases around the
country.
Litigate numerous marriage equality cases, including in Florida, Idaho,
Tennessee, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.
Litigate a variety of employment, discrimination, Title IX, First Amendment,
family law, and complex constitutional cases around the country.

Heller Ehrman LLP, San Francisco, California
Shareholder, 2003-2008, Associate, 1995-2002
Broad-based complex civil litigation practice with focus on insurance law,
intellectual property, and consumer class action matters. First and second
chair trial and appellate experience in state and federal courts in California
and nationally. (List of representative litigation matters attached.)
Supervised case teams and personally handled all aspects of civil litigation,
including legal research and writing, discovery, depositions, oral argument,
trial, appeal, alternative dispute resolution and settlement. Prepared case
budgets and advised clients on litigation strategy.
Managed staffing of more than 30 litigation associates and senior counsel as
Staffing Partner for the San Francisco office of large national law firm.
Monitored and balanced attorney workload. Drafted and delivered
performance reviews. Mentored, counseled, and trained junior attorneys.


2

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, San Francisco, California
Law Clerk to the Honorable James R. Browning, 1994-95

MEMBERSHIPS & HONORS
State Bar of California, American Bar Association, San Francisco Bar Association, Bay
Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, Northern California SuperLawyers
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Board of Directors, Community United Against Violence, 1999-2006
Board of Directors, Positive Resource Center 1996-1999
REPRESENTATIVE LITIGATION ENGAGEMENTS, 2008-present
Kitchen v. Herbert (United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit). Represent three same-sex
couples in a federal lawsuit challenging Utahs laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying
and refusing to respect the legal marriages of same-sex couples who married in other states.
Tanco v. Haslam (United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit). Represent three legally married
same-sex couples challenging Tennessee laws that prevent the state from respecting their legal
marriages.
Pickup v. Brown (United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit). Participated as amicus curiae
in case defending California state law that prohibits state-licensed therapists from trying to
change the sexual orientation or gender expression of a patient under 18 years old.
King v. Christie (United States District Court, District of New Jersey). Represent intervenor in
case defending New Jersey state law that prohibits state-licensed therapists from trying to change
the sexual orientation or gender expression of a patient under 18 years old.
Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (Supreme Court of the United States). Represented student
organization at Hastings College of the Law as intervener in First Amendment case challenging
Hastings Policy on Nondiscrimination. Prevailed before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Doe v. Anoka-Hennepin School District No. 11 and E.R. (United States District Court, District of
Minnesota). Represented students in lawsuit against the school district and school officials for
failure to stop daily harassment and bullying by their peers because of their actual or perceived
sexual orientation or gender expression. Obtained favorable lawsuit for plaintiff students.
Howe v. Haslam (Court of Appeals for Tennessee, Middle Section). Represent plaintiffs in
constitutional challenge of Tennessee law precluding localities from passing anti-discrimination
ordinances. Currently on appeal.


3

REPRESENTATIVE LITIGATION ENGAGEMENTS, 1995-2008
Insurance Recovery
Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. TransUnion LLC (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois).
First chair role representing national consumer credit reporting agency in litigation seeking errors
and omissions insurance coverage for consumer class actions relating to alleged privacy
violations.
Acuity v. Symantec Corporation et al. (Supreme Court of Wisconsin). First chair role
representing Symantec Corporation in suit seeking CGL advertising injury insurance coverage
for trademark and copyright infringement actions brought by Symantec relating to alleged piracy
of Symantecs commercial software products. Obtained favorable summary judgment, Court of
Appeals and Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions resulting in full coverage for claim.
PMI Mortgage Insurance Co. v. American International Specialty Lines Insurance Co. (United
States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit). Represented policyholder in litigation seeking errors
and omissions insurance coverage for settlement of nationwide consumer class action claims.
Drafted successful partial summary judgment motions, obtained judgment at trial for full policy
limits, and wrote successful appeal brief resulting in affirmance of the judgment.
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Factory Mutual Ins. Co. (United States District Court, Southern District
of New York). Represented HP in suit seeking first-party property and business interruption
insurance coverage for property damage arising out of sabotage by a former HP employee.
PG&E v. Lexington Ins. Co. et al. (Superior Court of California, City & County of San
Francisco). Represented PG&E in litigation seeking CGL insurance coverage for environmental
liabilities arising out of historical manufactured gas plant operations.
Scheidt v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Superior Court of California, County of Marin).
Represented policyholder in successful litigation challenging denial of life insurance benefits.
Class Actions and Representative Plaintiff Actions
Philip Morris Incorporated. (Various matters.) Represented Philip Morris Incorporated in
actions brought by governmental entities and private plaintiffs seeking recoupment of medical
costs arising out of tobacco-related illnesses. Drafted successful oppositions to class certification
and successful appeal briefs affirming dismissal of challenges to Master Settlement Agreement
between states and tobacco companies.
Semler v. First Colony Life Ins. Co. et al. (Superior Court of California, City & County of San
Francisco). Represented plaintiff in successful litigation under California Business and
Professions Code challenging life insurers practice of charging premiums for periods of time in
which no insurance is provided. Obtained injunction following court trial against Guardian Life
Insurance Company of America. Argued successful summary judgment motions.


