09-17241 #13

NOS.
09-17241, 09-____

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al.
Defendant-Intervenors-Appellees.

Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Civil Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW (Honorable Vaughn R. Walker)

DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS-APPELLANTS MOTION FOR STAY

Andrew P. Pugno
LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
Folsom, California 95630
(916) 608-3065; (916) 608-3066 Fax

Brian W. Raum
James A. Campbell
ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND
15100 North 90th Street
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
(480) 444-0020; (480) 444-0028 Fax

Charles J. Cooper
David H. Thompson
Howard C. Nielson, Jr.
Nicole J. Moss
Jesse Panuccio
Peter A. Patterson
COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 220-9600; (202) 220-9601 Fax

Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenors-Appellants

Case 09-17241 Document 13-0 Filed 11/13/09 28 pages
Case 09-17551 Document 9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1
BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................2
ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................7
A. JURISDICTION....................................................................................................7
B. PROPONENTS ARE LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS..................................8
1. Disclosure Threatens Core First Amendment Rights .........................11
2. The Information At Issue Is Irrelevant................................................14
C. IRREPARABLE HARM IS CERTAIN IN THE ABSENCE OF A STAY........................... 17
D. OTHER PARTIES WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY A STAY ............20
E. THE PUBLIC INTEREST WEIGHS IN FAVOR OF A STAY.....................................20
CONCLUSION........................................................................................................20
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES...................................................................21

- i -
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Page
Adolph Coors Co. v. Wallace, 570 F. Supp. 202 (N.D. Cal. 1983).....................9, 10
Agster v. Maricopa County, 422 F.3d 836 (9th Cir. 2005)......................................19
Arthur v. Toledo, 782 F.2d 565 (6th Cir. 1986).......................................................16
Australia/E. USA Shipping Conference v. United States, 537 F. Supp. 807
(D.D.C. 1982) .....................................................................................................10
Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516 (1960)......................................................8
Bates v. Jones, 131 F.3d 843 (9th Cir. 1997)...........................................................17
Black Panther Party v. Smith, 661 F.2d 1243 (D.C. Cir. 1981), vacated as moot,
458 U.S. 1118 (1982) ...........................................................................................9
Buckley v. American Const. Law Found., 525 U.S. 182 (1999)..............................12
California Pro-Life Council, Inc. v. Getman, 328 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2003).........13
California Pro-Life Council, Inc. v. Randolph, 507 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2007)......13
Canyon Ferry Rd. Baptist Church of E. Helena, Inc. v. Unsworth,
556 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................13
City of Los Angeles v. County of Kern, 462 F. Supp. 2d 1105 (C.D. Cal. 2006),
vacated, 581 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2009)................................................................16
Crawford v. Board of Educ., 458 U.S. 527 (1982) ..................................................16
DeGregory v. Attorney Gen. of New Hampshire, 383 U.S. 825 (1966) ..............9, 10
Dole v. Service Employees Union, AFL-CIO, 950 F.2d 1456 (9th Cir. 1991) ........10
Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) .......................................................................17
Equality Found. of Greater Cincinnati v. Cincinnati, 128 F.3d 289
(6th Cir. 1997) ....................................................................................................16
ETSI Pipeline Project v. Burlington N., Inc., 674 F. Supp. 1489 (D.D.C. 1987)... 10
Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989) .......12
FEC v. Machinists Non-Partisan Political League, 655 F.3d 380
(D.C. Cir. 1981) ............................................................................................10, 19
FCC v. Beach Commcns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (1993)..............................................14
First Natl Bank v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978)................................................8, 12

- ii -
Gentala v. City of Tucson, 213 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2000) ......................................17
Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539 (1963) ...............9
Golden Gate Rest. Assn v. City of San Francisco, 512 F.3d 1112
(9th Cir. 2008) ......................................................................................................7
Grandbouche v. Clancy, 825 F.2d 1463 (10th Cir. 1987) .........................................9
Heartland Surgical Specialty Hosp., LLC v. Midwest Div., Inc.,
No. 05-2164, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19475 (D. Kan. Mar. 16, 2007)..............10
High Tech Gays v. Defense Indus. Sec. Clearance Office, 895 F.2d 563
(9th Cir. 1990) ....................................................................................................14
Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969) ................................................................16
Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston,
515 U.S. 557 (1995) ...........................................................................................11
In re Ford Motor Co., 110 F.3d 954 (3d Cir. 1997) ..........................................10, 19
In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig., No. 07-1840,
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66005 (D. Kan. May 28, 2009) ....................................10
International Action Ctr. v. United States, 207 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2002) ................10
International Socy for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, No. 75-5388,
1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22188 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 1985) ..................................10
James v. Valtierra, 402 U.S. 137 (1971) .................................................................16
Jones v. Bates, 127 F.3d 839 (9th Cir. 1997)...........................................................17
Las Vegas v. Foley, 747 F.2d 1294 (9th Cir. 1984).................................................15
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commn, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) ..............9, 11, 12, 13, 19
Miami Herald Publg Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) ...................................11
NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) .....................................8
Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967).................................................................15
Robert L. v. Superior Court of Orange County, 69 P.3d 951 (Cal. 2003)...............17
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) .....................................................................16
S.D. Meyers v. City & County of San Francisco, 253 F.3d 461 (9th Cir. 2001) .....17
Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 303 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2002) ...............20
SASSO v. Union City, 424 F.2d 291 (9th Cir. 1970) ...................................13, 14, 15
South Dakota Farm Bureau, Inc. v Hazeltine, 340 F.3d 583 (8th Cir. 2003) .........16

- iii -

- iv -
Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal. 4th 364 (Cal. 2009) .......................................................17
United States v. Philip Morris, 314 F.3d 612 (D.C. Cir. 2003)...............................20
Washington v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 458 U.S. 457 (1982) .............................16
Watchtower v. Bible & Tract Socy of N.Y., Inc. v. Stratton, 536 U.S. 150
(2002)..................................................................................................................12
Wyoming v. United States Dept of Agriculture, 208 F.R.D. 449
(D.D.C. 2002) .....................................................................................................10
Other
CAL. CONST. art. I, 7.5.............................................................................................1
Fed. R. App. P. 8(2)(B)(iii)........................................................................................1

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(2), Appellants/Petitioners respectfully seek
a stay of the discovery authorized by the district courts orders of October 1, 2009
(Doc. 214), and November 11, 2009 (Doc. 252) pending resolution of their appeals
or, in the alternative, petitions for writ of mandamus.
INTRODUCTION
These interlocutory appeals or, in the alternative, petitions for writ of man-
damus arise out of discovery orders in a case challenging the constitutionality of
Proposition 8 (Prop 8), an initiative amendment providing that [o]nly marriage
between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. CAL. CONST.
art. I, 7.5. Appellants are a primarily formed ballot committee and the official
proponents of Prop 8 (collectively, Proponents), who were permitted to inter-
vene in this case to defend the initiative after the Governor and the Attorney Gen-
eral declined to do so. The district court has directed Proponents to produce to the
Plaintiffs copies of internal confidential communications and materials (from one-
on-one emails to drafts of campaign ads) relating to Proponents advertising or
messaging strategy and themes, RR 4 (Doc. 252 at 4),
1
during the Prop 8 cam-
paignmaterial even Plaintiffs admit is core political speech and undeniably enti-

1
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 8(2)(B)(iii), relevant parts of the record, in-
cluding all docket entries cited except for memoranda of law, are provided in two
volumes of exhibits (RR) filed concurrently with this motion. Citations to page
numbers refer to internal pagination of the volumes of exhibits. Where a memo-
randum of law is cited, pagination refers to the district courts PACER pagination.

- 1 -
tled to broad First Amendment protection. RR 222 (Doc. 191 at 12).
The district court deemed this nonpublic, confidential information relevant
to the intent of the electorate in passing Prop 8 even though the information, by de-
finition, had never been seen by the electorate. If this type of core political speech
is not privileged under the speech and associational protections of the First
Amendment from ordinary discovery in post-election litigation, then nothing is,
and the political process surrounding initiative elections in California, and every-
where else, will be profoundly and permanently chilled. A stay is necessary both
to preserve this Courts ability to review this critical First Amendment issue and to
prevent irreparable harm to Proponents core political freedoms.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed this suit on May 22, 2009, claiming that Prop 8 violates the
Fourteenth Amendment. The district court has imposed an expedited discovery
schedule, and a full evidentiary trial is scheduled to commence on January 11,
2010. The scope of discovery in this case has been an issue from the outset. In
their initial case management statement, Plaintiffs stated that they would take doc-
ument and deposition discovery into Prop 8s genesis, drafting, strategy, objec-
tives, advertising, campaign literature, and [Proponents] communications with
each other, supporters, and donors. RR 630 (Doc. 157 at 12). Proponents ob-
jected to this discovery from the start, emphasizing that the subjective motivations

- 2 -
of voters and other political participants for supporting Proposition 8 are both le-
gally irrelevant and are protected from discovery by the First Amendment. RR
612 (Doc. 159 at 9); see also RR 593 (Hrg of Aug. 19, 2009, Tr. 59). Proponents
urged the court, unsuccessfully, to give us an opportunity to fight this out in brief-
ing to the Court before we get down that road. Id. at 594 (60).
Plaintiffs promptly propounded requests that sought all documents relating
to Proponents communications among themselves and with any third party re-
lating to Prop 8, whether created before or after the election, as well as wholly in-
ternal drafts of, and private editorial comment on, political messaging and strategy
communications, and other speech that Proponents chose to withhold from public
dissemination. See RR 261-67, 290-301 (Docs. 187-3, -5, -6, -7). Plaintiffs have
also noticed or served over 20 subpoenas requesting similar documents from Pro-
ponents political consultants and other third parties associated with Proponents in
the campaign.
Proponents agreed to produce, without conceding their relevance, all public,
nonanonymous materialse.g., television and radio ads, mailings, and robo calls
disseminated to the electorate, including materials disseminated to target voter
groups. Plaintiffs insisted on production of Proponents internal campaign docu-
ments and communications, and Proponents moved for a protective order barring
disclosure of such nonpublic confidential materials on the grounds that they were

- 3 -
both irrelevant and privileged under the First Amendment. See Docs. 187, 197.
On October 1, the district court denied the motion in relevant part. Noting
that Proponents sought protection from responding to any discovery that would
reveal political communications as well as identities of individuals affiliated with
the Prop 8 campaign whose names have not already been disclosed, the court re-
jected Proponents claim that the First Amendment privilege is applicable to the
discovery sought by plaintiffs. RR 27, 40 (Doc. 214 at 4, 17). The court also
held that nonpublic information about the strategy and communications of the
Prop 8 campaign is relevant to the electorates intent in passing Prop 8, even
though it was never disseminated to the electorate. Id. at 38 (15). According to the
district court, communications considered but not sent [to voters] appear to be fair
subjects for discovery, as the revision or rejection of a contemplated campaign
message may well illuminate what information was actually conveyed to voters.
Id. at 39 (16). The court also held that some nonpublic communications from
proponents to those who assumed a large role in the Prop 8 campaign could be re-
levant to the voters understanding of Prop 8 and to the ultimate determination of
intent. Id. at 38 (15). The court thus ruled that Proponents must produce:
Communications by and among proponents and their agents
concerning campaign strategy.
[C]ommunications by and among proponents and their agents
concerning messages to be conveyed to voters, without re-
gard to whether the messages were actually disseminated or
merely contemplated.

- 4 -
[C]ommunications by and among proponents with those who
assumed a directorial or managerial role in the Prop 8 cam-
paign, like political consultants or ProtectMarriage.coms trea-
surer and executive committee, among others.
[C]ommunications that took place after the election if they
are connected in some way to pre-election messages conveyed
to the voters.

Id. at 39-40 (16-17).
On October 8, Proponents noticed an appeal and/or petition for mandamus
(docketed in this Court as No. 09-17241) seeking review of the October 1 order
and moved the district court for a stay of discovery pending resolution of the ap-
peal and/or petition. See Docs. 220, 233. On October 23, the district court denied
the stay motion. The court reiterated its earlier rejection of Proponents blanket
assertion of privilege under the First Amendment, RR 18-22 (Doc. 237 at 8-12),
but suggested that it might yet find specific documents privileged after in cam-
era review. Id. at 17 (7). Accordingly, on November 6, Proponents submitted for
in camera review a 60-document representative sample drawn from the thousands
of documents that constitute privileged core political speech. RR 42-44 (Doc.
251). Proponents requested that, if the court concluded the documents must be
disclosed, it stay the ruling pending appeal of that order. RR 98 (Doc. 238 at 2).
On November 11, the district court held that Proponents must produce 21 of
the 60 documents submitted for in camera review. The court reaffirmed its ruling
that Proponents are entitled, at most to a limited application of the qualified

- 5 -
First Amendment privilege. RR 2 (Doc. 252 at 2). That privilege, the court held,
does not protect the disclosure of campaign communications or the identities of
high ranking members of the campaign. Id. at 3. And the court held that confi-
dential, nonpublic communications discussing campaign messaging or advertising
strategy, including targeted messaging are both responsive and likely to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent the evidence relates to messages
or themes conveyed to California voters or is otherwise likely to lead to this rele-
vant information. Id. Though the court did not to reveal the content of assertedly
privileged documents, its order did describe the general nature of those documents.
Id. at 4-6. For example, under the ruling, Proponents must produce:
Doc 4 [which] discusses edits to a television advertisement.
Doc 17 [which] discusses voter reaction to a theme in campaign ad-
vertising.
Doc 29 [which] is a draft of a campaign flyer.
Doc 50 [which] discusses focus group responses to various campaign
themes.
Doc 55 [which] discusses a potential message to be conveyed in re-
sponse to an opposition advertisement.
Doc 58 [which] is a post-election summary of successful themes con-
veyed to voters.
Doc 60 [which] is a draft of a television advertisement.

Id.
The court did hold that 39 of the 60 documents need not be produced be-
cause they said little or nothing about the messages or themes Proponents were
considering conveying to voters. Id. at 6-9. Though Proponents had requested that

- 6 -
the court stay any requirement that they produce the assertedly privileged docu-
ments pending review by this Court, the court below did not do so, directing the
parties instead to work out a production schedule that applies courts ruling on the
sample to the hundreds (indeed, there are thousands) of documents in Propo-
nents possession. Id. at 9.
Proponents have today noticed an appeal of the November 11 order (which,
in the alternative, we ask the Court to treat as a petition for writ of mandamus). In
a concurrently filed motion, Proponents ask the Court to consolidate this appeal
with No. 09-17241.
ARGUMENT
In deciding whether to issue a stay pending appeal and/or mandamus review,
this Court considers: (1) appellants likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the
possibility of irreparable harm absent a stay; (3) the possibility of substantial injury
to other parties if a stay is issued; and (4) the public interest. E.g., Golden Gate
Rest. Assn v. City of San Francisco, 512 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2008).
A. JURISDICTION
This Court, on October 20, ordered Proponents to show cause why this
Court has jurisdiction in No. 09-17241. In a show-cause brief filed concurrently
with this motion, Proponents demonstrate that this Court has jurisdiction to review
the discovery orders at issue either under the collateral order doctrine or under its

- 7 -
mandamus jurisdiction.
B. PROPONENTS ARE LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS
The orders below require disclosure of nonpublic confidential and/or ano-
nymous speech and associational activity relating to an initiative electionspeech
that is at the heart of the First Amendments protection, and indispensable to
decisionmaking in a democracy. First Natl Bank v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 776-
77 (1978). Federal courts have long recognized that the fundamental rights of free
speech and association in the political realm lie at the core of the First Amendment,
that anonymity and confidentiality in the exercise of those rights is vital to their
protection, and that compelled disclosure, including through civil discovery, vio-
lates those rights.
Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly
controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association, and there is a
vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in ones associations.
NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 460, 462 (1958). Thus, the Supreme Court has
repeatedly held that compelled disclosure of an advocacy associations member-
ship lists would affect adversely protected speech and association in that it may
induce members to withdraw from the [a]ssociation and dissuade others from join-
ing it because of fear of exposure of their beliefs shown through their associations
and of the consequences of this exposure. Id. at 462-63; see also Bates v. City of

- 8 -
Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 523 (1960); Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation
Comm., 372 U.S. 539 (1963). More importantly here, the Supreme Court has
likewise emphasized that the First Amendment protects not only the confidentiality
of political speakers identities, but the content of political speech that they choose
not to reveal. See McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commn, 514 U.S. 334, 348 (1995);
DeGregory v. Attorney Gen. of New Hampshire, 383 U.S. 825 (1966).
The First Amendment privilege applies both to government requests for in-
formation and to requests by private parties in civil litigation. See, e.g., Grand-
bouche v. Clancy, 825 F.2d 1463, 1466 (10th Cir. 1987); Black Pan-
ther Party v. Smith, 661 F.2d 1243, 1266-67 (D.C. Cir. 1981), vacated as moot 458
U.S. 1118 (1982); Adolph Coors Co. v. Wallace, 570 F. Supp. 202, 208 (N.D. Cal.
1983). And the privilege applies regardless of whether it is invoked by a plaintiff
or a defendant: voluntary status in the lawsuit does not matter. E.g., Grand-
bouche, 825 F.2d at 1467; Black Panther, 661 F.2d at 1266-67. A claim of First
Amendment privilege against compelled discovery is measured against the [re-
questing partys] need for the information. Id. at 1266. The argument in favor
of upholding the claim of privilege will ordinarily grow stronger as the danger to
rights of expression and association increases. Id. at 1267. The burden is light
only some probability of First Amendment harm need exist. Id. at 1268. On the
disclosure side of the ledger, however, the burden is heavy: to overcome the privi-

- 9 -
lege the requesting party must show that the information requested goes to the
heart of the matter and is crucial to the partys case. Id. See also Coors, 570 F.
Supp. at 209. Courts, including the Supreme Court and this Circuit, have repeat-
edly held that the content of private communications made in connection with po-
litical activity are privileged.
2

Here, the confidential campaign strategy and political messaging informa-
tion at issue was never disseminated to the electorate and thus can have no rele-
vance whatever to the electorates intent in passing Prop 8. And compelling its
disclosure in this post-election lawsuit will profoundly chill the exercise of speech
and associational freedoms in future initiative elections.
3

2
See DeGregory, 383 U.S. at 828 (First Amendment privilege applies to re-
quest for information relating to the views expressed and ideas advocated at
[an associations] gatherings); Dole v. Service Employees Union, AFL-CIO, 950
F.2d 1456 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that meeting minutes reflecting discussions of
highly political issues were prima facie privileged). See also Intl Socy for
Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22188, at *28
(S.D.N.Y. 1985); Heartland Surgical Specialty Hosp., LLC v. Midwest Div., Inc.,
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19475, at *15-20 (D. Kan. 2007); International Action Ctr.
v. United States, 207 F.R.D. 1, 2-4 (D.D.C. 2002); In re Motor Fuel Temperature
Sales Practices Litig., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66005, at *34, *45 (D. Kan. 2009);
Wyoming v. United States Dept of Agriculture, 208 F.R.D. 449 (D.D.C. 2002);
ETSI Pipeline Project v. Burlington N., Inc., 674 F. Supp. 1489 (D.D.C. 1987);
Austlralia/E. USA Shipping Conference v. United States, 537 F. Supp. 807, 808-10
(D.D.C. 1982).
3
See FEC v. Machinists Non-Partisan Political League, 655 F.2d 380, 384,
388 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (where sweeping subpoena served on political association
called for internal communications relating to a campaign, heightened judicial
concern is warranted because the release of such information carries with it a
real potential for chilling the free exercise of political speech and association).

- 10 -

1. Disclosure Threatens Core First Amendment Rights

In the specific context of a referendum campaign, the Supreme Court has
held that the First Amendment protects from compelled disclosure both the content
and anonymity of private political speech and associational activity. In McIntyre,
the Supreme Court struck down a state law that made it illegal to distribute an ano-
nymous leaflet opposing a municipal referendum. Because Ms. McIntyres distri-
bution of her homemade handbill occupie[d] the core of the protection afforded
by the First Amendment, the Court found that the state law did not pass muster
under exacting scrutiny. 514 U.S. at 346-47. The fact that this advocacy oc-
curred in the heat of a controversial referendum vote only strengthen[ed] the pro-
tection afforded to [it]. Id. at 347. The Court emphasized that the First Amend-
ment protects not merely the identity of the speaker, but the content of any infor-
mation that the speaker chooses not to reveal:
Insofar as the interest in informing the electorate means nothing more
than the provision of additional information that may either buttress or
undermine the argument in a document, we think the identity of the
speaker is no different from other components of the documents con-
tent that the author is free to include or exclude. The simple interest
in providing voters with additional relevant information does not jus-
tify a state requirement that a writer make statements or disclosures
she would otherwise omit.

Id. at 348 (emphasis added) (citing Miami Herald Publg Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S.
241 (1974)); see also Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group

- 11 -
of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 573 (1995) (Since all speech inherently involves choices
of what to say and what to leave unsaid, one important manifestation of the princi-
ple of free speech is that one who chooses to speak may also decide what not to
say.) (citation omitted).
4

There can be no doubt that the state could not have required Ms. McIntyre to
publicly disclose drafts of her handbill, edits she had made to it, or the content of
her private communications about it with her political confidants during its formu-
lation. The question thus becomes: Would the mere filing of a court challenge to
the referendum at issue in McIntyre somehow extinguish Ms. McIntyres right to
First Amendment protection? If so, political expression and associational activity
in this country will be profoundly and permanently chilled.
5

4
The court below sought to distinguish McIntyre on the ground that Ms.
McIntyre acted independently while Proponents were official proponents of
Prop 8. RR 32 (Doc. 214 at 9). But the fact that a speaker in a referendum cam-
paign is not just an individual voter, but also a proponent, does not strip the speak-
er of First Amendment rights. See Buckley v. American Const. Law Found., 525
U.S. 182, 199 (1999); First Natl Bank v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. at 777. And imposing
limitations on individuals wishing to band together to advance their views on a bal-
lot measure, while placing none on individuals acting alone, is clearly a restraint on
the right of association. Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm.,
489 U.S. 214, 224-25 (1989) (quotation marks omitted).
5
The court below also suggested that by authoring a post-election article
discussing some aspects of campaign strategy, Proponents campaign manager
somehow forfeited First Amendment protection for all aspects of that strategy. But
as McIntyre makes clear, the very essence of political speech is that a speaker is
free to include or exclude whatever it pleases from its public pronouncements.
514 U.S. at 348; see also Watchtower v. Bible & Tract Socy of N.Y., Inc. v. Strat-
ton, 536 U.S. 150, 167 (2002) (The fact that circulators revealed their physical

- 12 -
This Courts precedents do not countenance such a result.
6
The Court has
recognizedin the specific context of a referendumthat compelled disclosure
of the private attitudes of the voters would entail an intolerable invasion of the
privacy that must protect an exercise of the franchise. SASSO v. Union City, 424
F.2d 291, 295 (9th Cir. 1970); see also McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 343 (explaining that
the protected tradition of anonymity in speech is perhaps best exemplified by
the secret ballot, the hard-won right to vote ones conscience without fear of re-
taliation). The court below has ordered just such an invasion of political privacy,
requiring Proponents to reveal their private attitudes toward Prop 8 through dis-
closure of their confidential communications with their political associates, the
content of the speech they chose not to say to the electorate during the campaign,
and their internal political strategy. And the district courts sole theory of rele-
vance is that this information, which was never disclosed to the voters, may some-
how bear on whether the voters legislative intent in passing Prop 8 was to fur-
ther a legitimate purpose or was animated by a discriminatory motive. RR 97

identities d[oes] not foreclose our consideration of the circulators interest in main-
taining their anonymity.).
6
This Court has recognized that speech relating to initiative campaigns un-
questionably is core political speech, and any burden upon it must be both nar-
rowly tailored and justified by a compelling state interest. California Pro-Life
Council, Inc. v. Getman, 328 F.3d 1088, 1101 (9th Cir. 2003); see Canyon Ferry
Rd. Baptist Church of E. Helena, Inc. v. Unsworth, 556 F.3d 1021, 1034 (9th Cir.
2009); California Pro-Life Council, Inc. v. Randolph, 507 F.3d 1172, 1187-90 (9th
Cir. 2007). This applies in the litigation context, as in any other governmental con-
text.

- 13 -
(Doc. 214 at 14).
2. The Information At Issue Is Irrelevant

The district court held that the internal, confidential political information at
issue is relevant to the subjective intent of the electorate in adopting Prop 8, and
that the subjective intent of the electorate is relevant to Plaintiffs equal protection
and due process claims, whether reviewed under rational basis or strict scrutiny.
This was clear error, both because the subjective intent of the electorate is not rele-
vant to Plaintiffs constitutional claims, and because even if it was, disclosure of
Proponents internal nonpublic communications with their political associates
would reveal nothing about the voters intent.
Where rational basis scrutiny applies (as it does here
7
), the inquiry is wheth-
er the challenged measure rationally serves any conceivable state interest, and it is
entirely irrelevant whether the conceived reason for the challenged distinction
actually motivated the [electorate]. FCC v. Beach Commcns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307,
313 (1993). But even if strict scrutiny applied, the information at issue here is
plainly irrelevant.
In SASSO, supra, this Court addressed an equal protection challenge to a re-
ferendum measure relating to low-income housing. The plaintiffs contended that
the purpose and the result of the referendum were to discriminate racially. 424

7
See High Tech Gays v. Defense Indus. Sec. Clearance Office, 895 F.2d
563, 573-74 (9th Cir. 1990).

- 14 -
F.2d at 295. The Court rejected the notion that the question of motivation for [a]
referendum (apart from a consideration of its effect) is an appropriate one for judi-
cial inquiry. Id. Pointing to the Supreme Courts analysis of an equal protection
challenge to another California fair housing referendum, this Court explained that
in Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967), the electorates purpose was treated
as a relevant consideration, but it was judged in terms of ultimate effect and
historical context. SASSO, 424 F.2d at 295. The only conceivable purpose [of
the Reitman referendum], judged by wholly objective standards, was to restore [a]
right to private racial discrimination. Id. (citing Reitman, 387 U.S. at 381).
But where discrimination is not the only conceivable purposewhere many envi-
ronmental and social values are involveda determination of the voters pur-
pose would seem to require far more than simple application of objective stan-
dards. Id. And this, the Court explained, is not a legitimate judicial inquiry: If
the true motive is to be ascertained not through speculation but through a probing
of the private attitudes of the voters, the inquiry would entail an intolerable inva-
sion of the privacy that must protect an exercise of the franchise. Id.; see also Las
Vegas v. Foley, 747 F.2d 1294, 1296-98 (9th Cir. 1984) (deposition of city offi-
cials to determine their motives for enacting [a] zoning ordinance barred by the
First Amendment because it is a impracticable, futile, and hazardous task
fraught with the impossibility of penetrating into the hearts of men).

- 15 -
Indeed, the Supreme Court, in cases involving discrimination claims in the
referendum context, has never looked to the type of nonpublic communications
sought by Plaintiffs here. See Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969); James v.
Valtierra, 402 U.S. 137 (1971); Crawford v. Board of Educ., 458 U.S. 527 (1982);
Washington v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 458 U.S. 457, 471 (1982); Romer v. Ev-
ans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). Notably, the Sixth Circuit has interpreted the Supreme
Courts referendum cases (correctly) to mean that a reviewing court may not even
inquire into the electorates possible actual motivations for adopting a measure via
initiative and referendum. Equality Found. of Greater Cincinnati v. Cincinnati,
128 F.3d 289, 293 n.4 (6th Cir. 1997); see also Arthur v. Toledo, 782 F.2d 565,
573-74 (6th Cir. 1986).
8

Even where voters intent is relevantfor example when interpreting am-

8
The district court cited two cases in support of its view of relevance. In
City of Los Angeles v. County of Kern, 462 F. Supp. 2d 1105 (C.D. Cal. 2006), a
district court looked solely to the text of a challenged referendum to deny an equal
protection claim. Id. at 1111. And in determining that the referendum was in-
tended to discriminate against interstate commerce, the court looked solely to the
referendum text and to the public advertising supporting it. Id. at 1113-14. So Los
Angeles hardly supports the regime adopted below. In any event, this Court re-
cently vacated Los Angeles. See 581 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. Sept. 9, 2009). In the sec-
ond case, South Dakota Farm Bureau, Inc. v. Hazeltine, 340 F.3d 583 (8th Cir.
2003), the Eighth Circuit turned to the states official ballot materials as the most
compelling evidence of intent. Id. at 594. No First Amendment issue was raised
with respect to the nonpublic materials that were cited in the decision. In any
event, SASSO and Foley control in this Circuit and, along with the Sixth Circuits
decision in Arthur v. Toledo, 782 F.2d 565, 573 (6th Cir. 1986), are the better rea-
soned cases.

- 16 -
biguous referendum textthis Court has not considered nonpublic materials such
as those sought by plaintiffs here. Thus, in Jones v. Bates, 127 F.3d 839, 860 (9th
Cir. 1997), a panel held that [t]here is nothing, other than the initiative, the of-
ficial ballot arguments and the state-prepared materials, to look to in order to dis-
cern the peoples intent in passing the measure. And while the en banc Court dis-
agreed with the panels reading of the electorates intent, it too looked only to pub-
licly disclosed materials. Bates v. Jones, 131 F.3d 843, 846 (9th Cir. 1997).
9

C. IRREPARABLE HARM IS CERTAIN IN THE ABSENCE OF A STAY
The infringement of First Amendment freedoms . . . unquestionably consti-
tutes irreparable injury. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (plurality); ac-
cord Gentala v. City of Tucson, 213 F.3d 1055, 1061 (9th Cir. 2000). The district
courts holding that initiative sponsors and their campaign managers and agents are
subject to sweeping discovery into their confidential political strategy and messag-
ing communications will surely and profoundly chill core First Amendment speech
and associational activity on future initiative measures of all kinds. See RR 259

9
The California Supreme Court, whose interpretations and methodology this
Court looks to when resolving the meaning of a state law, S.D. Meyers v. City and
County of San Francisco, 253 F.3d 461, 473 (9th Cir. 2001), follows the same ap-
proach. In construing the meaning of ballot measures, [t]he opinion of drafters or
legislators who sponsor an initiative is not relevant since such opinion does not
represent the intent of the electorate and we cannot say with assurance that the vot-
ers were aware of the drafters intent. Robert L. v. Superior Court of Orange
County, 69 P.3d 951, 957-58 (Cal. 2003). See Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal. 4th 364,
406, 408-10, 470-72 (Cal. 2009).

- 17 -
(Doc. 187-2) at 9-14; RR 306 (Doc. 187-9) at 6-14; RR 320 (Doc. 187-10) at
5; RR 579 (Doc. 187-12) at 4-6; Dole, 950 F.2d at 1460 (holding that group
members no longer feeling] free to express their views is precisely the sort of
chilling the First Amendment privilege is meant to protect against).
10
And here,
the chill would arise not only from the fear of unwanted disclosure of confidential
political expression and associations, but also from the severe, extensive, and un-
disputed harassment and reprisals that supporters of Prop 8 have been, and con-
tinue to be, subjected to. See RR 229-60, 302-586 (Docs. 187-1,-2, -9, -10, -11, -
12, -13). Additionally, a regime that allowed the losers of a referendum to impose
on the opposing campaigns proponents, managers, and agents the onerous cost
and burden of reviewing, sorting, and producing tens of thousands of communica-
tions would surely make such individuals less willing to participate in such cam-
paigns in the futurethus inhibiting the ability to spread ones political message.
The discovery regime endorsed below amounts to a tax on core political speech,

10
For example, the consultant hired by Proponents to run the official cam-
paign in support of Prop 8 declared that if the broad discovery demanded in this
case is permitted to go forward it will significantly suppress the future participa-
tion in, and course of, initiative and referendum campaigns and that I and my
firm will change the way we engage in political speech and campaigning. RR 309
(Doc. 187-9) at 9. Similarly, Mark Jannson, one of the Proponents, declared that
[i]n the future, he would be less willing to engage in such [internal strategy]
communications knowing that [his] private thoughts on how to petition the gov-
ernment and [his] private political and moral views may be disclosed simply be-
cause of [his] involvement in a ballot initiative campaign. RR 320 (Doc. 187-10)
at 4-5.

- 18 -
and the tax collector is an unsuccessful political rival.
These concerns are especially salient where, as here, the losing side of a
controversial initiative campaign seeks complete disclosure of the campaign strat-
egy of the winning side, and it does so while preparing for a political rematch.
See RR 311 (Doc. 187-9) at 13; RR 198 (Doc. 197-7) (Plaintiff-Intervenors lead
attorney was a leader of the anti-Prop 8 political campaign); Agster v. Maricopa
County, 422 F.3d 836, 839 (9th Cir. 2005) (Even if a new trial were ordered at
which the material found to be privileged was not admissible, it might be impossi-
ble to undo the effects of the disclosure .); In re Ford Motor Co., 110 F.3d 954,
963 (3d Cir. 1997) (Attorneys cannot unlearn what has been disclosed to them in
discovery; they are likely to use such material for evidentiary leads, strategy deci-
sions, or the like.).
11

11
The district court suggested that a protective order would ensure that
disclosures through the discovery process [will] not result in adverse effects on the
parties or entities or individuals not parties to this litigation. RR 40-41 (Doc. 214
at 17-18). If such orders were sufficient to protect First Amendment freedoms, the
Supreme Court and other federal courts would regularly adopt them in cases rais-
ing NAACP-type claims. In protecting a speakers disclosure choices, McIntyre
recognized that decisions about nondisclosure of speech arise not just from fear of
harassment and retaliation, but may be motivated simply by a desire to preserve
as much of ones privacy as possible. McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 341-42. The harm
caused by disclosure of privileged material is the loss of confidentiality in that ma-
terial, as well as the chill on future speech resulting from loss of confidence that
private communications of core political speech will remain confidential. Machin-
ists, 655 F.2d at 388 & n.17. A protective order that limits disclosure to Plaintiffs
attorneys, attorneys staff, and expertsuntil Plaintiffs introduce the source and
content of the information publicly at trialwill hardly be sufficient to guarantee

- 19 -
D. OTHER PARTIES WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY A STAY
As shown, the nonpublic materials at issue are not relevant to the issues in
this case. And even if this Court were to ultimately find that such documents are
relevant and not privileged, the only harm alleged by Plaintiffs from a stay is a de-
lay in the proceedings below. But [a] mere assertion of delay does not constitute
substantial harm. United States v. Philip Morris Inc., 314 F.3d 612, 622 (D.C.
Cir. 2003). In any event, to minimize any delay, Proponents respectfully ask that
the Court expedite these appeals.
E. THE PUBLIC INTEREST WEIGHS IN FAVOR OF A STAY
Courts . . . have consistently recognized the significant public interest in
upholding First Amendment principles. Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist.
Court, 303 F.3d 959, 974 (9th Cir. 2002) (listing cases).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Proponents respectfully ask that this Court issue a
stay pending resolution of their appeals and/or petitions for writ of mandamus.
Dated: November 13, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Charles J. Cooper
Charles J. Cooper
Attorney for Appellants

that average citizens will not alter or abstain from future political activity for fear
of such compelled disclosure of their confidential political speech and associations.
See also RR 585 (Doc. 187-13) at 8.

- 20 -

- 21 -
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
In accordance with Ninth Circuit Local Rule 28-2.6, Appellants-Petitioners
hereby advise the Court that there is currently a related case pending in this Court.
Appeal No. 09-16959 was filed on August 26, 2009, by Campaign for California
Families regarding an August 19, 2009 order of the District Court denying their
motion to intervene. Appellant/Petitioners here are Appellees in Case No. 09-
16959.
Dated: November 13, 2009 /s/ Charles J. Cooper
Charles J. Cooper

I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system
on (date) .

I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be
accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
When All Case Participants are Registered for the Appellate CM/ECF System
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system
on (date) .

Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the appellate
CM/ECF system.

I further certify that some of the participants in the case are not registered CM/ECF users. I
have mailed the foregoing document by First-Class Mail, postage prepaid, or have dispatched it
to a third party commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days to the following
non-CM/ECF participants:
Signature (use "s/" format)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
When Not All Case Participants are Registered for the Appellate CM/ECF System
9th Circuit Case Number(s)
*********************************************************************************
Signature (use "s/" format)
NOTE: To secure your input, you should print the filled-in form to PDF (File > Print > PDF Printer/Creator).
*********************************************************************************
See attached Service List.
09-17241
Nov 13, 2009
s/ Jesse Panuccio
SERVICE LIST

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor City and
County of San Francisco:

Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney
Therese Stewart, Chief Deputy City
Attorney
Danny Chou, Chief of Complex and Special
Litigation
Vince Chhabria, Deputy City Attorney
Erin Bernstein, Deputy City Attorney
Christine Van Aken, Deputy City Attorney
Mollie M. Lee, Deputy City Attorney
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Room 234
San Francisco, CA 4102-4682
(415) 554-4708
Fax: (415) 554-4655
Therese.stewart@sf.gov.org
Attorney for Defendant Registrar-Recorder Dean
C. Logan:

Elizabeth Cortez
Judy Whitehurst
OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES
500 West Temple St
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 974-1845
JWhitehurst@counsel.lacounty.gov
Attorney for Defendant Clerk-Recorder
Patrick OConnell:

Lindsey G. Stern
Claude Franklin Kolm
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
1221 Oak Street, Suite 450
Oakland, CA 94612-4296
(510) 272-6710
claude.kolm@acgov.org

NOS. 09-17241, 09-17551


v.

Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of
California

DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS-APPELLANTS
RELEVANT PARTS OF THE RECORD VOLUME I OF IV

Andrew P. Pugno
(916) 608-3065; (916) 608-3066 Fax

Brian W. Raum
James A. Campbell
(480) 444-0020; (480) 444-0028 Fax

Charles J. Cooper
David H. Thompson
Nicole J. Moss
Jesse Panuccio
Peter A. Patterson
(202) 220-9600
(202) 220-9601 Fax


INDEX TO RELEVANT PARTS OF THE RECORD

NAME OF DOCUMENT LOCATION PAGE

Volume I

Order re In Camera Discovery Review

USDC Dkt # 252

RR 1-10

Order Denying Motion to Stay

USCD Dkt # 237

RR 11-23

Order Denying in part Defendant-Intervenors Motion
for Protective Order (October 1, 2009)

USDC Dkt # 214

RR 24-41

Volume II

Notice of Filing of Sealed Documents for In Camera
Review

USDC Dkt # 251

RR 42-44

Letter from Nicole J. Moss

USDC Dkt # 249

RR 45-48

Minute Entry re Telephonic Discovery Hearing

USDC Dkt # 247

RR 49

Transcript of Proceedings, November 2, 2009

USDC Dkt # 246

RR 50-96

Letter from Charles J. Cooper

USDC Dkt # 238

RR 97-98

Exhibits to Defendant-Intervenors Motion in Support of
Protective Order

USDC Dkt # 220-1

RR 99-104

Transcript of Proceedings, September 25, 2009

USDC Dkt # 212

RR 105-178

Plaintiffs Subpoena to Schubert Flint Public Affairs

USDC Dkt # 197-2

RR 179-185

Plaintiffs Subpoena to Connell Donatelli Holdings

USDC Dkt # 197-3

RR 186-192

Letter from Defendant-Intervenors to CAEBR

USDC Dkt # 197-4

RR 193-195

Documents Showing Plaintiff-Intervenors Attorney
Dennis J. Herraras Involvement with anti-Prop. 8
Campaign

USDC Dkt # 197-7

RR 196-210

Plaintiff and Plaintiff-Intervenors Joint Opposition to
Defendant-Intervenors Motion for a Protective Order

USDC Dkt # 191

RR 211-228

Reply Br. for Aplt., Citizens United v. FEC, No. 08-205,
(U.S. Mar. 17, 2009)
USDC Dkt # 187-1 RR 229-255

Prentice Declaration

USDC Dkt # 187-2

RR 256-260

Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Production

USDC Dkt # 187-3

RR 261-267

Defendant-Intervenors Responses to Plaintiffs First Set
of Requests for Production

USDC Dkt # 187-4

RR 268-289

Letter of August 27, 2009

USDC Dkt # 187-5

RR 290-291


USDC Dkt # 187-6

RR 292-294

Volume III

Moss Declaration

USDC Dkt # 187-7

RR 295-301

Schubert Declaration.

USDC Dkt # 187-9

RR 302-316

Jannson Declaration

USDC Dkt # 187-10

RR 317-320

Articles Discussing Negative Effects of Public
Disclosure

USDC Dkt # 187-11

RR 321-575

Tam Declaration

USDC Dkt # 187-12

RR 576-580

Troupis Declaration

USDC Dkt # 187-13

RR 581-586

Volume IV

Excerpt of Transcript of Proceedings, August 19, 2009

USDC Dkt # 162

RR 587-603

Defendant-Intervenors Supplemental Case Management
Statement

USDC Dkt # 159

RR 604-618

Plaintiffs Supplemental Case Management Statement

USDC Dkt # 157

RR 619-637

Docket Sheet

RR 638-661

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KRISTIN M PERRY, SANDRA B STIER,
PAUL T KATAMI and JEFFREY J
ZARRILLO,
Plaintiffs,
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
v
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his
official capacity as governor of
California; EDMUND G BROWN JR, in
his official capacity as attorney
general of California; MARK B
HORTON, in his official capacity
as director of the California
Department of Public Health and
state registrar of vital
statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her
official capacity as deputy
director of health information &
strategic planning for the
California Department of Public
Health; PATRICK OCONNELL, in his
official capacity as clerk-
recorder of the County of
Alameda; and DEAN C LOGAN, in his
official capacity as registrar-
recorder/county clerk for the
County of Los Angeles,
Defendants,
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J
KNIGHT, MARTIN F GUTIERREZ,
HAKSHING WILLIAM TAM, MARK A
JANSSON and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM
YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF
CALIOFORNIA RENEWAL, as official
proponents of Proposition 8,
Defendant-Intervenors.
/
No C 09-2292 VRW
ORDER
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document252 Filed11/11/09 Page1 of 10
RR 1
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
The court has received defendant-intervenors
(proponents) in camera submission containing a sample of
documents potentially responsive to plaintiffs revised eighth
document request. Doc #251. Proponents assert that the documents
are protected by the qualified First Amendment privilege and that
in any event the documents are not relevant. Id; see also Doc #187
(proponents motion for a protective order); Doc #220 (proponents
motion to stay discovery).
The court denied proponents blanket assertion of
privilege, Doc #214, but offered to review a sample of the
documents at issue in camera to determine if the privilege might
apply to some of proponents documents, Doc #246, Nov 2 Hrg Tr at
42-43. While plaintiffs have not seen the documents, they are in
possession of proponents privilege log, Doc #250-1, which
identifies the submitted documents by number and provides a simple
description of the documents.
The court has reviewed proponents in camera submission
and finds that while the qualified First Amendment privilege does
not provide the documents much, if any, protection against
disclosure, many of the documents submitted by proponents are
simply not responsive to plaintiffs discovery request.
I
The documents submitted by proponents are at most subject
to a limited application of the qualified First Amendment
privilege. Proponents have argued vigorously that the privilege
should protect all campaign communications as well as identities of
all individuals whose association with the campaign has not yet
RR 2
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
been made public. Doc ##187, 220. Proponents have not however
identified a way in which the qualified privilege could protect the
disclosure of campaign communications or the identities of high
ranking members of the campaign. See Doc #187 at 14-19 (citing
National Assn for the A of C P v Alabama, 357 US 449 (1958)
(NAACP) and its progeny, which protect only the identity of rank-
and-file organization members, along with McIntyre v Ohio Elections
Commn, 514 US 334, 351 (1995), which protects individuals acting
independently and using only their own modest resources.). If the
qualified privilege identified by proponents protects anything, it
is the identities of rank-and-file volunteers and similarly
situated individuals. Plaintiffs have indicated that they do not
oppose redaction of these names. Doc #250 at 2 n1.
II
Plaintiffs eighth document request is likely to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent the evidence
relates to messages or themes conveyed to California voters or is
otherwise likely to lead to this relevant information. See
Washington v Seattle School Dist No 1, 458 US 457, 463-463 (relying
in part on messages relayed to voters to hold that a busing
initiative was directed solely at desegregative busing); see also
Robert L v Superior Court, 30 Cal 4th 894, 905 (2003) (relying on
materials that were before the voters to interpret a California
initiative and rejecting evidence of the drafters intent that was
not presented to the voters).
Here, communications discussing campaign messaging or
advertising strategy, including targeted messaging, are generally
RR 3
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
responsive; communications regarding fundraising strategy, polling
information or hiring decisions are generally not responsive,
unless the communications deal with themes or messages conveyed to
voters in more than a tangential way. To assist the parties in
proceeding with discovery, the court has analyzed each of the sixty
documents submitted by proponents and determined for the reasons
explained below that only the following twenty-one are responsive
to plaintiffs discovery request: 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 17, 27,
28, 29, 30, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 55, 56, 58 and 60. These documents
discuss messages or themes conveyed to voters through advertising
or direct messaging. The remaining documents are either not
responsive to plaintiffs request or are so attenuated from the
themes or messages conveyed to voters that they are, for practical
purposes, not responsive.
A
Documents 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 17, 27, 28, 29, 30, 48,
49, 50, 51, 53, 55, 56, 58 and 60 are responsive because they
relate to the messages or themes the campaign attempted to or did
convey to voters. These documents deal directly with advertising
or messaging strategy and themes.
Doc 3 discusses talking points for a meeting with a
newspaper editorial board.
Doc 4 discusses edits to a television advertisement.
Doc 6 discusses edits to flyers targeted to a group of
voters.
Doc 7 contains emails and attachments dealing with
arguments to be presented to voters in some form.
RR 4
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Doc 9 discusses a campaign targeted to certain voters.
Doc 11 discusses messages conveyed during the campaigns
grassroots outreach.
Doc 12 analyzes materials for the ballot pamphlet.
Doc 17 discusses voter reaction to a theme in campaign
advertising.
Doc 27 contains line edits of the ballot arguments.
Doc 28 is a meeting agenda outlining the campaigns
advertising themes.
Doc 29 is a draft of a campaign flyer.
Doc 30 is a proposal for themes to be conveyed during the
campaign.
Doc 48 is an email exchange discussing language to be
used in conveying a message to voters.
Doc 49 is generally relevant as an email exchange
discussing information for voters contained on the
campaigns public website, although an email from a
private citizen within the exchange may not itself be
relevant to campaign messaging and could, therefore, be
redacted.
Doc 50 discusses focus group responses to various
campaign themes.
Doc 51 contains talking points to be conveyed to voters.
Doc 53 is a grassroots plan to convey specific messages
to voters.
Doc 55 discusses a potential message to be conveyed in
response to an opposition advertisement.
\\
RR 5
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Doc 56 deals with television advertisements to convey
certain messages to voters.
Doc 58 is a post-election summary of successful themes
conveyed to voters.
Doc 60 is a draft of a television advertisement.
These documents are responsive because they discuss in relative
detail the messages and themes that the campaign attempted to
convey to the voters.
B
Documents 1, 2, 5, 10, 14, 15, 16, 18, 23, 31, 32, 33,
35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 52, 57, and 59 say
nothing about campaign messages or themes to be conveyed to the
voters and are therefore not responsive.
Docs 1 and 2 are memos discussing the mechanics of
operating a campaign.
Doc 5 deals solely with the petition drive to qualify
Prop 8 for the ballot.
Doc 10 is an email exchange discussing internal campaign
strategy.
Docs 14, 15 and 16 discuss mechanics of the campaigns
internal structure.
Doc 18 is an email exchange discussing a campaign
contribution.
Doc 23 is an email exchange discussing polling numbers.
Doc 31 similarly discusses poll results and also contains
a long email that appears mostly to be musings regarding
poll results.
RR 6
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Doc 32 deals with volunteer coordination and
organization.
Doc 33 seeks information about a specific volunteer.
Doc 35 deals with the campaigns structure and
arrangements with other entities.
Doc 36 contains the campaigns steering committee meeting
minutes, which discuss organizational structure.
Doc 37 provides draft poll questions.
Doc 38 discusses a strategy to obtain volunteers.
Doc 39 is a list of potential donors.
Doc 40 is an email exchange discussing recruitment of a
potential staff member.
Doc 41 is a fundraising letter seeking money to help
qualify Prop 8 for the ballot.
Doc 42 discusses volunteer organization.
Docs 43 and 44 discuss meetings with major donors.
Doc 46 deals with the mechanics of petition drives.
Doc 52 deals principally with the mechanics of operating
a phone bank.
Doc 57 discusses polling numbers.
Doc 59 is a post-election email discussing a supporter
apparently not officially associated with the campaign.
Because these documents do not discuss campaign messages to voters,
they are not responsive to plaintiffs discovery request.
\\
\\
\\
\\
RR 7
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
C
Documents 8, 13, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 34, 45, 47
and 54 are not responsive because they say nothing about campaign
messaging or themes to be conveyed to voters, even though they
discuss topics that might relate to messages ultimately adopted or
considered by the campaign. Because the documents do not discuss
voters or their potential reactions, they are not responsive.
Doc 8 contains internal emails discussing recent articles
about gay marriage and its effects.
Doc 13 may be protected by the attorney-client privilege;
moreover, it is not relevant because it is an internal
memorandum discussing proposed language for Prop 8 in a
way that is at most marginally pertinent to advertising
strategy.
Docs 19, 20, 21 and 22 discuss a potential volunteer
consultant and ways the volunteer might aid campaign
strategies.
Docs 24, 25 and 26 deal with polling and voter data;
while the email exchanges contain some brainstorming
regarding messaging, the content is too attenuated to
have a reasonable likelihood of leading to the discovery
of admissible evidence.
Doc 34 discusses strategy for disseminating a message but
does not discuss the message itself.
Doc 45 deals with the appropriate language to use for the
text of Prop 8.
Doc 47 contains an email exchange discussing a targeted
fundraising drive.
RR 8
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
Doc 54 deals with a potential disclaimer in an
advertisement but does not touch on any campaign messages
to be conveyed to voters.
In some ways these documents fall in the margin of potentially
responsive discovery; nevertheless, the court deems them not
responsive because their relationship to messages or themes
conveyed to voters is attenuated enough that it appears as a
practical matter unlikely to lead to discovery of admissible
evidence.
III
The court recognizes that the documents provided for in
camera review are merely a sample of the hundreds of documents in
proponents possession and that the determination whether the
remaining documents are responsive in light of the foregoing
instruction may not be mechanical. Nevertheless, the court hopes
that the foregoing affords proponents sufficient and specific
enough guidance to cull their inventory of documents and other
materials in order to respond to plaintiffs document request. The
court looks to the parties able counsel to work out a production
schedule.
The court also directs the parties to proceed promptly to
take the principal depositions they believe are necessary to
prepare for trial. In doing so, the parties should recognize that
the unreasonable withholding of requested documents may frustrate
appropriate deposition discovery and creates a risk of multiple
depositions of the same witness.
\\
RR 9
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
The court stands ready to assist the parties should
further disputes arise. In the undersigneds absence, any such
disputes are referred to Magistrate Joseph Spero, 28 USC
636(b)(1)(A).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

VAUGHN R WALKER
United States District Chief Judge
RR 10
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ZARRILLO,
Plaintiffs,
v
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his
Defendants,
HAKSHING WILLIAM TAM, MARK A
JANSSON and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM
YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF
CALIOFORNIA RENEWAL, as official
proponents of Proposition 8,
/
No C 09-2292 VRW
ORDER
RR 11
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Defendant-intervenors, the official proponents of
Proposition 8 (proponents) move for a limited stay of discovery
pending resolution of a purported appeal or mandamus petition in
the alternative. Doc #220. Plaintiffs oppose any delay in
discovery in light of the upcoming trial date and ask the court to
compel proponents to respond to their discovery requests in seven
days. Doc #225.
To obtain a stay, proponents must establish that [they
are] likely to succeed on the merits, that [they are] likely to
suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that
the balance of equities tips in [their] favor, and that an
injunction is in the public interest. Winter v Natural Resources
Defense Council, Inc, -- US --, 129 SCt 365, 374 (2008). A
possibility of success is too lenient. Id at 375; see also
American Trucking Associations, Inc v City of Los Angeles, 559 F3d
1046, 1052 (9th Cir 2009). Because, for the reasons explained
below, proponents have met no part of this test, proponents motion
for a stay is DENIED.
I
Proponents are unlikely to succeed on their appeal or
mandamus petition because (1) the court of appeals lacks
jurisdiction over the appeal and mandamus petition and (2) the
appeal lacks merit.
\\
\\
\\
\\
RR 12
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
A
Proponents have noticed an appeal of the courts October
1 order, Doc #214, to the extent it denies [proponents] Motion
for a Protective Order (Doc #187). Doc #222. The motion for a
protective order cites to National Assn for the A of C P v
Alabama, 357 US 449 (1958) (NAACP) (invoking a qualified First
Amendment privilege to protect NAACP rank-and-file membership lists
against disclosure), and its progeny to claim a qualified First
Amendment privilege against discovery of any of proponents
communications with third parties. Doc #187. Proponents
docketing statement in the Ninth Circuit describes the October 1
order as an INTERLOCUTORY DECISION APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT. Id at
5. However proponents may characterize the October 1 order, it is
manifestly not a final judgment appealable as of right under 28 USC
1291, nor did proponents seek, or the court find suitable, an
interlocutory appeal under 28 USC 1292(b). Proponents right to
seek review of the October 1 order must therefore rest on the
collateral order doctrine or on grounds warranting mandamus by the
court of appeals. Neither of these, however, provides an adequate
foundation for the instant appeal or mandamus petition.
1
The collateral order doctrine allows appeal under section
1291 of a narrow class of decisions that do not terminate the
litigation but must, in the interest of achieving a healthy legal
system, nonetheless be treated as final. Digital Equipment Corp v
Desktop Direct, Inc, 511 US 863, 867 (1994). The October 1 order
was not such a decision.
RR 13
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Ordinarily, of course, the court of appeals lacks
jurisdiction to review discovery orders before entry of judgment.
Truckstop.net, LLC v Sprint Corp, 547 F3d 1065, 1067 (9th Cir
2008). As interpreted by the Ninth Circuit, the collateral order
doctrine allows the court of appeals to exercise jurisdiction over
interlocutory appeals of certain orders denying application of a
discovery privilege, but only when the order: (1) conclusively
determine[s] the disputed question; (2) resolve[s] an important
issue completely separate from the merits of the action; and (3)
[is] effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment.
United States v Austin, 416 F3d 1016, 1020 (9th Cir 2005)
(citations omitted). As long as the question remains tentative,
informal or incomplete, there may be no intrusion by appeal. Id
(citing Cohen v Beneficial Loan Corp, 337 US 541, 546 (1949)).
In Austin, the Ninth Circuit found that it lacked
jurisdiction to review the district courts order that statements
made during discussions between inmates in their cells with no
lawyers present are not covered as confidential communications
under the joint defense privilege. 416 F3d at 1019. The court
held that the third prong of the jurisdictional test was not
satisfied because defendants had not raised any specific privilege
claims over specific communications. Id at 1023.
Here, the October 1 order was not a conclusive
determination because proponents had not asserted the First
Amendment privilege over any specific document or communication.
Proponents blanket assertion of privilege was unsuccessful, but
whether the privilege might apply to any specific document or
information was not finally determined in the October 1 order.
RR 14
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Moreover, because the First Amendment qualified privilege that
proponents seek to invoke requires the court to balance the harm of
disclosure against the relevance of the information sought, the
applicability of the qualified privilege cannot be determined in a
vacuum but only with reference to a specific document or particular
information.
Proponents have made no effort to identify specific
documents or particular information to which the claim of qualified
privilege may apply. Notably, proponents have failed to serve and
file a privilege log, a prerequisite to the assertion of any
privilege. See Burlington North & Santa Fe Ry Co v United States
Dist Court for Dist of Mont, 408 F3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir 2005).
Furthermore, the balancing required to apply the qualified
privilege must consider whether any injury or risk to the producing
party can be eliminated or mitigated by a protective order. The
October 1 order directed the parties to discuss the terms of a
protective order and expressed the courts willingness to assist
the parties in fashioning such an order. Doc #214 at 17.
The cases proponents cite to support appellate
jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine deal with absolute
privileges, like the attorney-client privilege. See Doc #220 at 5
n3 (citing In re Napster, Inc Copyright Litigation, 479 F3d 1078
(9th Cir 2007) (attorney-client privilege); Bittaker v Woodford,
331 F3d 715 (9th Cir 2003) (attorney-client privilege); United
States v Griffin, 440 F3d 1138 (9th Cir 2006) (marital privilege)).
These cases allow a collateral appeal at least in part because an
order denying a claim of absolute privilege usually resolves a
question independent from the merits of the underlying case. See
RR 15
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
In re Napster, 479 F3d at 1088-89.
An order denying a claim of qualified privilege, which
balances the harm of production against the relevance of the
discovery sought, is not so easily divorced from the merits of the
underlying proceeding. The question whether discovery is relevant
is necessarily enmeshed in the merits, as it involves questions
concerning the substance of the dispute between the parties. Van
Cauwenberghe v Biard, 486 US 517, 528 (1988). Here, for example,
the question of relevance is related to the merits of plaintiffs
claims, as the relevance of the information sought would be greater
were the court to apply an exacting level of scrutiny to
plaintiffs Equal Protection claims. Doc #214 at 12-13.
2
Proponents also apparently seek mandamus if the appellate
court does not accept their interlocutory appeal. Mandamus is a
drastic remedy that is appropriately exercised only when the
district court has failed to act within the confines of its
jurisdiction, amounting to a judicial usurpation of power.
Kerr v United States District Court, 426 US 394, 402 (1976) (citing
Will v United States, 389 US 90, 95-96 (1967)). A party seeking
mandamus must show that he has no other adequate means to attain
the relief he desires and that his right to issuance of the writ
is clear and indisputable. Kerr, 426 US at 403 (citations
omitted).
In Kerr, petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to vacate
the district courts order that petitioners produce personnel files
and prisoner files after plaintiffs sought the discovery as part of
RR 16
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Under quite different, and indeed rather unique, circumstances,
the Court has directed an appellate court to consider a writ of
mandamus even when petitioners had not asserted privilege claims over
specific discovery. See Cheney v United States Dist Court for D C,
542 US 367, 390-391 (2004).
7
their class action against the California Department of
Corrections. 426 US at 396-97. Petitioners had asserted that the
discovery sought was both irrelevant and privileged. Id. The
Court denied mandamus at least in part because petitioners
privilege claim had not been asserted with requisite specificity.
Id at 404.
1
Petitioners therefore had a remedy remaining in the
district court: petitioners could assert their privilege claim
over a specific document or set of documents and allow the district
court to make the privilege determination in the first instance.
Id.
Here, the court might yet apply proponents purported
privilege in the manner described in Kerr. Proponents have not
identified specific documents they claim are privileged and have
not given the court an opportunity to determine whether any claim
of privilege might apply to a specific document. Additionally, as
the court explained in its October 1 order, it is not clear and
indisputable that proponents should succeed on their First
Amendment claim of privilege. Doc #214 at 4-11. Proponents, as
the official supporters of a California ballot initiative, are
situated differently from private citizen advocates. Cf McIntyre v
Ohio Elections Commn, 514 US 334, 351 (1995) (distinguishing
between individuals acting independently and using only their own
modest resources and official campaigns). McIntyre determined
whether an individual who distributed leaflets in opposition to a
RR 17
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
The court of appeals has issued an order to show cause why the
appeal should not be dismissed. Ct Appls Docket #09-17241, Doc #8.
8
local tax levy could be forced to disclose her identity on the
leaflet pursuant to an Ohio statute. Id at 338. In this case,
plaintiffs discovery requests do not appear to call for disclosure
of identities of persons acting independently and using their own
modest resources, but simply the individuals acting as, or in
coordination with, the official sponsors of the Yes on 8 campaign.
Plainly, there is a difference between individuals or groups who
have assumed the privilege of enacting legislation or
constitutional provisions and individuals who merely favor or
oppose the enactment. To the extent that plaintiffs discovery
might disclose the identity of individuals entitled to some form of
anonymity, an appropriate protective order can be fashioned. A
blanket bar against plaintiffs discovery is unwarranted.
Proponents case for mandamus relief is therefore tenuous at best.
B
Having determined that the court of appeals is unlikely
to accept proponents appeal
2
or order mandamus relief, the court
turns more specifically to the merits of proponents motion to stay
discovery pending the court of appeals consideration of
proponents proceedings in that court. For the reasons previously
noted and discussed further below, proponents are unlikely to
succeed on the merits of their resort to the court of appeals, and
their case for irreparable harm is weak.
\\
\\
RR 18
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
1
In its October 1 order, the court declined proponents
invitation to impose a blanket bar against plaintiffs discovery of
proponents communications with third parties. Doc #214 at 4-11.
Proponents contend that a blanket bar against such discovery was
required by the First Amendment. Doc #187 at 15 (citing NAACP, 357
US at 460; Bates v City of Little Rock, 361 US 516, 523 (1960);
Gibson v Florida Legislative Comm, 372 US 539 (1963)). Proponents
misread the October 1 order as foreclosing any application of a
First Amendment qualified privilege to the discovery plaintiffs
seek. The court simply decided that proponents had not established
the grounds necessary to invoke the First Amendment qualified
privilege while also sustaining in part proponents objection to
the scope of plaintiffs eighth document request.
At the risk of repetition, proponents are not likely to
succeed on the merits of their appeal for the following reasons:
(1) proponents have not put forth a strong case that the entirety
of discovery sought by plaintiffs in the eighth document request is
protected by a qualified First Amendment privilege when plaintiffs
do not seek disclosure of ProtectMarriage.coms rank-and-file
membership lists, Doc #214 at 4-11; (2) McIntyre, 514 US 334
(1995), does not support the application of a First Amendment
qualified privilege because McIntyre was acting independently, not
legislating, and because McIntyre dealt with the constitutionality
of an Ohio statute, not the application of a qualified privilege in
the context of civil discovery, Doc #214 at 8-9; and (3) proponents
have not properly preserved their privilege claim in light of both
the numerous disclosures already made surrounding the Yes on 8
RR 19
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
campaign and of proponents failure to produce a privilege log.
Doc #214 at 10-11.
It simply does not appear likely that proponents will
prevail on the merits of their appeal.
2
The question whether proponents are likely to suffer
irreparable harm if a stay is not entered is difficult to answer in
a vacuum. The court does not know at this juncture exactly what
documents or information would be disclosed in the absence of a
stay. Generally, the threat of a constitutional violation suggests
the likelihood of irreparable harm. Community House, Inc v City of
Boise, 490 F3d 1041 (9th Cir 2007). But it does not appear that
the entirety of communications responsive to plaintiffs eighth
document request is covered by the First Amendment qualified
privilege. Doc #214 at 4-11.
As the court explained in its October 1 order, Prop 8
supporters claim to have faced threats, harassment and boycotts
when their identities were revealed; however, proponents have not
made a showing that the discovery sought in this case would lead to
further harm to any Prop 8 supporter. Doc #214 at 6. Proponents
offer nothing new in the instant motion to support their claim that
disclosure would lead to irreparable harm. See Doc #220 at 5.
A protective order provides a means by which discovery
could continue without the threat of harm proponents seek to avoid.
But proponents have not sought a protective order directed to
specific disclosures. The possibility that harm could be
eliminated or substantially minimized through a protective order
RR 20
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
suggests that a stay of discovery is not required.
3
In light of the courts determination that proponents
have neither demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits nor
shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm if the stay
is not issued, it is unnecessary to address the remaining factors
required for proponents to obtain a stay. Nevertheless, the court
will touch on them briefly.
Whether the balance of equities tips in proponents favor
depends upon a comparison of the harm proponents claim they would
face if a stay were not granted with the harm plaintiffs would face
if a stay were granted. Winter, 129 SCt at 376. As just
explained, proponents projected harm could be remedied through a
protective order. Plaintiffs assert they too face harm as they
seek to vindicate what they claim is a violation of their
constitutional rights. Doc #225 at 13. A stay would serve to
delay discovery and potentially postpone the scheduled January 2010
trial. A mere assertion of delay does not constitute substantial
harm. United States v Phillip Morris Inc, 314 F3d 612, 622 (9th
Cir 2003). But because proponents have not articulated any
meaningful harm, the balance of equities nevertheless tips in
plaintiffs favor in light of the potential for delay.
4
Finally, the court must determine whether a stay is in
the public interest. Proponents assert that the denial of a stay
will curtail the First Amendment freedoms surrounding voter-
RR 21
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
initiated measures. Doc #220 at 7. Plaintiffs counter that
citizens have an interest in seeing plaintiffs constitutional
claims determined on the merits as quickly as possible. Doc #225
at 14. It appears that a protective order would likely remedy any
harm to the public identified by proponents. It also appears that
a limited discovery stay would not significantly affect the public
interest in a prompt resolution of plaintiffs claims. Thus, the
public interest does not appear to weigh strongly in favor of any
partys position.
II
Even in the unlikely event that the court of appeals
exercises jurisdiction over proponents appeal or mandamus
petition, a discovery stay is inappropriate. Proponents have not
demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their
claims or that they face irreparable harm in the absence of a stay.
The balance of equities appears to tip in favor of denying a stay,
and the public interest does not point clearly one way or another.
Accordingly, proponents motion to stay discovery is DENIED.
Plaintiffs seek an order compelling discovery within
seven days. Doc #225. But it is not clear whether the discovery
sought can practically be produced within the next seven days.
While it is imperative to proceed promptly with discovery to keep
these proceedings on schedule, the court prefers to look to the
good faith and professionalism of proponents able counsel to
respond to plaintiffs modified eighth document request in a timely
manner. The court stands ready to assist the parties.
\\
RR 22
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
Accordingly, the parties are directed to contact the
clerk within five days to schedule a telephone conference to
discuss the progress of their efforts.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

VAUGHN R WALKER
RR 23
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ZARRILLO,
Plaintiffs,
v
ARNORLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his
Defendants,
HAKSHING WILLIAM TAM and MARK A
JANSSON, as official proponents
of Proposition 8,
/
No C 09-2292 VRW
ORDER
RR 24
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
The defendant-intervenors, who are the official
proponents of Proposition 8 (proponents) move for a protective
order against the requests contained in one of plaintiffs first
set of document requests. Doc #187. Proponents object to
plaintiffs request no 8, which seeks [a]ll versions of any
documents that constitute communications relating to Proposition 8,
between you and any third party, including, without limitation,
members of the public or the media. Doc #187 at 8. Proponents
also object to all other similarly sweeping requests. Id at 8 n
1. Proponents argue the discovery sought: (1) is privileged under
the First Amendment; (2) is not relevant; and (3) places an undue
burden on proponents. Doc #187 at 9. Plaintiffs counter that the
discovery sought is relevant and not privileged. Doc #191.
During the course of briefing the dispute for the court,
the parties appear to have resolved at least one issue, as
proponents now agree to produce communications targeted to discrete
voter groups. Doc #197 at 6. The agreement appears only partially
to resolve the parties differences. Because of the broad reach of
request no 8 and the generality of proponents objections, the
unresolved issues will almost certainly arise in other discovery,
as well as to require resolution of the parties differences with
respect to request no 8. Accordingly, the court held a lengthy
hearing on September 25, 2009 and seeks by this order not only to
address the parties remaining dispute with respect to request no 8
but also provide guidance that will enable them to complete
discovery and pretrial preparation expeditiously.
\\
\\
RR 25
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
I
As an initial matter, and because plaintiffs request no
8 is quite broad, the court must determine what discovery remains
disputed. Proponents object to disclosing documents that fall into
five categories: (i) communications between and among
[d]efendant-[i]ntervenors, campaign donors, volunteers, and agents;
(ii) draft versions of communications never actually distributed to
the electorate at large; (iii) the identity of affiliated persons
and organizations not already publicly disclosed; (iv) post-
election information; and (v) the subjective and/or private
motivations of a voter or campaign participant. Doc #187 at 9.
But in their reply memorandum, proponents explain that they only
object to nonpublic and/or anonymous communications (emphasis in
original), drafts of documents that were never intended to, and
never did, see public light and documents created after the Prop
8 election. Doc #197. Plaintiffs have stated they do not seek
ProtectMarriage.coms membership list or a list of donors to the
Yes on 8' cause. Doc #191 at 13.
Plaintiffs have told proponents that they are seeking
communications between proponents and their agents, contractors,
attorneys, donors or others to the extent the communications are
responsive and not otherwise privileged. Doc #187-6 at 2.
Plaintiffs argue that the election materials put before the voters
are insufficient to discern the intent or purpose of Prop 8. The
questions whether Prop 8 was passed with discriminatory intent and
whether any claimed state interest in fact supports Prop 8 underlie
plaintiffs Equal Protection challenge, at least in part. See,
e g, Doc #157 at 12. Proponents assert that Prop 8 was intended
RR 26
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

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

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
rights. Here, however, plaintiffs are not seeking disclosure of
membership lists. Doc #191 at 13. Indeed, many names associated
with ProtectMarriage.com and the Yes on 8 campaign have already
been disclosed. See ProtectMarriage.com v Bowen, 09-0058-MCE Doc
#88 (ED Cal Jan 30, 2009).
The California Political Reform Act of 1974 requires
disclosure of a great deal of information surrounding the Prop 8
campaign, including the identity of, and specific information
about, financial supporters. Cal Govt Code 81000 et seq.
Proponents have not shown that responding to plaintiffs discovery
would intrude further on proponents First Amendment associational
rights beyond the intrusion by the numerous disclosures required
under California law disclosures that have already been widely
disseminated. Proponents asserted at the September 25 hearing that
these California state law disclosure requirements extend to the
outer boundaries of what can be required of political actors to
reveal their activities. But the information plaintiffs seek
differs from that which is regulated by these state disclosure
requirements.
The First Amendment qualified privilege proponents seek
to invoke, unlike the attorney-client privilege, for example, is
not an absolute bar against disclosure. Rather, the First
Amendment qualified privilege requires a balancing of the
plaintiffs need for the information sought against proponents
constitutional interests in claiming the privilege. See Adolph
Coors, 570 F Supp at 208. In this dispute, the interests the
parties claim are fundamental constitutional rights. Proponents
argue that their First Amendment associational rights are at stake
RR 28
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
while plaintiffs contend that Prop 8 violates their Equal
Protection and Due Process rights and that denial of their
discovery request jeopardizes the vindication of those rights. The
claimed rights at issue thus appear to be of similar importance.
One tangible harm that proponents have claimed, and
events made known to the court substantiate, lies in threats and
harassment proponents claim have been suffered by known supporters
of Prop 8. Identifying new information about Prop 8 supporters
would, proponents argue, only exacerbate these problems. Doc #187.
The court is aware of the tendentious nature of the Prop
8 campaign and of the harassment that some Prop 8 supporters have
endured. See Doc #187-11. Proponents have not however adequately
explained why the discovery sought by plaintiffs increases the
threat of harm to Prop 8 supporters or explained why a protective
order strictly limiting the dissemination of such information would
not suffice to avoid future similar events. In sum, while there is
no doubt that proponents political activities are protected by the
First Amendment, it is not at all clear that the discovery sought
here materially jeopardizes the First Amendment protections.
Furthermore, whether the First Amendment qualified privilege should
bar all or any part of plaintiffs discovery request is open to
question under the circumstances of this case.
The key Supreme Court case upon which proponents rely,
NAACP v Alabama, supra, involved a civil contempt against the NAACP
for its failure to reveal the names and addresses of all its
Alabama members and agents, without regard to their positions or
functions in the Association. 357 US at 451. As noted,
plaintiffs do not here seek the names and addresses of proponents
RR 29
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
rank-and-file members or volunteers. More importantly, the
protection against disclosure afforded by the holding in NAACP
appears fairly restricted.
Alabama sought a large number of the Associations
records and papers, including bank statements, leases, deeds, and
records of all Alabama members and agents of the Association.
357 US at 453. The NAACP produced substantially all the data
called for except for its lists of rank-and-file members. Id at
454. Notably, the NAACP did not object to divulging the identity
of its members who are employed by or hold official positions in
the organization or to providing various other business records.
Id at 464-65. The Court contrasted the NAACPs extensive
disclosures with that in an earlier case in which another
organization made no disclosures at all. Id at 465-66. Alabamas
request for rank-and-file membership lists in NAACP was predicated
solely on its interest in enforcement of the states foreign
corporation registration statute. Id at 464.
The Court observed that the disclosure of the names of
rank-and-file members seemed to lack a substantial bearing on
whether the NAACP, as a foreign corporation, should be authorized
to do business in Alabama. Id at 464. The interest of Alabama in
disclosure of rank-and-file membership lists thus was insubstantial
relative to the significant interests of the NAACP and its members
in carrying out their First Amendment and other activities that
included in 1956 financial support and [ ] legal assistance to
Negro students seeking admission to the state university and
support of a Negro boycott of the bus lines in Montgomery to
compel the seating of passengers without regard to race. Id at
RR 30
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
452.
Similarly, in a later case, the Supreme Court upheld a
qualified First Amendment privilege against disclosure of NAACP
membership lists where there was no relevant correlation between
the purpose for which the lists were sought, enforcement of
occupational license taxes, and the identity of NAACP rank-and-file
members. Bates v Little Rock, 361 US 516, 525 (1960). On like
grounds, the Supreme Court reversed a contempt conviction of the
president of the NAACP Miami branch who refused to produce NAACP
membership lists at a 1959 hearing of a state legislative committee
investigating infiltration of Communists into various
organizations. Gibson v Florida Legislative Committee, 372 US 539
(1963). No evidence in that case suggested that the NAACP was
either Communist dominated or influenced, id at 548, undermining
the required nexus between the membership lists and the purpose for
which they were sought. Furthermore, at the hearing, the branch
president answered questions concerning membership in the NAACP and
responded to questions about a number of persons previously
identified as communists or members of communist front or other
affiliated organizations. Id at 543. Here, too, the qualified
First Amendment privilege protected only membership lists, and the
NAACP or its officials made significant disclosures apart from
membership lists.
These cases from the civil rights struggles of the 1950s
would thus appear to offer proponents scant support for refusing to
produce information other than rank-and-file membership lists which
plaintiffs, in any event, do not seek. Nor does proponents
position gain much traction from McIntyre v Ohio Elections Commn,
RR 31
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
514 US 334 (1995), which reversed petitioners conviction, upheld
by the Ohio Supreme Court, for anonymously distributing leaflets
regarding a referendum on a proposed school tax levy in violation
of a statute prohibiting unsigned campaign materials. Petitioner
acted independently, not as part of a campaign committee or
organization. Id at 337. Proponents, by contrast, are the
official proponents of Prop 8 with responsibility under state law
for compliance with electoral and campaign requirements. See Cal
Election Code 342; Cal Govt Code 8204.7.
Proponents, moreover, have not demonstrated that the
procedure for invoking any First Amendment privilege applicable to
their communications with third parties differs from that of any
other privilege, such as the attorney-client privilege and trial
preparation or work product protection. A party seeking to
withhold discovery under a claim of privilege must describe the
nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not
produced or disclosed * * * in a manner that, without revealing
information itself privileged or protected, will enable other
parties to assess the claim. FRCP 26(b)(5)(A)(ii). Proponents
have failed to aver that they have prepared a privilege log that
would comply with the requirement of FRCP 26(b)(5)(A)(ii), a
necessary condition to preservation of any privilege. This failure
ordinarily could be fatal to any assertion of a privilege.
Burlington Nort & Santa Fe Ry v Dist Ct, Mt, 408 F3d 1142, 1149
(9th Cir 2005).
Proponents suggested at the September 25 hearing that the
enumeration requirement of FRCP 26 does not apply to a First
Amendment privilege, based as it is on fundamental constitutional
RR 32
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
principles rather than common law, the origin of the attorney-
client privilege and work product protection. Proponents contend
that as the communications regarding Prop 8 involve political
speech or association, Doc #197 at 11-12, they are entitled to a
greater degree of confidentiality than common law privileges. In
fact, as noted, it appears that any First Amendment privilege is a
qualified privilege affording less expansive protection against
discovery than the absolute privileges, such as the attorney-client
and similar privileges. The First Amendment privilege proponents
seek to invoke requires a balancing of interests that simply are
not weighed in the area of attorney-client communications, and that
balancing tends to limit or confine the First Amendment privilege
to those materials that rather directly implicate rights of
association.
In striking the appropriate balance, the court notes that
in addition to the substantial financial and related disclosures
required by California law, a rather striking disclosure concerning
campaign strategy has already voluntarily been made by at least
one, if not the principal, campaign manager-consultant employed by
proponents. Plaintiffs have attached to their memorandum a
magazine article written by Frank Schubert and Jeff Flint, whose
public affairs firm managed the Yes on 8 campaign. Doc #191-2. In
the article, Schubert and Flint refer specifically to campaign
strategy and decisions, noting that they needed to convince voters
that there would be consequences if gay marriage were to be
permanently legalized. Id at 3. Schubert and Flint make clear
that their goal in the campaign was to rais[e] doubts. Id. They
explain the campaigns three broad areas of focus as religious
RR 33
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
freedom, individual freedom of expression and how this new
fundamental right would be inculcated in young children through
the public schools. Id. Schubert and Flint refer to the help of
a massive volunteer effort through religious denominations. Id.
The article describes, in great detail, how Schubert and Flint
conceptualized the Yes on 8 television advertising campaign,
culminating with the break of the election: footage of
bewildered six-year-olds at a lesbian wedding. Id at 4-5.
These extensive disclosures about the strategy of
proponents campaign suggest that relatively little weight should
be afforded to proponents interest in maintaining the
confidentiality of communications concerning campaign strategy. If
harm is threatened from disclosure of proponents campaign
strategy, it seems likely to have been realized by the candid
description of the Prop 8 campaigns strategy already disseminated
by Schubert and Flint. In any event, the unfortunate incidents of
harassment to which proponents point as having occurred appear
mostly to have been directed to proponents financial supporters
whose public identification was required by California law.
III
Proponents argue that the discovery sought is not
relevant and therefore not discoverable. Under FRCP 26(b)(1),
discovery is limited to any nonprivileged matter that is relevant
to any partys claim or defense, but [r]elevant information need
not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Accordingly, the court need not determine at this juncture whether
RR 34
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
the information sought would be admissible at trial; instead, the
court must determine whether the information sought is reasonably
calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.
Plaintiffs assert that the discovery sought is relevant
to the rationality and strength of [proponents] purported state
interests and whether voters could reasonably accept them as a
basis for supporting Prop 8, as well as other factual disputes.
Doc #191 at 8. Additionally, plaintiffs believe the discovery will
lead to party admissions and impeachment evidence. Id.
Plaintiffs strongest argument appears to be that some of
the information sought about proponents communications with third
parties may be relevant to the governmental interest that
proponents claim Prop 8 advances. Id. Relevant information may
exist in communications between proponents and those who assumed a
large role in the campaign, including the campaign executive
committee and political consultants, as that information well may
have been conveyed to the ultimate decision-makers, the voters, and
thus discloses the intent Prop 8 serves.
Key in this regard is the extent to which the requested
discovery could be relevant to ascertain the purpose of Prop 8.
Doc #187 at 10. Legislative purpose may be relevant to determine
whether, as plaintiffs claim, Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection
Clause. Washington v Davis, 426 US 229, 239-41 (1976) (holding
that a law only violates the Equal Protection component of the
Fifth Amendment when the law reflects a discriminatory purpose,
regardless of the laws disparate impact); see also Personnel Admr
of Massachusetts v Feeney, 442 US 256, 274 (1979) (purposeful
discrimination is the condition that offends the Constitution.)
RR 35
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
(citation omitted). The analysis remains the same whether the
challenged measure was enacted by a legislature or directly by
voters. Washington v Seattle School Dist no 1, 458 US 457, 484-85
(1982).
Proponents point to Southern Alameda Span Sp Org v City
of Union City, Cal, 424 F2d 291, 295 (9th Cir 1970) (SASSO), and
Bates v Jones, 131 F3d 843, 846 (9th Cir 1997) (en banc), for the
proposition that the subjective intent of a voter is not a proper
subject for judicial inquiry. In SASSO, the court determined that
probing the private attitude of the voters would amount of an
intolerable invasion of the privacy that must protect an exercise
of the franchise. 424 F2d at 295. In Bates, the court looked
only to publicly available information to determine whether voters
had sufficient notice of the effect of a referendum. 131 F3d at
846. While these cases make clear that voters cannot be asked to
explain their votes, they do not rule out the possibility that
other evidence might well be useful to determine intent.
Plaintiffs proposed discovery is not outside the scope
of what some courts have considered in determining the intent
behind a measure enacted by voters. The Eighth Circuit has held
that courts may look to the intent of drafters of an initiative to
determine whether it was passed with a discriminatory intent.
South Dakota Farm Bureau, Inc v Hazeltine, 340 F3d 583, 594 (8th
Cir 2003). At least one district court in this circuit has
considered drafter intent along with voter intent. City of Los
Angeles v County of Kern, 462 F Supp 2d 1105, 1114 (CD Cal 2006).
The parties acknowledge that the line demarking relevance in this
context is not clearly drawn. The difficulty of line-drawing stems
RR 36
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
from the fact that, as the California Supreme Court put it well,
motive or purpose of [a legislative enactment] is not relevant to
its construction absent reason to conclude that the body which
adopted the [enactment] was aware of that purpose and believed the
language of the proposal would accomplish it. Robert L v Superior
Court, 30 Cal 4th 894, 904 (2003).
In the case of an initiative measure, the enacting body
is the electorate as a whole. The legislative record for an
initiative cannot, therefore, be compiled with the precision that
the legislative history of an enactment by a legislative body can
be put together. This would seem to suggest, as the Eighth Circuit
implied in South Dakota Farm Bureau, that the scope of permissible
discovery might well be broader in the case of an initiative
measure or a referendum than a law coming out of a popularly
elected, and thus democratically chosen, legislative body. However
that may be, the mix of information before and available to the
voters forms a legislative history that may permit the court to
discern whether the legislative intent of an initiative measure is
consistent with and advances the governmental interest that its
proponents claim in litigation challenging the validity of that
measure or was a discriminatory motive.
Proponents have agreed to disclose communications they
targeted to voters, including communications to discrete groups of
voters. Doc #197 at 6. But at the September 25 hearing,
proponents stated that they did not believe non-public
communications to confirmed Prop 8 supporters or to those involved
in the Prop 8 campaign could be relevant to the intent
determination. Proponents point out that those communications were
RR 37
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15
not directly before the voters. But it does appear to the court
that communications between proponents and political consultants or
campaign managers, even about messages contemplated but not
actually disseminated, could fairly readily lead to admissible
evidence illuminating the messages disseminated to voters. At
least some of these contemplated, but not delivered, messages may
well have diffused to voters through sources other than the
official channels of proponents campaign. Furthermore, of course,
what was decided not to be said in a political campaign may cast
light on what was actually said. The line between relevant and
non-relevant communications is not identical to the public/non-
public distinction drawn by proponents. At least some non-public
communications from proponents to those who assumed a large role in
the Prop 8 campaign could be relevant to the voters understanding
of Prop 8 and to the ultimate determination of intent.
While it appears that plaintiffs request no 8 seeks
relevant disclosures, the request itself is broader than necessary
to obtain all relevant discovery. Proponents point out that even
if some of the discovery sought by plaintiffs might be relevant,
virtually every communication made by anyone included in or
associated with Protect Marriage cannot be relevant. Doc #197 at
7. The court agrees. Further, of course, no amount of discovery
could corral all of the information on which voters cast their
ballots on Prop 8. Proponents undue burden objection is thus
well-taken. It should suffice for purposes of this litigation to
gather enough information about the strategy and communications of
the Prop 8 campaign to afford a record upon which to discern the
intent underlying Prop 8's enactment. Plaintiffs request no 8,
RR 38
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
currently encompassing any communication between proponents and any
third party, is simply too broad.
Narrowing of plaintiffs request is required. In their
discussions, the parties have focused on the appropriate
distinction that between documents which relate to public
communications with third parties and purely private communications
among proponents. Hence, discovery directed to uncovering whether
proponents harbor private sentiments that may have prompted their
efforts is simply not relevant to the legislative intent behind
Prop 8. That does not mean that discovery should be limited
strictly to communications with the public at large. Documents
pertaining to the planning of the campaign for Prop 8 and the
messages actually distributed, or contemplated to be distributed,
to voters would likely to lead to discovery of admissible evidence,
as such documents share a clear nexus with the information put
before the voters. Communications distributed to voters, as well
as communications considered but not sent appear to be fair
subjects for discovery, as the revision or rejection of a
contemplated campaign message may well illuminate what information
was actually conveyed to voters. Communications that took place
after the election date may similarly be relevant if they are
connected in some way to the pre-election messages conveyed to the
voters. But discovery not sufficiently related to what the voters
could have considered is not relevant and will not be permitted.
Plaintiffs are therefore DIRECTED to revise request no 8
to target those communications most likely to be relevant to the
factual issues identified by plaintiffs.
\\
RR 39
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17
While it is not the province of the court to redraft
plaintiffs request no 8 or to interpose objections for proponents,
the foregoing highlights general areas of appropriate inquiry. It
seems to the court that request no 8 is appropriate to the extent
it calls for (1) communications by and among proponents and their
agents (at a minimum, Schubert Flint Public Affairs) concerning
campaign strategy and (2) communications by and among proponents
and their agents concerning messages to be conveyed to voters,
without regard to whether the voters or voter groups were viewed as
likely supporters or opponents or undecided about Prop 8 and
without regard to whether the messages were actually disseminated
or merely contemplated. In addition, communications by and among
proponents with those who assumed a directorial or managerial role
in the Prop 8 campaign, like political consultants or
ProtectMarriage.coms treasurer and executive committee, among
others, would appear likely to lead to discovery of admissible
evidence.
IV
Proponents motion for a protective order is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part. Doc #187. Proponents have not shown that
the First Amendment privilege is applicable to the discovery sought
by plaintiffs. Because plaintiffs request no 8 is overly broad,
plaintiffs shall revise the request and tailor it to relevant
factual issues, individuals and entities. The court stands ready
to assist the parties in pursuing specific additional discovery in
line with the guidance provided herein and, if necessary, to assist
the parties in fashioning a protective order where necessary to
RR 40
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18
ensure that disclosures through the discovery process do not result
in adverse effects on the parties or entities or individuals not
parties to this litigation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

VAUGHN R WALKER
RR 41
NOS. 09-17241, 09-17551


v.

