IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

APRIL AARON-BRUSH and GINGER
AARON-BRUSH,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

ROBERT BENTLEY, et al.,

Defendants.



Case No.: 2:14-cv-01091-RDP




REPORT OF PARTIES PLANNING MEETING
Appearances: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), a conference was held on August 4, 2014,
between the following:
Edward Still, Robert Segall, Avery Livingston, and Randall Marshall for the Plaintiffs;
and
James Davis for the Defendants.
Synopsis of the Case:
Plaintiffs: This is a challenge to Alabamas refusal to recognize Plaintiffs marriage,
lawfully entered into in Massachusetts, because Plaintiffs are a same-sex couple; Plaintiffs
challenge the constitutionality of Section 36.03 of the Alabama Constitution and Ala. Code 30-
1-19 (referred to collectively as the Alabama Marriage Prohibitions) which prohibit the State of
Alabama from recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples entered into in other jurisdictions.
Following the decision in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), similar actions have
been filed around the country. As of the date of this report, 17 federal district courts and the Tenth
1
FILED
2014 Aug-07 AM 11:58
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
Case 2:l4-cv-0l09l-RDP Document l9 Filed 08/07/l4 Page l of 7
and Fourth Circuits have been unanimous in holding constitutional amendments and state statutes
like those challenged here invalid under the U.S. Constitution.
Defendants: For important public policy reasons, Alabama law defines marriage as an
institution that can only exist between opposite-sex couples. This has been the case since Alabama
has been a state, and was the case in all other states and cultures before the 21st Century.
While states are free under the Constitution to adopt a different definition of marriage, including
one that includes same-sex couples, the Constitution does not require states to do so. Therefore,
while Plaintiffs have every right to order their lives as they see fit, the Constitution does not require
Alabama to recognize their relationship or any relationship other than an opposite-sex couple
as a marriage.
Initial Disclosures: The parties will exchange by August 18, 2014, the information required
by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1).
Discovery Plan: The parties agree that this case should be able to be decided on cross-
motions for summary judgment. Because the issues in this case are, for the most part, legal issues,
the parties will explore whether any discovery is necessary at all. However, in the event discovery
is necessary, the parties jointly propose to the Court the following discovery plan:
a. Discovery, if needed, will be on the following subjects: All information
pertaining to Plaintiffs claims and the relief sought and the Defendants defenses.
b. All discovery must be commenced in time to be completed by February 4,
2015.
c. Interrogatories: Each party will be permitted to propound a maximum of
twenty-five (25) interrogatories to the other party. The responses will be due thirty (30)
days after service.
2
Case 2:l4-cv-0l09l-RDP Document l9 Filed 08/07/l4 Page 2 of 7
d. Request for Admissions: Each party will be permitted to propound a
maximum of twenty-five (25) requests for admissions to any other party. The responses
will be due thirty (30) days after service.
e. Request for Production of Documents: Each party will be permitted to
propound a maximum of twenty-give (25) requests for production of documents to any
other party. The responses will be due thirty (30) days after service.
f. Depositions: Each party may depose a maximum of six (6) individuals to
be deposed by each party, excluding experts, with each deposition lasting no longer than
seven (7) hours.
g. Reports from retained experts under Rule 26(a)(2) will be due from the
parties on or before October 3, 2014, and rebuttal experts on or before November 4, 2014.
h. Supplementation of the core disclosures under Rule 26(e) will be made
within fourteen (14) days of the partys knowledge of the need to supplement but in no
event later than thirty (30) days before the end of the discovery period.
i. Electronic Discovery. A producing party may initially produce electronic or
computer-based information in a searchable PDF format rather than the native electronic
format. Upon written request by the opposing party, however, the producing party will
produce in native electronic format unless the producing party has good cause for not doing
so. Within fourteen (14) days of any written request, the producing party will either
produce in native format or object in writing to producing in native electronic format. The
parties will confer in good faith regarding any production issues before submitting a dispute
to the Court.