4

Intellectual Property Litigation
Chan v. Symantec Corporation (United States District Court, Northern District of California)
Defended Symantec Corporation in patent litigation relating to the LiveUpdate feature and
Internet hyperlinks contained in certain Symantec CD-ROM software products. Drafted
Markman brief and obtained favorable claim construction ruling. Worked with experts and
consultants in preparing opinions relating to claim construction, infringement and invalidity
issues.
ActivCard v. VASCO (United States District Court, District of Delaware). Represented
ActivCard in patent litigation relating to encryption technology.
Pro Bono
In re Marriage Cases (Supreme Court of California). Representation of plaintiffs in one of
several consolidated cases challenging on constitutional grounds Californias statutory exclusion
of same-sex couples from civil marriage.
Smith v. Knoller et al. (Superior Court of California, City and County of San Francisco).
Representation of plaintiff in civil wrongful death action arising from dog attack.

AMY WHELAN
Senior Staff Attorney


Northeastern University School Of Law, Boston, MA: Juris Doctor, May 2001

Princeton University, Princeton, NJ: Bachelor of Arts, June 1996

Senior Thesis: Gay Marriage: A Social Contract and Utilitarianism Analysis
Princeton Project 55 Fellowship (now Princeton AlumniCorps) at Disability Rights Advocates

Bar Admissions: California (2001); admitted to CA state and federal courts, several U.S. Courts
of Appeals, and U.S. Supreme Court

LEGAL EXPERIENCE

National Center for Lesbian Rights San Francisco, CA Feb. 2010present
Senior Staff Attorney: Oversee NCLRs general litigation, policy, and public education work.
Supervise and manage legal team members in complex civil cases around the country. Litigate
numerous marriage equality cases, including in Florida, Idaho, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming,
as well as employment, discrimination, Title IX, First Amendment, family law, and complex
constitutional matters around the country.

Rosen Bien & Galvan, LLP San Francisco, CA 2001Jan. 2010
Associate: General and complex civil litigation firm, with an emphasis on civil rights, prisoners
rights, employment, and attorneys fees cases at the trial court and appellate levels. Perform all
litigation-related tasks for diverse cases and hire and manage paralegals and law student interns.
Highlights:
Member of 2008-2009 trial team in Coleman/Plata v. Schwarzenegger before federal
three-judge court and then U.S. Supreme Court, holding that California must reduce
prison overcrowding in order to meet the medical and mental health needs of prisoners.
Litigated post-judgment issues in Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, a class action lawsuit
under the 8th Amendment regarding mental healthcare in Californias state prison
system.
Litigated post-judgment issues and acted as a monitor in Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger,
a class action lawsuit under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act and the 8th Amendment
regarding disability accommodations and access in Californias state prison system.
Represented a federal public defender in her administrative grievance process
regarding the federal governments discriminatory denial of healthcare benefits to her
same-sex partner. Obtained retroactive and ongoing benefits.

2

Responsible for all matters of civil discovery including taking and defending
depositions, developing expert testimony, propounding and responding to written
discovery and drafting and arguing motions.
Hired, managed and supervised paralegal staff and law student interns.

Legal Action Center, New York, NY Fall 2000
Legal Intern: Conducted legal research and provided direct legal services to ex-offenders and
people with HIV experiencing discrimination in employment, housing, and public benefits.

American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, San Francisco, CA Spring 2000
Legal Intern: Conducted research regarding an array of constitutional and civil rights issues,
including a legal challenge to a Juvenile Crime voter initiative, a public school prohibition of
extracurricular activities on Jewish holidays in violation of the Establishment Clause, and the
Racial Justice Programs Driving While Black/Brown campaign.

San Francisco Human Rights Commission, San Francisco, CA Fall 1999
Legal Intern: Advised and educated city contractors regarding compliance with San Franciscos
Nondiscrimination in Contracts ordinance. Investigated and prosecuted complaints of
discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and HIV status.

Disability Rights Advocates, Oakland, CA August 1996August 1998
Princeton Project 55 Fellow: Assisted attorneys representing persons with disabilities in class
action employment and public accommodations cases. Participated in a United Way Schools
Project to educate superintendents in more than fourteen school districts about the legal
requirements for physical and programmatic access for students with disabilities. Participated on
the trial team for a case of first impression against Macys for failure to provide physical access to
persons with disabilities.