California

RELEVANT PARTS OF THE RECORD VOLUME II OF IV

Andrew P. Pugno
(916) 608-3065; (916) 608-3066 Fax

Brian W. Raum
James A. Campbell
(480) 444-0020; (480) 444-0028 Fax

Charles J. Cooper
David H. Thompson
Nicole J. Moss
Jesse Panuccio
Peter A. Patterson
(202) 220-9600
(202) 220-9601 Fax




Volume I


USDC Dkt # 252

RR 1-10


USCD Dkt # 237

RR 11-23


USDC Dkt # 214

RR 24-41

Volume II

Review

USDC Dkt # 251

RR 42-44


USDC Dkt # 249

RR 45-48


USDC Dkt # 247

RR 49


USDC Dkt # 246

RR 50-96


USDC Dkt # 238

RR 97-98

Protective Order

USDC Dkt # 220-1

RR 99-104


USDC Dkt # 212

RR 105-178


USDC Dkt # 197-2

RR 179-185


USDC Dkt # 197-3

RR 186-192


USDC Dkt # 197-4

RR 193-195

Campaign

USDC Dkt # 197-7

RR 196-210


USDC Dkt # 191

RR 211-228

(U.S. Mar. 17, 2009)
USDC Dkt # 187-1 RR 229-255


USDC Dkt # 187-2

RR 256-260


USDC Dkt # 187-3

RR 261-267


USDC Dkt # 187-4

RR 268-289


USDC Dkt # 187-5

RR 290-291


USDC Dkt # 187-6

RR 292-294

Volume III

Moss Declaration

USDC Dkt # 187-7

RR 295-301


USDC Dkt # 187-9

RR 302-316

Jannson Declaration

USDC Dkt # 187-10

RR 317-320

Disclosure

USDC Dkt # 187-11

RR 321-575

Tam Declaration

USDC Dkt # 187-12

RR 576-580

Troupis Declaration

USDC Dkt # 187-13

RR 581-586

Volume IV


USDC Dkt # 162

RR 587-603

Statement

USDC Dkt # 159

RR 604-618


USDC Dkt # 157

RR 619-637

Docket Sheet

RR 638-661

RR 42
RR 43
RR 44

Nicole J. Moss
nmoss@cooperkirk.com
Cooper & Kirk
Lawyers
A Professional Limited Liability Company

(202) 220-9600
Fax (202) 220-9601

November 6, 2009

The Honorable Vaughn R. Walker
Chief Judge of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: Perry v. Schwarzenegger, No. C 09-2292 VRW (N.D. Cal.)

Dear Chief Judge Walker:

At the telephonic hearing held on November 2, 2009, the Court granted Defendant-
Intervenors leave to file a sampling of documents for in camera review to determine whether
Defendant-Intervenors have a First Amendment privilege that protects them from having to
produce the documents in response to Plaintiffs discovery requests. To facilitate this review
process, the Court requested that in addition to a privilege log, [Defendant-Intervenors submit]
a fuller description of those kinds of materials at issuei.e., a fuller description of those
categories of documents that are at issue. Hrg of Nov. 2, 2009, Tr. 43. Enclosed with this
letter, Defendant-Intervenors respectfully submit for the Courts consideration the requested
fuller description of categories. Given the nature and volume of documents implicated by
Plaintiffs discovery requests, it is not possible to devise a manageable list that would capture
every feature of every document over which Defendant-Intervenors are claiming a First
Amendment privilege. We believe, however, that the attached document provides the Court with
a fuller description [that] would be extremely helpful in deciding whether or not we should
pursue discovery of the types of documents at issue. Tr. 43-44.

Defendant-Intervenors greatly appreciate the Courts willingness to help the parties work
through this discovery dispute and stand ready to provide any additional assistance the Court
might require in undertaking this process of in camera review.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Nicole J. Moss
Nicole J. Moss
Counsel for Defendant-Intervenors

Enclosure

cc: All counsel via the Courts ECF system
RR 45
Categories of Documents Privileged Under the First Amendment
and Implicated by Plaintiffs Discovery Requests

Perry v. Schwarzenegger
Case No. 3:09-cv-02292-VRW
United States District Court
Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker

Documents refers to documents or communications in any form and as defined in
Plaintiffs First Set of Document Requests to Defendant-Intervenors (Doc # 187-3 at 3), including
but not limited to hard copies, electronic documents, electronic or computerized data
compilations, software, software images, downloads, emails, letters, memoranda, audio or visual
recordings, and typewritten or handwritten notes.

1. Documents that reveal names and/or capacities not already publicly known, including but not
limited to:
a. Documents that reveal the names or titles of ad hoc executive committee members of
Protectmarriage.com, their time period of involvement, or their responsibilities;
b. Documents that reveal the names of ProtectMarriage.coms actual or potential
employees or independent contractors, their time period of involvement, or their
responsibilities;
c. Documents that reveal the names of key volunteers or persons who took a leadership
or management role in Protectmarriage.com or the campaign in favor of Proposition 8
but were not members of the ad hoc executive committee of Protectmarriage.com,
their time period of involvement, or their responsibilities;
d. Documents that reveal names of leaders, volunteers, members or donors of other
groups that actively supported Proposition 8 or were affiliated with Proposition 8 but
were not under the control of ProtectMarriage.com;
e. Documents that reveal the names of donors and/or potential donors to
Protectmarriage.com;
f. Documents that reveal the names of ProtectMarriage.coms significant sponsors and
affiliates, their time period of involvement, or their responsibilities;
g. Documents that reveal names of volunteers who had something less than a leadership
or management role in Protectmarraige.com and/or the campaign in favor of
Proposition 8, their time period of involvement, or their responsibilities.

2. Documents that reveal campaign strategy, such as emails, memoranda, meeting minutes,
plans, and similar documents, including but not limited to:
a. Financial strategy, including but not limited to budgets and resource allocation,
fundraising strategy, donor relations and recruiting;
b. Messaging strategy, including but not limited to:
i. Selection and planning of messaging strategy,
ii. Drafts and edits of what would become public communications,
RR 46
iii. Drafts and edits of what were planned to become public communications but
ultimately were not publicly disseminated in any form (i.e., documents that
were considered but not sent),
iv. Notes and advice created or conveyed in advance of or following public
appearances related to the campaign
v. Notes and advice created or conveyed in advance of or following of private
appearances related to the campaign,
vi. Documents containing analysis of effectiveness of messaging,
vii. Draft versions of advertisements and/or campaign literature, and analyses of
the message or messages presented or to be presented in those advertisements
and literature,
viii. The drafting and circulation of all materials posted at
http://www.protectmarriage.com or http:www.protectmarriage.net, at any
time, including without limitation advertisements, resources, press releases,
and strategy documents,
ix. The creation and airing of all radio, television, or Internet advertisements
relating to Proposition 8, including without limitation how the messages,
themes, or arguments conveyed by the advertisements were chosen,
developed, or implemented, discussions regarding the messages of the
advertisements, who created or assisted in creating each advertisement, the
amount spent to air each advertisement, the targeted audience for each
advertisement, and the estimated viewership for each advertisement,
x. The creation and airing of all other communications with voters relating to
Proposition 8, including without limitation any recorded calls, phone banks,
letter campaigns, the October 2008 bus tour, and any door-to-door efforts, and
any scripts or talking points provided for use or actually used during those
communications;
c. Strategy derived from polling, focus groups, or other measures of public opinion;
d. Strategy regarding volunteer or ally recruitment;
e. Strategy regarding grassroots organization and get out the vote efforts;
f. Organizational strategy, including but not limited to who to hire, how to structure the
campaign, proposed campaign committees.

3. Nonpublic documents which relate to public communications with third parties.

4. Nonpublic documents which relate to coordination and communication with other
organizations and churches regarding campaign strategy in connection with Proposition 8 or
messages to be conveyed to voters regarding Proposition 8, including without limitation the
National Organization for Marriage, Focus on the Family, California Family Council, Family
Research Council, the Knight of Columbus, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,
and/or Colorado for Family Values

5. Nonpublic documents that relate to polling and demographic analysis; focus group analysis;
analysis of other measures of public opinion, including the identification of all third-parties
for such analysis, what was tested, and any responses or findings.

RR 47
3
6. Nonpublic documents which relate to the drafting of the text of Proposition 8, including
without limitation who was involved, what was discussed, whether any other language or
propositions were discussed or considered, and the reasons why the text of Proposition 8 was
selected.

7. Nonpublic documents which relate to the drafting of the official argument in favor of
Proposition 8 and the rebuttal to the official argument against Proposition 8, including
without limitation who was involved with that process, what was discussed, whether any
other language was discussed or considered, and the reasons why the text of the official
argument in favor of Proposition 8 and the rebuttal to the official argument against
Proposition 8 was selected.

8. Documents in Defendant-Intervenors possession constituting anonymous public or semi-
public communications (and thus that do not reveal authorship), to the extent disclosure
would reveal or suggest, wrongly or rightly, authorship by a Defendant-Intervenor.

9. Post-election documents relating to any of the above, including but not limited analysis of
campaign, messaging, recruitment, financial strategy.

10. Nonpublic documents which relate to the collection of signatures for qualification of
Proposition 8, including without limitation any written materials created in that process or
scripts provided for use or actually used with that process.

RR 48
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTE ORDER
VAUGHN R. WALKER
DATE: November 2, 2009
COURTROOM DEPUTY: Cora Klein Court Reporter: Lydia Zinn
CASE NO. C 09-2292 VRW
TITLE:KRISTIN PERRY et al v ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER et al
ATTORNEYS:
Ethan D. Dettmer for Plaintiffs.
Mollie Lee for Plaintiff-Intervenor City and County of San Francisco.
Charles J. Cooper for Defendants-Intervenors Prop 8 Proponents and Protectmarriage.com
Andrew W. Stroud for Defendants Schwarzenegger , Horton and Scott
Tamar Pachter for Defendant E.G.Brown, Jr., California Attorney General
Manuel F. Martinez for Defendant Patrick OConnell, Clerk Recorder of Alameda County
Judy Whitehurst for Defendant Dean C. Logan, Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, Los Angeles
PROCEEDINGS:
Telephonic Discovery Hearing
See transcript of the hearing for details.
RR 49
Pages 1 - 46
BEFORE THE HONORABLE VAUGHN R. WALKER
KRISTIN M. PERRY, )
SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL T. KATAMI, )
and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
VS. ) NO. C 09-2292-VRW
)
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his )
official capacity as Governor of )
California; EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., )
in his official capacity as )
Attorney General of California; )
MARK B. HORTON, in his official )
capacity as Director of the )
California Department of Public )
Health and State Registrar of )
Vital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, )
in her official capacity as Deputy )
Director of Health Information & )
Strategic Plainning for the )
California Department of Public )
Health; PATRICK O'CONNELL, in his )
official capacity as )
Clerk-Recorder for the County of )
Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his )
official capacity as )
Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk )
for the County of Los Angeles, )
) San Francisco, California
Defendants. ) Monday
) November 2, 2009
___________________________________) 2:30 p.m.

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
(AMENDED TO CORRECT APPEARANCES AND SPEAKER
IDENTIFICATION AT PAGE 6, LINE 8)

Reported By: Lydia Zinn, CSR #9223, RPR
Official Reporter - U.S. District Court
RR 50
2
1 Appearances (via speaker telephone):
2 For Plaintiffs: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
333 South Grand Avenue
3 Los Angeles, CA 90071
(213) 229-7804
4 (213) 229-7520 (fax)
BY: ETHAN DETTMER
5 CHRISTOPHER D. DUSSEAULT
MATTHEW D. MC GILL
6 ENRIQUE A. MONAGAS
7 For Plaintiffs: Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
8 Fox Plaza
1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor
9 San Francisco, CA 94102-5408
BY: MOLLIE LEE
10 RONALD FLYNN

11 For Defendant: Office of County Counsel of Los Angeles
500 West Temple Street
12 Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 974-1845
13 BY: JUDY WHITEHURST

14 For Defendant: Mennemeier, Glassman & Stroud
980 9th Street, Suite 1700
15 Sacramento, CA 95814-2736
(916) 553-4000
16 BY: ANDREW WALTER STROUD

17 For Defendant: County of Alameda
1221 Oak Street, Suite 450
18 Oakland, CA 94612-4296
(510) 272-6710
19 BY: MANUEL MARTINEZ

20 For Defendant: State Attorney General's Office
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
21 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
(415) 703-5506
22 (415) 703-5480 (fax)
BY: TAMAR PACHTER
23
24
25 (Appearances continued on next page)
Lydia Zinn, CSR, RPR Lydia Zinn, CSR, RPR Lydia Zinn, CSR, RPR Lydia Zinn, CSR, RPR
Official Reporter - U.S. District Court Official Reporter - U.S. District Court Official Reporter - U.S. District Court Official Reporter - U.S. District Court
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 51
3
1 Appearances via speaker telephone (Cont'd.)

2 For Defendant- Cooper & Kirk
Intervenors: 1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
3 Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 220-9600
4 BY: CHARLES J. COOPER
JESSE PANUCCIO
5 HOWARD C. NIELSON, JR.
PETER A. PATTERSON
6 NICOLE MOSS

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 52
4
1 THE COURT: Good afternoon, counsel. This is
2 Judge Walker. I'm here with a court reporter; Ms. Delfin, the
3 court clerk, whom you know; and two law clerks.
4 Can we have the appearances of counsel, please?
5 MR. DETTMER: Good afternoon, your Honor.
6 Ethan Dettmer, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, on behalf the
7 plaintiffs.
8 THE COURT: Good afternoon, Mr. Dettmer.
9 MS. LEE: Good afternoon, your Honor. Mollie Lee, on
10 behalf of Plaintiff-Intervenor, City and County of
11 San Francisco.
12 THE COURT: Good afternoon.
13 MR. COOPER: Good afternoon, Chief Judge Walker.
14 This is Charles Cooper, Cooper & Kirk, representing the
15 Defendant-Intervenors.
16 Present with me here in my office on the phone, my
17 colleague, Jesse Panuccio, whom you've met previously.
18 THE COURT: Very well. Good afternoon, Mr. Cooper.
19 MR. COOPER: Thank you.
20 THE COURT: Who else?
21 MR. STROUD: Good afternoon, your Honor. This is
22 Andrew Stroud, Mennemeier, Glassman & Stroud, on behalf of
23 governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the Administration
24 defendants.
25 THE COURT: Good afternoon, Mr. Stroud.
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 53
5
1 MS. PACHTER: Good afternoon, your Honor. This is
2 Tamar Pachter, for the Attorney General.
3 THE COURT: Ms. Pachter, good afternoon.
4 MR. MARTINEZ: Good afternoon, your Honor.
5 Manuel Martinez, for the County of Alameda, representing
6 Defendant Patrick O'Connell.
7 THE COURT: Very well. Anyone else?
8 MS. WHITEHURST: Good afternoon, your Honor. This is
9 Judy Whitehurst, representing Dean C. Logan, the Los Angeles
10 County Registrar-Recorder.
11 THE COURT: Very well. Good afternoon.
12 Who else? Anybody?
13 MR. NIELSON: Good afternoon, Chief Judge Walker.
14 Howard Nielson, of Cooper & Kirk, representing the
16 THE COURT: All right. You're with Mr. Cooper?
17 MR. NIELSON: A different location, but yes.
18 THE COURT: I see. Anyone else on the line?
19 MR. PATTERSON: Good afternoon, Chief Judge Walker.
20 This is Pete Patterson, also with the Defendant-Intervenors,
21 from a different location.
22 THE COURT: All right.
23 MS. MOSS: And good afternoon, your Honor.
24 Nicole Moss, with Cooper & Kirk, also for
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 54
6
2 MR. MC GILL: Good afternoon, your Honor. This is
3 Matthew McGill, from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, for the
4 plaintiffs.
5 THE COURT: Very well.
6 MR. DUSSEAULT: Chris Dusseault, also with Gibson,
7 Dunn & Crutcher for the plaintiffs.
8 MR. MONAGAS: And good afternoon, your Honor. I
9 think I might be the last one. Enrique Monagas, Gibson, Dunn &
10 Crutcher, also for the plaintiffs.
11 MR. FLYNN: City and County of San Francisco, for
12 Plaintiff-Intervenor.
13 (Reporter interruption.)
14 THE COURT: I'm afraid we'll have to have that
15 appearance again. The reporter did not catch it.
16 MR. FLYNN: Ron Flynn, City and County of
17 San Francisco.
18 THE COURT: All right. Well, let's begin.
19 The subject of our discussion this afternoon is the
20 document request that the plaintiffs have made of the
21 Defendant-Intervenors, who I'll call "the proponents of
22 Proposition 8." That's a nomenclature that I think we've used
23 principally throughout the case.
24 Let me just make some general comments, and then
25 allow you to react to those comments.
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 55
7
1 I haven't had a chance to review in great depth the
2 issues that are before us, although the issue is really, I
3 think, not a terribly complicated one. It deals with the
4 proponents' assertion of a qualified First Amendment privilege
5 with respect to certain documents that have been requested by
6 the plaintiffs.
7 Concerning a privilege assertion, as I read the
8 cases, the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court, and other district
9 courts have essentially adopted three approaches to dealing
10 with the assertion of a privilege.
11 First, of course, is that provided about for in
12 Rule 26(b)(5): the preparation of what has come to be called a
13 "privilege log." The cases that have developed in accordance
14 with that describe some of the requirements of a privilege log.
15 And as we get into our discussion, we may find it appropriate
16 to deal with some of those specifics.
17 A second approach is that which the proponents, I
18 understand, have advanced. And that is some form of in camera
19 review by the Court to test the sufficiency of the privilege
20 assertion.
21 And a third approach, which is the production of
22 redacted portions of documents, or the production of documents
23 or materials that contain privileged matter but also contain
24 nonprivileged matter, and the privileged matter is redacted
25 from the material that is produced.
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 56
8
1 There may be other approaches, but those are the
2 three that have come to my attention in thinking about the
3 problem that we're going to be talking about this afternoon,
4 and, obviously, are three approaches that have been used in
5 cases that I'm familiar with. And it sometimes is the
6 situation where more than one of these approaches is
7 appropriate.
8 So I suppose the first question that comes at least
9 to my mind in thinking about this problem is whether the
10 material, Mr. Cooper, over which your client is asserting a
11 qualified First Amendment privilege embraces the entirety of
12 the material that you have discussed in your recent
13 correspondence, or whether only portions of those materials
14 are, in your view, privileged; because, obviously, if it's a
15 situation in which only a portion of the material is
16 privileged, then, obviously, the redaction approach may be an
17 appropriate way to proceed, and may make a lot of sense; but if
18 not, then perhaps one or two or some combination of the other
19 two approaches might be appropriate.
20 So let me ask you whether -- of the material that
21 you're asserting the privilege over, are you asserting the
22 privilege as to the entirety of these materials, or only a
23 portion of these materials?
24 MR. COOPER: Yes. Thank you, Chief Judge Walker.
25 Our assertion of privilege, your Honor, is, in fact,
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 57
9
1 over the entirety of this documents that we believe are
2 privileged. And a process of -- of redaction would not speak
3 to the nature of the privilege we've asserted.
4 And -- and even if there were some theoretical
5 possibilities that a document that was within and responsive to
6 the requests as they have now been revised in light of the
7 Court's October 1 ruling might contain information that was --
8 that was otherwise unobjectionable, the practical reality is
9 that, you know, we -- we expect to have and have now taken,
10 essentially, inventory of the -- of the universe of documents
11 from which responsive documents are being culled. And we would
12 be talking about thousands and thousands of documents that
13 would have to be reviewed for this redaction purpose, but the
14 real and, to our mind, disqualifying answer is that we do
15 assert a privilege over the entirety of these -- of these
16 confidential nonpublic communications and documents.
17 THE COURT: Well, that being the case, that would
18 appear to point us in the direction of either an in camera
19 review, or a privilege log with respect to -- to these
20 documents.
21 And I understand from your letter that you believe
22 that the preparation of a privilege log may be burdensome, and
23 you therefore offered to make a production of a sample of the
24 documents; but let's put that issue to one side for the moment.
25 MR. COOPER: Okay.
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 58
10
1 THE COURT: Are there approaches that we ought to be
2 considering, other than the two that I've mentioned: privilege
3 log, or in camera review? Is there some fourth or fifth
4 alternative that I haven't mentioned this afternoon that we
5 ought to put on the table for discussion?
6 MR. DETTMER: Your Honor, if I may. Ethan Dettmer,
7 on behalf the plaintiffs.
8 THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Dettmer.
9 MR. DETTMER: I'm sorry, your Honor.
10 THE COURT: Yes. You may proceed, sir.
11 MR. DETTMER: Thank you.
12 Your Honor, I think it's helpful to -- I do have --
13 the answer to your question is, yes, I do have another
14 alternative that I would like to propose and, in fact, have
15 proposed to the proponents --
17 MR. DETTMER: -- several weeks ago.
18 THE COURT: Let me interrupt you, Mr. Dettmer.
19 Before I hear from you, let me direct that question first to
20 Mr. Cooper, and then I'll come back to you. Is that okay?
21 MR. DETTMER: Certainly.
22 THE COURT: Mr. Cooper, do you have the question in
23 mind?
24 MR. COOPER: I think I do, your Honor.
25 And our efforts to think of an approach to having the
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 59
11
1 Court make a decision -- make a judgment with respect to the
2 validity of our First Amendment claim has -- we haven't been
3 able to come up with an alternative to essentially what we take
4 to have been at least your implied suggestion in your
5 October 23rd order. And we view that approach as combining the
6 elements of a privilege log, and in camera review; but as you
7 mentioned, a privilege log that attempted to log all of the
8 documents over which we are claiming a First Amendment
9 privilege would be a very, very labor-intensive, time-consuming
10 process.
11 THE COURT: All right. Well, let's -- let put -- as
12 I said, let's put the burdensome issue to one side, and come
13 back to that as it may be necessary to come back to it.
14 So I gather you would agree, then, that the two
15 alternatives that we should consider are either an in camera
16 review, or privilege log, or perhaps a combination of those
17 two; but those are the two that ought to be on the table for
18 discussion this afternoon. I gather that's your position?
19 MR. COOPER: Well, yes, your Honor. We've made our
20 proposal in my letter to the Court. And -- and, in light of
21 the Court's October 23rd order, we think that is a measured and
22 reasonable way now to proceed.
24 Now, Mr. Dettmer, you indicated that you have some
25 third alternative that you think ought to be put on the table
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 60
12
1 for discussion?
2 MR. DETTMER: Yes, your Honor. Thank you.
3 Ethan Dettmer.
4 And the proposal, I think --
5 If I may just step back a moment and look at the
6 nature of, I think, the problem that is presented to us all
7 jointly in trying to get to a trial date as it's set, and at
8 the same time address the concerns that Mr. Cooper and his
9 colleagues have raised on behalf of their clients -- the
10 concerns as I've read them in the papers and heard them in the
11 arguments are twofold.
12 One is that production of these documents would lead
13 to a chilling of their political speech, and a potential harm
14 of, I guess -- related harm of harassment and intimidation of
15 Proposition 8 supporters.
16 And I could sort of answer that several ways. One is
17 that the Court has already held that they have not made a
18 sufficient showing regarding that chilling and those harms.
19 And, I guess, as I had mentioned in my letter, the
20 additional answer to that is that these are the Official
21 Proponents of Proposition 8 whose documents we are most
22 interested in. And they are obviously central to this campaign
23 and, in fact, the architects of the campaign. And it seems to
24 me that chilling of their speech seems unlikely, given their
25 centrality to the case.
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 61
13
1 And certainly, the NAACP case and other cases have
2 not protected that: the identities or the speech of those
3 central players in campaigns.
4 THE COURT: Well, let me get you back on track here.
5 MR. DETTMER: Oh, of course, your Honor.
6 THE COURT: What are the approaches that I ought to
7 be considering?
8 MR. DETTMER: And -- I'm sorry.
9 THE COURT: Other than a privileged log or in camera
10 review or a combination of the two, is there --
11 MR. DETTMER: The --
12 THE COURT: -- is there some other approach that
13 ought to be put on the table for consideration?
14 MR. DETTMER: Yes, your Honor.
15 The approach that we proposed to the proponents, I
16 believe, on October 14th, but they have thus far not agreed to,
17 is that they produce these disputed documents under a
18 provisional attorneys'-eyes-only protective order until the
19 question of a stay of discovery is finally resolved at whatever
20 level they decide to stop seeking the stay of this discovery,
21 and that at that point, they may then go back and designate the
22 documents as appropriate under the Court's protective order
23 that we have proposed to be entered.
24 And that solution would allow both for their concerns
25 over these documents to be addressed by the protective order,
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 62
14
1 and the agreement to have this as an attorneys'-eyes-only
2 protective order, and at the same time, our concerns about
3 moving this case forward promptly and being able to take
4 meaningful depositions. We'll also be able to go forward and
5 move toward a January trial date in an effective way.
6 THE COURT: All right. Well, that is a third
7 alternative that we can consider: Production under an
8 attorneys'-eyes-only protective order. Fair enough.
9 Now, does anybody else have any fourth approach that
10 the Court ought to put on the table for consideration?
11 Hearing none, it looks to me like we've got the
12 alternatives before us.
13 Now, let's talk about each of these. And let me
14 direct my initial comments to Mr. Cooper.
15 I've had a lot of experience recently with production
16 of in camera material. That experience has largely been in
17 cases involving the assertion of the state-secrets privilege by
18 the government in various cases.
19 I can tell you, Mr. Cooper, as a Judge who's called
20 upon to try to be impartial and fair to both sides to conduct
21 an evenhanded proceeding, there have been very few things in my
22 judicial experience which have left me with as unsatisfactory a
23 feeling as in camera review of materials; that is, review of
24 materials submitted by one side, but as to which access has
25 been denied to the other side.
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 63
15
1 And, able and experienced as you are, I'm sure you
2 can empathize with that comment.
3 It's just antithetical to our system of justice for
4 one side to furnish information to the Judge without the other
5 side having access to that material. And so, as between the
6 two -- well, as between the three alternatives that we are
7 discussing this afternoon, an in camera review isn't very
8 appealing to me.
9 Now, it may be the only practical alternative, but I
10 want to hear from you why we shouldn't consider one or the
11 other of the alternatives.
12 MR. COOPER: Certainly, your Honor. Your Honor, I am
13 certainly sympathetic to the concern that you've voiced about
14 the nature of in camera review.
15 We view it as, frankly, the next and perhaps only
16 step available to us to have a judicial determination of -- as
17 the Court suggested in the October 23rd order, of the First
18 Amendment -- of the validity of our First Amendment privilege
19 with respect to, now, specific documents.
20 And the case that the Court cited is the Kerr case,
21 obviously. And, you know, notwithstanding the limitations on
22 in camera review, it suggests that -- as the Court's
23 October 23rd order did, it suggests that process as, I guess,
24 essentially the only one available to now have the privilege
25 claim assessed in light of the Court's order rejecting our
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 64
16
1 claim of a categorical privilege; a "blanket privilege," as you
2 put it.
3 So long as there is a possibility that a
4 document-by-document review by the Court of the -- of the types
5 of documents over which we are making this claim is available,
6 it's -- it just seems to me, anyway, that -- and to us that
7 it's the only course really that now is left available for
8 ultimately deciding the First Amendment question.
9 THE COURT: Well, let's talk about the alternatives.
10 We have three on the table.
11 Let's talk about the one that Mr. Dettmer has
12 suggested here this afternoon; and that is production under an
13 attorneys'-eyes-only protective order; perhaps a fairly
14 restrictive attorneys'-eyes-only protective order; one in which
15 the attorneys are specifically identified by name, so that the
16 production doesn't become widespread, and we could track back
17 to an individual attorney a disclosure of any of the material
18 that is disclosed. What's wrong with that approach?
19 MR. COOPER: Your Honor, we don't think, frankly,
20 that that approach is a viable alternative to our claim of
21 privilege.
22 First, it would -- it would contemplate this limited
23 disclosure only until such time as the -- as the plaintiffs
24 made use of the information that was disclosed to them in the
25 context of the trial itself.
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 65
17
1 I mean, the only purpose for the plaintiffs to desire
2 disclosure of this information is on the theory that it is
3 relevant to issues they intend to prove up.
4 And so ultimately, the disclosure -- even if one
5 assumes that it can remain attorneys' eyes only during the
6 discovery process, its ultimate purpose would be to call upon
7 and to use and introduce at trial; but beyond that, your Honor,
8 it -- the disclosure, even at the level of
9 attorneys'-eyes-only, we believe, would -- notwithstanding
10 Mr. Dettmer's very able argument, it would -- it would -- it
11 would constitute an invasion of the First Amendment freedoms of
12 my clients and -- and the individuals who were the volunteers;
13 ordinary citizens who volunteered to -- to undertake this
14 initiative campaign, and to commit their time and their efforts
15 and their resources and engage as professional -- professional
16 political consultants and campaign experts, but -- but again,
17 ordinary citizens who came forward and who -- who engaged in
18 the political process, formed associational funds with -- with
19 their colleagues who had volunteered to join them, and -- and
20 who engaged in the freest kinds of exchange of ideas and
21 political expression.
22 If you were to tell those people that -- if you
23 hadn't told those people, I would submit to the Court, before
24 this campaign got under way that everything that they said in
25 their e-mails and in their -- and in their conversations and --
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 66
18
1 and in their counseling with their volunteer colleagues in this
2 campaign -- that all of that information would, after the
3 election, in litigation, be open to and available to their
4 political opponents or even just the lawyers of their political
5 opponents in postelection litigation over the referendum, it is
6 our submission that many of those volunteers either would not
7 have engaged in the process at all or they would certainly have
8 censored their communications and their expression of their
9 political speech.
10 And I believe that to be true not just of the
11 ordinary citizen volunteers. I believe it surely also to be
12 true of the professional political, you know, campaign people
13 who these -- who the proponents and the members of the ad hoc
14 executive committee and others hired to assist them in their
15 effort to wage this political campaign.
16 THE COURT: Well, let me respond to that.
17 And you've certainly made a good points, but let me
18 modify the alternative that Mr. Dettmer has advanced. And that
19 is that the disclosure of these materials subject to an
20 attorneys'-eyes-only privilege order [sic] -- protective
21 order -- excuse me -- the production of this material subject
22 to an attorneys'-eyes-only protective order would not be
23 production for all purposes in the litigation, but only for
24 purposes of testing the privilege assertion.
25 And if the privilege assertion is sustained with
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 67
19
1 respect to those documents, then the documents could not be
2 used for any purpose in the litigation; but the idea which I am
3 now advancing is a production of these documents on an
4 attorneys'-eyes-only basis, simply so we can get both sides in
5 the litigation sufficiently well informed about the materials
6 so that we can -- well, so that the Court can have two sides of
7 the issue, whether or not the privilege actually should apply
8 to these materials.
9 What's your reaction to the idea of, thus, an
10 attorneys'-eyes-only protective order, and a limitation that
11 the production would be simply for purposes of testing the
12 privilege assertion?
13 MR. COOPER: Your Honor, my -- my admittedly
14 off-the-top-of-my-head reaction is, frankly, a negative one.
15 I remain concerned about the -- about -- I remain
16 concerned that that even limited type of production would be an
17 invasion of my clients' First Amendment freedoms.
18 And I -- and I'm also not clear if -- if the Court is
19 suggesting that all of our -- of the documents over which we
20 would claim privilege -- the responsive documents over which we
21 would claim privilege, which, you know, will be thousands and
22 thousands of them -- would be produced for this -- for this
23 purpose, or whether the Court is suggesting that the more
24 manageable -- at least, what we have suggested as being more
25 manageable sampling of documents that our proposal contemplates
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 68
20
1 in for in camera review would be shared for this -- for
2 purposes of -- of testing this issue on this -- on a limited
3 basis, such as we have proposed.
4 THE COURT: Well, it's true my suggestion didn't
5 distinguish between those alternatives, but let's consider,
6 just for the sake of our discussion, the limited sampling that
7 you've referred to; say, the 25 or so -- whatever the
8 appropriate number is -- of documents necessary for a true test
9 of the adequacy of the privilege assertion. Say we limited the
10 production of documents pursuant to an attorneys'-eyes-only
11 protective order to that number; and with the further
12 restriction that the purpose for which the production is made
13 is simply to test the adequacy of the privilege assertion.
14 In other words, putting to one side the issue of
15 burden, which does seem to me to be categorically a different
16 kind of objection --
17 MR. COOPER: Your Honor, I would ask the Court to
18 permit me to consider that. It is -- and it's with
19 appreciation for the Court's effort here with -- with the
20 parties before it to grope for a reasonable and measured
21 solution that I would ask the Court to permit me to consider
22 that; and in particular, to consider it with my client -- my
23 clients; but I -- but I'm obliged to say that I am concerned
24 that even that limited approach to disclosing these materials
25 would be -- would threaten to -- an unacceptable infringement
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 69
21
1 upon the confidential documents at issue here; but with that,
2 would the Court be -- would the Court be amenable to permitting
3 me to counsel with my clients on that?
4 THE COURT: Well, offhand, I'm hard pressed to deny a
5 lawyer the chance to communicate with his client. And I think
6 that's fair -- a fair request of you to make; but let's follow
7 our discussion on, and see if there might not be some other
8 alternative that we can explore. And possibly as we explore
9 other alternatives, you'll want to place before your client
10 more than one option.
11 So, without saying, "No, you can't," or, "Yes, you
12 can consult with your client about this" -- and I must say my
13 strong inclination will be to allow you to consult with your
14 client, of course -- but let's continue our discussion to see
15 where we go next. And that is to shift to the other
16 alternative. And that's the alternative that I opened with in
17 our discussion this afternoon. And that is the production of a
18 privilege log.
19 And, again, putting to one side whether we're talking
20 about a privilege log covering all of the thousands of
21 documents that you've mentioned -- putting that aside, and
22 focusing only on the 25 or so, the limited number of documents
23 that you think are a fair sample, what's wrong with the
24 production of a privilege log?
25 After all, a privilege log is generally required,
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 70
22
1 even for the assertion of the attorney-client privilege, which
2 is an absolute privilege; whereas here, we're dealing with a
3 qualified privilege. What's wrong with a privilege log?
4 MR. COOPER: Well, your Honor, there's nothing in --
5 in principle, wrong with a privilege log.
6 And, in fact, our proposal to the Court for this --
7 this 25-document selection for in camera review contemplates
8 that it would be accompanied with a privilege log, and that our
9 friends representing the plaintiffs and the
10 Plaintiff-Intervenors would have access to that -- to the
11 privilege log; but you know, a privilege log is -- is -- is
12 always nothing more than a tool and a prelude, a predicate to
13 ultimate determination of the privileged nature of the document
14 that it logs.
15 And there will certainly -- there -- you know, we
16 can't conceive of -- and our efforts to begin the process of
17 logging documents doesn't reveal to us any method by which
18 the -- by which logging the documents that are responsive and
19 privileged would -- would reveal information just on the face
20 of a log that could -- would allow the Court or even our -- our
21 friend for the plaintiffs to make any kind of determination
22 that a document either is or is not privileged.
23 In fact, to us, it simply confirms that each one of
24 the documents is within the description of the documents that
25 we believe are privileged; that is, they deal with -- as the
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 71
23
1 Court's October 1st opinion outlined, they deal with issues of
2 campaign strategy. They are documents exchanged between the --
3 I guess Mr. Dettmer used the term "architects"; that is, the
4 individuals in responsible, lead roles within the campaign
5 itself. And they are -- you know. And they are those types of
6 communications, mainly. I mean, the vast bulk of these
7 thousands and thousands, as I'm sure the Court suspected, are
8 e-mail messages with this kind of, you know, private
9 communication going back and forth among them.
10 So we don't oppose privilege logs on principle, but
11 it would not, it seems to us, in any way relieve the Court's --
12 you know, any burden on the Court or the parties to -- to
13 review actual documents to assess their privileged nature.
14 I guess the final point I want to make, your Honor,
15 if I may, is this. If -- preparing a privilege log that
16 covered all of these documents wouldn't be in anyone's
17 interest. It wouldn't be -- I mean, it would be a hugely
18 resource-intensive and costly enterprise for a party to this
19 case that is an intervenor party that is already -- believe me,
20 your Honor -- strained in terms of its resources and its
21 ability to, you know, deal with the pace and the demands of the
22 litigation, even apart from it. And to commit the resources
23 necessary to prepare that log would -- would just be -- it
24 would -- it would take a long time, and consume enormous
25 talents and resources.
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 72
24
1 And -- and it would just put off what -- what seems
2 to us to be inevitable anyway; and that is, in light of the
3 Court's determination in the October 23rd order, just put off
4 the inevitability of an in camera review and an ultimate
5 decision -- judicial decision whether, you know, a document or
6 these documents or perhaps, you know, this category of
7 documents is or is not protected by the qualified First
8 Amendment privilege in the context of the case.
9 THE COURT: Well, we are making some progress, it
10 seems to me.
11 You've indicated that there's nothing wrong with a
12 privilege log per se. And, indeed, you point out that that is
13 an alternative that you've suggested, along with in camera
14 review. And that seems fair enough.
15 And, indeed, I find that suggestion to be appealing,
16 because -- appealing in this sense, Mr. Cooper: it allays, at
17 least to some degree, the uneasiness that I have about
18 conducting an in camera review of materials produced by one
19 side in litigation, without access to that information by the
20 other.
21 It's true that the plaintiffs would not have access
22 to the documents that were subject to in camera review, but
23 they would have the information produced by a privilege log,
24 and enable them to attempt to make a case that the assertion of
25 privilege should not extend to the documents at issue.
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 73
25
1 So that does seem to me to be a reasonably practical
2 step in the direction of resolving this. And I gather that
3 that is something that your side is prepared to do promptly.
4 MR. COOPER: Yes, your Honor, we -- we would. You
5 know, we would be prepared to do that whenever the Court gave
6 us permission to do so.
7 THE COURT: Now, I did take a look at, at least, a
8 couple of cases with respect to the content of a privilege log.
9 And, of course, the federal rules describe that when
10 a party withholds information otherwise discoverable by
11 claiming that the information is privileged or subject to
12 protection as trial preparation material, the party must
13 expressly make the claim, and then describe the nature of the
14 documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or
15 disclosed, and do so in the manner, without revealing the
16 information itself privileged or protected, that will enable
17 other parties to assess the claim.
18 In reviewing a fairly old Ninth Circuit case -- 1992.
19 That doesn't seem old to me, but I'm sure to some of the
20 younger lawyers who may be listening in, it seems old.
21 MR. COOPER: Nor to me, your Honor.
22 THE COURT: All right. We're on the same wavelength,
23 then.
24 This is In re: Grand Jury Investigation, at
25 974 F. 3d. 1046.
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 74
26
1 And the content of the privilege log that is
2 described by the Ninth Circuit in that case identifies, one --
3 And parenthetically, of course, they're talking here
4 about an attorney-client privilege, but we can extend that to
5 our context.
6 One, the attorney and client involved;
7 two, the nature of the document; three, all
8 persons or entities shown on the document
9 to have received or sent the document;
10 four, all persons or entities to have been
11 furnished the document or informed of its
12 substance; and, five, the date of the
13 document -- the date the document was
14 generated, prepared, or dated.
15 Now, the privilege log that you contemplate, I
16 assume, Mr. Cooper, would follow that general pattern, adapted,
17 of course, to the specifics of this privilege. Is that a fair
18 assumption?
19 MR. COOPER: Your Honor, it is a fair assumption.
20 I want to quickly add that, however, the privilege
21 log we would contemplate would not be able to identify all of
22 the addressees, as it is our, you know, view, as the Court
23 knows, that there are volunteers who were involved in this
24 whose -- whose anonymity has -- has never been -- has never
25 been compromised, and whose -- and for whom anonymity was
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 75
27
1 important from the beginning.
2 And so, apart from -- apart from that caveat, we
3 would contemplate that the privilege log would -- would contain
4 the information that you have referenced, but it would -- what
5 we had contemplated was that it would list as Does, which is
6 what we've done in our previous -- our previous dealings with
7 the counsel for the plaintiffs -- list as Does individuals who
8 may have been addressees on a particular document whose --
9 whose identities have not -- have never come forward.
10 THE COURT: Well -- hold on. Hold on.
11 MR. DETTMER: Certainly.
12 THE COURT: You say "volunteers." Can you tell me
13 who you mean by "volunteers"?
14 I assume that a lot of people who were involved in
15 the campaign were not compensated, and therefore, might fall
16 under the rubric of a volunteer; but they might, nonetheless,
17 have had a significant role in the management and direction of
18 the campaign.
19 MR. COOPER: That's certainly true, your Honor.
20 There were -- but the campaign was -- was really, apart from
21 the compensated political consultants and other -- and other
22 political professionals who were engaged by the -- by the
23 campaign, the Proposition 8 campaign was, in fact, managed,
24 and -- and staffed by volunteers. No one was -- no one was
25 compensated.
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 76
28
1 And, yes, the volunteers had roles that ranged from
2 being members of the ad hoc executive committee, to licking
3 stamps.
4 And -- and the -- however, the documents that we're
5 talking about here, as Mr. Dettmer has made clear previously,
6 are -- are documents that -- that, by and large, had
7 individuals who had, you know, responsible volunteer positions
8 in the campaign.
9 I would -- I would also like to note that in the
10 context of an attorney-client privilege, the identity of
11 addressees is a crucial feature of the -- of whether the
12 privilege itself applies or not; perhaps even the most crucial;
13 but that is not the case, we would submit, with respect to the
14 privilege we're talking about.
15 The identity of individuals who -- whose anonymity
16 has never been compromised is -- is not really a necessary
17 piece of information to determine whether or not the
18 communication itself is within the privilege, at least, that we
19 are advocating for.
20 THE COURT: Well, let's talk about that for a minute.
21 I wonder if there isn't an analogy here. Looking at
22 the cases which have crafted this First Amendment qualified
23 privilege, it appears that the cases have drawn a distinction
24 between individuals who were rank-and-file members of the
25 various organizations -- principally, the NAACP, which is the
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 77
29
1 organization that was involved in most of the cases from which
2 this doctrine has arisen -- and those who were officers or
3 directors or managers of the NAACP, who may very well have
4 included people who were, in your phrase, "volunteers," or who
5 may not have been compensated monetarily for their efforts.
6 So there is a distinction -- isn't there? -- between
7 managers, directors, individuals who have had responsibility
8 for directing the organization, and those who were
9 rank-and-file members, such as those, as you put it, who lick
10 stamps or distribute fliers or do activities of that kind.
11 So isn't there an analogy with the attorney-client
12 privilege, at least, in this, at least, as far as this context
13 is concerned?
14 MR. COOPER: Your Honor, I agree with you that in the
15 NAACP case, the issue of the directors and officers of that
16 branch of the NAACP was not an issue, but I would submit that
17 it wasn't an issue because there was never a claim in that case
18 over the -- over the identities of those individuals. Either
19 they had been made public, as a number of individuals in the
20 Proposition 8 campaign have been, and whose identities we are
21 not in any way seeking to protect, or, for whatever reason, the
22 NAACP did not assert any kind of privilege over them.
23 THE COURT: Well, are there individuals who were
24 involved in the management of the campaign, whether compensated
25 or not, who were equivalent to officers, directors, managing
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 78
30
1 agents; individuals who sat on the executive committee, and who
2 otherwise were charged with directing the campaign? Are there
3 individuals in that role whose identity you are seeking not to
4 disclose?
5 MR. COOPER: Yes, your Honor. There are a couple of
6 members of the executive committee -- the ad hoc executive
7 committee -- whose -- whose identities have never been
8 disclosed, and who we have not disclosed before, and over whom
9 we have -- we have asserted a First Amendment privilege, yes.
10 THE COURT: Well, how does the First Amendment
11 privilege extend to those individuals, as distinguished from
12 people in the position of, say, a Mrs. MacIntyre, who I'm sure
13 you remember from that case that reached the Supreme Court;
14 that is, someone who licked envelopes or who passed out
15 leaflets? How does this First Amendment qualified privilege
16 extend to people who had a role in managing and directing the
17 Proposition 8 campaign?
18 MR. COOPER: Well, your Honor, I think that our view,
19 your Honor, is that it extends to those individuals to ensure
20 that they are willing to engage in the First Amendment
21 political expression and associational activity of a campaign
22 of this kind.
23 I mean, they are -- we, frankly, don't see why or how
24 the purposes of the First Amendment privilege would not apply
25 equally to those who step forward to take and volunteer for a
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 79
31
1 substantial role, even a leadership role or some type of
2 volunteer managerial role, than those who -- who volunteer to
3 associate themselves with this campaign or with any type of
4 referendum campaign on some lesser basis.
5 I think the concern of the First Amendment is that
6 the type of consequences that flowed, for example, as a result
7 of the disclosure of donors who -- who donated more than a
8 hundred dollars to the campaign -- the kind of unfortunate
9 harassment and other kinds of consequences that flowed to them
10 are -- are the very kinds of things that -- that make,
11 oftentimes, individuals desire to -- desire to involve
12 themselves and associate with political efforts of -- of this
13 controversial kind only on an anonymous basis. And it's our
14 submission that the First Amendment entitles them to do that,
15 and that if it didn't, the prospect that they would step
16 forward to take a leadership role, as opposed to some, you
17 know, lesser type of role, would, we think, be dramatically
18 reduced and chilled.
19 THE COURT: Now, the campaign for Proposition 8
20 raised a substantial amount of money. And, of course, there
21 was a substantial amount of money raised in opposition. Did
22 this ad hoc committee that you've mentioned, Mr. Cooper, have
23 the responsibility of managing those funds?
24 MR. COOPER: To be quite honest with you, your Honor,
25 I am not sure what level of -- what level of responsibility the
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 80
32
1 ad hoc executive committee had to that. I feel confident in
2 telling you that it had ultimate responsibility, but I do
3 believe that there was a different group with -- with, perhaps,
4 you know, a cross membership, but a different group of -- and a
5 different committee that had particular responsibility for
6 handling of the financial issues.
7 And, of course, as the Court knows from previous
8 hearings, the Protect Marriage organization itself had a
9 treasurer who was responsible for financial -- had financial
10 responsibilities as well.
11 THE COURT: Did the treasurer report to and answer to
12 the ad hoc executive committee?
13 MR. COOPER: My recollection is that that is so, yes,
14 your Honor.
15 THE COURT: Okay. All right. Well, we've covered a
16 lot of ground. And I've held you off, Mr. Dettmer. And I'm
17 sure you would like to join in this discussion, so let me give
18 you the floor.
19 MR. DETTMER: Thank you very much, your Honor. I
20 appreciate it.
21 And I do have a number of comments, but I'd like to
22 keep them as brief as possible; but the ultimate problem that I
23 see that we all collectively face right now is trying to meet
24 the deadlines that exist in this case, while still getting
25 these documents in this litigation that your Honor has found
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 81
33
1 are at least potentially relevant to the litigation.
2 And I'm concerned that a privilege log or an in
3 camera review of all of these documents would use up all of the
4 time that we have left before trial and, thus, these documents
5 would not be used in the trial or certainly in the discovery
6 process.
7 THE COURT: Well, let's put that issue to one side
8 for a moment. We can deal with that. I understand your
9 concern and, indeed, I share your concern; but put that to one
10 side, and address these other topics that I've discussed and
11 had a nice discussion with Mr. Cooper about.
12 MR. DETTMER: Certainly, your Honor.
13 Well, maybe I can address the privilege-log issue
14 first.
15 I think that, first of all, it was a little unclear
16 from the discussion about whether we were talking about a
17 privilege log that encompassed all or a substantial portion of
18 these documents, or just 25 documents. Obviously, we would
19 have a serious concern about any in camera review or privilege
20 log that had such a small subset of documents that were
21 hand-selected by counsel for the proponents.
22 I think that that procedure takes the problems of an
23 in camera review that your Honor had mentioned, and amplifies
24 them dramatically, given that the Court is only seeing the
25 documents that the proponents' counsel have picked for that
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 82
34
1 purpose. And obviously, if we're seeing a privileged log for
2 only 25 documents, that even further amplifies that concern.
3 So I -- I think that the privilege-log issue becomes
4 very difficult for that reason. And it would be very difficult
5 for us to, based on the information that Mr. Cooper had
6 identified as being something that he'd be willing to put on a
7 privilege log, and other items, such as names, that he would
8 not -- it would be of, I think, limited value for us in
9 determining how to argue with Mr. Cooper to your Honor about
10 that privilege, and whether it is, indeed, valid.
11 With respect to the in camera review, your Honor has
12 mentioned that -- the concerns that we would have about that,
13 and that I think any litigant would have in having items
14 presented to the Court without them having an opportunity to
15 comment on them.
16 And I think what all of this pulls me back to is --
17 is the fundamental issue here which both you and Mr. Cooper
18 spoke about, your Honor, which is the point that this is not
19 the attorney-client privilege; this is a qualified privilege
20 that is based on very specified concerns that have been laid
21 out in a number of cases.
22 And those concerns are, as Mr. Cooper mentioned,
23 intimidation and harassment of participants in the political
24 process, and the concern that there will be a chilling of their
25 speech based on that.
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 83
35
1 And Mr. Cooper has also raised the issue of sharing
2 campaign strategy with the campaign's opponents.
3 And I would put a footnote there, and say: my
4 clients are not the campaign's opponents; they're individual
5 people. And we're not part of the campaign against
6 Proposition 8, except in, you know, the most -- the most
7 attenuated way.
8 So I guess the point of this is that those concerns
9 that are the basis for all of this case law that protects these
10 types of things from disclosure, I think, are very amply
11 protected by a good protective order.
12 And the notion that Mr. Cooper's clients are going to
13 be harmed or their speech is going to be chilled by some
14 handful of lawyers looking at these documents seems to me
15 far-fetched.
16 And, as your Honor has pointed out, there's already
17 been substantial exposure by Mr. Schubert and Mr. Flint, the
18 campaign -- the Yes on 8 campaign's political strategists, of
19 their strategy. And they've talked about it and -- and
20 broadcast it in several different venues. Your Honor has seen
21 one of them, and commented on it in the October 1st order.
22 In light of all of that, it seems to me that there is
23 a good way to cut this knot, which is to produce these
24 documents right away to a limited group of lawyers who can look
25 at them and analyze them and move forward. And, at the same
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 84
36
1 time, Mr. Cooper's clients will be protected from the harms
2 that they've articulated until such time as there's no longer a
3 stay of discovery that can be gotten.
4 And I think the final point -- and then I'll stop,
5 your Honor -- is the notion that at some point -- and these are
6 going to be introduced in the record -- is something that -- as
7 your Honor knows, there's a whole series of rules in the
8 Court's local rules about how that happens once we get to the
9 point after we've reviewed these documents and looked at them
10 and seen which ones we may want to use at trial or to submit to
11 your Honor.
12 Then the question of whether they will be in the
13 public record or not is something that I think we could then
14 have a manageable discussion about between Mr. Cooper's team
15 and our team. And then, if we have disagreements at that
16 point, we can bring them to your Honor and get them resolved in
17 advance of anything being submitted in the public record.
18 THE COURT: Anybody else want to speak up before I go
19 back to Mr. Cooper with a little further discussion on another
20 aspect of this?
21 Ms. Lee? Mr. Stroud? Ms. Pachter? Martinez?
22 Whitehurst? Who else wants to speak? Anybody?
23 MS. LEE: This is Mollie Lee, from San Francisco. I
24 have just one quick additional comment.
25 San Francisco agrees with Plaintiff that a protective
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 85
37
1 order would adequately -- is the right solution to this
2 problem, and that an attorneys'-eyes-only protective order is
3 more than sufficient to address any concerns that proponents
4 might have about possible harm or chill resulting from
5 disclosure.
6 And on that line, I wanted to note that in another
7 case, Protect Marriage v. Mullen, which is pending in the
8 Eastern District of California, proponents raised similar
9 concerns about disclosure of information that they believed was
10 highly sensitive. And in that case, they did stipulate to a
11 protective order that provided access to sensitive information.
12 And it provided it, I think, particularly as relevant to some
13 of the timing issues in this case -- the protective order was
14 entered, and governed the production and disclosure of
15 confidential information through discovery in all pretrial
16 processes.
17 So I guess to me, that suggests that that's a very
18 workable solution with respect to these particular parties and
19 the particular concerns that opponents have raised here.
20 THE COURT: All right. Anyone else?
21 All right. Let me come back to you, Mr. Cooper. One
22 subject we didn't cover in our discussion, which I thought was
23 very helpful, is the category of the various documents or
24 information that we're talking about.
25 You mentioned e-mails.
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 86
38
1 In thinking about the qualified privilege as it has
2 been developed in the case law, various kinds of documents or
3 materials have been discussed: member lists, financial
4 records.
5 What are we talking about here? Are we talking about
6 membership lists? Members of the campaign? Volunteers who
7 have agreed to walk precincts? Are we talking about financial
8 records? Are we talking about letters from persons in a
9 management position?
10 And by "letters," I mean not just letters, but also
11 e-mails, telephone calls, documents, as defined in the Federal
12 Rules of Evidence.
13 Are we talking about communications between those in
14 a management position in the campaign, and the paid political
15 consultants? Just exactly what are we talking about here?
16 MR. COOPER: Your Honor, we're talking about most of
17 the things that you've identified.
18 We're talking about, for example, e-mails that --
19 that discuss campaign finance strategy and fund-raising
20 strategy.
21 We're talking about -- we're talking about
22 communications back and forth with respect to advertising
23 strategy, and the actual content of ads, and how those ads
24 should be -- or whether they should be revised in some fashion.
25 We're talking about communications dealing with the
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 87
39
1 results of focus groups, and the kind of things that -- you
2 know, just the kinds of things you would expect, I think, in
3 any kind of political effort of this kind.
4 We're talking about drafts of -- of everything from,
5 you know, advertisements to -- to letters.
6 THE COURT: Hello?
7 MR. COOPER: Yes.
8 And I'm just -- there are probably other -- others on
9 my team who are better -- even better acquainted to a level
10 with the kinds of -- with the kinds of internal confidential
11 communications and documents that -- that we're talking about
12 here.
13 I -- we're not -- we -- we do not have any longer --
14 as a result of the Court's October 1 ruling, we're not talking
15 about membership lists of, you know, rank and file volunteers
16 or, you know, members of ProtectMarriage.com, or donors that --
17 whose names haven't been already disclosed, because, you know,
18 we no longer understand that to be even responsive.
19 So that's not among the information that we have now.
20 You know, we're deep into the culling process, but the kinds of
21 things are along the lines of what I've just -- what I've just
22 described.
23 And I could perhaps describe a few more kinds of
24 things, if the Court would permit me to confer with my
25 colleagues -- my colleagues here.
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 88
40
1 THE COURT: Sure, sure. You have some colleagues on
2 the line. Maybe -- maybe they've gotten down to a somewhat
3 more granular level in the pretrial discovery, and they might
4 be able to be helpful. Any of those individuals? Let's see.
5 That's Nielson, Moss. I think there was one other name that I
6 missed: Mr. Panuccio.
7 MR. COOPER: Mr. Panuccio; but actually, I would ask
8 my colleague, Nicole Moss, who has a much more granular-level
9 understanding of the kinds of documents we're talking about.
10 Nikki, would you like to add to what I've -- what I've
11 described?
12 MS. MOSS: Certainly. This is Nicole Moss.
13 I think Chuck has very well stated the sorts of
14 documents that are at issue.
15 I would note that, while membership lists are not
16 encompassed in light of the October 1 ruling, that is not to
17 say that there are not volunteers' and members' names revealed
18 in these documents. There -- there certainly are references to
19 individuals. And their names are in these documents; but
20 primarily what we're dealing with, as Mr. Cooper noted, is
21 e-mail communications which go to the heart of strategy;
22 discussing specific messaging; what language to use; how to
23 craft a message; the timing of messaging; both language to use,
24 and suggesting things not to be said. That goes to sort of the
25 heart of the strategy.
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 89
41
1 In addition, there is a great deal of information
2 about fund-raising. And where strategic -- you know, strategic
3 plans for the entire fund-raising plan for the campaign is
4 reflected in some of these documents. The communications plan
5 for the campaign is reflected in these documents.
6 I mean, on a general basis, that is what we're
7 dealing with primarily here.
8 THE COURT: All right that's very helpful. Very
9 helpful indeed.
10 Let me, before drawing this to a close, ask: does
11 anyone have anything that he or she would like to add before I
12 make a suggestion, and see how we proceed from this point?
13 Anybody have anything that he or she thinks ought to be
14 expressed before I try to draw this matter to a close?
15 Hearing nothing --
16 MR. COOPER: Nothing more from the proponents,
17 your Honor.
18 MR. DETTMER: No, your Honor. Thank you.
19 THE COURT: Well, I think this has been a very
20 helpful discussion. And I certainly share Mr. Dettmer's
21 concern about getting discovery wrapped up in time to meet the
22 scheduled trial date.
23 And I have some empathy for you all on the other end
24 of this telephone conversation. Although I have been on this
25 side of the bench for almost 20 years, I haven't completely
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 90
42
1 forgotten what it's like to be on the other side, and know what
2 it's like to be dealing with discovery deadlines.
3 And I will say that, having not forgotten what it's
4 like, I'm going to try to work with you, because of the
5 schedule that we've set, which I think is a practical schedule,
6 and one that the nature of the case warrants; but I'm going to
7 try to work with you so that we can get the discovery completed
8 in an orderly fashion in time to beat the case schedule, as
9 well as to allow a full and fair opportunity to conduct the
10 discovery that's necessary, so that the case can be adequately
11 presented.
12 It seems to me that Mr. Cooper's suggestion of
13 combining a privilege log with the in camera disclosure of
14 documents is worth a try, to see if that is not sufficient to
15 begin sorting out this issue.
16 I'm reasonably sure that it's not going to deal with
17 all aspects of the discovery concerns that we have on both
18 sides here, but I think it is a good start.
19 So -- and I understand also Mr. Cooper's concern
20 about requiring a privilege log as to the entire universe of
21 documents that he or his clients feel are covered by the
22 qualified First Amendment privilege that his clients are
23 claiming.
24 So a privilege log and an in camera review of a
25 limited number of those documents, I think, is an appropriate
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 91
43
1 way to proceed.
2 Now, however, in order to make that meaningful and to
3 ensure fairness in the selection of the documents listed on the
4 privilege log and included within the documents offered up for
5 in camera review, I think there are a couple of additional
6 elements that we need to flesh out at this point. And that is
7 a bit more detail about the nature or category of the documents
8 that are involved in the privilege assertion.
9 Certainly, that is consistent with a requirement of a
10 privilege log, which requires that the nature of the document
11 be described; but it seems to me that if there are a limited
12 number of documents -- whether it's 25, 50, or a hundred -- it
13 may not cover all categories of the kinds of documents that the
14 proponents are asserting the privilege over. And so I think a
15 fuller description of those categories than we've had the
16 opportunity to include today would be very, very helpful.
17 Mr. Cooper has mentioned e-mails and other
18 communications involving finance of a campaign, campaign
19 strategy, advertising strategy, focus-group results, drafts of
20 advertisements, advertisements or appeals that the campaign
21 decided not to make, and internal communications. That's, I
22 think, a helpful first start of categorizing these kinds of
23 documents, but I think in addition to a privilege log, a fuller
24 description of those kinds of materials would be extremely
25 helpful in deciding whether or not we should pursue discovery
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 92
44
1 of those categories of documents.
2 And the other issue that I find still to be troubling
3 is this issue of the identity of the individuals who were in
4 management responsibility for the campaign.
5 And perhaps a way to deal with that, Mr. Cooper,
6 would be for -- and I'll throw this out for your reaction --
7 would be for you to disclose the identity of all of those who
8 were in a position of management responsibility as part of the
9 in camera disclosure, so that I could make some kind of a
10 determination whether it seems reasonable that the identity of
11 such individuals would have the kind of chilling effect that
12 you contend applies to this situation.
13 It does seem to me that, in reading the cases -- four
14 to five in this view -- there is a pretty clear distinction
15 that is drawn between those who are running the campaign, and
16 those who were simply supporting or opposing a campaign. And I
17 am -- I am troubled that individuals who have management
18 responsibility for a political campaign should be shielded from
19 disclosure, given all of the case law and all of the other law
20 that applies to running initiative and referendum campaigns.
21 I'm not by any means saying that I reject the
22 argument that the identity of these individuals may not
23 implicate First Amendment privileges that are important here;
24 but frankly, I do need to be persuaded of that. And maybe the
25 only way to -- to achieve that would be for an in camera
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 93
45
1 disclosure of those individuals. So that's what I would
2 propose.
3 And I would propose further that, with respect to the
4 preparation of a privilege log, the full list of the categories
5 of documents that you think are covered by the qualified
6 privilege and the identity of those in management positions or
7 with management responsibility for the campaign -- that if at
8 all possible, to meet Mr. Dettmer's concern about the pace of
9 discovery, that we have that production in camera together with
10 the log and the other disclosures that I've mentioned not later
11 than the end of this week.
12 Now, is that possible?
13 MR. COOPER: Your Honor, that is possible.
14 With respect to fleshing out the categories, I hear
15 you. We will do that. We will do our level best to -- to make
16 the descriptions as -- as thorough and as granular as we can.
17 And with respect to the in camera review of all
18 identities, we will -- we will provide that information for the
19 Court's in camera review. And -- and, yes, sir, we will commit
20 ourselves to get that to you by the end of the week.
21 In light of this -- the Court's further guidance on
22 this, it may be well -- and I suspect that it will be well --
23 for us to perhaps enlarge the sampling a bit; but it's been our
24 idea that -- that, you know, we didn't want to overburden the
25 Court; but I think in light of the Court's further guidance
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 94
46
1 here this evening, that we may want to add some number of
2 documents to the sampling that -- just to ensure that we --
3 we -- we have addressed all of the categories that we can
4 identify discretely.
5 THE COURT: Good. Well, I think that probably would
6 be helpful to you, and would certainly be helpful and
7 informative to the Court.
8 Well, counsel, I appreciate your willingness to have
9 this discussion this afternoon or evening. And I will express
10 the hope that this may be the last time that we'll have a
11 discovery discussion, but I will not be surprised if it is not
12 the last time; but I do appreciate the good work on both sides
13 of the case. And I think we've made some fairly significant
14 progress this afternoon.
15 So, if no one has anything further, I'll let you all
16 go.
17 MR. DETTMER: Thank you very much, your Honor.
18 THE COURT: Mr. Dettmer, Ms. Lee, Mr. Stroud, any of
19 the others? Anything further?
20 MS. LEE: Nothing further, your Honor.
21 MR. STROUD: No thank you, your Honor.
22 MR. DETTMER: Nothing further, your Honor. Thank
23 you.
24 (At 3:55 p.m. the proceedings were adjourned.)
25 - - - -
(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 95

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
I, LYDIA ZINN, Official Reporter for the United States
Court, Northern District of California, hereby certify that the
foregoing proceedings in C. 09-2292-VRW, Kristin M. Perry v.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, were reported by me, a certified
shorthand reporter, and were thereafter transcribed under my
direction into typewriting; that the foregoing is a full,
complete and true record of said proceedings as bound by me at
the time of filing.
The validity of the reporter's certification of said
transcript may be void upon disassembly and/or removal
from the court file.
________________________________________
/s/ Lydia Zinn, CSR 9223, RPR
Tuesday, November 3, 2009

(415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587 (415) 531-6587
RR 96
Cooper & Kirk
Lawyers

Charles J. Cooper

105 Kaula Lane
1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Bonita Springs, FL 34134
Washington, D.C. 20036 (239) 948-5947
(202) 220-9660 Fax (239) 948-5946
Fax (202) 220-9601 ccooper@cooperkirk.com
October 28, 2009

Chief Judge of the United States District Court
San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: Perry v. Schwarzenegger, No. C 09-2292 VRW (N.D. Cal.)

Dear Chief Judge Walker:

I write pursuant to paragraph 1.5 of the Courts Standing Orders, and this Courts Order of
October 23, 2009 (Doc # 237), to request that the Court conduct an in camera review of a representative
grouping of 25 documents over which Defendants-Intervenors (Proponents) assert a claim of First
Amendment privilege.

In its October 23 order, the Court declined to stay, pending appeal or petition for mandamus, its
October 1 order (Doc # 214) in which the Court rejected Proponents assertion of a categorical First
Amendment privilege over Proponents nonpublic and/or anonymous communications implicating
campaign strategy, the identity of donors and volunteers, and the content of messages to include or
exclude from Proponents public political speech. The Court based its stay ruling, at least in part, on its
holding that the October 1 order was not a conclusive determination because proponents had not
asserted the First Amendment privilege over any specific document or communication. Proponents
blanket assertion of privilege was unsuccessful, but whether the privilege might apply to any specific
document or information was not finally determined in the October 1 order. Doc # 237 at 4. The Court
further explained that, in view of the balancing test that governs claims of First Amendment privilege,
the applicability of the qualified privilege cannot be determined in a vacuum but only with reference to
a specific document or particular information. Id. at 5. Specifically, the Court stated that it might yet
apply proponents purported privilege in the manner described in Kerr [v. United States District Court,
426 U.S. 394 (1976)]. Doc # 237 at 7.

In Kerr, the Supreme Court held that the petitioners had an available remedy in the district court
that may obviate the need for mandamus: they would be afford[ed] the opportunity to apply for, and
upon proper application, receive in camera review of the documents for which they claimed privilege.
426 U.S. at 406. In accordance with Kerr, and the Courts October 23 order, Proponents seek now to
RR 97

Page 2 of 2
October 28, 2009

identif[y] specific documents that they claim are privileged in order to give[] the court an opportunity
to determine whether any claim of privilege might apply to a specific document. Doc # 237 at 7.

Because Proponents assertion of First Amendment privilege extends to thousands of documents,
we have selected 25 documents that we believe to be representative of the larger mass of documents.
These documents, which we have drawn from categories of documents in which Plaintiffs have
specifically expressed the greatest interest (see Exhibit A attached hereto), should provide the Court
with a concrete context within which to review Proponents privilege claims. Of course, if upon
reviewing these documents, the Court determines that a larger sample must be reviewed, Proponents will
be happy to submit additional documents in camera.

In the October 23 order, the Court also expressed concern about the fact that Proponents have not
yet filed and served a privilege log. See id. at 5. While we do not believe that a log will assist the
litigant seeking discovery and the court to evaluate whether each of the withheld documents is
privileged, Burlington North & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for the District of
Montana, 408 F.3d 1142, 1150 (9th Cir. 2005), we will submit and serve a privilege log covering the
documents we propose to submit for in camera review. We respectfully submit that Proponents should
not be put to the extraordinary burden of preparing a log covering the remaining thousands of privileged
documents at least until judicial review of the representative sample has been completed, for we believe
that the in camera review will convince the Court that a log is not helpful. At this point, we submit,
such an effort would only serve to unnecessarily delay proceedings without significantly assisting the
Court or counsel in their respective assessments of Proponents privilege claims.

If, upon completion of the in camera review, the Court rejects our claim of privilege, we
respectfully request that the Court stay any order compelling production pending appeal and/or
mandamus. If the Court rejects our stay request, we respectfully ask that the Court maintain the
documents in camera to permit the Ninth Circuit to consider a request for a stay pending appeal.
Proponents would file such a request within three business days of this Courts denial of a stay.

Counsel for Proponents have discussed the above-described request for in camera review with
counsel for Plaintiffs. Counsel for Plaintiffs stated that they object to this proposal and will file a letter
of response. We look forward to discussing the matter with the Court in the telephone conference that
the Court directed the parties to schedule. See Doc # 237 at 13.

Sincerely,

/s/ Charles J. Cooper

Charles J. Cooper
Counsel for Defendant-Intervenors

cc: All Counsel (via the Courts ECF System)
RR 98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DECLARATION OF JESSE PANUCCIO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS MOTION FOR A STAY PENDING
APPEAL CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

Charles J. Cooper (DC Bar No. 248070)*
ccooper@cooperkirk.com
David H. Thompson (DC Bar No. 450503)*
dthompson@cooperkirk.com
Howard C. Nielson, Jr. (DC Bar No. 473018)*
hnielson@cooperkirk.com
Nicole J. Moss (DC Bar No. 472424)*
Jesse Panuccio (DC Bar No. 981634)*
jpanuccio@cooperkirk.com
Peter A. Patterson (OH Bar No. 0080840)*
ppatterson@cooperkirk.com
1523 New Hampshire Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 220-9600, Facsimile: (202) 220-9601

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

Brian W. Raum (NY Bar No. 2856102)*
braum@telladf.org
James A. Campbell (OH Bar No. 0081501)*
jcampbell@telladf.org
15100 North 90th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH,
GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM,
MARK A. JANSSON, and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM YES ON 8, A
PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL

* Admitted pro hac vice


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

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official
capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G.
BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Attorney
General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his
official capacity as Director of the California

CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

DECLARATION OF JESSE
PANUCCIO IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS
MOTION FOR A STAY PENDING
APPEAL AND/OR PETITION FOR
WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Date: January 7, 2010
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Judge: Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker
Location: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document220-1 Filed10/08/09 Page1 of 6
RR 99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DECLARATION OF JESSE PANUCCIO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS MOTION FOR A STAY PENDING
APPEAL CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

Department of Public Health and State Registrar of
Vital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her official
capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information
& Strategic Planning for the California Department
of Public Health; PATRICK OCONNELL, in his
official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County
of Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his official
capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for
the County of Los Angeles,

Defendants,

and

PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J.
KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-
SHING WILLIAM TAM, and MARK A.
JANSSON; and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM
YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA
RENEWAL,


Additional Counsel for Defendant-Intervenors

Timothy Chandler (CA Bar No. 234325)
tchandler@telladf.org

Jordan W. Lorence (DC Bar No. 385022)*
jlorence@telladf.org
Austin R. Nimocks (TX Bar No. 24002695)*
animocks@telladf.org
801 G Street NW, Suite 509, Washington, D.C. 20001


RR 100
I, Jesse Panuccio, attorney for Defendant-Intervenors Proposition 8 Proponents Dennis
2 Hollingsworth, Gaill Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Hak-Shing William Tam, Mark A. Jansson, and
3 Proposition 8 Campaign Committee ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, a Project of California
4 Renewal, have personal knowledge of the facts in this declaration, and if called as a witness, I could
5 and would competently testify to these facts under oath:
6 l. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of a letter from Plaintiffs'
7 counsel propounding Plaintiffs' revised Document Request # 8.
8
9 Executed on October 8, 2009 at Washington, D.C
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF JESSE PANUCCIO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR A STAY PENDING
APPEAL - CASE NO. 09-CV -2292 VR W
RR 101

Exhibit A

RR 102
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
LAWYERS
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
Direct Dial
(4 15) 393-8292
Fax No.
(41 5) 374-8444
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, California 94105-2933
(415) 393-8200
www.gibsondunn.com
October 5,2009
Client No.
T 36330-00001
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Nicole Jo Moss, Esq.
Cooper & Kirk, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Ave., N. W.
Re: Perry, et al. v. Schwarzenegger, et al.,
N.D. Cal. No. C-09-2292 VR W
Dear Nicole:
Pursuant to the Court's Order of October 1,2009 (see Dkt. #2 14 at pp. 16- 17), I have set
forth below Plaintiffs' revised request for production number 8. I am generally available this
week to discuss with you any objections and the scope of your production in response to this
revised request. As I mentioned on our phone call last week, I would like to follow up with you
regarding Defendant-Intervenors' supplemental production in light of the Court's October 1
Order. Please let me know at your earliest convenience when you can discuss these matters.
Revised Request No. 8
The following request is limited to those who (1) had any role in managing or directing
ProtectMarriage.com or the Yes on 8 campaign, or (2) provided advice, counseling, information,
or services with respect to efforts to encourage persons to vote for Prop. 8 or otherwise to
educate persons about Prop. 8, including its meaning, intent, effects if enacted, or effects if
rejected; including communications among and between any two or more of the following
persons or entities: Defendant-Intervenors, members of the Ad Hoc Committee described at the
September 25,2009 hearing in this matter, Frank Schubert, Jeff Flint, Sonia Eddings Brown,
Andrew Pugno, Chip White, Ron Prentice, Cheri Spriggs Hernandez, Rick Ahem, Laura
Saucedo Cunningham, Schubert Flint Public Affairs, Lawrence Research, Bader & Associates,
Bieber Communications, Candidates Outdoor Graphic Service Inc., Cardinal Communication
LOS ANGELES NEW YORK WASHINGTON, D. C. SAN FRANCISCO PAL0 ALTO LONDON
PARIS MUNICH BRUSSELS DUBAl SINGAPORE OU N C E COUNTY CENTURY CITY DALLAS DENVER
RR 103
GIBSON, DUNN 6rCRUTCHERLLP
Nicole Jo Moss, Esq.
October 5,2009
Page 2
Strategies, Church Communication Network Inc., The Monaco Group, Connell Donatelli,
Message Impact Consulting, K Street Communications, Marketing Communications Services,
Sterling Corp., and JRM Enterprises.
Please produce all versions of any documents within your possession, custody or control
that constitute analyses of, or communications related to, one or both of the following topics:
(1) campaign strategy in connection with Prop. 8; and (2) messages to be conveyed to voters
regarding Prop. 8, without regard to whether the voters or voter groups were viewed as likely
supporters or opponents or undecided about Prop. 8 and without regard to whether the messages
were actually disseminated or merely contemplated.
I look forward to talking with you soon.
cc: All Counsel
100740108~1.DOC
RR 104
Pages 1 - ?s
Before The Honorable Vaughn R. Walker, Chief Judge
Kristin Perrv, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
VS. ) NO. C 0s-22s2 VRW
)
Arnold Schwarzenegger, et )
al., )
)
Defendants. )
)

San Francisco, California
Fridav, September 2S, 200s

TRANScRIPT oP PRocFFDINGS

APPFARANcFS.