3
Case 2:l4-cv-0l09l-RDP Document l9 Filed 08/07/l4 Page 3 of 7
Other Items:
a. Since the health or health care of the plaintiff is not relevant to any claim or
defense in this action, the defendant will not seek an authorization to obtain protected
health information.
b. Notice of non-party pre-trial subpoenas for the production of documents and
things or inspection of premises shall be served on all parties not less than five business
days prior to the service of the subpoena on the non-party. If the party serving the subpoena
obtains copies of documents or things, that party shall make available a duplicate of such
copies at the request of any other party upon the payment of the reasonable cost of making
the copies.
Scheduling Conference: The parties do not request a conference with the Court before entry
of the scheduling order.
Additional Parties, Claims and Defenses: Plaintiffs have until October 6, 2014, to join
additional parties and add additional claims, and Defendants have until November 4, 2014, to join
additional parties or add additional defenses.
Dispositive Motions: The following procedure for potentially dispositive motions shall be
used. Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is due on or before April 6, 2015; Defendants
opposition brief and cross-motion for summary judgment will be due 30 days after Plaintiffs
motion is filed; Plaintiffs reply brief will be due 21 days after Defendants opposition brief and
cross-motion; Defendants surreply brief will be due 14 days after Plaintiffs reply brief.
Settlement: Because of the nature of Plaintiffs claims, the parties agree that settlement is
not possible in this action.
4
Case 2:l4-cv-0l09l-RDP Document l9 Filed 08/07/l4 Page 4 of 7
Pretrial Conference: The parties request a final pretrial conference thirty (30) days before
trial.
Trial Evidence: The list of witnesses and trial evidence under Rule 26(1)(3) should be due
thirty (30) days before trial. The parties should have fourteen (14) days after service of the final
lists of trial evidence to list objections under Rule 16(a)(3).
Trial Date: As mentioned earlier, the parties agree that this case should be able to be
resolved on cross-motions for summary judgment. In the event the case cannot be resolved on
summary judgment, the case will be ready for trial two months after the Courts determination that
it cannot be resolved by summary judgment and is expected to take approximately three (3) days
of trial time.
This 7
th
day of August, 2014.




5
Case 2:l4-cv-0l09l-RDP Document l9 Filed 08/07/l4 Page 5 of 7
Respectfully submitted,

/s Randall C. Marshall
Randall C. Marshall (ASB-3023-A56M)
Avery C. Livingston (ASB-3780-G22R)
ACLU of Alabama Foundation
P.O. Box 6179
Montgomery, AL 36106-0179
334-265-2754
rmarshall@aclualabama.org
alivingston@aclualabama.org

Chase Strangio**
James Esseks**
ACLU Foundation
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10004
212-284-7320
cstrangio@aclu.org
jesseks@aclu.org

** Admitted pro hac vice.

Wendy Brooks Crew (ASB-5609-e42w)
The Crew Law Firm
2001 Park Pl Ste 550
Birmingham, AL 35203-2714
205-326-3555
wbcrew4@aol.com

Joel E. Dillard (ASB-5418-R62J)
Baxley, Dillard, McKnight & James
2008 Third Avenue South
Birmingham, Alabama 35233
205-271-1100
JDillard@BaxleyDillard.com

Joshua S. Segall (ASB-9123-O78S)
Post Office Box 4236
Montgomery, AL 36103
334-324-4546
Joshua.segall@segalllaw.net





Robert D. Segall (ASB-7354-E68R)
Copeland, Franco, Screws & Gill, P.A.
P.O. Box 347
Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0347
334-834-1180
segall@copelandfranco.com

Edward Still (ASB-4786-i47w)
Edward Still Law Firm LLC
130 Wildwood Parkway STE 108-304
Birmingham AL 35209
205-320-2882
still@votelaw.com

Cooperating Attorneys for the ACLU of Alabama
Foundation

6
Case 2:l4-cv-0l09l-RDP Document l9 Filed 08/07/l4 Page 6 of 7
/s James W. Davis
James W. Davis (ASB-4063-I58J)
Laura E. Howell (ASB-0551-A41H)
Assistant Attorneys General

STATE OF ALABAMA
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
501 Washington Avenue
Montgomery, Alabama 36130-0152
(334) 242-7300
(334) 353-8440 (fax)
jimdavis@ago.state.al.us
lhowell@ago.state.al.us

Attorneys for Defendants Bentley,
Strange, Magee, and Richardson












David B. Byrne, Jr.
Chief Legal Advisor
STATE OF ALABAMA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Alabama State Capitol
600 Dexter Avenue, Ste. NB-05
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
(334) 242-7120
david.byrne@governor.alabama.gov

Additional Counsel for Governor
Bentley

J. Haran Lowe
Timothy L. McCollum
STATE OF ALABAMA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
Legal Unit
P.O. Box 1511
Montgomery, AL 36102-1511
(334) 242-4392
haran.lowe@dps.alabama.gov
tim.mccollum@dps.alabama.gov

Additional Counsel for Defendant
Richardson






7
Case 2:l4-cv-0l09l-RDP Document l9 Filed 08/07/l4 Page 7 of 7