SAMPLE PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONS
Amy Whelan & Gay C. Grunfeld, No Time to Waste-Californias Rules for Claims against Public
Entities, The Recorder, winter 2009 Supplement at 6-7.
Sid Wolinsky & Amy Whelan, Federal Law and the Accommodation of Students with LD: The
Lawyers Look at the BU Decision (Guckenberger v. Boston University), Journal of Learning
Disabilities, Volume 32, Number 4, July/August 1999 at 286-291.
Amy Whelan, Presenter at National Lawyers Guild 2009 Disability Rights Seminar (The Changing
Face of Disability Rights Law), panel on Institutions: Prisons, Adult Homes & Integration of
Children.
Presenter at ACLU of Southern California 2010 Brown Bag Lunch Series, Prisoners Rights:
Mississippis Super-Max and California Prison Overcrowding Litigation.
Presenter at National Lawyers Guild 2010 Far West Regional Conference, panel on Prisoner
Overcrowding in California State Prisons.
Presenter at 6
th
Annual KBA CLE on LGBT Issues, First Amendment Issues as They Relate to the
Community, October 7, 2011.

3

David Coon, Heather Gray, and Amy Whelan, Presenters at 14
th
Annual Updates on Dementia
Conference, LGBT Aging Research and Practice: Updates and Implications for Care Panel, May
6 2012.
Amy Whelan & Julie Nice, Panelists at 2012 Summer Brown Bag Lectures In Public Interest Law,
The Season For Gay Rights? A Discussion of Emerging Constitutional Law, July 24 2012.
Cameo Speaker, Pacific Coast Labor & Employment Conference, April 26 2013.

JAIME M. HULING DELAYE
Staff Attorney

EDUCATION

STANFORD LAW SCHOOL, J.D., academic and pro bono distinction, May 2009

Journals: STAN. L. REV., Executive Editor; STAN. J. CIV. RIGHTS & CIV. LIBERTIES,
Development Editor Activities: Equality Pro Bono Project, Founding Member & Coordinator;
Class of 2009, Treasurer

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, History B.A. with a minor in Gender Studies, June 2004

Honors: cum laude, Departmental Honors in History for Public Conceptions of Private Behavior:
The American Law Institutes Model Penal Code and the 1950s Origins of Sodomy Law
Reform, Deans List 7 of 10 quarters Leadership: emPOWER, Co-Director; Womens Coalition,
Executive Board Member Study Abroad: Barcelona, Spain (Spanish Language, History, and Art
History coursework)

LEGAL EXPERIENCE

NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS, San Francisco, Nov. 2013-present
Staff Attorney: Work on all aspects of litigation in precedent-setting cases involving sexual
orientation change efforts, marriage equality, discrimination, family law, and other issues
affecting the LGBT community.

JUDGE RICHARD SEEBORG, Northern Dist. of CA, San Francisco, Oct. 2012-Jan. 2014
Law Clerk: Cases included employment discrimination, labor law, consumer class actions,
immigration, and criminal law.

JUDGE A. WALLACE TASHIMA, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Pasadena, Aug. 2009-
Aug. 2010
Law Clerk: Cases included civil rights, election law, employment discrimination, immigration,
and environmental law.

ARNOLD & PORTER (HOWARD RICE), San Francisco, May-June 2008, Nov. 2010-Aug.
2012
Attorney & Summer Associate: Generalist litigator with expertise in attorney liability and active
pro bono practice.
Litigation matters included: legal malpractice, ethics inquiries, partnership dissolution,
breaches of fiduciary duties, government contracts, a food-borne illness outbreak, stock
options backdating, and trademark.
Experience: pre-filing investigations, drafting pleadings, arguing three motions, authoring
dispositive and other crucial motions (including for summary judgment, to dismiss, for

2

injunctive relief, for writ of mandate, and to stay), drafting written discovery and discovery
motions, managing voluminous document productions, taking and defending fourteen
depositions, and mediation of complex multijurisdictional litigation.
Pro bono: invalidated Californias lethal injection protocols under the state APA, defended
Nevadas none of the above ballot option, and represented Planned Parenthood in
responding to subpoena for patient records.

SUSMAN GODFREY, Seattle, July-Aug. 2008
Summer Associate: Represented tribe in novel property law dispute against energy companies
over global warming.

STANFORD SUPREME COURT LITIGATION CLINIC, Stanford, Sep.-Dec. 2008
Student Attorney: Drafted portions of respondents brief and prepared counsel of record for oral
argument in AT&T v. Hulteen, a Pregnancy Discrimination Act case. Drafted portions of
petitions for certiorari in criminal case, Mitchell v. Rees, and Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest
Service, regarding religious rights under RLUIPA.