For Plaintiffs.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER
sss South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California s001?
BY. cHRISToPHFR D. DUSSFAULT
ATToRNFY AT LAW

10S0 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 200sc
BY. NATTHFW D. NcGILL
ATToRNFY AT LAW

(APPFARANcFS coNTINUFD oN PoLLoWING PAGF)

REPORTED BY. Kellv L. Brvce, CSR No. 1s4?c
Court Reporter Pro Tem

Computerized Transcription Bv Eclipse

RR 105
2
1 APPFARANcFS. (CONTINUED)
2 For Plaintiffs.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER
s SSS Mission Street - Suite s000
San Francisco, California s410S
4 BY. FNRIQUF A. NoNAGAS
SARAH F. PIFPNFIFR
S ATToRNFYS AT LAW

c BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
1sss Harrison Street - Suite s00
? Oakland, California s4c12
BY. JFRFNY N. GoLDNAN
8 ATToRNFY AT LAW

s For Plaintiff Intervenors.
DENNIS J. HERRERA
10 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
1ss0 Market Street - Seventh Floor
11 San Francisco, California s4102
BY. RoNALD P. PLYNN
12 DFPUTY cITY ATToRNFY

1s DENNIS J. HERRERA
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
14 Citv Hall - Room 2s4
1 Dr. Carlton V. Goodlett Place
1S SAN PRANcISco, cALIPoRNIA 94102
BY. NoLLIF LFF
1c DFPUTY cITY ATToRNFY
For Defendants.
1? Mennemeier Glassman & Stroud LLP
s80 sth Street - Suite 1?00
18 Sacramento, California sS814
BY. xFNNFTH c. NFNNFNFIFR (VIA TFLFPHoNF)
1s ATToRNFY AT LAW

20 Attornev of the Office General
1s00 I Street - 1?th Floor
21 Sacramento, California sS814
BY. GoRDoN B. BURNS
22 DFPUTY SoLIcIToR GFNFRAL

2s
24
2S
RR 106
s
1 APPFARANcFS. (CONTINUED)
2 For Defendant Intervenors.
COOPER & KIRK
s 1S2s New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 200sc
4 BY. cHARLFS J. cooPFR
JFSSF PANUccIo
S ATToRNFYS AT LAW

c ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND
1S100 N. s0th Street
? Scottsdale, Arizona 8S2c0
BY. BRIAN W. RAUN
8 ATToRNFY AT LAW

s ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND
101 Parkshore Drive - Suite 100
10 Folsom, California s4cs0
BY. TINoTHY D. cHANDLFR
11 ATToRNFY AT LAW

12 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO
101 Parkshore Drive - Suite 100
1s Folsom, California sScs0
BY. ANDRFW PFRRY PUGNo
14 ATToRNFY AT LAW

1S
1c
1?
18
1s
20
21
22
2s
24
2S
RR 107
4
1 Fridav - September 2S, 200s 10.0S a.m.
2
s THF cLFRx: Calling Civil Case 0s-22s2, Kristin
4 Perrv, et al. versus Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al.
S Can I get appearance for the plaintiffs, please.
c NR. DUSSFAULT: Good morning, Your Honor. Chris
? Dusseault of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher on behalf of the
8 plaintiffs.
s THF coURT: Good morning.
10 NR. DUSSFAULT: Good morning.
11 NR. NcGILL: Good morning, Your Honor. Matthew
12 McGill of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher for the plaintiffs.
1s NR. NoNAGAS: Good morning, Your Honor. Enrique
14 Monagas for the plaintiffs.
1S NS. PIFPNFIFR: Good morning, Your Honor. Sarah
1c Piepmeier also with Gibson, Dunn for the plaintiffs.
1? NR. PLYNN: Good Morning, Your Honor. Ron Flvnn,
18 Citv and Countv of San Francisco, for plaintiff intervenor Citv
1s and Countv of San Francisco.
20 THF coURT: Good morning.
21 NS. LFF: Good Morning, Your Honor. Mollie Lee,
22 Citv and Countv of San Francisco, also for the plaintiff
2s intervenor Citv and Countv of San Francisco.
24 NR. GoLDNAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Jeremv
2S Goldman, Boies, Schiller & Flexner.
RR 108
S
1 THF coURT: Verv well.
2 NR. cooPFR: Good morning, Mr. Chief Judge. Chuck
s Cooper of Cooper & Kirk for the defendant intervenors. I would
4 like to introduce the Court to mv colleague, Mr. Jesse
S Panuccio.
c NR. PANUccIo: Good morning, Your Honor.
? NR. cooPFR: And I'd like to ask the Court's special
8 permission, since his pro hac motion is pending, that the Court
s allow him to sit with me at counsel todav above the bar.
10 THF coURT: Well, that would be fine. I trust that
11 vou vouch for him.
12 NR. cooPFR: Without reservation.
1s THF coURT: Good. All right. That will be fine.
14 NR. RAUN: Good Morning, Your Honor. Brian Raum,
1S Alliance Defense Fund, for the defendant intervenor.
1c NR. cHANDLFR: Timothv Chandler, Alliance Defense
1? Fund, defendant intervenor.
18 NR. BURNS: Deputv Solicitor General Gordan Burns
1s for the Attornev General.
20 THF coURT: Good morning.
21 NR. BURNS: Good Morning.
22 THF coURT: Verv well. And I believe we have
2s Mr. Mennemeier on the telephone representing the Governor, is
24 that correct?
2S NR. NFNNFNFIFR: Yes, Your Honor.
RR 109
c
1 THF coURT: Verv well. Mr. Mennemeier indicated
2 that he did not think that he needed to weigh in on this issue
s and, to save monev, which is a pressing concern of the State
4 these davs, that he thought telephone appearance would be
S appropriate, and I agreed to do that.
c In thinking about the problem that vou've presented,
? I've done a little thinking and some research on something that
8 I've not heretofore been familiar with, that is the law in
s California that applies to individuals and organizations that
10 sponsor initiative and referenda that are placed before the
11 voters, and have taken a look at the Political Reform Act of
12 1s?4, which is codified in the Government Code and some
1s provisions in the Election Code.
14 And, so, at the outset, before we get into the
1S specific arguments on the issue that is before us this morning,
1c I'd like a little help from both sides, since I'm sure vou're
1? far more knowledgeable on these subjects than am I. And tell
18 me a bit about the requirements that applv to individuals and
1s organizations, in this case ProtectMarriage.com is the
20 organization as I understand it, that sponsor and put before
21 the voters an initiative measure.
22 Some of these questions probablv should be directed
2s first to vou, Mr. Cooper, since ProtectMarriage.com is vour
24 organization. When was that entitv organized?
2S NR. cooPFR: Your Honor, the Court kindlv assumes a
RR 110
?
1 level of knowledge with these State Court provisions that I'm
2 frank to confess to the Court, with some embarrassment, that
s I'm not an expert on, but I have at hand a genuine expert on
4 this in the courtroom. His name is Andv Pugno, Andrew Pugno.
S He was the ad hoc general counsel to ProtectMarriage, and with
c the Court's permission I think the Court would be edified verv
? much if I would call mv colleague to the podium to treat to
8 these questions.
s THF coURT: That certainlv would be fine.
10 NR. cooPFR: Thank vou.
11 THF coURT: Mr. Cuneo, is it?
12 NR. cooPFR: Pugno, P-U-G-N-O.
1s THF coURT: Thank vou.
14 Good morning.
1S NR. PUGNo: Good morning, Your Honor. I cannot sav
1c that I was expecting to have to visit with vou this morning.
1? THF coURT: I beg vour pardon?
18 NR. PUGNo: I cannot sav that I was expecting to
1s visit with vou and talk about this this morning.
20 THF coURT: Well, this is a discoverv dispute and,
21 so, we don't need be too formal about it.
22 NR. PUGNo: ProtectMarriage.com, Yes on 8, is a
2s ballot, primarilv formed Ballot Measure Committee. There are
24 different kinds of Ballot Measure Committees. One is primarilv
2S formed when its sole purpose is the passage or defeat of one
RR 111
8
1 ballot measure. And, so, ProtectMarriage.com is registered as
2 such a committee, as a creature of statute of the Political
s Reform Act. And I would sav that it was either -- I want to
4 sav that it was October or November of 200?.
S THF coURT: 2000 what?
c NR. PUGNo: And '?.
? THF coURT: Okav.
8 NR. PUGNo: Roughlv one vear before the election
s date. It was roughlv around the time that the official
10 proponents which, under the Elections Code, has a different
11 standing. Onlv a registered elector, a voter, can sponsor a
12 ballot measure. A nonprofit organization, a Ballot Measure
1s Committee cannot submit to the Attornev General to begin the
14 process an initiative. Onlv a registered voter can. So in
1S this case there were five registered voters that together
1c submitted the measure to begin the process.
1? THF coURT: And those five registered voters are the
18 intervenors here, is that correct?
1s NR. PUGNo: Thev're five of the six intervenors.
20 THF coURT: Five of the six.
21 NR. PUGNo: Yes.
22 THF coURT: So there were six?
2s NR. PUGNo: The sixth intervenor is the committee,
24 the creature of statute.
2S THF coURT: I see. But the registered voters for
RR 112
s
1 purposes of putting the initiative on the ballot were the five
2 individual intervenors here, is that correct?
s NR. PUGNo: That's correct.
4 THF coURT: All right.
S NR. PUGNo: And then a Ballot Measure Committee
c primarilv formed can also be a vanilla varietv or what's called
? a sponsored committee. In this case it was sponsored in that
8 it's administrative.
s The California Renewal, a California nonprofit
10 organization, basicallv said, We're going to create this
11 creature of statute and that's going to be this campaign
12 committee. And, so, in this case vou will see a project of
1s California Renewal in the name of the committee, which bv law
14 the sponsor of the committee has to be named in the committee's
1S legal name as registered with the State. So that's whv it has
1c a long name.
1? THF coURT: Okav. Now, once formed, how long does
18 one of these organizations have to remain in existence?
1s NR. PUGNo: Well, the committee can terminate at anv
20 time. However, most of the time thev go on, if the initiative
21 makes the ballot and the campaign proceeds and concludes,
22 generallv speaking there is a postelection audit conducted bv
2s the State to make sure that all the expenditures were correctlv
24 reported and all the contributions were correctlv reported, and
2S that all expenditures were authorized bv law under the
RR 113
10
1 Political Reform Act.
2 And then vou get either a fine from the Fair
s Political Practices Commission or a clean bill of health, and
4 at that point vou're permitted to terminate the committee and
S it ceases to exist.
c So the lifespan of a committee, of a registered
? committee, begins at the point that a statement of organization
8 is filed with the State and it ends when a statement of
s termination is filed.
10 THF coURT: What is the present status of
11 ProtectMarriage.com?
12 NR. PUGNo: It is still a registered Ballot Measure
1s Committee, and it is awaiting the conclusion of that audit,
14 which often takes a vear to a vear and a half after the
1S election dav.
1c THF coURT: I see. So that audit has not been
1? completed and, thus, the termination has not vet taken place.
18 NR. PUGNo: That's right. We're not permitted to
1s terminate the committee until we have that audit report from
20 the State.
21 THF coURT: Is that audit ongoing or what's the
22 status?
2s NR. PUGNo: The State asks for documents and then
24 thev're supplied, and thev mav ask for more, it's a back and
2S forth. And if thev find an irregularitv, mavbe a missing page,
RR 114
11
1 thev'll sav, Go look for that, and, so, we're still in the
2 middle of that audit. We started but it is not completed.
s THF coURT: Okav. Now, does one of these
4 organizations have officers and directors like a corporation?
S NR. PUGNo: Unlike a corporation in California,
c which has to have bv law certain officers and directors, the
? creature of statute, the Ballot Measure Committee, mav have
8 multiple what are called responsible officers. In this case,
s the onlv responsible officer, as far as the State is concerned,
10 is the Treasurer David Bauer. It onlv takes one person.
11 I guess the term committee is a misnomer because
12 it reallv is a vehicle for conducting a campaign, and in this
1s case the onlv officer of record in the filings with the Fair
14 Political Practices Commission and with the Political Reform
1S Division of the Secretarv of State is David Bauer, the
1c treasurer of the committee.
1? THF coURT: Okav. Now he's not a partv to this
18 action?
1s NR. PUGNo: That's correct.
20 THF coURT: And what is the relationship to the
21 committee as -- I'm sorrv, to ProtectMarriage.com as it
22 presentlv exists of the individual intervenors here, the
2s individual defendant intervenors?
24 NR. PUGNo: Could vou restate that question for me?
2S THF coURT: What is the relationship to
RR 115
12
1 ProtectMarriage.com --
2 NR. PUGNo: Between the intervenors, the registered
s voters?
4 THF coURT: Yes. Between Mr. Hollingsworth,
S Ms. Knight -- is it Gutierrez?
c NR. PUGNo: Gutierrez, Tam, and Jansson.
? THF coURT: -- Tam and Jansson.
8 NR. PUGNo: Sure. Those five electors had special
s things that thev -- and the responsibilities and duties and
10 rights and privileges under the Election Code that thev carried
11 out as official proponents. Thev pointed to
12 ProtectMarriage.com and said, This is who we would like to
1s manage this campaign.
14 THF coURT: So the wav to think about them, from a
1S legal point of view, would be as directors of the organization,
1c is that fair?
1? NR. PUGNo: Not at all, Your Honor.
18 THF coURT: Okav. How is that incorrect?
1s NR. PUGNo: Well, because under California law, once
20 the official proponents -- the official proponents have a dutv
21 and then responsibilitv and powers unto themselves. Anv
22 organization or anv group of people or anv one person can go
2s out and form a Ballot Measure Committee. In fact there were
24 multiple committees formed and operated in support of the
2S Yes on 8 position. I think at least three or four, mavbe more.
RR 116
1s
1 On the No on 8 side there was one principal
2 committee, but there were others, kind of free actors, that
s started their own committees as well.
4 And, so, there is -- at this moment I cannot think
S of a legallv significant connection where a proponent points to
c a committee and savs, We govern that committee, unless thev
? were to themselves go out and register the entitv as
8 themselves.
s In this case we have a verv broad coalition, a lot
10 of people involved that work with the proponents, and the
11 proponents and the rest of the coalition said, We want to form
12 a committee and we want this treasurer to form the committee
1s for us.
14 So the proponents bv virtue of their status as
1S proponents do not have anv legal authoritv over the campaign bv
1c virtue of their status having submitted the measure for the
1? voters, just in the same wav that thev don't have anv official
18 director status over anv of the other five or six organizations
1s that went out and started a Ballot Measure Committee of their
20 own.
21 THF coURT: Well, is the implication of that that
22 ProtectMarriage.com is reallv an entitv that's separate from
2s these five individuals or is there a connection here that --
24 NR. PUGNo: The connection is that thev were all
2S working together, that this was a coalition, and that the
RR 117
14
1 proponents acknowledged this committee as the vehicle, the
2 creature of statute, the vehicle selected for this broad
s coalition of manv people through and bv which to conduct this
4 campaign.
S THF coURT: Now who has possession of the books and
c records of ProtectMarriage.com?
? NR. PUGNo: Well, the financial books and records
8 are all in the possession of the treasurer, David Bauer.
s THF coURT: Okav. And he would be responsible,
10 then, for maintaining those and presumablv making those
11 available to the auditors who come in to do the postelection
12 audit?
1s NR. PUGNo: He has two responsibilities, both
14 dealing with the postelection audit and filing the periodic
1S statements that have to be filed for public disclosure.
1c THF coURT: Let's see, the audit is conducted bv the
1? Fair Political Practices Commission, is that correct?
18 NR. PUGNo: Well, I'm going to have to plead a
1s little bit of ignorance. I think that it's handed over,
20 believe it or not, to auditors of the Franchise Tax Board who
21 come in and do this for Political Reform, the Political Reform
22 Division of the Secretarv of State's Office. I blend the two
2s because the Fair Political Practices Commission also has
24 jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute failure to disclose
2S and things like that.
RR 118
1S
1 THF coURT: All right. Where are the books and
2 records of ProtectMarriage.com maintained and located?
s NR. PUGNo: I would have to sav, Your Honor, in manv
4 places. I mean, there was a professional campaign manager that
S was hired to conduct the campaign. Manv of those records are
c located there, and we have manv volunteers and independent
? contractors who work for the campaign and with the campaign.
8 And, so, depending on what the scope of the books
s and records of the campaign is understood to be, that would
10 define how big the circle is of where those are located.
11 I mean, there were literallv hundreds of people
12 involved in this campaign. This was a 40-million-dollar
1s campaign involving hundreds or thousands of volunteers and
14 workers all the wav from the verv minimal involvement to a
1S great deal of involvement. And, so, these campaigns are
1c tvpicallv conducted in this fashion where it's a coalition and
1? lots of people involved, and the records are enormous because
18 there's a lot of work associated with qualifving and passing a
1s ballot measure.
20 THF coURT: Okav. Well, this all bears on the
21 burden issue in a discoverv dispute.
22 All right. We'll we mav have some more questions on
2s this line as we go along --
24 NR. PUGNo: Thank vou, Your Honor.
2S THF coURT: -- but that was most helpful indeed, and
RR 119
1c
1 I appreciate vour assistance.
2 NR. PUGNo: All right. Thank vou, Your Honor.
s THF coURT: You bet.
4 NS. LFF: Your Honor, mav I make one clarification?
S THF coURT: Yes. You are?
c NS. LFF: I'm Mollie Lee, Deputv Citv Attornev for
? the Citv and Countv of San Francisco, for plaintiffs
8 intervenors.
s THF coURT: Tell me vour name again.
10 NS. LFF: Mollie Lee.
11 THF coURT: Ms. Lee.
12 NS. LFF: Good morning, Your Honor.
1s THF coURT: You didn't -- oh, ves, vou did sign in.
14 All right.
1S NS. LFF: I want to clarifv the relationship between
1c the primarilv formed Ballot Measure Committee
1? ProtectMarriage.com, which vou were inquiring about, and the
18 five individuals who are also listed as defendant intervenors.
1s The defendant intervenors state in their own papers
20 that ProtectMarriage.com was designated bv these five
21 individuals who have an official status and act in a
22 legislative capacitv in proposing a ballot measure and
2s submitting it for circulation and eventuallv advocating for its
24 passage.
2S And in thinking about this in the larger scheme of
RR 120
1?
1 California's direct democracv, svstem of direct democracv, vou
2 see individuals take on the specific role under the California
s Elections Code, and thev then in this case sav that thev
4 designated ProtectMarriage.com as the official Proposition 8
S campaign committee.
c And, so, to the extent that defendant intervenors
? are now attempting to sort of disaggregate that, I think that's
8 an unfair characterization of what's going on here, where we
s see a clear link between five individual voters who assume a
10 legislative role and the campaign committee that thev designate
11 to carrv out that function.
12 THF coURT: What's the implication of that for
1s purposes of the discoverv dispute before the Court this
14 morning?
1S NS. LFF: You know, I think the implication reallv
1c goes to the public interests that are at stake here. And, as
1? vou note, the Political Reform Act recogni -- or vou noted the
18 Political Reform Act mav be relevant here, and the Political
1s Reform Act, as well as the California Constitution and other
20 open meeting and public records laws, recognize there's a
21 strong public interest in open government and in public access
22 to information about the conduct of government, which includes
2s the legislative -- access to legislative records that relate to
24 statutes and proposed constitutional amendments.
2S And, so, here when vou see individuals who are
RR 121
18
1 acting in a legislative capacitv, thev are assuming a
2 legislative role, and the general interest in open government
s also extends to an interest in their activities in furtherance
4 of this legislative function.
S THF coURT: Well, we are getting a little ahead of
c ourselves, and I haven't heard from Mr. Cooper, but one of the
? questions that occurred to me in reading these papers, and in
8 fairness to both sides I should probablv put this on the table,
s is the application of California's open meeting and open
10 records laws to individuals or organizations which undertake
11 what is, in essence, a legislative function.
12 And, obviouslv, it's a little different when vou're
1s attempting to applv those to Boards of Supervisors or Citv
14 Councils or the State legislature or some State commission.
1S But when citizens organize to perform that same function, there
1c would seem to be some carrvover to the activities of those
1? individuals, but I can well understand the carrvover mav not be
18 direct.
1s NS. LFF: Exactlv, Your Honor, and if vou'd like,
20 I'd be happv to speak to that later or now.
21 THF coURT: All right. Fine.
22 All right. Anvthing further on setting the
2s groundwork before we turn to Mr. Cooper for his argument?
24 (No response.)
2S NR. cooPFR: Thank vou, again, Chief Judge Walker.
RR 122
1s
1 I have nothing further on the terrain that this discoverv
2 dispute is based on, and I'd like to, I guess, frame our
s dispute bv identifving what, at least bv mv reckoning, I think
4 we are agreed on.
S The plaintiffs, as we understand it, are not seeking
c production of anv internal, private communications between and
? among the defendant intervenors, which have been identified,
8 the five individuals and the committee ProtectMarriage.com,
s number one.
10 Number two, the defendant intervenors are producing
11 and have produced and are continuing to search for and produce,
12 as we find them, all communications that were made or
1s distributed to members of the public at large, what we call
14 public communications, and that includes communications that
1S were targeted to particular tvpes of members of the public at
1c large, such as members who have an affiliation with, sav, the
1? Republican Partv.
18 But what we're not producing, pending this Court's
1s consideration of our petition and its ruling, are
20 communications between and among the defendant intervenors and
21 the others that Mr. Pugno has described to vou that have formed
22 an associational bond for purposes of this political activitv,
2s this core political activitv. And that obviouslv includes
24 people as close to the ground zero, if vou will, of this
2S campaign as the ad hoc Executive Committee that gave it much of
RR 123
20
1 its direction and management, and the campaign consultants,
2 Mr. Frank Schubert, whose name has been forwarded previouslv,
s and other paid consultants and agents, the donors who step
4 forward to fund this verv large campaign, and the people who
S step forward to volunteer, and these can be some prettv large
c numbers, as Mr. Pugno has indicated.
? But, Your Honor, the lines aren't easv to draw in
8 this case but, bv our lights anvwav, we think that is the line
s that is compelled bv core First Amendment issues.
10 What the plaintiffs are seeking are communications
11 between and among the defendant intervenors and anv third
12 partv, anv third partv, including members of the ad hoc
1s Executive Committee as we understand it, individual donors,
14 e-mail communications that are one on one, all the
1S communications between the political consultant that gave the
1c strategv or at least informed the strategv of this campaign,
1? and the individuals who formed to manage and to give it its
18 direction and in the fuel of funding.
1s THF coURT: Who were the members of this ad hoc
20 committee?
21 NR. cooPFR: Your Honor, that's never been
22 disclosed. I think I have seen -- we have admitted that
2s thev're about six or eight members of the ad hoc Executive
24 Committee, some of whom had relationships with larger
2S organizations, including religious organizations, that had a
RR 124
21
1 kev and central interest in the campaign to advance
2 Proposition 8.
s But we've never seen where -- and I don't believe,
4 Your Honor, it's ever been publicallv disclosed who those
S ad hoc members were, and the law requires that donors be
c disclosed at least if thev've given a hundred dollars or more,
? and we have thousands of donors, Your Honor, who gave sss or
8 less, some of whom to avoid the disclosure that this verv
s discoverv dispute would bring forward publicallv.
10 THF coURT: Well, those donors who gave more than a
11 hundred dollars names are alreadv on some Web site. I don't
12 know whether it's an official Web site or one that's been
1s picked up in some fashion, but that information is alreadv out
14 in the public, is it not?
1S NR. cooPFR: Those names are out there, ves,
1c Your Honor.
1? And one other area where we have some verv important
18 agreement is, and these are the proponents' words -- excuse me,
1s the plaintiffs' words themselves, and that is that the
20 proponents' communications concerning Proposition 8 referendum
21 campaign are core political speech and are undeniablv entitled
22 to First Amendment protection.
2s There's also no dispute here that the disclosure of
24 the names of those donors brought forward widespread economic
2S reprisal, widespread harassment, widespread abusive practices
RR 125
22
1 that are detailed in our motion papers and detailed graphicallv
2 in another case that we've called the Court's attention to also
s brought bv ProtectMarriage.com.
4 THF coURT: Is that the case in Sacramento before
S Judge England?
c NR. cooPFR: Yes, Your Honor.
? THF coURT: I read that.
8 NR. cooPFR: And that is the case that raises what
s we believe are grave constitutional objections to the
10 disclosure requirement itself.
11 THF coURT: Let me go back for a minute to this ad
12 hoc Executive Committee. What role did it plav in the
1s campaign?
14 NR. cooPFR: Your Honor, I believe that it is most
1S accurate to sav that it provided the executive direction to the
1c campaign. It made decisions relating to, for example, who the
1? campaign itself would engage for professional political
18 consulting services and such things as that, including --
1s THF coURT: So it hired the consultants?
20 NR. cooPFR: That's among the things, ves, sir, but
21 also gave it its strategv direction in consultation with
22 obviouslv professional political advisers and others.
2s It was primarilv responsible for giving management
24 and direction to the fundraising effort. Manv of the members
2S of the ad hoc Executive Committee were themselves large --
RR 126
2s
1 responsible for large amounts of the funding.
2 So the ad hoc Executive Committee was a group of
s volunteers just like anvone clicking a volunteer button on the
4 Web site, but thev were -- thev volunteered, vou know, at a
S verv intensive level in order to assist this campaign and give
c it direction and executive management.
? But thev reallv weren't anv different from the
8 volunteers who came to lick envelopes and stamps and help in
s the sense that these individuals, small groups like the ad hoc
10 committee and large groups like the whole of the volunteers,
11 formed an associational bond to advance this critical, to them,
12 political effort and engage in this political activitv.
1s Your Honor, to put -- and I think the First
14 Amendment, elements of the First Amendment privilege balancing
1S test that the cases that we've cited to the Court go through
1c when this kind of claim is being made to resist a discoverv
1? inquirv into core political activitv, the First Amendment
18 elements of that are established bv agreement to the parties.
1s The parties agree this is core political speech, that there has
20 been this widespread economic and other tvpes of reprisal.
21 The next step for this Court is to examine, well,
22 okav, what compelling interest is there for requiring this
2s disclosure, for requiring the disclosure that the plaintiffs --
24 THF coURT: Before getting into exploring the First
2S Amendment privilege that vou're claiming --
RR 127
24
1 NR. cooPFR: Yes, Your Honor.
2 THF coURT: -- and dealing onlv with the issue vou
s just touched upon, namelv, the concern about reprisals or
4 threats of one kind or another if there were disclosures, whv
S wouldn't a protective order that required the disclosure of
c certain materials on an attornevs'-eves-onlv basis be
? sufficient to protect against those concerns?
8 NR. cooPFR: Your Honor, that's a fair question.
s It's come up -- it's come up before and in several cases, and
10 it is tvpicallv denied in the same wav attornev-client
11 privilege isn't something that privileged materials are simplv
12 provided to the other side on an attornevs'-eves-onlv basis.
1s And this actuallv gets a little bit ahead of at
14 least the logic, it seems to us, of the First Amendment
1S interest at stake here, but there are three cases that have
1c permitted, that we've been able to find, a protective order
1? like the Court is suggesting. I think we've cited them all to
18 the Court.
1s THF coURT: Let's see, those cases are what?
20 Thev're cited in vour papers?
21 NR. cooPFR: Thev are cited in our papers,
22 Your Honor.
2s THF coURT: All right.
24 NR. cooPFR: Yes. Thev're the Christ Covenant case
2S from the Southern District of Florida, nderson against Hale
RR 128
2S
1 from the Northern District of Illinois, and Dole against
2 Service Employees Union, a Ninth Circuit case.
s THF coURT: Okav.
4 NR. cooPFR: And each one of those cases, and I
S offer the Christ Covenant case that it seems to me is the most
c elucidating on this point, all three of those cases involved an
? eves-onlv device but onlv after the Court concluded that the
8 information that was sought had overriding relevance to a
s central issue in the case.
10 And even then, for example, in the Christ Church
11 case, the issue was whether or not the church should be allowed
12 to build a new facilitv because it claimed under a federal law
1s that its religious practices and exercise of its religious
14 freedoms were being burdened because its congregation wasn't
1S able to fit in the sanctuarv anvmore. Thev had to turn people
1c awav.
1? And, Your Honor, the town that had denied them
18 authoritv to build a new building then sought discoverv of
1s individual members. Thev wanted the members so thev could go
20 and depose the members themselves. The Court denied that
21 request limiting it to onlv those members who had actuallv been
22 turned awav from a sanctuarv. The church had to identifv those
2s members. And the attornev and onlv the attornev could ask
24 questions onlv about. Is it true vou were turned awav from a
2S sanctuarv service?
RR 129
2c
1 The point I'm making here, Your Honor, is that the
2 circumstances which, in this balancing process, which made it
s appropriate to invade those associational freedoms, those First
4 Amendment freedoms of protecting them, for example, the
S membership, the names of members of a church, were overridden
c because of the overriding relevance of the information.
? This brings me back to a point, Your Honor, that
8 seems to me puts this into, vou know, verv, at least for me,
s illuminating terms. Suppose that the California Legislature
10 enacted an election law requiring that the official proponents
11 of a referendum measure, anv referendum, were required on a
12 realtime basis during the campaign to provide the internal,
1s nonpublic kind of information that the plaintiffs seek here to
14 the opponents of the referendum, something like this open
1S meetings law perhaps.
1c Your Honor, I would submit to vou that a law like
1? that would not stand a moment's chance under a First Amendment
18 review because it would go to the core of, as these discoverv
1s requests do, go to the core of political associational
20 activitv.
21 THF coURT: Well, picking up on that and Ms. Lee's
22 point, a legislative committee, Citv Council that meets to
2s discuss some proposed policv must meet in open, the discussions
24 amongst the members must be on the record and open and
2S accessible to those who would oppose whatever policv is being
RR 130
2?
1 fostered.
2 Whv wouldn't the same -- and that seems to not
s interfere with the legislative process. Whv wouldn't the same
4 principle applv here when citizens undertake what is, in
S essence, a legislative process?
c NR. cooPFR: Your Honor, the first point I would
? make is because the citizens themselves are engaged in this
8 democratic political activitv themselves not as elected
s representatives in public hearings or public mark-up sessions,
10 or things such as that.
11 Even in that context, Your Honor, I can't imagine
12 that the kind of information that plaintiffs are asking for
1s could be required of legislators even. Their e-mail exchanges
14 with fellow legislators, their written communications with
1S individual constituents, could those things be brought forward
1c in order to test, for example, what the real purpose was as
1? opposed to the public information that was available?
18 The law we have here does not place those kinds of
1s public disclosure burdens on one of these initiative
20 committees, and I suggest to vou that it couldn't.
21 THF coURT: That touches on one of the reasons I was
22 interested in when ProtectMarriage.com was organized. It would
2s seem to me -- let me be the devil's advocate here. If vou and
24 I engage in a discussion that some law ought to be changed or
2S there ought to be some initiative measure developed, of course
RR 131
28
1 our discussions would be private discussions, but once we
2 organize a committee, register that committee with the State
s authorities to promote that particular initiative or
4 legislative measure, then the activities associated with that
S organization take on a different character, do thev not? Thev
c are no longer private discussions subject to the kinds of First
? Amendment protections that vou're speaking about.
8 NR. cooPFR: Well, but, Your Honor, I believe that
s thev are.
10 THF coURT: Okav. Whv?
11 NR. cooPFR: Thev continue to be private discussions
12 because there's no law that has ever suggested that thev're
1s not. And, so, the individuals who are involved in this
14 campaign, when thev exchange their views and their thoughts and
1S their ideas about political strategv and things that are at the
1c verv core of their freedom of political activitv and speech,
1? thev exchanged without anv inkling of a notion that there might
18 be a statute that could be enacted, because certainlv there had
1s never been, or that there might be a judge who could come along
20 and sav, Those communications that vou engaged in, I want vour
21 political opponents to hear them now.
22 It mav well be that the law could, for future
2s political activitv of this down the road, be crafted like the
24 law vou're suggesting here, an open meetings kind of law. I
2S don't think so. I suggest to vou that it would raise the
RR 132
2s
1 gravest First Amendment questions, but at least it wouldn't be
2 a retroactive disclosure of communications that were uttered in
s a nonpublic wav.
4 And communications, Your Honor, and this reallv is
S also at the heart of our petition here to vou as well as at the
c heart of the First Amendment balancing test that the Courts go
? through when this kind of discoverv is sought. And that is,
8 what private communication or nonpublic communication that anv
s of the people who formed an associational bond with one another
10 to get this thing passed or, for that matter, people who formed
11 associational bonds on the other side of it to defeat it, what
12 nonpublic communication could possiblv be relevant to the
1s central issues in this case?
14 THF coURT: That's quite a different argument, and
1S before we get into that, I think that's something we need to
1c talk about.
1? Is this First Amendment privilege that vou are
18 contending applies here different in character from anv other
1s privilege, attornev-client privilege, the priest-penitent
20 privilege, and so forth? Is it a different privilege in anv
21 qualitative sense?
22 NR. cooPFR: I think it is, Your Honor, in the sense
2s that its origins come from the First Amendment. Thev don't
24 come from the common law the wav the attornev-client privilege
2S does, even though it obviouslv is infused with due process
RR 133
s0
1 consideration, which are constitutional in nature, but at least
2 in that --
s THF coURT: Let me put the cards on the table. The
4 reason I ask is, as vou well know, assertion of a privilege or
S work-product protection requires certain disclosures. You have
c to disclose the items that vou are withholding from production,
? identifv them sufficientlv so that the individual on the other
8 side or the partv on the other side is able to determine
s whether the privilege is well taken.
10 Whv would that requirement not applv to this First
11 Amendment privilege that vou are asserting?
12 NR. cooPFR: Your Honor, I don't think that
1s requirement could applv and I will put to the side the question
14 of burden the Court mentioned earlier, which would be
1S unimaginable. But the attornev-client privilege is designed to
1c protect an attornev's communications with his client, and if
1? those communications aren't with his client, then thev're not
18 protected.
1s These communications, Your Honor, thev go to the
20 verv identitv of the individuals with whom the communications
21 are taking place. That is the -- that is the font, if vou
22 will, from which this whole line of First Amendment cases comes
2s from, the NCP against labama case, the membership list. It
24 is the identitv of the individuals, which a privilege log
2S requires understandablv, that is itself at the essence of this
RR 134
s1
1 First Amendment privilege, the identitv of the donors.
2 The point here is even under the existing law, which
s we think raises gravelv serious First Amendment concerns, the
4 existing law requiring simple disclosure of the name of donors
S above a hundred dollars, that led to the verv chill in the
c associational privileges that the First Amendment is designed
? to prevent.
8 THF coURT: I realize there are protections that the
s cases have purported to membership lists, such as the NCP
10 case manv vears ago and similar organizations.
11 But there's also a line of cases which holds that it
12 is quite relevant to the voters' consideration of initiative
1s and referendum to be able to identifv the sponsors, the
14 individuals who are behind the particular initiative or
1S referendum.
1c So the identitv of supporters of a particular
1? measure is a relevant consideration for voters, and the
18 Political Reform Act requires a fair amount of identification,
1s and that identification is consistent with the First Amendment.
20 It doesn't infringe on this First Amendment association
21 activitv, does it?
22 NR. cooPFR: Yes, Your Honor, I do believe that just
2s the disclosure requirement, even though it is indeed supported
24 bv a strong interest in public and public information
2S concerning who are the sponsors of a particular campaign
RR 135
s2
1 initiative, referendum initiative, but I also believe that the
2 First Amendment interests that are at stake at that are of core
s importance.
4 And this -- vou know, I've called vour attention to
S mv friend's verv fine brief in the Citizens United case in
c which thev themselves have challenged the federal disclosure
? requirements under the First Amendment citing the widespread
8 economic reprisals suffered bv donors disclosed in California
s in the Prop. 8 campaign. These implicate First Amendment
10 interests of the highest order.
11 And, Your Honor, when we are talking about more than
12 just disclosing a name, we're talking about disclosing the
1s actual content of speech like the private communication that
14 vou and I might have if we were involved in this campaign, it
1S goes bevond, well bevond, in terms of its encroachment into
1c these First Amendment values, than just the name of a donor.
1? And I want to share with the Court a passage from
18 this McIntyre case, which I think speaks directlv to the
1s issues, from the United States Supreme Court at S14 at
20 page s48. Your Honor, that case, and we describe it verv
21 succinctlv in our paper, our opening paper to the Court, dealt
22 with the validitv of a law requiring one Mrs. McIntvre to
2s provide her name and address on a leaflet that she distributed
24 at a middle school which urged her fellow citizens there to
2S oppose a local referendum raising taxes for educational
RR 136
ss
1 purposes. And that's all it was, just a disclosure
2 requirement. She was fined a hundred dollars because her
s leaflet didn't have that disclosure on it and she refused to
4 put it on there.
S Here's what the majoritv of the Supreme Court said
c as it struck down that requirement. And keep in mind this was
? a woman who brought her own leaflet, nobodv doubted who the
8 author was, to this gathering. Here's what thev said in
s striking down that disclosure requirement. (reading)
10 We think the identitv of the speaker is no
11 different from other components of the
12 document's content that the author is free to
1s include or exclude.
14 And thev continue. (reading)
1S The simple interest in providing voters
1c with additional relevant information does not
1? justifv, again, the simple interest in
18 providing voters with additional relevant
1s information does not justifv a state requirement
20 that a writer makes statements or disclosures
21 she would otherwise omit.
22 So it's verv clear that not onlv did she have a
2s First Amendment right not to disclose her name on her leaflet,
24 but she clearlv had a First Amendment right to be her own
2S editor, to not disclose what she didn't want to disclose
RR 137
s4
1 publiclv.
2 And, Your Honor, could the State in this case have
s compelled Mrs. McIntvre to disclose her drafts of that leaflet?
4 Plaintiffs seek drafts of all of mv information. Could thev
S have required Mrs. McIntvre to disclose her e-mail
c communications with her own political confidants as she's
? forming her own speech, her own strategv of how she will
8 persuade her fellow citizens to join her in opposing that
s measure? Your Honor, we submit to the Court, no.
10 And, so, the question becomes. Is there a more
11 compelling reason in the context of this discoverv? Because I
12 can't imagine that this could have been compelled of us, this
1s kind of information, just, vou know, in the open political --
14 open political arena.
1S THF coURT: Well, that brings us to vour relevancv
1c issue.
1? NR. cooPFR: Yes, Your Honor. Yes, it does.
18 THF coURT: All right.
1s NR. cooPFR: And in the cases, Your Honor, that have
20 gone through this balancing process, and I mentioned earlier
21 three cases that did find appealing vour -- the idea vou
22 suggested of a possible kind of attornevs' eves onlv tvpe of
2s protective order.
24 But, Your Honor, the kev question in these cases is.
2S Well, is the information sought of overriding relevance to a
RR 138
sS
1 central issue in the case?
2 And, Your Honor, the plaintiffs haven't identified
s anv issue in this case other than voter motivation, other than
4 the purposes of this referendum, which is itself inseparable
S from voter motivation, to sav that their inquires are relevant,
c and we would submit to Your Honor the nonpublic communications
? of individuals involved on either side of this debate can't
8 possiblv weigh.
s THF coURT: How do we determine whether a
10 communication is public or not public, and who makes that
11 determination?
12 NR. cooPFR: Well, vou're going to make it.
1s THF coURT: What's that?
14 NR. cooPFR: You're going to make it.
1S THF coURT: Well, but that means I have to look at
1c each communication. I'm happv to work on this case, but I
1? don't know that I want to read all of those.
18 NR. cooPFR: Well, here's the principle that I want
1s to submit to the Court, this is the principle and it doesn't
20 obev quantitative laws here because this principle does indeed
21 shield communications that were shared among large numbers of
22 people. But the principle I want to suggest to the Court is
2s that a communication is public when it is distributed and
24 intended to go to members of the general public, even if it has
2S some targeting theorv.
RR 139
sc
1 But it isn't public if it's going to people and is
2 intended onlv for people with whom vou have formed what I call
s an associational bond, a political associational bond. These
4 rights flow from our right to associate for political purposes
S and our right --
c THF coURT: Let's trv some examples. Obviouslv a
? leaflet or a radio or television advertisement that is
8 broadcast, that clearlv is a public communication.
s NR. cooPFR: Yes, Your Honor.
10 THF coURT: There's no question about that.
11 NR. cooPFR: And we've alreadv produced those,
12 though with reservations of our right to suggest that some or
1s all of them mav not be admissible when we get to our trial,
14 but, ves, Your Honor, we've produced them.
1S THF coURT: Admissibilitv, we're not at that stage
1c now.
1? NR. cooPFR: True.
18 THF coURT: How about mailers to identified groups,
1s sav members of the Republican Partv vou mentioned, or members
20 of a particular organization, a church, Bov Scouts, whatever,
21 Bov Scout leaders? We're going to send a mailer to all of the
22 Bov Scout leaders in California. Would that be a public
2s communication?
24 NR. cooPFR: I believe that it would and,
2S Your Honor, the kind of inquirv we're going through right now,
RR 140
s?
1 we obviouslv have tried to think through and we've done a lot
2 of, vou know, backing and forthing with our friends for the
s plaintiffs, and, in fact, it was as a result of that backing
4 and forthing that our own position was adjusted.
S Because we suggested earlv on in our conversations
c with Mr. McGill, I'm told bv mv colleagues, that perhaps some
? of those kinds of communications would not be public. We, as a
8 result of those discussions, we thought better of it and thev
s would. We do believe that thev would.
10 THF coURT: Okav. What about a proponent, one of
11 the proponents meeting with a coffee klatch of some
12 organization, rather like the coffee klatches that political
1s candidates have? Thev go around to churches, groups, the
14 Kiwanis Club, and whatnot, and speak to members of that
1S organization. Is that a public communication?
1c NR. cooPFR: It probablv is, Your Honor. And I sav
1? probablv onlv because it is entirelv conceivable to me that
18 it could be a gathering of people who have made known their
1s support for Proposition 8 and thev want to hear how thev can
20 help advance this campaign and convince their fellow
21 Californians to support it. I believe that would not be a
22 public discussion.
2s THF coURT: Would not be?
24 NR. cooPFR: Would not be. If the individuals are
2S donors, for example, a coffee klatch with donors, a coffee
RR 141
s8
1 klatch with volunteers, here's -- those kinds of things, but a
2 coffee klatch of just some people who want to hear our side of
s this and we're there to persuade, thev're just members of the
4 public, ves.
S THF coURT: That suggests that the distinction
c between private and public is a communication to the converted
? is private, to the unconverted, it's public.
8 NR. cooPFR: Well --
s THF coURT: Is that the distinction?
10 NR. cooPFR: That is one wav I think of, perhaps,
11 describing this principle I'm offering to the Court, which is.
12 Has there been some associational bond? Do we have a political
1s association? Are we in association one with another for First
14 Amendment purposes? Have we joined the NAACP together?
1S And, Your Honor, this is a hard -- these are hard
1c lines. I don't denv it. But if we have formed -- if we are in
1? political association one with another, even if it's one with a
18 thousand others, what we sav to each other and the fact of our
1s membership in the association are protected bv the First
20 Amendment. That's mv submission to the Court.
21 And, as I mentioned earlier, it doesn't obev, vou
22 know, quantitative lines here, and in the context of a
2s referendum fight in this state where vou have, vou know,
24 roughlv ?,000 -- ? million people on both sides, ves, the
2S people who have formed associational bonds can grow large.
RR 142
ss
1 We had, I'm not sure how manv but 10s of thousands
2 of donors. Thev stepped forward. Thev sent monev to support
s this campaign. Yes, if thev -- to me, Your Honor, thev clearlv
4 formed associational bonds bv doing that, like joining a
S membership organization, and if thev contributed more than a
c hundred dollars, thev understood, presumablv, that their
? association with this cause would be disclosed publiclv.
8 So, ves, I accept the Court's characterization that
s it does in a sense, at least the principle I'm suggesting to
10 the Court, does in a sense turn on whether vou're preaching to
11 the converted or vou're trving to convert people to vour -- to
12 form associational bond with vou.
1s THF coURT: All right. Thank vou verv much,
14 Mr. Cooper.
1S NR. DUSSFAULT: Good morning, Your Honor. Chris
1c Dusseault of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher on behalf of the
1? plaintiffs.
18 Just organizationallv, the wav we had intended to
1s present the argument to vou is, if it's acceptable to
20 Your Honor, to divide. I would address the relevance issues
21 and the concerns that plaintiffs have raised in that regard,
22 and mv colleague, Mr. McGill, would speak to the First
2s Amendment concerns.
24 THF coURT: Well, vou know, ordinarilv I enforce a
2S rule that this is not moot court. We have one lawver on a
RR 143
40
1 side. Now, we had a little help from Mr. Cooper on an issue
2 that he properlv and I can well understand did not feel
s comfortable speaking to, but going forward, this is not moot
4 court. So one lawver argues each proceeding and no other
S lawver.
c NR. DUSSFAULT: Understood, Your Honor. We'll
? certainlv observe that going forward. I appreciate vour
8 diligence here.
s Let me speak verv brieflv to the issue that we think
10 is reallv an antecedent issue to the First Amendment concern,
11 which is the fact that these requests are seeking relevant
12 information and that the proponents have not established
1s otherwise in a motion which thev don't --
14 THF coURT: Let's begin not at the last point where
1S Mr. Cooper left off but his penultimate point.
1c What's the relevance of these third-partv
1? communications? How is that something that is going to lead to
18 admissible evidence in this case?
1s NR. DUSSFAULT: Absolutelv, Your Honor. I think
20 that's the kev question, and there are a number of factual
21 issues that this Court has alreadv recognized the Court mav
22 need to resolve to reach the merits of the case.
2s THF coURT: Now remember, Counsel, I didn't make up
24 those factual issues.
2S NR. DUSSFAULT: Absolutelv.
RR 144
41
1 THF coURT: I got those out of the initial case
2 management statements that vou all filed.
s NR. DUSSFAULT: Absolutelv. And we believe,
4 Your Honor, and we agree that those are issues that are
S presented bv our claims that mav, depending on determinations
c made on one issue or another, need to be reached.
? But let me give an example. We believe that there
8 are factual determinations before the Court about the
s applicable level of scrutinv that applies to these claims.
10 There are factors that the courts have addressed that involve
11 factual inquiries.
12 THF coURT: How does this discoverv relate to those
1s factors?
14 NR. DUSSFAULT: The defendant intervenors are
1S parties to this case, Your Honor. Thev have chosen to become
1c involved in this case and to make factual and legal arguments
1? to the Court on particular issues, for example, the relative
18 political power of gav and lesbian individuals, immutabilitv,
1s historv of discrimination.
20 If thev have documents, and I would submit public or
21 not public, that make statements that contradict the positions
22 thev are taking in this case, how would that not be relevant
2s evidence?
24 And let me give vou an example. Let's just assume
2S hvpotheticallv --
RR 145
42
1 THF coURT: Impeachment evidence.
2 NR. DUSSFAULT: Impeachment evidence or admissions,
s Your Honor. Let's assume that --
4 THF coURT: To what degree is the intent of a
S legislator relevant to the validitv of the legislation that he
c sponsors?
? NR. DUSSFAULT: Your Honor, I believe that there are
8 cases that we have pointed to in our brief showing that the
s intent of the proponents of the initiative is something that
10 courts should look to, in the initiative context, to discern
11 voter motivation, but mv point I think is broader than that.
12 THF coURT: Different from an elected legislator?
1s NR. DUSSFAULT: Your Honor, honestlv, I have focused
14 more on how it applies in the initiative context given that
1S that's where we are, but there are cases to which we pointed
1c the Court, including the Washington case, that have
1? demonstrated that in this sort of a context, the Court should
18 look at the overall campaign and the --
1s THF coURT: Which Washington case?
20 NR. DUSSFAULT: I'm sorrv, Your Honor. Let me give
21 vou the cite. The Washington versus Seattle case, looking at
22 statements of the proponents -- that was a Boston case I
2s believe, Your Honor -- looking at the statements of the
24 proponents to understand whether that was raciallv motivated.
2S It involved school integration.
RR 146
4s
1 I believe that it is relevant to that purpose, but
2 the point that I hope will be clear here is that there is
s another mavbe even more direct path to relevance here, and that
4 is admissions of particular facts.
S And let me use as an example a fact like whether
c sexual orientation is immutable. This is something that has
? been briefed in the summarv judgment brief. It's been talked
8 about.
s Suppose hvpotheticallv that one of the defendant
10 intervenors did or commissioned a studv, a c0-page studv, that
11 went through this issue and said, We have determined that
12 sexual orientation is immutable and here's whv, and we don't
1s want to get into this issue in the campaign because we're wrong
14 on it.
1S And now thev're in this case and thev're trving to
1c argue, as an element for not applving higher scrutinv, the
1? opposite side of exactlv what their documents show. The notion
18 that their direct on-point admissions on factual issues before
1s the Court are not onlv not admissible, Your Honor, but not even
20 discoverable? We can't even go trv to find out who did that
21 studv, perhaps that person would be a good witness in this case
22 I think is unsupported.
2s And I would note in all the cases that the defendant
24 intervenors have offered, vou don't see cases barring discoverv
2S in the manner that thev're seeking.
RR 147
44
1 THF coURT: That's prettv speculative, isn't it,
2 Mr. Dusseault? Mavbe vou can find something a little closer to
s home.
4 NR. DUSSFAULT: Your Honor, franklv, we are in
S something of a difficult position in that we have been denied,
c and Mr. Cooper I think has made quite clear todav that he
? intends to continue to denv, access to anv of their nonpublic
8 documents. So, unfortunatelv, at this stage it is somewhat
s difficult for us to be too specific because we have not seen
10 anv of their particular documents.
11 THF coURT: Well, vou have had access to, I believe,
12 at least understanding Mr. Cooper's comment to suggest that vou
1s had access to a verv substantial amount of public commentarv
14 regarding Proposition 8 bv the proponents, have vou not?
1S NR. DUSSFAULT: Well, we have, Your Honor, been
1c provided, I think, in the last couple of weeks a bodv of
1? publiclv disseminated documents. And our original
18 understanding, based on their representations, was that that
1s was not targeted, that would onlv be things available to the
20 public at large. Mr. Cooper now represents that thev're
21 including in some of their production things to larger groups.
22 But I would submit, Your Honor, and I think the
2s defendant intervenors have shown this in their own
24 declarations, there is a real difference between what thev
2S might sav in their most cleansed, most public documents versus
RR 148
4S
1 what thev sav internallv.
2 And on the issue of relevance --
s THF coURT: But if vou can find in the wealth of
4 public statements some inconsistencies of the kind that vou
S just described, that would be a prettv persuasive reason to
c open the door for some of these nonpublic communications.
? NR. DUSSFAULT: But, Your Honor, I would submit from
8 a discoverabilitv perspective in this case, whv should the
s defendant intervenors have control over what we see? So if
10 thev have had -- let's sav thev've done a good job and all the
11 bad stuff is private and onlv the good things come out.
12 THF coURT: In a campaign, it's a dream world if
1s anvbodv thinks cats don't come out of the bag in a political
14 campaign.
1S NR. DUSSFAULT: Understood, Your Honor, but I think
1c one of the fundamental premises of liberal discoverv is the
1? notion that documents that are not public are verv often the
18 ones that are most candid, most probative to a case.
1s And thev have submitted declarations in this case,
20 in fact specificallv saving under oath, If I knew that this
21 discussion was going to be public, I would have been more,
22 quote-unquote, guarded.
2s I would submit that on fact issues before the Court
24 we have a right to unguarded admissions from a relevance and
2S discoverabilitv perspective, and that goes, we believe, to
RR 149
4c
1 issues of voter intent and motivation, but it also goes to the
2 numerous issues that we've talked about, not just level of
s scrutinv but let's sav potential state interests. I think this
4 is a verv important issue.
S THF coURT: Potential what?
c NR. DUSSFAULT: Potential state interests.
? THF coURT: Okav.
8 NR. DUSSFAULT: Mr. Cooper's brief repeatedlv savs
s that under their standard, the onlv question is whether there's
10 anv conceivable basis for passing Prop. 8 and, therefore, the
11 actual intent of the voters is irrelevant. A couple strong
12 reactions to that.
1s One is that presumes the correctness of an issue
14 that has not vet been resolved, which is the level of scrutinv.
1S And in discoverv we should be permitted to take discoverv that
1c would applv to anv standard.
1? But mavbe even more importantlv, documents mav verv
18 well go to even the narrow issue that the defendant intervenors
1s present which is, is there anv conceivable basis.
20 Again, one thing that is unique about this case,
21 Your Honor, is there is almost a complete disconnect between
22 the justifications offered in the ads and the promotions in the
2s public discourse about Prop. 8 and the ones that thev're now
24 presenting to vou. Thev are --
2S THF coURT: That's what I was driving at. What can
RR 150
4?
1 vou show in that regard?
2 NR. DUSSFAULT: Well, and if there are internal
s documents -- and again, Your Honor, I admit that we are forced
4 to speculate to some degree because we have not seen the
S documents -- if there are documents that sav, for example, one
c possible justification is this notion of responsible
? procreation. Our testing and studies show that no rational
8 person could conceivablv buv that. Don't do it. Don't talk
s about it. Don't put it in the ads, because no one could
10 conceivablv believe it. A statement like that is relevant even
11 to the issue as most narrowlv presented bv the defendant
12 intervenors.
1s Now we submit that that is, again, their best case
14 scenario. If there is a heightened level of scrutinv, then the
1S actual intent becomes relevant and I don't believe defendant
1c intervenors have even submitted for a moment that that sort of
1? information would not be relevant.
18 But I just think it's important to note that thev
1s don't get out of the relevance box that thev're in bv saving
20 that the question is whether a justification is rational.
21 These are political professionals who are working with this
22 campaign, working on this campaign in addition to volunteers.
2s If thev have studies or documents that talk about the
24 rationalitv of a potential justification, the conceivabilitv of
2S it, that is, I think, number one, admissible, and, number two,
RR 151
48
1 at the verv least something that we should be able to use as a
2 starting block.
s The final point I'll make, Your Honor, on relevance,
4 and then I'll sit down, is the approach that the plaintiffs are
S taking here reallv turns the discoverv process on its head.
c The wav this works normallv in the trial courts is there is
? liberal discoverv at the outset followed later, as Your Honor
8 stated earlier, bv specific determinations about what's
s admissible.
10 For the defendant intervenors to take the position
11 right now under their best view of the case we should be denied
12 virtuallv everv document regardless of the substance -- and I
1s think that's reallv important. The defendant intervenors'
14 argument about internal documents in particular has nothing to
1S do with substance. There's just no statement thev could make,
1c according to them, that could be relevant to anv issue.
1? This is not the stage of a litigation where that
18 decision is made. The documents should be produced. If with a
1s specific document we discuss its admissibilitv, then we get to
20 that point.
21 We are not suggesting, as thev sav in their replv
22 brief, that somehow there's no limitations on discoverv. The
2s limitation that is imposed is whether our requests are tailored
24 to lead to the discoverv of admissible evidence.
2S THF coURT: Well, let's talk about tailoring. Your
RR 152
4s
1 request number 8 is exceedinglv broad. (reading)
2 Anv communication bv the proponents with
s anv third partv.
4 Well, that could cover quite a lot of individuals
S and organizations. And I can well understand that the
c proponents might have a lot of this information and, in fact,
? find it not onlv burdensome to respond to an inquirv that
8 broadlv drafted, but to be in the position where thev could not
s reasonablv be assured that thev had complied with the discoverv
10 request.
11 Anv third partv. Now, can vou not focus and narrow
12 that inquirv? Could vou address the burden objection which the
1s proponents have made?
14 NR. DUSSFAULT: Your Honor, I suspect that we could,
1S and, in fact, we set out in the meet-and-confer process to
1c negotiate, and that's what normallv happens in a case like this
1? is, vou sav, Okav. What do vou reallv want? What can we get
18 vou?
1s But, franklv, we were told in no uncertain terms at
20 the outset that unless it went to everv member of the public,
21 we were not getting it. So those discussions didn't go verv
22 far.
2s I do think if --
24 THF coURT: I gather some progress has been made in
2S that regard.
RR 153
S0
1 NR. DUSSFAULT: Well, reallv just in the briefs,
2 Your Honor, but not reallv in the discussions. We're sort of
s learning some of these concessions in the briefs and their
4 argument.
S But we would, I think, be willing, according that we
c can do it, like we're doing evervthing else in this case in an
? expedited wav so as not to affect the schedule, to talk about
8 some reasonable limitations of third-partv communications that
s would go after the issues in the case.
10 THF coURT: What limitations do vou think would be
11 reasonable at least as a starting point?
12 NR. DUSSFAULT: Well, I think I made reference to
1s the factual issues and the categorv of factual issues that
14 we've alreadv talked about a number of times in the case.
1S Generallv the level of scrutinv, the potential state interests,
1c the presence of discriminatorv intent, and whether there's a
1? fundamental right involved.
18 We mav be able in a meet-and-confer process to
1s identifv the specific subjects, for example, where we would
20 want anv documents that address those issues. And I think we
21 can rule out -- and, again, if there's something about, and vou
22 often do get documents like this in discoverv, but if there's
2s something like, Hev, let's meet at S.00 o'clock before this
24 meeting, and thev're talking to a third partv, I'm not
2S suggesting that that's relevant, but the relevance is going to
RR 154
S1
1 turn on the subject matter of what thev discuss. If thev get
2 into factual subjects that are at issue in this case, we would
s think it needs to be produced. If thev don't, then we could
4 probablv work out a limitation.
S THF coURT: Well, we've had some discussion here
c this morning about some of the relationships that exist.
? Mr. Cooper has mentioned the ad hoc Executive Committee. The
8 consultants have been mentioned, and, indeed, the consultant,
s whose name escapes me, but a speech I read in which he
10 described the campaign, which was quite forthcoming with
11 respect to various aspects of the campaign. I should think a
12 discussion along the lines of identifving who some of these
1s third parties are would be verv helpful --
14 NR. DUSSFAULT: I think so, Your Honor.
1S THF coURT: -- in bridging the gap.
1c NR. DUSSFAULT: And the wav we have approached
1? discoverv is we started with the parties, the defendant
18 intervenors. We have since served requests on a narrow group
1s of entities and individuals who are the political consultants
20 and advisers to the parties for this case.
21 THF coURT: These are third-partv subpoenas.
22 NR. DUSSFAULT: We have served third-partv
2s subpoenas, although I would submit, Your Honor, particularlv
24 based on some of what was said todav, I think that some of
2S those documents should be deemed in the possession, custodv,
RR 155
S2
1 and control of ProtectMarriage. I think if Mr. Schubert is
2 running the campaign, and I understood Mr. Pugno to sav that
s some of the documents mav reside with him, I would think those
4 should be deemed to be in ProtectMarriage.com's possession,
S custodv, and control. But we have, in abundance of caution,
c sought a subpoena for him.
? What we have not vet done is served subpoenas to
8 third-partv groups that also worked on the campaign, and I
s think that is something that we have some intention of doing in
10 a narrow fashion to trv to get documents that mav be
11 discoverable and relevant, but we had not vet done that.
12 And we don't intend, Your Honor, I think to get out
1s to everv individual bv anv means, but there are certain bodies
14 that threw themselves completelv into running this campaign and
1S trving to get this initiative passed, and thev mav well have
1c documents that are at the verv least discoverable.
1? THF coURT: Verv well, Mr. Dusseault, anvthing else?
18 NR. DUSSFAULT: No, Your Honor. Thank vou.
1s THF coURT: You are Mr. McGill?
20 NR. NcGILL: Yes, sir. Thank vou, Your Honor.
21 THF coURT: Your Honor is usuallv the wav vou talk
22 to a judge.
2s NR. NcGILL: Thank vou, Your Honor, for the
24 correction.
2S I want to address just three kev points of
RR 156
Ss
1 Mr. Cooper's First Amendment presentation. The first, it bears
2 noting at the outset that defendant intervenors have chosen to
s be a part of this litigation and that, of course, sets them
4 much apart from manv of the cases thev cite, including the
S NAACP line of cases.
c I think Mr. Cooper in his replv brief actuallv
? identifies the correct wav to analvze this as a constitutional
8 matter, and that's the question of whether compliance with
s normal discoverv burdens, normal partv discoverv burdens in
10 effect constitutes an unconstitutional condition on their right
11 to proceed in this litigation.
12 And the cases that thev cite as illustrative of the
1s fact that a plaintiff can also bring this kind of First
14 Amendment privilege claim -- the Christ Church case, the Beinin
1S case, the Black Panther case -- all those cases have in common
1c is that -- what thev have in common is that the plaintiffs in
1? those cases had rights under federal law that thev were seeking
18 to vindicate in that litigation.
1s So that the discoverv basicallv did present them
20 with the Hobson's choice of either vindicating their rights
21 under federal law -- in the Christ Church case it was the
22 RvuPa, rights under RvuPa, in Beinin it was a copvright claim,
2s and the Black Panther case it was a Section 1s8S claim --
24 either vindicate vour rights under those federal laws or give
2S up vour First Amendment rights.
RR 157
S4
1 And the kev difference in this case is that the
2 defendant intervenors have no rights at stake in this
s litigation. Thev have no rights that thev are seeking to
4 vindicate of their own in this litigation, and that means that
S it's not an unconstitutional condition to require them to
c complv with normal discoverv.
? The second point would be, even under the tvpical
8 First Amendment privilege analvsis, if thev get in the First
s Amendment door, then under the Ninth Circuit's decision in
10 Dole, it's their burden, thev have to establish a prima facie
11 burden that the disclosure will result in harassment,
12 membership withdrawal, or discouragement of new members, or
1s other chilling of members' associational rights.
14 The declarations that appended to the motion simplv
1S don't meet that burden. The Ninth Circuit emphasized the
1c evidence has to contain objective and articulable facts which
1? go bevond broad allegations or subjective fears. That's
18 page 14c0 of sS0 F.2d in the Dole case.
1s If vou actuallv walk through what the declarations
20 sav, for instance, the Prentice declaration, paragraph 14, he
21 savs. (reading)
22 I would have done things differentlv. Mv
2s communications would have been more guarded. We
24 would have warned people that their
2S communications might be subject to disclosure.
RR 158
SS
1 That doesn't make him appreciablv different from
2 manv other clients I have who are on the wrong side of
s discoverv, but above and bevond that, there's no allegation of
4 a chilling effect in that declaration. There's no allegation
S that if he complies with the discoverv burdens in this case,
c that he is actuallv going -- that his speech will be -- that he
? will not engage in the associational activities in which he's
8 currentlv engaged.
s The Schubert declaration is actuallv
10 indistinguishable from the declaration the Ninth Circuit found
11 insufficient in the prior iteration of the Dole case. There in
12 the first version, or I believe at that point it was known as
1s SEU1, in SEU1, the Ninth Circuit said -- looked at a
14 declaration from the attornev of the union that basicallv
1S opined, based on his experience, that he -- that the union
1c members' associational rights would be burdened if thev were
1? compelled to submit the minutes of these union meetings, and
18 the Ninth Circuit found that insufficient as a matter of law to
1s meet a prima facie burden, the prima facie burden that the
20 plaintiff has to -- or that the litigant has to establish.
21 Schubert goes on to sav that he will change the wav
22 he does business, but that, again, is not a statement that he
2s will -- he will reduce his speech. He's saving he will change
24 the wav he communicates, he will change the wav he does
2S business, but he's not saving, I will not engage in this
RR 159
Sc
1 speech anvmore.
2 The Jansson declaration, paragraphs 2 and S.
s (reading)
4 I will dramaticallv alter mv speech. I
S will be less willing. I will seriouslv
c reconsider mv speech.
? This, again, is not the tvpes of declarations that
8 the Court found sufficient in the Dole case where there the
s union members said, I will no longer go to union meetings. I
10 am not participating anvmore.
11 I think that based on the Dole case, it's difficult
12 to see how the declarations appended to the -- appended to the
1s motion satisfv their prima facie burden of their First
14 Amendment privilege.
1S The final point is that thev've asserted the First
1c Amendment privilege in gross, and thev urge the application of
1? a balancing test. Thev urge the application of an examination
18 of relevance versus our need for the evidence versus the costs
1s it will exact on their associational freedoms, but there's no
20 wav to meaningfullv analvze that when vou're talking about an
21 assertion that everv relevant document is privileged.
22 So I don't understand how we could meaningfullv
2s engage in anv kind of balancing at this juncture.
24 If, Your Honor, has no questions....
2S THF coURT: Verv well. Mr. Cooper, I suspect vou
RR 160
S?
1 want a verv brief rebuttal, is that correct?
2 And then what I would like to do is to take a verv
s brief break and then meet in chambers with a court reporter and
4 one lawver from each of the parties about a case-management
S issue that we mav confront in the case, and that will be simplv
c an informal discussion not on anv of the merits or anv of the
? issues but simplv how we organize going forward.
8 But the floor is vours, Mr. Cooper.
s NR. cooPFR: Certainlv, Your Honor. Thank vou verv
10 much, Your Honor.
11 And also I would like now to ask the Court's
12 permission that Mr. Pugno mav come back to the podium after
1s vou're finished with me because there's something that he
14 believes he needs to correct.
1S THF coURT: All right. Fine. I appreciate that.
1c NR. cooPFR: Your Honor, I'm going to begin with
1? this notion that the defendant intervenors did not meet their
18 prima facie First Amendment showing.
1s We have, out of the plaintiffs' counsel own mouth,
20 the acknowledgment of the widespread economic reprisals,
21 reprisals, Your Honor, that continue to go on to this dav as
22 was dramaticallv illustrated on the Web site of Equalitv
2s California earlier this week, that is, the main No on 8 group.
24 Earlier this week, as thev reiterated on this Web site, thev
2S are called to continue a bovcott against a prominent business
RR 161
S8
1 owned bv a man who was a No on 8 donor, and for that reason
2 because -- he was a Yes on 8 donor.
s Your Honor the declarations that we've submitted and
4 the declarations that were submitted and that we've referred
S the Court to and we'll be -- vou know, hopefullv we won't have
c to redo them and submit them here, but that were submitted in
? this other case that we discussed earlier --
8 THF coURT: Well, these disclosure requirements have
s alreadv passed constitutional muster and those are the
10 disclosures that would, it seems to me, to have the chilling
11 effect that vou're concerned about. That's alreadv been found
12 to be acceptable under the First Amendment. So whv cannot, if
1s there are these concerns, a protective order be fashioned along
14 the lines that we discussed earlier to avert anv further harm
1S that mav result from additional disclosure?
1c NR. cooPFR: Well, those disclosures, ves, thev have
1? created harm and thev continue to do so, but that harm would
18 be -- would onlv be, we submit to the Court, increased if
1s additional individuals, those, for example, donated less than
20 ss, s100, were brought forward publiclv as a result of this, of
21 this discoverv, or the internal actual speech that was used bv
22 these donors in their associational -- in exercising their
2s associational free speech freedoms was disclosed publiclv.
24 NCP against labama held that. (reading)
2S Past showings of economic reprisal, this
RR 162
Ss
1 is quoting, economic reprisal, loss of
2 emplovment, threat of phvsical coercion, and
s other manifestations of public hostilitv are
4 sufficient to trigger First Amendment past.
S Your Honor, the record is replete with, and admitted
c bv the plaintiff -- the plaintiffs here, of this tvpe of -- of
? this tvpe of chill activitv bv virtue of those disclosures. It
8 is simplv a fortiori that that chill and that tvpe of activitv
s will not -- somehow not attend additional disclosures that come
10 forward as a result of this discoverv.
11 But, Your Honor, I want to go back to this question
12 of relevance and mv friend Mr. Dusseault, some of his points.
1s I want to keep in mind that the issues that he has identified
14 are issues of legislative fact. For example, immutabilitv.
1S Let's assume there's some kind of internal discussion about the
1c immutabilitv of sexual orientation, that the proponents decided
1? not to share with the electorate. How could that somehow weigh
18 or bear on anv issue this Court has to decide?
1s Could it be that some studv saving, There's no
20 question that sexual orientation is immutable, that it is
21 internal, could be binding, that could be an admission bv the
22 defendant intervenors? Could we bind the State of California?
2s Could we bind the electorate? Of course not.
24 Could it -- reallv, could it help this Court's
2S analvsis of that legislative fact on which expert witnesses
RR 163
c0
1 will be brought forward? I suggest not. And I think the Court
2 was quite correct, that is an extraordinarv stretch for
s relevance.
4 You know, the closer is the notion that there's some
S tvpe of nonpublic internal documents going to the issue of
c voter motivation or going to the issue of some of the plausible
? purposes that Proposition 8 could serve.
8 Those are --
s THF coURT: Well, he also touched upon the
10 governmental interest in marriage, and the governmental
11 interest in limiting the privileges and responsibilities of
12 marriage to opposite sex couples. So that's something that mav
1s verv well come out in these kinds of communications.
14 NR. cooPFR: Well, Your Honor, it could.
1S THF coURT: And that's going to be an issue in our
1c case.
1? NR. cooPFR: It will be verv much an issue in our
18 case, and the issue will be, Your Honor, we submit, under
1s binding Ninth Circuit precedent, again we submit respectfullv,
20 whether or not there is anv conceivable legitimate state
21 interest supporting or state purpose supporting Proposition 8.
22 But, Your Honor, regardless of the level of
2s scrutinv, and we're obviouslv suggesting it will be rational
24 basis, but regardless of what level of scrutinv it is, the
2S information thev seek, nonpublic information that never got to
RR 164
c1
1 a voter, that could not have weighed on the mind of the
2 electorate itself has -- is simplv irrelevant to that question
s whether or not the electorate embraced anv particular purpose,
4 and it doesn't matter.
S And the other thing, Your Honor, is I do believe I
c have to disagree with Mr. Dusseault in terms of whether anv
? Court, anv Supreme Court case has looked at that. Our
8 submission to vou is that no Supreme Court case, not one, in
s which the purpose or intent of a referendum measure was at
10 issue has considered the tvpe of information, nonpublic
11 information, never disclosed or presented to the electorate
12 that the plaintiffs seek to discover in this case, not one.
1s Romer is their kev case, is a perfect example of
14 what the Court reallv does. It examines the purpose of the
1S legislation on the basis of its text known to the voters, on
1c the basis of its historical context, on the basis of how it
1? fits into the rest of the legislative scheme, and on the basis
18 of its effect.
1s In that case those, in Romer, those elements, no
20 internal information whatsoever but those elements concluded --
21 brought the Court to conclude that all conceivable legitimate
22 purposes could be excluded. It onlv had one and one evil and
2s bad purpose.
24 Washington versus Seattle Mr. Dusseault cites. That
2S case is a good example of exactlv what I'm talking about.
RR 165
c2
1 Proposition I think it was sS0 there, Initiative sS0 in the
2 State of Washington, the onlv thing that anv of the Courts
s involved in that case looked at were public information like
4 the text of the statute, the official ballot information
S provided to the voters, information in the media openlv and at
c large.
? There is -- not onlv is there no Supreme Court case,
8 there's no Ninth Circuit case that looks at this kind of
s material in determining the purpose or intent, not one, and --
10 THF coURT: How about that Eighth Circuit case, the
11 South Dakota Farm Bureau case?
12 NR. cooPFR: Well, that's his case. That's his case
1s and it's wrong.
14 THF coURT: We all have our cases.
1S (Laughter)
1c NR. cooPFR: That's his case, okav, and I'm going to
1? trudge through all of mv cases and, Your Honor, I've got lots
18 of them. And I simplv submit to vou that the issue never was
1s reallv examined bv Judge Bowman in that case, that South Dakota
20 case. It appears that there wasn't anv dispute among the
21 parties in terms of this tvpe of internal stuff that was indeed
22 called upon, although I would simplv hasten to add that even
2s the Eighth Circuit in that case acknowledged that the most
24 important, the most relevant material were the official ballot
2S materials submitted to the voters themselves.
RR 166
cs
1 The SSSO case in this circuit, though, Your Honor,
2 we think is the most directlv on point case that we have, and,
s of course, the en banc decision, mv friends correctlv noted
4 went en banc, as we had discussed the panel decision to the
S Court, but that case, too, looked onlv at these publiclv-
c available-and-presented-to-the-voters-themselves information.
? Finallv, Your Honor, there's no California Supreme
8 Court case. When the California Supreme Court is interpreting
s or identifving the purpose and the intent of a referendum in
10 this state, it looks onlv at the text of the referendum, the
11 official ballot literature, and the effect its context, its
12 historical placement in context, and here's whv. In fact, in
1s the Straus case, when this verv initiative was before the
14 California Supreme Court and it had to be interpreted, that's
1S all thev looked at and here's whv.
1c The Court explained, not in Straus but in another
1? case, mv colleague can remind me which case this comes from,
18 but the opinion of the drafters who sponsor an initiative is
1s not relevant since it does not represent the intent of the
20 electorate. And we cannot sav with assurance that the voters
21 were aware of the drafters' intent. Yes, thev have the South
22 Dakota case. I suggest to vou it just doesn't provide either
2s binding authoritv or, for that matter, persuasive authoritv.
24 The final point I want to make before Mr. Pugno
2S comes -- and thank vou for vour indulgence, Your Honor -- is
RR 167
c4
1 that this -- these inquiries to whatever extent, vou know,
2 these materials are relevant to the plaintiffs' case, these
s materials from the other side are relevant to our case, and
4 this -- this dispute I hope will not degenerate into --
S THF coURT: Nope. I think that's whv I was
c exploring with Mr. Dusseault some of the alternatives that we
? might pursue here.
8 NR. cooPFR: Thank vou, Your Honor.
s THF coURT: Verv well. Yes, Mr. Pugno?
10 NR. PUGNo: Thank vou, Your Honor. Andrew Pugno.
11 And just to clarifv, I'm not just wandering in. I
12 am counsel of record in this case, and it just so happens that
1s I have published and done some teaching on the Political Reform
14 Act and the open meeting laws, both of which were brought up bv
1S the Court todav, so I wanted to address those two items.
1c THF coURT: All right.
1? NR. PUGNo: I want to submit, the current Political
18 Reform Act in California marks the outer boundaries of what can
1s constitutionallv be compelled in the wav of disclosure with
20 regard to political activitv. It all traces back to Buckley
21 versus Valeo and that is when we're dealing with core
22 protective First Amendment interests, there is a compelling
2s interest, public interest in the knowing, in the disclosure of
24 public information about the source of monev and its corrupted
2S influence -- because of its corrupted influence in politics.
RR 168
cS
1 And so all of the political --
2 THF coURT: Monev is the onlv corrupting influence
s in politics?
4 NR. PUGNo: Well, I am sure there are others, but
S the special corruptive influence of monev and politics
c underpins what had to be a compelling of public interest to
? justifv forcing disclosure of political speech and political
8 information.
s The -- and reallv the entire Political Reform Act
10 flows from that. Evervthing that it requires has to do with
11 the source of monev in campaigns. We haven't reallv talked
12 about that todav, but reallv evervthing from a hundred dollars
1s plus, that has to be -- a donor has to be disclosed. When a
14 campaign has received sS0,000 or more from a donor, its
1S advertisements have to sav, Major funding bv, and then
1c identifv the top two donors to a ballot measure campaign. We
1? see that at the bottom of television commercials now when
18 thev're run in California.
1s The paid political spokesperson who's paid sS,000 or
20 more, the Political Reform Act requires the campaign to
21 disclose and to put a disclaimer on saving, This is a paid
22 spokesperson.
2s The identitv of a sponsor who provides funding and
24 infrastructure, like a labor union or a corporation that
2S provides the infrastructure and covers the overhead of a
RR 169
cc
1 political action committee, has to be disclosed.
2 THF coURT: Whv would that be a good model for
s fashioning the limitations on third parties in this case?
4 NR. PUGNo: Our submission is the disclosure that's
S permissible with regard to the sources of funding has alreadv
c all been made in compliance with the Political Reform Act
? through the periodic disclosures that are made, all of which
8 are public documents, all of which the plaintiffs, intervenor
s plaintiffs, have.
10 What thev seek in this case todav is far bevond all
11 of that, and it would be completelv foreign to the Political
12 Reform Act because the Political Reform Act nowhere requires
1s the disclosure of who's making the decisions, what -- their
14 internal communications, their deliberative process, anvthing
1S that is not 200 or more pieces of mail, a billboard, a,
1c television commercial, and so on, those don't even have to have
1? disclaimers on them unless thev are communicated to the public
18 at large.
1s In other words, what I'm trving to sav is that the
20 Political Reform Act, and it didn't reallv occur to me until
21 the Court brought it up todav, reallv is the measuring stick
22 for what constitutionallv can be compelled in the wav of
2s disclosure, and it all traces back to the compelling government
24 interest, public interest, in knowing the source of monev in
2S politics, and all of that has been disclosed. What is being
RR 170
c?
1 sought here is far bevond that. So I think that's verv
2 instructive.
s The second point on the open meeting laws, on the
4 open meeting laws, the Brown Act in California, the whole
S purpose is that public decisions be made in open and public.
c THF coURT: This is the Ralph M. Brown Act, right?
? NR. PUGNo: Yes, the Brown Act, that's correct.
8 There are reallv three purposes of the Act and that
s is that the public be given notice when a decision is going to
10 be made, that the public be given a chance to be heard bv the
11 decision makers before the decision is made, and, third, that
12 the decisions be made in an open and public forum with
1s exceptions.
14 Okav. Private conversations among Citv Council
1S members, members of the governing enacting bodv are not subject
1c to the open meeting laws. A meeting with a constituent, the
1? content of that meeting is not covered bv the Ralph M. Brown
18 Act.
1s So that tells us that that has nothing to do with
20 this case, because there the decision makers are the Citv
21 Council members or the Countv Board of Supervisors, and the
22 public has an interest in seeing public decisions made in a
2s noticed forum where there's an opportunitv to be heard bv the
24 public and the decision is made publiclv.
2S In this case, the enacting bodv is the electorate,
RR 171
c8
1 the people of California. And, so, it cannot be said that
2 anvthing that bears on the decision of the electorate was not
s available to the electorate, or I should sav that anvthing that
4 is relevant to -- went into the voters' decision making was not
S available because it was public.
c In other words, if our proponents, if our
? intervenors were Citv Council and thev tried to make this
8 decision to pass or not pass Proposition 8 in the backroom,
s that would violate the open meeting laws. But because thev are
10 not the decision makers, thev're the proponents, the decision
11 maker is the electorate, the open meeting law actuallv tells us
12 that all of the public interest in notice and opportunitv to be
1s heard and that the decision is made publiclv, all of that is
14 satisfied in the open initiative process where the people
1S themselves are the enacting bodv.
1c THF coURT: All right.
1? NR. PUGNo: Thank vou.
18 THF coURT: Thank vou.
1s Now mav I take a brief break and then we'll set up
20 in the jurv room? And can I see Mr. Cooper, Mr. Burns, and
21 Mr. Dusseault and Ms. Lee. Just an organizational matter going
22 forward.
2s (Recess taken at 11.4s a.m.)
24 (Proceedings resumed at 11.S4 a.m.)
2S (The following proceedings were heard in chambers.)
RR 172
cs
1 THF coURT: Ordinarilv, Counsel, this is something
2 we just discuss off the record, but given this case, I thought
s we better have it on the record in case anvbodv asks what we're
4 talking about.
S I wanted to alert vou. There has obviouslv been a
c lot of public interest in this case. I was, therefore, pleased
? to see a rather sparse turnout in the courtroom this morning.
8 I suppose discoverv disputes don't generate the kind of
s interest that we've had in the past.
10 NR. cooPFR: I actuallv thought I was in the wrong
11 place.
12 THF coURT: But I don't think we can count on that
1s going forward. And what we have done in similar situations
14 where there has been more interest in the case than there are
1S seats in the courtroom, is to set up an arrangement wherebv the
1c images of counsel, the witness, and the judge can be relaved
1? into another courtroom. We use the ceremonial courtroom on the
18 1sth floor of this building, which has a substantial amount of
1s seating capacitv.
20 So we can accommodate a lot more people in a case
21 that has widespread public interest, and that proves to be of
22 some value and interest to the media as well because thev're
2s able to come and go a lot more readilv than thev can in a
24 courtroom where the proceedings are actuallv transpiring.
2S You saw in the courtroom todav three cameras and
RR 173
?0
1 thev aren't positioned where thev would be, but thev were
2 approximatelv where thev would be. I assume that none of vou
s have anv objection to that procedure.
4 ALL: No objection. None at all.
S THF coURT: I appreciate that.
c And we've also received some inquiries, although I
? have not responded to these inquiries, about projecting this
8 image even bevond an overflow courtroom, and vou might consider
s what vour position is with respect to that.
10 I haven't acted on that in anv wav. I haven't even
11 responded, but vou might consider whether vou have a concern
12 about that, or vou don't object to it, what limitations, if
1s anv, vou think ought to be placed on it.
14 The case is going to generate the kind of attention
1S that this case has alreadv generated, will generate, is
1c something that we ought to be aware of. So give it some
1? thought, confer amongst vourselves.
18 Obviouslv, what we do is open and public and should
1s be, but we want to do it in a wav that's consistent with the
20 rights of the parties and the appropriate decorum and dignitv
21 of the judicial process.
22 So, anvwav, that's what I wanted to talk to vou
2s about.
24 NR. DUFSSFAULT: Thank vou, Your Honor.
2S How would vou like us to get back to vou on our
RR 174
?1
1 thoughts about that?
2 THF coURT: I suspect vou can confer amongst
s vourselves and either get back to me in writing, a joint
4 letter, or, perhaps, if vou have separate positions, vou can do
S that.
c And mavbe vou don't need to. Mavbe if vou're
? perfectlv happv with what I've told vou about the overflow
8 courtroom and vou don't have anv concern about, sav, this image
s being broadcast bevond that, then vou don't have to respond. I
10 just wanted to give vou a heads up. I didn't want vou to be
11 surprised.
12 NR. cooPFR: Your Honor, mav I ask vou --
1s THF coURT: Sure.
14 NR. cooPFR: -- what the displav of the image bevond
1S the overflow courtroom might contemplate? A public broadcast?
1c THF coURT: The image itself would be counsel, the
1? witness, and the judge on a split screen, and that's what would
18 be shown in the overflow courtroom, and if it extended bevond
1s that, that's what would be shown.
20 NR. cooPFR: I see. And do vou contemplate that it
21 might be shown on a public television station or something like
22 that? I mean --
2s THF coURT: I certainlv received an inquirv about
24 that.
2S NR. cooPFR: Okav. No surprise.
RR 175
?2
1 THF coURT: No, it isn't a surprise. It isn't a
2 surprise. There are, of course, Judicial Conference positions
s on this. This is all in flux. As vou know, the Ninth Circuit
4 has broadcast certain arguments. I'm sure vou know the recall
S litigation in, what was that, 200s?
c NR. BURNS: Actuallv the In Re: Marriage and the
? Straus cases were televised.
8 THF coURT: Well, I was thinking of the Ninth
s Circuit, the challenge to the Governor Davis recall, that was
10 broadcast in Ninth Circuit.
11 No, the State is far ahead of the Federal courts in
12 both the technologv and the sophistication in handling these
1s issues, but the Ninth Circuit has, at least in that case, and I
14 think in some other cases, permitted broadcast of those
1S proceedings.
1c NR. PLYNN: And the Ninth Circuit also prettv
1? regularlv has the close-circuit to deal with overflow rooms
18 because their rooms are much smaller.
1s THF coURT: Yes. So, anvwav, I wanted to give vou a
20 heads up.
21 NR. cooPFR: Thank vou verv much, sir. I appreciate
22 that.
2s (Pause in proceedings.)
24 NR. DUFSSFAULT: Mav I clarifv one more thing,
2S Your Honor?
RR 176
?s
1 THF coURT: Sure.
2 NR. DUFSSFAULT: Your moot court rule, no moot court
s rule, if we have, for example, on the motion for summarv
4 judgment that's coming up, we've got one moving partv, two
S opposing parties on the same brief, one person --
c THF coURT: Well, each partv gets to speak, but what
? I don't like are seriatims.
8 NR. cooPFR: We appreciate the patience todav.
s THF coURT: One lawver takes one issue, another
10 lawver takes another issue, and so forth.
11 ALL: Thank vou.
12 THF coURT: Thank vou verv much, Counsel.
1s (Proceedings adjourned at 12.01 p.m.)
14
1S
1c
1?
18
1s
20
21
22
2s
24
2S
RR 177

cFRTIPIcATF oP RFPoRTFR
I, KELLY BRYCE, Court Reporter for the United States
Court, Northern District of California, herebv certifv that the
foregoing proceedings in C 0s-22s2 VRW, Kristin Perrv, et al v.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al., were reported bv me, a shorthand
reporter, and were thereafter transcribed under mv direction
into tvpewriting, that the foregoing is a full, complete and
true record of said proceedings as bound bv me at the time of
filing.
The validitv of the reporter's certification of
said transcript mav be void upon disassemblv and/or removal
from the court file.