OMELVENY & MYERS, Menlo Park, May-July 2007
Summer Associate: Drafted memorandum on statute of limitations issues in Ninth Circuit civil
rights appeal.

LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, Los Angeles, July-Aug. 2007
Law Clerk: Performed legal research for California Supreme Court supplemental briefing in In re
Marriage Cases.

NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS, San Francisco, Jan.-May 2007
Law Clerk: Responded to intake calls regarding discrimination, relationship rights, custody, and
adoption.

DECLARATION OF CRAIG H. DURHAM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR REASONABLE
ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES - 1
202 N. 9
th
Street, Suite 401 C
Boise, Idaho 83702
Tel.: (208) 484-2253

Boise, ID 83702
Tel.: (208) 345-5183

Shannon P. Minter
Tel.: (415) 392-6257


RACHAEL ROBERTSON,

Plaintiffs,

v.


Defendants,
and

STATE OF IDAHO,



DECLARATION OF CRAIG
H. DURHAM IN SUPPORT
OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION
FOR REASONABLE
ATTORNEYS FEES AND
EXPENSES THROUGH
MAY 23, 2014

I, Craig H. Durham, hereby declare and state as follows:
1. I am a member in good standing of the state bars of Idaho and Kansas. I am also
licensed to practice in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho and for the District
of Kansas, and in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. I am submitting this
declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Reasonable Attorneys Fees and Costs. I have
personal knowledge of the matters stated in this declaration and could competently testify to these
facts.
2. I am a 1996 graduate of the University of Kansas School of Law, and have been an
attorney for over 17 years. I first received a license to practice law in Kansas in September of
1996.
3. From 1996 until 2001, I worked at the Kansas Appellate Defenders Office, where
I represented convicted felony defendants on appeal to the Kansas Court of Appeals and the Kansas
Supreme Court. I also mentored and supervised junior attorneys, and I began working on death
penalty cases. At the time, the death penalty had recently been re-instated in Kansas, and our team
worked efficiently on complex issues of first impression that were presented to the Kansas
Supreme Court.
4. In 2001, I moved to Boise, passed the bar exam, and became a member of the Idaho
State Bar. I continued to practice appellate and death penalty law at the Idaho State Appellate
Defenders Office. Between my experience in Kansas and Idaho, I have written well over 150
appellate briefs, have orally argued dozens of cases in the appellate courts, and have been co-
counsel in several death penalty appeals and post-conviction cases.
5. For nearly ten years, from 2003 until 2012, I worked as a staff attorney at the United
States District Court for the District of Idaho. I was the only death penalty law clerk for the District
of Idaho during that time, and in that capacity I assisted judges in researching the law, drafting
opinions, and resolving capital habeas corpus matters. Each case often spanned several years,
contained thousands of pages of documents and records, and demanded knowledge of a large and
arcane body of case law that is unique to the death penalty.
6. While at the Court, I was also was a member of the Prisoner Litigation Unit (PLU),
which is a small team of staff attorneys who are responsible for managing pro se cases brought by
prisoners. Prisoner cases make up approximately 25% to 33% of the Courts civil caseload from
year-to-year, and the majority of those cases are brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. In 2011 and
again in 2012, I was assigned to assist judges in two 1983 cases brought by death-sentenced
inmates who were challenging Idahos lethal injection protocol at the eleventh hour. See Rhoads
v. Reinke, et al., 1:11-cv-00455-REB; Creech, et al. v. Reinke, et al., 1:12-cv-00173-EJL. Each of
these cases carried high stakes and required exacting work under significant time pressure.
7. In May of 2013, I opened my own solo firm in Boise, where I now concentrate on
civil rights and discrimination cases and on criminal defense. Specifically, I represent, almost
exclusively, prisoners and non-prisoners in 1983 and Bivens cases, individuals claiming
discrimination in employment, and criminal defendants in the state and federal courts.
8. I was asked to join as co-counsel in this case in October of 2013 because of my
research and writing background, my understanding of civil rights law and procedure, and my
familiarity with federal practice, all of which contributed to the team and complemented the other
attorneys experience and skill.
9. Because my firm is still relatively new and growing, I took a large financial risk
when I agreed to represent the Plaintiffs. There was no assurance at the time that we would prevail
or that I would ever be compensated for my work. But I believed that Plaintiffs deserved to be
represented zealously and that their cause was just.
10. This case has since moved on an exceptionally fast track, demanding a significant
commitment of time. During these last seven months, I have turned away other fee-paying matters
so that I could focus my attention on this challenging and expedited litigation.
11. The case also presented complex and novel issues of first impression. Change has
occurred rapidly, requiring the attorneys to be in frequent contact and to adjust quickly to new
developments.
12. The case has generated thousands of pages of legal filings in a very short period of
time.
13. Despite these demands and challenges, the efforts of Plaintiffs team have resulted
in excellent success for our clients, prevailing on all claims in our Complaint.
14. I have devoted over 152 hours to this case, which is documented by my
contemporaneous time records. (Exhibit A.) I have exercised billing judgment and have not
recorded or charged for many additional hours for research, review, communication (including
numerous emails and phone calls), and other work that I believe I could reasonably request.
15. Accordingly, I am requesting to be compensated for 152.40 hours at $325 per hour
through May 23, 2014. I have included my hours for work on the Motion for Reasonable
Attorneys Fees and Costs (fees-for-fees) up to that date. I believe that the requested rate is
reasonable within this legal community given my background, experience, and skill; the
exceptionally rare congruence of complexity, risk, and time demands in this case; and the degree
of success that we have achieved. As stated in the declaration of Ms. Debora Kristensen, [t]hese
are not ordinary matters, and there is little encouragement for the private bar to prosecute these
complex and demanding constitutional claims. (Kristensen Declar. 8, 10).