______________________
Kellv Brvce, CSR No. 1s4?c
Mondav, September 28, 200s

RR 178

Exhibit A
RR 179
RR 180
RR 181
RR 182
RR 183
RR 184
RR 185

Exhibit B
RR 186
RR 187
RR 188
RR 189
RR 190
RR 191
RR 192

Exhibit C
RR 193
lIT
ALLIACE DEFENSE FUND
Defending Our FirAt Liberty
September 15, 2009
Via Overnight Delivery and Electronic Mail
Californians Against Eliminating Basic Rights
c/o James C. Harrison and Kari Krogseng
201 Dolores Avenue
San Leandro, California 94577
Re: Perry v. Schwarzenegger,
U.S.D.C., N.D. CaL., C-09-2292 VRW
Dear Mr. Harrison and Ms. Krogseng:
This letter is a follow-up correspondence regarding the subpoena to produce documents
and electronically stored information previously issued to your organization by the Proposition 8
Proponents and ProtectMarriage.com (collectively referred to as the "Proposition 8 Proponents")
in connection with the above-captioned case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
The Proposition 8 Proponents reiterate, as we indicated in the cover letter that
accompanied the subpoena, that in responding to the document requests you should "follow the
same narrowing constructions that the Proposition 8 Proponents and ProtectMarriage.com are
following with respect to their responses to document requests from the PlaintitTs in this action."
Further, we are not seeking your "organization's internal communications and documents, including
communications between (your) organization and its agents, contractors, attorneys, or others in a
similarly private and confidential relationship with the organization" and "to the extent (the requests)
call for communications or documents prepared for publ ic distribution, include only documents that
were actually disclosed to the public."
The requests in the subpoena issued to your organization mirror the document requests
that the Plaintiffs served on the Proposition 8 Proponents, with the significant caveat that the
Proposition 8 Proponents-through the "narrowing construction" set forth above-attempted to
exclude any documents we believe are irrelevant or constitutionally protected under controlling
law. Unlike the Proposition 8 Proponents' attempts to exclude such materials in its subpoena to
your organization, the Plaintiffs are insisting that the Proposition 8 Proponents provide
documents that we believe are irrelevant and constitutionally protected. As a result, the
Proposition 8 Proponents have objected to the Plaintiffs' requests. I have attached to this letter a
copy of the Proposition 8 Proponents' objections.
15100 N. 90TH STREET' SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA 85260 . PHONE 480-444-0020 FAX 480-444-0028 WEB WWW.TELLAF.ORG
,~ ,.',ll, .orT '. I'..:" ,,,' ~',:_~\.~l'. '.': . '. " ~~ ",.,.:".'~.l:" ,_~. " ~F I; _', ,..','r ,.~',"
RR 194
Please understand that when you produce the requested documents, the Proposition 8
Proponents do not expect your organization to produce any of the materials to which we have
objected in the attached document.
Nevertheless because the Proposition 8 Proponents and the Plaintiffs have been unable to
reach an agreement on the permissible scope of discovery, we are filing with the Court a motion
for a protective order. While the Proposition 8 Proponents will urge the Court that the objected-
to materials are protected from disclosure, should the Court disagree with us, we would expect
your organization to produce the same types of materials that we are required to produce.
If the Court rejects the motion for a protective order, the Proposition 8 Proponents will
alert you of the need to provide additional documents at that time.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
~
James A. Campbell
cc: All counsel of record
EncL.
2
~;:" (~:-'.;~it ':~;. ',::l . ..~:?~::~ ,1., ::'. ...... '.: . :" _. ".' ,: . ",0" 0' . , . . o. o. , 0 . ~ . _. 0" .-: .',' '. _ ,,0':' " .' .:,'.: ': ~:;
RR 195

Exhibit F
RR 196

F-1
RR 197
Dennis Herrera for San Francisco City Attorney (http://www.dennisherrera.org/)
Biography
Share (http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php)
Email
Print
Font Size:
(javascript:CE_SetPageFont(''))
(javascript:CE_SetPageFont('med'))
(javascript:CE_SetPageFont('large'))
San Francisco City
Attorney Dennis Herrera
leads an office that has
won national acclaim as
one of the most talented,
progressive and innovative
public law offices in the
nation.
The first Latino ever to hold
the office, Dennis was
elected City Attorney of
San Francisco in 2001 on a
pledge to defend the
integrity of our public
institutions, to expand
neighborhood protection
efforts, and to enhance local government's accountability to its citizens and taxpayers. But it has been
several of his bolder, affirmative litigation efforts for which Herrera has earned his national reputation.
He filed the first government litigation in American history to challenge the constitutionality of
marriage laws that discriminate against gay and lesbian couples. His case was among those that
won a landmark 2008 decision that not only toppled the discriminatory marriage exclusion, but
solidified civil rights protections for lesbians and gay men from discrimination in California.
He led the nations only public sector intervention to challenge the constitutionality of the Bush
Administration's federal abortion ban, representing public hospitals and clinics that are often a
safety net of last resort for poor and underserved women, and fighting to protect womens right
to reproductive choice all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
He led the groundbreaking public integrity investigation and lawsuit on behalf of the San Francisco
http://www.dennisherrera.org/about?id=0001
9/22/2009 9:32 AM
RR 198
Unified School District that blew the whistle on a nationwide scam to defraud the federal E-Rate
program, which helps expand access to technology to America's poorest school districts. His
testimony before Congress on the case helped establish lasting protections against waste, fraud
and abuse for countless public school children.
Beyond his role as City Attorney, Herrera is active participant in numerous local, state and national
organizations. He serves on the board of the Hunters Point Boys and Girls Club, and helps to impart his
love of sports and recreation by helping to coach local youth soccer and baseball programs. He worked
tirelessly to raise money statewide to support the 2008 campaign to defeat Proposition 8. He was
chosen to serve on a judicially appointed committee on the independence of the judiciary, and he has
spoken and written extensively on the importance of protecting our judicial branch of government from
cynical political attacks. He also serves on the board of the American Constitution Society, a prestigious
and influential national legal organization past leadership includes U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and
others.
Herrera was born on November 6, 1962 in Bay Shore, New York, and grew up in the nearby Long
Island community of Glen Cove. He obtained his bachelor's degree at Villanova University in
Pennsylvania, and went on to earn his juris doctor from the George Washington University School of
Law in Washington, D.C. He was admitted to the California Bar in 1989.
With the inauguration of President Bill Clinton in January 1993, Herrera was appointed to the U.S.
Maritime Administration in Washington, D.C., where he served under Transportation Secretary Federico
Pena and helped lead implementation of the National Shipbuilding Initiative and Maritime Security
Program. Herrera later returned to private practice in San Francisco as a partner in the maritime law
firm of Kelly, Gill, Sherburne & Herrera, but remained active in local community service. He was
appointed to the City's Transportation Commission by then-Mayor Willie L. Brown Jr., who later named
him to the San Francisco Police Commission.
Herrera won high marks from police accountability advocates and police officers association leaders
alike for his fair-minded temperament and focus on bridging divides and solving problems. He would
later be elected Police Commission President. As a commissioner, Herrera led a groundbreaking effort
to develop police department protocols to assure fair treatment and protect the dignity of transgendered
people.
Dennis Herrera and his wife, Anne, live in the Potrero Hill neighborhood of Dogpatch, with their seven-
year-old son, Declan.
http://www.dennisherrera.org/about?id=0001
9/22/2009 9:32 AM
RR 199

F-2
RR 200
By Joe Eskenazi in Government, Politics Friday, Jan. 23 2009 @ 6:30AM
So Cit y At t or n ey Den n is Her r er a Wa s on ' No
on 8 ' Execu t ive Com m it t ee -- Ca n He Do Th a t ?
An d Wh a t Will En r a ged LGBT Act ivist s Th in k?
I f LGBT a ct iv is t s ex cor ia t e Den n is H er r er a fo r h is r o le on t h e No on Pr o p . 8 ex ecu t iv e
co m m it t ee, t h en h e' ll b e feelin g t h e h ea t fr o m all s id es
This week, after months of rancor and a public records request, the names of the
16 folks on the No on Prop. 8 executive committee began circulating on the
Internet. Very quickly, this became a case of indignant LGBT blogger see,
indignant LGBT blogger link.
We couldn' t help but notice that one of the 16 folks mentioned is City Attorney
Dennis Herrera. This prompts two questions: Is a city attorney legally allowed to
serve on the executive board of a statewide political action committee, potentially
charting strategy, allotting millions of dollars, and fund-raising from folks he may
well see in court one day?
And, secondly, we' ve written how Herrera' s tenacious legal work on behalf of
advancing gay marriage has helped make him a solid mayoral candidate. Does
serving on the executive committee of the organization that laid a $45 million egg
and lost the electoral fight for marriage equality tarnish his candidacy?
The answer to these questions, respectively, are "yes" and "perhaps." Let us
explain.
The handful of California legal and good-government experts SF Weekly called
could not recall a single instance in which a city attorney was so heavily involved in
a major statewide political campaign (face it, San Francisco is just a political
town).
That being said, all agreed that while Herrera' s involvement was highly unusual, it
was also certainly legally permissible.
"It' s unusual for a city attorney to get involved in a statewide race. But this was an
unusual race and an unusual election issue that affected San Francisco more than
most other statewide measures," said Bob Stern, president of Los Angeles' Center
for Governmental Studies and a former general counsel for the Fair Political
Practices Commission. "Herrera was bringing the lawsuit, not judging it."
(Incidentally, San Francisco law prohibits the city attorney from weighing in on
local candidates and ballot measures.).
Derek Cressman, the western states regional director of California Common Cause,
also saw nothing improper about San Francisco' s city attorney serving on a
statewide PAC But he did perceive one red flag: "If Herrera was in a position
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2009/01/so_city_attorney_dennis_herrer.php
9/22/2009 9:34 AM
RR 201

F-3
RR 202
1
0
7
3
8
9
5
-
6
S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
c
i
p
i
e
n
t

C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
T
y
p
e

o
r

p
r
i
n
t

i
n

i
n
k
S
T
A
T
E
M
E
N
T

O
F

O
R
G
A
N
I
Z
A
T
I
O
N
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
F
O
R
M
4
1
0
F
o
r

O
f
f
i
c
i
a
l

U
s
e

o
n
l
y
D
a
t
e

S
t
a
m
p
S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t

T
y
p
e
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
N
o
t

y
e
t

q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
o
r
D
a
t
e

q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d

a
s

c
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
L
i
s
t

I
.
D
.

n
u
m
b
e
r
:
# D
a
t
e

q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d

a
s

c
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(
I
f

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
)
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

-

S
e
e

P
a
r
t

5
L
i
s
t

I
.
D
.

n
u
m
b
e
r
:
# D
a
t
e

o
f

T
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
1
.
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
N
A
M
E

O
F

C
O
M
M
I
T
T
E
E
S
T
R
E
E
T

A
D
D
R
E
S
S

(
N
O

P
.

O
.

B
O
X
)
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
E
Z
I
P

C
O
D
E
A
R
E
A

C
O
D
E
/
P
H
O
N
E
M
A
I
L
I
N
G

A
D
D
R
E
S
S

(
I
F

D
I
F
F
E
R
E
N
T
)
O
P
T
I
O
N
A
L
:
F
A
X
/
E
-
M
A
I
L

A
D
D
R
E
S
S
C
O
U
N
T
Y

O
F

D
O
M
I
C
I
L
E
C
O
U
N
T
Y

W
H
E
R
E

C
O
M
M
I
T
T
E
E

I
S

A
C
T
I
V
E

I
F

D
I
F
F
E
R
E
N
T
T
H
A
N

C
O
U
N
T
Y

O
F

D
O
M
I
C
I
L
E
A
t
t
a
c
h

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

o
n

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
l
y

l
a
b
e
l
e
d

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
a
t
i
o
n

s
h
e
e
t
s
.
2
.
T
r
e
a
s
u
r
e
r

a
n
d

O
t
h
e
r

P
r
i
n
c
i
p
a
l

O
f
f
i
c
e
r
s
N
A
M
E

O
F

T
R
E
A
S
U
R
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T

A
D
D
R
E
S
S
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
E
Z
I
P

C
O
D
E
A
R
E
A

C
O
D
E
/
P
H
O
N
E
N
A
M
E

O
F

A
S
S
I
S
T
A
N
T

T
R
E
A
S
U
R
E
R
,

I
F

A
N
Y
S
T
R
E
E
T

A
D
D
R
E
S
S
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
E
Z
I
P

C
O
D
E
A
R
E
A

C
O
D
E
/
P
H
O
N
E
N
A
M
E

A
N
D

P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

O
F

O
T
H
E
R

P
R
I
N
C
I
P
A
L

O
F
F
I
C
E
R
(
S
)
,

I
F

A
P
P
L
I
C
A
B
L
E
M
A
I
L
I
N
G

A
D
D
R
E
S
S
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
E
Z
I
P

C
O
D
E
A
R
E
A

C
O
D
E
/
P
H
O
N
E
3
.
V
e
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
I

h
a
v
e

u
s
e
d

a
l
l

r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e

d
i
l
i
g
e
n
c
e

i
n

p
r
e
p
a
r
i
n
g

t
h
i
s

s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

t
o

t
h
e

b
e
s
t

o
f

m
y

k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

t
h
e

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

c
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
d

h
e
r
e
i
n

i
s

t
r
u
e

a
n
d

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
.

I

c
e
r
t
i
f
y

u
n
d
e
r
p
e
n
a
l
t
y

o
f

p
e
r
j
u
r
y

u
n
d
e
r

t
h
e

l
a
w
s

o
f

t
h
e

S
t
a
t
e

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

f
o
r
e
g
o
i
n
g

i
s

t
r
u
e

a
n
d

c
o
r
r
e
c
t
.
E
x
e
c
u
t
e
d

o
n
B
y
D
A
T
E
S
I
G
N
A
T
U
R
E

O
F

T
R
E
A
S
U
R
E
R

O
R

A
S
S
I
S
T
A
N
T

T
R
E
A
S
U
R
E
R
E
x
e
c
u
t
e
d

o
n
B
y
D
A
T
E
S
I
G
N
A
T
U
R
E

O
F

C
O
N
T
R
O
L
L
I
N
G

O
F
F
I
C
E
H
O
L
D
E
R
,

C
A
N
D
I
D
A
T
E
,

O
R

S
T
A
T
E

M
E
A
S
U
R
E

P
R
O
P
O
N
E
N
T
E
x
e
c
u
t
e
d

o
n
B
y
D
A
T
E
S
I
G
N
A
T
U
R
E

O
F

C
O
N
T
R
O
L
L
I
N
G

O
F
F
I
C
E
H
O
L
D
E
R
,

C
A
N
D
I
D
A
T
E
,

O
R

S
T
A
T
E

M
E
A
S
U
R
E

P
R
O
P
O
N
E
N
T
E
x
e
c
u
t
e
d

o
n
B
y
D
A
T
E
S
I
G
N
A
T
U
R
E

O
F

C
O
N
T
R
O
L
L
I
N
G

O
F
F
I
C
E
H
O
L
D
E
R
,

C
A
N
D
I
D
A
T
E
,

O
R

S
T
A
T
E

M
E
A
S
U
R
E

P
R
O
P
O
N
E
N
T
F
P
P
C

F
o
r
m

4
1
0

(
J
a
n
/
0
1
)
F
P
P
C

T
o
l
l
-
F
r
e
e

H
e
l
p
l
i
n
e
:

8
6
6
/
A
S
K
-
F
P
P
C
1
2
5
9
3
9
6
1
0
/
3
/
2
0
0
3
N
o

o
n

8
,

E
q
u
a
l
i
t
y

f
o
r

A
l
l
P
a
g
e

7
D
e
n
n
i
s

H
e
r
r
e
r
a
S
a
n

F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
C
A
9
4
1
0
2
4
1
5
-
5
5
4
-
4
7
0
0
RR 203

F-4
RR 204
Publ i shed: Sept ember 17, 2008
Support Our Troops, Read Their Stories
Search News Daily News
NEWS
Daily News
Top Stories
Breaking News
World
Politics
Business
Growth Minute
Sports
Health
Food & Wine
Women
Women in Business
Opinion
Letters to the Editor
High Tech
Horoscope
Entertainment
Entertainment Goss
Music
Features
Books
Poetry
Movie Reviews
Home & Garden
Industry
States
Health Column
Senior Health
Environment
Education
SupportOurTroops
Iraq
Iran
Nepal
Kashmir
Cartoons
Video Releases
Most Read
WI RES
Eworldwire
Marketwire
GlobeNewswire
PRNewswire
Send2Press
Marketwire Canada
24-7 Pressrelease
Realwire
PR.com
ACNNewswire
Business Wire
NewsBlazeWire
Spanish Releases
Movers/Shakers
OTHER
About Us
Contact Us
Feedback
Writers
Bookmarks
Link to Us
Advertise
Sitemap
TECHNOLOGY
RFID
Supply Chain
Text to Speech
Voice Over IP
Wi-Fi
Games
iPod
Biotech
NEWSPAPERS
Folsom
Orange County
Boca Raton
St Augustine
Vero Beach
BREAKI NG NEWS: TODAY I S WORLD ALZHEI MER' S DAY

Send to a friend
Brad Pitt Opposes Prop. 8; Donates $100k: No on Prop. 8
LOS ANGELES, Sept. 17 /PRNewswire/ -- Brad Pitt
today donated $100,000 to fightCalifornia's
Proposition 8, which would eliminate same sex
couples' right to marry.
Prop. 8 threatens to take away important benefits like
health insurance, eliminate protections for children, and
complicate decision-making related to medical
emergencies and other situations. These and other
issues are not resolved by domestic partnerships.
"Because no one has the right to deny another their life
even though they disagree with it, because everyone
has the right to live the life they so desire if it doesn't harm another, and because discrimination has no
place in America, my vote will be for equality and against Proposition 8," Pitt said.
"The entertainment industry should view this contribution as a challenge. It is our hope that others in the
entertainment industry will step up and match Brad Pitt's heroic commitment to equality and to defeating
Prop. 8," said Chad Griffin, political strategist for the No on 8 campaign. "This isn't a special interest
issue -- this measure affects every business and every family. WithCalifornia's budget and the national
economy in chaos, the last thing we need is an unnecessary measure that threatens health benefits and
protections for children."
For more information or to contribute, visit
http://www.votenoonproposition8.com
Paid for by Californians Against Eliminating Basic Rights, No on Prop. 8 San Francisco City
Attorney Dennis Herrera, Chair PO Box 2973,Beverly Hills, CA 90213 T: 310.285.2316 - ID#1307787
Californians Against Eliminating Basic Rights is a member of the Equality for All Coalition
SOURCE Californians Against Eliminating Basic Rights
Chitika | Premium
Sponsored Results
Dennis Attorneys
Free Online Attorney Consultation -All Types of Cases- No Obligation.
www.AttorneyHelp.com
Attorneys in Dennis
Find experienced attorneys in all US states. It's fast and free.
www.attorneylink.us
Boston Injury Lawyers
Free Case Consultation with a Local Injury Lawyer. Contact Us Now.
www.InjuryHelpLineLawyer.com
Comment on this story, by email comment@newsblaze.com
Click here to get NewsBlaze News in your email
Copyright 2009, PRNewswire
Copyright 2009, NewsBlaze, Daily News
Tags: , PUB, POL, STP, CA- Cal i f . - Agai nst
_ _

I s your f avori t e bookmark si t e mi ssi ng? Ask f or i t .

Editoria
Political
Gay Fr i endl y Chur ch
An open- mi nded, l i ber al fai t h We
suppor t same sex mar r i age
www.Balt WashUUs.org/
Tr uck I nsur ance
Ful l Ser vi ce Commer ci al I ns. Agency
Heavy Dut y Tr ucks, Owner s & Fl eet s
www.t ecinsurance.net
Bob McDonnel l ' s Bl uepr i nt
Read What t he Washi ngt on Post Found
About Bob' s Ext r eme Soci al Agenda!
www.BobMcDonnellBlueprint .com
Bob McDonnel l ' s
Bl uepr i nt
Read What t he
Washi ngt on Post
Found About Bob's
Ext r eme Soci al
Agenda!
Cal i f or ni a
Pr oposi t i on 65
Test i ng Labor at or y
Fast Resul t s -
1- 800- 755- 1794
www.LATest ing.com
Cal i f or ni a
Pr oposi t i on 65
Test i ng, r i sk mgt ,
consul t i ng, pr oduct
assessment s &
scr eeni ng
www.int ert ek.com/ prop65
Aut o I nsur ance -
Save 70%
Get fr ee i nst ant
i nsur ance quot es. See
how much you wi l l
save.
Insurance- Quot es- Aut o.net
Wi l l s, pow er s of
at t or ney
Pr ot ect you and your
par t ner now wi t h t he
r i ght l egal document s
www.Part nerPlanning.com
http://newsblaze.com/story/2008091716230200001.pnw/topstory.html
9/22/2009 9:58 AM
RR 205

F-5
RR 206
Search>
http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/cd/content.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4028667&event_id=%7B2B14FBBF-452E-4661-8FE5-B862BFC8764E%7D&c...
9/22/2009 9:54 AM
RR 207

see al l support ers >
addi t i onal
i nst i t ut e support ers >

Ev ent s

You Are Cordi al l y I nvi t ed t o Joi n Event Champi ons and Chai rs f or
An Ev eni ng t o Benef i t t he No On 8 Campai gn
Special perf ormance by Melissa Et heridge and Mary J. Blige
Tu esday, Oct ober 2 1
6: 30 p. m.
At t h e h ome of Ron Bu r k l e
Green Acres Est at e
Beverl y Hi l l s
Ch ampi on s: St eve Bi ng, Davi d C. Bohnet t & Tom Gregory, Jonat han Lewi s
Ch ai r s: John & Mi ke August , Ron Burkl e, Kat e Capshaw & St even Spi el berg, Bruce Cohen &
Gabe Cat one, Davi d Gef f en, Chad Gri f f i n, Frank Pond, Hon. Denni s Herrera, Hon. Gavi n
Newsom, Hon. Fabi an Nuez, Hon. Ant oni o Vi l l arai gosa, Equal i t y Cal i f orni a - Geof f
Kors, Human Ri ght s Campai gn - Joe Sol monese, L. A. Gay & Lesbi an Cent er - Lorri L.
Jean, Nat i onal Cent er f or Lesbi an Ri ght s - Kat e Kendel l
Hon or ar y Ch ai r : Barbra St rei sand
Host s: Jul i e Anderson & Amy Dant zl er, Tess Ayers & Jane Anderson, Shel l ey Freeman, Susan
Feni ger & Dean Hansel l , Jason Hendl er & Chad Bi l l myer, John Gi l e, Jef f rey & Mari l yn
Kat zenberg, Kat hy Kennedy & Frank Marshal l , Jonat han Ki ng, Hugh Ki nsel l agh & Dana Perl man,
Kel l y Lynch & Anni e Got o, Rayman Mat hoda & Avant i ka Shahi , Gary Meade, Bi l l Resni ck & Doug
Cordel l , Dan Ri cket t s & St eve Frankel , Fred Paul & Eri c M. Shore, Joel Saf ranek, Lorrai ne & Si d
Shei nberg
Spon sor s: St eve Af ri at & Curt i s Sanchez, Jehan F. Agrama & Dwora Fri ed, Mark Baer, Tammy
Bi l l i k, I l ene Chai ken, El i zabet h Chase & Janel l e Eagl e, Chri s Cook, Cl i f f ord Davi dson & Andy
Sf ei r, Crai g Doughert y & Tony Leonhardt , Bri an Hargrove and Davi d Hyde Pi erce, Chuck
Henry, El l en Huang, Barry Karas, Barbara Kauf man, Bart on H. Kogan, Ki rk & Rob
Marcol i na, George Mari el l a, Jym Genest a & Tommy Chambers, Raf ael Medi na, Loren Ost row &
Bri an Newki rk, Davi d Pence & Andrew Georgi ou & Yael Swerdl ow, Vahan Saroi ans, Rodney
Scot t , Curt Shepard & Al an Hergot t , Danni el l e Thomas, Bart Verry & Mark Art eaga, Lew Wol f
Co- Ch ai r s: Greg Berl ant i , Hon. John Duran, Fal l Out Boy, Mi chel e & Rob Rei ner, Ani t a May
Rosenst ei n
Li st of support ers st i l l i n f ormat i on.
$1, 000 donat i on per person or $10, 000 Event Sponsor i ncl udes recept i on and ent ert ai nment
For t he pri vat e di nner precedi ng t he recept i on ( seat i ng l i mi t ed t o 75 guest s) :
$250, 000 Champi on | $100, 000 Chai r | $50, 000 Co- Chai r | $25, 000 Host
Th i s i s sol d ou t !
For more i nf ormat i on pl ease cal l 818. 905. 9831
More I nf ormat i on: www. NoOnProp8. com/ l aevent

Donat e | About | Sponsors | Cont act | Pri vacy Pol i cy | Si t e Map
Our af f i l i at ed organi zat i ons: Equal i t y Cal i f orni a I nst i t ut e & Equal i t y Cal i f orni a PAC
2370 Market St . 2nd Fl oor, San Franci sco, CA 94114 phone: 415. 581. 0005 f ax: 415. 581. 0805
MySpace | Facebook | Twi t t er | Bl ogger | YouTube | Phot os
Copyri ght 2008
http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/cd/content.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4028667&event_id=%7B2B14FBBF-452E-4661-8FE5-B862BFC8764E%7D&c...
9/22/2009 9:54 AM
RR 208

F-6
RR 209
2005 Pr ess Rel eases
For I mmedi at e Rel ease: Januar y 21, 2005
EQUALI TY CALI FORNI A CO- HOSTS WEEKEND MARRI AGE
SUMMI T AND ACTI VI ST TRAI NI NG WI TH
ASSEMBLYMEMBER MARK LENO, NCLR AND OTHER LOCAL
ORGANI ZATI ONS
Sunday, Januar y 23r d, 2005, 9: 30 AM - 3: 30 PM
St at e Bui l di ng, Basement Audi t or i um
455 Gol den Gat e Ave, near t he Ci vi c Cent er i n San
Fr anci sco
Fr ee Admi ssi on/ Ref r eshment s Pr ovi ded
San Fr anci sco - On Sunday, Januar y 23, 2005, Equal i t y
Cal i for ni a i s co- host i ng a mar r i age summi t and act i vi st
t r ai ni ng t o gi ve suppor t er s t he l at est updat e on t he mar r i age
l i t i gat i on fr om t he at t or neys, l egi sl at or s and or gani zat i ons
l eadi ng t he char ge. Pr ess ar e wel come t o at t end. The agenda
i s bel ow.
10: 00- 10: 15 AM Wel come, Or gani zat i onal Sponsor s
I nt r oduced
10: 15- 10: 45 AM Cal i f or ni a Li t i gat i on Updat e
Cour t ney Josl i n, NCLR, l ead counsel
i n mar r i age l i t i gat i on
Denni s Her r er a, SF Ci t y At t or ney
Pl ai nt i ffs: John Lewi s & St uar t
Gaffney
10: 45- 11: 00 AM Assembl y member Mar k Leno,AB 19:
Rel i gi ous Fr eedom & Mar r i age Pr ot ect i on Act
11: 00- 11: 10 AM Geof f r ey Kor s, EQCA Execut i ve
Di r ect or
Over vi ew of 2005 Pl ans t o combat
di scr i mi nat i on and secur e equal i t y for LGBT fami l i es
11: 15- 12: 00 PM Par t One of Panel Br eakout
Sessi ons ( sel ect one)
1. Bui l di ng an Asi an Paci f i c I sl ander Mov ement f or
Mar r i age Equal i t y ( Andy Wong moder at or , panel i st s Fel i x
Tsai ( GAPA) St uar t Gaffney and John Lewi s ( EQCA/ MECA)
2. Bui l di ng Coal i t i ons: Fi ndi ng Common Goal s and
St r at egi es w i t h non- LGBTQ Gr oups
Moder at or : Eve Lubal i n - PFLAG St at ewi de Advocacy
Coor di nat or for CA Panel i st s i ncl ude: Ni col e Yel i ch ( Pol i t i cal
Or gani zer , NARAL Pr o- Choi ce Cal i for ni a) , Di ane Har r i son (
Pr esi dent and CEO, Pl anned Par ent hood Gol den Gat e)
3. Pr op 54/ Thr ee St r i kes/ Lessons: Moder at or : Rafael
Mandel man Panel i st s i ncl ude: Maya Har r i s ( Raci al Just i ce
Pr oj ect , ACLU) St eve Phi l l i ps ( Power PAC.or g) , St ephani e
Ong ( Hope Road Consul t i ng)
4. Mar r i age Equal i t y i n t he Lat i no Communi t y Moder at or :
Davi d Campos Panel i st s: Mar k Sanchez ( Commi ssi oner , San
Fr anci sco Boar d of Educat i on) ; Vi ct or Mar quez ( For mer
Pr esi dent , La Raza Lawyer s Associ at i on)

12: 00- 12: 45 PM Lunch ( on your own)
12: 45- 1: 30 PM Par t Tw o of Panel Br eakout
Sessi ons ( sel ect one)
1) Why Mar r i age Equal i t y? Why Now ?
Moder at or : Debr a Wal ker / Mi chael Gol dst ei n Panel i st s
i ncl ude: Lesl i e Kat z ( Chai r of SF Democr at i c Par t y) , Joey
Cai n ( Chai r of SF Pr i de Boar d) , Devi na Kot ul ski ( Mar r i age
Equal i t y)

Medi a I nqui ri es
Medi a Resources
2009 Press Rel eases
Comuni cados de medi os
en espaol
Archi ve
2008
2007
2006
2005
2002- 2004
Donat e | About | Sponsors | Cont act
| Pri vacy Pol i cy | Si t e Map
Our af f i l i at ed organi zat i ons: Equal i t y
Cal i f orni a I nst i t ut e & Equal i t y
Cal i f orni a PAC
2370 Market St . 2nd Fl oor, San
Franci sco, CA 94114 phone:
415. 581. 0005 f ax: 415. 581. 0805
MySpace | Facebook |
Twi t t er | Bl ogger |
YouTube | Phot os
Copyri ght 2008
http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4025509&ct=5194743
9/22/2009 9:29 AM
RR 210

09-CV-2292 VRW PLAINTIFFS AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS JOINT OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
Theodore B. Olson, SBN 38137
tolson@gibsondunn.com
Matthew D. McGill, pro hac vice
Amir C. Tayrani, SBN 229609
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036

Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., SBN 132009
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
Christopher D. Dusseault, SBN 177557
Ethan D. Dettmer, SBN 196046
Sarah E. Piepmeier, SBN 227094
Theane Evangelis Kapur, SBN 243570
Enrique A. Monagas, SBN 239087
333 S. Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90071

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
David Boies, pro hac vice
dboies@bsfllp.com
Theodore H. Uno, SBN 248603
333 Main Street, Armonk, New York 10504

Attorneys for Plaintiffs KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER,
PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO
[Additional counsel listed on signature page]
KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER,
PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO,
Plaintiffs,
v.
capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND
G. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as
Attorney General of California; MARK B.
HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of
the California Department of Public Health and
State Registrar of Vital Statistics; LINETTE
SCOTT, in her official capacity as Deputy
Director of Health Information & Strategic
Planning for the California Department of Public
Health; PATRICK OCONNELL, in his official
capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of
Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his official
Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS AND PLAINTIFF-
INTERVENORS JOINT OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS
MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

Date: September 25, 2009
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Judge: Chief Judge Walker
RR 211

i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 1
II. ARGUMENT............................................................................................................................ 2
A. The Disputed Discovery Is Relevant to the Factual Disputes the Court
Identified as Requiring Resolution and to the State Interests Advanced
by Defendant-Intervenors.............................................................................................. 2
1. Defendant-Intervenors Misconstrue Relevance Standards and
Conflate Relevance with Admissibility ............................................................ 3
2. Plaintiffs Discovery Is Reasonably Calculated to Lead to the
Discovery of Party Admissions and Impeachment Evidence
Regarding Defendants Positions in this Case and the Factual
Disputes Identified by the Court ....................................................................... 4
3. Plaintiffs Discovery Is Reasonably Calculated to Lead to the
Discovery of Admissible Evidence Concerning the
Motivations for Supporting Prop. 8............................................................... 5
4. Defendant-Intervenors Position Is Internally Inconsistent and
Designed to Prevent Discovery Going to Issues Relevant to this
Case................................................................................................................... 7
B. Defendant-Intervenors Claim to a Sweeping First Amendment
Privilege Against Party Discovery Is Makeweight ....................................................... 8
III. CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................... 13

RR 212

ii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
Page(s)
CASES
Adolph Coors Co. v. Wallace,
570 F. Supp. 202 (N.D. Cal. 1983) .................................................................................................... 8
Anderson v. Hale,
No. 00-C-2021, 2001 WL 503045 (N.D. Ill. May 10, 2001)....................................................... 8, 11
Bates v. City of Little Rock,
361 U.S. 516 (1960)........................................................................................................................... 8
Bates v. Jones,
131 F.3d 843 (9th Cir. 1997)(en banc)............................................................................................... 6
Brock v. Local 375,
860 F.2d 346 (9th Cir. 1988).......................................................................................................... 8, 9
Castaneda v. Burger King Corp., --- F.R.D. ---,
2009 WL 2748932 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009)................................................................................... 3
Christ Covenant Church v. Town of Sw. Ranches,
No. 07-60516, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49483 (S.D. Fla. June 29, 2008) .......................................... 9
City of Los Angeles v. County of Kern,
462 F. Supp. 2d 1105 (C.D. Cal. 2006) ................................................................................... 5, 6, 10
Crawford v. Board of Education,
458 U.S. 527 (1982)........................................................................................................................... 6
Del Campo v. Kennedy,
236 F.R.D. 454 (N.D. Cal. 2006)....................................................................................................... 3
Dept of Agric. v. Moreno,
413 U.S. 528 (1973)........................................................................................................................... 5
Dole v. Service Employees Union,
950 F.2d 1456 (9th Cir. 1991)............................................................................................................ 8
Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee,
372 U.S. 539 (1963)........................................................................................................................... 8
Grandbouche v. Clancy,
825 F.2d 1463 (10th Cir. 1987).......................................................................................................... 9
In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig.,
No. 07-MD-1840-KHV, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66005 (D. Kan. May 28, 2009) ................ 8, 10, 11
RR 213
[Continued]
Page(s)

iii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
Jones v. Bates,
127 F.3d 839 (9th Cir. 1997).............................................................................................................. 6
NAACP v. Alabama,
357 U.S. 449 (1958)........................................................................................................................... 8
Pers. Admr of Mass. v. Feeney,
442 U.S. 256, 260 (1979)................................................................................................................... 5
S.D. Farm Bureau, Inc. v. Hazeltine,
340 F.3d 583 (8th Cir. 2003).............................................................................................................. 5
SASSO v. Union City,
424 F.2d 291 (9th Cir. 1970).............................................................................................................. 6
Washington v. Davis,
426 U.S. 229 (1976)........................................................................................................................... 5
Washington v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1,
458 U.S. 457 (1982)........................................................................................................................... 5
Wilkinson v. FBI,
111 F.R.D. 432 (C.D. Cal. 1986) ..................................................................................................... 10
RULES
Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)............................................................................................................................... 5

RR 214

1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant-Intervenorsthe official proponents of Proposition 8 and intervenors in this
caseseek a protective order preventing any and all discovery into documents or communications
concerning Proposition 8, except those available to the public at large. Doc #187-14 at 3. Despite
Plaintiffs attempts to negotiate the scope of discovery and willingness to maintain the confidentiality
of specific information where confidentiality is appropriate, Defendant-Intervenors instead stake out
a rigid, across-the-board position that virtually none of their documents are discoverable no matter
what they may say or address. Defendant-Intervenors position, and their broad-strokes motion for
protective order, lack merit.
In defense of their position, Defendant-Intervenors try to distract this Court from the
numerous important issues in play in this case, and to recast the case altogether as one about
protection of core First Amendment activities. Doc #187 at 7. But this case is, and always has
been, about the vindication of Plaintiffs rights under the United States Constitutionrights that are
violated every day that Californias Proposition 8 remains in effect. In order to build their case and
be in a position to address issues that may arise at trial, Plaintiffs are entitled under the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure to liberal discovery of any non-privileged information that may lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
Defendant-Intervenors attempt to portray themselves as like any other California voter or
any person who weighed in on the Prop. 8 debate, id. at 10, is disingenuous and must fail.
Defendant-Intervenors voluntarily made themselves parties to this case. As such, they have a
responsibility, not necessarily co-extensive with that of third-parties, to produce any and all non-
privileged documents that are relevant to any issue that may be part of a trial of Plaintiffs important
claims. Moreover, Defendant Intervenors attempt to invoke the First Amendment to block the
discovery of virtually all of their documents cannot be supported. Defendant-Intervenors attempts to
avoid such discovery entirely and shield relevant documentsdocuments that may contradict the
very arguments they advance in this caselack merit, and their motion should be denied.
RR 215

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
II. ARGUMENT
A. The Disputed Discovery Is Relevant to the Factual Disputes the Court Identified
as Requiring Resolution and to the State Interests Advanced by Defendant-
Intervenors
Defendant-Intervenors have consistently argued that there are no genuine issues of material
fact that must be resolved at trial and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Doc
#172-1 at 30. It thus comes as no surprise that they believe all discovery propounded to them is
irrelevant and that the Court need only rely on public records and prior California Supreme Court
opinions to adjudicate this matter. Doc #187 at 9, 11-13. While Plaintiffs believe that there are
certain issues in this case that can be resolved in Plaintiffs favor as a matter of law and without resort
to detailed factual inquiry (and so argued in their motion for a preliminary injunction), the Court has
set this case for trial in January 2010 and set a discovery schedule within which the parties must
prepare the case for a full trial on the merits. The issues on which Plaintiffs intend to prepare a
record for trial include, but are not limited to, the fifteen specific factual issues that the Court
identified in its June 30, 2009 Order. Doc #76 at 7-9.
In spite of the Courts direction that the parties prepare this case for trial, Defendant-
Intervenors have steadfastly maintained their position that no trial is needed and that there are no
factual issues to be resolved. This motion is simply the latest manifestation of that position, as
Defendant-Intervenors ask the Court to prohibit virtually all discovery sought by Plaintiffs, taking the
remarkable position that even readily accessible documents that were available to the electorate at
large are not relevant or admissible. Doc #187 at 9 n.2. Thus, according to Defendant-Intervenors,
documents distributed to millions of potential voters specifically laying out why they should support
Prop. 8 are not discoverable if the list of recipients was targeted, for example, to all registered
Republicans or voters who had supported particular causes in the past. Defendant-Intervenors also
would take the position that no internal document, or communication with a third party, including
consultants or other vendors assisting them on the campaign, could possibly be relevant regardless of
what it says, even if it would constitute a binding admission or a statement directly at odds with
representations that Defendant-Intervenors now make to the Court.
RR 216

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
In an effort to reach compromise, Plaintiffs negotiated in good faith with Defendant-
Intervenors to narrow document requests, even offering to enter into confidentiality agreements in
order to address their fears of harassment and reprisal. See Declaration of Matthew D. McGill, 2-3,
attached hereto as Exh. A. Plaintiffs offers to compromise, however, were rejected. Id. at 3.
1. Defendant-Intervenors Misconstrue Relevance Standards and Conflate
Relevance with Admissibility
Defendant-Intervenors limited view of what is relevant and discoverable runs counter to the
broad scope of discovery permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The scope of discovery
under Rule 26 is broad; [r]elevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery
appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Castaneda v. Burger
King Corp., --- F.R.D. ---, 2009 WL 2748932, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009) (quoting Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(b)(1)) (alteration in original). Here, Defendant-Intervenors assert that they will only produce
documents available to the public at large. Doc #187-14 at 3. This position is plainly designed to
prevent Plaintiffs from ever seeing anything but the most carefully crafted and broadly disseminated
messages relating to their campaign. And Defendant-Intervenors offer no explanation of why a
communication to the voters at large may be relevant, but a communication to a targeted but still
large group of voters could not possibly be relevant.
Moreover, Defendant-Intervenors position confuses the separate standards for admissibility
at trial and for discovery by improperly seeking to limit Plaintiffs discovery to those documents
admissible at trial. See Doc #187 at 10 (The Supreme Court, however, has never authorized the use
of the type of [nonpublic] information at issue here to ascertain the purpose of an initiative). But
[a]s emphasized in the Advisory Committee Notes [to Rule 26], the language of Rule 26(b) make[s]
clear the broad scope of examination and that it may cover not only evidence for use at trial but also
inquiry into matters in themselves inadmissible as evidence but which will lead to the discovery of
evidence. Del Campo v. Kennedy, 236 F.R.D. 454, 457 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (emphasis added)
(alteration in original). Defendant-Intervenors cannot draw a bright line, as they attempt to here, that
a document is under no circumstances discoverable unless it was shared with the public at large.
RR 217

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
Furthermore, Defendant-Intervenors focus myopically on a single issuevoter intentwhile
ignoring all other issues to which Plaintiffs discovery requests may be relevant and other purposes
for which documents produced may be admissible. Doc #187 at 10. Specifically, and as explained
below, Plaintiffs discovery requests are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
(1) admissible evidence concerning the rationality and strength of Defendant-Intervenors purported
state interests and whether voters could reasonably accept them as a basis for supporting Prop. 8, and
(2) admissible evidence related to the factual disputes the Court identified as matters to be resolved at
trial in its June 30, 2009 Order. As such, the discovery Plaintiffs seek is reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence and is thus discoverable.
1

2. Plaintiffs Discovery Is Reasonably Calculated to Lead to the Discovery of
Party Admissions and Impeachment Evidence Regarding Defendants
Positions in this Case and the Factual Disputes Identified by the Court
Defendant-Intervenors advance just one argument about the relevance of the disputed
discovery: that it is irrelevant because the requests seek to ascertain the purpose of an initiative.
Doc #187 at 10. While Plaintiffs believe that much of their discovery is in fact relevant to this issue,
Plaintiffs discovery is not, and does not have to be, limited just to the discovery of the motivations
for supporting Prop. 8; rather, the discovery propounded is also calculated to lead to the discovery of
party admissions and impeachment evidence regarding the purported state interests that Defendant-
Intervenors advance and the factual disputes identified in the Courts June 30, 2009 Order. Certainly
statements made by Defendant-Intervenors that are at odds with the positions they are taking in this
action would not just be discoverable, but would be admissible at trial as a party admission, or could

1
The discovery does not intrude on the subjective, unexpressed motivations of Prop. 8s
proponents. Doc #187 at 8. Defendant-Intervenors refuse to produce communications they
made to tens of thousands of voters, on the theory that those communications were targeted
and not made available to every voter in the State. They refuse to produce communications,
even when made outside of their own organization, that would demonstrate their conclusions
about what voters might accept as purposes and rationales for Prop. 8. They refuse to produce
information that would show the size and strength of forces mustered against gay and lesbian
individuals, even as they assert that gay and lesbian individuals are a politically powerful
group. Defendant-Intervenors evaluation of Prop. 8 and communications with others about it
are relevant to understanding the immediate objective and ultimate effect of Prop. 8,
Doc #76 at 9, necessary to prepare for depositions and cross-examination at trial, and
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of other relevant information.
RR 218

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
be used as impeachment evidence. See, e.g., Fed. R. Evid. 801(d). Indeed, given the Defendant-
Intervenors role as the official proponents of Prop. 8, their voluntary and willful participation in the
case, and their role as the defenders of Prop. 8 in this case, their prior statements or admissions
regarding the purported state interests they now advance and the factual underpinnings of those
asserted interests are relevant as to whether these interests are indeed legitimate. Simply put,
Plaintiffs have the right to discover these prior statements or admissions to properly challenge
Defendant-Intervenors current characterizations of the positions they espouse in this case.
3. Plaintiffs Discovery Is Reasonably Calculated to Lead to the Discovery of
Admissible Evidence Concerning the Motivations for Supporting
Prop. 8
Similarly, whether a defendant acted with discriminatory intent or purpose is a relevant
consideration in an equal protection challenge. See Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239-40
(1976); Washington v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 458 U.S. 457, 484-85 (1982) (when facially neutral
legislation is subjected to equal protection attack, an inquiry into intent is necessary to determine
whether the legislation in some sense was designed to accord disparate treatment on the basis of
racial considerations.); see also Pers. Admr of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 260 (1979); Dept of
Agric. v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534-35 (1973). The Court has already recognized the relevance of
this evidence, identifying the motivations for supporting Prop. 8 as one of the fifteen factual
disputes that likely need to be resolved at trial. Doc #76 at 9.
More specifically, where intent is relevant, the Court may look to the nature of the initiative
campaign to determine the intent of the drafters and voters in enacting it. City of Los Angeles v.
County of Kern, 462 F. Supp. 2d 1105, 1114 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (citing Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 458
U.S. at 471); see also S.D. Farm Bureau, Inc. v. Hazeltine, 340 F.3d 583, 593-96 (8th Cir. 2003)
(Plaintiffs have the burden of proving discriminatory purpose and can look to several sources to
meet that burden.). In South Dakota Farm Bureau, the Court considered whether the drafters of a
referendum purposely discriminated against interstate commerce. 340 F.3d at 593. The Court
observed that [t]he most obvious [source of evidence] would be direct evidence that the drafters of
Amendment E or the South Dakota populace that voted for Amendment E intended to discriminate
against out-of-state businesses. Id. Accordingly, the Court reviewed both public and nonpublic
RR 219

6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
materials, including notes from the amendment drafting meetings and testimony by individuals
involved with the drafting of the proposed amendment, focusing on the desire of the drafters to
block out of state entities from farming in South Dakota. Id. The court noted that it would be
impossible to ascertain the intention of all of the voters; however, the Court did have evidence of the
intent of individuals who drafted the amendment that went before the voters. It is clear that those
individuals had a discriminatory purpose. Id. at 596. Thus, on the strength of the drafters public
and nonpublic statements, the court held that the referendum was unconstitutional as it was motivated
by a discriminatory purpose. Id. at 596-98.
Defendant-Intervenors reliance on SASSO v. Union City, 424 F.2d 291 (9th Cir. 1970) is
unavailing.
2
SASSO is not on point, both because it did not concern a discovery dispute, and also
because Plaintiffs are not seeking the private attitudes of voters. That decision sheds no light on
whether the beliefs of Prop. 8s official proponentsvoluntary parties to this litigation who willfully
sought out party status and likely will present testimony at trialare relevant to a determination of
discriminatory purpose. Furthermore, SASSO was decided in 1970, six years before the Supreme
Court decided Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976), which held that a neutral law does not
violate the Equal Protection Clause solely because it results in a racially disproportionate impact;
instead, the disproportionate impact must be traced to a purpose to discriminate on the basis of a
protected class. In Washington, the Supreme Court held that whether there was a discriminatory
intent in passing a law was a relevant inquiry. 426 U.S. at 239-40. Accordingly, discovery into
Defendant-Intervenors motivations for supporting Prop. 8 is relevant and appropriate.

2
Defendant-Intervenors reliance on other case law cited in its motion is equally misplaced.
Jones v. Bates, 127 F.3d 839 (9th Cir. 1997) was reversed en banc. Bates v. Jones, 131 F.3d
843 (9th Cir. 1997)(en banc). The en banc panel determined that the proper inquiry was voter
notice, not voter intent and did not address the type of discovery at issue in this action. See id.
at 846. Crawford v. Board of Education, 458 U.S. 527 (1982) is irrelevant to this inquiry as it
concerned a legislatively created referendumnot the type of discovery at issue in this action.
Finally, Defendant-Intervenors reliance on California law is unavailing given that federal
courts may look to the nature of the initiative campaign to determine the [discriminatory]
intent of the drafters and voters in enacting it. City of Los Angeles, 462 F. Supp. 2d at 1114.
RR 220

7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
4. Defendant-Intervenors Position Is Internally Inconsistent and Designed
to Prevent Discovery Going to Issues Relevant to this Case
Defendant-Intervenors maintain that the only documents they will produce are
communications that were available to the public at large. Doc #187-14 at 3. This compromise
position, Doc #187 at 9 n.2, is at odds with the reality of their Yes on 8 campaign, which relied
heavily on targeted messaging, which by definition constitutes messages not available to the public
at large. See F. Schubert & J. Flint, Passing Prop 8; Smart Timing and Messaging Convinced
California Voters to Support Traditional Marriage, Politics (Feb. 2009), attached hereto as Exh. B.
Accordingly, the documents that will be produced under Defendant-Intervenors compromise
position will not accurately reflect the motivations for supporting Prop. 8 or provide Plaintiffs
with a complete picture of relevant evidence regarding their purported state interests and the factual
disputes identified by the Court. Such a limitation would allow Defendant-Intervenors to paint an
incomplete picture of the information they deliberately communicated to voters and the positions they
took on issues that are now directly relevant to this lawsuit. The Court should not allow the
Defendant-Intervenors the opportunity to game their discovery obligations.
Ironically, Defendant-Intervenors argument that Plaintiffs discovery is irrelevant is
undermined by the discovery they propounded on third-parties, which seeks the same information
that Defendant-Intervenors now argue is irrelevant and privileged.
3
Doc #182 at 4-48. While
Defendant-Intervenors are asserting the complete irrelevance of any documents that they possess as a
party to this litigation, they simultaneously are aggressively pursuing documentary evidence from
other parties and non-parties alike.
///
///
///

3
Since Prop. 8 was passed and became the law of California, information obtained from its
proponents is obviously relevant to the issues in this litigation in a way that information
sought from those who unsuccessfully opposed it is not.
RR 221

8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
B. Defendant-Intervenors Claim to a Sweeping First Amendment Privilege Against
Party Discovery Is Makeweight
Defendant-Intervenors contend that even if the documents Plaintiffs seek are discoverable, all
of them nevertheless are subject to a First Amendment privilege against disclosure. That sweeping
claim of privilege fails for at least three reasons.
1. Although Defendant-Intervenors communications concerning the Prop. 8 referendum
campaign are core political speech and undeniably entitled to broad First Amendment protection,
Defendant-Intervenors should not now be heard to complain that Plaintiffs are seeking discovery of
the communications most relevant to Plaintiffs claims for relief. Rather than participate as amici
curiae, Defendant-Intervenors elected to intervene in this action as parties, and they cannot now
evade the responsibilities that attach to the party status they voluntarily assumed, including the
obligation to comply with reasonable requests for discovery.
Defendant-Intervenors cite several cases upholding a First Amendment privilege against
compelled disclosure of confidential membership information, but in none of those cases was the
entity resisting disclosure a voluntary participant in underlying litigation. In NAACP v. Alabama, 357
U.S. 449 (1958), the NAACP was the respondent to an equity suit brought by the Attorney General of
Alabama. Id. at 452-53. Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516 (1960) involved generally-
applicable ordinances requiring organizations within the municipalities to provide lists of their
members. Id. at 517-18. Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee, 372 U.S. 539
(1963) concerned a legislative committees subpoena to which the NAACP was the respondent. Id.
at 540. Likewise, Dole v. Service Employees Union, 950 F.2d 1456 (9th Cir. 1991) and Brock v.
Local 375, 860 F.2d 346 (9th Cir. 1988), involved subpoenas issued by the Department of Labor to
certain labor unions. See Dole, 950 F.2d at 1458; Brock, 860 F.2d at 348.
4

4
The district court rulings cited by Defendant-Intervenors are no different. See In re Motor
Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig., No. 07-MD-1840-KHV, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
66005 (D. Kan. May 28, 2009) (defendants resisting discovery of communications with trade
associations); Anderson v. Hale, No. 00-C-2021, 2001 WL 503045 (N.D. Ill. May 10, 2001)
(defendant resisting subpoena of third-party electronic records); Adolph Coors Co. v. Wallace,
570 F. Supp. 202 (N.D. Cal. 1983) (defendant LGBT advocacy group resisting discovery
from plaintiffs). Though, in Coors, the district court seemed to frown upon the notion that
one could impl[y] a waiver of . . . constitutional safeguards by reason of the partys decision
[Footnote continued on next page]
RR 222

9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
Unlike the NAACP and the unions in Dole and Brock, Defendant-Intervenors chose to be
parties in this litigation. And their resistance to Plaintiffs reasonable discovery is particularly
inappropriate given that, in their recent motion for summary judgment, Defendant-Intervenors have
squarely placed at issue the subjective intentions of Prop. 8s supporters by denying that Prop. 8 was
motivated by discriminatory animus toward gay and lesbian individuals. See Doc #172-1 at 107 (It
is simply implausible that in acting with surgical precision to preserve and restore the venerable
definition of marriage, the people of California somehow transformed that institution into an
instrument of bigotry against gays and lesbians.); id. at 111 (Plaintiffs claim that animus against
gays and lesbians is the only possible explanation for the enactment of Proposition 8 is false).
Similarly, in their case management statement, Defendant-Intervenors announced that they would not
be able to reach stipulations with Plaintiffs regarding any of the factual underpinnings of the
governmental interests on which they now rely. See, e.g., Doc #139 at 23 (refusing to take a position
on [w]hether the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage leads to increased stability in
opposite sex marriage or alternatively whether permitting same-sex couples to marry destabilizes
opposite sex marriage). It is therefore Defendant-Intervenors own litigating positions that
necessitate the discovery sought by Plaintiffs.
2. Defendant-Intervenors have failed to demonstrate how the discovery Plaintiffs seek will
diminish Defendant-Intervenors associational freedoms. Quite unlike nearly all of the cases
Defendant-Intervenors cite, Plaintiffs discovery requests do not seek ProtectMarriage.coms
membership list, or a list of donors to the Yes on 8 causeeven though the latter is available for
public inspection under California law. California Secy of State, Campaign Finance: Proposition
008, http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Measures/Detail.aspx?id=1302602&session=2007 (last

[Footnote continued from previous page]
to instigate litigation, the district court itself recognized that given the facts at bar the issue
was not implicated there. 570 F. Supp. at 209. Defendant-Intervenors do cite two cases
where the party initiating the litigation thereafter resisted discovery, see Grandbouche v.
Clancy, 825 F.2d 1463 (10th Cir. 1987); Christ Covenant Church v. Town of Sw. Ranches,
No. 07-60516, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49483 (S.D. Fla. June 29, 2008), but in each case the
court found that the First Amendment privilege could not be sustained where the plaintiff
ha[d] placed certain information into issue. Grandbouche, 825 F.2d at 1467; see also
Christ Covenant Church, 2009 U.S. Dist LEXIS 49483, at *28-*32.
RR 223

10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
visited Sept. 18, 2009). Plaintiffs rather seek documents relating to the issues the Court has identified
as central to this litigation and Defendant-Intervenors factual contentions concerning the same,
including the nature of the initiative campaign to determine the intent of the drafters and voters in
enacting it. City of Los Angeles, 462 F. Supp. 2d at 1114.
Courts in this Circuit have rejected claims of First Amendment privilege where a litigant
seeks to apply it not to specific membership documents, but instead to prevent any discovery of her
files. Wilkinson v. FBI, 111 F.R.D. 432, 436 (C.D. Cal. 1986); see also id. (While it is clear that
the privilege may be asserted with respect to specific requests for documents raising these core
associational concerns, it is equally clear that the privilege is not available to circumvent general
discovery.). Yet, relying principally on an unpublished district court decision from Kansas,
Defendant-Intervenors argue that all of their political advocacy communications except those
disseminated to the electorate at large are privileged from disclosure. Doc #187 at 18 (citing In re
Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig., No. 07-MD-1840-KHV, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
66005 (D. Kan. May 28, 2009)).
Above and beyond the fact that Defendant-Intervenors chose to participate in the lawsuit and
chose to place their political communications in issue, there at least two features that distinguish this
case from In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation.
First, Defendant-Intervenors claim of privilege is not remotely limited to confidential
communications. Motor Fuel Litigation, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 66005, at *45. To the contrary,
Defendant-Intervenors claim of privilege sweeps in all documents responsive to Plaintiffs request
except those that were disclosed to the electorate at large. Doc #187 at 9 n.2; see also Doc #187-7
at 6 (Moss Decl.). On Defendant-Intervenors view, all communications that were targeted in any
manner or fashion to particular recipients are privilegedeven if the communications were received
by tens of thousands (or more) California voters. See Exh. A (McGill Decl.) at 3. Thus,
Defendant-Intervenors claim of privilege sweeps in every article of mail they ever sentpostal or
electronic.
At the other end of the spectrum, Defendant-Intervenors claim of privilege also sweeps in all
of their communications with their paid political consultants notwithstanding the fact that those
RR 224

11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
consultants have published articles describing their strategy, Exh. B, and indeed, have sought
accolades from trade associations for that strategy. See The 18th Annual Pollie Awards &
Conference, attached hereto as Exh. C (identifying Schubert Flint Public Affairs work on the Yes
on 8 campaign as the recipient of multiple 2009 Pollie Awards).
When communications and strategies are widely disseminated and discussed (indeed,
trumpeted) in publicas were many of the documents Defendant-Intervenors now claim are
privileged from disclosureit is difficult to envision how disclosure of those documents to Plaintiffs
could chill Defendant-Intervenors speech.
And, in fact, Defendant-Intervenors have made no credible showing of how the discovery
Plaintiffs have requested in this case is likely to lead to reprisals against Defendant-Intervenors or
their supporters. This is the second feature that distinguishes this case from In re Motor Fuel
Temperature Sales Practices Litigation.
Defendant-Intervenors have produced declarations that describe many instances of
harassment and retaliation against Protect Marriages donors and volunteers that occurred after their
affiliation with Protect Marriage became public. Doc #187-2 at 5 (Prentice Decl.). But the
inescapable fact is that Defendant-Intervenors affiliation with Protect Marriage has been widely
known to the public for more than a year, as has that of their political consultant, Frank Schubert.
There is no additional chilling effect on their speech that will accrue, at this late date, from their
disclosure of the documents Plaintiffs seek. The public is already aware of the Defendant-
Intervenors deeply held moral and political views, Doc #187-12 at 4 (Tam Decl.), and Defendant-
Intervenors have suggested no reason why compliance with discovery is likely to generate a new
round of reprisals. Indeed, even Defendant-Intervenors own out-of-circuit authorities recognize that
where a Plaintiff does not ask for a membership list, nor ... seek to identify a single anonymous ...
member but rather seek only to discover what the publicly identified ... members know about [the
subject of Plaintiffs claims] through their personal information and communications with other
people, it cannot be said that Plaintiffs subpoenas constitute an arguable threat to associational
rights by creating an apparent chilling effect. Anderson v. Hale, No. 00-C-2021, 2001 WL 503045,
at *6. (N.D. Ill. May 10, 2001); see also In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig., 2009
RR 225

12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66005, at *44 (To the extent, however, that defendants seek protection of
associational membership lists or financial contributor lists that have been publicly disclosed, ... A
chilling effect caused by additional disclosure cannot be presumed.).
Even still, to assuage any concerns about the threat of reprisals, in their last meet-and-confer
on September 10, Plaintiffs offered to entertain any reasonable confidentiality agreement or
procedure for redaction or sealing if Defendant-Intervenors had a good-faith belief that particular
documents raised a threat of reprisal to persons whose affiliation with Protect Marriage is not already
widely known to the public. Exh. A at 3. Defendant-Intervenors, however, refused to discuss any
potential procedures for designation and treatment of confidential documents. This suggests that the
vow of Defendant-Intervenors and their agents to drastically alter how [they] communicate in the
future, if they are made to comply with ordinary discovery requests, Doc #187-10 at 4 (Jansson
Decl.), is motivated less by a fear of reprisals than an unwillingness to fulfill the obligations of a
party to litigation in federal court.
3. Even under the balancing test that Defendant-Intervenors argue is applicable, Defendant-
Intervenors claim of privilege must fail. The Court has advised the parties that it wishes to conduct a
trial on various factual questions that undergird the constitutional questions raised by Plaintiffs
claims for relief. As detailed above, Plaintiffs requests for discovery are plainly relevant to those
inquiries and, absent discovery, Plaintiffs have no means available to obtain the documents they seek
from Defendant-Intervenors. And to the extent that Defendant-Intervenors have a well-founded,
good-faith belief that particular documents could generate reprisals if disclosed to the public,
Plaintiffs are willing to negotiate any reasonable confidentiality measures to ensure that the First
Amendment rights of Defendant-Intervenors, their agents, and their supporters, are not chilled.
///
///
///
RR 226

13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor respectfully urge this Court to
deny Defendant-Intervenors motion for protective order and require that they produce all documents
responsive to Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Production on or before September 28, 2009.
DATED: September 18, 2009
By: /s/
Theodore B. Olson
and

David Boies

Attorneys for Plaintiffs KRISTIN M. PERRY,
SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL T. KATAMI, and
JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO

DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney
THERESE M. STEWART
Chief Deputy City Attorney
DANNY CHOU
Chief of Complex and Special Litigation
RONALD P. FLYNN
VINCE CHHABRIA
ERIN BERNSTEIN
CHRISTINE VAN AKEN
MOLLIE M. LEE
Deputy City Attorneys
By: /s/
Therese M. Stewart

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

RR 227

14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER NO. 45

Pursuant to General Order No. 45 of the Northern District of California, I attest that concurrence
in the filing of the document has been obtained from each of the other signatories to this document.
By: /s/ Theodore B. Olson
Theodore B. Olson

RR 228

Exhibit A
RR 229
No. 08-205
IN THE
([ourt of t4e 2J:Initeu
CITIZENS UNITED,
Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,
Appellee.
On Appeal
From The United States District Court
For The District Of Columbia
REPLY BRIEF FOR APPELLANT
THEODORE B. OLSON
Counsel ofRecord
MATTHEW D. MCGILL
AMIR C. TAYRANI
JUSTIN S. HERRING
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
(202) 955-8500
Counsel for Appellant
RR 230
RULE 29.6 STATEMENT
The corporate disclosure statement included III
the Brief for Appellant remains accurate.
RR 231
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
RULE 29.6 STATEMENT i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .iv
REPLY BRIEF FOR APPELLANT 1
I. THE GOVERNMENT'S SUPPRESSION OF
HILLARY: THE MOVIE CANNOT BE
RECONCILED WITH THE FIRST
AMENDMENT 4
A. The Government's Brief Confirms
That It Has No Compelling
Interest In Suppressing Video On
Demand Distribution Of Feature-
Length Films 5
B. The Government's Brief Identifies
No Compelling Basis For
Suppressing Corporate Speech
That Is Funded Almost Entirely
By Individuals 13
C. The Government's Brief Confirms
That Hillary: The Movie Is Open
To Interpretations Other Than As
An Appeal To Vote 17
II. THE BURDENS THE GOVERNMENT
WOULD IMPOSE ON ADVERTISEMENTS
FOR HILLARY: THE MOVIE VIOLATE THE
FIRST AMENDMENT 20
A. BCRA's Disclaimer, Disclosure,
And Reporting Requirements
Cannot Survive Strict Scrutiny 21
B. BCRA's Disclaimer, Disclosure,
And Reporting Requirements
Cannot Survive Exacting Scrutiny 22
RR 232
III
1. The Government's Informa-
tional Interest Is Inapplicable
To Citizens United's
Advertisements 22
2. The Government's Enforce-
ment Interest Is Inapplicable
To Citizens United's
Advertisements 27
3. The Burdens Imposed By
BCRA 201 And 311
Outweigh Any Government
Interest In Applying Those
Speech Restrictions To
Citizens United 28
CONCL-USION 30
RR 233
28
rate-funded electioneering communications. And, as
applied to Citizens United, not even the reporting
requirement could further the government's en-
forcement interest (or its purported informational
interest, for that matter) because, as the government
concedes, Citizens United "already discloses its iden-
tify at the website referred to in the advertisements."
FEC Br. 51. In this case, then, the government's
supposed enforcement interest is pure fiction.
3. The Burdens Imposed By BCRA
201 And 311 Outweigh Any
Government Interest In Apply-
ing Those Speech Restrictions
To Citizens United.
Even if the government did have an informational
or enforcement interest in applying BCRA's dis-
claimer, disclosure, and reporting requirements to
Citizens United, those interests would be outweighed
by the extraordinary burdens that those require-
ments impose on First Amendment freedoms-
including the risk of harassment and retaliation
faced by Citizens United's financial supporters, and
the substantial compliance costs borne by Citizens
United.
The government dismisses the risk of reprisal
against Citizens United's supporters because the re-
cord does not document previous acts of retaliation.
But the risk of reprisal against contributors to Citi-
zens United-and other groups that espouse contro-
versial ideological messages-has vastly increased in
recent years as a result of the same "technological
advances" that the governmer..t touts in BCRA's de-
fense, which "make it possible ... for the public to
review and even search the [contribution] data with
ease." FEC Br. 40-41. The widespread economic re-
RR 234
29
prisals against financial supporters of California's
Proposition 8 dramatically illustrate the unsettling
consequences of disseminating contributors' names
and addresses to the public through searchable web-
sites (see, e.g., CCP Br. 13; IJ Br. 13)-some of which
even helpfully provide those intent upon retribution
with a map to each donor's residence. See Brad
Stone, Prop 8 Donor Web Site Shows Disclosure Is 2-
Edged Sword, N.Y. Times, Feb. 8, 2009.
The chilling effect on First Amendment expres-
sion generated by the specter of retribution is sub-
stantiated by empirical studies, which have found
that "'[e]ven those who strongly support forced dis-
closure laws will be less likely to contribute'" where
their personal information will be disclosed. IJ Br.
10 (quoting Dick Carpenter, Disclosure Costs: Unin-
tended Consequences of Campaign Finance Reform 8
(2007. And this chilling effect on First Amendment
freedoms is compounded by the extreme administra-
tive burdens generated by BCRA's disclosure re-
quirements, which are notoriously difficult to imple-
ment for even the lawyers and accountants who ad-
vocacy groups are inevitably required to retain to
monitor their disclosure obligations. See id. at 19
(discussing an empirical study in which none of the
255 participants was able to comply successfully with
campaign disclosure requirements).
The fact that the record does not explicitly docu-
ment the burdens that BCRA's disclaimer, disclo-
sure, and reporting requirements impose on Citizens
United's First Amendment rights is not a sufficient
basis for discounting these very real impositions on
Citizens United's freedom of expression. In this as-
applied challenge, it is the government that bears the
burden of establishing that BCRA's speech restric-
tions are compatible with the First Amendment
RR 235
30
(WRTL II, 127 S. Ct. at 2664 (opinion of Roberts,
C.J.-and it therefore falls to the government to
demonstrate that BCRA does not intolerably restrict
Citizens United's First Amendment freedoms. The
government has not met that burden.
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the district court should be re-
versed.
Respectfully submitted.
THEODORE B. OLSON
Counsel of Record
MATTHEW D. MCGILL
AMIR C. TAYRANI
JUSTIN S. HERRING
vVashington,D.C.20036
(202) 955-8500
Counsel for Appellant
March 17, 2009
RR 236

Ex. A-1
(Brief of Amicus Curiae Center for
Competitive Politics in Support of
Appellant, No. 08-205, Cited in Reply
Brief for Appellants)
RR 237
RR 238
RR 239
RR 240
RR 241
RR 242
RR 243

Ex. A-2
(Brief of The Institute for Justice as
Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellant,
Citizens United, No. 08-205, Cited in
Reply Brief for Appellants)
RR 244
RR 245
RR 246
RR 247
RR 248
RR 249
RR 250

Ex. A-3
(Prop 8 Donor Web Site Shows
Disclosure Law is 2-Edged Sword, NY
Times, Cited in Reply Brief for
Appellants)
RR 251
This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready
copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool
that appears next to any article. Visit www.nytreprints.com for samples and additional
information. Order a reprint of this article now.
Febr u a r y 8 , 20 0 9
SLI PSTREAM
Pr op 8 Don or We b Si t e Sh ows Disclosu r e La w I s
2-Ed ge d Swor d
By BRAD STONE
FOR the backers of Proposition 8, the state ballot measure to stop single-sex couples from
marrying in California, victory has been soured by the ugly specter of intimidation.
Some donors to groups supporting the measure have received death threats and envelopes
containing a powdery white substance, and their businesses have been boycotted.
The targets of this harassment blame a controversial and provocative Web site, eightmaps.com.
The site takes the names and ZIP codes of people who donated to the ballot measure
information that California collects and makes public under state campaign finance disclosure laws
and overlays the data on a Google map.
Visitors can see markers indicating a contributors name, approximate location, amount donated
and, if the donor listed it, employer. That is often enough information for interested parties to find
the rest like an e-mail or home address. The identity of the sites creators, meanwhile, is
unknown; they have maintained their anonymity.
Eightmaps.com is the latest, most striking example of how information collected through
disclosure laws intended to increase the transparency of the political process, magnified by the
powerful lens of the Web, may be undermining the same democratic values that the regulations
were to promote.
With tools like eightmaps and there are bound to be more of them strident political partisans
can challenge their opponents directly, one voter at a time. The results, some activists fear, could
discourage people from participating in the political process altogether.
That is why the soundtrack to eightmaps.com is a loud gnashing of teeth among civil libertarians,
privacy advocates and people supporting open government. The site pits their cherished values
against each other: political transparency and untarnished democracy versus privacy and freedom
of speech.
Slipstream - Prop 8 Donor Web Site Shows Disclosure Law Is 2-Edged ... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/business/08stream.html?_r=1&sq=P...
1 of 3 9/15/2009 3:02 PM
RR 252
When I see those maps, it does leave me with a bit of a sick feeling in my stomach, said Kim
Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, which has advocated for open democracy.
This is not really the intention of voter disclosure laws. But thats the thing about technology. You
dont really know where it is going to take you.
Ms. Alexander and many Internet activists have good reason to be queasy. Californias Political
Reform Act of 1974, and laws like it across the country, sought to cast disinfecting sunlight on the
political process by requiring contributions of more than $100 to be made public.
Eightmaps takes that data, formerly of interest mainly to social scientists, pollsters and journalists,
and publishes it in a way not foreseen when the open-government laws were passed. As a result,
donors are exposed to a wide audience and, in some cases, to harassment or worse.
A college professor from the University of California, San Francisco, wrote a $100 check in support
of Proposition 8 in August, because he said he supported civil unions for gay couples but did not
want to change the traditional definition of marriage. He has received many confrontational e-mail
messages, some anonymous, since eightmaps listed his donation and employer. One signed
message blasted him for supporting the measure and was copied to a dozen of his colleagues and
supervisors at the university, he said.
I thought what the eightmaps creators did with the information was actually sort of neat, the
professor said, who asked that his name not be used to avoid becoming more of a target. But
people who use that site to send out intimidating or harassing messages cross the line.
Joseph Clare, a San Francisco accountant who donated $500 to supporters of Proposition 8, said
he had received several e-mail messages accusing him of donating to hate. Mr. Clare said the site
perverts the meaning of disclosure laws that were originally intended to expose large corporate
donors who might be seeking to influence big state projects.
I dont think the law was designed to identify people for direct feedback to them from others on
the other side, Mr. Clare said. I think its been misused.
Many civil liberties advocates, including those who disagree with his views on marriage, say he has
a point. They wonder if open-government rules intended to protect political influence of the
individual voter, combined with the power of the Internet, might be having the opposite effect on
citizens.
These are very small donations given by individuals, and now they are subject to harassment that
ultimately makes them less able to engage in democratic decision making, said Chris Jay
Hoofnagle, senior fellow at the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology at the University of
California.
THANKS to eightmaps.com, the Internet is abuzz with bloggers, academics and other pundits
2 of 3 9/15/2009 3:02 PM
RR 253
offering potential ways to resolve the tension between these competing principles. One idea is to
raise the minimum donation that must be reported publicly from $100, to protect the anonymity
of small donors.
Another idea, proposed by a Georgetown professor, is for the state Web sites that make donor
information available to ask people who want to download and repurpose the data to provide some
form of identification, like a name and credit card number.
The key here is developing a process that balances the sometimes competing goals of
transparency and privacy, said the professor, Ned Moran, whose undergraduate class on
information privacy spent a day discussing the eightmaps site last month.
Both goals are essential for a healthy democracy, he said, and I think we are currently
witnessing, as demonstrated by eightmaps, how the increased accessibility of personal information
is disrupting the delicate balance between them.
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map

3 of 3 9/15/2009 3:02 PM
RR 254

Exhibit B
RR 255
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

1
Nicole J. Moss
nmoss@cooperkirk.com (DC Bar No. 472424)
Jesse Panuccio
jpanuccio@cooperkirk.com (DC Bar No. 981634)
Peter A. Patterson (Ohio Bar No. 0080840)*

andrew@pugnolaw.com

braum@telladf.org




PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J.
ZARRILLO,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his offi-
cial capacity as Governor of California; ED-
MUND G. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity
as Attorney General of California; MARK B.


DECLARATION OF RONALD
PRENTICE IN SUPPORT OF DE-
FENDANT-INTERVENORS MO-
TION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

Time: 10:00AM
RR 256
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


2
SCOTT, in her official capacity as Deputy Di-
rector of Health Information & Strategic Plan-
ning for the California Department of Public

Defendants,

and

RENEWAL,






I, Ronald Prentice, make the following declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746:
1. I am a resident of California over 18 years of age, and my statements herein are based
on personal knowledge.
RR 257
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


3
2. The California ballot measure in 2008 known as Proposition 8 had five Official Pro-
ponents pursuant to California law, Cal. Elec. Code 342. Those five Proponents are Defendant-
Intervenors in this case: Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Hak-Shing
William Tam, and Mark A. Jansson (the Proponents).
3. The Proponents endorsed ProtectMarriage.com Yes on 8, a Project of California Re-
newal (Protect Marriage), a primarily formed committee under the California Political Reform
Act, Cal. Gov. Code 82047.5, as the official Proposition 8 campaign committee. Protect Mar-
riage was designated to receive all contributions and to disburse expenditures for the Proposition 8
campaign.
4. For purposes of state law, Protect Marriage has a single officer responsible for filing
required disclosures. David Bauer serves as that officer.
5. Unofficially, Protect Marriage was and is supported by many volunteers with varying
levels of involvement and input, including an ad hoc executive committee consisting of several
individuals. Some of those individuals served as agents for other organizations with an interest in
the qualification and passage of Proposition 8, and the marriage debate generally. I serve as
chairman of the ad hoc executive committee.
6. The ad hoc executive committee was often advised by an attorney, who was retained to
serve as Protect Marriages general counsel.
7. Protect Marriage employed a public relations firm to serve as the Proposition 8 cam-
paign manager.
8. Volunteers of Protect Marriage corresponded with each other, with the public relations
firm, with various vendors and independent contractors, and with other third parties about political
beliefs, campaign strategy, personal beliefs, and much else relating to Proposition 8.
RR 258
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


4
9. As chairman of the ad hoc executive committee, I had extensive dealings with Protect
Marriages donors and volunteers. Many of the donors were quite concerned that publicly-
disclosed affiliation with Protect Marriage would lead to retaliation against them. They were
specifically concerned with the scope of information that would be revealed, and for some donors
the determining factor in favor of donating was that the only information that would be publicly
disclosed was the amount of their contribution and their name, address, occupation and employer.
10. I am aware of many instances of harassment and retaliation against Protect Marriages
donors and volunteers that occurred after their affiliation with Protect Marriage became public.
The names of donors to Proposition 8 were widely distributed on the Internet, and many donors
experienced boycotts of their businesses. I am aware of several individuals who chose to resign
from their employment in order to escape the harassment and intimidation brought upon them and
their employers. Volunteers who made a public stand in support of Proposition 8 by holding signs
or distributing materials were victims of physical assaults such as being spat upon and having hot
coffee thrown on them by passengers in passing automobiles. Several reports of vandalism to
property came from volunteers who placed Yes on 8 bumper strips on their cars.
11. Widespread retaliation and harassment against donors and volunteers had a negative ef-
fect on participation in the campaign in favor of Proposition 8. As acts of harassment against
Proposition 8 donors and volunteers became public, donors expressed concern over being publicly
identified and placing themselves, their family members, and their employees at possible risk.
Potential donors contacted me to ask how donations could be made without publicly disclosing
their identity, and when campaign finance disclosure laws were explained to those donors, many
declined to make any contribution. After receiving significant media attention and public protests,
several major donors to the Proposition 8 campaign refused to make further contributions.
RR 259
RR 260

Exhibit C
RR 261
RR 262
RR 263
RR 264
RR 265
RR 266
RR 267

Exhibit D
RR 268
1
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION

andrew@pugnolaw.com

braum@telladf.org

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH,



ZARRILLO,

Plaintiffs,

v.



DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

RR 269
2
PRODUCTION

Defendants,

and

RENEWAL,






Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant-Intervenors object
and respond as follows to Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Production (Requests),
propounded on August 21, 2009.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1. Defendant-Intervenors, in a letter to the Court, have sought leave to file a Motion for a
RR 270
3
PRODUCTION
Protective Order. That letter details, and the motion will detail, Defendant-Intervenors objections
to these Requests on grounds of both relevance and First Amendment privilege. Any and all
objections contained in the letter and motion are incorporated herein as objections to these
Requests as if each of these arguments was separately and specifically set forth herein.
2. Defendant-Intervenors object to the Requests to the extent that they purport to call for
the disclosure of any information or document that (a) contains privileged attorney-client
communications, (b) constitutes attorney work product, or (c) is otherwise protected from
disclosure under applicable privileges, immunities, laws or rules. Subject to the objections
detailed herein, including objections to having to undertake the burden of reviewing and/or logging
documents implicated by these Requests, Defendant-Intervenors will produce as soon as possible
following the completion of the production of documents a log of all responsive documents that
have been withheld from production pursuant to this objection and that Defendant-Intervenors are
required to review and/or log pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or any existing
or future order of the Court.
3. Defendant-Intervenors object to these Requests to the extent that any of the Requests
individually or collectively when coupled with Plaintiffs Instructions for production would require
the production or logging of communications and documents from the files of any of Defendant-
Intervenors litigation counsel regarding this litigation. Based on the meet-and-confer between
counsel on September 4, 2009, it is Defendant-Intervenors understanding that Plaintiffs have
agreed to narrow their Requests so as not to implicate information from the files of litigation
counsel. To the extent this understanding is incorrect, Defendant-Intervenors note for the record
their objection. Because any responsive information and materials would be held uniquely by such
an attorney (as distinct from the Proponents, who are themselves producing responsive information
and materials), they would be privileged or otherwise protected work product, virtually by
RR 271
4
PRODUCTION
definition. It would be unduly burdensome, unhelpful to all concerned, and gravely prejudicial to
this overall production effort were these Requests to reach Defendant-Intervenors attorneys who
are specifically providing legal counsel in this matter. There simply is no way to compile a
comprehensive privilege log detailing all privileged materials in the possession of Defendant-
Intervenors litigation counsel while accomplishing document production on this timetable, and
under these circumstances; nor would it be reasonable or productive to require Defendant-
Intervenors to do so.
4. Defendant-Intervenors object to the Requests to the extent that they seek information,
documents, or other materials protected from disclosure by the First Amendment. Defendant-
Intervenors incorporate herein as objections to these Requests the letter to the Court seeking leave
to file a Motion for a Protective Order and any and all arguments that will be set forth in that
Motion when it is filed as if each of these arguments was separately and specifically set forth
herein. Communications that reflect core First Amendment activitye.g., political views,
legislative or political strategy, religious beliefs, voter intent, political speech, and associational
activityare not an appropriate subject of discovery and are protected from disclosure under
applicable law.
5. Defendant-Intervenors also object to the Requests and their accompanying instructions as
unduly burdensome and beyond the scope of obligations imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure to the extent that they seek documents and information that are publically available
and/or otherwise in the custody and control of third-parties. To the extent Plaintiffs Requests
place an obligation on Defendant-Intervenors to produce documents and information from entities
and/or individuals who are not uniquely within Defendant-Intervenors custody and control, the
Requests are objectionable. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(ii).
6. Defendant-Intervenors object to these Requests to the extent they call for documents
RR 272
5
PRODUCTION
irrelevant to any issue in this case. Because virtually all of the discovery sought by these Requests
is legally irrelevant and not designed to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, it would be
objectionably burdensome for Defendant-Intervenors to have to collect, review, produce, and/or
log all such documents. Because of the irrelevant nature of these materials, the time and expense
that would be required to gather and produce them cannot be reasonably justified.
7. Because they are publicly available, and in an effort to minimize dispute, we are producing
public advertisements and communications (such as newspaper advertisements, the text of radio
advertisements, and the content of social networking posts available to the electorate at large) that
were actually communicated to the electorate at large. We do not, however, concede that these
documents are properly discoverable, legally relevant, or constitute competent evidence in this
case.
8. Defendant-Intervenors object to these Requests, for the reasons stated herein and in the
Motion for a Protective Order we intend to file, which is incorporated herein by reference, to the
extent they seek drafts and other pre-decisional documents or communications associated with
preparing final documents or communications regarding Proposition 8 that were actually
disseminated to the electorate at large. These documents are legally irrelevant and protected from
disclosure by the First Amendment.
9. Defendant-Intervenors object to these Requests and accompanying Instruction No. 7 to the
extent they call for the production of documents and information postdating the passage of
Proposition 8 in November of 2008. Not only are such communications and materials irrelevant to
any conceivable issue in this lawsuit, their disclosure will violate Defendant-Intervenors First
Amendment rights. Defendant-Intervenors specifically incorporate herein by reference the
arguments made in the Motion for a Protective Order we intend to file regarding why such post-
election documents and communications are not an appropriate subject of discovery.
RR 273
6
PRODUCTION
10. Defendant-Intervenors object to these Requests as vague, ambiguous and/or unduly
burdensome to the extent that the terms public and third-party are not defined and/or limited in
any way, and taken at face value would encompass all communications Defendant-Intervenors
may have had with any third partyeven a single individual, whether or not a California
voterbearing any relationship to Proposition 8 whatsoever. Such documents include, but are not
limited to, communications with individual donors, volunteers, or voters; communications with
political strategists and other agents or contractors of the Proponents or Committee; and
communications with friends, colleagues, and casual acquaintances. Moreover, Plaintiffs seek
these communications regardless of whether they relate to the public understanding of or
motivation for enacting Proposition 8. This presents not only First Amendment concerns, but also
creates an undue burden on Defendant-Intervenors in attempting to gather, review, and produce all
such communications.
11. Defendant-Intervenors object to these Requests to the extent they prematurely call for
specific information that need not be made available under the Courts orders and/or is otherwise
unavailable to the Defendant-Intervenors in its final form at this time. As such, Defendant-
Intervenors must caution that, although they are answering these Requests to the best of their
present ability subject to the objections noted herein, the information contained herein is
necessarily and expressly subject to change and to supplementation as circumstances associated
with and surrounding this litigation continue to develop and unfold in the coming weeks.
12. Defendant-Intervenors responses to these Requests are subject to the understanding, based
on an exchange of correspondence between counsel and a telephonic meet and confer, that
Plaintiffs are not requesting internal communications among and between the Defendant-
Intervenors. By letter of August 30, Plaintiffs stated that they do[] not seek internal
communications among and between [Defendant-Intervenors] regarding Proposition 8 and the
RR 274
7
PRODUCTION
related political campaign, except to the extent that you deem such communications responsive to
Requests Nos. 9, 10, 13, 14, or 15. Requests Nos. 9, 10, 13, and 14 seek [a]ll documents that
tend to support or refute the claims, denials, assertions, arguments, or responses made in
Defendant Intervenors Answer (Doc. # 9), Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (Doc. # 36), responses to Plaintiffs Interrogatories Nos. 1-3 and Requests for
Admission Nos. 1-68 propounded on August 21, 2009. By telephone conference of September 4,
2009, Defendant-Intervenors explained that because our position is that all internal
communications are legally irrelevant to any claim in this case, we deem such communications
as tend[ing] [neither] to support or refute any claim or argument in this case. Plaintiffs appeared
to accept this as a permissible interpretation of these Requests. To the extent Defendant-
Intervenors have misunderstood Plaintiffs agreement to narrow their requests in this regard,
Defendant-Intervenors note their objection to producing any internal communications and
incorporate herein by reference the arguments against production that will be set forth in the
Motion for a Protective Order that we have sought leave of Court to file. Defendant-Intervenors
also note that disagreement still exists as to which persons and/or entities should properly be
considered internal to Defendant-Intervenors; we preserve herein our objections to an overly
expansive or overly narrow definition of that term.
Subject to and without waiving any of the foregoing General Objections, which are hereby
incorporated into each response given below, Defendant-Intervenors are answering these Requests
in substance to the extent practicable and reasonable under the present circumstances, as stated
below. Defendant-Intervenors hereby object and respond to the individual Requests as follows:
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:

RR 275
8
PRODUCTION
All documents constituting literature, pamphlets, flyers, direct mail, advertisements, emails,
text messages, press releases, or other materials that were distributed to voters, donors, potential
donors, or members of the media regarding Proposition 8.

RESPONSE:
Defendant-Intervenors reiterate their General Objections as if specifically set forth below in
response to this Request. Defendant-Intervenors object to this Request as calling for irrelevant
documents and documents privileged from disclosure under the First Amendment. Defendant-
Intervenors further specifically object to this Request to the extent it calls for the production of
documents and information to donors or potential donors. Defendant-Intervenors further
specifically object to this Request to the extent it calls for production of documents and
information that are not relevant and/or protected by the First Amendmentincluding documents
not distributed to the electorate at large. Defendant-Intervenors incorporate by reference the
objections and explanations in our Motion for a Protective Order, which we have sought leave of
Court to file.
Subject to and without waiving any objection, and without conceding the relevancy of any
materials being produced in response to this Request, Defendant-Intervenors will produce final
copies of public communications responsive to this Request that were distributed to and or
available to the electorate at large.


All versions of any internet advertisement relating to Proposition 8.

RESPONSE:

RR 276
9
PRODUCTION
Intervenors object to producing drafts of final public communications, which would include, e.g.,
non-public versions of Internet advertisements relating to Proposition 8 that were never actually
posted on the Internet. Defendant-Intervenors object to this Request to the extent it calls for
production of documents not available to the electorate at large (e.g., Internet communications of
limited or invite-only distribution). Defendant-Intervenors also specifically object to this Request
to the extent it calls for the production of material from the Internet that is not uniquely within
Defendant-Intervenors custody or control in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i). To the
extent there were or are Internet advertisements related to Proposition 8 posted on the Internet by
persons or entities other than the Defendant-Intervenors, that information is as equally available to
Plaintiffs as it is to Defendant-Intervenors and thus is not the proper subject of discovery to
Subject to and without waiving these objections, and without conceding the relevancy of
any materials being produced in response to this Request, Defendant-Intervenors will produce final
versions of internet advertisements posted on the internet by Defendant-Intervenors.


All versions of any television advertisement relating to Proposition 8.

RESPONSE:

Intervenors object to producing drafts of final public communications, which would include non-
public versions of television advertisements relating to Proposition 8 that were never actually
aired. Defendant-Intervenors object to this Request to the extent it calls for production of
RR 277
10
PRODUCTION
documents not available to the electorate at large. Defendant-Intervenors also specifically object
to this Request to the extent it calls for the production of material not uniquely within Defendant-
Intervenors custody or control in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i). To the extent there
were television advertisements related to Proposition 8 aired by persons or entities other than
Defendant-Intervenors, that information is as equally available to Plaintiffs as it is to Defendant-
Intervenors and thus is not the proper subject of discovery to Defendant-Intervenors.
versions of any television advertisements created by or for Defendant-Intervenors that were
actually aired on television.


All versions of any radio advertisement relating to Proposition 8.

RESPONSE:

public versions of radio advertisements relating to Proposition 8 that were never actually aired.
Defendant-Intervenors object to this Request to the extent it calls for production of documents not
available to the electorate at large. Defendant-Intervenors also specifically object to this Request
to the extent it calls for the production of material not uniquely within Defendant-Intervenors
custody or control in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i). To the extent there were radio
advertisements related to Proposition 8 created by persons or entities other than Defendant-
RR 278
11
PRODUCTION
Intervenors, that information is as equally available to Plaintiffs as it is to Defendant-Intervenors
and thus is not the proper subject of discovery to Defendant-Intervenors.
versions of radio advertisements created by or for Defendant-Intervenors that were actually aired
on the radio.


All plans, schematics, and versions of the websites that have ever been available at the URLs
http://www.protectmarriage.com or http://www.protectmarriage.net.

RESPONSE:

public versions of websites relating to Proposition 8 that were never actually accessible by the
electorate at large. Defendant-Intervenors object to this Request to the extent it calls for
production of documents not available to the electorate at large.
versions of Internet pages posted on the URLs http://www.protectmarriage.com or
http://www.protectmarriage.net.

RR 279
12
PRODUCTION
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.6:

All documents constituting communications prepared for public distribution and related to
Proposition 8, including without limitation speeches, scripts, talking points, articles, notes, and
automated telemarketing phone calls.

RESPONSE:

Intervenors object to this Request to the extent it calls for drafts of final public communications,
which would include non-public versions of documents relating to Proposition 8 that were never
actually distributed or available to the public at large. Defendant-Intervenors object to this
Request to the extent it calls for production of documents not available to the electorate at large.
For example, documents prepared for public distribution but never actually publicly distributed
are both irrelevant and privileged under the First Amendment. Defendant-Intervenors object to the
term public as vague, ambiguous, undefined, and not reasonably narrowed.
versions of documents responsive to this Request that are outside the scope of our objections.

All documents constituting postings related to Proposition 8 that were made by you on social
networking websites, including but not limited to Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter.

RR 280
13
PRODUCTION
RESPONSE:

Intervenors object to this Request to the extent it calls for production of documents not available to
the electorate at large. Defendant-Intervenors further specifically object to this Request to the
extent it purports to reach the non-public communications and postings of individual Defendant-
Intervenors on their personal (as opposed to postings publicly accessible by any member of the
electorate at large) social-networking sites. While Defendant-Intervenors do not, at this time,
believe that any such postings exist, were such postings to exist Defendant-Intervenors would
object to producing them, as this would violate their First Amendment rights and call for
information that is entirely irrelevant to any issue in this matter. Thus, to the extent any such
postings do exist, Defendant-Intervenors object to their production.
any materials being produced in response to this Request, Defendant-Intervenors will produce
postings on Defendant-Intervenors public social networking sites.

All versions of any documents that constitute communications relating to Proposition 8,
between you and any third party, including, without limitation, members of the public or the
media.

RESPONSE:

RR 281
14
PRODUCTION
the electorate at large. Defendant-Intervenors object to producing drafts of final public
communications, which would include non-public versions of communications relating to
Proposition 8 that were never available to the electorate at large. Defendant-Intervenors object to
the phrases any third party and members of the public as vague, ambiguous, not defined, and
not reasonably narrowed. Defendant-Intervenors further specifically object to this Request as
impermissibly vague, ambiguous and/or unduly burdensome. It is unclear what additional
communications apart from those already requested in Request Nos. 1 to 7 are being requested
here. On its face, this Request appears to be seeking any communication related to Proposition 8
in any way, whether or not it is related to a public communication to the California electorate at
large or was actually available to the electorate at large. This Request appears to include, for
example: any and all communications Defendant-Intervenors may have had with their vendors,
consultants, donors, members, friends, associates, or other correspondents; disclosure reports
posted and available on public websites; and even pleadings filed in this case. In addition to being
objectionable on First Amendment grounds as set forth above and in the Motion for a Protective
Order that Defendant-Intervenors have sought leave to file, which is incorporated herein by
reference, this incredibly broad Request is objectionable because of the undue burden it would
impose on Defendant-Intervenors if we were to gather, review, log and/or produce all responsive
materials, the overwhelming majority of which are irrelevant to any issue in dispute in this case in
violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii).
Based on the objections asserted above, Defendant-Intervenors have no additional
documents to produce at this time.
RR 282
15
PRODUCTION

All documents that tend to support or refute the claims, denials, or assertions made in your
[Proposed] Answer in this litigation (Doc #9).

RESPONSE:

response to this Request. In particular, Defendant-Intervenors reiterate General Objection No. 12.
Defendant-Intervenors object to this Request to the extent it calls for irrelevant documents and
documents protected from disclosure under the First Amendment. Defendant-Intervenors further
specifically object to this Request to the extent it purports to call for either the production of
documents that are protected by the attorney work-product privilege and/or are publically available
and thus as readily available to Plaintiffs as they are to Defendant-Intervenors. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(2)(C)(i). For example, Defendant-Intervenors specifically object to this Request to the
extent it purports to call for the production of publically available information such as research or
news articles, statistical data and information, Internet postings, pleadings in this and other cases,
etc.
Subject to and without waiving these objections, because Defendant-Intervenors position
is that all documents implicated by these Requests, apart from those objected to on the grounds
that they are work product and/or are publically available, are legally irrelevant to any claim in this
case. Unless and until a court with jurisdiction over this case rules otherwise Defendant-
Intervenors deem such communications as tend[ing] [neither] to support or refute any claim or
argument in this case, and thus have no responsive documents to produce.


All documents that tend to support or refute the arguments made in your Memorandum in
Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction in this litigation (Doc #36).
RR 283
16
PRODUCTION

RESPONSE:

26(b)(2)(C)(i). For example, Defendant-Intervenors object to this Request to the extent it purports
to call for the production of publically available information such as research or news articles,
statistical data and information, Internet postings, pleadings in this and other cases, etc..


Documents sufficient to show the title of everyone employed by Protect Marriage, at any time,
including but not limited to organizational charts.

RESPONSE:

RR 284
17
PRODUCTION
documents. Defendant-Intervenors object to this Request as calling for documents privileged from
disclosure under the First Amendment, such as membership lists, organizational charts, and other
documents identifying individuals involved or associated with Defendant-Intervenors. Defendant-
the electorate at large.
Without waiving these objections, Defendant-Intervenors state that Protectmarriage.com
Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal (the Committee), a primarily formed ballot measure
committee under the California Political Reform Act, has a single officer responsible for filing
required public disclosures David Bauer. Unofficially, the Committee had many volunteers with
varying levels of involvement and input. Several of those individuals served as agents for other
organizations with an interest in the marriage debate, but none of these individuals were
employees of the Committee while the Proposition 8 campaign was ongoing. Producing any
further information about the volunteers and members of Protect Marriage.com is objectionable on
First Amendment grounds, and further, to the extent the identity of volunteers and members of
Protect Marriage.com is already in the public realm, Plaintiffs can obtain this information from
that source without the need for a production from Defendant-Intervenors.


All documents reflecting public media coverage of Proposition 8.

RESPONSE:

RR 285
18
PRODUCTION
the electorate at large. Defendant-Intervenors object to producing drafts of final public
communications, which would include non-public versions of documents relating to Proposition 8
that were never available to the electorate at large. Defendant-Intervenors further specifically
object to this Request to the extent it purports to call for the production of publically available
information that is not uniquely within Defendant-Intervenors custody and control and is as
readily available to Plaintiffs as it is to Defendant-Intervenors. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i).
To the extent Plaintiffs wish to review the public media coverage of Proposition 8, they can access
such materials just as easily as Defendant-Intervenors. Defendant-Intervenors further object to this
Request to the extent it calls for collections, compilations, summaries, or analysis of public media
coverage that may have been created by Defendant-Intervenors for personal, political, strategic, or
other reasons.
Subject to and without waiving these objections, and without conceding the legal relevancy
of such materials, Defendant-Intervenors will produce documents created by Defendant-
Intervenors and produced to the media for dissemination to the electorate at large.


All documents that tend to support or refute your responses to Plaintiffs Interrogatories
Nos. 1-3 propounded on August 21, 2009.

RESPONSE:

RR 286
19
PRODUCTION
26(b)(2)(C)(i). Plaintiffs Interrogatories Nos. 1-3 specifically sought information related to the
legal contentions of Defendant-Intervenors regarding what governmental interests they contend are
important, legitimate, or compelling. Any information and/or documents that Defendant-
Intervenors have compiled to assess, support, and/or respond to these Interrogatories and/or to
evaluate these legal issues constitute work product that is not subject to disclosure. Further, to the
extent a response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1 to 3 can be found in the caselaw, such caselaw is
as readily available to Plaintiffs as it is to Defendant-Intervenors.


All documents that tend to support or refute any one of your responses to Plaintiffs
Requests for Admission Nos. 1-68, propounded on August 21, 2009, that is not an unequivocal
admission.

RESPONSE:

RR 287
20
PRODUCTION
documents that are protected from disclosure under the First Amendment. Defendant-Intervenors
further specifically object to this Request to the extent it purports to call for either the production
of documents that are protected by the attorney work-product privilege and/or are publically
available and thus as readily available to Plaintiffs as they are to Defendant-Intervenors. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i).


All documents that you intend to use as exhibits at trial in this litigation.

RESPONSE:

Defendant-Intervenors object to responding to this Request at this time as the Request is
premature. Discovery is not yet complete and a final list of trial exhibits has not yet been compiled.
Defendant-Intervenors further object to this Request to the extent it purports to impose obligations
beyond those set forth in the case management orders of the Court pertaining to the timing and
disclosures of exhibit lists and exhibits. Subject to and without waiving this objection, Defendant-
Intervenors note that they will, consistent with the Orders of this Court, produce at the appropriate
time all documents (apart from documents that may used for purposes of cross-examination or
impeachment) they intend to use as exhibits at trial.

RR 288
21
PRODUCTION
September 11, 2009
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS-INTERVENORS
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT,
MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-SHING WILLIAM
TAM, MARK A. JANSSON, AND
PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM YES ON 8, A PROJECT
OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL

By:/s/Charles J. Cooper
Charles J. Cooper
RR 289

Exhibit E
RR 290

Nicole J. Moss
Cooper & Kirk
Lawyers

(202) 220-9600
Fax (202) 220-9601

August 27, 2009

By Electronic Mail

Matthew D. McGill
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
1050 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20036-5306

Re: Perry v. Schwarzenegger, et al.,
U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., C-09-2292 VRW

Dear Matt,

We are in receipt of Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Production and appreciate the
efforts you have made to confine the scope of those Requests to the representations made at the
August 19, 2009 hearing. Consistent with those representations, I write to clarify that
Defendant-Intervenors understand Plaintiffs Requests as not calling for the disclosure of
Defendant-Intervenors internal communications and documents, including communications
between and among Defendant-Intervenors, as well as communications between Defendant-
Intervenors and their agents, contractors, attorneys, donors, or others in a similarly private and
confidential relationship with Defendant-Intervenors. We also understand your Requests, to the
extent they call for communications or documents prepared for public distribution, to call for
documents that actually were disclosed to the public. We, in turn, intend to make clear that our
discovery requests to individuals and organizations opposed to Proposition 8 will be similarly
limited.

Sincerely,

Nicole J. Moss

Cc: Charles J. Cooper, Esq.
David Thompson, Esq.

RR 291

Exhibit F
RR 292
RR 293
RR 294
NOS. 09-17241, 09-17551


v.

California

RELEVANT PARTS OF THE RECORD VOLUME III OF IV

Andrew P. Pugno
(916) 608-3065; (916) 608-3066 Fax

Brian W. Raum
James A. Campbell
(480) 444-0020; (480) 444-0028 Fax

Charles J. Cooper
David H. Thompson
Nicole J. Moss
Jesse Panuccio
Peter A. Patterson
(202) 220-9600
(202) 220-9601 Fax




Volume I


USDC Dkt # 252

RR 1-10


USCD Dkt # 237

RR 11-23


USDC Dkt # 214

RR 24-41

Volume II

Review

USDC Dkt # 251

RR 42-44


USDC Dkt # 249

RR 45-48


USDC Dkt # 247

RR 49


USDC Dkt # 246

RR 50-96


USDC Dkt # 238

RR 97-98

Protective Order

USDC Dkt # 220-1

RR 99-104


USDC Dkt # 212

RR 105-178


USDC Dkt # 197-2

RR 179-185


USDC Dkt # 197-3

RR 186-192


USDC Dkt # 197-4

RR 193-195

Campaign

USDC Dkt # 197-7

RR 196-210


USDC Dkt # 191

RR 211-228

(U.S. Mar. 17, 2009)
USDC Dkt # 187-1 RR 229-255


USDC Dkt # 187-2

RR 256-260


USDC Dkt # 187-3

RR 261-267


USDC Dkt # 187-4

RR 268-289


USDC Dkt # 187-5

RR 290-291


USDC Dkt # 187-6

RR 292-294

Volume III

Moss Declaration

USDC Dkt # 187-7

RR 295-301


USDC Dkt # 187-9

RR 302-316

Jannson Declaration

USDC Dkt # 187-10

RR 317-320

Disclosure

USDC Dkt # 187-11

RR 321-575

Tam Declaration

USDC Dkt # 187-12

RR 576-580

Troupis Declaration

USDC Dkt # 187-13

RR 581-586

Volume IV


USDC Dkt # 162

RR 587-603

Statement

USDC Dkt # 159

RR 604-618


USDC Dkt # 157

RR 619-637

Docket Sheet

RR 638-661

Exhibit G
RR 295
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DECLARATION OF NICOLE JO MOSS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

1
Nicole J. Moss
Jesse Panuccio

andrew@pugnolaw.com

braum@telladf.org




ZARRILLO,

Plaintiffs,

v.



DECLARATION OF NICOLE JO
MOSS IN SUPPORT OF DEFEN-
DANT-INTERVENORS MOTION
FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

Time: 10:00 a.m.
RR 296
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


2

Defendants,

and

RENEWAL,






I, Nicole J. Moss, make the following declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746:
1. I am a resident of North Carolina over 18 years of age, and my statements herein are
based on personal knowledge.
RR 297
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


3
2. This declaration is made in support of Defendant-Intervenors motion for a protective
order.
3. I am an attorney representing Defendant-Intervenors in this matter. I have been coor-
dinating Defendant-Intervenors discovery requests and responses and, in that capacity, have
communicated with Plaintiffs counsel regarding various discovery issues.
4. On August 21, 2009, Plaintiffs propounded to Defendant-Intervenors a First Set of Re-
quests for Production. Defendant Intervenors believe that, on their face, the Requests seek material
that is both irrelevant and privileged under the First Amendment. On August 27, 2009, Defendant
Intervenors transmitted to Plaintiffs a letter stating that we were reading the requests not to seek
such irrelevant and/or privileged material. On August 31, 2009, Plaintiffs responded with a letter
rejecting, for the most part, our reading of their requests.
5. In an attempt to resolve the dispute, counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendant-Intervenors
met and conferred by telephone on two occasions. Below, I describe, to the best of my recollec-
tion, the positions adopted by the parties on those calls. To the extent Defendant-Intervenors have
misunderstood or misremembered Plaintiffs positionor to the extent Plaintiffs position has
changedDefendant-Intervenors welcome clarification.
6. The first meet and confer was on September 4, 2009. On that call, counsel for Defen-
dant-Intervenors explained: (i) that in the August 30 letter, Plaintiffs stated that they do[] not seek
internal communications among and between [Defendant-Intervenors] regarding Proposition 8 and
the related political campaign, except to the extent that you deem such communications responsive
to Requests Nos. 9, 10, 13, 14, or 15; (ii) that Requests Nos. 9, 10, 13, and 14 seek [a]ll docu-
ments that tend to support or refute the claims, denials, assertions, arguments, or responses made
in Defendant Intervenors Answer (Doc. # 9), Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Prelimi-
RR 298
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


4
nary Injunction (Doc. # 36), responses to Plaintiffs Interrogatories Nos. 1-3 and Requests for
Admission Nos. 1-68 propounded on August 21, 2009; and (iii) that because Defendant-
Intervenors position is that all internal communications are legally irrelevant to any claim in this
case, we deem such communications as tend[ing] [neither] to support or refute any claim or
argument in this case. Plaintiffs counsel stated that he understood our position and appeared to
accept this as a permissible interpretation of Plaintiffs Requests.
7. Also on the September 4 telephone call, counsel for Defendant-Intervenors asked
whether Plaintiffs considered volunteers of Protect Marriage to be internal or third parties.
Counsel for Plaintiffs responded that it depends on the volunteer; that they would resist an attempt
to characterize all campaign supporters as internal and grassroots supporters are not to be consi-
dered internal; that officials on an organizational chart would be considered internal; that com-
munications to supporters and donors en masse are not to be considered internal; that one-on-one
communications (such as from a volunteer to an official) are not to be considered internal; and
that Defendant-Intervenors are obligated to produce discovery on behalf of anyone they deem
internal.
whether, with respect to Request No. 7, Plaintiffs were seeking content from personal social
networking accounts that a Defendant-Intervenor might have maintained (as opposed, for example,
to an organization social-networking site open to anyone). Plaintiffs counsel responded that to the
extent any such content was responsive to a discovery request, Plaintiffs are requesting that content.
Plaintiffs counsel to confirm that when read in combination, Plaintiffs Request No. 8 (requesting
all versions of any communication[] relating to Proposition 8, between [a client] and any third
RR 299
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


5
party) and the letter of August 31 (requesting communications between your clients and their
agents, contractors, attorneys, donors, or others) meant that Plaintiffs are seeking every communi-
cation relating to Proposition 8 so long as it was not restricted solely to internal communications
between Defendant-Intervenors, regardless of who the third party was. Plaintiffs counsel
confirmed this to be the case (unless, per the August 31 letter, the communication was subject to
the attorney-client, work product, or other recognized legal privilege).
Plaintiffs counsel to confirm that Plaintiffs are seeking all versions and drafts of documents,
including those with internal comments never intended for public distribution and never actually
distributed to the public. Plaintiffs counsel confirmed this to be the case.
11. The second meet-and-confer occurred on September 10, 2009. On that call, Plaintiffs
counsel inquired as the nature of Defendant-Intervenors objections. Counsel for Defendant-
Intervenors explained that our position is that we would object, on relevance and First Amendment
grounds, to producing documents that were not available to the electorate at large. Although
counsel for both parties engaged in somewhat lengthy discussions of various hypothetical catego-
ries of documents, the end result of the call was that both parties agreed the Court would need to
settle the dispute.
12. Also on the September 10 telephone call Plaintiffs counsel inquired about Defendant-
Intervenors discovery requests to third-parties, and about why we are seeking discovery when we
have argued that such information is legally irrelevant. Counsel for Defendant-Intervenors ex-
plained that the only discovery we are seeking from third-parties is that which falls outside the
scope of our objections and is the same publicly disclosed information that we are willing to
produce to Plaintiffs in response to their requests. Counsel for Defendant-Intervenors further
RR 300
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


6
explained that we believe that the discovery from Defendant-Intervenors and third-party No-on-8
groups should be symmetrical and that if the Court were to order Defendant-Intervenors to produce
the objected-to information, we would amend our discovery requests to those groups accordingly.

I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND
CORRECT.
Executed on September 15, 2009

______________________________________________
Nicole J. Moss
REDACT
REDACT
REDACTED R E D D A C
T E
RR 301

Exhibit I
RR 302
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


1
Nicole J. Moss
Jesse Panuccio

andrew@pugnolaw.com

braum@telladf.org




ZARRILLO,

Plaintiffs,

v.



DECLARATION OF FRANK SCHU-
BERT IN SUPPORT OF DEFEN-
DANT-INTERVENORS MOTION
FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

Time: 10:00 a.m.
RR 303
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


2

Defendants,

and

RENEWAL,






RR 304
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


3
I, Frank Schubert, make the following declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746:

1. I am a resident of the State of California over 18 years of age, and my statements here-
in are based upon personal knowledge and experience and upon my personal review of the docu-
ment requests served by Plaintiffs on Defendant-Intervenors in this case.
order.
3. I am the President of Schubert Flint Public Affairs, a full-service, public affairs and
communications consulting firm based in Sacramento, California, with clients across the United
States. I have twice been named the countrys most valuable public affairs professional by the
American Association of Political Consultants (AAPC). I am the only person in the associations
history to have won this prestigious award twice. I have served on the AAPC Board of Directors
for over ten years. On three occasions, the AAPC has honored me for assembling and managing
the Pubic Affairs Team of the Year, including last year for my management of the Yes on Proposi-
tion 8 campaign. I have received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the International Associ-
ation of Business Communicators (Sacramento Chapter). I have over 30 years of experience in
this field. I have managed 34 statewide ballot initiative campaigns in nine states including acting
as Campaign Manager for Protect Marriage.com in the Proposition 8 campaign in 2008.
4. I and my firm were hired by Protect Marriage.com in June 2008 to serve as Campaign
Manager. I worked with the volunteer chairman of Protect Marriage.com, Ron Prentice, and with
an ad hoc executive committee. My responsibilities included, subject to approval of the executive
committee, developing the campaigns strategy, selecting vendors to work on the campaign,
developing messages for delivery to voters, overseeing voter and issue research, developing and
overseeing a grassroots plan, developing advertisements and other communications to voters, and
working with donors, volunteers, supporters, and the press, among other duties.
RR 305
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


4
5. I am submitting this Declaration in Support of the Proposition 8 Proponents Motion
for a Protective Order because I know, based on personal experience, the harm that will result if
Protect Marriage.coms, its volunteers, donors, members, vendors, consultants, etc., and/or the
Proposition 8 official proponents, personal, non-public communications are found to be an appro-
priate subject of discovery in this matter. It is my professional opinion that if the Protective Order
is not granted, the Court will thrust not a dagger, but a sword, into the Peoples precious right of
initiative and referendum. The harms that would flow from requiring these communications
which reflect political views and opinions, moral views and opinions, religious beliefs, legislative
and political strategy, political speech, and associational activityto be produced in discovery are
several-fold.
6. First, a significant and real threat exists that individuals identified in these communica-
tions, their families and associates, and/or their businesses will be targeted for retaliation by
groups and persons who disagree with the views being expressed therein. Throughout the Proposi-
tion 8 campaign, I and my company were personally subject to severe harassment and attempts at
intimidation because of our involvement in the Yes on 8 Campaign. For example:
I received hundreds of hate emails and telephone calls, many with threatening overtones
including suggestions that the world would be better off if I were dead.
Activists descended upon my office with camera crews in tow in an effort to publicly con-
front me over my position on Proposition 8.
A distant gay relative posted on Facebook an apology to the homosexual community that
her relative was managing the Proposition 8 campaign, and offered to provide my home
address to anyone who wanted it. One No-on-Prop-8 supporter publicly asked for the in-
formation.
I was the subject of continuous taunting, insults, and harassment on countless blogs.
RR 306
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


5
My address and those of thousands of other supporters of Prop 8 were posted on the Inter-
net through a Google map that allowed people to type in an address and see all the con-
tributors to ProtectMarriage in their area (including a contributors name, address, profes-
sion, employer, and donation level). A sampling of the maps available on that website
(http://www.eightmaps.com) is attached as an exhibit to this declaration. That website is
still functional and publically accessible as of today. The message is unmistakable: heres
where they live. Go get them.
The open house for our office in southern California became a cause clbre for activists
who organized an elaborate attempt to infiltrate the reception and not only confront me, but
also our clients to inform them that our firm was allegedly bigoted and discriminatory.
Because of this harassment, the campaign was forced to provide security at our offices for
several weeks in order to protect our staff and ensure that activists were not allowed to en-
ter the office and cause harm to me or my staff. Protect Marriage was also forced to pay
for private security for a two-week bus tour throughout California. The committee contin-
ues to provide security for me and members of the legal team in high profile appearances,
including when they appear before this Court.
To this day, I continue to receive hate email and threats because of the positions I advo-
cated.
7. I am also aware of many other instances of harassment, retaliation, and threats against
supporters of the Yes on 8 Campaign. I know from both experience and interaction with these
supporters that they will be much less willing to contribute to and/or participate in a campaign in
the future. During the campaign there was a noticeable decline in some donors willingness to
donate to, and some volunteers willingness to continue participating in, the campaign after they
were subjected to threats and harassment. Certain vendors would no longer work on the campaign
RR 307
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


6
because of the retaliation against them by activists. Even now, some of our larger contributors
continue to face calls for boycotts and economic sanctions. I know of several donors who had
their businesses boycotted and protested, their employees harassed, and who received hundreds of
threatening emails and phone calls. I am personally aware of at least two supporters who were
physically assaulted because of their position on Proposition 8. I have witnessed video footage of
roaming bands of thieves stealing hundreds of our signs and then displaying them as if they were a
trophy. I have seen photos of our supporters homes and automobiles defaced. One supporter had
his automobile keyed with a swastika and the words, gay sex is love, scratched into the paint
down to the raw metal. Another supporter had a van parked in front of his home painted with the
words, bigots live here. I know of many churches that were defaced. Several of our supporters
were forced from their jobs when demonstrators decided to target their place of employment. I
know of donors to Protect Marriage whose employers were called to ask about the employers
non-discrimination policy and to inform them that they had an alleged bigot in their employ.
8. These are not isolated incidents. The harassment of supporters of Proposition 8 was in-
cessant, continuous, and organized. To this day, several websites exist specifically for the purpose
of harassing supporters of traditional marriage, including the so-called Californians Against
Hate, which continues to promote boycotts and reprisals against supporters of Proposition 8 and
traditional marriage. The harassment is also not limited to fringe groups or over-zealous suppor-
ters of same-sex marriage. One major national group that petitioned the Court for permission to
intervene in this case (National Center for Lesbian Rights), recently issued a press statement
condemning the California Bar Associations decision to host a meeting at a business associated
with one of Proposition 8s supporters.
9. Second, an equally serious and real threat exists that the disclosure of the non-public
communications of the Yes on 8 campaignwhether those communications are between volun-
RR 308
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


7
teers of Protect Marriage and their consultants, contractors, and vendors (such as Schubert Flint),
or between Schubert Flint as campaign manager and donors, supporters, vendors, etc.will
significantly suppress the future participation in, and course of, initiative and referendum cam-
paigns. Personally, speaking on behalf of Schubert Flint, I can state with certainty that I and my
firm will change the way we engage in political speech and campaigning if the broad discovery
demanded in this case is permitted. Further, based on my experience working on 34 statewide
ballot initiative campaigns like the Proposition 8 campaign, I believe that if involvement with a
contentious ballot initiative causes supporters, donors, volunteers, vendors, consultants, etc., to run
the risk that not only their identities, but also their personal, non-public communications, might be
subject to discovery, it will be significantly harder to recruit supporters, volunteers, donors, etc. It
will be significantly harder to get vendors to agree to work on the campaign for fear that their
involvement will hurt them professionally. As importantly, the risk that internal communications
regarding such things as political strategy and political or religious views might be disclosed will
mean there will be significantly less of this type of speech and activity in the future. Campaign
strategists, volunteers, and voters will avoid candid associational speech, as well as candid speech
about political views and strategy, in an effort to avoid later exposure or mischaracterization in a
lawsuit over which they have no control.
10. Third, the scope of the discovery requests in this case opens the floodgates for Plain-
tiffs and their allies to learn not only the identity of donors, but also the identity of individual
volunteers and supporters, as well as the private reasons some such individuals might have for
getting involved in a campaign. Protect Marriage and Schubert Flint possess information on many
individual volunteers, including their names, addresses, and contact information. Protect Marriage
and Schubert Flint also possess communications to and from some of these volunteers about the
Proposition 8 campaign and the marriage issue generally. Based on my experience in this and
RR 309
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


8
other campaigns, I know that individuals often have very private and personal reasons for getting
involved in an initiative campaign. They may feel passionately about an issue. They may fear the
consequences for themselves, their family, or society as a whole if an initiative passes or fails.
They may have an economic interest in the outcome of an initiative election. They may have
spiritual, political, personal, or familial reasons for their point of view. Whatever their personal,
subjective reasons for taking a position on an initiative, my experience demonstrates that if those
reasons are put on trial and/or exposed through compelled discovery there will be a very real risk
that future political participation will thereby be severely curbed.
11. The types of communications at issue in this case include all of the types of communi-
cations the exposure of which would lead to the types of chilling referenced above. For example,
one activity conducted by the campaignfor the purpose of planning and implementing a cam-
paign to petition the government and engaging in political speechwas to compile a database that
collected information on how voters in California intended to vote on Proposition 8. Plaintiffs
broad discovery requests would seemingly require Protect Marriage to turn over this information
and thereby violate one of the most highly protected and deeply cherished First Amendment
rightsthe right to a secret ballot. Protect Marriage and Schubert Flint also possess information
on the privately expressed position of over one million voters. If the Plaintiffs discovery requests
are allowed to proceed, the privately expressed opinions of over one million voters will become
public.
12. Another specific example of communications that are implicated by Plaintiffs discov-
ery requests are all of the communications I or others at Schubert Flint have had with either offi-
cial Proponents or volunteers of Protect Marriage involving political and religious viewpoints.
Even to the extent that it is public information, for example, that major backing for the Yes on 8
campaign came from certain religiously affiliated groups, the private religious views expressed by
RR 310
RR 311

I-1
RR 312
P
R
O
P

8

M
A
P
S
A

m
a
s
h
-
u
p

o
f

G
o
o
g
l
e

M
a
p
s

a
n
d

P
r
o
p

8

D
o
n
o
r
s
.
P
r
o
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

8

c
h
a
n
g
e
d

t
h
e

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a

s
t
a
t
e

c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

t
o

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t

s
a
m
e
-
s
e
x

m
a
r
r
i
a
g
e
.

T
h
e
s
e

a
r
e
t
h
e

p
e
o
p
l
e

w
h
o

d
o
n
a
t
e
d

i
n

o
r
d
e
r

t
o

p
a
s
s

i
t
.
J
u
m
p

t
o

S
a
n

F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
,

S
a
l
t

L
a
k
e

C
i
t
y

,

o
r

O
r
a
n
g
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
.
M
a
p

d
a
t
a

2
0
0
9

L
e
a
d
D
o
g

C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
,

T
e
l
e

A
t
l
a
s
,

I
N
E
G
I
,

E
u
r
o
p
a

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s

-

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e
RR 313
P
R
O
P

8

M
A
P
S
A

m
a
s
h
-
u
p

o
f

G
o
o
g
l
e

M
a
p
s

a
n
d

P
r
o
p

8

D
o
n
o
r
s
.
P
r
o
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

8

c
h
a
n
g
e
d

t
h
e

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a

s
t
a
t
e

c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

t
o

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t

s
a
m
e
-
s
e
x

m
a
r
r
i
a
g
e
.

T
h
e
s
e

a
r
e
t
h
e

p
e
o
p
l
e

w
h
o

d
o
n
a
t
e
d

i
n

o
r
d
e
r

t
o

p
a
s
s

i
t
.
J
u
m
p

t
o

S
a
n

F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
,

S
a
l
t

L
a
k
e

C
i
t
y

,

o
r

O
r
a
n
g
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
.
M
a
p

d
a
t
a

2
0
0
9

T
e
l
e

A
t
l
a
s
,

I
N
E
G
I

-

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e
RR 314
P
R
O
P

8

M
A
P
S
A

m
a
s
h
-
u
p

o
f

G
o
o
g
l
e

M
a
p
s

a
n
d

P
r
o
p

8

D
o
n
o
r
s
.
P
r
o
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

8

c
h
a
n
g
e
d

t
h
e

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a

s
t
a
t
e

c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

t
o

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t

s
a
m
e
-
s
e
x

m
a
r
r
i
a
g
e
.

T
h
e
s
e

a
r
e
t
h
e

p
e
o
p
l
e

w
h
o

d
o
n
a
t
e
d

i
n

o
r
d
e
r

t
o

p
a
s
s

i
t
.
J
u
m
p

t
o

S
a
n

F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
,

S
a
l
t

L
a
k
e

C
i
t
y

,

o
r

O
r
a
n
g
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
.
M
a
p

d
a
t
a

2
0
0
9

T
e
l
e

A
t
l
a
s
,

I
N
E
G
I

-

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e
RR 315
P
R
O
P

8

M
A
P
S
A

m
a
s
h
-
u
p

o
f

G
o
o
g
l
e

M
a
p
s

a
n
d

P
r
o
p

8

D
o
n
o
r
s
.
P
r
o
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

8

c
h
a
n
g
e
d

t
h
e

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a

s
t
a
t
e

c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

t
o

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t

s
a
m
e
-
s
e
x

m
a
r
r
i
a
g
e
.

T
h
e
s
e

a
r
e
t
h
e

p
e
o
p
l
e

w
h
o

d
o
n
a
t
e
d

i
n

o
r
d
e
r

t
o

p
a
s
s

i
t
.
J
u
m
p

t
o

S
a
n

F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
,

S
a
l
t

L
a
k
e

C
i
t
y

,

o
r

O
r
a
n
g
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
.
M
a
p

d
a
t
a

2
0
0
9

T
e
l
e

A
t
l
a
s

-

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e
RR 316

Exhibit J
RR 317
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


1
Nicole J. Moss
Jesse Panuccio

andrew@pugnolaw.com

braum@telladf.org




ZARRILLO,

Plaintiffs,

v.



DECLARATION OF MARK JANS-
SON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-
INTERVENORS MOTION FOR A
PROTECTIVE ORDER

Time: 10:00AM
RR 318
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


2

Defendants,

and

RENEWAL,






I, Mark Jansson, make the following declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746:
1. I am a resident of California over 18 years of age, and my statements herein are based
on personal knowledge.
RR 319
RR 320

Exhibit K
RR 321
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DECLARATION OF NICOLE J. MOSS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
Nicole J. Moss
Jesse Panuccio

andrew@pugnolaw.com

braum@telladf.org




ZARRILLO,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MUND G. BROWN, JR., in his official capaci-
ty as Attorney General of California; MARK
B. HORTON, in his official capacity as Direc-


DECLARATION OF NICOLE MOSS
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-
INTERVENORS MOTION FOR A
PROTECTIVE ORDER

Time: 10:00 a.m.

RR 322
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DECLARATION OF NICOLE J. MOSS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
tor of the California Department of Public
Health and State Registrar of Vital Statistics;
LINETTE SCOTT, in her official capacity as
Deputy Director of Health Information & Stra-
tegic Planning for the California Department of
Public Health; PATRICK OCONNELL, in his
official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the
County of Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in
his official capacity as Registrar-
Recorder/County Clerk for

Defendants,

and

RENEWAL,






RR 323
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DECLARATION OF NICOLE MOSS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS

1
I, Nicole J. Moss, make the following declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746:
1. I am a resident of the state of North Carolina over 18 years of age, and my statements
herein are based on personal knowledge.
2. This declaration is made in support of Defendant-Intervenors Motion for a Protective
Order.
3. The articles listed below and attached hereto as Exhibit K-1 through K-71 are true and
correct copies of articles that I or my staff have accessed online since September 12, 2009, each
of which documents one or more incidents relating to people who supported Proposition 8:
Discussing Negative Effects of Public Disclosure
Exhibit K-1: John R. Lott, Jr. and Bradley Smith (Opinion), Donor Disclosure Has Its
Downsides: Supporters of Californias Prop 8 have faced a backlash, Wall Street
Journal, Dec. 26, 2008, available at
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123025779370234773.html (last visited Sept. 14,
2009).

Exhibit K-2: Steve Lopez (Opinion), Readers Have Choice Words (Pro and Con) on Prop. 8,
L.A. Times, Dec. 17, 2008, available at
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/17/local/me-lopez17 (last visited Sept. 14,
2009).

Death Threats, Physical Violence, and Threats of Physical Violence

Exhibit K-3: Proposition 8 Death Threats, CBS Fresno, Oct. 31, 2008, available at
http://www.cbs47.tv/mostpopular/story/Proposition-8-Death-`
Threats/iQyK1E0C30aNjdD0tVyMJA.cspx (last visited Sept. 14, 2009)

Exhibit K-4: Amanda Perez, Prop 8 Death Threats, ABC Fresno, Oct. 31, 2008, available at
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=6479861&pt=print
(last visited Sept. 14, 2009).

Exhibit K-5: John-Thomas Kobos, Proposition 8 Email Threats, ABC Fresno, Nov. 7, 2008,
available at
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=6494921&rss=rss-kfsn-
article-6494921

RR 324
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


2

Exhibit K-6: Colleen Raezler, OReilly Alone Reports Gay Attack on Christians, Culture and
Media Institute, Nov. 19, 2008, available at
http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/printer/2008/20081119181938.aspx (last
visited Sept. 14, 2009).

Exhibit K-7: Anger Over Prop. 8 Erupts in San Francisco, KTVU Oakland, Nov. 14, 2008,
available at
http://www.ktvu.com/print/17986914/detail.html (last visited Sept. 14, 2009).

Exhibit K-8: David Markland, Prop 8 Supporter Attacked While Distributing Signs, NBC San
Diego, Oct. 22, 2008, available at
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/elections/local/Prop_8_supporter_attacked_w
hile_distributing_signs_DGO.html (last visited Sept. 14, 2009).

Exhibit K-9: Ben Winslow, Powder Scares at 2 LDS Temples, Catholic Plant, Deseret News,
Nov. 14, 2008, available at
http://deseretnews.com/article/content/mobile/1,5620,705262822,00.html?printVi
ew=true (last visited Sept. 14, 2009).

Exhibit K-10: John Cadiz Klemack, Patrick Healy, and Jon Lloyd, Prop 8 Protestors March Into
Nigh Protests Continue Into Second Day, NBC Los Angeles, Nov. 7, 2008,
available at
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Protestors_Signal_Battle_over_Same_
Sex_Marriage_Not_Over.html (last visited Sept. 14, 2009).

Exhibit K-11: Jennifer Garza, Protests Over Proposition 8 Outcome Getting Personal, Deseret
News, Nov. 13, 2008, available at
http://deseretnews.com/article/content/mobile/1,5620,705262671,00.html (last

Exhibit K-12: Adrienne S. Gaines, Radical Gay Activists Seek to Intimidate Christians,
Charisma Magazine, Nov. 19, 2008, available at
http://charismamag.com/index.php/news/19444 (last visited Sept. 14, 2009)

Exhibit K-13: http://broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?boardid=2&thread=983640 (last
visited Sept. 14, 2009)

Exhibit K-14: Krista Gesaman, Threats, Legal Action in Washingtons Gay-Marriage Debate,
Newsweek, Sept. 8, 2009, available at
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/09/08/threats-legal-action-in-
washingtons-gay-marriage-debate.aspx (last visited September 15, 2009).

Exhibit K-15: Brad Stone, Discloure, Magnified On the Web, N.Y. Times, February 8, 2009, at
BU.

RR 325
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


3
Exhibit K-16: Colleen Carroll Campbell, Attacks on Miss California reveal intolerance of gay-rights
activists Point of Biew: Beauty queen is latest target of a campaign to silence critics
of same-sex marriage, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, April 30, 2009, at A17.

Exhibit K-17: Maria Armental, Same-sex marriage protesters assaulted with food, Projo 7 to 7
News Blog, July 29, 2009, available at
http://newsblog.projo.com/2009/07/working-32.html (last visited Sept. 15, 2009).

Exhibit K-18: Maureen Mullarkey, The New Blacklist, The Weekly Standard, Mar. 16, 2009,
Vol. 14 No. 25.

Exhibit K-19: Brad Stone, Disclosure, Magnified On the Web, N.Y. Times, Feb. 8, 2009, at BU.

Vandalism

Exhibit K-20:: Chelsea Phua, Mormon Church in Orangevale Vandalized in Wake of Prop. 8Vote,
Sacramento Bee, Nov. 9, 2008, available at
http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/1382472.html (last visited Sept. 14, 2009).

Exhibit K-21: Vandals Egg Downtown Fresno Church, ABC Fresno, Oct. 28, 2008, available at

Exhibit K-22: Vandals Arrange Prop. 8 Signs Into Swastika, CBS Los Angeles, Nov. 7, 2008,
available at
http://cbs2.com/local/Proposition.8.Vandalism.2.859176.html (last visited Sept. 14,
2009 ).

Exhibit K-23: Vandals Spray Paint Signs in Downtown Fullerton, Orange County Register, Oct. 20,
2008, available at
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/macdonald-one-police-2200383-paint-vandals#

Exhibit K-24: Bob Banfield, Neighborhood Vandalized Over Prop 8, ABC Los Angeles, Oct. 31,
2008, available at
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/inland_empire&id=648281
0&pt=print (last visited Sept. 14, 2009).

Exhibit K-25: Anti-Prop 8 Vandals Hit Alto Loma Home, ABC Los Angeles, Oct. 28, 2008,
available at
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/inland_empire&id=647055
7&pt=print (last visited Sept. 14, 2009).

Exhibit K-26: Vandals Strike Prop 8 Homes in SJ, ABC San Francisco, Oct. 27, 2008, available at
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/south_bay&id=6472609&pt
=print (last visited Sept. 14, 2009).
RR 326
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


4

Exhibit K-27: Vandals Target Prop 8 Supporters in NorCal, CBS Los Angeles, Oct. 28, 2008,
available at
http://cbs2.com/local/Proposition.8.Vandalism.2.850469.html (last visited Sept. 14,
2009).

Exhibit K-28: Barbara Giasone, Five Held on Suspicion of Stealing Yes on Prop. 8 Signs, Orange
County Register, Oct. 21, 2008, available at
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/signs-macdonald-five-2201253-fullerton-sign

Exhibit K-29: Aaron Bruner, Prop 8 Supporters Face Sign Theft, Vandalism, California Aggie, Oct.
29, 2008, available at
http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/1747 (last visited Sept. 14, 2009).

Exhibit K-30: Salvador Hernandez, Prop. 8 Sign-Stealing Ignites Free Speech Debate, Orange
County Register, Oct. 30, 2008, available at
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/signs-stolen-people-2211707-proposition-sing
am (last visited Sept. 14, 2009).

Exhibit K-31: Chris Daines, Dana Point Man Will Keep Replacing Downed Signs Favoring Prop.
8, Orange County Register, Oct. 31, 2008, available at
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/sign-vogeler-put-2213420-signs-down (last

Exhibit K-32: Sheriff: Prop. 8 Signs Being Stolen, Burned, KCRA Sacramento, Oct. 20, 2008,
available at
http://www.kcra.com/news/17758850/detail.html (last visited Sept. 14, 2009).

Exhibit K-33: Posting of Anthony Scorci, Arrests made in Roseville after Yes on Proposition 8 signs
found in car, to Sacto 9-1-1, October 28, 2008, available at
http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/crime/archives/016492.html (last visited Sept.
15, 2009)

Exhibit K-34: Prop 8 protestors vandalize church, San Francisco News, January 4, 2009,
available at
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=6584961

Examples of How Public Disclosure Reports are Being Used:

Exhibit K-35: Steve Lopez, A Life Thrown Into Turmoil by $100 Donation for Prop. 8, Los Angeles
Times, Dec. 14, 2008, available at
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez14-2008dec14,0,4735956,print.co
lumn (last visited Sept. 14, 2009).

RR 327
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


5
Exhibit K-36: Greg Gutfeld, Major Victory for Prop 8 Protestors, Foxnews.com, Dec. 11, 2008,
available at:
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,465413,00.html (last

Exhibit K-37: Jennifer Bonnett, Galt Attorney: Son Harassed by Teacher Over Proposition 8, Lodi
News-Sentinel, Oct. 31, 2008, available at:
http://lodinews.com/articles/2008/10/31/news/7_harassment_081031.prt (last

Exhibit K-38: John Diaz, The Ugly Backlash Over Proposition 8, SFGate.com, Nov. 23, 2008,
available at:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/23/INOQ147155.DTL
(last visited Sept. 14, 2009)..

Exhibit K-39: Gregg Goldstein, Richard Raddon Resigns Post, Hollywood Reporter, Nov. 25,
2008.

Exhibit K-40: Marcus Crowder, Theater Felt Growing Pressure Before Artistic Director Quit,
Sacramento Bee, Nov. 12, 2008, available at:
http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/v-print/story/1390297.html (last visited Sept. 14,
2009).

Exhibit K-41: Student Leaders Face Recall Over Prop. 8, KCRA Sacramento, Oct. 21, 2008,
available at:
http://www.kcra.com/news/17768622/detail.html (last visited Sept. 14, 2009).

Exhibit K-42: Alison Stateman, What Happens If Youre on Gay Rights Enemies List, Time,
Nov. 15, 2008, available at:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html (last visited Sept.
14, 2009)

Exhibit K-43: Pro. 8 boycott, or blacklist? (Editorial), L.A. Times, Dec. 10, 2008, available at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-boycott10-2008dec10,0,27
03213.story (last visited Sept. 14, 2009).

Exhibit K-44: Prop. 8 Anger Spurs Donor Blacklists, CBS News, Nov. 13, 2008, available at:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/13/eveningnews/main4601227.shtml

Exhibit K-45: Lori Consalvo, Proposition 8 Passage Inspires Protests; Proponents Claim Intimi-
dation, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, Nov. 15, 2008.

Exhibit K-46: Tami Abdollah and Cara Mia DiMassa, Proposition 8 Protestors Target Businesses,
Los Angeles Times, Nov. 14, 2008, available at:
RR 328
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


6
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/14/local/me-boycott14 (last visited Sept. 14,
2009).

Exhibit K-47: Prop. 8 Opponents Protest Ice Cream Parlor, KCRA Sacramento, Nov. 17, 2008,
available at
http://www.kcra.com/politics/17994183/detail.html (last visited Sept. 14, 2009).

Exhibit K-48: Jim Carlton, Gay Activists Boycott Backers of Prop 8, Wall Street Journal, Dec.27,
2008, available at:
http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB123033766467736451.html (last visited Sept. 14,
2009).

Exhibit K-49: William M. Welch, Prop 8 foes turn to blacklist tactics, USA Today, Dec. 21, 2008,
available at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-12-21-blacklist_N.htm (last visited
Sept. 14, 2009).

Exhibit K-50: Prop. 8 Victors Upset by Personal Attacks, The Sacramento Bee, Nov. 12, 2008,
available at
http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/v-print/story/1390055.html (last visited
Sept. 14, 2009).

Exhibit K-51: Martin Wisckol, Prop. 8 Leaders Accuse Foes of Harassment, Intimidation, Orange
County Register, Nov. 14, 2008, available at
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/prop-vassos-leaders-2229235-gay-marriage

Exhibit K-52: Activists Target Mormons for Gay-Marriage Bans Success in California, FOX-
News.com, Dec. 1, 2008, available at
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,459544,00.html (last

Exhibit K-53: Matthai Kuruvila, Mormons Face Flak for Backing Prop. 8, SFGate.com, Oct. 27,
2008, available at
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/BAP113OIRD.DTL
&type=printable (last visited Sept. 14, 2009).

Exhibit K-54: John Wildermuth and Demian Bulwa, Same-Sex Marriage Backers Hit Capitol,
Churches, SFGate.com, Nov. 10, 2008, available at
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MN4E141B3P.DTL
&type=printable (last visited Sept. 14, 2009).

Exhibit K-55: Local Donors Give $1.6 Million for Ban on Gay Marriage, Orange County Register,
Sept. 7, 2008, available at
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/prop-gay-marriage-2149221-ban-california#
RR 329
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


7

Exhibit K-56: John Wildermuth, Gay-Rights Activists Protest Prop. 8 at Capitol, SFGate.com, Nov.
22, 2008, available at
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/23/BAAR14ACGC.DT
L&type=printable (last visited Sept. 14, 2009).

Exhibit K-57: Rachel Abramowitz and Tina Daunt, Hollywood and the Same Sex Marriage Fight,
Nov. 23, 2008, available at
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/23/entertainment/et-shunned23 (last visited Sept.
14, 2009).

Exhibit K-58: Devin Clerici, Prop. 8 Foes Aim Their Ire at Lassens Stores: Owner Backed Ballot
Measure, Ventura County Star, Nov. 19, 2008, available at
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/nov/19/prop-8-foes-aim-their-ire-a
t-local-lassens/ (last visited Sept. 14, 2009).

Exhibit K-59: Bill Ainsworth, Gay Rights Groups to Boycott Manchester Grand Hyatt: Owner
Donated to Proposition 8, San Diego Union-Tribune, July. 10, 2008, available at
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080710-9999-1m10boycott.html

Exhibit K-60: Tony Cochran, Rally Against Prop H8: Manchester Grand Hyatt, available at
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/11/18/18552103.php (last visited Sept. 14,
2009).

Exhibit K-61: Alexander Alter, A Church names names of gay-marriage foes; A Jacksonville
church published the names of Florida residents who signed a petition backing the
ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage, Miami Herald, Jun. 15, 2009, at A1.

Exhibit K-62: Karen Grigsby Bates, Backers of Calif. Gay Marriage Ban Face Backlash, NPR,
March 5, 2009, available at
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101460517 (last visited
Sept. 15, 2009).

Exhibit K-63: Tony Semerad, Gay-rights group, Garff Automotive meet; boycott goes on, Salt
Lake Tribune, Feb. 12, 2009.

Exhibit K-64: Matthew T. Hall, Hotelier Manchester offering $125,000 to gay, lesbian groups,
San Diego Union-Tribune, May 9, 2009, at B5.

Exhibit K-65: Jesse McKinley, Donors against gay marriage want to be anonymous, N.Y. Times,
Jan. 19, 2009, available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/world/americas/19ihtletter.1.19482325.html?
_r=1 (last visited Sept. 15, 2009).
RR 330
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


8

Exhibit K-66: Gale Holland, L.A. college is sued over speech on gay marriage; Student opposed
to the unions says teacher reacted improperly, L.A. Times, Feb. 16, 2009, at B3.
Exhibit K-67: Gay Activists Protest Mormons in NYC, KNX 1070 News, available at
http://www.knx1070.com/pages/3313034.php? (last visited Sept. 15, 2009).

Exhibit K-68: Jeff McDonald, Clinton wont cancel talk at boycotted hotel; Owner supported
gay-marriage ban, San Diego Union-Tribune, Feb. 13, 2009, at B1.

Exhibit K-69: David Van Biema, The Church and Gay Marriage: Are Mormons Misunderstood?,
Time, June 22, 2009, available at
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1904146,00.html (last visited Sept. 15,
2009).

Exhibit K-70: James Rasmussen, Prop. 8 foes plan protest at Long Beach Hyatt, whittierdai-
lynews.com, May 12, 2009, available at
http://www.whittierdailynews.com/california/ci_12355993 (last visited Sept. 15,
2009).

Exhibit K-71: Nancy Dillon, Artist Draws Gays Ire for Same-Sex Nups Ban Support, Daily
News, Feb. 3, 2007, at 8.

4. The websites listed below are websites that I or my staff have accessed online since
September 14, 2009, each of which lists donors to Proposition 8 and encourages taking some form
of action against the listed donors or groups who supported Proposition 8:
http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com
http://californiansagainsthate.com
http://www.boycottmanchesterhotels.com
http://boycotta-1selfstorage.com
5. The document attached hereto as Exhibit K-72 is a true and correct copy of an
editorial note explaining a student newspapers decision to allow an article to be published anony-
mously because of the authors fear of retaliation because of his support for Proposition 8.
RR 331
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


9
6. The websites listed below are websites that I or my staff have accessed since Sep-
tember 14, 2009, each of which, as of September 14, 2009 contained video footage of incidents
targeting supporters of Proposition 8:
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/video?id=6545349 (Fresno mayor and pastor receive
death threats because of support for Proposition 8)
http://cbs2.com/video/?id=81887@kcbs.dayport.com (same)

http://nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Protestors_Signal_Battle_over_
Same_Sex_Marriage_Not_Over.html (several videos on left side of page showing
Opponents of Proposition 8 blocking streets outside and LDS Temple in Los Angeles)

I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE
AND CORRECT

Executed this 15th day of September, 2009, in North Carolina.

___________________________

Nicole J. Moss

RR 332

K-1
RR 333
See a sample reprint in PDF format. Order a reprint of this article now
OPINION DECEMBER 26, 2008
Dow Jones Reprints: This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or
customers, use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or visit www.djreprints.com
Donor Disclosure Has Its Downsides
Supporters of California's Prop. 8 have faced a backlash.
By JOHN R. LOTT JR. and BRADLEY SMITH
How would you like elections without secret ballots? To most people, this would be absurd.
We have secret balloting for obvious reasons. Politics frequently generates hot tempers. People can put up yard signs or
wear political buttons if they want. But not everyone feels comfortable making his or her positions public -- many
worry that their choice might offend or anger someone else. They fear losing their jobs or facing boycotts of their
businesses.
And yet the mandatory public disclosure of financial donations to political campaigns in almost every state and at the
federal level renders people' s fears and vulnerability all too real. Proposition 8 -- California' s recently passed
constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage by ensuring that marriage in that state remains between a man and
a woman -- is a dramatic case in point. Its passage has generated retaliation against those who supported it, once their
financial support was made public and put online.
For example, when it was discovered that Scott Eckern, director of the nonprofit California Musical Theater in
Sacramento, had given $1,000 to Yes on 8, the theater was deluged with criticism from prominent artists. Mr. Eckern
was forced to resign.
Richard Raddon, the director of the L.A. Film Festival, donated $1,500 to Yes on 8. A threatened boycott and picketing
of the next festival forced him to resign. Alan Stock, the chief executive of the Cinemark theater chain, gave $9,999.
Cinemark is facing a boycott, and so is the gay-friendly Sundance Film Festival because it uses a Cinemark theater to
screen some of its films.
A Palo Alto dentist lost patients as a result of his $1,000 donation. A restaurant manager in Los Angeles gave a $100
personal donation, triggering a demonstration and boycott against her restaurant. The pressure was so intense that
Marjorie Christoffersen, who had managed the place for 26 years, resigned.
These are just a few instances that have come to light, and the ramifications are still occurring over a month after the
election. The larger point of this spectacle is its implications for the future: to intimidate people who donate to
controversial campaigns.
The question is not whether Prop. 8 should have passed, but whether its supporters (or opponents) should have their
political preferences protected in the same way that voters are protected. Is there any reason to think that the
repercussions Mr. Eckern faced for donating to Prop. 8 would be different if it were revealed that instead of donating,
he had voted for it?
Indeed, supporters of Prop. 8 engaged in pressure tactics. At least one businessman who donated to "No on 8," J im
Abbott of Abbott & Associates, a real estate firm in San Diego, received a letter from the Prop. 8 Executive Committee
threatening to publish his company' s name if he didn' t also donate to the "Yes on 8" campaign.
John R. Lott Jr. and Bradley Smith Say Prop. 8 Supporters Face a Backlash... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123025779370234773.html#printMode
1 of 2 9/14/2009 2:42 PM
RR 334
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A13
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law.
For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit
www.djreprints.com
In each case, the law required disclosure of these individuals' financial support for Prop. 8. Supposedly, the reason for
requiring disclosure of campaign contributions is to allow voters to police politicians who might otherwise become
beholden to financiers by letting voters know "who is behind the message." But in a referendum vote such as Prop. 8,
there are no office holders to be beholden to big donors.
Does anyone believe that in campaigns costing millions of dollars a donation of $100, or even $1,000 or $10,000 will
give the donor "undue" influence? Over whom? Meanwhile, voters learn little by knowing the names and personal
information of thousands of small contributors.
Besides, it is not the case that voters would have no recourse when it comes to the financial backers of politicians or
initiatives. Even without mandatory disclosure rules, the unwillingness to release donation information can itself
become a campaign issue. If voters want to know who donated, there will be pressure to disclose that information.
Possibly voters will be most concerned about who the donors are when regulatory issues are being debated. But that is
for them to decide. They can always vote "no."
Ironically, it has long been minorities who have benefited the most from anonymous speech. In the 1950s, for example,
Southern states sought to obtain membership lists of the NAACP in the name of the public' s "right to know." Such
disclosure would have destroyed the NAACP' s financial base in the South and opened its supporters to threats and
violence. It took a Supreme Court ruling in NAACP v. Alabama (1958) to protect the privacy of the NAACP and its
supporters on First Amendment grounds. And more recently, it has usually been supporters of gay rights who have
preferred to keep their support quiet.
There is another problem with publicizing donations in political elections: It tends to entrench powerful politicians
whom donors fear alienating. If business executives give money to a committee chairman' s opponent, they often fear
retribution.
Other threats are more personal. For example, in 2004 Gigi Brienza contributed $500 to the J ohn Edwards
presidential campaign. An extremist animal rights group used that information to list Ms. Brienza' s home address
(and similarly, that of dozens of co-workers) on a Web site, under the ominous heading, "Now you know where to find
them." Her "offense," also revealed from the campaign finance records, was that she worked for a pharmaceutical
company that tested its products on animals.
In the aftermath of Prop. 8 we can glimpse a very ugly future. As anyone who has had their political yard signs torn
down can imagine, with today' s easy access to donor information on the Internet, any crank or unhinged individual can
obtain information on his political opponents, including work and home addresses, all but instantaneously. When even
donations as small as $100 trigger demonstrations, it is hard to know how one will feel safe in supporting causes one
believes in.
Mr . Lot t , a s en ior r es e a r ch s cie n t is t a t t h e Un ive r s it y of Ma r yla n d , is t h e a u t h or of "Fr eed omn omics "
(Re gn e r y, 20 0 7). Mr . Smit h , a for me r Fed e r a l Elect ion Commis s ion commis s ion er , is ch a ir ma n of t h e
Ce n t er for Comp et it ive Polit ics a n d p r ofes s or of la w a t Ca p it a l Un iver s it y in Colu mb u s , Oh io.

Please add your comments to the Opinion J ournal forum.
John R. Lott Jr. and Bradley Smith Say Prop. 8 Supporters Face a Backlash... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123025779370234773.html#printMode
2 of 2 9/14/2009 2:42 PM
RR 335

K-2
RR 336
Ads by Google / Ad Feedback
Now Legal in Vermont
Ben & Jerrys Is Happy To Celebrate
The Legalization Of Gay Marriage.
www.BenJerry.com
Readers have choice words (pro and con) on Prop. 8
By STEVE LOPEZ
December 17, 2008
When you write a column for a living, you get called lots of names on a regular basis. Moron, liar and sellout, to
name a few.
I'm in no position to complain, though, since I occasionally use the same words to describe public officials and
captains of industry.
But I've never been called a bigot so many times as I have since I wrote in my Sunday column about the boycott of
El Coyote, the Los Angeles cantina whose Mormon manager donated $100 to Proposition 8, the successful
November ballot initiative to ban gay marriage.
"Your article defending" the manager "is making the rounds on gay boards, which means that you're becoming
notorious for your bigotry," wrote someone named Laight.
"You should be ashamed of yourself," wrote Amy.
About two-thirds of the roughly 400 readers who sent e-mails took similar positions. They said I was too sympathetic
to Margie Christoffersen in writing about how business at her mother's margarita mill is way down, thanks in part to
an organized boycott, and how Christoffersen is so distraught she has taken a leave of absence.
"Oh, poor Margie," was a popular line among angry readers, as was, "Cry me a river."
So did I get it wrong?
To summarize the column, I said I was opposed to Prop. 8 and to the ugly campaigns against gay marriage by
organized religion. I also wrote that Christoffersen is entitled to her views no matter how objectionable they are to
me or anyone else, and that 89 El Coyote employees shouldn't be hurt by their manager's politics.
I'm not taking any of it back, and that goes for my comments about organized religion, which ruffled the feathers of
another flock of readers. But there's room for honest disagreement on the many issues wrapped into this story, and
I thought a lot of responses from readers were worth sharing.
T. Miyashiro-Sonoda wrote: "All couples (of any combination) should apply for a civil union license and have a civil
ceremony. This would have all of the legal rights that are now granted by what we recognize as a 'marriage.' If the
couple would like this union blessed or recognized by a church, synagogue, temple or any place of worship as a
'marriage,' another ceremony could be performed there. That way, any church, synagogue, temple or place of
worship would have the right to recognize the union or not. What do you think?" I think I like it.
Related Articles
A life thrown into turmoil by $100
donation for Prop. 8 Dec 14,
2008
Jonathan Crutchley discovers
how intolerant the gay... Aug 26,
2008
Palm Springs Makes Bid for
Gays' Dollars - Tourism: Some...
Mar 08, 1993
Carefree Cove
Gay and Lesbian
mountain community
Come to visit or to live
www.carefreecove.com
McDonnell for
Governor
Bob 4 Jobs Contribute
Now!
www.BobMcDonnell.com
California Proposition
65
Testing, risk mgt,
consulting, product
assessments &
screening
www.intertek.com/prop65
DC Gay Ceremonies
Creating personalized
unique unforgetable
memories for life!
www.blueridgerainbowceremonies.org/
You are here: LAT Home > Articles > California | Local

California | Local

Readers have choice words (pro and con) on Prop. 8 - Los Angeles Times http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/17/local/me-lopez17
1 of 2 9/14/2009 2:43 PM
RR 337
Fly Hawaiian Airlines
Book RT Flights to Hawaii from 10 Getaway Cities - Starting at $338*.
www.HawaiianAir.com
<< Previous Page | Next Page >>

Copyright 2009 Los Angeles Times

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service

Readers have choice words (pro and con) on Prop. 8 - Los Angeles Times http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/17/local/me-lopez17
2 of 2 9/14/2009 2:43 PM
RR 338
www.BenJerry.com
By STEVE LOPEZ
December 17, 2008
Marc Pattavina wrote: "Saying that she has no problems with gay people and loves them like everyone else but
donates money to [Prop. 8] is no different than me saying I have no problems with Mexicans or blacks and then
giving money to the Minutemen or the KKK. . . . If Margie was a real friend to the gay community she'd step up for
her friends and not let herself be herded like a sheep by the Mormon Church. If they told her to jump off a bridge
would she do that as well?"
My guess is yes.
Tim O'Shaughnessy wrote: "Those who supported this proposition for religious reasons committed the ultimate
betrayal of Jesus Christ's prime directive: 'Judge not lest ye be judged.' They reap what they sow."
OK, Tim, but doesn't that work both ways?
Jeff Dannels wrote: "Homophobia is not just another point of view. It's not some harmless 'I like Coke, he likes
Pepsi' difference of opinion. It is hateful and it is harmful."
Agreed. But there's been steady progress, and one day in California, gay marriage will be legal. It doesn't surprise
me that at least half the population isn't there yet, and I don't think blacklisting those who still aren't comfortable with
gay marriage advances the cause. But don't take my word for it.
J. Greg Veneklasen wrote: "As a gay man I am VERY unhappy with reverse discrimination of the anti-8 crowd. Their
reactionary strategy is definitely too much, too late. Where was this organization before the election, when it could
have had an impact...Not a way to win over hearts and minds, guys."
Good point. If the yes-on-8 campaign seemed unconscionable, the no-on-8 campaign seemed uninspired.
John A. Blue wrote: "I went to three same-sex marriages last summer, and the joy I saw at each is just
indescribable. It absolutely boggles my mind that anyone, let alone any persons claiming to follow the teachings of
Jesus Christ, could want to destroy that joy. . . . In civil society, actions have to have consequences. Otherwise we
are in a Malthusian world where life is nasty, brutish and short. I contributed to the No on 8 campaign, and if that
persuades some Christians that they should not patronize me or my law firm, well, I will live with it. . . . I'd just as
soon not provide my legal services to someone who thinks it's OK to take away civil rights from a fellow citizen."
A noble position.
McDonnell for Governor
Bob 4 Jobs Contribute Now!
California Proposition 65
Testing, risk mgt, consulting,
product assessments &
screening
DC Gay Ceremonies
Creating personalized unique
unforgetable memories for
life!
Raise Money Like Obama
Multiple Ways to Rasie
Money Online Learn From
Experts Sign-up Today.
www.ElectionMall.com
Book Travel with Non-Stop
Flights to Hawaii from 10
West Coast Cities
www.HawaiianAir.com

California | Local

Readers have choice words (pro and con) on Prop. 8 (page 2) - Los Angel... http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/17/local/me-lopez17?pg=1
1 of 2 9/14/2009 2:44 PM
RR 339
www.BenJerry.com
By STEVE LOPEZ
December 17, 2008
April (no last name) wrote: "The issue is that she likes to make money from gays and anyone else willing to spend a
buck in her restaurant. Despite being a Mormon, she serves alcohol -- to make money. Guess her faith is kinda
flexible, but it's okay when she's anti-gay rights because of her faith?"
Also a fair point.
Maria Elena Hernandez wrote: "Tell Ms. Christoffersen to save her hankies and tissues for those of us whose
wedding vows may be negated and to those who will have to wait until we have equal rights across the nation. My
years of tears certainly outweigh hers."
Hard to argue.
Richard Adkins wrote: "I am disappointed in our gay leaders who failed to identify the Mormon component in this
election and use it to assist in the proposition's defeat. . . . I will go to El Coyote on a Thursday night because I don't
think anyone should lose their livelihood over an opinion. . . . Any supporters of a political ideal need to be aware
that they can become what they oppose."
Don't eat your fajitas in silence, Richard. Tell Margie how you feel about that opinion of hers.
Robert Barrone wrote: "Although I voted against Prop 8, and can only hope to understand the frustration in the gay
community, I am reminded of [the famous quote]: 'I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right
to say it.' "
That was Evelyn Beatrice Hall describing the French philosopher Voltaire's beliefs. And speaking of Voltaire, isn't he
the one who said: "Prejudices are what fools use for reason?"
steve.lopez@latimes.com
Related Articles
A life thrown into turmoil by $100
donation for Prop. 8 Dec 14,
2008
Jonathan Crutchley discovers
how intolerant the gay... Aug 26,
2008
Palm Springs Makes Bid for
Gays' Dollars - Tourism: Some...
Mar 08, 1993
screening
DC Gay Ceremonies
Creating personalized unique
unforgetable memories for
life!
America's #1 On-Time
Carrier 5th Year in a Row.
Book Online & Save.
www.HawaiianAir.com
Guaranteed Love Spells
Money back guarantee &
results in as soon as hours!
Caring Service
www.veralovespells.com
Guaranteed Love Spells
Money back guarantee & results in as soon as hours! Caring Service
www.veralovespells.com

California | Local

Readers have choice words (pro and con) on Prop. 8 (page 3) - Los Angel... http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/17/local/me-lopez17?pg=2
1 of 2 9/14/2009 2:44 PM
RR 340

K-3
RR 341
Proposition 8 Death Threats
Last Update: 10/31/2008 9:20 am
The Fresno Police Department is providing security for Fresno
Mayor Alan Autry and Pastor Jim Franklin of Fresno's Cornerstone
Church after both men received death threats.
Police say the threats are in response to their support of Proposition
8. The state ballot measure would define marriage as only between
a man and a woman.
Earlier this week, Franklin's home, church and church office were
egged but now he says someone has gone too far.
Pastor Franklin said, "Here we have a side that talks about tolerance and just let people do what
they want to do. But then we get these types of reaction that would threaten people's lives who are
simply exercising their freedom of speech."
Fresno Mayor Alan Autry declined to talk on camera about the death threats but Fresno Police Chief
Jerry Dyer says investigators are taking the situation seriously and they're close to making an arrest
in the case.
Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer said, "The information we did receive, we felt serious enough that we
would conduct a criminal investigation that's led up to a search warrant. We're going to be making
an arrest, I would imagine, in the near future."
Both Franklin and Autry strongly support Proposition 8, which would amend the California
Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman only.
Pastor Franklin said, "I think without a doubt, just by the nature of the threat as it was related to me,
that there's no doubt that it was tied to our support of Proposition 8."
Despite the threats, Franklin says he has no plans to stop speaking out. Franklin said, "It's
emboldened us to do even more and to work harder, to get Prop 8 yes."
Proposition 8 Death Threats - KGPE - CBS TV47 http://www.cbs47.tv/mostpopular/story/Proposition-8-Death-Threats/iQ...
1 of 1 9/14/2009 1:01 PM
RR 342

K-4
RR 343
Track the storm with the ABC 30 Street-Level Interactive Radar Map | Click here ..
By Amanda Perez
Fresno, CA, USA (KFSN) -- The fight
over proposition 8 is taking a
dangerous turn as Fresno Police
investigate death threats against the
mayor and a prominent valley pastor.
Police Chief Jerry Dyer said the written
threats against Mayor Alan Autry and
Cornerstone Pastor Jim Franklin were very
detailed and mentioned their participation
in a pro-proposition 8 rally this weekend.
That's the California ballot initiative that
would ban same sex marriage. "We have
significant information regarding threats
against Mayor Autry and Pastor Franklin
and it's as a result as their participation on
the "Yes on 8" that occurred here recently,"
said Dyer.
Pastor Franklin says the threat came into
the mayor's office and he learned of it
Wednesday afternoon. The threat comes
just days after someone egged Franklin's
home and church. They never prepare you
for this at seminary. You never think that
just because you express your opinion, you
participate in the political process in a
passionate issue that people will take it to
this extent," said Franklin.
Dyer said the Fresno Police Department is
taking the case very seriously and they're
taking extra steps to protect the two men as
they investigate. "We've already served a
search warrant regarding the threats and I
have no doubt that we're going to be
making an arrest in the very near future,"
said Dyer.
Story continues below
Adver t i sement
Friday, October 31, 2008 | 10:18 AM
LOCAL
Prop 8 Death Threats
1 of 2 9/14/2009 1:05 PM
RR 344
Thursday night, "No on 8" organizer Jason
Scott condemned the threats. "This is
something we don't want to see happening.
"We just need to let each person have their
own opinion on this issue and give them
their space to exercise their first
amendment right on it," said Scott.
With just days to go until Election Day,
emotions are high on both sides of the
issue. "No on 8" supporters say they've
also had a lot of hate calls during the last
week and 'yes' and 'no' signs are
disappearing all over town.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abc30 News Links:
Links to other news sections on our
website.
HomePage
Top Headlines
Fresno Local News
State News
National/World News
Entertainment News
Business News
Politics News
Sports News
Health Watch
Consumer Watch
Mr. Food
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breaking News Alerts:
Click Here to Sign-Up for Breaking News E-Mail
Alerts
Receive Breaking News alerts in your email
inbox.
Click Here to Sign-Up for Text Message Alerts
Receive Breaking News alerts right on your cell
phone.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Copyright 2009 KFSN-TV/DT. All Rights
Reserved.)
2 of 2 9/14/2009 1:05 PM
RR 345

K-5
RR 346
By John-Thomas Kobos
Fresno, CA, USA (KFSN) -- Action News
has obtained a statement of probable
cause which includes the disturbing
email. In it, Autry and Franklin are
described as "bigots," "racists," and
"hate mongers." We learned the email
threatened anyone who supported Prop
8.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Download the Life
Threatening Email |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sunday October 26th, Fresno Mayor
Alan Autry spoke in favor of Proposition 8
outside of City Hall.
Autry said, "And that should marriage
remain between one man and one woman."
Three days later Fresno Police
investigators say the mayor's life was
threatened through an email. Part of it
reads: "Hey Bubba, you really acted like a
real idiot at the Yes of Prop 8 Rally this
past weekend. Consider yourself lucky. If I
had a gun I would have gunned you down
along with each and every other
supporter."
Adver t i sement
Action news has not changed the spelling
or wording of this email to preserve it.
The email continues, "Anybody who had a
yes on Prop 8 sign or banner in front of
their house or bumper sticker on the car in
Fresno is in danger of being shot or
firebombed."
Friday, November 07, 2008 | 7:52 PM
LOCAL
Proposition 8 Email Threats
1 of 3 9/14/2009 1:16 PM
RR 347
A Fresno County search warrant lists this
northwest Fresno house as the most likely
origin of the email. We knocked. But no
one was home. Darrel Palmer was
surprised to hear his neighbor could be
involved.
Darrel Palmer said, "So he would be that
last person that you would think of?" Yeah,
because they would always keep to
themselves."
According to the warrant investigators
discovered a large water-cooled
homemade computer with five external
hard drives inside.
Palmer said, "So kind of a tech wizard?
Yeah, he was a pretty smart guy. I'm sure
he's pretty smart. Like I said he did most of
the renovation work inside his house."
Pastor jim franklin was also at the yes on 8
rally outside city hall. He too was
mentioned in the email. It reads: "I've also
got a little surprise for Pastor Franklin and
his congregation of lowlife's in the coming
future. Keep letting him preach hate and
he'll be sorry. He will be meeting his maker
sooner than expected."
Yesterday Action News spoke with Pastor
Franklin about the threat. He said he felt
confident in the police investigation.
Pastor Jim Franklin said, "It is real. It's a
shame that it's come to that and we've
seen that even now escalate now that the
election has taken place."
No arrests have been made and no
charges have been filed. Police told Action
News they no longer believe the message
was sent by the man listed in the original
affidavit.
But investigators believe someone may
have sent the message from the man's
computer or using his Internet Protocol
Address.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abc30 News Links:
website.
HomePage
Top Headlines
Fresno Local News
2 of 3 9/14/2009 1:16 PM
RR 348

K-6
RR 349
OReillyAloneReportsGayAttackon
Christians
HomosexualsenragedoverProp.8physicallyandsexuallyassaulta
groupofreligiousbelieversinnocentlyprayinginapublicplace,and
thisisntnews?
ByColleenRaezler
CultureandMediaInstitute
November19,2008
Bill OReilly of Fox News is boldly reporting what no other media outlets are
touching physical assaults, and an attempted sexual assault, of praying Christians
by enraged homosexuals in San Franciscos Castro District.