Executed in Boise, Idaho on this 27th day of May 2014.

Craig H. Durham

CraigDurhamMeritsTime
BILLED
HOURS
CHARGED
BILLING
JUDGMENT
REDUCTIONS
10/23/2013 MeetingwithcocounselDAFregardingcase. 2.3 2.3 0
10/26/2013 Reviewingbriefingandsamplecomplaints,andlegalresearch
regardingthestatusofsamesexmarriage.
2.3 2.3 0
10/27/2013 ResearchingharmsunderIdaholawfordistinctionsbetweenmarried
andunmarriedcouples.
4.6 4.6 0
10/28/2013 MeetingwithcocounselDAFre:drafting
complaintanddividingtasks.
1 1 0
10/28/2013 ReviewingJudgeIrby'sorderdenyingadoptiontoL.W.andS.W. 0.2 0.2 0
10/29/2013 ResearchingIdahoTaxrules,adoptionrules,
andMedicaideligibility.
2 2 0
10/30/2013 Reviewingandcommentingonproposed
Complaint.
1.3 1.3 0
10/31/2013 Conferencecallwithcocounsel,andinpersonconferencewithco
counsel.Discussionsregardingproposedcomplaint,divisionoflabor
andtasks,andfiling.
2 2 0
11/2/2013 RevisingtwosectionsoftheComplaint. 2.7 2.7 0
11/3/2013 Drafting:revisingtwosectionsoftheComplaintre:equalprotection
anddueprocessformarriedsandunmarrieds.
4 4 0
11/4/2013 Researchregardinglegislativehistoryatthe
IdahoLegislativeResearchlibrary.
0.5 0.5 0
11/6/2013 Atcourthouseformarriagelicense.Attempttogetmarriagelicense.
Postattemptdiscussionwithclients.
0.5 0.5 0
11/6/2013 ReviewingeditstoComplaint.Meetingwithcocounseltodiscuss
draftedits.
1.5 1.5 0
11/6/2013 PhonecallwithNCLR.MeetingwithcocounselDAFregarding
ComplaintandstrategyfornextstepsafterComplaintis
filed.
1.5 1.5 0
11/7/2013 Meetingwithcocounsel.Finalizingcomplaint.Clientmeetingto
discusscomplaint,filing,andnextsteps.
7 7 0
11/8/2013 Meetingwithcocounsel.Filingofcomplaint.Meetingandpreparing
Plaintiffsforthefilingofcomplaintandhowtohandlemedia
inquiries.
4.5 4.5 0
11/11/2013 Phonecallwithcocounseldiscussionregardingresponsesto
complaintandlitigationstrategygoingforward.
0.3 0.3 0
11/11/2013 Researchingserviceofprocessissues. 0.4 0.4 0
11/13/2013 Conferencecallwithallcounsel. 1 1 0
11/15/2013 Telephoneconferencewithcocounselregardingserviceofprocess
issues,stipulations,casestrategy,experts,andotherlitigationissues.
2.5 2.5 0
11/16/2013 Draftingandfinalizingstipulationforresponsetime. 0.2 0.2 0
11/22/2013 Withcocounselrelitigationplansandproceeding,focusingon
expertsandlitigationplan.
3 3 0
11/25/2013 Researchatlegislativeresearchlibrary. 1.5 1.5 0
12/2/2013 Phoneconferencewithcocounselreintervention,onpossibilityof
anearlyMSJ,
howtorespondtomotiontodismiss,miscmatters.
1 1 0
12/6/2013 ReviewingtheState'sMotiontoIntervene. 0.3 0.3 0
12/10/2013 PhonecallwithcocounselreState'smotiontointerveneandtiming
ofdispositivemotions.
1 1 0
12/20/2013 Consultationwithcocounselregardinginterventionandlitigation
strategy.Meetandconferwithopposingcounsel.
2 2 0
1
BILLED
HOURS
CHARGED
BILLING
JUDGMENT
REDUCTIONS
12/27/2013 Researchingissuesformotionforsummary
judgment.
0.5 0.5 0
12/29/2013 ResearchanddraftingaspectsofMSJmotion. 2 2 0
12/31/2013 DraftingportionofMSJ. 2 2 0
1/4/2014 ResearchanddraftingportionofMSJ. 2 2 0
1/6/2014 Phonecallwithopposingcounselre:schedulingorder.Followupcall
withcocounsel.
1 1 0
1/8/2014 RevisingportionofMSJbriefaftergettingcommentsfromco
counsel.
4 4 0
1/9/2014 Meetingwithcocounsel,revisingMSJmotion,readingDefendant
Rich'sMotionto
Dismiss.
2.5 2.5 0
1/9/2014 RevisingportionofMSJbrief. 1 1 0
1/13/2014 Callwithcocounselregardingmotiontodismiss,MSJ,andother
matters.
1 1 0
1/15/2014 Phonecallwithcocounselanddiscussionregardingmotionto
intervene.
1.3 1.3 0
1/16/2014 Prepareforhearingwithcocounsel.Attendhearing.Debriefafter
hearing.
2.5 2.5 0
1/22/2014 Telephoneconferencewithcocounselre:amendmentofcomplaint. 1 1 0
1/27/2014 Meetwithcocounsel.Gotocourthousetoattemptdeedrecording