A mob of hundreds gathered Friday, Nov. 14 when a small group of evangelical
Christians made their weekly trek to San Franciscos homosexual neighborhood.
The residents sexually and verbally assaulted the Christians as they prayed and
sang hymns on the sidewalk.

According to the personal account of one of the members of the group:

We began to sing Amazing Grace, and basically sang that song the whole
night. (At some points we also sang Nothing but the Blood of Jesus and
Oh the Blood of Jesus.) At first, they just shouted at us, using crude,
rude, and foul language and calling us names like haters and bigots.
Since it was a long night, I cant even begin to remember all of the things
that were shouted and/or chanted at us. Then, they started throwing hot
coffee, soda and alcohol on us and spitting (and maybe even peeing) on us.

Then, a group of guys surrounded us with whistles, and blasted them inches
away from our ears continually. Then, they started getting violent and
started shoving us. At one point a man tried to steal one of our Bibles.
Chrisdene noticed, so she walked up to him and said, Hey, thats not
yours, can you please give it back? He responded by hitting her on the
head with the Bible, shoving her to the ground, and kicking her. I called the
cops, and when they got there, they pulled her out of the circle and asked
her if she wanted to press charges. She said, No, tell him I forgive him.
Afterwards, she didnt rejoin us in the circle, but she made friends with one
of the people in the crowd, and really connected heart to heart.

As of November 19, OReilly is the only mainstream media figure to cover the
story. He aired video clips during the November 18 OReilly Factor in which
police escorted the prayer group out of the neighborhood. An angry protester
appears in the video yelling, And we don't ever want them coming back, ever. Do
you understand that other Christians? Do you understand that, other Mormons?
I'm talking to you people, yes, you. Stay out of our neighborhood if you don't like
us. Leave us alone! Sharp, piercing whistles can be heard in the background.

Christian actor Kirk Cameron discussed the Castro district attack with OReilly
OReilly Alone Reports Gay Attack on Christians http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/printer/2008/20081119181938.aspx
1 of 3 9/14/2009 1:18 PM
RR 350
and defended traditional marriage and Proposition 8:

KIRK CAMERON: Well, I say that it really comes down to who defines
marriage. I certainly don't define marriage, and neither does anybody else.
Marriage is not a new institution. It's been around for thousands of years, if
not longer. And it's defined by God. None of us have the opportunity to
redefine that without coming into -- up against serious consequences and
unraveling the fabric of our society.

[W]e can make laws in our country based on what the majority of people
say. And the majority of people in our country say that marriage is worth
fighting for, and they did. And the definition of it stays.

For me, marriage is -- it's a theological issue. It's a moral issue. It's a family
issue. And marriage is what it is. And we understand what it is. And when
we start playing with that, there is going to be serious consequences for it.

On November 17, OReilly also aired video in which radical homosexual activists
stormed a church in Lansing, Michigan, during the November 9 Sunday services
and declared, Jesus is a homo! and tossed condoms at the congregation.
Same-sex couples also proceeded to make out with each other at the front of the
church. Again, OReillys show was the only mainstream media outlet to report
the event.

Austin Nimock, senior counsel of the Christian legal organization Alliance Defense
Fund told OReilly:

Its quite clear that the pretense of tolerance is over. I mean, the
advocates in this country for redefining marriage for years have built their
campaign on the pretense of tolerance. And what you have here, is
tolerance or no tolerance, I should say, for anybody who dares to
disagree with their viewpoint. The opposite of tolerance, Bill, is tyranny.

These are not the only attacks directed at at supporters of Prop. 8, and virtually
ignored by the establishment media. Homosexual activists at a No on Prop. 8
rally in Palm Springs, California, snatched a cross out of the hands of a peaceful
counter-protester and stomped on it in full view of a television camera crew. Only
a local TV station covered the incident.

Life Site News reported last week that protestors shouted racial slurs, including the
n-word, at African-Americans due to the high levels of African-American support
for Prop. 8. A higher percentage of blacks, 70 percent, supported Prop. 8 than
any other ethnic group.

The Associated Press reported on November 13 that Mormon temples in Los
Angeles and Salt Lake City received envelopes containing white powder.
2 of 3 9/14/2009 1:18 PM
RR 351

A Nexis search revealed that the three broadcast networks ABC, CBS, and NBC
and the three cable news channels CNN, Fox News and MSNBC collectively
aired 75 stories on the Prop 8 protests between November 5 and November 17.
Incidents in which homosexuals attacked Prop. 8 backers were largely ignored by
the television news.

None of the stories mentioned the use of the n-word by homosexual activists. On
November 13, OReilly quoted homosexual activist Wayne Besens saying that he
found African-American support for Prop. 8 galling and repugnant from people
who have felt the sting of discrimination [and] turn around and step on another
minority. CNN reported on comedienne Roseanne Barrs observation that
African-Americans who support traditional marriage are as bigoted and ignorant
as their white Christian right-wing counterparts.

Only NBC aired a brief report of the white powder sent to the Mormon temples.
ABC reported on it in an article on their Web site.

CMI previously noted that the majority of the coverage following Californias vote
to pass Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between one man and one
woman, focused almost exclusively on the opponents of traditional marriage.
News reports highlighted the protests and the plight of the 18,000 same-sex
marriages performed after Californias state Supreme Court ruled last May that
the state must allow same-sex couples to marry, but barely acknowledged the
victory traditional values scored in one of the most liberal states in the country.
Colleen Raezler is a research assistant at the Culture and Media Institute, a
division of the Media Research Center.
3 of 3 9/14/2009 1:18 PM
RR 352

K-7
RR 353
KTVU.com
Anger Over Pr op. 8 Er upt s I n San Fr anci sco
Post ed: 10: 40 pm PST November 14, 2008Updat ed: 11: 57 pm PST November 14, 2008
SAN FRANCI SCO - - I n San Fr ancisco' s Cast r o Dist r ict , people on bot h sides of t he same- sex mar r iage cont r over sy
confr ont ed each ot her on Fr iday night , as police t r ied t o keep t he peace. Pr oposit ion 8 passed in a close vot e and
eliminat ed t he r ight of same- sex couples t o mar r y.
Member s of t he gay communit y said t hat almost ever y Fr iday night , a Chr ist ian gr oup meet s at t he cor ner of Cast r o
and 18t h St r eet s. They t r y t o conver t gays and lesbians int o a st r aight lifest yle.
This Fr iday night , t he message didn' t go over well. Some gays and lesbians r eact ed by t r ying t o chase t he gr oup out
of t he Cast r o.
"Their r ight s wer e r espect ed, " said Joe Schmit z, an opponent of Pr op 8. "They got a chance t o go ahead and pr ay on
t he sidewalk and I had t he oppor t unit y t o expr ess my fr eedom of speech which is t elling t hem t o get out of my
neighbor hood. "
San Fr ancisco Police officer s in r iot gear for med a line and escor t ed t he r eligious gr oup int o a van t o safely get t hem
out of t he ar ea.
Member s of t he gay communit y insist ed t hat t heir r eact ion t o t he Chr ist ian gr oup was spont aneous. "I t was not an
or ganized t hing. We' r e t ir ed of it . I t ' s not r eligious. I t ' s not a r acial t hing. I t ' s about hat e. We' r e t r ying t o send a
message acr oss t he wor ld t hat we' r e st anding up and we don' t want t his t o go on anymor e, " said Adam Quint er o.
Suppor t er s of same- sex mar r iage plan on Sat ur day t o st age a nat ional day of pr ot est against Pr op 8. Some
demonst r at or s t old KTVU t hat t hey ar e planning on mor e t han pr ot est s. They say t hey plan t o br eak away and
car r y out act s of civil disobedience.
I n San Fr ancisco, t he demonst r at ion is scheduled t o t ake place out side Cit y Hall. Ot her demonst r at ions ar e planned
in Oakland and Walnut Cr eek, and in New Yor k, Washingt on, Chicago and ot her U. S. cit ies.
Suppor t er s of Pr op 8 include t he Mor mon and Cat holic chur ches. They say t he passage of t he measur e was t he will
of t he people and t hat t hey ar e being unfair ly t ar get ed.
Don Eat on, t he public affair s r epr esent at ive of t he Chur ch of Jesus Chr ist of t he Lat t er Day Saint s in t he Bay Ar ea
said, "The chur ch only encour ages people t o vot e t heir conscience. The chur ch also r eminded us what our doct r ine is
wit h r egar ds t o mar r iage bet ween a man and a woman. " He also said t hat some member s of t he chur ch gave
money t o t he No on 8 campaign, and t hey wer en' t punished by t he chur ch.
A nonpr ofit gr oup called t he Equal Just ice Societ y j oined t he legal bat t le against Pr op 8 on Fr iday. I t and t he
NAACP, t he Asian Pacific Amer ican Legal Cent er and Mexican Amer ican Legal Defense j oint ly filed a lawsuit . They
ar e asking t he Califor nia Supr eme Cour t t o invalidat e Pr op 8, ar guing t hat it t akes away civil r ight s.
"People of color need t o st and up for t he LGBT communit y, " said Eva Pat er son of t he Equal Just ice Societ y. "We
Anger Over Prop. 8 Erupts In San Francisco - Print This Story News Story... http://www.ktvu.com/print/17986914/detail.html
1 of 2 9/14/2009 1:19 PM
RR 354
t hink civil r ight s gr oups t hat r epr esent people of color say it ' s ver y danger ous for t he Califor nia elect or at e t o t ake
away const it ut ionally guar ant eed r ight s. "
Copyr ight 2008 by KTVU. com. All r ight s r eser ved. This mat er ial may not be published, br oadcast , r ewr it t en or
r edist r ibut ed.
Anger Over Prop. 8 Erupts In San Francisco - Print This Story News Story... http://www.ktvu.com/print/17986914/detail.html
2 of 2 9/14/2009 1:19 PM
RR 355

K-8
RR 356

Powered by

SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close

Prop 8 supporter attacked while distributing signs
Man was passing out Yes on 8 signs
By DAVID MARKLAND
Updated 2:02 PM PDT, Wed, Oct 22, 2008
Gay marriage debate becomes
violent
A Modesto man was attacked while passing out Yes On Prop 8 signs last Sunday.
Jose Nunez, 37, who became a U.S. citizen two months ago, was outside St. Stanislaus Catholic Church when
an unidentified man grab about 75 of the signs and ran. Nunez took chase, and when he caught up the man
punched him the face.
Proposition 8 supporters, who are fighting to overturn gay marriage in California by changing language in the
state Constitution, describe this incident as part of a wave of intimidation and violence up and down the
state.
According to Chip White, Californians from around the state have reported being harassed by
people who are against Prop. 8. Among the incidents he related were: verbal harassment of
Prop.8 supporters on the freeway, including obscene gestures; the theft of yard signs; and a
woman in Riverside, California who had her garage sprayed with graffiti. [Catholic News
Agency]
The Bay Area Reporter, a gay community targeted news source, says the Prop 8 debate has become ugly on
both sides:
In Fair Oaks, a suburb of Sacramento, sheriffs deputies were called to a home Saturday after it
was reported that a neighborhood teenager burned No on 8 yard signs. The teenager was taken
Prop 8 supporter attacked while distributing signs | NBC San Diego http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Prop+8+su...
1 of 2 9/14/2009 1:22 PM
RR 357
into custody for a 72-hour psychological evaluation. While the youth was in custody, a third sign
was stolen from the same home.

Copyright California Faultline
First Published: Oct 17, 2008 6:03 PM PDT

Fi nd t h i s ar t i cl e at :
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/politics/Prop_8_supporter_attacked_while_distributing_signs_DGO.html

Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.

NBC Universal, Inc. | All Rights Reserved.
Prop 8 supporter attacked while distributing signs | NBC San Diego http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Prop+8+su...
2 of 2 9/14/2009 1:22 PM
RR 358

K-9
RR 359
Powder scares at 2 LDS temples, Catholic plant
No evidence to link threats to Prop. 8 opponents, FBI says
By Ben Winslow
Deser et News
Published: Friday, Nov. 14, 2008 12:00 a.m. MST
Envelopes containing a suspicious white powder were mailed to two LDS temples and a Catholic
fraternity, prompting a hazardous materials response and a federal investigation into who is behind it.
The white powder scares were reported Thursday at Salt Lake City's Temple Square, the LDS
Church's temple in Los Angeles and at a printing plant belonging to the Knights of Columbus in New
Haven, Conn.
"Our mailroom employees discovered an envelope that had been mailed to us from California shortly
before noon," Pat Korten, vice president of communications for the Knights of Columbus, told the
Deseret News late Thursday. "When they opened it some white powder escaped."
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Knights of Columbus are both major backers
of the controversial Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California. However, the FBI
cautioned late Thursday there is no evidence to link the threats to Prop. 8 opponents.
"We've got to follow the evidence and at this point we have not received anything that would lead us to
believe the opponents of Prop. 8 are behind any kind of terroristic activity," FBI Special Agent Juan
Becerra said from the agency's Salt Lake City office. "It would be irresponsible to say that at this
point."
LDS Church security officials called Salt Lake police and firefighters about 4 p.m. Thursday when an
employee in the recorder's office inside the Salt Lake Temple annex opened a manila envelope.
"When the employee opened it up and looked inside it, there was actually another white envelope
inside that had a white powdery substance in it," Salt Lake Fire spokesman Scott Freitag said.
The employee who opened it immediately set the envelope down and called church security officials,
who came over wearing a respirator and plastic gloves. They sealed the envelope inside a plastic bag,
Freitag said.
Three employees in the room at the time were quarantined. Security denied access to the room and
shut off the air vents.
"They are not complaining of any injury or illness," Freitag said, adding that they did not have to
undergo a decontamination process.
Hazardous materials teams sanitized the substance to ensure it was not a biological agent like
anthrax.
On the Main Street plaza, missionaries and other church employees were allowed to come and go. A
lone LDS security official stood behind the temple gates. He opened the gate for firefighters, then
closed and locked it behind them.
A pair of FBI agents left Temple Square with the envelope in a black plastic bag. The envelope was
taken to a lab to be tested.
"We are working to find out what it is and hopefully it's harmless," Becerra told the Deseret News.
Firefighters said they did not see anything of a threatening nature with the envelope.
Because the annex is a separate building, the temple itself was not evacuated. However, church
Deseret News | Powder scares at 2 LDS temples, Catholic plant http://www.deseretnews.com/article/content/mobile/1,5620,705262822,0...
1 of 2 9/14/2009 1:24 PM
RR 360
security did not allow anyone to come or go while hazmat teams were there. A portion of North Temple
was also closed to traffic.
"At first, we thought it was maybe picketing again," said Poulsen Udall, who was inside the temple at
the time.
He was referring to mass protests outside Temple Square last week against the LDS Church's backing
of Prop. 8. Similar demonstrations were held outside LDS temples in California and New York.
"It's a sad thing that all of this is going on," said Udall's wife, Pauline.
At the LDS Church's temple in Westwood, Calif., the grounds were closed Thursday afternoon after an
employee there opened an envelope similar to the one at church headquarters in Salt Lake City.
"They received an envelope with a suspicious white powdery substance," Los Angeles police officer
Karen Smith told the Deseret News. "It's been cleared and there was no hazardous material."
In New Haven, Conn., workers at a printing plant for the Knights of Columbus opened the envelope
containing white powder. Hazardous materials teams responded, Korten said, and took it to a lab to be
tested.
"We do not yet know what was in that envelope," he said.
The Knights of Columbus did not know if it had been targeted over Prop. 8.<
"We've got a great deal of pretty vulgar communication from people who are not happy with our role to
help pass Prop. 8," Korten said. "Whether this has any connection or not, we don't know."
The LDS Church declined to speculate on whether Prop. 8 had a role in the hazardous materials
scares.
"We're working with local law enforcement and the FBI," church spokesman Scott Trotter said.
E-mail: bwinslow@desnews.com
2009 Deseret News Publishing Company | All rights reserved
Deseret News | Powder scares at 2 LDS temples, Catholic plant http://www.deseretnews.com/article/content/mobile/1,5620,705262822,0...
2 of 2 9/14/2009 1:24 PM
RR 361

K-10
RR 362

Powered by


Prop 8 Protesters March Into Night
Protests continue into second day
By JOHN CADIZ KLEMACK, PATRICK HEALY and JON LLOYD
Updated 7:49 AM PDT, Fri, Nov 7, 2008
LOOK
Getty Images
LOS ANGELES -- More than 2,000 people protesting California's new ban on same-sex marriage marched
through Westside Los Angeles streets Thursday, snarling afternoon rush-hour traffic as hundreds of police
officers monitored the situation.
Two people were arrested after a confrontation between the crowd and an occupant of a pickup truck that
had a banner supporting Proposition 8, the ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage. Seven arrests
occurred during Los Angeles-area street marches late Wednesday.
Some spectators cheered from apartment balconies; one person threw eggs at the marchers.
The demonstration began at a Mormon temple complex in Westwood where marchers protested the church's
support of Proposition 8, which won 52 percent support Tuesday for its definition of marriage as a
heterosexual union. Same-sex marriage had only been allowed in California for a matter of months since a
state Supreme Court decision earlier this year.
Prop 8 Protesters March Into Night | NBC Los Angeles http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Prop+8+Pr...
1 of 4 9/14/2009 1:27 PM
RR 363
LOOK
Protestors March Outside Mormon Temple
Prop 8 Opponents March at Mormon Temple
WATCH
Prop 8 Opponents March at Mormon Temple
March at Temple Lasts Into Night
WATCH
March at Temple Lasts Into Night
The march was noisy, with chants of "Separate church and state" and "What do we want? Equal rights."
Some waved signs saying "No on H8" or "I didn't vote against your marriage," and many equated the issue
with the civil rights struggle.
"I'm disappointed in the Californians who voted for this," said F. Damion Barela, 43, a Studio City resident
who married his husband nearly five months ago. "I understand the African-American and Latino
communities voted heavily in favor of Proposition 8. To them I say, shame on you because you should know
what this feels like."
Brief violence erupted when marchers surrounded the pickup bearing a pro-Proposition 8 sign. Protesters
ripped the sign, and an occupant of the vehicle got out and knocked down a protester. A demonstrator,
Maurice Carriere, 27, of Studio City, ended up with a bloody nose in the fracas. He told police he didn't see
the punch coming. Officers arrested two people and put them in a patrol car.
Organizers said another protest is planned for this weekend in Silver Lake's Sunset Junction area.
Thursday's march initially focused on the Mormon temple because same-sex rights advocates claim the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints spent millions to air deceptive advertisements in support of
Proposition 8, and the church should lose its tax-exempt status.
"No one's religious beliefs should be used to deny fundamental rights to others," said Lorri L. Jean, chief
executive officer of the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center. "Our civil rights are inalienable.
2 of 4 9/14/2009 1:27 PM
RR 364
"It is a travesty that the Mormon Church bought this election and used a campaign of lies and deception to
manipulate voters in the great state of California," Jean said. "Today we will send a message to (church
President Thomas Monson) that we will not tolerate being stripped of our equal rights in the name of religious
bigotry. They're entitled to their beliefs, but not to impose them upon the constitution or laws of California.
Let's flood the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City with postcards."
Jean announced the creation of a Web site at www.InvalidateProp8.org, where people can donate to the legal
fight to overturn the proposition. For every donation of $5 or more, the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center will send
a postcard to Monson.
Campaign finance records show the Utah-based church made an in-kind donation of $2,078.97 to
ProtectMarriage.com, a coalition of faith organizations and conservative groups that supported Proposition 8.
Church spokeswoman Kim Farah in Salt Lake City said the donation covered travel of church leaders who
went to California to meet with the coalition.
"By law, the church is required to report when it uses any expenses to travel in support of things like this,"
Farah said.
Farah dismissed the tax-exemption issue.
"It's a civics 101 lesson. Churches by law are allowed to speak on moral issues," Farah said. "It does not
jeopardized the church's tax- exemption status and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous."
The Church, in a written statement on its Web site had this to say: "Allegations of bigotry or persecution
made against the Church were and are simply wrong. The issue for the Church has always been about the
sacred and divine institution of marriage -- a union between a man and a woman. While the Church does not
endorse candidates or platforms, it does reserve the right to speak out on important issues."
The full text of the LDS Church's statement is available here: www.newsroom.lds.org.
Police estimated the protest drew 2,500 people. The event did not have a permit or approved march route.
Demonstrators spilled into the lanes of Santa Monica Boulevard, and then marched around the sprawling
temple complex before taking off through the heavily traveled streets of Westwood and, as night fell, toward
Beverly Hills.
Among the marchers was Ryan Suffern, 31, who said he and his wife came to support gay friends.
"I find it preposterous, this concept of protecting the sanctity of marriage, when -- looking at divorce --
marriage is a coin toss," he said.
Also demonstrating was Rakefet Abergel, 29, who married her partner of seven years the day gay marriage
became legal this year.
"We just want to have the same rights as everyone else gets. We're tired of being second-class citizens when
we are citizens of America," she said. "You don't have to agree with us but you have to let us be."
Demonstrator Taylor Miller, 28, was perplexed by the victory of Proposition 8 in the same election that swept
Democrat Barack Obama into the presidency.
"It's strange because with Obama winning there's been a surge of really motivated liberalism," she said. "This
is just ignorance and ignorance is so last presidency."
3 of 4 9/14/2009 1:27 PM
RR 365
First Published: Nov 6, 2008 3:28 AM PDT

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local-beat/Protestors_Signal_Battle_over_Same_Sex_Marriage_Not_Over.html


NBC Universal, Inc. | All Rights Reserved.
4 of 4 9/14/2009 1:27 PM
RR 366

K-11
RR 367
Protests over Proposition 8 outcome getting personal
By Jennif er Gar za
McCl at chy Newspaper s
Published: Thursday, Nov. 13, 2008 12:08 a.m. MST
SACRAMENTO, Calif. Supporters of Proposition 8 won the election but now are frustrated because
they are still fighting for their cause.
A week after the majority of voters passed the controversial measure to ban same-sex marriage, the
conflict continues in the courts, at protests and in personal attacks.
"I'm frustrated by what's going on," said Dave Leatherby, owner of the Leatherby Family Creamery in
Sacramento, commenting on the protests and court battles.
"Let's move on. I always told my children that once a rule was made, you have to abide by it. I think it
should be the same in this circumstance."
Leatherby and his family donated about $20,000 for the passage of Proposition 8. A devout Catholic
and father of 10, Leatherby supported the measure for religious reasons. He said his business has
been targeted by bloggers as a result, and that he is particularly confused because his business has
participated in the annual gay pride Rainbow Festival.
"It saddens me that all this is happening," he said.
The battle over same-sex marriage will not end anytime soon. This week, 44 state legislators filed a
friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of opponents of the gay-marriage ban. They maintain the initiative
process was used improperly. The California Supreme Court could rule as early as this week on a
lawsuit that seeks to invalidate Proposition 8, said court spokeswoman Lynn Holton.
Proposition 8 opponents said they will continue to fight for their civil rights.
"For them to say the voters have spoken and no one should question it is a bit disingenuous," said
West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon. He cited repeated attempts to pass other initiatives.
"They believe in the justice of their causes, that's why they return over and over again with the same
proposal on parental notification."
Cabaldon was referring to Proposition 4, which would have required parental notification before a
minor could have an abortion. It was defeated for the third time last week.
Since the election, thousands have protested on the steps of the state Capitol and in some cities at
temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other sites. Gay marriage advocates
said they were planning nationwide demonstrations this weekend in more than 175 cities and outside
the U.S. Capitol.
Also, a fire outside an LDS church in Littleton, Colo., is being investigated as a bias-motivated arson
that may have stemmed from the church's position on Proposition 8. Arapahoe County sheriff's
deputies responded to the building about 7:15 p.m. Tuesday, some three hours after a church member
found a burning copy of the Book of Mormon on a doorstep. No damage to the church was reported.
Wednesday night hundreds carried protest signs in front of the LDS Church's Manhattan
meetinghouse, which also houses a temple. Several people held signs asking, "Did you cast a ballot or
a stone?" while other signs read "Love not H8."
LDS Church spokesman Michael Otterson said while citizens have the right to protest, he was
"puzzled" and "disturbed" by the gathering given that the majority of California's voters had approved
the amendment.
Deseret News | Protests over Proposition 8 outcome getting personal http://www.deseretnews.com/article/content/mobile/1,5620,705262671,0...
1 of 2 9/14/2009 1:29 PM
RR 368
"Protesting is a time-honored American tradition," said Ned Dolejsi, executive director of the California
Catholic Conference. Catholic leaders were active in the "Yes on 8" campaign. "But it's unfortunate
when it steps over into religious bigotry or harassment."
Some Proposition 8 supporters say a minority of protesters have gone too far by targeting individuals.
Opponents of the measure have called for a boycott of the California Musical Theatre after revelations
that artistic director Scott Eckern, a member of the LDS Church, donated $1,000 to the "Yes on 8"
Campaign.
On Wednesday, Eckern resigned his position. He released a statement saying that he quit "after
prayerful consideration to protect the organization and to help the healing in the local theater-going and
creative community."
Others who supported Proposition 8 said they have also been targeted. Scott Purves, of Purves &
Associates, a Davis insurance company, said a protester carrying a sign reading "Purves Family
Supports Homophobia" picketed his business Monday.
"If this had gone the other way, I can't imagine the backlash if people protested and called the other
side names," said Purves. "People would be angry and rightfully so. ... It makes me sad that this would
happen when a majority of people supported this measure."
Opponents of Proposition 8 issued a statement last week asking those disheartened by the passage
of the initiative not to target those who voted the other way. "We achieve nothing if we isolate the
people who did not stand with us in this fight," the statement said. "... We know people of all faiths,
races and backgrounds stand with us in our fight to end discrimination, and will continue to do so."
Other ballot initiatives that have been approved by voters have faced legal challenges.
"When it comes to social initiatives, it can become very emotional," said Douglas Kmiec, professor of
constitutional law at Pepperdine University.
He cited two initiatives that were approved by voters and later challenged in the courts. One was
Proposition 209, the 1996 ballot measure that eliminated racial preferences at California agencies and
public institutions; the other was Proposition 187, the 1994 measure that proposed barring
undocumented children from schools and most health care.
"Although there were bumps along the way, Prop. 209 eventually passed, but 187 was ultimately
invalidated," said Kmiec.
For now, Leatherby said, Proposition 8 should stand. "If they want to win me over," he said. "That's not
how to do it."
Contributing: Marcus Franklin, Associated Press
2009 Deseret News Publishing Company | All rights reserved
Deseret News | Protests over Proposition 8 outcome getting personal http://www.deseretnews.com/article/content/mobile/1,5620,705262671,0...
2 of 2 9/14/2009 1:29 PM
RR 369

K-12
RR 370
tweet
0
tweets
Radical Gay Activists Seek to Intimidate
Christians
Since Nov. 4, Christians have reported increased incidences of church vandalism and sometimes-violent attacks
for their support of traditional marriage.

[11.19.08] The Nov. 4 passage of constitutional amendments banning gay
marriage in California, Arizona and Florida has evoked a sometimes-violent
response from radical gay activists who have vandalized churches, mobbed intercessors and
disrupted a worship service in Michigan.
Intercessors with a house of prayer in San Francisco said they feared they might be killed
Friday night during a routine prayer walk through the areas Castro district, which has a large
gay community. They said a crowd who thought they were marriage amendment
demonstrators shouted lewd remarks, pushed them, threw hot coffee on their faces and
threatened the prayer group leader with death. (See related video.)
One man reportedly hit an intercessor on the head with her Bible before shoving her to the ground and kicking her. Before
police arrived, another house of prayer member said someone repeatedly tried to pull his pants down.
We hadnt preached, we hadnt evangelized, one of the intercessors said after the incident. We worshipped God in peace,
and we were about to die for it.
Police eventually escorted the group to their van, telling the intercessors they had to leave if they wanted to make it out, one
witness said.
These are the nicest kids, said TheCall founder Lou Engle, who knows many of the young intercessors involved in the
incident. That night they were doing only worship. They werent trying to aggravate anything.
I think whats happening is an exposure of whats really there and an underbelly of this [radical gay] movement, Engle added.
I think the church has to really reveal whats going on there so the nation gets a clue about what theyre making an alliance
with.
In Michigan, where voters in 2004 approved an amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, a
Chicago-based gay rights organization called Bash Back interrupted a Nov. 9 service at an Assemblies of God congregation in
Lansing. (See related video.)
After staging a demonstration outside Mount Hope Church to draw most of the security staff away from the worship service,
protestors masked as congregants stood up in the middle of the service, "declared themselves fags and began screaming
loudly, Bash Back leaders said in a statement posted online.
The protestors pulled the fire alarm and threw thousands of fliers into the congregation, while a gay couple rushed to the front
and began kissing in front of the pastor. "Let it be known: So long as bigots kill us in the streets, this pack of wolves will
continue to BASH BACK!" the group said in a statement about the incident.
Bash Back leaders said Mount Hope was targeted because it is complicit in the repression of queers by working to
institutionalize transphobia and homophobia through repulsive ex-gay conferences and hell house plays, which depict
queers, trannies and womyn [sic] who seek abortions as the horrors.
In a statement posted on Mount Hopes Web site, church leaders said they dont attempt to identify the church as
anti-homosexual, anti-choice, or right wing but do take the Bible at face value and believes what the Bible says to be the
truth."
Mount Hope spokesman David J. Williams Jr., said the sheriffs department had launched an investigation into the incident.
Were really asking for prayer for the people that did this, Williams said. They need Jesus; they need to know His love.
Attorney John Stemberger, who chaired Floridas marriage amendment campaign, said many gay protestors want to intimidate
Wednesday, 19 November 2008 12:20 AM EST News - Featured News
Radical Gay Activists Seek to Intimidate Christians http://charismamag.com/index.php/news/19444?tmpl=component&print=...
1 of 3 9/14/2009 1:32 PM
RR 371
the public into silence. Their goal is to create an intense climate of intimidation and hostility within the culture to try and deter
people from supporting traditional marriage and other pro-family initiatives in the future, Stemberger said. We will not be
bullied into silence, indifference or inaction.
In Palm Springs, Calif., a 69-year-old woman planned to file charges against protesters who reportedly pushed the woman and
spit on her during a Nov. 8 rally opposing the passage of Proposition 8, which amends the state constitution to define marriage
as the union of one man and one woman. Phyllis Burgess said authorities convinced her to press charges against the
attackers.
Nationwide, gay rights advocates protested marriage bans on Saturday, pointing particularly to Californias Proposition 8,
which defined marriage as between one man and one woman and overturned a state Supreme Court ruling that had legalized
gay marriage. Many of the demonstrations were peaceful, according to Associated Press (AP) reports, with participants waving
rainbow-colored flags and holding signs saying Dont Spread the H8.
But pastors across the country, particularly in California, say incidents of vandalism and theft have increased since Nov. 4.
One California pastor said a minister in his state received death threats for his support of Proposition 8.
According to reports from Californias Protect Marriage campaign:
At Messiah Lutheran Church in Downey, Calif., a Yes on 8 sign was wrapped around a heavy object and used to smash
the window of the pastors office.
Several Yes on 8 yard signs were stolen from Calvary Chapel Ventura, as well as a large banner displaying the churchs
name and service times.
Park Community Church in Shingle Springs, Calif., received harassing phone calls and has been threatened with lawsuits
by Proposition 8 opponents.
Bloggers targeted Yorba Linda, Calif., pastor Jim Domen, who is open about his past struggle with same-sex attraction, and
his girlfriend for harassment after seeing the couples photo in news reports about the passage of Proposition 8.
The words No on 8 were spray-painted on a Mormon church in Orangevale, Calif.
A brick was thrown through the window of Family Fellowship Church in Hayward, Calif., and at Trinity Baptist Church in
Arcata, Proposition 8 opponents vandalized the churchs marquee, which encouraged support for the marriage amendment;
stole the churchs flags; and committed other acts of vandalism totaling $1,500.
Eggs thrown on the building of San Luis Obispo Assembly of God and toilet paper was strewn across the property, while a
Mormon church in the same city had adhesive poured onto a doormat, a keypad and a window.
The Mormon Church, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, has also become a target of gay rights activists because it
provided major funding to the Proposition 8 campaign and encouraged its members to support the marriage amendment, which
passed with 52 percent of the vote.
Some gay rights advocates have called for a boycott of the state of Utah, and Bash Back leaders admitted to vandalizing
Mormon churches there, as well as in Washington state and California. A Mormon temple in Salt Lake City reported receiving a
letter containing a white, powdery substance that forced the facility to close while police launched an investigation.
"The hypocrisy, hatred, and intolerance shown by the gay rights movement isn't pretty, said Randy Thomasson, president of
the Campaign for Children and Families, a leading California-based pro-family group. While claiming to be against hate and
for tolerance and choice, the homosexual activists are revealing their hatred of voters and religion and showing their
intolerance of people's personal choices to support man-woman marriage. By attacking the people's vote to protect marriage in
the state constitution, homosexual activists have declared war on our republic and our democratic system."
Christian leaders say the backlash is likely to continue and may worsen. Its actually desperation time for us all across the
nation to be praying, Engle said. Theyre calling [Christians] haters when all theyre doing is simply saying theres a higher
authority. Its a raging against Christ and His loving, foundational laws. It is becoming an anti-Christ rage. They are creating a
Jesus of their own mind, a Jesus who lets everybody do whatever they want.
I think the church has to be prepared [for religious persecution], he added. Our allegiance is to God and His Word, and if
that means imprisonment and martyrdom, so be it. -- Adrienne S. Gaines

Radical Gay Activists Seek to Intimidate Christians http://charismamag.com/index.php/news/19444?tmpl=component&print=...
2 of 3 9/14/2009 1:32 PM
RR 372

K-13
RR 373
Back to Message | Print Thread
Bob Knoke of Mission Viejo, Amanda Stanfield of
Monrovia, Jim Domen of Yorba Linda, and J.D.
Gaddis of Yorba Linda are hateful bigots!
Posted by Phyllis Rogers Stone 2008-11-05 12:41:06.0

Bob Knoke of Mission Viejo, Amanda Stanfield of Monrovia, Jim Domen ... http://broadwayworld.com/board/printthread.cfm?thread=983640&boardid=2
1 of 25 9/14/2009 1:35 PM
RR 374
There. Now whenever someone Googles them this will come up.
re: Bob Knoke of Mission Viejo, Amanda Stanfield of Monrovia, Jim
Domen of
Posted by Calvin 2008-11-05 12:42:30.0
Whee! Reposting from the other thread:
Indeed. Let's go get 'em.
I'll take the Jack Warden lookalike. PRS, you take the beer-bellied guy dancing to YMCA. The heil Hitler guy in
the dark suit is up for grabs, plus we need a female volunteer to take the doped up girl.
Domen of
I nominate BigFatBlonde.
Domen of
Posted by BigFatBlonde 2008-11-05 12:50:37.0
Don't tempt me.
3 of 25 9/14/2009 1:35 PM
RR 375
I'm having a hard enough time fighting the urge to put on my construction boots, hop on a plane and kick some
right-wing ass!
Domen of
Posted by mejusthavingfun 2008-11-05 12:54:47.0
Odd not a black person in that photo. I guess they were busy carrying bags or something.
Domen of
Posted by Calvin 2008-11-05 12:55:15.0
Look at Jim Domen's MySpace page. He's a Jesus nut who likes to dress like Zorro.
Link
Domen of
Posted by JoeKv99 2008-11-05 12:59:29.0
I just can't understand how a person not in the least bit affected by this law could celebrate it's demise so
gleefully.
Domen of
Posted by mejusthavingfun 2008-11-05 13:01:07.0
4 of 25 9/14/2009 1:35 PM
RR 376
Well Jim obviously doesn't like bears too much.
Domen of
Posted by madbrian 2008-11-05 13:01:22.0
Wow, that's an awfully big closet to hold all those people.
Domen of
Posted by StockardFan 2008-11-05 13:02:48.0
I can take out the doped up chick, no problem.
Domen of
Posted by DottieD'Luscia 2008-11-05 13:03:00.0
What vile people.
Domen of
Posted by DayDreamer 2008-11-05 13:14:07.0
5 of 25 9/14/2009 1:35 PM
RR 377
Let this be a call to renewed activism.
Domen of
FEDERAL issue!
Domen of
Posted by madbrian 2008-11-05 15:18:58.0
Phyllis is correct. This needs to go up to the SCOTUS, where they should decide that the 14th Amendment
applies, and marriage equality should be granted to all.
Having said that, the religious aspect is a non-trivial one, both culturally and legally. My opinion is that no
church should be compelled to grant same-sex marriage rights, however there may be legal implications if they
don't.
Domen of
Posted by Enjolras77 2008-11-05 16:25:16.0
Who's gonna take the woman on the far right side, the one obstructed by the "heil Hitler" guy, who could
possibly be giving the finger to the camera?
Domen of
She looks old. I could probably take both her and the doped up chick.
Domen of
Posted by Calvin 2008-11-05 16:33:03.0
Somebody also needs to claim Mr. Clean hiding behind dopey.
Domen of
I'm not sure I can handle all three of them.....
Domen of
Posted by TheatreDiva90016 2008-11-05 16:42:58.0
Jim is also on Facebook. He blocked his account on MySpace... loser.
6 of 25 9/14/2009 1:35 PM
RR 378
Send him a message on Facebook!
I did.
Name: Jim Domen Networks: Orange County, CA Azusa Pacific Alum
Domen of
ugh, I don't have a facebook account. I wonder if these idiots' phone numbers are listed.
Domen of
I've been trying to locate them...
Domen of
What a f*cking p*ssy. If he's that excited to see the prop fail, you'd think he wouldn't want to hide.
Domen of
A Stanfield
home
street address not available
Monrovia, CA
(626) 305-5205
Domen of
ooooh, who's going to call her first? I have vonage so I have free long distance. If someone tells me something
witty to say, I'll call her!
Domen of
Posted by Schmerg_The_Impaler 2008-11-05 17:15:27.0
Mejusthavingfun-- I can't believe didn't get your 'bear' joke until the second time I read this thread... heh...
Unless that wasn't intended as a joke and this site has COMPLETELY rewired my young virgin mind!
7 of 25 9/14/2009 1:35 PM
RR 379
Domen of
Diva's a regular stalker! (and I mean that as a compliment)
Domen of
Schmergie, where the heck have you been all day? I don't really get the bear joke myself.
Domen of
Posted by Calvin 2008-11-05 17:17:51.0
Ha. Call her and tell her she's won the publisher's clearinghouse grand prize (she looks like the type who would
send in an entry for that). And then give her the address of a gay bar as the place to claim it.
Domen of
Dude, I've been in school all day! We had yesterday and the day before off, but now I'm back to the same old
routine...
But I'm not TOO upset, because Hugh Panaro's coming to my school, and I'm excited about that...
Domen of
Dude....you know I'm a girl right? LOL!
That would be funny Calvin! Should I do it? Maybe I should do it on her machine while she's at work. I guess I
need to find the address for a gay bar in her area....
Domen of
I call my mom 'dude'... and my (female) pastor... and my teachers...
Which is not to say that they appreciate that...
Domen of
I know, I'm just teasing you!!!
8 of 25 9/14/2009 1:35 PM
RR 380
Domen of
Posted by Mister Matt 2008-11-05 17:30:20.0
SrockardFan - If she's married, ask her if she's getting remarried since the last few weeks obviously must
have nullified their union completely. If she says she's still married, tell her not to worry and we'll work on
taking her rights away as soon as possible. If she says she's never been married, tell her it's too bad because
proposition 8 pretty much killed her chances.
Domen of
It's her number.
I just left a message.
Posted by LePetiteFromage 2008-11-05 17:46:56.0
Domen of
"Hi this is Amanda, blah blah blah"
Beep.
"Hi Amanda, I just wanted to call and let you know what a great picture that was of you and the other Nazi's in
the newspaper. It's nice to see you getting out and supporting discrimination. Don't worry though, we have
plans for you and your friends. When you have one of your basic rights taken away from you, you'lll know how
is feels to be discriminated against.
I hope you rot in hell, you fckuing c**t."
Domen of
You go girl!!!!
Posted by LePetiteFromage 2008-11-05 18:13:51.0
Domen of
Posted by ndshep 2008-11-05 19:37:48.0
9 of 25 9/14/2009 1:35 PM
RR 381
Here's Amanda Stanfield's Work Voicemail. She works at a super religious Christian School.
Amanda Stanfield, M.A.
Assistant Director, Graduate Center Client Services
Azusa Pacific University
(626) 815-4560
If they disconnect her number, call her boss:
Graduate Center
PO Box 7000, Azusa, CA 91702-7000
Phone: (626) 815-4570
Fax: (626) 815-4545
http://www.apu.edu/graduatecenter/
Source:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=saUttZjgdoWxUHxoVi2YJg_3d_3d
Amanda Stanfield
Domen of
It's just too bad that the others have to hide.
Well except for the Jim on Facebook.
10 of 25 9/14/2009 1:35 PM
RR 382
I called and left a message for Amanda at her work as well.
Domen of
Posted by Calvin 2008-11-05 19:58:01.0
OK, this is all going a bit overboard now. It kinda feels like that scene in "Last Supper" when they poisoned the
mousy woman just because she wanted to ban "Catcher in the Rye."
Oh wait -- no one saw that movie.
Domen of
I never said any harm should come to her, I just wanted her to know that she's a biggot and she discriminates,
and to have yourself surrounded by the same type of people just makes you worse.
Like a Nazi.
Domen of
Posted by Calvin 2008-11-05 21:22:14.0
I wasn't referring to you, Diva, but to a brand new member who immediately popped up with information not
immediately available through a simple Google search.
Oh, hear they are praying together:
Eww! Those two guys' hands are touching!
Domen of
Posted by StickToPriest 2008-11-05 23:42:30.0
what about this lady?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-pg,0,3589438.photogallery?index=6
Domen of
Posted by Calvin 2008-11-05 23:48:11.0
Why are Mormons such horrible dressers?
And what is this Irvine hotel everyone was at? Did they spend all their money on the campaign so they were
forced to cram into a Super 8 that night? With whitebread sandwiches and Aquafina?
11 of 25 9/14/2009 1:35 PM
RR 383
Domen of
Only elite fags drink bottled water.
Domen of
Her gay son is hiding his head in shame.
Domen of
Posted by Wanna Be A Foster 2008-11-06 00:15:26.0
Diva, I love you.
Domen of
Yeah, Diva rocks!!!!!
Domen of
Posted by Calvin 2008-11-06 13:08:03.0
12 of 25 9/14/2009 1:35 PM
RR 384
Just wanted to mention that if you google "Jim Domen," this thread is third on the results.
Hope he's googling himself today!
Domen of
Awesome.
Domen of
Posted by ndshep 2008-11-06 13:31:02.0
More phone numbers!
UPDATE: A few friendly readers wrote in with contact information for the horrible Bob Knocke, Jim Domen and
Amanda Starfield pictured in the above photo. Please give them a call or email them and let them know how
you feel.
Bob Knocke (949) 472-1249
Louis Kanoke (949) 472-1249
25292 Campina Dr, Mission Viejo, CA 92691
His church: http://www.stkilianchurch.org/
Jim Domen, Catalyst Pastor at Rose Drive Friends Church, jimd@rdf.org 714.528.6496 ext. 130
Rose Drive Friends Church. Jim LeShana, Sr. Pastor 4221 Rose Drive, Yorba linda, CA 92886. 714-528-6496
http://rdf.org/
http://tinyurl.com/63o69j
http://tinyurl.com/65yvk4
(626) 815-4560
Graduate Center
PO Box 7000, Azusa, CA 91702-7000
Phone: (626) 815-4570
Fax: (626) 815-4545
Contact Jim Domen
Domen of
13 of 25 9/14/2009 1:35 PM
RR 385
Why does Bob look like he's ready to gobble a knob?
And thanks for the other numbers, now I have something to do today!
Domen of
Kirk Wasson
home
12907 Crossmont Pl
Moreno Valley, CA 92553
(951) 653-6173Type: Land Line
Provider: Verizon
Location: Moreno, CA
Household: Lisa Wasson
Domen of
You know, it's just now that I see what those signs say in the background. Are they effing kidding me? I'm
actually so enraged right now I want to go punch a Mormon.
Even by the standards of the most crazed zealot, how in the name of the hateful god of Abraham does this
proposition equal religious freedom? How?
14 of 25 9/14/2009 1:35 PM
RR 386
Domen of
PRS,
GET OUT OF ME!
I was thinking the same thing!
It's got NOTHING to do with religion.
Are the Morons...uhm, Mormons worried that they may not be able to marry more than one woman?
Oh, and the above folks have a block on their phone so you have to call froma number that shows up for them.
I'm going down to the payphone.... Be back soon!
Domen of
Posted by Calvin 2008-11-06 15:33:42.0
You know, for someone who bikes and runs so much in his photos, why is Jim Domen still such a fat-ass?
Domen of
Posted by doodlenyc 2008-11-06 15:34:42.0
That bicycle picture is the gayest thing I've seen in awhile.
Domen of
Posted by Calvin 2008-11-06 15:35:38.0
I notice his myspace page is now set to private and his Facebook page is gone entirely.
Awwwwww. Did someone hurt his wittle feelings?
Domen of
I mean, I know they always equate it with their religion and crap, but I've never once seen anyone actually
answer the damn question. No one is going to force your stupid effing church (no offense to believers) to
perform gay marriages.
But again - even plenty of non-religious folks are grossed out by the thought of two men doing it. As it always
has been, as it always shall be, it seems.
I'd love to be able to find out if any of these people whose names and joyous faces were splattered all over
15 of 25 9/14/2009 1:35 PM
RR 387
the papers have ever been divorced.
Domen of
Well, the pay phone at the store wouldn't go through either, so it's a good thing the manager of the store is
very kind and she let me place the call from her office phone.
I told them that in the picture, their son was hanging his head in shame because he can't belive his parents are
such biggots.
It's nice to have friends that will let you use their phone to scream at ignorant people...
Domen of
Posted by ndshep 2008-11-06 20:06:59.0
16 of 25 9/14/2009 1:35 PM
RR 388
17 of 25 9/14/2009 1:35 PM
RR 389
Amanda Stanfield, Jim Domen, JD Gaddis
Domen of
Is 'asteem' a pun or a typo?
Domen of
Posted by KathyGriffinLovesYou 2008-11-06 20:12:05.0
Up until now I wanted to be a actor. I've taken a gazillion classes and have been in a gazillion shows.
The past couple of weeks have helped me decided I want to get into politics.
Domen of
Posted by Calvin 2008-11-07 01:26:07.0
I think we need a new version of this song.
Ha
Domen of
Posted by WestVillage 2008-11-07 13:19:25.0
Curious .. besides TheatreDiva, is anyone contacting these ignorant and despicable people?
And thanks for posting the contact information.
Domen of
Cricket
cricket.
Also, has anyone else, besides PJ, reported the LDS to the IRS?
Subject: Take Action Against LDS
If it upsets you that a church can meddle with another state's political statutes, here's something simple you
can do:
To report the LDS Church to the IRS, simply take 5 minutes to print these articles out and any others you can
find:
18 of 25 9/14/2009 1:35 PM
RR 390
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10839546 http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10842051
Then print, sign and send the attached form (already completed) or download a blank and fill it out yourself at
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f3949a.pdf
List the taxpayer as:
Thomas S. Monson, et al
50 East North Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84150
List his occupation as President and the business as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Check the boxes for False Exemption and Public/Political Corruption.
Then in the Comments section demand that the LDS Church be fined and their tax-exempt status revoked for
repeated and blatant violations of the IRS's separate of church and state rules, and for conspiring to interfere
with a state's political process.
Check Yes under "Are books/records available?" and write in "campaign finance records." You don't have to
provide any of your own personal info.
Mail the form and the printed articles to:
Internal Revenue Service
Fresno, CA 93888
Domen of
Posted by ndshep 2008-11-07 14:16:25.0
19 of 25 9/14/2009 1:35 PM
RR 391
Dear West Village,
I have indeed contacted both Amanda and Jim's workplaces with emails and calls letting them know how I feel.
I've also copied everyone from their organization that I could dig up online. I'm sure that their coworkers are in
the same mindset as the offending party, so I'm not sure it's much use to "embarrass" them. Heck, they'll
probably get even more credit.
Please see mailing lists below.
astanfield@apu.edu, graduatecenter@apu.edu, alumni@apu.edu, universityrelations@apu.edu,
jwallace@apu.edu, provost@apu.edu, bmccarty@apu.edu, kcleveland@apu.edu, Lawrence@apu.edu,
jramos@apu.edu, bodell@apu.edu, gpine@apu.edu, slehman@apu.edu, jrutter@apu.edu, dbahruth@apu.edu,
jferris@apu.edu, sgeiss@apu.edu, psvagdis@apu.edu, rruiz@apu.edu, jleslie@apu.edu, ahaggins@apu.edu,
thardeman@apu.edu, ckausrud@apu.edu, vsantacruz@apu.edu, bwillmer@apu.edu, jdarnell@apu.edu,
pwolf@apu.edu, dblomquist@apu.edu, jsurrell@apu.edu, dwood@apu.edu, cwebber@apu.edu,
jwoods@apu.edu, lshimasaki@apu.edu, rfleming@apu.edu, mbohren@apu.edu, tholmes@apu.edu,
mbarnett@apu.edu, kreid@apu.edu, ckeife@apu.edu, jreinsch@apu.edu, areed@apu.edu, kduskin@apu.edu,
gfung@apu.edu, jpearce@apu.edu, ddacus@apu.edu, ibezjian@apu.edu, junderwood@apu.edu,
cfaber@apu.edu, hbutler@apu.edu, sbmgrad@apu.edu, BMcHenry@apu.edu
There are More white people in this church staff than you can shake a stick at!
http://www.rdf.org/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=FaithHighway/10000/6000/246RO
/staff1
jimd@rdf.org, jiml@rdf.org, chriss@rdf.org, bobbig@rdf.org, mikeb@rdf.org, jerryc@rdf.org, irisf@rdf.org,
billg@rdf.org, jimk@rdf.org, heidim@rdf.org, greggp@rdf.org, murielt@rdf.org, craigd@rdf.org,
jenniferp@rdf.org, zachs@rdf.org, mandip@rdf.org, jasonm@rdf.org, Chrisc@rdf.org, robinr@rdf.org,
jenniferm@rdf.org, tresam@rdf.org, janab@rdf.org, conniek@rdf.org, kariw@rdf.org, rickk@rdf.org,
larryl@rdf.org, sandyp@rdf.org
Contact Jim Domen
Domen of
Thanks ... I'm going to send out some emails as well. Amanda's home phone # is "no longer in service; I guess
that means she was getting lots of angry calls. I'm glad it caused some disruption in her life.
Domen of
Posted by ndshep 2008-11-07 14:57:03.0
Uh oh!
Got an Angry sounding reply from Rose Drive Friends Church:
From: Chris Steiger
Subject: RE: Jim Domen's Bigotry
To: jimd@rdf.org, jiml@rdf.org, bobbig@rdf.org, mikeb@rdf.org, jerryc@rdf.org, irisf@rdf.org, billg@rdf.org,
jimk@rdf.org, heidim@rdf.org, greggp@rdf.org, murielt@rdf.org, craigd@rdf.org, jenniferp@rdf.org,
zachs@rdf.org, mandip@rdf.org, jasonm@rdf.org, Chrisc@rdf.org, robinr@rdf.org, jenniferm@rdf.org,
tresam@rdf.org, janab@rdf.org, conniek@rdf.org, kariw@rdf.org, rickk@rdf.org, larryl@rdf.org,
20 of 25 9/14/2009 1:35 PM
RR 392
sandyp@rdf.org
Date: Friday, November 7, 2008, 2:30 PM
Staff,
This is one of the many emails that Jim has received I am getting his website email instead of him for a short
period of time. Please DO NOT respond to this or any email like this. We will be reporting these emails to the
web domain host.
Chris
Domen of
HeHe! I just fired one off to all the email address that ndshep listed. Lets make some noise people!
Domen of
Y'all are crazy! But I'm laughing my ass off.
Domen of
Posted by ndshep 2008-11-07 17:29:24.0
YES ON PROPOSITION 8
ZIP Code Supervisors for the Glendale, CA Area
(Glendale, La Canada, La Crescenta, Verdugo Hills, Sunland, Tujunga)
The following is the list of ZIP CODE SUPERVISORS you can contact.
Zip Codes
Zip Code
Supervisor
Phone
E-mail
90012
Christian Sampsen
310-971-8480
Christian_Sampson@hotmail.com
90026
John Christiansen
818-247-6748
90031
Roger and Dianne Skelton
21 of 25 9/14/2009 1:35 PM
RR 393
818-353-1994
rsroger@aol.com
90039
Matt and Lisa Woodruff
818-952-8771
Mattywoody@yahoo.com
90041
Shannon Syphus
808-781-1616
shannonterry10@gmail.com
90042
Adam Minson
818 468 7138
a_minson@yahoo.com
90065
Steve and Carol Bush
818-957-2037
91011
Micke and Stan Nielson
818-952-7940
mickienielson@sbcglobal.net
91020
Deb Milam
818-248- 1761
milam@earthlink.net
91040
Alice and Lee Watson
818-353-1502
alicewteach@yahoo.com
91042
Brent Peterson
818-952-1815
bcp4949@earthlink.net
91105
Marta Viera
818-241-2313
91201
Suzie and Brian Kelley
818-415-4078 (cell),
213 944 8888 (cell)
Suziq1@dslextreme.com
91202
Clyde Condie
818-248-8270
ccondie@aeoinc.us
91203
22 of 25 9/14/2009 1:35 PM
RR 394
Michael Milam
818-248- 1761
milam@earthlink.net
91204
Humberto Barillas
818 352-4338
Hbarillas@aol.com
91205
Jon Sommer
818-244-4242
jgsommer@earthlink.net
91206
Susan Jones
323 257 5562
Suzig1@dslextreme.com
91207
James Pak
213 792 7162
jamesbpak@gmail.com
91208
Marty Newton
818-790-2895
91214
Terri and Richard Lonas
818 957-2213
MrsLonas1@aol.com
Domen of
Is ANYONE else doing ANYTING besides posting?
You should be ashamed.
Domen of
Posted by FindingNamo 2008-11-08 21:30:43.0
"Catalyst Pastor"?
Are they freaking KIDDING with that title?
Domen of
Posted by ndshep 2008-11-13 15:52:44.0
23 of 25 9/14/2009 1:35 PM
RR 395
24 of 25 9/14/2009 1:35 PM
RR 396
YOU WON'T BELIEVE THIS!!!!
Oh my God! I can't believe it! I just received an email update from a Pastor that thinks I'm on "his side". P.S.
Please sign up for mailing lists on those Support 8 websites! They are talking about the "Persecution" that has
happened to Jim Domen because of his picture appearing in the LA Times. Guess WHAT!!!! HE'S AN EX
GAY!! Can you believe this s#$% I'm still in shock! He's a bigot and a hypocrite! And guess what, they said
that his girlfriend is also being targeted... I'll bet that's her right in the picture! Amanda Stanfield!!!
They included his PERSONAL email address! So Please Let him know that you support him and his "girlfriend"!
Text of the email is below:
YORBA LINDA Pastor Jim Domen of Rose Drive Friends Church has been the target of persecution by
marriage opponents; not just him, but his girlfriend as well. Jim is one whom the Lord delivered from a life of
struggle with same-sex attractions. He has been a vocal supporter of Proposition 8. He was photographed on
Election night celebrating the results of Proposition 8, both he and his girlfriend. The photographs were
published in The Los Angeles Times, The Orange County Register, and The Chicago Tribune. Since then,
blogs were established to target both Jim AND his girlfriend for verbal persecution, particularly when it was
discovered that he is an ex-gay.
Please email/phone Pastor Jim and offer your words of encouragement and your prayers as we stand with this
dear brother of ours who is suffering persecution for our Lord s sake.
Pastor Jim Domen
Rose Drive Friends Church
4221 Rose Dr
Yorba Linda 92886
714.528.6496
jimdomen@me.com
Some numbers from the previous posts...
Bob Knocke (949) 472-1249
Louis Kanoke (949) 472-1249
25292 Campina Dr, Mission Viejo, CA 92691
His church: http://www.stkilianchurch.org/
Jim Domen, Catalyst Pastor at Rose Drive Friends Church, jimd@rdf.org 714.528.6496 ext. 130
Rose Drive Friends Church. Jim LeShana, Sr. Pastor 4221 Rose Drive, Yorba linda, CA 92886. 714-528-6496
http://rdf.org/
http://tinyurl.com/63o69j
http://tinyurl.com/65yvk4
(626) 815-4560
Graduate Center
PO Box 7000, Azusa, CA 91702-7000
Phone: (626) 815-4570
Fax: (626) 815-4545
Jim Domen Gay
25 of 25 9/14/2009 1:35 PM
RR 397

K-14
RR 398
Thr eat s, Legal Act i on i n Washi ngt on' s Gay- Mar r i age Debat e
Tuesday, Sept ember 08, 2009 10:02 AM
By Newsweek
By Kr i st a Gesaman
This November, resident s of Washingt on st at e will go t o t he polls t o decide t he fat e of same-sex domest ic part nerships,
vot ing on Referendum 71 ( R-71) . Nicknamed t he "everyt hing but marriage" proposit ion, R-71 proposes an expansion of a
current domest ic-part nership law t o include adopt ion right s, child support , pension, and ot her public-employee benefit s
for same-sex couples. Alt hough gay part ners would have all t he right s afforded married couples, t he st at e will refrain
from using t he t erm marriage. But right now, vot ers are less worried about what 's act ually on t he ballot t han how it
got t here in t he first place. I n Washingt on, as in most st at es, support ers must collect a t hreshold number of signat ures
for a ballot init iat ive t o go t o t he polls. I n t he case of R-71, t hose who signed were asked t o include t heir name,
occupat ion, and address. Now, a polit ical group want s t o publish t he names of t he 121,000 resident s who signed on t he
I nt ernet .
WhoSigned.Org is a grassroot s organizat ion based in Washingt on which would make t he names and cont act informat ion
of t hese individuals available on a searchable Web sit e so resident s could check whet her t heir signat ure was accurat ely
or fraudulent ly recorded. Alt hough for some, advocat ing for t he public disclosure of records could be a democrat ic and
civic-minded concept , st at e resident s st art ed t o worry when t hreat s came pouring in. Prot ect Marriage Washingt on, t he
primary organizat ion behind R-71, cit es a variet y of Web post ings advocat ing harm. One post ret rieved from t he Web
sit e Queer Equalit y Revolut ion in early August st at ed: "I advocat e using violence against t he propert y of ALL of t hose
who are working t irelessly t o HURT my family; st art ing wit h churches and government propert y. Government is enabling
a vot e on whet her or not I "should be allowed" t o see my husband [ sic] while he is dying in t he hospit al - any NORMAL
man would be driven t o get a gun and kill t hose who t ried such evil cruelt y against his loved ones." Messages on
WhoSigned.org have also t hreat ened t o boycot t t he businesses of everyone who signed t he pet it ion.
Prot ect Marriage Washingt on has filed a mot ion for an inj unct ion t o st op t he release. The organizat ion not only asks t o
seal t he release of t he names and organizat ions of t he individuals who support ed t he referendum but also t he cont act
informat ion of individuals who signed pet it ions opposing t he pot ent ial law. On Sept . 3, Dist rict Court Judge Benj amin H.
Set t le had t he difficult t ask of weighing const it ut ional right s versus public disclosure. One side argues t hat releasing t he
names will have a chilling effect on free speech, while t he ot her side claims t hat public-disclosure laws should be upheld
in order t o cont inue open government effort s. I n an unusual t wist , Set t le decided t o ext end a t emporary rest raining
order while he considers some of t he public disclosure issues. He expect s t o have a decision by Sept .10.
Advert isement
The Gaggle : Threats, Legal Action in Washington's Gay-Marriage Debate http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/09/08/threats-leg...
1 of 1 9/14/2009 3:53 PM
RR 399

K-15
RR 400
1 of 2 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
February 8, 2009 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section BU; Column 0; Money and Business/Financial Desk; SLIPSTREAM; Pg. 3
LENGTH: 959 words
HEADLINE: Disclosure, Magnified On the Web
BYLINE: By BRAD STONE
BODY:
FOR the backers of Proposition 8, the state ballot measure to stop single-sex couples from marrying in California,
victory has been soured by the ugly specter of intimidation.
Some donors to groups supporting the measure have received death threats and envelopes containing a powdery
white substance, and their businesses have been boycotted.
The site takes the names and ZIP codes of people who donated to the ballot measure -- information that California
collects and makes public under state campaign finance disclosure laws -- and overlays the data on a Google map.
Visitors can see markers indicating a contributor's name, approximate location, amount donated and, if the donor
listed it, employer. That is often enough information for interested parties to find the rest -- like an e-mail or home
address. The identity of the site's creators, meanwhile, is unknown; they have maintained their anonymity.
Eightmaps.com is the latest, most striking example of how information collected through disclosure laws intended
to increase the transparency of the political process, magnified by the powerful lens of the Web, may be undermining
the same democratic values that the regulations were to promote.
With tools like eightmaps -- and there are bound to be more of them -- strident political partisans can challenge
their opponents directly, one voter at a time. The results, some activists fear, could discourage people from participating
in the political process altogether.
That is why the soundtrack to eightmaps.com is a loud gnashing of teeth among civil libertarians, privacy
advocates and people supporting open government. The site pits their cherished values against each other: political
transparency and untarnished democracy versus privacy and freedom of speech.
''When I see those maps, it does leave me with a bit of a sick feeling in my stomach,'' said Kim Alexander,
president of the California Voter Foundation, which has advocated for open democracy. ''This is not really the intention
Page 1
RR 401
of voter disclosure laws. But that's the thing about technology. You don't really know where it is going to take you.''
Ms. Alexander and many Internet activists have good reason to be queasy. California's Political Reform Act of
1974, and laws like it across the country, sought to cast disinfecting sunlight on the political process by requiring
contributions of more than $100 to be made public.
Eightmaps takes that data, formerly of interest mainly to social scientists, pollsters and journalists, and publishes it
in a way not foreseen when the open-government laws were passed. As a result, donors are exposed to a wide audience
and, in some cases, to harassment or worse.
A college professor from the University of California, San Francisco, wrote a $100 check in support of
Proposition 8 in August, because he said he supported civil unions for gay couples but did not want to change the
traditional definition of marriage. He has received many confrontational e-mail messages, some anonymous, since
eightmaps listed his donation and employer. One signed message blasted him for supporting the measure and was
copied to a dozen of his colleagues and supervisors at the university, he said.
''I thought what the eightmaps creators did with the information was actually sort of neat,'' the professor said, who
asked that his name not be used to avoid becoming more of a target. ''But people who use that site to send out
intimidating or harassing messages cross the line.''
Joseph Clare, a San Francisco accountant who donated $500 to supporters of Proposition 8, said he had received
several e-mail messages accusing him of ''donating to hate.'' Mr. Clare said the site perverts the meaning of disclosure
laws that were originally intended to expose large corporate donors who might be seeking to influence big state
projects.
''I don't think the law was designed to identify people for direct feedback to them from others on the other side,''
Mr. Clare said. ''I think it's been misused.''
Many civil liberties advocates, including those who disagree with his views on marriage, say he has a point. They
wonder if open-government rules intended to protect political influence of the individual voter, combined with the
power of the Internet, might be having the opposite effect on citizens.
''These are very small donations given by individuals, and now they are subject to harassment that ultimately
makes them less able to engage in democratic decision making,'' said Chris Jay Hoofnagle, senior fellow at the Berkeley
Center for Law and Technology at the University of California.
THANKS to eightmaps.com, the Internet is abuzz with bloggers, academics and other pundits offering potential
ways to resolve the tension between these competing principles. One idea is to raise the minimum donation that must be
reported publicly from $100, to protect the anonymity of small donors.
Another idea, proposed by a Georgetown professor, is for the state Web sites that make donor information
available to ask people who want to download and repurpose the data to provide some form of identification, like a
name and credit card number.
''The key here is developing a process that balances the sometimes competing goals of transparency and privacy,''
said the professor, Ned Moran, whose undergraduate class on information privacy spent a day discussing the eightmaps
site last month.
''Both goals are essential for a healthy democracy,'' he said, ''and I think we are currently witnessing, as
demonstrated by eightmaps, how the increased accessibility of personal information is disrupting the delicate balance
between them.''
Page 2
Disclosure, Magnified On the Web The New York Times February 8, 2009 Sunday
RR 402
URL: http://www.nytimes.com
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: California's Proposition 8 drew protests last year. A Web site takes names and ZIP codes of
donors supporting the measure and overlays data on a map.(PHOTOGRAPH BY J. EMILIO FLORES FOR THE NEW
YORK TIMES) MAP
LOAD-DATE: February 8, 2009
Page 3
RR 403

K-16
RR 404
Switch Client Preferences Sign Out Help
My Lexis Search Research Tasks Get a Document
Shepard's
Alerts Total Litigator Transactional Advisor Counsel Selector Dossier History

FOCUS Terms Search Within Using Semantic Concepts What's this? Advanced...
All Results - (20) News - (20)
Source: Combined Source Set 20 - Major Newspapers; The New York Times; Los Angeles Times
Terms: proposition 8 /s donor* and date geq (09/14/2008) (Edit Search | Suggest Terms for My Search)
Focus: proposition 8 and harassment and date geq (09/14/2008) (Exit FOCUS)
Select for FOCUS or Delivery
At t acks on Miss Califor nia r eveal int oler ance of gay- r ight s act ivist s Point of View Beaut y queen is lat est t ar get of a campaign t o silence
cr it ics of same- sex mar r iage. OTHER VI EWS St . Louis Post - Dispat ch ( Missour i) Apr il 30, 2009 Thur sday
Copyr i ght 2009 St . Loui s Post - Di spat ch, I nc.
Al l Ri ght s Reser ved
St . Loui s Post - Di spat ch ( Mi ssour i )
Apr i l 30, 2009 Thur sday
THI RD EDI TI ON
SECTI ON: EDI TORI AL; Pg. A17
LENGTH: 669 wor ds
HEADLI NE: At t acks on Mi ss Cal i for ni a r eveal i nt ol er ance of gay- r i ght s act i vi st s Poi nt of Vi ew Beaut y queen i s l at est t ar get of a
campai gn t o si l ence cr i t i cs of same- sex mar r i age. OTHER VI EWS
BYLI NE: COLLEEN CARROLL CAMPBELL
DATELI NE: 0
BODY:
"I bel i eve t hat a mar r i age shoul d be bet ween a man and a woman. No offense t o anybody out t her e, but t hat ' s how I was r ai sed."
Wi t h t hat mi l d answer t o a beaut y- pageant quer y ear l i er t hi s mont h, Mi ss Cal i for ni a Car r i e Pr ej ean was cat apul t ed t o t he cent er of an
i nt er nat i onal cont r over sy r esul t i ng i n vi ci ous at t acks on her char act er , i nt el l i gence and r el i gi ous bel i efs.
The assaul t began al most i mmedi at el y aft er t he 21- year - ol d col l ege j uni or answer ed a quest i on about her vi ews on same- sex
mar r i age fr om Per ez Hi l t on, a gay gossi p bl ogger and Mi ss USA cont est j udge who ear ned hi s fame by dr awi ng obscene doodl es on
cel ebr i t y phot os and "out i ng" gay st ar s on hi s websi t e. I ncensed by Pr ej ean's fai l ur e t o endor se hi s vi ews on gay mar r i age, Hi l t on t ook
t o t he ai r waves and I nt er net t o cal l Pr ej ean a st r i ng of unpr i nt abl e names.
The i nci dent woul d be j ust anot her l aughabl e case of a bl ogger behavi ng badl y wer e i t not for t he fact t hat Hi l t on's hi st r i oni c r esponse
was echoed by a chor us of mor e r espect abl e voi ces. They r anged fr om t he TV j our nal i st s who fr et t ed on ai r about Pr ej ean's
i nsensi t i vi t y and pageant offi ci al s who publ i cl y si ded wi t h Hi l t on t o t he par ade of Hol l ywood cel ebr i t i es who denounced Pr ej ean and
hi gh- r anki ng gay Br i t i sh pol i t i ci an Al an Duncan, who cal l ed her a "si l l y [ expl et i ve] " and sai d t hat i f she t ur ns up mur der ed, "you wi l l
know i t was me."
For al l t he fuss, Pr ej ean har dl y i s al one i n her convent i onal vi ew of mar r i age. Pol l s show t hat most Amer i cans shar e t hat vi ew and
vot er s i n 29 st at es, i ncl udi ng Cal i for ni a, have appr oved st at e const i t ut i onal amendment s banni ng gay mar r i age. Yet Pr ej ean di d
somet hi ng most Amer i cans who oppose gay mar r i age no l onger dar e t o do: She voi ced her bel i efs i n t he publ i c squar e. And when
pr essur ed t o r ecant , she r efused.
Pr ej ean' s bol dness has made her t he l at est t ar get of a cabal of st r i dent gay- r i ght s act i vi st s and t hei r medi a al l i es who defi ne even t he
most mut ed publ i c wor ds agai nst same- sex mar r i age as hat e speech. These i deol ogues i ncr easi ngl y r el y on i nt i mi dat i on t act i cs t o
advance t hei r cause wher e r het or i cal per suasi on and democr at i c means have fai l ed. I n an ugl y t wi st for a movement t hat once made
"t ol er ance" i t s r al l yi ng cr y, t he most gl ar i ng exampl es of i nt ol er ance i n t oday's mar r i age debat e come fr om suppor t er s of same- sex
mar r i age.
That i nt ol er ance was on ful l di spl ay i n Cal i for ni a l ast fal l , befor e and aft er t he passage of t he Pr oposi t i on 8 gay- mar r i age ban.
Ant i - Pr oposi t i on 8 TV ads bl at ant l y st oked r el i gi ous pr ej udi ces by depi ct i ng wi l d- eyed Mor mon mi ssi onar i es gl eeful l y t er r or i zi ng a
l esbi an coupl e. Gay act i vi st s publ i shed an onl i ne bl ackl i st of i ndi vi dual cont r i but or s t o t he Pr oposi t i on 8 cause so t hose donor s coul d
be t ar get ed for har assment , boycot t s and fi r i ngs. Aft er t he el ect i on, evangel i cal , Cat hol i c and Mor mon chur chgoer s faced angr y
pr ot est er s scr eami ng at t hem on t hei r way i n t o t hei r r espect i ve chur ches. I n Pal m Spr i ngs, a r aucous mob of gay- r i ght s act i vi st s was
caught on TV r i ppi ng a cr oss fr om an el der l y woman's hands and st ompi ng on i t , whi l e shovi ng her and swat t i ng her wi t h t hei r
pl acar ds. I n Mi chi gan, a band of gay- r i ght s act i vi st s i ncensed by t he Cal i for ni a vot e di sr upt ed an evangel i cal chur ch ser vi ce, yel l i ng at
chur chgoer s, pul l i ng a fi r e al ar m and unfur l i ng a gay pr i de fl ag fr om t he chur ch bal cony as par t of t hei r "Bash Back" campai gn.
Such boor i sh behavi or t ypi cal l y r ecei ves l i t t l e cover age fr om t he mai nst r eam medi a. Yet many Amer i cans have not i ced t he i ncr easi ng
i nt ol er ance of t he gay- mar r i age movement and t hey r esent i t . Per haps t hat ' s why Mi ss Cal i for ni a has enj oyed a sur ge of gr assr oot s
FOCUS - 20 Results - proposition 8 /s donor* https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?y=&dom1=&dom2=&dom3=&...
1 of 2 9/14/2009 12:41 PM
RR 405
suppor t i n t he wake of her medi a fl oggi ng. At a t i me when many pol i t i ci ans and past or s ar e t oo i nt i mi dat ed t o defend t hei r bel iefs
about mar r i age, a beaut y queen wi l l i ng t o st and up t o a bul l y i s an i nspi r i ng si ght .
- - -
Col l een Car r ol l Campbel l i s an aut hor , t el evi si on and r adi o host and St . Loui s- based fel l ow at t he Et hi cs and Publ i c Pol i cy Cent er . Her
websi t e i s www.col l een- campbel l .com.
GRAPHI C: Mi ss Cal i for ni a Car r i e Pr ej ean r eads fr om a Bi bl e dur i ng chur ch ser vi ces i n San Di ego Sunday. The Associ at ed Pr ess
Col l een Car r ol l Campbel l
LOAD- DATE: Apr i l 30, 2009
Source: Combined Source Set 20 - Major Newspapers; The New York Times; Los Angeles Times
View: Full
Date/Time: Monday, September 14, 2009 - 12:40 PM EDT
My Lexis | Search | Research Tasks | Get a Document | Shepard's | Alerts | Total Litigator | Transactional Advisor | Counsel Selector
History | Delivery Manager | Dossier | Switch Client | Preferences | Sign Out | Help
About Lexi sNexi s | Terms & Condi t i ons | Cont act Us
Copyri ght 2009 Lexi sNexi s, a di vi si on of Reed El sevi er I nc. Al l ri ght s reserved.
2 of 2 9/14/2009 12:41 PM
RR 406

K-17
RR 407
Projo 7 to 7 News Blog
Taking the news pulse of Rhode Island and Southeastern Massachusetts, by Providence Journal and
projo.com staff, from 7 to 7, every business day
Headlines 25 words Tag cloud RSS MultiBlog
Get the 7 to 7 on your mobile at www.projo.com. Twitter: projo | RSS | Email alerts
North Providence jewelry company to add 60 jobs | Main | Update: R.I. A.G. Lynch seeks divorce
ahead of gov. race
Same-sex marriage protesters assaulted with food
4:55 PM Wed, Jul 29, 2009 | Permalink
Maria Armental Email
WARWICK, R.I. -- The police are investigating an assault Tuesday on Bald Hill Road.
The weapon of choice: soda, salsa, eggs ...
"Your basic garden variety of food condiments," Capt. Robert Nelson said Wednesday.
It started as the four men stood at the median on Bald Hill Road and East Avenue around
2:40 p.m. protesting against same-sex marriage.
The location, Nelson noted, afforded them a roomy median and prime visibility.
They caught the attention of a group of women in one of the cars.
The women, who apparently objected to their message, flung a soda bottle at the men and
vowed to return.
And back they were, about 15 minutes later, hurling at the men a mlange of food
ingredients and drinks and a full repertoire of profanities, Nelson said.
One of the women swashed a protester with pepper spray.
No one was hurt and no arrests have been made, Nelson said
Same-sex marriage protesters assaulted with food - Projo 7 to 7 News Blog... http://newsblog.projo.com/2009/07/working-32 html
1 of 2 9/14/2009 1:11 PM
RR 408

K-18
RR 409
24 of 227 DOCUMENTS
Copyright 2009 The Weekly Standard
The Weekly Standard
March 16, 2009 Monday
SECTION: ARTICLES Vol. 14 No. 25
LENGTH: 1606 words
HEADLINE: The New Blacklist;
Freedom of speech--unless you annoy the wrong people.
BYLINE: Maureen Mullarkey, The Weekly Standard
BODY:
Strange times we live in when it takes a ballot initiative to confirm the definition of marriage as the union of a man
and a woman. Stranger still when endorsing that definition through the democratic process brings threats and reprisals.
In November, the San Francisco Chronicle published the names and home addresses of everyone who donated
money in support of California's Proposition 8 marriage initiative. All available information, plus the amount donated,
was broadcast. My name is on that list.
Emails started coming. Heavy with epithets and ad hominems, most in the you-disgust-me vein. Several accused
me, personally, of denying the sender his single chance at happiness after a life of unrelieved oppression and
second-class citizenship. Some were anonymous but a sizable number were signed, an indication of confidence in
collective clout that belied howls of victimhood. New York's Gay City News asked for an interview because I was "one
of only four New Yorkers who contributed more than $500."
I ignored the request, trashed the emails, and forgot about them. But the West Coast bureau chief of the New York
Daily News did not forget.
One night in early February, I drove home to find two cars, two men, waiting for me, unannounced, in the dark.
Reporters for the Daily News, they were publishing a story on me and Prop 8 the next day and wanted a live quotation.
Serious interviews are arranged ahead of time. Besides, I had filed enough newspaper pieces on deadline to know that
copy is well into the can at 7 P.M. This was intimidation, not fact-gathering.
Where is the story, I asked, if I have not said anything? The response was: "We have documents." Sound familiar?
For half a second, I thought of saying that Prop 8 left intact all the legal advantages of civil union. It took nothing away.
But I was too surprised by having been singled out. After a few heated words--none of them equal to what, in hindsight,
I wish I had said--I went into the house.
Next day, I discovered in the Daily News that I am known as a painter of gays and lesbians; gay activists felt
betrayed by my contribution. It was a sparse article. The only accurate quotation to appear was a sentence cribbed from
Page 1
RR 410
my own website, which seems to be the "document" from which the story was spun. (The sentence, from an old
interview about a gallery show of my paintings, referred to New York's gay pride parade as "an erotic celebration
loosed for a day to keep us all mindful that Dionysus is alive, powerful and under our own porch.") Compensating for
the interview that never took place, the reporter constructed an exchange over the question he obviously wanted to ask
but never got the chance. The article reads:
When asked how she could have donated money to fight gay marriage after making money from her depictions of
gays, she just said, "So?"
Set aside the non sequitur. The question was an undisguised indictment that triggered a barrage of virulent mail and
threats of blacklisting. Suddenly, I was "a vampire on the gay community" who should be put out of business. As one
note put it: "Your career is over, you nasty piece of s--. F-- off! WHORE!"
To make sense of this, backspace to the early '90s and a series of paintings I exhibited called Guise & Dolls. It was
a singular body of work based on images from New York's annual carnival, the gay pride parade. I could have used a
New Orleans Mardi Gras or Munich's Fasching, but Manhattan was closer. At times funny and poignant, the parade was
also--in the age of AIDS--tinged with sexual danger. The spectacle of it made a splendid analogy to the medieval danse
macabre.
Festive misrule and the politics of carnival, deeply rooted in cultural history, are a compelling motive for painting.
Think of Bruegel the Elder's Fight Between Carnival and Lent. The flamboyant Dionysian heart of the gay pride parade
was the subject of Guise & Dolls, not homosexuality itself and certainly not any policy agenda. A public event free for
the watching, it is staged to provoke audience response. I responded with a suite of paintings; they bore no relation to
my prior or subsequent work. All suggestion that I "make a living on the back of the gay community," as my mail
insisted, was a hysterical fantasy brewed in the grievance industry's fever swamp.
But no matter. I was up there now with Halliburton and Big Oil, a class enemy. The brownshirts came out in force.
Within 24 hours, the "story" spread from one gay website to another, even to Vancouver ("Typical greedy American
bigot"), France, and Belgium. My home address and email were repeated in comment sections in which readers egged
each other on to "make the bitch pay." Militants trawled for editors and gallerists I had worked with to warn them that
"the Gay Community is looking at our adversaries and those who may support them." (One former editor blind-copied
me his exchange with an aspiring storm trooper who threatened a boycott for those "having an association" with me.)
Reprimands flooded in, all based on the false premise that fat slices of proprietary gay imagery were being creamed
off the urban spectacle for my personal profit:
You should apologize for your deceit. Stop using us as your subject matter in this incredibly exploitative manner.
You must realize that your actions are no different than an artist depicting the black community contributing to white
supremacist organizations.
How dare you use gay people as inspiration and then stab these people in the back by fighting to limit their rights.
You are a disgusting, pitiful, opportunistic bitch.
Conceptual clarity is not mobthink's strong suit:
I don't understand why you would want to deny love in this world, no matter what form it takes. I can't imagine
your motives, can't imagine your hate.
Our parades are not the only place you can fulfill your artistic vision. You could visit the Hasidic community. You
know, them? They wear "unusual" clothes, too. There are so very many freak shows you can enjoy in this world.
The prevailing mood was punitive:
Page 2
The New Blacklist; Freedom of speech--unless you annoy the wrong people. The Weekly Standard March 16, 2009
Monday
RR 411
Homosexuals rule the World of Creativity, and that is whom you just f--ed with!
You represent the most despicable type of artist and human being. I do hope that you feel the financial pain your
actions will bring. May God bless you with financial ruin for your treacherous deed.
Because I love delusional bigots, I hope you never see another dime, bitch.
The president and CEO of an executive travel agency cc'd his message to a curator at the Brooklyn Museum: "You
are a disgusting TURD of a woman to support Prop 8." One painter, whose work I had reviewed enthusiastically months
before, rushed to her blog to broadcast an open letter exposing my perfidy to the New York gallery world:
The grave ungood you have done is not only to us, lesbians and gays who expect no less than full civil rights in our
own country, but ironically to your own art career. Unless you don't mind showing at Reverend Rick's or perhaps at
Brigham Young University.
A local paper followed up the Daily News piece. I submitted a brief statement to the reporter affirming the
time-honored definition of marriage. I took care to note that regard for individual gay persons does not require assent to
a politicized assault on bedrock social reality and the common good. The story disclosed other "suspect" donations of
mine (to pro-life groups and, most damning, to the Swift Boat vets) and referred to my Catholicism. That prompted a
fellow painter, and heretofore friendly colleague, to write:
At first I thought there should be a special place in hell for people like you. But then I thought, maybe purgatory! A
dull, nothing kind of Catholic nowhere. Just like you!
The religious note struck various chords. Rick0564 wrote: "If God makes us Gay, then please let us love one
another through marriage. It's what Jesus would do." Tina K inquired: "If I believed that Catholics should not vote, and
managed to get a proposition passed to that effect, would that be fair to you?"
Ah, Tina, my opposition to same-sex marriage does not originate in the pew. However much sympathy,
affection--indeed, love--I have for certain gay persons, "gay marriage" burlesques a primal institution rooted in nature.
Marriage, as a unique bond between male and female, predates all politics and religious doctrines. And no one has to
believe in God to see social anarchy, with children adrift in the wreckage, at the end of the same-sex marriage road.
But any semblance of moral reasoning is lost on a mob. The character and sensibility of the same-sex marriage
brigades is told in their litany of sexual hostility:
Eat shit and die, c--. Eat c-- and die, bitch. You right-wing, heterosupremacist t--. You are the moral equivalent of a
Jewish Nazi. Roast in hell, you filthy c--.
It is one thing to read hate-filled mail on a computer screen. It is something else to have it in hand. At the end of the
week, when it started coming to my house, I filed a police report.
Until now, donating to a cause did not open private citizens to a battery of invective and jackboot tactics. While
celebrities sport their moral vanity with white ribbons, thousands of ordinary Americans who donated to Prop 8 are
being targeted in a vile campaign of intimidation for having supported a measure that, in essence, ratified the crucial
relation between marriage and childbearing. Some in California have lost their jobs over it; others worry about an
unhinged stranger showing up at the door.
Who was it who predicted that if fascism ever came to the United States, it would come in the guise of liberal
egalitarianism?
Maureen Mullarkey is a painter who writes on art and culture.
Page 3
Monday
RR 412
LOAD-DATE: March 9, 2009
Page 4
Monday
RR 413

K-19
RR 414
FOCUS - 9 of 45 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
February 8, 2009 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section BU; Column 0; Money and Business/Financial Desk; SLIPSTREAM; Pg. 3
LENGTH: 959 words
HEADLINE: Disclosure, Magnified On the Web
BYLINE: By BRAD STONE
BODY:
FOR the backers of Proposition 8, the state ballot measure to stop single-sex couples from marrying in California,
victory has been soured by the ugly specter of intimidation.
Some donors to groups supporting the measure have received death threats and envelopes containing a powdery
white substance, and their businesses have been boycotted.
The site takes the names and ZIP codes of people who donated to the ballot measure -- information that California
collects and makes public under state campaign finance disclosure laws -- and overlays the data on a Google map.
Visitors can see markers indicating a contributor's name, approximate location, amount donated and, if the donor
listed it, employer. That is often enough information for interested parties to find the rest -- like an e-mail or home
address. The identity of the site's creators, meanwhile, is unknown; they have maintained their anonymity.
Eightmaps.com is the latest, most striking example of how information collected through disclosure laws intended
to increase the transparency of the political process, magnified by the powerful lens of the Web, may be undermining
the same democratic values that the regulations were to promote.
With tools like eightmaps -- and there are bound to be more of them -- strident political partisans can challenge
their opponents directly, one voter at a time. The results, some activists fear, could discourage people from participating
in the political process altogether.
That is why the soundtrack to eightmaps.com is a loud gnashing of teeth among civil libertarians, privacy
advocates and people supporting open government. The site pits their cherished values against each other: political
transparency and untarnished democracy versus privacy and freedom of speech.
''When I see those maps, it does leave me with a bit of a sick feeling in my stomach,'' said Kim Alexander,
president of the California Voter Foundation, which has advocated for open democracy. ''This is not really the intention
Page 1
RR 415
of voter disclosure laws. But that's the thing about technology. You don't really know where it is going to take you.''
Ms. Alexander and many Internet activists have good reason to be queasy. California's Political Reform Act of
1974, and laws like it across the country, sought to cast disinfecting sunlight on the political process by requiring
contributions of more than $100 to be made public.
Eightmaps takes that data, formerly of interest mainly to social scientists, pollsters and journalists, and publishes it
in a way not foreseen when the open-government laws were passed. As a result, donors are exposed to a wide audience
and, in some cases, to harassment or worse.
A college professor from the University of California, San Francisco, wrote a $100 check in support of
Proposition 8 in August, because he said he supported civil unions for gay couples but did not want to change the
traditional definition of marriage. He has received many confrontational e-mail messages, some anonymous, since
eightmaps listed his donation and employer. One signed message blasted him for supporting the measure and was
copied to a dozen of his colleagues and supervisors at the university, he said.
''I thought what the eightmaps creators did with the information was actually sort of neat,'' the professor said, who
asked that his name not be used to avoid becoming more of a target. ''But people who use that site to send out
intimidating or harassing messages cross the line.''
Joseph Clare, a San Francisco accountant who donated $500 to supporters of Proposition 8, said he had received
several e-mail messages accusing him of ''donating to hate.'' Mr. Clare said the site perverts the meaning of disclosure
laws that were originally intended to expose large corporate donors who might be seeking to influence big state
projects.
''I don't think the law was designed to identify people for direct feedback to them from others on the other side,''
Mr. Clare said. ''I think it's been misused.''
Many civil liberties advocates, including those who disagree with his views on marriage, say he has a point. They
wonder if open-government rules intended to protect political influence of the individual voter, combined with the
power of the Internet, might be having the opposite effect on citizens.
''These are very small donations given by individuals, and now they are subject to harassment that ultimately
makes them less able to engage in democratic decision making,'' said Chris Jay Hoofnagle, senior fellow at the Berkeley
Center for Law and Technology at the University of California.
THANKS to eightmaps.com, the Internet is abuzz with bloggers, academics and other pundits offering potential
ways to resolve the tension between these competing principles. One idea is to raise the minimum donation that must be
reported publicly from $100, to protect the anonymity of small donors.
Another idea, proposed by a Georgetown professor, is for the state Web sites that make donor information
available to ask people who want to download and repurpose the data to provide some form of identification, like a
name and credit card number.
''The key here is developing a process that balances the sometimes competing goals of transparency and privacy,''
said the professor, Ned Moran, whose undergraduate class on information privacy spent a day discussing the eightmaps
site last month.
''Both goals are essential for a healthy democracy,'' he said, ''and I think we are currently witnessing, as
demonstrated by eightmaps, how the increased accessibility of personal information is disrupting the delicate balance
between them.''
Page 2
RR 416
URL: http://www.nytimes.com
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: California's Proposition 8 drew protests last year. A Web site takes names and ZIP codes of
donors supporting the measure and overlays data on a map.(PHOTOGRAPH BY J. EMILIO FLORES FOR THE NEW
YORK TIMES) MAP
Page 3
RR 417

K-20
RR 418
Thi s st or y i s t aken fr om Sacbee / Our Regi on
Mor mon chur ch i n Or angeval e vandal i zed i n
w ak e of Pr op. 8 vot e
cphua@sacbee.com
Publ i shed Sunday, Nov . 09, 2008
Thr ee days aft er vot er s appr oved a pr oposi t i on t o ban same- sex mar r i age i n Cal i for ni a, vandal s
t ar get ed a Mor mon chur ch i n Or angeval e.
Vandal s spr ay- pai nt ed t he wor ds "No on Pr op 8" at t he chur ch's pr oper t y on Hazel Avenue
somet i me bet ween l at e Thur sday and ear l y Fr i day, Sacr ament o Count y sher i ff' s spokesman Sgt .
Ti m Cur r an sai d.
The chur ch' s bui l di ng was t agged once and t he si dewal k mul t i pl e t i mes, Cur r an sai d. Sher i ff's
offi ci al s say t hey have not char act er i zed t he cr i me as t he wor k of t hose opposed t o Pr oposi t i on 8,
an amendment t o t he Cal i for ni a const i t ut i on t hat l i mi t s mar r i age t o bet ween a man and a
woman.
Cur r an sai d t he depar t ment has not r ecei ved si mi l ar r epor t s of vandal i sm i n t he count y.
I n r esponse t o t he i nci dent , offi ci al s fr om t he Chur ch of Jesus Chr i st of Lat t er - day Sai nt s i ssued a
st at ement aski ng for t hose i nvol ved i n t he same- sex mar r i age debat e t o t r eat each ot her wi t h
r espect and ci vi l i t y.
"Whi l e t hose who di sagr ee wi t h our posi t i on on Pr oposi t i on 8 have t he r i ght t o make t hei r
feel i ngs known, i t 's wr ong t o t ar get t he Chur ch and i t s sacr ed pl aces of wor shi p for bei ng par t of
t he democr at i c pr ocess," sai d t he chur ch's st at ement . "No one on ei t her si de of t he quest i on
shoul d be vi l i fi ed, har assed or subj ect t o er r oneous i nfor mat i on."
The Mor mon chur ch suppor t ed t he pr oposi t i on, encour agi ng member s t o cont r i but e t i me and
r esour ces t o hel p i t s passage.
Suppor t er s of same- sex mar r i age have st aged pr ot est s out si de Mor mon t empl es, i ncl udi ng one
Fr i day at t he chur ch' s headquar t er s i n Sal t Lake Ci t y.
I n Sacr ament o t oday, a "mar r i age equal i t y" r al l y i s pl anned at t he st at e Capi t ol .
Same- sex mar r i age advocat es say t hey have cal l ed for a peaceful and ci vi l campai gn.
"The No on Pr op. 8 campai gn denounces any sor t of vandal i sm what soever ," sai d Bi l l Br adl ey, a
campai gn spokesman. "I t 's wr ong t o deface pr oper t y and does not r efl ect t he spi r i t or val ues of
t hi s campai gn."
Andr ea Shor t er , a campai gn spokeswoman, added, "That i s not goi ng t o get us any cl oser t o
mar r i age equal i t y.
Mormon church in Orangevale vandalized in wake of Prop. 8 vote - Sacr... http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/v-print/story/1382472.html
1 of 2 9/14/2009 1:38 PM
RR 419
"We under st and t hat peopl e ar e upset and angr y and fr ust r at ed, but we cal l upon ever yone t o
expr ess t hei r fr ust r at i on t hr ough t he cor r ect pr ocesses."
The debat e over whet her same- sex coupl es shoul d be al l owed t o mar r y has been i nt ense. I n t he
r un- up t o t he Nov. 4 el ect i on, campai gn si gns wer e vandal i zed and t her e have been some r epor t s
of vi ol ence si nce t he vot e.
I n Sout her n Cal i for ni a, publ i shed r epor t s say yar d si gns suppor t i ng t he pr oposi t i on at a Roman
Cat hol i c chur ch i n Ri ver si de wer e r ear r anged i nt o a swast i ka.
And i n Fr esno, a pr omi nent past or who suppor t ed Pr oposi t i on 8 r ecei ved deat h t hr eat s t hat
pr ompt ed pol i ce t o assi gn offi cer s t o pr ot ect hi m. Vandal s al so t ar get ed hi s chur ch.
Shar eThi s
Call The Bee's Chelsea Phua, ( 916) 321- 1132.
Buzz up!
Mormon church in Orangevale vandalized in wake of Prop. 8 vote - Sacr... http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/v-print/story/1382472.html
2 of 2 9/14/2009 1:38 PM
RR 420

K-21
RR 421

Fresno, CA, USA (KFSN) -- Vandals
targeted a downtown Fresno church
that supports a California ballot
measure that would eliminate the right
of same-sex couples to marry.
Workers at Cornerstone Church got to their
offices Tuesday to find the offices and the
sanctuary, which is in the historic Wilson
Theater, had been egged. Crews are
working on cleaning up the mess.
On Sunday, a rally supporting Proposition
8 was held at City Hall. Cornerstone's
Pastor Jim Franklin told other prop eight
supporters his home had recently been
egged.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abc30 News Links:
website.
HomePage
Top Headlines
Fresno Local News
State News
National/World News
Entertainment News
Business News
Politics News
Sports News
Health Watch
Consumer Watch
Mr. Food
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breaking News Alerts:
Click Here to Sign-Up for Breaking News
E-Mail Alerts
Receive Breaking News alerts in your email
inbox.
Click Here to Sign-Up for Text Message Alerts
Receive Breaking News alerts right on your
cell phone.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adver t i sement
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
LOCAL
Vandals Egg Downtown Fresno Church
1 of 2 9/14/2009 1:39 PM
RR 422

K-22
RR 423
Slideshows
Amelia's Photos From The
Sky
Freed U.S. Journalists Return Home
Michael Jackson Memorial
SoCal's Most Wanted Fugitives
2009 Celebrity Deaths
E-mail Print Share +
Nov 7, 2008 12:24 pm US/Pacific
Vandals Arrange Prop. 8 Signs Into Swastika
Click to enlarge
1 of 1
Vandals arranged Proposition 8
signs into a swastika at a church in
Riverside.
CBS
Related Stories
Thousands Protest Gay Marriage
Ban In L.A.
(11/7/2008)
Gay Rights Leaders Concede
Passage Of Prop. 8
(11/6/2008)
Ellen 'Saddened' By Passage Of
Gay Marriage Ban
(11/6/2008)
Prop. 8 Protestors Gather At
Mormon Temple In L.A.
(11/6/2008)
Gay Marriages Now Uncertain After
Prop. 8 Passes
(11/6/2008)
RIVERSIDE Vandals Thursday rearranged yard signs at a Riverside church expressing support for Proposition 8 into a swastika, police said Friday.
The vandalism at Our Lady of Perpetual Help took place Thursday at 9:35 a.m., Steven Frasher of the Riverside Police Department said.
No damage was done to the grounds or the church, Frasher added.
Proposition 8, which narrowly passed on Tuesday, amended the state constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
( 2008 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Wire services contributed to this
report.)
Vandals Arrange Riverside Church's Prop. 8 Signs Into Swastika - cbs2.com http://cbs2.com/local/Proposition.8.Vandalism.2.859176.html
1 of 1 9/14/2009 1:40 PM
RR 424

K-23
RR 425

Advertisement
Monday, October 20, 2008

Vandals spray paint
signs in downtown
Fullerton

If caught, violators could
face up to one year in
prison, $10,000 fine.

By BARBARA GIASONE

The Orange County Register

FULLERTON Vandals used gold spray paint to
scrawl anti-Proposition 8 messages on
commercial and residential buildings in the
downtown and east Fullerton over the weekend,
police said.

The "Prop H8TE" message was found on the Bank
of America and Union Bank on north Harbor
Boulevard, and on a retail store in the 500 block
of north Harbor. Additional tagging was found on
houses near Dorothy Lane.

Sgt. Mike MacDonald said anyone caught
causing more than $400 in damages is subject to
one year in state prison or county jail and
$10,000 in fines. Suspects who are caught
causing less than $400 in damages could be
charged $1,000 and spend one year in county jail.

In addition to the spray-paint vandalism, 500
"Yes on 8" signs valued at $10 apiece were
reported missing throughout the city by a Yes on
8 community organizer, MacDonald said.
At least one resident in the city is using a night-
vision camera to catch sign vandals, police said.
The homeowner told police he captured images
of a woman stealing signs.
"While we respect people's rights to have an
opinion on state politics, it's never appropriate to
deface property to further their own beliefs,"
MacDonald said. "We treat this type of crime very
seriously.
"Violators will be prosecuted to the fullest
extent of the law," he said.
A resident in the northeast section of the city
reported late Monday morning that his property
was also defaced with gold paint.
"I've lived in the city for 18 years, and I've never
had anything like this," Randy Reece said.
"It's ironic the purveyors of tolerance seem to
not have any respect for the First Amendment
and it's disgusting," Reece said. "I'd like to have a
discussion with them if they want to."
Vandalism should be reported to the Fullerton
Police Department at 714-738-6715.
Contact the writer: 714-704-3762 or
bgiasone@ocregister.com
http://www.ocregister.com/fdcp?1252950184563&ci=%3Cimages%3E...
1 of 1 9/14/2009 1:43 PM
RR 426

K-24
RR 427
By Bob Banfield
YUCAIPA (KABC) -- Vandals have gone
on a graffiti spree in a San Bernardino
County neighborhood, apparently over
neighbors' support of Proposition 8.
Many residents between 5th St. and 6th St.
in Yucaipa found their property had been
targeted by unwanted visitors with paint
cans, and a possible political motive.
"We woke up this morning and we just had
paint on all of our cars and fences. It was
on everything. It was bright orange --
beautiful paint," said Yucaipa resident,
Dawn Antinucci.
The same political message was painted
on a number of vehicles, garages, fences,
and on "Yes on 8" signs.
Adver t i sement
The Antinucci's were angered but not
swayed.
"We know what the Lord tells us about this
prop. We will be doing what we know is to
be true," said Antinucci.
If the graffiti was politically motivated the
painters made a big mistake. That is the
opinion of Garrett Davis. He is not a
supporter of Prop 8.
"Especially in this town. This town is a
highly conservative Republican town. To
do this is even more radical, because you
are just going to persuade the people who
are on the line to vote yes anyways. Why
would you ever do that? It is just horrible,"
said Davis.
The vandalism is the talk of the
neighborhood and the subject of a sheriff's
Friday, October 31, 2008
INLAND EMPIRE
Neighborhood vandalized over Prop 8
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/inland_empire&id...
1 of 2 9/14/2009 1:41 PM
RR 428
department investigation.
"Just to thinking that someone has
vandalized our home, wow. Someone is
obviously angry and upset. What is next?
Are they going to destroy more of our
property? Is this going to escalate? Anyone
would think and be concerned about that,"
said a concerned resident.
- Get more L.A. breaking news, weather,
traffic and sports
- Have a news tip? Send your tips, video, or
pictures
(Copyright 2009 KABC-TV/DT. All Rights
Reserved.)
2 of 2 9/14/2009 1:41 PM
RR 429

K-25
RR 430
By Rob McMillan
ALTA LOMA (KABC) -- Suzie Taylor
says she awoke to find that she was a
victim of vandalism. Taylor says her
fifth-wheel trailer was spray-painted
advocating a no on Proposition 8.
"It was kind of a shock, and then our
neighbors started coming out and they saw
it" said Taylor
The words "love for all," "no on 8" and
"equal rights were sprayed on three sides
of her trailer. Taylor thinks the only reason
she was targeted was because of the "Yes
on 8" sign in her front yard.
"It's hard to understand why these things
happen," said Taylor. "You have a little
sign expressing your opinion about
something and to have that response was
a little shocking."
Adver t i sement
And Taylor is not alone. Several people
who are against the proposition say they
have been victims of Vandalism.
As the elections draw neared vandalism
and sign theft has become an epidemic
across the nation.
Taylor says she now has to move her sign
inside at night. Neighbors said it's sad it
has come down to this.
"I am for freedom of speech and I think we
have the right, but not to go vandalize,"
said Taylor's neighbor Al Marino. "That is
what the courts are for."
- Get more local news headlines from the
Inland Empire
- Have a news tip? Send your tips, video, or
Saturday, October 25, 2008
INLAND EMPIRE
Anti-prop 8 vandals hit Alta Loma home
1 of 2 9/14/2009 1:44 PM
RR 431

K-26
RR 432

SAN JOSE, CA (KGO) -- Vandals struck
overnight in San Jose at two homes
where the owners put out signs in
support of Proposition 8.
A "Yes on 8" sign was painted over, and
the garage doors on each of the two homes
were sprayed with "No on 8."
One of their cars was also vandalized. Prop
8 would change the state constitution to
outlaw same-sex marriage. One of the
homeowners says she was mad at first, but
is now trying to think about what was going
through the vandal's mind.
Adver t i sement
"Why would you, instead of just giving us a
pamphlet, or wanting to talk to us, instead
coming in and trying to destroy something
we really worked hard for because we're
very opened minded we're very open
minded people. We're willing to talk to
people," said Kelly Byrne, "Proposition 8"
supporter.
Police took a report on the vandalism, but
the homeowners say there's probably little
that can be done to catch the culprit given
the fact they have no suspect description.
(Copyright 2009 KGO-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)
Monday, October 27, 2008 | 12:09 PM
SOUTH BAY NEWS
Vandals strike Prop 8 homes in SJ
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/south_bay&id=647...
1 of 1 9/14/2009 1:46 PM
RR 433

K-27
RR 434
Most Popular Slideshows
Celebs Who Posed For
Playboy
AskMen.com Names Top 99 Women Of 2009
Tattooed Ladies of Hollywood
Stars Dazzle Red Carpet At Oscars
E-mail Print Share +
Oct 28, 2008 8:58 am US/Pacific
Vandals Target Prop 8 Supporters In NorCal
Measure Proposes Ban On Same-Sex Marriage
Voter Guide: Compare Candidates, Measures
About The Candidat es & Issues
Click to enlarge
1 of 1
California's 1st
Same-Sex
Marriage
In To Be Out: Gay
Celebrities
Vandals targeted supporters of a
gay marriage ban in California by
spray-painting their garage.
CBS
Related Slideshows
SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) San Jose police are investigating another case of vandalism targeting supporters of a gay marriage ban in California.
Police were called to a house in South San Jose earlier this week after homeowners reported their garage was spray-painted with "No on 8" messages.
Proposition 8 would take away the right of same-sex couples to wed.
The homeowners had signs supporting the measure on their lawn.
Sgt. Mike Sullivan said the department has not tracked incidents of political sign vandalism, but he does know there have been at least four reported incidents
involving Proposition 8.
The campaign to defeat the measure issued a statement saying it condemns vandalism and activities of this kind.
( 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)
Vandals Target Proposition 8 Supporters In Northern California - cbs2.com http://cbs2.com/local/Proposition.8.Vandalism.2.850469.html
1 of 1 9/14/2009 1:47 PM
RR 435

K-28
RR 436

Advertisement
Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Five held on
suspicion of stealing
"Yes" on Prop. 8
signs

Suspects tell police they
were angry after attending a
rally at a Fullerton bar.

By BARBARA GIASONE


FULLERTON - Five people were arrested early
today on suspicion of participating in a sign-
stealing spree the suspects said originated in a
downtown bar, Sgt. Mike MacDonald said.

A police officer patrolling the area near
Chapman and Pomona avenues at 1:30 a.m. saw
a passenger jump from a car and place a
campaign sign on the corner.

When the officer approached the driver, she
noticed three "No on Prop 8" signs in the vehicle.
She also located 10 torn-up "Yes on 8" signs on
the front floorboard with three McCain-Palin
signs.

The "Yes on 8" signs were allegedly stolen and
the "No on Prop 8" signs were not, police said.
When questioned, the suspects said they had
just come from a "No on 8" rally at a downtown
business and were angry, MacDonald said.
Based on their statements, all five were arrested
on suspicion of possession of stolen property.
Taken to city jail were Jonathan Barrett, 19, of
Fullerton; Jennifer Berry, 23, Covina; Emanuel
Muro, 23, Artesia; Daniel Palacios, 23, Lakewood;
and Eric Gutierrez, 23, Fullerton.
MacDonald said all five admitted taking the
signs.
1 of 1 9/14/2009 1:48 PM
RR 437

K-29
RR 438
Prop 8 supporters face sign theft, vandalism
Published Oct 29, 2008
In a community that values free speech and open debate, recent political sign thefts have
outraged some community members.
The controversy over Proposition 8, which would amend the California Constitution to allow
marriage between only a man and a woman, has spilled over into petty theft and vandalism of
lawn signs.
Yes on 8 supporters say they've been hit especially hard in Davis, where a large number of
signs have been defaced or stolen.
Davis resident Jo Lynn Meirovitz had Yes on 8 signs stolen from her front yard last week.
"People preach tolerance but they are very intolerant of other people," Meirovitz said. "They
see us protecting marriage as full of hate, bigots and are appalled that we would want to
help Prop 8 pass. I'm sure the more signs they see the more frustrated they get."
Having left the house for only an hour and a half and not expecting her signs to be taken
during the middle of the day, Meirovitz found two lawn signs missing upon her return, she
said.
"We believe in freedom of speech for everybody, not just one side of this proposition,"
Meirovitz said. "Everybody should be able to voice their opinion."
Davis resident and Cedric Papa is involved in Yes on 8 sign distribution and says voters are
calling in daily to report that their signs have been stolen.
Papa, who has had 14 signs taken, estimates that 200 or more may have been taken or
vandalized in Davis alone.
"I will follow the law, no matter what happens, so I'd like to get my voice out now," Papa
said. "We are just trying to keep our individual rights and keep the government out of our
lives."
Papa said one group of people went so far as to pretend to support Prop 8 and took 100 signs
and dumped them.
Yolo County Republican Party chair Mark Pruner said it has been common in this and
previous elections for political signs to be stolen.
"We spend so much money replacing signs, you almost feel violated," he said.
In addition to sign theft in Davis, there have been several incidences of vandalism and theft in
Sacramento, and video of at least two incidences have been posted on YouTube, Pruner said.
"Let's face it, stealing of political signs is something that always happens," he said. "We have
http://theaggie.org/print_article.php?id=1747
1 of 2 9/14/2009 1:51 PM
RR 439
to budget for paying for more signs."
There is little legal recourse for people who have had their signs stolen or vandalized, and
many don't bother to report the crimes. The Davis and Sacramento Police Departments and
the Yolo County Sheriff all say no police reports regarding stolen or damaged signs have been
filed in their jurisdictions.
Among other incidents in Davis are keyed cars displaying Yes on 8 bumper stickers, while
last week the Yes on 8 table located on the Quad was hit with water balloons by a group of
students yelling "you teach hate," according to UC Davis graduate student Casey Meirovitz,
who is married to Jo Lynn Meirovitz.
"I think yelling 'you teach hate' and exhibiting hate isn't the coolest thing in the world,
especially at a university," he said. "People feel very passionately about Prop 8 and they are
letting it get the best of them. Unfortunately they're weakening the stance of their argument
by acting hypocritically."
Meirovitz and wife Jo Lynn have since replaced their Yes on 8 signs with a homemade sign
made of plywood, attached to a tree in their front yard with a bike lock, a sign that they will
not forfeit their right to free speech anytime soon.
Representatives from the No on 8 campaign did not respond to requests for information
regarding sign theft or vandalism on their side.

AARON BRUNER can be reached at city@californiaaggie.com.
http://theaggie.org/print_article.php?id=1747
2 of 2 9/14/2009 1:51 PM
RR 440

K-30
RR 441

Advertisement
Thursday, October 30, 2008

Prop. 8 sign-
stealing ignites free
speech debate

Pro-amendment group says
25,000 'Yes on Prop. 8'
signs have been stolen.

By SALVADOR HERNANDEZ


He admits he's done it at least 20 times out of
pure anger and frustration but he said he didn't
know it was against the law when he did it. Just
don't ask him if he'll stop.

He's done it on his way to work or back home.
The feeling was overwhelming, Shankar Singam
said, and he would pull over to the side of the
road, grab one of the yellow "Yes on Proposition
8" signs and throw it on the back of his truck.

"It's (Prop. 8 is) discrimination in disguise and it
infuriates me," said Singam. "It's a civil right."

It's a scene that continues to play out on the
streets as the day nears for California voters to
decide on Prop. 8, which would amend the state
constitution to define marriage as that between
a man and a woman and therefore ban same-
sex marriage. While proponents and opponents
of the proposition have raised more than a
combined $21 million to campaign their views,
individuals have been pushing their own personal
campaigns.
Some of them have done so illegally.
Theft and vandalism of Proposition 8 signs have
been reported in Santa Ana, Yorba Linda,
Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Irvine and
Laguna Hills. In Fullerton, five people were taken
into custody after police there found 10 torn "Yes
on Proposition 8" signs in their car. The suspects
told police they had just attended a "No on 8"
rally.
In Irvine, two citizen arrests have been reported
of people stealing or vandalizing "Yes" signs and
on Tuesday, three students were stopped by a
police officer in an area where several signs had
the word "No" spray-painted over several "Yes"
signs. Two of them, a 17- and an 18-year-old
were found to be in possession of spray cans.
The minor was released to her parents, said Lt.
Rick Handfield of the Irvine Police. Police are
investigating the case involving the 18-year-old,
who was not taken into custody.
Singam said he feels that at stake are the civil
rights of thousands of people, equating it to the
past prohibition of interracial marrying.
But 58-year-old Robert Thompson, who said he
has had 14 "Yes" signs stolen from his front lawn,
said his right to express himself is being
hindered.
"Everyone has a right to voice their opinion," he
said. "Why can't they get their own signs? I'm not
going to be offended if they put up their own
signs."
1 of 2 9/14/2009 1:52 PM
RR 442

Advertisement
It's a common occurrence, said Damon Micallizi,
spokesman for the Orange County Sheriff's
Department. As political signs go up, reports of
stolen or vandalized signs surface, although the
sheriff's department does not keep track of the
numbers. They're listed along with other
incidents thefts and vandalism. Taking signs
from private yards and public areas is against the
law, but the sheriff's department has not seen
spike in incidents.

"We've had continued reports on both sides,"
Handfield said. "It's not just Prop. 8 signs,
although that's one issue that seems to be
polarizing."

Mike Erickson, a community organizer for "Yes
on Proposition 8" said the campaign estimates
about 25,000 signs have been stolen or
vandalized in California, about one-third of the
signs distributed.

"It is epidemic," he said. "It leads us down a
dangerous road when you say you don't have a
right to your speech."

In three weeks, Erickson said he has received
about 670 emails from people reporting missing
signs in the county. He said he believes the
reason why so many signs have been reported
stolen on both sides of the isle is because the
issue at hand is something very personal.

"This is a sensitive issue," he said "It's about
people's families and that's the most cherished
relationships and passions are high on both
sides."

Singam said he never took signs from people's
yards and thought taking them from public spots
was legal.

"I'm not gay but that doesn't mean I can't stand
for equal rights," Singam said. "Their right to free
speech is to put it up. Mine is to take it down."
Stolen signs might hurt the campaign's visibility,
but it has also pushed some supporters of the
proposition, Erickson said. One Orange County
resident picked up signs after finding out his
neighbor's sign was stolen.
In Fullerton, one resident posted more than 40
signs in her front lawn after several were stolen.
"Is it helping? I don't think so," Singam said
about his opposition to the constitutional
amendment. "I think by taking down the signs I'm
letting them know people won't stand for it."
In the end, Erickson said, the discussion will
continue in the poll box.
"I just ask they be respectful of my rights and
participate in the political process," he said.
Contact the writer: shernandez@ocregister.com
or 949-454-7361
2 of 2 9/14/2009 1:52 PM
RR 443

K-31
RR 444

Advertisement
Friday, October 31, 2008

Dana Point man will
keep replacing
downed signs
favoring Prop. 8

By CHRIS DAINES


William Vogeler calls Proposition 8 sign-
placement feuds the "battle of the signs" but
he says he's not giving up posting signs
promoting the initiative until Tuesday's election
is over.

"Virtually every sign I have put up from Santa
Ana through Irvine, San Juan to Dana Point has
been taken down," Vogeler said.

Proposition 8 is a ballot proposal to amend the
California Constitution to define marriage as
between a man and a woman. It would
effectively end same-sex marriage in the state.

Though the signs around Vogeler's Dana Point
home have been undisturbed, signs along the
stretch of Pacific Coast Highway between Niguel
Road and Harbor Drive are being removed almost
as fast as he can put them up, he said.

"I put them out wherever I go for my work or
otherwise, and when I go past where I've been,
they are gone," Vogeler said.

Such sign removal has been rampant across
Orange County and has ignited many discussions
of free speech. Regardless of one's position on
Prop. 8, Vogeler who practices general law but
specializes in media rights says he wishes
there could be more respect between the two
sides.
"We live in a society where people have the right
to say their piece," he said. "Taking down a sign
is not saying your piece, that's vandalism."
Vogeler, who has been placing signs favoring
Prop. 8 for several months in south Orange
County, often receives looks and honks from
passing motorists but said he can't tell whether
they're friendly. He has taken cell-phone photos
of people he thought were acting suspiciously
around the signs, but he can't be sure whether
they are removing them.
After a 7-foot-tall wooden Prop. 8 sign was
removed a day after he placed it at the
intersection of Alicia Parkway and Aliso Creek
Road, Vogeler decided a steel sign would be
harder to take down, and he put one up Thursday
morning. He said Friday that he hadn't driven
past the site yet, but he said someone would
need a hacksaw to take it down.
"(If) I drive by and my sign is gone, I'll put
another one up. I'll put a new one up the day
after if it is gone, and again on Monday if I need
to the election is Tuesday."
cdaines@ocregister.com
1 of 1 9/14/2009 1:52 PM
RR 445

K-32
RR 446
Rel at ed To St ory
POLI TI CAL SI GNS
Vi deo: Pol i t i cal Si gn Vandal i sm Ri si ng,
Sheriff Says
KCRA.com
Sh er i f f : Pr op. 8 Si gn s Bei ng St ol en, Bur n ed
Both Sides Of Gay-Marriage Initiative See Signs
Destroyed
POSTED: 9:31 pm PDT October 19, 2008
UPDATED: 12:08 am PDT October 20, 2008
SACRAMENTO, Ca lif. -- As the days leading up to
Election Day dwindle down, signs on both sides of the
gay-marriage initiative are being stolen, and in some cases
even burned, sheriff's officials said.
Hector Lluen said that a "Yes" on Prop. 8 sign nailed to the
front of his Fair Oaks home door was stolen in the middle of
the night.
"My family and I strongly believe that their acts are
cowardly," Lluen said. "It is not going to intimidate my family. We will continue to put up 'yes' on
Prop. 8 signs."
Some supporters of the vote "No" on Prop. 8 campaign said those stealing signs are just hurting their
own cause.
"If someone is doing it on our side it needs to stop, and if someone is doing it on their side that needs
to stop as well," said David Cano, who supports the "No" on Prop. 8 campaign.
Some voters who have had their signs stolen said it feels like getting mugged.
"I feel disenfranchised," said Linda Subramanian, who had her political sign stolen. "That was my
sign. That was my political expression."
In Midtown, voters are coming together to urge those breaking the law to have a better approach.
"You got to vote, that's where you make your opinion count," said voter Megan Evans.
Rela t ed St o r y:
October 19, 2008: Survey: Race For Prop. 8 'Essentially Tied'
Copyright 2008 by KCRA.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast,
rewritten or redistributed.
Sheriff: Prop. 8 Signs Being Stolen, Burned - Print This Story News Story... http://www.kcra.com/print/17758850/detail.html
1 of 1 9/14/2009 1:53 PM
RR 447

K-33
RR 448
The Sacramento Bee's Crime blog is a comprehensive report of crime news, trends and
information for your community and beyond.
October 28, 2008
Arrests made in Roseville after Yes on Proposition 8 signs found in car

From David Richie:
Roseville police arrested a man and two women early today who were reportedly stealing "Yes on
Proposition 8" signs from residents' yards.
Officers recovered 53 signs from the suspects' vehicle - all in support of Proposition 8, said Dee Dee
Gunther, police department spokeswoman.
The arrests occurred about 12:32 a.m. after a resident in the 200 block of Sierra Boulevard spotted
someone taking a sign out of a neighbor's yard.
A few minutes later an officer spotted a green sedan, matching the description of the suspect vehicle
in the 700 block of Shasta Street. All four doors and the trunk were open and the officer watched as
two people walked to the car and placed something in the trunk. The car then drove away but was
stopped by police.
Police arrested Brian Joseph Greene (left photo), 18 of Roseville, Kacey Elizabeth Flieder (right photo), 18,
of Sacramento and a 17-year-old girl from Roseville. The 18-year-olds were booked on suspicion of
possession of stolen property, conspiracy, petty theft and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
The 17-year-old was cited and released to her parents.
Karen England, a local coordinator for the Yes on 8 campaign said theft and vandalism of Proposition 8
signs has become a continuing problem. In some cases, signs have been stolen multiple times.
Sacto 9-1-1: Arrests made in Roseville after Yes on Proposition 8 signs f... http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/crime/archives/016492 html
1 of 6 9/14/2009 3:23 PM
RR 449
Proposition 8 backers along Misty Creek Drive, off Foothills Boulevard, have started bringing their signs in
at night but recently they also have experienced spray paint vandalism as well as sign theft.
"This has been happening all over Roseville," England said, noting that she has filed two police reports
related to theft of signs from her yard. Her organization recently posted a $1,000 reward for
information leading the arrest of sign thieves and vandals, England said.
Categories: Arrests
Tags: Campaign signs
Posted by Anthony Sorci
Sacto 9-1-1: Arrests made in Roseville after Yes on Proposition 8 signs f... http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/crime/archives/016492 html
2 of 6 9/14/2009 3:23 PM
RR 450

K-34
RR 451
NOW STREAMING: ABC7 News at 5

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- Vandals
spray-painted swastikas on a Catholic
church in San Francisco's Castro
District Saturday night.
It appears the vandals are upset about the
Catholic church's support of Proposition 8,
which made same-sex marriage illegal in
California.
But, the Most Holy Redeemer Catholic
Church on Diamond Street is gay-friendly.
Many parishioners voted against Prop 8
and they are upset their church was
targeted.
Adver t i sement
"We're very disturbed by the hierarchy's
support of the Yes on Eight Campaign.
We've been in conversation with the
bishop, which is the way I think we need to
handle it. I think Catholic teaching shows
us we're all a community and we all need
to talk to one another about it even if we
have disagreements," said Rob Hopckey.
San Francisco Police are investigating the
vandalism.
(Copyright 2009 KGO-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)
Sunday, January 04, 2009 | 7:45 PM
SAN FRANCISCO NEWS
Prop 8 protestors vandalize church
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=...
1 of 1 9/15/2009 8:31 PM
RR 452

K-35
RR 453
Ben & Jerrys Is Happy To Celebrate The
Legalization Of Gay Marriage.
www.BenJerry.com
LA Culinary Arts School
Get your Degree in Le Cordon Bleu
Hospitality & Restaurant Management
lecordonbleuprogram-pasadena.com
A life thrown into turmoil by $100 donation for Prop. 8
By STEVE LOPEZ
December 14, 2008
Margie Christoffersen didn't make it very far into our conversation before she cracked. Chest heaving, tears
streaming, she reached for her husband Wayne's hand and then mine, squeezing as if she'd never let go.
"I've almost had a nervous breakdown. It's been the worst thing that's ever happened to me," she sobbed as curious
patrons at a Farmers Market coffee shop looked on, wondering what calamity had visited this poor woman who's an
honest 6 feet tall, with hair as blond as the sun.
Well, Christoffersen was a manager at El Coyote, the Beverly Boulevard landmark restaurant that's always had
throngs of customers waiting to get inside. Many of them were gay, and Christoffersen, a devout Mormon, donated
$100 in support of Proposition 8, the successful November ballot initiative that banned gay marriage.
She never advertised her politics or religion in the restaurant, but last month her donation showed up on lists of "for"
and "against" donors. And El Coyote became a target.
A boycott was organized on the Internet, with activists trashing El Coyote on restaurant review sites. Then came
throngs of protesters, some of them shouting "shame on you" at customers. The police arrived in riot gear one night
to quell the angry mob.
The mob left, but so did the customers.
Sections of the restaurant have been closed, a manager told me Friday during a very quiet lunch hour. Some of the
89 employees, many of them gay, have had their hours cut and layoffs are looming. And Christoffersen, who has
taken a voluntary leave of absence, is wondering whether she'll ever again be able to work at the landmark
restaurant, which opened in 1931 (at 1st and La Brea) and is owned by her 92-year-old mother.
"It's been so hard," she said, breaking down again.
A lot of customers saw Christoffersen as the face of the restaurant. She was the hostess who roamed from table to
table with a pitcher of water, refilling glasses and schmoozing with friends.
Christoffersen, raised Mormon by her late father, told me she has no problem with gay people.
"I love them like everybody else."
But she supports her church's position that marriage is between a man and a woman.
I, on the other hand, opposed Prop. 8. And as I wrote more than once, I think organized Christian religion reached
new levels of hypocrisy in using the Bible to preach discrimination and promote the initiative.
Related Articles
SAN DIEGO PEOPLE Aug 22,
1989
LOS ANGELES - Restaurateurs
Urge 2-Year Delay in Smoking
Ban Jun 23, 1993
SALSA, CHIPS AND
TCHOTCHKES Jun 10, 2001
Los Angeles Local Guide
Find Local Businesses
Faster & More Easily w/Bing
-the Decision Engine
www.bing.com/Local
Hair Transplant California
Dr. Craig Ziering Specializes
in Hair Loss and Hair
Restoration.
www.zieringmedical.com/LA-clinic
screening
Meet Mormon Singles
Free to Join. 1000's of
Pictures of Beautiful Mormon
Singles
www.LDSPlanet.com

California | Local

A life thrown into turmoil by $100 donation for Prop. 8 - Los Angeles Times http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/14/local/me-lopez14
1 of 2 9/14/2009 1:55 PM
RR 454
Los Angeles Culinary Arts
Get your Degree in Le Cordon Bleu
Hospitality & Restaurant Management
www.BenJerry.com
By STEVE LOPEZ
December 14, 2008
As for the Mormons, I have trouble taking any cues on social mores from a group whose founder and early leaders
believed they were acting on directives from on high when they took enough wives -- many in their teens -- to fill
every booth in the cavernous El Coyote.
But I didn't like what I was hearing about the vilification of Margie Christoffersen and others in California being
targeted for the crime of voting their conscience.
"I agree with you on this," said Fred Karger. On his Californians Against Hate website, Karger has been outing Prop.
8 supporters, but he thinks Christoffersen's small personal donation didn't warrant such a backlash against El
Coyote. Karger also spoke out against the resignation of a Sacramento theater director who gave $1,000 to Yes on
8 and happens to be Mormon.
The focus should be on the Mormon Church, Karger said, and on people and businesses that gave hundreds of
thousands of dollars to Yes on 8. He said he doesn't intend to go back to El Coyote, but he's not supporting an
organized boycott.
Wayne Christoffersen, who is also a manager at El Coyote, is not a Mormon, and he said he doesn't care who
marries whom. But he doesn't think it's right that he and other employees at the restaurant are seeing their
livelihoods threatened. Should Apple be boycotted by Yes on 8 people, he asked, simply because the computer
company donated $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign?
El Coyote has never been known for gourmet cuisine. But the warm, kitschy vibe and cool patio scene have always
been a hit with customers who were willing to wait in long lines under the distinctive neon sign.
Now business is off about 30%, Wayne said. Margie wants to blame it on the economy, because she can't deal with
the alternative. But Wayne insisted the low-priced restaurant is largely recession-proof, and it's the controversy that
has stemmed the flow of margaritas.
Margie tried to smooth things over last month by inviting gay clients to a free lunch to talk it over, but she left in tears
when asked if she would write a check to the group challenging Prop. 8.
She blubbered all over again as she thought back on the last month. She has been a nightly fixture at El Coyote for
two decades, walking to work from her home just a few doors away. It's been her life, she said. And she can't stand
that it's been taken away.
Even if she goes back to work, Wayne said, "she will never, ever be back here on a Thursday night."
Related Articles
SAN DIEGO PEOPLE Aug 22,
1989
LOS ANGELES - Restaurateurs
Urge 2-Year Delay in Smoking
Ban Jun 23, 1993
SALSA, CHIPS AND
Le Cordon Bleu Program
Institute of Culinary Training.
A World Leader in Culinary
Arts
screening
Meet Mormon Singles
Singles
www.LDSPlanet.com
Los Angeles Logistics
Warehousing, Transportation
and Value Added Services.
www.FlexLA.com

California | Local

A life thrown into turmoil by $100 donation for Prop. 8 (page 2) - Los An... http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/14/local/me-lopez14?pg=1
1 of 2 9/14/2009 1:55 PM
RR 455
www.BenJerry.com
Los Angeles Burgers
Los Angeles Businesses Are Easier to
Find on Bing-the Decision Engine
www.bing.com/Local
By STEVE LOPEZ
December 14, 2008
Thursdays, as tradition had it, the place was mobbed with gay customers.
I had lunch at El Coyote on Thursday and the place was quiet, most tables empty. Margie was off in a dark corner of
the restaurant -- at the table where Sharon Tate had her last meal -- exchanging Christmas presents with friends and
her mother. I sat on the patio with Wayne and two other El Coyote managers -- Arnoldo Archila and Bill Schoeppner
-- who happen to be gay.
"We always joked around with Margie," said Schoeppner, who's been on the job 26 years. "I'm a Democrat and
voted for Obama; she probably voted for McCain -- so what? If she were a bigot or a homophobe, you wouldn't have
had all these gay people" working at the restaurant or eating at it.
Besides, the donation was personal. "She didn't cut a check from the restaurant," added Archila, a 28-year
employee. "The restaurant didn't have anything to do with it."
Archila said he and other employees voted no on Prop. 8 and gave money to the legal challenge. As someone who
came to the U.S. 30 years ago from El Salvador, Archila said, he's always cherished this country's right of free
speech and the diversity of opinion.
"You can express yourself as a citizen," said Archila. "Not everyone has to believe the same things."
steve.lopez@latimes.com
LA Culinary Arts School
Get your Degree in Le
Cordon Bleu Hospitality &
Restaurant Management
screening
Meet Mormon Singles
Singles
www.LDSPlanet.com
California Logistics
Warehousing, Transportation
and Value Added Services.
www.FlexLA.com
Multiple Ways to Rasie Money Online Learn From Experts Sign-up Today.

California | Local



A life thrown into turmoil by $100 donation for Prop. 8 (page 3) - Los An... http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/14/local/me-lopez14?pg=2
1 of 1 9/14/2009 1:55 PM
RR 456

K-36
RR 457
ADVERTISEMENT
Major Victory for Prop 8 Protesters
Thursday , December 11, 2008
By Greg Gutfeld
Today, I salute gays for a major civil rights victory:
They forced some old lady to quit her job.
After Proposition 8 passed, angry gays discovered
that Margie Christoffersen who fills pitchers at El
Coyote restaurant in Los Angeles had given cash to
the cause, which restricted the definition of marriage
to include only straights. So they picketed her place of
business with hilarious protest signs until the evil lady
finally resigned.
Now, some might say this is nothing like Rosa Parks
on the bus. But they're wrong. I mean, it takes guts to
ruin some old lady's life just because she supports a
bill based on her silly religious beliefs!
Seriously, if I was there, I would have thrown paint on
her a soft lilac shade, of course.
But why stop there? Now that you banished the old
broad, get your ass down to those other parts of town where you don't brunch and give those blacks and
Mexicans a piece of your mind. And, when you're done, why not the Muslims who are not only against you
marrying, but living too!
Look, I'm all for gay marriage, but just because some folks aren't as enlightened as you are, doesn't mean you
can treat them like poop. No one is going to take you seriously until you protest more seriously. Blacks sat in
restaurants where they weren't welcome and women protested outside the White House for days on end.
But instead of picketing a Cineplex playing a Tyler Perry movie, gays hit a joint in West Hollywood a few blocks
from a busy gay bar.
And to that I say: Comer con gusto!
Greg Gutfeld hosts "Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld" weekdays at 3 a.m. ET. Send your comments to:
redeye@foxnews.com
Click here for FOX News RSS Feeds
Advertise on FOX News Channel, FOXNews.com and FOX News Radio
Jobs at FOX News Channel.
Internships At Fox News (Summer Application Deadline is March 15, 2007)
Terms of use. Privacy Statement. For FOXNews.com comments write to
foxnewsonline@foxnews.com; For FOX News Channel comments write to
comments@foxnews.com
Associated Press. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright 2009 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
All market data delayed 20 minutes.
SEARCH GO
FOXNews.com - Major Victory for Prop 8 Protesters - Red Eye w/ Greg ... http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,465413,00.html
1 of 1 9/14/2009 1:56 PM
RR 458

K-37
RR 459
Galt attorney: Son harassed by teacher over Proposition 8
By Jennifer Bonnett
News-Sentinel Staff Writer
A Galt attorney claims his son is being harassed, even attacked, by a Galt High teacher for his views on
Proposition 8.
Len ReidReynoso, who also sits on the school district's Bond Oversight Committee, said his son, Tarl, has
been teased and even made a public example by Alex Bauer, who teaches economics and advanced
placement American government.
Bauer, who is president of the Galt Federation of Teachers union, said the allegations are false.
"I have not done anything inappropriate," he said in an e-mail, declining to elaborate further.
Additionally, according to a letter sent to Superintendent Tom Gemma on Thursday, ReidReynoso said his
son has been slapped and even received death threats from fellow students because he supports Proposition
8.
The proposition would remove the right for same-sex couples to marry in California. Tarl ReidReynoso does
not support same-sex marriage, according to his father.
ReidReynoso's 17-year-old son was among the contingent last week who protested the California Teachers'
Association's donation to fight against the proposition by staying home from school. Gemma said at that time
the high school received about 30 calls from parents keeping their students home for that reason.
Because of his efforts in helping organize the protest, ReidReynoso said his son was made an example by
Bauer, who allegedly presented to the class an out-of-state court case which states that blocking students
while handing out flyers was not allowed.
Upon reading this case to the class, ReidReynoso said Bauer substituted Tarl's name and other personal
information for the person in the court case.
"This was implying to all of the students present that Tarl, by supporting Proposition 8 and actively taking a
political stand, was a bad person and had done something illegal ... This presentation by an adult teacher was
in poor judgment and may even be itself illegal," he wrote to Gemma.
ReidReynoso, who said he does not plan to explore legal action against Bauer, said his son is not the only
victim. Two parents have contacted him as an attorney to see what their options against on-campus
harassment over Proposition 8 are.
"The parents of these harassed students are afraid to come forward due to fear of retaliation for their
children at Galt High School," he said. "These parents lack confidence that the current administration will
protect their children."
In addition to alleged incidents by Bauer, ReidReynoso said that one of these verbal "assaults" was over a
three-day period and at the hands of a substitute teacher.
It is unclear how the district will handle the issues or if ReidReynono's was the only complaint, and Gemma
was out of the office Thursday.
Printable Version http://lodinews.com/articles/2008/10/31/news/7_harassment_081031.prt
1 of 2 9/14/2009 1:57 PM
RR 460
In his letter, ReidReynoso said Bauer posted his opinions on various political topics on his personal blog and
students are required to respond to the blog in order to earn participation points.
ReidReynoso said he would like a public apology from the teacher for what he calls "pure intimidation" and
assurance from the district that what he terms harassment won't occur in the future.
Contact reporter Jennifer Bonnett at jenniferb@lodinews.com.
Editor's Note: This story was updated at 4:31 p.m. Friday, Oct. 31 to correct the classes that Alex Bauer
teaches.
Printable Version http://lodinews.com/articles/2008/10/31/news/7_harassment_081031.prt
2 of 2 9/14/2009 1:57 PM
RR 461

K-38
RR 462
advert i sement | your ad here
Back t o Art i cl e
The ugly backlash over Proposition 8
John Diaz
Sunday, November 23, 2008
A supporter of Proposition 8, fed up with what he
believed was the gay community's and "liberal
media's" refusal to accept the voters' verdict, fired off a
letter to the editor.
"Please show respect for democracy," he wrote, in a
letter we published.
What he encountered instead was an utter lack of respect for free speech.
Within hours, the intimidation game was on. Because his real name and city were listed - a condition for
publication of letters to The Chronicle - opponents of Prop. 8 used Internet search engines to find the
letter writer's small business, his Web site (which included the names of his children and dog), his phone
number and his clients. And they posted that information in the "Comments" section of SFGate.com -
urging, in ugly language, retribution against the author's business and its identified clients.
"They're intimidating people that don't have the same beliefs as they do ... so they'll be silenced," he told
me last week. "It doesn't bode well for the free-speech process. People are going to have to be pretty damn
courageous to speak up about anything. Why would anyone want to go through this?"
Let the record show that I absolutely disagree with the letter writer on the substance of Prop. 8. I believe
that same-sex couples should have the full rights and responsibilities of marriage. In my view, the
discrimination inherent in Prop. 8 is morally and legally indefensible in a society where the concept of
equal protection is supposed to safeguard the rights of the minority.
But let me also say that I am disturbed by the vicious, highly personalized attacks against the letter writer
and others. Protesters have shouted insults at people headed to worship; temples and churches have been
defaced. "Blacklists" of donors who contributed to Yes on 8 are circulating on the Internet, and even
small-time donors are being confronted. A Palo Alto dentist lost two patients as a result of his $1,000
donation. The artistic director of the California Musical Theatre resigned to spare the organization from a
fast-developing boycott. Scott Eckern, the artistic director of the Sacramento theater group and a
Mormon, had given $1,000 to Yes on 8.
This out-of-scale attempt to isolate and intimidate decidedly small players in the Yes on 8 campaign is no
way to win the issue in a court of law or the court of public opinion.
Equally disappointing is the lack of a forceful denunciation from leaders of the honorable cause of
bringing marriage equality to California. "We achieve nothing if we isolate the people who did not stand
with us in this fight," the No on 8 campaign reminded its coalition in a statement issued after the
election.
The ugly backlash over Proposition 8 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/23/INOQ1471...
1 of 2 9/14/2009 1:59 PM
RR 463
2008 Hearst Communi cat i ons I nc. | Pri vacy Pol i cy | Feedback | RSS Feeds | FAQ | Si t e I ndex | Cont act
Guess what? Certain advocates of the cause are alienating people - and this approach needs to be called
out. Remember, the No on 8 campaign was shouting "blackmail!" at the top of its lungs when the Yes side
sent certified letters to major donors threatening to "out" them in a press release unless they also
contributed to the marriage ban. Of course, that "threat" had a tinge of absurdity. Corporations such as
PG&E, McDonald's and Levi Strauss were not afraid of being "outed" for their association with the
marriage-equality cause. They were well aware that their major donations amounted to a public
statement that might cause them to lose - and gain - customer goodwill.
Opponents of same-sex marriage should not be let off the hook for their post-election tactics. There is
already talk of a recall campaign against California Supreme Court justices if they overturn Prop. 8,
reminiscent of the unsuccessful attempt to oust Chief J ustice Ronald George and J ustice Ming Chin after
they voted to overturn a law that required parental consent for minors to receive an abortion. The
judiciary must not be intimidated in this nation of laws.
Assemblyman Mark Leno, the San Francisco Democrat who wrote a marriage-equality bill that passed
both houses and was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said he does not "defend or rationalize"
overzealous tactics by those on his side. He noted that tumult and emotion have historically defined
moments of momentous social change. "This is a visceral reaction to the fact that, for the first time in U.S.
history, a recognized constitutional right was repealed by a simple majority vote," Leno said.
Time is on the side of marriage equality. Sixty-one percent of voters younger than 30 opposed Prop. 8,
while 61 percent of those older than 65 supported it. Attitudes are changing and will continue to shift as
more and more Americans see that extending the right to same-sex couples is not a threat to traditional
marriage, but an affirmation of its value to society.
Intimidation, through attempts to chill free speech or an independent judiciary, should have no part in
this debate. The leaders on both sides should have the honesty to recognize it within their camps - and
the courage to condemn it.
J ohn Diaz is The Chronicle's editorial page editor. You can e-mail him at jdiaz@sfchronicle.com.
ht t p: / / sfgat e.com/ cgi - bi n/ art i cle.cgi ?f= / c/ a/ 2008/ 11/ 23/ I NOQ147155.DTL
Thi s art icl e appeared on page G - 9 of t he San Francisco Chronicl e
The ugly backlash over Proposition 8 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/23/INOQ1471...
2 of 2 9/14/2009 1:59 PM
RR 464

K-39
RR 465
1 of 1 DOCUMENT
Copyright 2008 VNU Business Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
hollywoodreporter.com
November 25, 2008 Tuesday
SECTION: HOMEPAGE; NEWS
LENGTH: 767 words
HEADLINE: Richard Raddon resigns post
BYLINE: Gregg Goldstein
BODY:
NEW YORK -- In the wake of harsh industry criticism over his $1,500 donation in support of Proposition 8, the
California initiative that banned same-sex marriage, Richard Raddon has resigned as director of the Los Angeles Film
Festival. He had held the post at the fest, run by Film Independent, since 2000.
"I have always held the belief that all people, no matter race, religion or sexual orientation, are entitled to equal
rights. As many know, I consider myself a devout and faithful Mormon," said Raddon, whose donation became public
after gay-rights supporters began scanning lists of political donors. Members of the Mormon Church contributed more
than $20 million toward the "Yes on 8" campaign that helped the proposition pass in a 52%-48% vote this month.
"I prefer to keep the details around my contribution through my church a private matter," Raddon said. "But I am
profoundly sorry for the negative attention that my actions have drawn to Film Independent and for the hurt and pain
that is being experienced in the GLBT community."
The heat surrounding Raddon's contribution has been building for several weeks. Film Independent not only has
several openly gay members on its board but also supports indie filmmaking, with encouraging diversity one of its
stated goals.
When word of Raddon's contribution first surfaced nearly two weeks ago, Film Independent appeared to back its
festival director, saying: "As a champion of diversity, Film Independent is dedicated to supporting the civil rights of all
individuals. At the same time, our organization does not police the personal, religious and political choices of any
employee, member or filmmaker." Several outlets reported at the time that Raddon had offered his resignation but the
group had declined to accept it.
Page 1
RR 466
But Film Independent general counsel Michael Donaldson said Tuesday that Raddon didn't formally offer to resign
until Monday. Donaldson explained that "he was going through a process" involving general discussions and talking to
many of the Film Independent board members.
On Monday afternoon, two emotional conference calls were held among the board members, who debated the
issues involved.
"Generally we've been very happy with Rich, and most if not all of us have been unhappy with Prop 8," said board
member and film director Rodrigo Garcia. "Most have felt that we don't fire people."
Even within the organization, there were questions about whether Raddon had offered an earlier resignation and, if
so, why it had not been accepted.
"Some of us were consulted and some weren't," said one board member who spoke on condition of anonymity.
"There was some question as to why (the resignation) wasn't accepted before."
Added Garcia: "The protests have kept growing. I've also heard rumblings that a lot of our members were
unhappy."
The widespread impression that Film Independent had decided that Raddon should stay led to "a very rough week
and a half," the board member said. "There have been a lot of calls and e-mails, and everyone is extremely opinionated."
Donaldson said that Film Independent executive director Dawn Hudson tried to reach out to all board members
during the past few weeks. Hudson and Raddon did not respond to requests for comment.
On Tuesday, the Film Independent board issued a statement, saying that "with great reluctance" it accepted
Raddon's resignation.
"Rich's service to the independent film community and to Film Independent has been nothing less than
extraordinary," the statement read. "He has always shown complete commitment to our core principles of equality and
diversity during his long tenure."
No immediate replacement was named.
"I'll miss Rich, who was a great film festival director," said Roadside Attractions co-president Howard Cohen, a
member of the LAFF advisory board. "On the other hand, the wife of (Mormon church founder Brigham Young's
descendant) Steve Young came out publicly against Prop 8. Standing behind the church holds no sway with me."
The controversy at LAFF comes amid a rising call in some quarters for boycotts of individuals and businesses that
supported the "Yes on 8" campaign. Some activists have called for a boycott of the Sundance Film Festival because it is
located in the Mormon church's home state of Utah -- or at least a selective boycott of the Holiday Village Cinemas,
used by Sundance, because the theater is owned by the Cinemark chain, whose CEO Alan Stock contributed to the
campaign against same-sex marriage.
No one had called for a boycott of LAFF or Film Independent's Spirit Awards, though some board members
worried about that possibility.
LOAD-DATE: December 1, 2008
Page 2
Richard Raddon resigns post hollywoodreporter.com November 25, 2008 Tuesday
RR 467

K-40
RR 468
Thi s st or y i s t aken fr om Sacbee / Our Regi on
Theat er f el t gr ow i ng pr essur e bef or e ar t i st i c
di r ect or qui t
mcr ow der @sacbee.com
Publ i shed Wednesday, Nov. 12, 2008
The Cal i for ni a Musi cal Theat r e found i t asel f caught i n a dr amat i c confl i ct bet ween fr ee speech
and ci vi l r i ght s, a si t uat i on t hat ul t i mat el y l ed t o t oday's r esi gnat i on of ar t i st i c di r ect or Scot t
Ecker n.
Ecker n qui t t hi s mor ni ng. He became t he t ar get of st r ong cr i t i ci sm aft er i t was l ear ned he
donat ed $1,000 t o t he Pr oposi t i on 8 campai gn t o ban gay mar r i age.
I n an i ndust r y l ong consi der ed gay- fr i endl y and t i ed t o causes such as AI DS r esear ch, Ecker n's
donat i on out r aged t heat er wor ker s acr oss t he count r y.
I n Sacr ament o, a number of t he musi cal t heat er ' s suppor t er s cont act ed The Bee t o r al l y behi nd
t he embat t l ed Ecker n, st at i ng t hat he was now a vi ct i m of i nt ol er ance and per secut i on hi msel f.
Pl aybi l l and ot her medi a have sai d he i ssued an apol ogy and pl ans t o donat e $1,000 t o a
nonpr ofi t commi t t ed t o achi evi ng equal r i ght s for gay, l esbi an, bi sexual and t r ansgender peopl e.
When Tony Awar d- wi nner Mar c Shai man, t he composer of "Hai r spr ay," r ead of Ecker n's donat i on
l ast week, he ur ged ar t i st s and t heat er wor ker s acr oss t he count r y t o boycot t t he t heat er .
On Tuesday, Kel l i e Randl e and a gr oup of l i ke- mi nded fr i ends l aunched
www.suppor t scot t ecker n.bl ogspot .com t o advocat e for Ecker n.
"I t ' s ever yone' s Fi r st Amendment r i ght t o cont r i but e t o t he causes t hey bel i eve i n and voi ce t hei r
pol i t i cal choi ce," Randl e sai d. To show t he abuse agai nst Ecker n, Randl e's si t e l i nks t o t he Cl yde
Fi t ch Repor t , one of numer ous bl ogs now wei ghi ng i n on t he debat e.
"I 'm so enr aged at t he hypocr i sy of t he No on 8 communi t y. I coul d car e l ess how he vot ed on
any i ssue. I t 's about what he does i n hi s j ob. Thi s i s per secut i on," Randl e sai d.
Ot her communi t y member s, i ncl udi ng Ki t t y Wi l son of Cur t i s Par k, echoed t hi s sent i ment .
"Befor e any gay per son t al ks about bl ackl i st i ng anyone i n t heat er , I 'l l r emi nd t hem what
McCar t hy's bl ackl i st di d t o t he ent i r e ent er t ai nment i ndust r y," Wi l son sai d.
The i dea of a bl ackl i st and boycot t have gr own fr om Shai man's post i ngs and e- mai l s. The
composer , who i s openl y gay, sai d he r ead about Ecker n's cont r i but i on t o t he campai gn on t he
Web si t e www.dat al ounge.com, and he fel t he had t o do somet hi ng.
"I was so shocked. I ' m deal i ng mysel f wi t h bei ng l egal l y di scr i mi nat ed agai nst , and t hen come t o
Theater felt growing pressure before artistic director quit - Sacramento N... http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/v-print/story/1390297.html
1 of 2 9/14/2009 3:14 PM
RR 469
fi nd out , I hel ped put money i n hi s pocket t hat hel ped get t hi s pr oposi t i on passed," Shai man sai d
i n a t el ephone i nt er vi ew.
Shai man sent an e- mai l whi ch has r ever ber at ed t hr ough t he nat i onal t heat er communi t y and
backed t he CMT' s l eader s i nt o t he unusual posi t i on of doi ng damage cont r ol . He wr ot e he
woul dn' t al l ow hi s wor k t o be done at Cal i for ni a Musi cal Theat r e, and t heat er wor ker s ar ound t he
count r y have fol l owed hi s l ead.
"No one shoul d be sur pr i sed i n 2008 at how fast i nfor mat i on can be spr ead, and t hat ' s of cour se
a doubl ed- edged swor d," Shai man sai d.
Susan Egan, st ar of "Thor oughl y Moder n Mi l l i e" and "Cabar et ," fol l owed wi t h a si mi l ar e- mai l .
Theat er pr ofessi onal s fl ooded CMT' s offi ces over t he weekend wi t h phone cal l s and e- mai l s
decr yi ng Ecker n' s act i ons.
I n a st at ement r el eased Monday, CMT execut i ve pr oducer Ri char d Lewi s sai d: "Any pol i t i cal
act i on or t he opi ni on of Scot t Ecker n i s not shar ed by Cal i for ni a Musi cal Theat r e. We have a l ong
hi st or y of appr eci at i on for t he LGBT communi t y and ar e t r ul y gr at eful for t hei r l ongst andi ng
suppor t ."
New Yor k t al ent agent Chr i s Ni chol s, who negot i at ed t hr ee of t he four cont r act s for t he act or s
empl oyed i n CMT's "For ever Pl ai d" at t he Cosmopol i t an Cabar et i n Sacr ament o, sai d New Yor k i s
wat chi ng t he si t uat i on cl osel y.
"I woke up t o Susan Egan' s e- mai l Monday mor ni ng and have r ecei ved t hat e- mai l 11 t i mes i n
l ess t han 48 hour s," Ni chol s sai d. "I woul d say t he i ndust r y i s buzzi ng. I t ook no l ess t han hal f a
dozen phone cal l s fr om cl i ent s t oday who ar e wor ki ng i n var i ous t heat er s acr oss t he count r y
aski ng i f i t was t r ue."
Fr ank Schuber t , t he l ocal campai gn manager for Yes on Pr op. 8, wr ot e a l et t er of suppor t for
Ecker n on Tuesday, faxi ng i t t o al l of CMT's boar d member s.
"Mr . Ecker n unfor t unat el y i s t he vi ct i m of what appear s t o be a syst emat i c at t empt t o har ass and
i nt i mi dat e anybody who had t he cour age t o st and up and suppor t t r adi t i onal mar r i age," Schuber t
sai d by phone. "Ther e's not hi ng about suppor t i ng t r adi t i onal mar r i age whi ch i s ant i - gay."
Shai man hopes t he epi sode l eads t o bet t er under st andi ng of gay peopl e.
"I l ove God. And t hi s i s how God made me," he sai d. "How peopl e can say t hi s i s a choi ce? Unl ess
you ar e you don't know."
Shar eThi s
Call The Bee's Mar cus Cr owder , ( 916) 321- 1120.
Buzz up!
Theater felt growing pressure before artistic director quit - Sacramento N... http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/v-print/story/1390297.html
2 of 2 9/14/2009 3:14 PM
RR 470

K-41
RR 471
Rel at ed To St ory
Jorge Riley
RECALL EFFORT
Vi deo: St udent Leader Defends Support Of
Prop. 8
Resour ce: Ameri can River Coll ege
Compl et e Cover age
KCRA.com
St ud ent Lead er s Face Recal l Ov er Pr op. 8
Council Endorsed Measure On Sept. 30
POSTED: 5:56 am PDT October 21, 2008
UPDATED: 8:31 am PDT October 21, 2008
SACRAMENTO, Ca lif. -- Several student government
leaders at American River College are facing a recall vote
today and Wednesday after they supported Proposition 8, a
statewide ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriage.
The American River College Student Council voted 8-3 on
Sept. 30 to endorse Prop. 8. Three members of the council
abstained.
Supporters of gay marriage responded by launching the
recall effort.
Prop. 8, which is on the Nov. 4 ballot, defines marriage as
being between a man and woman.
J orge Riley, one of the student leaders facing recall, on Tuesday defended his earlier endorsement of
Prop. 8.
"We definitely want to stand up against things that take away from family values in our community,"
Riley said.
Student Cassendra Smith said she supports Prop. 8, but added that she feels the leaders should not
have taken their stand without discussing the issue more to fellow students.
"They didn't have the right to go out and just be the big voice like that," Smith said. "They should have
kind of talked a bit more to the school."
"This is a decision made by students, and it's a stance that they wanted to take," added Phil Sander,
campus life coordinator. "Would I have done it? No. But, you know, as a student government, I believe
that they believe that that was something they needed to do, right or wrong."
Voter turnout among students at the campus is usually very low. Only about 1 percent of students took
part in the election to elect the leaders in the first place.
American River College is a state-funded two-year community college and is part of the Los Rios
Community College District.
Pr evio u s St o r ies :
October 20, 2008: Sheriff: Prop. 8 Signs Being Stolen, Burned
Student Leaders Face Recall Over Prop. 8 - Print This Story News Story ... http://www.kcra.com/print/17768622/detail.html
1 of 2 9/14/2009 2:03 PM
RR 472
October 19, 2008: Survey: Race For Prop. 8 'Essentially Tied'
October 16, 2008: AdWatch: Vote 'No' On Prop. 8 Ad Examined
October 16, 2008: AdWatch: Vote 'Yes' On Prop. 8 Ad Examined
October 15, 2008: Poll: Asian-Americans Oppose Gay Marriage Ban
October 14, 2008: Priest Loses J ob Over Prop. 8 Stand
October 13, 2008: Gay Couples Rush To Wed Before Election
Student Leaders Face Recall Over Prop. 8 - Print This Story News Story ... http://www.kcra.com/print/17768622/detail.html
2 of 2 9/14/2009 2:03 PM
RR 473

K-42
RR 474
Sa t u r d a y, Nov. 15, 20 0 8
What Happens If You're on Gay
Rights' 'Enemies List'
By Alis on St a t e ma n / Los An ge le s
Ever since a slim majority outlawed gay marriage in California, opponents have waged national protests
and petitions, urging the judicial system to reconsider the results of the Nov. 4 referendum. (Proposition
8 overturned an earlier decision by the California Supreme Court that legalized same-sex marriage.)
While the court weighs whether or not to get back into the fray, the civil unrest ignited by the ban shows
no sign of abating. A national protest against Prop. 8 organized by J oinTheImpact.com is scheduled for
today. The Church of J esus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which opponents say donated more than $20
million to the Yes on 8 campaign, has already become a focus of protests, with demonstrators gathered
around Mormon temples not only in California but across the country.
The Mormon Church is not the only group being singled out for criticism. African Americans, 70% of
whom voted yes on Prop. 8, according to a CNN exit poll, have become a target. According to eyewitness
reports published on the Internet, racial epithets have been used against African Americans at protests
in California with some even directed at blacks who are fighting to repeal Prop. 8. Said Evan Wolfson,
executive director of nonprofit group Freedom to Marry: "In any fight, there will be people who say
things they shouldn't say, but that shouldn't divert attention from what the vast majority are saying
against this, that it's a terrible injustice." (See the Top 10 ballot measures.)
In addition to the protests, gay rights activists have begun publishing lists online exposing individuals
and organizations that have donated money in support of Prop. 8. On AntiGayBlacklist.com, individuals
who gave money toward Prop. 8 are publicized, and readers are urged not to patronize their businesses
or services. The list of donors was culled from data on ElectionTrack.com, which follows all contributions
of $1,000 and more and all contributions of more than $100 given before Oct. 17. Dentists, accountants,
veterinarians and the like who gave a few thousand dollars to the cause are listed alongside major
donors like the Container Supply Company Inc. of Garden Grove, which gave $250,000. "Anyone who
steps into a political fight aimed at taking away fundamental rights from fellow citizens opens
themselves up to criticism," said Wolfson. "The First Amendment gives them the right of freedom of
speech and to support political views, but people also have the right to criticize them."
Even before the passage of Prop. 8, the group Californians Against Hate compiled and published a
"dishonor roll" of individuals (and their company affiliations) who gave $5,000 or more in support of the
measure. Phone numbers and websites were added, along with commentary about some of the larger
donors, all public information obtained through the California secretary of state's office. "My goal was to
make it socially unacceptable to give huge amounts of money to take away the rights of one particular
group, a minority group," says Fred Karger, a retired political consultant and founder of Californians
What Happens If You're on Gay Rights' 'Enemies List' -- Printout -- TIME http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1859323,00.html
2 of 3 9/14/2009 3:12 PM
RR 475
Click to Print
Against Hate. "I wanted to make the public aware of who these people are and how much they're giving,
and then they could make a decision as to whether or not they want to patronize their businesses."
The negative publicity is having an effect on both companies and individuals. Scott Eckern, artistic
director of the California Musical Theatre in Sacramento, whose $1,000 donation was listed on
ElectionTrack, chose to resign from his post this week to protect the theater from public criticism. Karger
says a "soft boycott" his group had started against Bolthouse Farms which gave $100,000 to Prop. 8
was dropped after he reached a settlement with the company. Bolthouse Farms was to give an equal
amount of money to gay rights political causes. The amount ultimately equaled $110,000.
Meanwhile, lists of donors to Prop. 8, once trumpeted on the Yes on 8 website, have been taken down to
protect individuals from harassment. "It's really awful," says Frank Schubert, campaign manager for Yes
on 8. "No matter what you think of Proposition 8, we ought to respect people's right to participate in the
political process. It strikes me as quite ironic that a group of people who demand tolerance and who
claim to be for civil rights are so willing to be intolerant and trample on other people's civil rights."
See TIME's Pictures of the Week.
See the Cartoons of the Week.
Fin d t h is a r t icle a t :
http:/ / www.time.com/ time/ nation/ article/ 0,8599,1859323,00.html
Copyright 2009 Time Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Privacy Policy | Add TIME Headlines to your Site | Contact Us | Customer Service
What Happens If You're on Gay Rights' 'Enemies List' -- Printout -- TIME http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1859323,00.html
3 of 3 9/14/2009 3:12 PM
RR 476

K-43
RR 477
latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-boycott10-2008dec10,0,2703213.story
latimes.com
Editorial
Prop. 8 -- boycott, or blacklist?
Shunning businesses is one thing; intimidation crosses the line.
December 10, 2008
Gays and lesbians -- at least some of them -- plan to refrain
from working and shopping today as an expression of their
dismay over Proposition 8, the Nov. 4 measure that banned
same-sex marriage, and as a showing of both their economic
clout and their place within the larger community. If organizers
carry it off, this is exactly the kind of tactic that can make a
difference, though its impact might have been bigger before
election day.
For all the complaints (mainly coming from the Yes-on-8
campaign), boycotts against corporations or organizations are a
time-honored method of expressing opinions and pushing for
social or political change. But in the superheated Proposition 8
debate, this venerable tactic has occasionally been used in ugly
ways.
It started when the directors of the Yes-on-8 campaign sent letters to various companies that had donated to
the opposition camp. The missives warned donors to pay an equal amount to the "Yes" side or risk being
publicly outed as opponents of "traditional marriage" (the implication being that they would then face a
boycott). The tactic looked and quacked a lot like extortion. It's one thing to boycott, or threaten it; a demand
for hush money goes over the line.
Since then, postelection boycott efforts by the other side -- defenders of same-sex marriage -- have expanded
into a vengeful campaign against individuals who donated to the gay-marriage ban, usually in the form of
pressure on their employers. At least two people have resigned from their jobs and a third is considering it,
including the artistic director of a stage company in Sacramento and a manager at an L.A. eatery.
As much as we abhorred Proposition 8, there's nothing to cheer about when private individuals are afraid to
donate to the political campaigns of their choice because it may cost them their livelihood. In the case of
Scott Eckern, who resigned from the California Musical Theatre in Sacramento, the future of the nonprofit
company was at stake after some artists refused to work with him. But what if that situation were reversed
and Eckern were targeted because he opposed Proposition 8? Or because he was gay? Professionals have to
look past their personal and political differences or everyone with an opinion will be on an official list of
undesirables.
The line between boycott and blacklist can be imprecise. Owners and officers of companies aren't just private
Prop. 8 -- boycott, or blacklist? - latimes.com http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-boycott10-2008d...
1 of 2 9/14/2009 2:05 PM
RR 478
individuals; they must accept that their political actions will reflect on the organizations they head and act
accordingly. But a heated debate about a basic right -- in this case, the right to marry whom one chooses --
must also consider the rights of citizens to vote and donate without intimidation.
Copyright 2009, The Los Angeles Times
Prop. 8 -- boycott, or blacklist? - latimes.com http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-boycott10-2008d...
2 of 2 9/14/2009 2:05 PM
RR 479

K-44
RR 480
C
SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 13, 2008
Play CBS Video The Fight Against Prop 8
Supporters of same sex marriage have
started posting the names and businesses of
those who gave money in support of
Proposition 8. John Blackstone reports.
Supporters of same-sex marriage rally in
San Francisco. (CBS)
Pr op . 8 An ge r Sp u r s Don or Bla cklis t s
CBS Evening News: Online Donor Lists Prompt Boycotts Of Same-Sex
Marriage Ban Supporters
By John Blackstone
(CBS) For supporters of same-sex marriage, the Election
Day loss in California seems to be energizing their
campaign rather than ending it.
Demonstrations against Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex
marriage, have been growing, CBS News correspondent
John Blackstone reports.
Now the anger is moving to the Internet, where supporters
of same-sex marriage are posting blacklists - the names and
businesses of those who gave money to help Proposition 8
pass.
Chris Lee, an engineer who is an immigrant from China,
was shocked to see his name on the Web site
AntiGayBlacklist.com after he gave $1,000 to the campaign
to end same-sex marriage.
"I was completely disgusted," Li said. "This sort of blacklist
should only appear in communist countries, should not be
found in the United States."
In Los Angeles, demonstrators called for a boycott of a
restaurant whose manager made a personal donation of
$100 to the "Yes on 8" campaign.
"She didn't think it would be public record," said Jeff Yarbrough.
Anger over the blacklists brought out demonstrators in Sacramento, where Scott Eckern resigned as
musical director of a local theater when he was identified as a donor.
Prop. 8 Anger Spurs Donor Blacklists - CBS Evening News - CBS News http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/13/eveningnews/main4601227....
1 of 2 9/14/2009 2:06 PM
RR 481
While it isn't clear who is behind the blacklisting Web sites, political donations are public record and
publishing them is legal. But this campaign is making even many supporters of same-sex marriage
uncomfortable.
"I understand the anger, but I think we need to channel it," said Molly McKay of Marriage Equality
USA. "Into conversations, into moving forward because, you know again, hate vs. hate produces more
hate."
Those campaigning to end same-sex marriage drew up their own blacklist, sending letters to large
donors to the campaign to save same-sex marriage, demanding equal money or threatening to publish
their names.
The Internet has made open political financing even more open - and perhaps more intimidating.
MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Prop. 8 Anger Spurs Donor Blacklists - CBS Evening News - CBS News http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/13/eveningnews/main4601227....
2 of 2 9/14/2009 2:06 PM
RR 482

K-45
RR 483
1 of 1 DOCUMENT
Copyright 2008 MediaNews Group, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin (Ontario, CA)
November 15, 2008 Saturday
SECTION: NEWS
LENGTH: 396 words
HEADLINE: Proposition 8 passage inspires protests; proponents claim intimidation
BYLINE: Lori Consalvo, Staff Writer
BODY:
The 2008 election has come and gone, but the strong feelings about Proposition 8 have not subsided.
Those who opposed the ballot measure have been holding protests and rallies throughout the state - and even the
nation - since its passage.
But supporters of the measure, which eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry in California and provided
that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid, say enough is enough.
"I think they're poor losers," said Jan Gurley of Upland about those who are protesting the measure's passage.
Proposition 8 passed 52 percent to 48 percent.
"The numbers were overwhelming," Gurley said. "It is still not being laid to rest."
In the days since the election, opponents of Proposition 8 have gathered in front of churches and walked down
streets in California advocating for equal rights.
But the protests have gone too far, said Meg Waters, spokeswoman for the Yes on 8 Campaign.
The artistic director of a musical-theater company in Sacramento resigned amid protests that began when it was
revealed that he financially supported the measure, picketers have harassed restaurant owners who supported
Proposition 8 in Los Angeles, and others have been beaten up for their support in Carlsbad, she said.
"Harassing phone calls, intimidation, it just goes on and on and on," she said.
Waters was part of a news conference on Friday in Orange County that addressed the recent protests.
"We understand they have a right to protest and a right to file lawsuits," she said. "But they don't have a right to
harass and intimidate and use violence against people they disagree with."
Page 1
RR 484
Supporters will "vigorously defend" any lawsuits filed "in a peaceful and respectful way," Waters said.
"There was a call by many pastors for continued respect with the other side," she said. "We can disagree with the
other side, but we should still respect them. And we ask that we receive respect from their side as well."
As he hears about continued protests and talk of lawsuits, Chino Hills resident Kenn Rasmussen said this is the best
thing that could happen to the "Yes people."
"Our case is made. They have proven they are an angry, revengeful group," he said.
Rasmussen and other supporters know there is a possibility the vote could be overturned, but he said he would
rather see it done in a civil way.
"If they want to do it, let's have another election," he said.
GRAPHIC:
LOAD-DATE: November 16, 2008
Page 2
Proposition 8 passage inspires protests; proponents claim intimidation Inland Valley Daily Bulletin (Ontario, CA)
November 15, 2008 Saturday
RR 485

K-46
RR 486
Local VoIP Business Phone
Get All-Digital Phones & Premium
Features w/ Phone Service from 8x8.
www.get8x8.com
Proposition 8 protesters target businesses
By Tami Abdollah, and Cara Mia DiMassa,
November 14, 2008
More than a week after the passage of Proposition 8, activists opposed to the ban on gay marriage have shifted
their protests to new arenas -- using boycotts to target businesses and individuals who contributed to the winning
side.
The effect of the boycotts remains unclear. Merchants said that the overall poor economy made it difficult to tell
whether their businesses were declining specifically because of the threats. But the protests have been highly
visible and have drawn strong objections from backers of the initiative.
"No matter your opinion of Proposition 8, we should all agree that it is wrong to intimidate and harass churches,
businesses and individuals for participating in the democratic process," Ron Prentice, of ProtectMarriage.com, said
in a statement. Boycotters were "unabashedly trampling on the rights of others," he said.
Activists behind the boycott effort argue they are simply exercising their political rights.
"People are determining who their friends are, and who are not their friends," said Fred Karger, a Los Angeles
resident and retired political consultant. "I think people need to be held accountable for their financial support."
The activists have pored though campaign contribution databases and then "outed" Proposition 8 donors on sites
like Facebook.com and craigslist.com. "People are going to do what they want, and it's in this society where you
have campaign reporting that is all public information," said Karger.
Some gay rights activists also have gone onto the restaurant website yelp.com, giving bad reviews to eateries
linked to the Yes on 8 movement.
"This one star is for their stance on Prop. 8," one poster wrote of El Coyote Mexican Cafe. "Enjoy it. . . . You
deserve it."
Hundreds of protesters converged on El Coyote on Beverly Boulevard on Wednesday night, and the picketing got so
heated that LAPD officers in riot gear had to be called.
All because Marjorie Christoffersen, a manager there and a daughter of El Coyote's owner, had contributed $100 to
the Yes on 8 campaign.
Christoffersen, who is Mormon, met with protesters Wednesday and at one point broke down in tears, said Arnoldo
Archila, another El Coyote manager. But the activists were not satisfied with her explanation and continued to post
protests about her on the Web.
Related Articles
Residents Discuss Coyote
Problems With Animal Control
Staff Nov 16, 1993
Meeting Called Over Increasing
Coyote Threat Nov 13, 1993
SALSA, CHIPS AND
Paid Campaign
Director
Make a difference on
human rights and
environmental issues.
Apply Now
www.FundForThePublicInterest.org
Telemarketing Services
Free Quotes from
Multiple Vendors
Compare
Telemarketing Firms
www.BuyerZone.com/Telemarketing
Meet Bob McDonnell
Best Leader for
Virginia. Learn More.
Raise Money Like
Obama
Money Online Learn
From Experts Sign-up
Today.