fortwoplaintiffs.
0.5 0.5 0
2/11/2014 Meetingandphonecallre:preparingsummaryjudgmentmotion. 1.5 1.5 0
2/14/2014 ReviewingstatementoffactsandMSJdrafts. 0.7 0.7 0
2/15/2014 ReadingdraftMSJmemo.Meetingandreviewwithcocounselre:
MSJmemo.
2.5 2.5 0
2/16/2014 ReviewingdocumentsandmaterialsforMSJ.Phonediscussionwith
cocounsel.Editingandcommentsondraft.
2.5 2.5 0
2/17/2014 Draftingmotionforsummaryjudgment.ReviewingdraftofMSJ
brief.
1 1 0
2/19/2014 FinishingeditsonMSJ.Consultationwithcocounsel.Preparing
documentsforfiling.Reviewingbeforefiling.Filing.
7 7 0
2/24/2014 ReviewingGovernorOtter'sMSJandmaterial.Discussionwithco
counselFergusonre:MSJandresponse.
2 2 0
2/26/2014 Phonecallwithcocounselregardingpreparingresponseto
Governor'sMSJ.
0.7 0.7 0
3/4/2014 MeetingwithcocounseltodiscussUtahbriefingandpreparing
responseto
Governor'sMSJ.
1 1 0
3/11/2014 Readingproposeddeclarations. 0.3 0.3 0
3/17/2014 PrepareforandattendinterviewwithBSUradioandS.W.andL.W. 1.5 1.5 0
3/18/2014 ReviewchangestoDr.Lamb'sdeclarationand
communicationregardingthesame.
0.5 0.5 0
3/24/2014 ReadingGovernorOtter'sMemoranduminOppositiontoMSJ.
ReadingtheStateandDefendantRich'sMemoranduminOpposition.
2 2 0
2
BILLED
HOURS
CHARGED
BILLING
JUDGMENT
REDUCTIONS
3/25/2014 MeetingwithcocounseltodiscussDefendants'memorandain
oppositionand
ourreply.
0.5 0.5 0
4/2/2014 Readingandcommentingondraftreplybrief. 0.5 0.5 0
4/5/2014 ReviewingtheGovernor'sReply.TakingnotesandforwardingtoDF. 0.7 0.7 0
4/9/2014 Readingemailrelatedtoupcomingcourthearingandtimefor
argument,andrespondingtococounsel.
0.2 0.2 0
4/11/2014 Reviewingoralargumentin10thcircuitcourtofappealscasefrom
Utah.
1 1 0
4/21/2014 Telephonediscussionwithcocounselre:strategyandpreparation
forupcomingoralargument.
2.2 2.2 0
4/21/2014 ReadingnewdecisionsforOhioandIndiana. 0.5 0.5 0
4/23/2014 Meetingwithcocounselandpractice/critiqueoralargument. 2.5 2.5 0
4/24/2014 Mootcourtingoralargument. 1 1 0
4/30/2014 Mootcourt.Consultationreargumentwithcocounsel. 3 3 0
5/2/2014 Mootcourt.Preparingfororalargumentwithcocounsel. 2.5 2.5 0
5/5/2014 Preargumentconsultation.Attendoralargument.Discussionand
pressafter.
4 4 0
5/9/2014 Conferwithcocounselonpossibilityofmotionforstayandstrategy
forwhendecisionisreleased.
1.5 1.5 0
5/9/2014 Communicationwithcocounselregardingstayissues. 0.7 0.7 0
5/10/2014 Reviewdraftpressrelease.Communicationwithcocounseland
plaintiffsonstrategywhendecisionisreleased.
1.5 1.5 0
5/13/2014 Listening/reviewing4thCircuitoralargument.Meetingwithco
counseland
discussingstrategyonnextstepsafterdecisionreleased.Meeting
withplaintiffsandpress.
5 5 0
5/13/2014 Consultationwithcocounselregardinghandlingtheissuanceof
Court'sdecision.
1 1 0
5/14/2014 Clientmeetinganddiscussion
withcocounselregardingnextstepsandstrategydiscussion
regardingattemptsbyDefendantstoseekastay.
1.5 1.5 0
5/15/2014 ReviewofJudgeDale'sdecision.Meetingwithcocounseland
communicationonsame.
2 2 0
5/19/2014 Discussionwithcocounselregardingpreparingfeepetition,
structureofthepetition,anddeadlinesgoingforward.
1.5 1.5 0
5/19/2014 Researchinganddraftingmemoranduminsupportofmotionfor
attorneys'fees.
7 7 0
5/19/2014 ResearchingattorneyfeepetitioncaselawinUSSupremeCourtand
NinthCircuit.
1.5 1.5 0
5/21/2014 Finishingroughdraftofmemoranduminsupportofmotionfor
attorneys'fees,forwardtococounselDAF.Communicationviaemail
regardingmotion,memorandum,anddeclarations.
3 3 0
5/22/2014 Draftingdeclarationinsupportofmotionforattorneys'fees. 2 2 0
5/22/2014 MeetingwithcocounselDAFoncoordinationoftasksandlaborin
finishingfeepetition.
1 1 0
5/23/2014 Finishingdraftofmemoranduminsupportoffeemotionand
circulatingtothegroup. 3 3 0
Totals 152.4 152.4 0
3

202 N. 9
th
Street, Suite 401 C
Boise, Idaho 83702
Tel.: (208) 484-2253

Boise, Idaho 83702
Tel.: (208) 345-5183

Shannon P. Minter
Tel.: (415) 392-6257




Plaintiffs,
v.

Defendants,
and
STATE OF IDAHO,



DECLARATION OF LAUREN I.
SCHOLNICK IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR
REASONABLE ATTORNEYS
FEES AND EXPENSES


I, Lauren I. Scholnick, hereby declare and state as follows:
1. I am a member in good standing of the Idaho State Bar and also the Illinois
(inactive) and Utah State Bars. I am also one of the founding partners at Strindberg & Scholnick,
LLC. I have been asked to make this declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Reasonable
Attorneys Fees and Costs. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated in this Declaration
and could and would competently testify to these facts.
2. I attended Stanford University for my undergraduate education, graduating in
1988. I attended the University of Illinois College of Law and graduated cum laude in 1995.
3. After graduation from law school, I clerked for a year with Judge Gregory K.
Orme at the Utah Court of Appeals. I then worked as a Staff Attorney and Development
Director at Utah Legal Services, Inc. and in private practice where I litigated a variety of cases.
In 2002, I started my current firm, Strindberg & Scholnick, LLC, with my law partner, Erik
Strindberg. We have offices in Salt Lake City, Utah and Boise, Idaho and focus our practice on
employment and discrimination matters. We are currently the largest boutique plaintiffs
employment law firm in Utah and Idaho. We also litigate various constitutional claims beyond
employment cases.
4. For example, in Utah, we, along with the ACLU of Utah, represent the plaintiffs
in Evans et al v. Herbert, Case No. 2:14cv55 DAK (D. Utah) in which same sex couples lawfully
married in Utah from December 20, 2013 to January 6, 2014 challenged the State of Utahs
decision to deny legal rights to those married couples. We obtained a preliminary injunction
against the state in that case on May 19, 2014.
5. I and the law firm have extensive experience litigating complex cases, including
the following major decisions:

Successfully represented the former director of the Idaho Transportation Department in a due
process challenge to her termination. Lowe v. Idaho Transp. Dept, 878 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (D.
Idaho 2012).

Obtained a substantial race discrimination verdict ($880,000) for a garbage truck mechanic
who was denied promotion and fair treatment in the terms and conditions of his employment
by a national waste management corporation. Garcia v. PSI et al., 10-cv-55 (D. Idaho June
29, 2012).

Successfully appealled an important racial harassment case resulting in a published appeals
decision that contains numerous favorable holdings for employees facing a hostile work
environment. Tademy v. Union Pacific Corp., 520 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2008).

Obtained Utahs largest Title VII jury verdict ($2,500,000 for emotional distress) for a client
who had been raped by her supervisor. Parker v. Olympus Healthcare Center, 2:00 CV-626
(D. Utah 2002).

Established that a cause of action for wrongful termination exists for employees who are
discharged from their employment in retaliation for filing workers compensation claims.
Touchard v. La-Z-Boy, Inc., 148 P.3d 945 (Utah 2006).

Successfully represented a transgender employee under the Price Waterhouse theory that
people who do not conform to gender stereotypes have a cause of action under Title VII &
the Equal Protection clause. Etsitty v. Utah Transit Authority, 502 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir.
2007).

6. I have reviewed the Courts decision in this matter, Susan Latta, et.el., v. C.L.
Otter, Governor of the State of Idaho, et. el, 13-cv-00482 (Dkt. No. 98). I have also generally
followed this case and reviewed the dispositive briefs filed. It is evident that this was a complex
and difficult constitutional case, litigated on an expedited legal track, requiring the high skills of
Plaintiffs counsel.
7. I have also reviewed the Declaration of Deborah A. Ferguson, submitted in
support of Plaintiffs fee petition. Ms. Ferguson has been litigating complex civil federal cases
for over twenty years. She has an excellent reputation, background, and experience as a lead
attorney in complex federal cases in the District of Idaho.

8. I am also specifically familiar with the National Center for Lesbian Rights
(NCLR) and its lawyers as we worked with the organization and Mr. Minter in the Etsitty v. UTA
case, described above. Shannon P. Minter, NCLRs Legal Director, is an excellent constitutional
law scholar and litigator. NCLR has a reputation for extremely high-quality work and has
litigated numerous marriage equality cases across the country. When I litigated the Etsitty case
on behalf of a transgender employee who was terminated from her job because of her gender
identity, NCLR, along with other nationally-recognized organizations specializing in civil rights,
submitted an amicus curiae brief based on its extensive experience representing lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender employees.
9. I have reviewed the backgrounds of and rates claimed by the Plaintiffs attorneys
in this case. I understand that Ms. Ferguson and Shannon P. Minter, both of whom graduated
from law school more than 20 years ago, are seeking compensation at the rate of $400 per hour.
Plaintiffs counsel also seek rates of $325 per hour for Christopher P. Stoll, and Craig Durham,
who graduated from law school 17-19 years ago, and $275 per hour for Amy Whelan, who
graduated from law school 13 years ago. In my opinion, these hourly rates are within the range
of market rates charged by attorneys of equivalent experience, skill, and expertise for
comparable work in this community.
10. The bulk of my practice is on a contingency basis. When attorneys bill at their
customary hourly rates, those rates do not factor in the contingent risk, skill, difficulty, and
complexity of cases. During my years specializing in litigation, I have come to understand the
close relationship between the award of reasonable attorneys fees to successful plaintiffs
counsel and the enforcement of civil rights and employment rights laws.

11. I also am familiar with the special difficulties litigating against public entities,
which include the fact that punitive damages are not available and that cases against public
entities tend to be hard-fought. This case is no exception. During the pendency of litigation and
appeal, the case operates as a serious and constant drain of funds and attorney time from the
Plaintiffs firms. These facts of economic life explain the small number of Plaintiff attorneys
willing to take on this type of litigation.
12. Courts are empowered to award fee enhancements, or multipliers, based on
various factors, including the time and labor required, the complexity of a case, the skill
required, the preclusion of other employment, whether the fee is contingent, the results obtained,
and the experience and skill of counsel. Here, Plaintiffs counsel obtained excellent results, are
highly skilled, were likely precluded from accepting other employment due to the pressures of
the case, litigated the matter on a contingency basis, and had to litigate complex constitutional
issues on very tight timeframes. Awarding multipliers under these circumstances ensures that
meritorious cases will be brought to enforce important constitutional rights, despite the risk
involved. I understand that Plaintiffs counsel are not seeking a fee enhancement. In my
opinion, this further supports the reasonableness of the hourly rates requested.
Executed in Salt Lake City, Utah on May 27, 2014.

Lauren I. Scholnick


1:13-cv-00482 #113

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1:13-cv-00482 #113

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES THROUGH MAY 23, 2014

You might also like