California | Local

Proposition 8 protesters target businesses - Los Angeles Times http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/14/local/me-boycott14
1 of 2 9/14/2009 3:03 PM
RR 487
Explore Paul Krugman's
favorite sites and blogs. Subscribe
today on Google Reader.
www.google.com/powerreaders
November 14, 2008
"She had a chance to make nice and blew it. I was almost feeling a tiny bit of sympathy for her. Not no more!!" wrote
one blog poster, who also listed competing Mexican restaurants where diners should go instead of El Coyote.
By Thursday, Christoffersen had left town, said Archila, who said El Coyote employees -- some of whom are gay --
were left staggered by the protests, including more than 50 calls a day criticizing the restaurant.
"We are all a family," Archila said. "If this is going to affect the business, its going to affect them. There are people
who have to feed children and pay mortgages."
Some activists are now turning their attention to Texas-based Cinemark, one of America's largest theater chains,
whose chief executive contributed nearly $10,000 to Yes on 8.
A prolonged protest could cause trouble for the Sundance Film Festival, which uses Cinemark screens to show
movies during the January event in Park City, Utah. The state of Utah is a focus of some boycotts because the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which has its headquarters there, marshaled millions of dollars in
contributions from its members for the Yes on 8 campaign.
Brooks Addicott, a spokeswoman for the Sundance Institute, said the festival received about 100 e-mails over the
last few week, many of which had the same text, but it appeared that the efforts had peaked.
"Our position is that we have a festival that is essentially three months away," Addicott said. "We are committed to
having our 25th festival; it's a celebration for us. We would be incredibly disappointed if people decided not to come
because of a boycott."
Officials at Cinemark did not return calls for comment.
Gay marriage activists had been targeting some Yes on 8 donors well before the Nov. 4 election. In July, Karger
started the website Californians Against Hate, which lists a "dishonor roll" detailing more than 800 donations of
$5,000 or more to the Yes on 8 campaign. He said the site was getting 300 to 350 hits a day before the election.
Now, it's receiving an average of 7,500 hits daily.
Californians Against HateOne business affected by the campaign is Lassen's, a family-owned chain of nine health
food stores throughout California, from Bakersfield to Thousand Oaks. Lassen's owners gave $27,500 to the Yes
on 8 campaign.
Scott Parvel, general manager of the Ventura store, said the contribution was a "private donation" by family
members who are Mormon.
Related Articles
Staff Nov 16, 1993
SALSA, CHIPS AND
Wall Street Journal
Wall Street Journal
Free Delivery & 4
Weeks Free
www.wallstreetjournal.com
How to make electricity
A shocking secret
electric co's don't want
you to know
www.Power4Home.com
Visit La
Visit Los Angeles: 40
Sights One Low Price.
Save up to 35%!
SmartDestinations.com/LosAngeles
Newspaper Nat'l
Network
NNN: We Make
Newspapers National
One Stop Access to
Major USA Papers
nnnlp.com

California | Local

Proposition 8 protesters target businesses (page 2) - Los Angeles Times http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/14/local/me-boycott14?pg=1
1 of 2 9/14/2009 3:06 PM
RR 488
Local VoIP Business Phone
Get All-Digital Phones & Premium
Features w/ Phone Service from 8x8.
www.get8x8.com
November 14, 2008
But No on 8 supporters listed their stores along with many others on websites, urging a boycott.
Since the election, the stores have received angry calls about Proposition 8 as well as comments from customers.
"They have a right to their views, but they should take it up with the person who did it, not the people who work here.
. . . We're providing a business, that's all we do," said Parvel, who has worked for the company since 2001.
Robert Hoehn was another person who made Karger's "dishonor roll." Hoehn, vice president of the Carlsbad-based
Hoehn Motors, gave $25,000 of his own money to the Yes on 8 campaign in February. And he called what followed
"a really, really ugly experience."
Hoehn said that most of the campaign against him came before the vote, when he received "dozens and dozens and
dozens" of phone calls and his Honda dealership was picketed. Since the proposition passed, he said, he has
received a few "vitriolic messages and phone calls."
Next time, he said, he will be "smarter" about how he gives such a donation, possibly in a way that doesn't require
listing his business. "I wouldn't not do it because of fear," he said. "I am not ashamed of it, but it has been a very
educational experience."
Despite the criticism, activists say they plan to continue applying pressure. "It doesn't matter if it's the CEO or if it's
the hostess that greets you at El Coyote. It really makes no difference," said Gerry Moylan, 47, a Los Angeles
Realtor who planned a night of picketing in front of the restaurant Thursday.
"If I'm going to eat dinner at El Coyote and part of my money is going to pay the hostess' pay and she turns around
and uses her pay to promote a proposition that takes away my rights, then I'm going to stop paying my money to
her."
Abdollah and DiMassa are Times staff writers.
tami.abdollah@latimes.com
cara.dimassa@latimes.com
Related Articles
Staff Nov 16, 1993
SALSA, CHIPS AND
Paid Campaign
Director
Apply Now! Run
grassroots campaigns
for health care reform.
www.FundForThePublicInterest.org
Telemarketing Services
Free Quotes from
Multiple Vendors
Compare
Telemarketing Firms
www.BuyerZone.com/Telemarketing
McDonnell for
Governor
Bob 4 Jobs Contribute
Now!
Raise Money Like
Obama
Money Online Learn
From Experts Sign-up
Today.

California | Local

Proposition 8 protesters target businesses (page 3) - Los Angeles Times http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/14/local/me-boycott14?pg=2
1 of 2 9/14/2009 3:06 PM
RR 489

K-47
RR 490
Rel at ed To St ory
KCRA.com
Pr op . 8 Op ponen t s Pr ot est I ce Cr eam Par l or
Family-Run Creamery Gave Thousands To 'Yes
on 8' Campaign
POSTED: 4:14 pm PST November 16, 2008
UPDATED: 11:18 am PST November 17, 2008
SACRAMENTO, Ca lif. -- Opponents of Proposition 8, an
amendment to ban same-sex marriage in California, gave
out free ice cream Sunday in protest of a Sacramento
family-run ice cream parlor.
About a dozen protesters rallied outside Leatherby's Family
Creamery with signs and free rainbow sherbet.
Owner Alan Leatherby, his business and his relatives gave a total of $20,000 supporting the "Yes on
8" campaign, which worked to get the measure passed.
"I think that providing people with information is never a bad thing to do -- make an informed choice
about where they are spending their money," said Rachel Gregg, who's opposed to Proposition 8.
A crowd also lined up out the door of Leatherby's to show their support for the ice cream parlor.
"We've had people drive in from Auburn," Leatherby said. "It's nice to have friends, it really is."
Pr evio u s St o r ies :
November 13, 2008: Prop. 8 Opponents Host Staged Protest
November 13, 2008: Gay Activists Divided On Protest Tactics
November 12, 2008: Artistic Director Resigns Amid Prop. 8 Boycott
Prop. 8 Opponents Protest Ice Cream Parlor - Print This Story News Story... http://www.kcra.com/print/17994183/detail.html
1 of 1 9/14/2009 2:08 PM
RR 491

K-48
RR 492
See a sample reprint in PDF format. Order a reprint of this article now
DECEMBER 27, 2008
Dow Jones Reprints: This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or
customers, use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or visit www.djreprints.com
Gay Activists Boycott Backers of Prop 8
By JIM CARLTON
LOS ANGELES -- Soon after California' s passage of a initiative banning same-sex marriage last month, dozens of gay
activists descended on the El Coyote restaurant with signs and placards. They chanted "Shame on you," cussed at
patrons and began a boycott of the cafe.
The restaurants' s crime: A daughter of the owner donated $100 to support Proposition 8, the antigay-marriage
initiative approved by voters. Gay activists have refused to lift the boycott -- which restaurant managers say has slashed
revenues by 30% -- even after some El Coyote employees raised $500 to help repeal the new ban.
The boycotters have demanded that the owner' s daughter, El Coyote manager Marjorie Christoffersen, pony up $100 to
help repeal Prop 8. She tearfully declined, citing her Mormon faith, during a raucous meeting with activists. "You are
not my friend if you take my civil rights," one activist shouted before she fled the room.
In the first days after California voters reinstated the ban on Nov. 4, activists vented much of their anger in protests at
Mormon and other churches that had advocated Prop 8. But they soon shifted to a new tack: compiling Internet
blacklists of businesses like El Coyote, where top officials or one or more employees were found from public disclosures
to have donated to the "Yes on 8" campaign.
The idea is to use gay-spending power to punish businesses the activists say discriminate against gays' right to get
married. Among the dozens of businesses now being targeted for boycotts are hotels, fast-food chains and dental
offices.
So far, the boycott campaign has claimed at least two high-profile casualties: Scott Eckern, artistic director of the
California Musical Theatre in Sacramento, and Richard Raddon, president of the Los Angeles Film Festival. Both men
resigned after their private donations to Yes on 8 were revealed and activists threatened boycotts unless they quit.
Mr. Eckern and Mr. Raddon were members of the Church of J esus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose members
accounted for much of the $40 million in contributions raised by the Yes on 8 campaign. "The main finger we are
pointing is at the Mormon Church," says Vic Gerami, a leading gay activist in West Hollywood, Calif.
Some gay-rights advocates say they don' t agree with the boycotts. "We need to get it together. I mean, gang, we lost,"
Dana Miller, a gay television producer from Los Angeles, wrote in a Nov. 24 column in the gay magazine, In Los
Angeles.
Leaders of the gay-marriage movement say they don' t endorse hurting people' s livelihoods, but understand why some
people would. "I am not going to support a business that will not support my rights," says San Francisco Mayor Gavin
Newsom, who gained national attention for allowing same-sex marriages in his city in 2004.
Some legal experts say the boycotts raise issues about the civil liberties of people who are targeted. In most cases,
individuals can boycott anyone they want for almost any reason so long as they aren' t representing a government
institution, says Vikram Amar, associate dean of the University of California at Davis School of Law. But if the boycotts
include defamatory comments that are untrue, Mr. Amar said, the target of the boycott could have grounds for a
Gay Activists Boycott Backers of Prop 8 - WSJ.com http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB123033766467736451.html#printMode
1 of 2 9/14/2009 2:09 PM
RR 493
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A3
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law.
For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit
www.djreprints.com
lawsuit.
"If I am just outing you because you are a Proposition 8 supporter, there is nothing the law can do," said Mr. Amar.
In compiling blacklists, activists say they have tried to make sure a business really belongs on one. They decided not to
target a law firm in Los Angeles after learning that only one of the partners had donated to Yes on 8 and that the firm
employed many gay attorneys, says David Stern, publisher of Frontiers Magazine, a gay publication in Los Angeles.
But the fact that many of the El Coyote' s 89 employees are gay didn' t spare that establishment. The cafe also has long
served as a gay hangout, which is why boycott organizers say they chose to target it after they discovered Ms.
Christoffersen' s donation."It just hit too close to home," Mr. Gerami says.
The restaurant invited activists to a free brunch on Nov. 12 and Ms. Christoffersen read them an apology. "I am sick at
heart that I have offended anyone in the gay community," the 67-year-old manager told a few dozen activists in the
colorfully decorated cafe. The meeting turned ugly when she refused to renounce her support of the gay-marriage ban.
"I can' t change a lifetime of faith in which I believe in very deeply," she said.
Boisterous street protests erupted that night, prompting a sharp slowdown of El Coyote' s business. While the protests
have died down, the restaurant has been assailed since in online reviews.
"It' s a lynch mob," says Carl Bell, 77 years old, a retired Hollywood animator who dined there on a recent afternoon.
"I' m ashamed of the gay community."
At first, Ms. Christoffersen stayed away, but then returned to the cafe when the protests faded. "Tons of people have
called or come in to show their support, and that has been gratifying," she said at the El Coyote on a recent evening,
when several tables remained empty.
Boycotters offer little sympathy, and some even suggest they won' t go back unless she quits. "Marjorie," says Mr.
Gerami, "has the key to make things better."
Wr it e t o J im Carlton at jim.carlton@wsj.com
Gay Activists Boycott Backers of Prop 8 - WSJ.com http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB123033766467736451.html#printMode
2 of 2 9/14/2009 2:09 PM
RR 494

K-49
RR 495

Advertisement
Colon Cleansing Real
Or Fake?
See our special
investigative report on
popular Colon
Cleansing products and
th i lt
Jeanette Lost 47lbs
WIth 1 Old Rule
Jeanette cut 47lbs of
fat in 1 month. Read
her journey from start
to finish. Learn More
Potomac Moms! Lose
47lbs, Follow 1 Rule!
See how to cut down
47lbs of stomach fat by
obeying 1 old rule.
Learn More

Powered by


Prop 8 foes turn to 'blacklist' tactics
By William M. Welch, USA TODAY
LOS ANGELES After losing on Election Day, some supporters of gay marriage are using economic boycotts and Internet lists to
focus ire on the financial backers of Proposition 8.
Some on the receiving end say the tactic amounts to a blacklist, a term that conjures memories of Hollywood's refusal to hire
screenwriters and others identified as communists in the late 1940s and 1950s.
"I just hate being pigeonholed as a hate monger or bigot," says Robert Hoehn, who contributed $25,000 to the campaign for Prop 8,
which amended California's Constitution to exclude same-sex marriage. "I have friends in the gay community, and I don't think any of
them would say that."
Hoehn has seen protesters outside his Carlsbad, Calif., car dealerships, his name and business have appeared on websites publicizing
donors, and he has received "the most vitriolic kinds of e-mails, letters and phone calls."
His discomfort is exactly what some have in mind.
"I want to make it a little hot for these people," says Fred Karger, a retired Los Angeles political consultant who started the group and
website called Californians Against Hate.
Small as well as large donors have felt heat:
El Coyote, a Mexican restaurant in Los Angeles since 1931, has seen fewer diners and been picketed over a $100 contribution by a
manager and member of the owning family. Marjorie Christoffersen told The Los Angeles Times, "I've almost had a nervous
breakdown."
San Diego developer Doug Manchester, who donated $125,000 to put Prop 8 on the ballot, has seen a boycott against hotels he
owns, including the Manchester Grand Hyatt on San Diego Bay. Manchester did not return calls seeking comment. Sonja Eddings
Brown, spokeswoman for the Protect Marriage coalition, which supports Prop 8, said Manchester's hotel "has lost several national
conventions and conferences."
A-1 Self Storage, with 30 locations across California, has also been targeted by Karger's group. Owner Terry Caster and family
members donated $693,000.
Caster did not return calls but has a recording on his phone defending the contribution and Prop 8. "The homosexual community is
trying to change something that has been practiced since the start of our great country," he says, referring to marriage. "I simply
exercise my right to support that which I believe in."
Brown says she has received calls from small business owners in Hollywood and West Hollywood who have lost customers because of
their donations. She said she has seen printed lists that name Hollywood studio employees who gave to the cause, an action that
"replicates that feel" of blacklists of movie-industry figures who many in Hollywood to this day believe were prevented from earning a
living because of their politics.
Some say blacklist is the wrong analogy.
Larry Gross, professor and director of the school of communication at the University of Southern California, said publicizing donors is a legitimate tactic. He says it
is similar to the Montgomery, Ala., bus boycott of the 1960s in which blacks were protesting segregated seating.
"This is a matter of private citizens saying they don't want to patronize businesses that have worked against their interests," Gross said.
But Ron Prentice, executive director of the California Family Council, says it is wrong to compare supporters of traditional marriage to racists.
"I think the general public is recognizing intolerance" of the blacklist, he said.

Fi n d t hi s ar t i cl e at :
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-12-21-blacklist_N.htm


Copyright 2009 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Prop 8 foes turn to 'blacklist' tactics - USATODAY.com http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Prop+8...
1 of 1 9/14/2009 2:10 PM
RR 496

K-50
RR 497
Thi s st or y i s t aken fr om Sacbee / Capi t ol and Cal i for ni a
Pr op. 8 vi ct or s upset by per sonal at t ack s
j gar za@sacbee.com
Publ i shed Wednesday, Nov. 12, 2008
Suppor t er s of Pr oposi t i on 8 won t he el ect i on but now ar e fr ust r at ed because t hey ar e st i l l
fi ght i ng for t hei r cause.
A week aft er a maj or i t y of vot er s passed t he cont r over si al measur e t o ban same- sex mar r i age,
t he confl i ct cont i nues i n t he cour t s, at pr ot est s and i n per sonal at t acks.
"I 'm fr ust r at ed by what ' s goi ng on," sai d Dave Leat her by, owner of t he Leat her by Fami l y
Cr eamer y i n Sacr ament o, comment i ng on t he pr ot est s and cour t bat t l es.
"Let ' s move on. I al ways t ol d my chi l dr en t hat once a r ul e was made, you have t o abi de by i t . I
t hi nk i t shoul d be t he same i n t hi s ci r cumst ance."
Leat her by and hi s fami l y donat ed about $20,000 for t he passage of Pr oposi t i on 8. A devout
Cat hol i c and fat her of 10, Leat her by suppor t ed t he measur e for r el i gi ous r easons. He sai d hi s
busi ness has been t ar get ed by bl ogger s as a r esul t , and t hat he i s par t i cul ar l y confused because
hi s busi ness has par t i ci pat ed i n t he annual gay pr i de Rai nbow Fest i val .
"I t saddens me t hat al l t hi s i s happeni ng," he sai d.
The bat t l e over same- sex mar r i age wi l l not end anyt i me soon. Thi s week, 44 st at e l egi sl at or s
fi l ed a fr i end- of- t he- cour t br i ef on behal f of opponent s of t he gay- mar r i age ban. They mai nt ai n
t he i ni t i at i ve pr ocess was used i mpr oper l y. The Cal i for ni a Supr eme Cour t coul d r ul e as ear l y as
t hi s week on a l awsui t t hat seeks t o i nval i dat e Pr oposi t i on 8, sai d cour t spokeswoman Lynn
Hol t on.
Pr oposi t i on 8 opponent s sai d t hey wi l l cont i nue t o fi ght for t hei r ci vi l r i ght s.
"For t hem t o say t he vot er s have spoken and no one shoul d quest i on i t i s a bi t di si ngenuous,"
sai d West Sacr ament o Mayor Chr i st opher Cabal don. He ci t ed r epeat ed at t empt s t o pass ot her
i ni t i at i ves. "They bel i eve i n t he j ust i ce of t hei r causes, t hat 's why t hey r et ur n over and over
agai n wi t h t he same pr oposal on par ent al not i fi cat i on."
Cabal don was r efer r i ng t o Pr oposi t i on 4, whi ch woul d have r equi r ed par ent al not i fi cat i on befor e a
mi nor coul d have an abor t i on. I t was defeat ed for t he t hi r d t i me l ast week.
Si nce t he el ect i on, t housands have pr ot est ed on t he st eps of t he st at e Capi t ol and i n some ci t i es
at t empl es of t he Chur ch of Jesus Chr i st of Lat t er - day Sai nt s and ot her si t es. The Sacr ament o
t empl e has not been t ar get ed.
"Pr ot est i ng i s a t i me- honor ed Amer i can t r adi t i on," sai d Ned Dol ej si , execut i ve di r ect or of t he
Cal i for ni a Cat hol i c Confer ence. Cat hol i c l eader s wer e act i ve i n t he Yes on 8 campai gn. "But i t ' s
Prop. 8 victors upset by personal attacks - Sacramento Politics - Californi... http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/v-print/story/1390055.html
1 of 2 9/14/2009 3:24 PM
RR 498
unfor t unat e when i t st eps over i nt o r el i gi ous bi got r y or har assment ."
Some Pr oposi t i on 8 suppor t er s say a mi nor i t y of pr ot est er s have gone t oo far by t ar get i ng
i ndi vi dual s. Opponent s of t he measur e have cal l ed for a boycot t of t he Cal i for ni a Musi cal Theat r e
aft er r evel at i ons t hat ar t i st i c di r ect or Scot t Ecker n, a Mor mon, donat ed $1,000 t o t he Yes on 8
Campai gn. Member s of hi s chur ch pl ayed a si gni fi cant r ol e i n t he campai gn.
"I t ' s di shear t eni ng t hat he i s bei ng si ngl ed out ," sai d Li sa West , spokeswoman for t he chur ch i n
t he Sacr ament o ar ea. "We had hoped t her e woul d be mor e t ol er ance for di ffer ent vi ewpoi nt s."
Ot her s who suppor t ed Pr oposi t i on 8 sai d t hey have al so been t ar get ed. Scot t Pur ves, of Pur ves &
Associ at es, a Davi s i nsur ance company, sai d a pr ot est er car r yi ng a si gn r eadi ng "Pur ves Fami l y
Suppor t s Homophobi a" pi cket ed hi s busi ness Monday.
"I f t hi s had gone t he ot her way, I can't i magi ne t he backl ash i f peopl e pr ot est ed and cal l ed t he
ot her si de names," sai d Pur ves. "Peopl e woul d be angr y and r i ght ful l y so. ... I t makes me sad
t hat t hi s woul d happen when a maj or i t y of peopl e suppor t ed t hi s measur e."
Opponent s of Pr oposi t i on 8 i ssued a st at ement l ast week aski ng t hose di shear t ened by t he
passage of t he i ni t i at i ve not t o t ar get t hose who vot ed t he ot her way. "We achi eve not hi ng i f we
i sol at e t he peopl e who di d not st and wi t h us i n t hi s fi ght ," t he st at ement sai d. "... We know
peopl e of al l fai t hs, r aces and backgr ounds st and wi t h us i n our fi ght t o end di scr i mi nat i on, and
wi l l cont i nue t o do so."
Ot her bal l ot i ni t i at i ves t hat have been appr oved by vot er s have faced l egal chal l enges.
"When i t comes t o soci al i ni t i at i ves, i t can become ver y emot i onal ," sai d Dougl as Kmi ec,
pr ofessor of const i t ut i onal l aw at Pepper di ne Uni ver si t y.
He ci t ed t wo i ni t i at i ves t hat wer e appr oved by vot er s and l at er chal l enged i n t he cour t s. One was
Pr oposi t i on 209, t he 1996 bal l ot measur e t hat el i mi nat ed r aci al pr efer ences at Cal i for ni a
agenci es and publ i c i nst i t ut i ons; t he ot her was Pr oposi t i on 187, t he 1994 measur e t hat pr oposed
bar r i ng undocument ed chi l dr en fr om school s and most heal t h car e.
"Al t hough t her e wer e bumps al ong t he way, Pr op. 209 event ual l y passed, but 187 was ul t i mat el y
i nval i dat ed," sai d Kmi ec.
For now, Leat her by sai d, Pr oposi t i on 8 shoul d st and. "I f t hey want t o wi n me over ," he sai d,
"t hat 's not how t o do i t ."
Shar eThi s
Call t he Bee' s Jennifer Gar za, ( 916) 321- 1133.
Buzz up!
Prop. 8 victors upset by personal attacks - Sacramento Politics - Californi... http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/v-print/story/1390055.html
2 of 2 9/14/2009 3:24 PM
RR 499

K-51
RR 500

Advertisement
Friday, November 14, 2008

Prop. 8 leaders
accuse foes of
harassment,
intimidation

Opponents of the gay
marriage ban counter that
boycotts are fair game; but
some agree that other
"nutcase" tactics have gone
too far.

By MARTIN WISCKOL


SANTA ANA - Proposition 8 leaders gathered
Friday to denounce their opponents' post-
election tactics as harassment, intimidation and
in the case of white powder sent to two
Mormon temples "domestic terrorism."

Ten days after the Prop. 8 ban on gay marriage
was approved by voters, protests and lawsuits by
gay marriage proponents show no signs of
abating. Indeed, several dozen protesters were
on hand outside the Santa Ana hotel where the
pro-Prop. 8 press conference was held, and at
least two more Orange County protests are
planned for the weekend.
Prop. 8 leaders were quick to acknowledge that
demonstrations and lawsuits were the right of
protesters but other tactics that were out of
bounds.
"What they don't have the right to do is harass
and intimidate people," said Frank Schubert,
director of the Prop. 8 campaign. "They don't
have a right to blacklist and boycott our
supporters."
Schubert listed three businesses that had been
boycotted or threatened with boycotts by Prop. 8
foes. Newspaper accounts have specified at least
three more. Cinemark Theatres, which has
cinemas in Orange County, has also been
mentioned as a possible target.
Leaders of the battle against Prop. 8 and
protesters interviewed outside today's press
conference condemned the use of violence,
threats of physical harm, and the mailing of an
unidentified white powder to two temples of the
Mormons, who contributed significantly to the
Prop. 8 campaign.
"That's some nutcase," protester Angelo Vassos
said of the white powder. "That's just dumb."
Vassos and other Prop. 8 opponents say they
generally support the boycott approach. But
Vassos who still doesn't eat Carls Jr.
hamburgers because of the politics of the late
Carl Karcher said he isn't sure he endorses all
of the current targets.
Among those is El Coyote restaurant in Los
Angeles, which is being boycotted because the
1 of 2 9/14/2009 2:11 PM
RR 501

Advertisement
owner's daughter contributed $100 to the Yes on
8 campaign. Another is the California Musical
Theatre, which was threatened with a boycott
because its artistic director gave $1,000 to the
campaign. The director then resigned.

"If it's the head of the company who's giving
money, I'd say I wasn't going there," said Vassos,
a retired school teacher from Irvine who, along
with his wife, is a longtime political activist. "But
if it's the daughter of the owner or an employee,
I'm not so sure."

Inside the ballroom of the Doubletree Hotel, Yes
on 8 leaders filled the room with more than 400
backers, who frequently interrupted speeches
with cheers and gave the press conference the
festivity of a rally or political convention. About
30 of the leaders shared the stage, with
evangelical Christians and Muslims from
throughout Southern California accounting for
more than half.

They called gay marriage an assault on the
family, and labeled Prop. 8 foes as hypocrites for
calling the measure hateful and intolerant.

"They have shown their own intolerance and
hatred," said Ron Prentice, chairman of the
Protect Marriage Coalition.

Leaders said democracy had been exercised
and it was time to acknowledge that.

"I come here with a wholly righteous, God-given
anger at what's happening in our state," Jim
Garlow, a Sand Diego pastor, said of his
opponents' activities. He also complained about
unfair treatment by the media, and was
enthusiastically cheered. "The bigotry must come
to an end."

But the battle is likely to continue through a
legal challenge and future ballot measures.
"Just because it was on the ballot doesn't mean
it was constitutional," said Irvine's Mitch
Goldstone, a gay man who married his longtime
partner in June.
Goldstone was among protesters outside the
hotel holding signs and periodically breaking into
chants including, "It's not over. It's not over."
There was a mix of gays, lesbians and straights,
like Vassos.
"We have two great gay friends," said Vassos,
76. "I said, 'I have to go over there for Kelly and
Joe.'"
mwisckol@ocregister.com
2 of 2 9/14/2009 2:11 PM
RR 502

K-52
RR 503
ADVERTISEMENT
Activists Target Mormons for Gay-Marriage Ban's Success in
California
Monday , December 01, 2008
In the nearly four weeks since Election Day, gay
activists and thousands of their supporters have rallied
outside Mormon temples around the country,
protesting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints' support for California's Proposition 8, the ballot
initiative to make same-sex marriage illegal in the
Golden State.
There have been calls to boycott the annual
Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah; some
activists have called for a boycott of the entire state of
Utah. Protesters have defaced some church buildings,
and in Arapaho County, Colo., the Sheriff's Office is
investigating a possible hate crime the torching of
the Book of Mormon on a church's doorstep.
Even the state of California itself has announced that
it is investigating the church's involvement in
Proposition 8, which was approved by a vote of 52
percent to 48 percent and, barring a Supreme Court
overturn, will ban gay marriage in the state.
There have been no other reports of backlash against other groups that supported Prop 8, notably African-
Americans and other churches and religious denominations that turned out in heavy numbers to push through the
ban.
Exit polls after the Nov. 4 vote showed that 70 percent of black voters and more than half of Latino voters voted
yes on Prop 8. About two-thirds of self-identified Christians supported the ban, and married voters and parents
also showed strong support. The Knights of Columbus, the Catholic Church and evangelical groups in the state
also urged for a ban on gay marriage.
So why is the Mormon Church the only target?
It's because of the money, says Evan Wolfe, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a New York-based group
that supports same-sex marriage.
"The Mormon Church hierarchy led the way on this attack on gay families and the California constitution," Wolfe
said. "They provided more than half of the funding. They provided the ground troops and were a major political
force in a way that no other group was.
"It's not like there's one centralized voice telling everyone whom to protest. People have their own reactions to
what they see with their own eyes, and what they saw here was a $40 million deceptive campaign to take away
rights, led by the Mormon Church hierarchy."
Lorri Jean, CEO of the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center, wrote on the organization's Web site that she doesn't blame
African-Americans or minority groups for the passage of Prop. 8.
"We have been critical of all of the out-of-state conservative religious groups that made significant contributions
to the campaign, including the Knights of Columbus National Headquarters in Connecticut and Focus on the
Family in Colorado. But the truth is that the LDS church leadership in Utah specifically directed its membership to
get involved with the Yes campaign in an unprecedented way both in terms of volunteer time and dollars,"
Jean wrote.
FOXNews.com - Activists Target Mormons for Gay-Marriage Ban's Succ... http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,459544,00.html
1 of 3 9/14/2009 2:18 PM
RR 504
"The campaign they funded was one of lies and deceit, clearly in violation of the religious tenet of thou shalt not
lie.
Ron Buckmire, president of the Barbara Jordan/Bayard Rustin Coalition, an organization that organizes African-
Americans for gay rights in Southern California, said fewer African-Americans supported the gay-marriage ban
than was originally reported -- 57 percent instead of 70.
"People were emotional after Obama being elected and recognizing the ideal that the African American and LGBT
(lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community were part of one large progressive alliance that were going
to enact change was not necessarily true," Buckmire said.
"Once they realized that, and that some of the data is not exactly correct and they were actually being hateful to
some African-Americans, I think they then focused on the Mormons, the religious people and some Republicans
as well."
Rev. Roland Stringfellow, coordinator of the Bay Area Coalition of Welcoming Congregations, a network of
gay-friendly religious organizations, said that he has heard of African American individuals being harassed for the
passage of Prop 8, but that many are using the Mormon Church as a scapegoat for their anger.
"Many gays and lesbians have been hurt by the church and they see the Mormons as a way of taking out that
aggression, not only on the Prop 8 position, but on their life in general," he told FOXNews.com.
"I think simply it comes down to everyone needing a scapegoat. I think we're seeing that with the Republican
Party, where people are pointing fingers at Sarah Palin as to why John McCain lost."
Back in June, soon after the California Supreme Court ruled that a ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional in
the state, the Mormon Church sent a letter to members announcing its support of Prop 8, which was designed to
overturn the ruling. The church's members subsequently donated millions of dollars to support the Yes on 8
campaign.
According to Californians Against Hate, which lobbied to defeat Prop 8, Mormons gave $25 million of the almost
$40 million that groups supporting the initiative spent on advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts.
"They did the slickest commercials you've ever seen, and they mostly do it to convince younger people why its
OK to be opposed to same sex marriage," Californians Against Hate founder Frank Karger told FOXNews.com.
Mormon voters themselves had little effect on the ballot initiative's outcome, simply because the Mormon
population is small in California. There are only about 750,000 Mormons in the state, about 2 percent of its 38
million residents.
But over 59,000 Mormon families contributed to the Yes on 8 effort, Karger said. "Without the Mormon money it
would have been a very different campaign."
Mormons also donated time walking through California neighborhoods to get voters talking about Prop 8, he
said.
In the weeks after Nov. 4, of Gay activist John Aravosis, editor of Americablog.com, called on Hollywood to shun
the Sundance Film Festival, held just a few hours' drive from Salt Lake City.
"Anyone who attends Sundance is quite literally funding the enemy," he wrote. Aravosis also called for a boycott
of tourism and skiing in the "Hate State of Utah."
California Musical Theatre Artistic Director Scott Eckern, a Mormon and graduate of Brigham Young University,
resigned from his position with the Sacramento theater group on Nov. 12 after undergoing pressure from artists
who scorned his decision to give $1,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign.
And last week, Californians Against Hate filed a complaint with the state Fair Political Practices Commission
alleging that the Mormon Church did not report all of its non-monetary contributions to the campaign.
"I just want to make sure that when they involve themselves in California elections that they play by the rules,"
Karger said.
"They bused people into California the last three weekends going door to door and out with signs on the major
intersects and major highways. Its a common California roadside activity, but they did it with hundreds and
hundreds of people," Karger said.
On Friday, the commission said it would investigate the complaint.
Californians Against Hate also has called on gay-marriage supporters to boycott A-1 Storage facilities around the
2 of 3 9/14/2009 2:18 PM
RR 505
state because the business's owner gave more than $700,000 to the Yes on 8 cause.
On Nov. 14, Mormon Church leaders issued a statement criticizing the backlash.
"Since the people of California voted to reaffirm the sanctity of traditional marriage between a man and a woman
on November 4, 2008, places of worship have been targeted by opponents of Proposition 8 with demonstrations
and, in some cases, vandalism," the church's First Presidency wrote.
"Attacks on churches and intimidation of people of faith have no place in civil discourse over controversial issues.
People of faith have a democratic right to express their views in the public square without fear of reprisal. Efforts
to force citizens out of public discussion should be deplored by people of goodwill everywhere."
But gay activists say they are right to single out the Mormons for the success of California's ballot initiative.
"What is clear in any case is that we did not lose this election because of African Americans," Lorri Jean wrote.
"Even if African Americans had voted for and against Prop 8 in the same proportion as white voters, we still would
have lost."
Click here for FOX News RSS Feeds
Advertise on FOX News Channel, FOXNews.com and FOX News Radio
Jobs at FOX News Channel.
Internships At Fox News (Summer Application Deadline is March 15, 2007)
Terms of use. Privacy Statement. For FOXNews.com comments write to
foxnewsonline@foxnews.com; For FOX News Channel comments write to
comments@foxnews.com
Associated Press. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright 2009 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
All market data delayed 20 minutes.
SEARCH GO
3 of 3 9/14/2009 2:18 PM
RR 506

K-53
RR 507
Back t o Art i cl e
Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8
Mat t hai Kuruvi l a, Chroni cle Rel igi on Writ er
Monday, Oct ober 27, 2008

(10 -26 ) 14 :4 0 PDT OAKLAND -- Christine Alonso's
body trembled and her lips quivered as she walked up
and spoke to a few of the 50 protesters in front of the
Mormon Temple in Oakland on Sunday.
"Don't think they're all against you," said Alonso, 27, explaining that she was Mormon and that despite
her religious leaders' support of a ballot measure banning same-sex marriage, she was actively opposed.
As she walked away, she said, "I'm afraid that a gay or lesbian friend might hear that I'm Mormon and
think that I want to tear their marriage apart."
Alonso's solitary act came as the Church of J esus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members are
increasingly under fire for their support of Proposition 8, which would take away the right of gays and
lesbians to marry. In addition to increased protests, online campaigns seek to identify and embarrass
Mormons who support the ballot measure.
<< Da t a b a s e: Lo o k u p Pr o p . 8 co n t r ib u t o r s >>
The church largely stays out of politics. But in this case, the Salt Lake City-based church has sent letters,
held video conferences and in church meetings asked for volunteers to support the campaign. In response,
some church members have poured in their savings and undertaken what may be an unprecedented
grassroots mobilization for the effort.
Prop. 8 is on pace to be the costliest race in the nation, except for the billion-dollar presidential election.
The Yes on 8 campaign estimates that up to 40 percent of its donations come from Mormons. Some
others estimate that Mormons account for over 70 percent of donations from individuals.
All of California's Catholic bishops have all come out in favor of the measure. So have many evangelical
Christians and Orthodox J ews. Yet it is Mormons, who account for 2 percent of the state population, who
are catching the most heat.
"We seem to be the symbol of the Yes on 8 campaign," said Rand King, 60, a Walnut Creek resident who
is Mormon and who was watching Sunday's protest from inside the temple's gates.
Prop. 8 opponents are increasingly narrowing their focus on Mormons, harnessing technology and
open-records laws in their efforts. One Web site run by a Prop. 8 opponent, Mormonsfor8.com, identifies
the name and hometown of every Mormon donor. On the Daily Kos, the nation's most popular liberal
Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/BAP113OI...
1 of 3 9/14/2009 2:24 PM
RR 508
blog, there is a campaign to use that information to look into the lives of Mormons who financially
support Prop. 8.
It has led some Mormons to question why other religious groups in the coalition aren't being targeted.
"I don't think it's politically expedient to point the finger at the Catholic Church," said Dave Christensen,
52, a Mormon and an Alamo resident who donated $30,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign. "You don't get the
mileage criticizing a church that has more clout."
Nadine Hansen, who runs Mormonsfor8.com, said the church decided to enter politics and can't excuse
itself for the ramifications.
"Any group that gets involved in the political arena has to be treated like a political action committee,"
said Hansen, 61, a Mormon who lives in Cedar City, Utah, and has stopped going to church. "You can't
get involved in politics and say, 'Treat me as a church.' "Hansen said she focused on Mormons because
she is one. She said Mormons have contacted her to shut the site, saying it was being used by the Daily
Kos campaign in a "witch hunt."
"I didn't think there were any witches on the list, so I wasn't worried," said Hansen, whose site is
"neutral" on its views, though she is opposed because she views it as "divisive."
The person who initiated the Daily Kos campaign to look into the lives of Mormon donors is Dante
Atkins, an elected delegate to the state Democratic convention who said he's the vice president of the Los
Angeles County Young Democrats.
Atkins said his goal was to "embarrass the opposition by pointing out and publicizing any contributors
they may have." He said focusing on Mormons made sense. "If one religious group is putting close to the
majority of the money and the effort into passing this proposition, it is fair to single them out."
The Mormon church hasn't taken the same level of interest in Arizona or Florida, which also have
constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.
But California is a bellwether, said LDS spokesman Mike Otterson. "If same-gender marriage is approved
in California... other states will follow suit."
Several Bay Area Mormons said they would support the right of gay and lesbian unions to have all the
rights of married couples. But the word marriage was sacred, pivotal to their concept of families, who can
be "eternally united" in the afterlife. A key church document - "The Family: A Proclamation to the World"
- says that "marriage between man and a woman is essential to His eternal plan." They also believe that
children are entitled to be raised by a father and a mother.
Those words speak for Michele Sundstrom, 47, of San J ose, who has been married for 18 years and has
five children.
She and her husband gave $30,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign and put a sign on their home. But in
response, two women parked an SUV in front of their home, with the words "Bigots live here" painted on
the windshield.
2 of 3 9/14/2009 2:24 PM
RR 509
Sundstrom believes such responses must come from deep places of pain - and that gays and lesbians are
entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, just not the word marriage. Any animosity toward gays or
lesbians is wrong, she said.
"There must be such deep, deep, deep hurt; otherwise there couldn't be so much opposition," she said.
"They've lived with this. I guess we're getting a taste of where they live."
E-mail Matthai Kuruvila at mkuruvila@sfchronicle.com.
ht t p: / / sfgat e.com/ cgi - bi n/ art i cle.cgi ?f= / c/ a/ 2008/ 10/ 27/ BAP113OI RD.DTL
Thi s art icl e appeared on page B - 1 of t he San Franci sco Chroni cl e
3 of 3 9/14/2009 2:24 PM
RR 510

K-54
RR 511
Back t o Art i cl e
Same-sex marriage backers hit Capitol,
churches
John Wi l dermut h,Demi an Bul wa, Chroni cl e St aff Wri t ers
Monday, November 10, 2008
More...
The backlash against the state's new ban on gay and
lesbian marriage intensified over the weekend, with
thousands of people gathering around the Bay Area
and California during mostly peaceful protests.
Supporters of same-sex marriage questioned whether they had done enough before Tuesday's vote on
Proposition 8 and expressed hope that it would be tossed out by the state Supreme Court. They also
promised to take the issue back to the ballot.
<<Related story: Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8.>>
About 2,500 people gathered on the Capitol steps Sunday afternoon after a noisy, three-hour rally against
the marriage ban. About 400 assembled outside Oakland's Mormon Temple, forcing Highway Patrol
officers to temporarily close two Highway 13 ramps to protect the marchers.
"I didn't see it coming," said J oe West, who traveled from San Francisco for the Sacramento
demonstration. "It was like a punch in the gut. We worked so hard to bring change in this election, and
then this happens."
"If I'd known if was going to be so close, I would have made more phone calls," added Brendan Bishop of
Sacramento.
The weekend of protests started Friday evening in San Francisco when about 1,000 people gathered,
some clogging rush-hour traffic. The state's largest event was held in San Diego with about 10,000
protesters Saturday. On Sunday, hundreds gathered outside Saddleback Church in Lake Forest (Orange
County), an evangelical megachurch that had pushed for the ban, which was approved by 52 percent of
voters.
Covering state capitol steps
At the Sacramento protest, the crowd covered the Capitol steps and spilled into the surrounding park.
Dozens of rainbow gay pride banners waved, along with hundreds of the blue and white "Vote No on
Prop. 8" signs left over from the campaign.
There were hundreds more homemade signs, broadcasting the feelings of those left shocked and
disappointed by the election results. "Hatred is Not a Family Value," one said. "Love Will Prevail,"
Same-sex marriage backers hit Capitol, churches http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MN4E141B...
1 of 3 9/14/2009 2:24 PM
RR 512
another added. "I'm Embarrassed to be a Californian," a third read.
Opponents of the same-sex marriage ban have filed a challenge to the new constitutional amendment
with the California Supreme Court, arguing that the rights guaranteed by the court in a May decision
overturning a 2000 same-sex marriage ban can't be overturned by a simple ballot measure.
Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, an opponent of Prop. 8, expressed support for the court
challenge on CNN's "Late Edition" Sunday, calling the measure's passage "unfortunate."
"But it is not the end because I think this will go back into the courts," the governor said. "It's the same as
in the 1948 (California) case when blacks and whites were not allowed to marry. This falls into the same
category."
Supporters of Prop. 8 argue that the legal challenge is little more than a desperate attempt to overturn the
will of California voters.
It's more than that, said Dennis Mangers, a former Orange County legislator who will take over next
month as chief of staff to state Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento.
"It's very clear we're not going to take no for an answer," said Mangers, who married his longtime partner
this year. "If necessary, we'll go back to the ballot ... and give the voters of California another chance."
In Oakland, the loud and peaceful protest outside the Mormon Temple included dozens of gay and lesbian
couples whose marriages are in limbo. They said they wanted to openly display their anguish to people
who pushed to ban same-sex marriage.
Inside the gates of the huge temple, church officials asked protesters to accept the will of the voters. But
the anger over Prop. 8 only seems to be growing.
"I don't think people thought it was going to pass," said Carrie Blanche, 52, an Alameda schoolteacher
who got married Oct. 29.
Blanche and others said they were focusing anger on the church because of its endorsement of Prop. 8
and the subsequent rush of campaign donations by members.
Some of those who gathered advocated for a boycott of travel to Utah, the home of the Mormon church,
and of Mormon-owned businesses.
Mormons feel singled out
Tim DeBenedictis, a protest organizer from San Francisco, said the actions were warranted, even though
he noted that some Mormons support same-sex marriage and not all Utah residents are church members.
"To affect large social change, you have to make difficult decisions," he said.
A spokesman for the church, which moved some of its services to other locations Sunday because of the
protest, said Mormons have been unfairly singled out.
2 of 3 9/14/2009 2:24 PM
RR 513
"We don't normally get involved in anything political," said Don Eaton, who directs public affairs for the
church in most of the Bay Area. "However, on certain things that are considered moral issues, we do get
involved."
Eaton said calls for boycotts amounted to discrimination and doubted such a strategy would be tolerated
if it was aimed at another major religion. "We're an easy target," he said.
The Associated Press contributed to this report. E-mail the writers at jwildermuth@sfchronicle.com and
dbulwa@sfchronicle.com.
ht t p: / / sfgat e.com/ cgi - bi n/ art i cle.cgi ?f= / c/ a/ 2008/ 11/ 10/ MN4E141B3P.DTL
Thi s art icl e appeared on page A - 1 of t he San Franci sco Chroni cl e
3 of 3 9/14/2009 2:24 PM
RR 514

K-55
RR 515

Advertisement
Sunday, September 7, 2008

Local donors give
$1.6 million for ban
on gay marriage

Local Proposition 8
supporters contribute 30
times more than opponents.

By ERIN CARLYLE

THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

Orange County, where Republicans dominate
politics and tens of thousands pour into
evangelical megachurches each weekend, has
become a funding powerhouse in the effort to
ban gay marriage in California.

Orange County donors have contributed $1.6
million for Proposition 8, a November ballot
initiative that would amend the state
constitution to define marriage as between a
man and a woman, eliminating the right of
same-sex couples to marry.

Donations from here to support Prop. 8
constitute 24 percent of the $6.8 million raised
statewide, according to campaign finance
records filed with the California Secretary of
State through Aug. 28. Orange County's portion
accounts for 15 percent of the $10.9 million that
had been raised nationwide in support of Prop. 8.
Orange County is home not only to numerous
individual Prop. 8 supporters, but also to the
state's most generous donor and a major Prop. 8
fundraising committee. The National
Organization for Marriage-California, a political
committee that has collected $2.8 million of the
$10.9 million total to fuel the fight, is
headquartered in Santa Ana. The biggest
donation in California comes from a local
billionaire's Irvine-based foundation.
Local donations against Prop. 8 total $50,000,
making up 1 percent of the $4.7 million state
total and an almost negligible portion of the $9.6
million raised nationally.
WHO'S GIVING?
The strongest opposition to gay marriage comes
from people 55 or older, said Catherine
Bolzendahl, a UC Irvine sociologist who studies
public opinion on same-sex relationships. People
35 to 55 have a mix of opinions, while people 18
to 35 tend to support gay marriage, Bolzendahl
said. Women are more supportive than men of
gay marriage.
People in favor of Prop. 8 tend to be older, more
politically conservative and religiously devout,
according to political analysts.
"Republicans and conservatives tend to support
it more," said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political
analyst at USC, about the initiative. "Hispanics
are a potential group of supporters. Democrats
tend not to. Moderates and liberals tend not to.
Independents are more receptive to the idea of
single-sex marriage."
Mark Hobbins of Trabuco Canyon supports the
measure. He donated $25,000 toward the gay-
1 of 3 9/14/2009 2:25 PM
RR 516

Advertisement
marriage ban.

"If the traditional definition of marriage is not
upheld, it has what I believe to be extremely
negative consequences in our society, and for
families and children," said Hobbins, a Mormon
and founder of www.familyiq.com, a Web site
that offers e-learning courses designed to
strengthen families.

Laguna Beach resident Sandra Hartness, owner
of Asset Services Inc., sees things differently. She
donated $2,500 to defeat Prop. 8.

"I think this issue rises beyond a gay-straight
issue," said Hartness, who is gay and serves on
the board of the Human Rights Campaign, which
has raised about $325,000 against Prop. 8. "I
decided to donate primarily because I don't
believe in discrimination of any sort. Equal rights
are the basis of our country, and so why they
wouldn't be extended to all citizens is an
anathema to me."

Larry Shultz of Placentia gave $80 to support the
ban. He doesn't see same-sex marriage as an
issue of equal rights but one of religious
morality.

"I don't donate to a lot of campaigns but I
thought this issue was very important, so I did,"
said Shultz, 68. "I believe in the Bible and I think
that the Bible clearly states that marriage should
be between a man and a woman, and
homosexuality is wrong."

Major Prop. 8 supporters in Orange County
include Irvine-based Fieldstead &Co., the
personal foundation of Home Savings heir
Howard Fieldstead Ahmanson and his wife,
Roberta Green Ahmanson, which gave $500,000.

Donald G. Laws and Steve Samuelian donated
$100,000 each. Laws is a Laguna Beach resident
and health care executive who has contributed to
Republican presidential candidates. Samuelian
works for Generations Healthcare, according to
his political donation record, and has been a
bishop of the Laguna Beach ward of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Former state senator Robert Hurtt Jr. donated
$25,000 in his name, and $25,000 was donated
through his company, Container Supply Co.
PUBLIC OPINION
Though nationwide fundraising for and against
the measure is fairly evenly matched, attitudes
toward gay marriage appear to be shifting
somewhat in California.
Eight years ago, 61 percent of California voters
approved a same-sex marriage ban.
In 2004, 11 other states passed anti-gay
marriage initiatives.
Then in May, the California Supreme Court ruled
that denying same-sex couples the right to
marry is unconstitutional. A recent Public Policy
Institute of California survey found that 47
percent of likely California voters are against
letting gay couples marry, while 47 percent are in
favor.
"Clearly attitudes have shifted since that (2000)
election," said Mark Baldassare, PPIC president
and chief executive.
To pass Prop. 8, same-sex marriage opponents
must persuade a narrow margin of undecided
voters in California 6 percent to support their
cause.
They'll also have to persuade their philosophical
2 of 3 9/14/2009 2:25 PM
RR 517

Advertisement
allies to support the measure.

Though 47 percent of likely voters oppose gay
marriage, only 40 percent say they favor the
ballot proposition.

The gap between philosophical support and
likely voters may be related to the initiative's
language. Set by state Attorney General Jerry
Brown, Prop. 8 is called the "Eliminates Right of
Same-Sex Couples to Marry Initiative
Constitutional Amendment."

"Now we have a ballot measure that seeks to
eliminate a right that already exists," Baldassare
noted.

Shifting demographics also might be behind
changing attitudes.

"People who are more supportive, or at least
less opposed, are increasing in the U.S,"
Bolzendahl said. "As older cohorts die out
there's not going to be the same kind of strong
opposition in the general population."

Still, the issue clearly resonates with small
donors in Orange County and across the country.
Nearly half of the donations 45 percent are
from people who gave $500 or less.

Staff writer Ronald Campbell contributed to this
report

3 of 3 9/14/2009 2:25 PM
RR 518

K-56
RR 519
Back t o Art i cl e
Gay-rights activists protest Prop. 8 at
Capitol
John Wi ldermut h, Chroni cle St aff Wri t er
Sunday, November 23, 2008
More...
(11-23) 0 4 :0 0 PDT Sa cr a men t o - --
Opponents of Proposition 8 might have to go back to
the ballot to reverse the ban on same-sex marriage, speakers told a crowd of about 5,000 at a loud and
enthusiastic gay-rights rally in front of the state Capitol on Saturday.
Although the state Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to Prop. 8 early next year, preparations
already are being made to fight the battle for marriage rights all over again if the court doesn't overturn
the constitutional amendment passed by voters in November, said Geoff Kors, executive director of
Equality California.
"We can't just sit around until J une and see what (the justices) do," he said. "We will take this back to the
ballot if we have to and get our rights back."
More than 100,000 people already have pledged to carry petitions for a new ballot measure, which could
come as early as the 2010 election, said Kors, whose group was one of the leaders of the "No on Prop. 8"
effort.
"So we lost," said Robin Tyler, one of the plaintiffs in a case the state Supreme Court used in May to
overturn Proposition 22, a statutory marriage ban approved in 2000. "It's only a battle and this is a war.
And we'll win the war."
Any new campaign would be very different from the unsuccessful push to stop Prop. 8, the speakers
agreed. There will have to be an improved effort to go out and make the case for marriage equality to the
religious groups that provided much of the support for the measure.
"There's no road to success that doesn't go through religion-based homophobia," said the Rev. Lindi
Ramsden of the Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry. "This is a community that's very good at
talking to ourselves. Now we need to talk to others."
The results of the Nov. 4 election shocked many in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community,
who never believed Californians would vote 52 percent to 48 percent to eliminate the right to same-sex
marriage. Since the election, rallies and marches against Prop. 8 have brought hundreds of thousands of
people out into the streets across the nation.
Even though the election is over, the protests send an important message to Californians, said Mike
Gay-rights activists protest Prop. 8 at Capitol http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/23/BAAR14...
1 of 3 9/14/2009 2:25 PM
RR 520
Bennett of Sacramento, who was at the rally with his partner and their two children.
"We got complacent, and a lot of us wish we'd done more of this before people went out and voted," he
said. "But it just seems completely obvious that our household doesn't affect anyone else's household."
It is important to show California how many people care deeply about the same-sex marriage issue, Kors
said.
"To go invisible after having our rights were taken away would have been giving up," he added.
Protesters filled much of the lawn beyond the Capitol steps, carrying homemade signs with messages like
"What's so scary about our love?" and "Give tolerance a chance." Vendors walked through the crowd,
selling gay-rights buttons and rainbow flags.
The crowd was much smaller than the 15,000 to 30,000 organizers originally had advertised or even the
scaled-back 10,000 they hoped for this week. But while the rally was talked up in the days after the
election, the actual organizing was done on the fly.
"There was a lot of buzz about this, but no real information," said Keegan Killian of California Outreach,
one of the organizers. "Our first planning meeting was little more than a week ago."
The event featured some big-name speakers, such as civil rights attorney Gloria Allred, comedian
Margaret Cho and state Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, who will take over as leader of the state
Senate next month.
While the crowd was peaceful and relaxed, there were plenty of hot words from the speakers, many of
them aimed at the people and organizations who backed Prop. 8.
Tyler, a longtime activist for lesbian rights, argued that same-sex marriage opponents have no right to
complain about any physical and verbal attacks they've encountered since election day.
"Get over it," she said. "It's easier to wash a paint stain off a church than to take off the stain they left on
the California Constitution."
Cho, whose comedy routines are anything but G-rated, provided a song she wrote slamming Mormons for
their support of the measure, ending with a chorus suggesting that voters not let the Mormons get away
with what they did.
As has been the case at almost all the postelection rallies, supporters of Prop. 8 were invisible Saturday,
declining to respond to the attacks or stage counterprotests.
"Getting involved in protests would undermine our point that the election is over and we won," said
Andrew Pugno, an attorney for the Prop. 8 effort. "It seems pretty basic to me."
But for the opponents of Prop. 8, the election might be over but the battle continues.
"Anything worth fighting for oftentimes is a struggle," Steinberg said. "But the arc of history moves
2 of 3 9/14/2009 2:25 PM
RR 521
forward, it doesn't move backward. Prop. 8 is only a temporary setback."
E-mail J ohn Wildermuth at jwildermuth@sfchronicle.com.
ht t p: / / sfgat e.com/ cgi - bi n/ art i cle.cgi ?f= / c/ a/ 2008/ 11/ 23/ BAAR14ACGC.DTL
Thi s art icl e appeared on page B - 1 of t he San Franci sco Chroni cl e
3 of 3 9/14/2009 2:25 PM
RR 522

K-57
RR 523
www.BenJerry.com
Make an Ad Competition
Over $200,000 in prizes Win Tickets to
London Film Festival
www.mofilm.com
Hollywood and the same-sex marriage fight
By Rachel Abramowitz, and Tina Daunt,
November 23, 2008
Should there be boycotts, blacklists, firings or de-facto shunning of those who supported Proposition 8?
That's the issue consuming many in liberal Hollywood who fought to defeat the initiative banning same-sex marriage
and are now reeling with recrimination and dismay. Meanwhile, activists continue to comb donor lists and employ the
Internet to expose those who donated money to support the ban.
Already out is Scott Eckern, director of the nonprofit California Musical Theatre in Sacramento, who resigned after a
flurry of complaints from prominent theater artists, including "Hairspray" composer Marc Shaiman, when word of his
contribution to the Yes on 8 campaign surfaced.
Other targets include Film Independent, the nonprofit arts organization that puts on both the Los Angeles Film
Festival and the Spirit Awards; the Cinemark theater chain; and the Sundance Film Festival.
In Film Independent's case, the board has defended the continued employment of Richard Raddon, the Mormon
director of the L.A. Film Festival who donated $1,500 to support Proposition 8. Cinemark is under siege because
Chief Executive Alan Stock gave $9,999 to support the same-sex marriage ban. And in a sign of a powerful ripple
effect, Sundance, perhaps the American institution that has done the most to support gay filmmakers and gay
cinema, is being targeted because it screens films in a Cinemark theater.
For many in Hollywood, the Proposition 8 backlash represents a troubling clash of free speech, religious beliefs and
the right to fight intolerance; many supporters of same-sex marriage view the state constitutional amendment as
codified bigotry, a rollback of civil liberties for gays and lesbians.
Raddon has been a particularly polarizing figure because Film Independent's board includes many independent film
stalwarts, including Don Cheadle, Forest Whitaker, Fox Searchlight President Peter Rice and Oscar-winning writer
Bill Condon. One of the group's explicit missions is to promote diversity.
Last week, Raddon offered to resign. According to one board member, a conference call was hastily arranged, and
after much discussion the board voted unanimously to keep him.
Yet the anger continues to stew.
"There is still roiling debate within the organization," says distributor Howard Cohen, an advisor to the film festival
who is gay. "Is it OK to let this go? There are a lot of gay people who work at Film Independent. The issue has not
been closed."
Related Articles
Sundance Is Better Off Without
Bringing In More Commercial...
Feb 22, 1999
Sundance fest going global May
18, 2004
A movable festival Aug 26, 2003
Film Investment Software
Raise money for a film with
this Investment
Memorandum/PPM.
www.movieplan.net
Film & Video Production
Learn to Shoot, Direct, Edit,
& Produce for Movies & TV
at Collins!
CollinsCollege.edu/Film
Student Group Tours
Free trip quotes for
teachers. Best value for
educational travel.
www.traveladventures.com
Free Movies Online
Watch & Share your passion
4 Movies Press Play on
Babelgum: 100% Free!
www.Babelgum.com/Films
Short Films
View and download short
films by Brian Tolle
www.briantolle.com
You are here: LAT Home > Articles > Entertainment

Entertainment

Hollywood and the same-sex marriage fight - Los Angeles Times http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/23/entertainment/et-shunned23
1 of 2 9/14/2009 3:44 PM
RR 524
www.BenJerry.com
www.mofilm.com
November 23, 2008
No one is certain how the current protest will affect Film Independent's Spirit Awards in the spring, a popular event
recognizing work that "challenges the status quo." And there are already indications the Los Angeles Film Festival
could be affected.
Gregg Araki, director of the critically acclaimed gay cult hit "Mysterious Skin" and an influential figure in "new queer
cinema," has said he won't allow his films to be shown there, while others, such as "Milk" producers and gay
activists Dan Jinks and Bruce Cohen, say they're going to "study in depth all the facets of our specific situation
before making a decision."
Araki says Raddon should step down. "I don't think he should be forcibly removed. The bottom line is if he
contributed money to a hateful campaign against black people, or against Jewish people, or any other minority
group, there would be much less excusing of him. The terrible irony is that he runs a film festival that is intended to
promote tolerance and equality."
Others are leery of punishing free speech, even if they consider it hateful. "I can't quite stomach the notion that you
fire somebody because of what they believe. It doesn't feel right to me," says Christine Vachon, a pillar of gay
cinema who produced such films as "Boys Don't Cry" and "Far From Heaven."
Raddon declined to comment, but Dawn Hudson, executive director of Film Independent, says, "Are we happy with
his donation? No. But he has a right to his religious and personal beliefs.
"The very cornerstone of our organization is diversity, and diversity includes sexual orientation. Rich's actions have
always been in accordance with those principles," she said.
Condon, the gay writer-director of "Dreamgirls" and a Film Independent board member, offered this retort to what he
calls the "off-with-his-head" crowd: "If you're asking, 'Do we take discrimination against gays as seriously as bigotry
against African Americans and Jews?' . . . the answer is, 'Of course we do.' But we also believe that some people,
including Rich, saw Prop. 8 not as a civil rights issue but a religious one. That is their right. And it is not, in and of
itself, proof of bigotry."
Fury is certainly percolating through the gay community, fomented largely through the Web. Younger advocates --
not necessarily from Hollywood -- have been using Facebook and YouTube to get the message out. What began as
a kind of cyber-venting is mushrooming into a new kind of viral protest movement, including the latest protest of
Proposition 8 in Hollywood today, which was largely publicized via Facebook.
Related Articles
Feb 22, 1999
18, 2004
Film Investment
Software
Raise money for a film
with this Investment
Memorandum/PPM.
www.movieplan.net
Student Group Tours
educational travel.
Park City Condo Rental
Great rates, SAVE
NOW! World class
ski-snowboard resorts
www.GreatCondoRental.com
Short Films
View and download
short films by Brian
Tolle
www.briantolle.com

Entertainment

Hollywood and the same-sex marriage fight (page 2) - Los Angeles Times http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/23/entertainment/et-shunned23?pg=1
1 of 2 9/14/2009 3:44 PM
RR 525
www.BenJerry.com
www.mofilm.com
November 23, 2008
And there remains a distinct contingent of same-sex marriage supporters who are adamant about retribution. One is
Chad Griffin, a political advisor to Hollywood executives who says, "A dollar to the yes campaign is a dollar in
support of bigotry, homophobia and discrimination. There are going to be consequences. Any individual who has
held homophobic views and who has gone public by writing a check, you can expect to be publicly judged. Many can
expect to pay a price for a long time to come."
Still, film companies are typically wary of involving themselves in causes, particularly those that advocate boycotts,
because they know how vulnerable their products are to similar initiatives by well-organized groups on the religious
right. For eight years, the Southern Baptist Convention boycotted the Walt Disney Co. for extending employee
benefits to same-sex partners and urged its members not to patronize the theme parks and Disney products. Films
with religious subjects -- most notably "The Last Temptation of Christ" -- have also sparked protests.
Bruce Cohen, one of the producers of "Milk," -- which lands in theaters next week and traces the life and death of
California's first openly gay elected official (San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk) -- and a leader of the No on 8
campaign in Hollywood, suggests everyone should proceed with caution.
"You need to draw a very specific distinction between the cases where it's the actual owner of the company who put
money into a cause. If it's an employee, it's a different discussion. That becomes a freedom of speech issue," he
says. "People should personally always have the right to express their own opinions even if that means getting out
their checkbook."
And in fact, Focus Features, which is distributing "Milk," still intends to play the film in Cinemark theaters despite
calls for a boycott.
In particular, the notion of boycotting Sundance, which seems to have originated with the liberal Americablog, has
picked up little traction thus far within the Hollywood community.
"I don't feel the Sundance Film Festival deserves our ire or our censor," says Howard Cohen. "It's an incredible
force for good. I know where they are on the issues, and there's no evidence they supported Yes on 8."
"If there is one festival that has supported queer cinema from the start, it's Sundance," says Marcus Hu, president of
Strand Releasing, which has released many gay-themed films. "Sundance has been, first and foremost, people who
have been discovering and fostering young gay talent."
Related Articles
Feb 22, 1999
18, 2004
Raise money for a film with
this Investment
Memorandum/PPM.
www.movieplan.net
Film & Video Production
Learn to Shoot, Direct, Edit,
& Produce for Movies & TV
at Collins!
CollinsCollege.edu/Film
Student Group Tours
educational travel.
Free Movies Online
Watch & Share your passion
4 Movies Press Play on
Babelgum: 100% Free!
www.Babelgum.com/Films
Short Films
View and download short
films by Brian Tolle
www.briantolle.com

Entertainment

1 of 2 9/14/2009 3:45 PM
RR 526
www.mofilm.com
Sundance Film Festival
Experience Sundance Film Festival 2009
- Exclusive Coverage & More.
SundanceChannel.com/Festival
November 23, 2008
In part, Hollywood's distress is a reflection of its guilty conscience about Proposition 8's passage. Many feel that
they were asleep at the wheel, preoccupied with Barack Obama's candidacy and winning larger congressional
majorities for the Democrats. "Many straight people really don't understand it's a civil rights issue," says Vachon.
"We didn't do our job well enough. We need to do it better."
The No on 8 campaigns simply didn't have a high profile in Hollywood until the very end, when people realized that
the effort was in trouble. At that point, the No on 8 forces enlisted Griffin, who worked in the Clinton White House,
and a new team of advertising consultants to turn things around. A number of high-profile celebrities donated to the
cause, among them Steven Spielberg and Brad Pitt. But it wasn't enough.
"What the passage of Prop. 8 did is stir the soul of the people in the gay community," says publicist-activist Howard
Bragman. "It took what had been a top-down movement and made it a grass-roots movement."
Abramowitz and Daunt are Times staff writers.
rachel.abramowitz@latimes.com
tina.daunt@latimes.com
Related Articles
Feb 22, 1999
18, 2004
Sundance Film Festival
Experience Sundance Film
Festival 2009 - Exclusive
Coverage & More.
SundanceChannel.com/Festival
Children Festival
See local dance groups,
troupes from Spain at Wolf
Trap now.
InternationalChildrensFestival.org
Fall Festival In Virginia
Official Site. Find Things To
Do & Places To Stay in
Virginia Now!
www.Virginia.org
Indie Film Distribution
Make Your Film Available for
Sale On Amazon.com. Get
Discovered!
www.CreateSpace.com
Sundance Spa Pillows
Original Sundance Spa
Pillows The best price on
Sundance Pillows
www.wizardofspas.com
Raise money for a film with this Investment Memorandum/PPM.
www.movieplan.net

Entertainment



1 of 1 9/14/2009 3:45 PM
RR 527

K-58
RR 528
Prop. 8 foes aim their ire at Lassen's stores
Owner backed ballot measure
By Kevin Clerici
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
As a vegetarian, Jessica Pollack frequently turned to Lassen's Natural Foods & Vitamins in Ventura for its
organic and dairy-free products.
"It's been a saving grace," she said.
So the 26-year-old lesbian, who got married in August, said she was shocked and angry to learn the store's
owner contributed $27,500 to the campaign for Proposition 8, a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage
approved by voters this month.
"I haven't been back since," said Pollack, who has urged her friends to shop elsewhere. "I couldn't understand
why they would be supporting this. It's incredibly disappointing and hurtful."
Although Ventura County's largest gay and lesbian organization has not organized a protest against the store,
some activists have independently targeted it. Handmade signs calling for people to boycott Lassen's were on
display at a rally of some 600 people Saturday in downtown Ventura, and a small group protested Sunday
outside the Lassen's store in Thousand Oaks.
Gay activists say the backlash against Lassen's and other businesses that financially supported Proposition 8 is
likely to intensify, fueled by text messages, e-mails and calls for action on Web sites such as Facebook and
MySpace.
"There is definitely a movement to educate people," said J.J. Wilner of Ventura, who criticized the owner of
the Lassen's store in Ventura forpromoting a position that he said conflicts with the egalitarian beliefs of many
customers.
"People have always seen Lassen's as progressive and forward-thinking," said Wilner, co-founder of
Community Organized for Liberty, Opportunity and Respect, or COLOR, a gay-straight alliance. "I know a
lot of customers gay and straight who felt blindsided."
State campaign finance records show the Ventura store contributed separate checks of $25,000 and $2,500 to
Proposition 8. The Lassen's in Camarillo also contributed $3,000 to the proposition, and the store in Simi
Valley $1,000. Election law allows business owners to contribute as much as they want to ballot initiatives.
Other businesses targeted
In July, gay rights advocates called for a boycott of two San Diego hotels because owner Doug Manchester
contributed $125,000 to Proposition 8. And since the Nov. 4 election, California has seen an outpouring of
demonstrations against passage of Proposition 8.
Prop. 8 foes aim their ire at Lassen's stores http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/nov/19/prop-8-foes-aim-th...
1 of 3 9/14/2009 2:26 PM
RR 529
Sign-waving protesters have massed outside churches and temples, as well as a Los Angeles Mexican
restaurant where employees contributed to the proposition. Gay activists have begun publishing lists online of
individuals and organizations that donated money to Proposition 8.
Dentists, accountants and veterinarians who gave a few thousand dollars are listed alongside major donors
like the Container Supply Co. of Garden Grove, which gave $250,000. The artistic director at the California
Musical Theater, the state's largest nonprofit musical theater company, quit last week amid protests over his
$1,000 donation to the Yes on 8 campaign.
National organizers are planning a Dec. 10 "Day Without a Gay" that encourages supporters to volunteer
instead of going to work, and a Jan. 10 coast-to-coast protest.
"A lot of these events are going to be popping up, and many are from individual and grass-roots efforts being
born from text-message blasts and the Internet," said Jay Smith, director of the nonprofit Ventura County
Rainbow Alliance, a support center for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and HIV/AIDS-affected
individuals.
Smith said he has discouraged people from protesting in front of Lassen's, but some are angry.
"There are a lot of people in our community who have been continuous supporters of Lassen's who were
shocked to see that much money going to defeat our civil rights," he said.
Word spreads via e-mail
Kasie Vinson, a longtime patron of Lassen's, sent an e-mail to nearly 200 local Democratic volunteers
detailing the store's campaign contributions. Vinson, who is straight, was stunned to learn the contributions
were collectively the largest in Ventura County for Proposition 8, according to campaign finance forms.
"I personally do not feel comfortable knowing that I contributed even a penny's worth to writing
discrimination into the constitution," she said in the e-mail.
Owner Peter Lassen, who has held a business license for the store since 1986, did not respond to repeated
calls seeking comment.
Store manager Scott Parbell said the campaign donations were private contributions and were not tied to store
operations, even though the donations were listed under the store's name on the state finance forms.
"We have an extremely diverse staff that do not necessarily share the same views," Parbell said. "We're all
about providing good customer service, natural foods and vitamins, and what the owner chooses to do with
his money is his choice, and we don't have any say over it."
Family defends contributions
Lassen is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which opposes same-sex marriage,
and it was well within his rights as owner to put his money behind his beliefs, said his niece Else Endecott.
The store in Simi Valley is the only one of eight with the Lassen name that is not owned by a Lassen family
member, said Endecott, who personally contributed $250 to Proposition 8.
"We have a lot a gay and lesbian customers. We have nothing against them," said Endecott, who manages the
Lassen's store in Camarillo, which is owned by her father, John Lassen. "To us, it (same-sex marriage) is a
moral issue, not a civil issue."
Business at the Camarillo store has not been affected, she said, although she acknowledged her uncle has
2 of 3 9/14/2009 2:26 PM
RR 530
received some backlash, which she felt was unfair. She wasn't surprised he has avoided interviews, because
the media have unfairly targeted Mormons for their beliefs and advocacy, she said.
"Sadly, people feel like they have to blame somebody," she said. "It's not just Mormons who voted for this. It
was passed by a majority of Californians.
"We love our gay and lesbian customers," she said. "If they don't want to shop at our store, then that's their
choice. I can respect that, but they should respect my family's beliefs, too. It's pretty sad how mean people
can be."
Sonja Eddings Brown of ProtectMarriage.com, a Web site created to support Proposition 8, said boycott
threats against business donors have been widespread, and some have reported losses.
Approach could backfire
Beverly Kelley, an author and communications professor at California Lutheran University in Thousand
Oaks, said protesting won't likely change Lassen's mind. In fact, it could have the opposite effect, she said.
"The protesters against this need to learn there could be a backlash against them," Kelley said. "Was this
$27,500 contribution what turned the tide? No. It was all the new voters, the minority voters, the African-
American voters who came out in record numbers and put Obama over the top and put this initiative over the
top."
Same-sex marriage backers, she said, should focus on figuring out why people voted as they did. "You have
to respect the other side if you want to convince them," she said.
In the parking lot outside the Ventura store recently, longtime customer Christine Burke said she voted
against Proposition 8 and was disappointed to learn of Lassen's support, but it wouldn't change her shopping
habits. "I believe he has the right to believe in what he believes in," she said. "It's a complex issue."
Shopper Chris Hoover, a Ventura contractor, agreed. "I don't support his point of view," he said, "but I think
he has a right to it."
2009 Ventura County Star
3 of 3 9/14/2009 2:26 PM
RR 531

K-59
RR 532

Mor e Met r o new s


Gay rights groups to boycott Manchester Grand Hyatt
Owner donated to Proposition 8
By Bill Ainsworth
U-T SACRAMENTO BUREAU
July 10, 2008
Gay rights supporters and their union allies plan to launch a boycott of the Manchester Grand Hyatt because its
owner, Doug Manchester, contributed $125,000 to Proposition 8, an amendment to ban same-sex marriage on
the November ballot.
Organizers of the campaign, which is expected to be announced at a news conference today, say they believe it is
the first time that gay rights supporters have boycotted a business whose owner seeks to ban same-sex marriage.
Leaders will urge the public to avoid the downtown hotel because they say that support for Proposition 8 amounts
to unfair treatment of gays and lesbians.
Manchester' s contribution to this anti-marriage initiative is discrimination plain and simple, said Brigette
Browning, president of Unite Here Local 30, which represents 4,500 hotel and restaurant workers.
The Manchester Grand Hyatt is not unionized.
Manchester and campaign officials from Proposition 8 did not return phone calls seeking comment.
In an interview earlier this year, Manchester said that he decided to donate to Proposition 8 because he had heard
that schools that teach that marriage is between a man and a woman could be sued for discriminating against
gays.
In addition, he said, he was motivated by his strong Catholic faith to believe that marriage is between a man and a
woman.
But, he said, that he welcomes gays and lesbians to his hotels and restaurants.
Gay rights leaders say they are not targeting the Hyatt Corp. which operates the Manchester Grand Hyatt
because the company has a good record in hiring and supporting gays and lesbians. But they are singling out the
Manchester property.
In May, California became the second state in the nation to allow same-sex marriage after the state Supreme Court
ruled that laws banning it violate the right to marry in the state constitution. A court ruling in Massachusetts
legalized same-sex marriage in that state four years ago.
In November, voters will get a chance to overturn the California ruling, if they vote for a constitutional ban under
Proposition 8.
SignOnSanDiego.com > News > Metro -- Gay rights groups to boycott M... http://signonsandiego.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=S...
1 of 2 9/14/2009 2:32 PM
RR 533
Manchester is one of several San Diegans whose large contributions helped put the initiative on the ballot. Others
include Mission Valley developer Terry Caster, who gave $162,500, and Robert Hoehn, owner of Hoehn Motors in
Carlsbad, who has given $25,000.
Fred Karger, who is helping to organize the boycott and is running an organization opposed to Proposition 8, said
he is also urging the public to boycott Manchester' s other hotel, the Grand Del Mar.
This is someone who is giving an exorbitant amount of money to write discrimination into the constitution for the
very first time, he said.
Karger said he hopes the boycott will send a message to other potential contributors to the Proposition 8
campaign.
Our goal is to create a business loss for people who contribute, he said. We want to make it a little
uncomfortable.
The results of the boycott could be watched closely.
In the battle over Proposition 8, both sides will be trying to raise huge amounts of money, nearly $15 million each,
to make their case to voters. In 2000, 61 percent of California voters approved Proposition 22, enacting a statutory
ban on same-sex marriages. But in late May of this year after the court ruling, the nonpartisan Field Poll found a
majority of California voters opposed a constitutional ban and by a slimmer majority for the first time supported
same-sex marriage.
Backers of Proposition 8 have predicted that any boycott efforts would fail.
Support for traditional marriage is a mainstream view, said Andrew Pugno, an attorney for
protectmarriage.com, which supports Proposition 8. I can' t imagine that efforts to boycott businesses with
mainstream views are going to be successful.
In April, once Manchester' s contribution became widely known, two gay rights organizations, the Gay and Lesbian
Alliance Against Defamation and PlanetOut Inc., moved events they had scheduled at the Manchester Grand
Hyatt.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080710-9999-1m10boycott.html


Copyright 2007 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. ? A Copley Newspaper Site
SignOnSanDiego.com > News > Metro -- Gay rights groups to boycott M... http://signonsandiego.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=S...
2 of 2 9/14/2009 2:32 PM
RR 534

K-60
RR 535
About Cont act Subscribe Cal endar Publi sh Pri nt Donat e
Regi on s
nort h coast
cent ral vall ey
nort h bay
east bay
sout h bay
san francisco
peni nsul a
sant a cruz
cali forni a
us
i nt ernat i onal
Top i cs
ani mal li b
ant i- war
art s + act ion
drug war
educat ion
en espaol
environment
gl obal j ust ice
government
healt h/ housing
i mmi grant
medi a
l abor
l gbt i / queer
pol i ce st at e
raci al j ust ice
womyn
I nt er nat i onal
ameri cas
hai t i
i raq
pal est ine
afghani st an
Mor e
mak e media
get inv olv ed
calendar
galler y
ar chiv es
chat
link s
Don at e
Help support
grassroot s
independent
media.
print able version - fixed- widt h version
San Di ego | LGBTI / Queer
Ral l y Agai nst Pr op H8: Manchest er Gr and Hy at t
by Tony Cochran ( t cochran [ at ] uni t ehere.org )
Tuesday Nov 18t h, 2008 5: 02 PM
Rally Agaist Hat e!
Doug Manchest er is one of t he leading funder s ( $125, 000) of Pr oposit ion 8, a Califor nia
ballot init iat ive t hat discr iminat es against LGBT couples. While Hyat t may officially
disavow Manchest er s cont r ibut ions t o Pr oposit ion 8 as a per sonal choice, t he fact
r emains t hat t heir mult i- million dollar LGBT mar ket ing effor t s must be seen as lit t le
mor e t han sheer hypocr isy when t he r evenue t his mar ket ing at t r act s is t hen funneled
int o effor t s t hat bit e t he hand which feeds t hem. I n such a sit uat ion, we always have
t he abilit y t o choose not t o feed t hem any longer .
RALLY @ MANCHESTER HYATT
NOVEMBER 22TH - 5: 00 P. M.
1 Mar ket Place, San Diego, CA 92101
On July 10t h, 2008, a coalit ion led by t he San Diego labor movement and t he LGBT communit y
called for a boycot t of t he Manchest er Gr and Hyat t , t he host sit e for AERA' s 2009 Confer ence.
Manchest er ' s Hyat t has br ought t he LGBT communit y UNI TE HERE t oget her t o fight for equalit y for
gay and lesbian couples and j ust ice for t he wor ker s at his Hyat t hot el. Doug Manchest er has a
hist or y wor king against bot h:
Equalit y for lesbian and gay couples. Doug Manchest er is one of t he leading funder s ( $125, 000) of
Pr oposit ion 8, a Califor nia ballot init iat ive t hat discr iminat es against LGBT couples. The Califor nia
LGBT communit y faces an ext r emely difficult fight t o pr event an out r ight ban on t heir civil r ight t o
have legal r ecognit ion for same sex couples and equal pr ot ect ion for t heir families. While Hyat t may
officially disavow Manchest er ' s cont r ibut ions t o Pr oposit ion 8 as a per sonal choice, t he fact r emains
t hat t heir mult i- million dollar LGBT mar ket ing effor t s must be seen as lit t le mor e t han sheer
hypocr isy when t he r evenue t his mar ket ing at t r act s is t hen funneled int o effor t s t hat bit e t he hand
which feeds t hem. I n such a sit uat ion, we always have t he abilit y t o choose not t o feed t hem any
longer .
Just ice for Manchest er Hyat t wor ker s. Manchest er ' s Hyat t allegedly for ces housekeeper s t o clean
mor e r ooms t han housekeeper s at ot her Hyat t hot els, including t he ot her Hyat t hot el in San Diego.
I n 2006, housekeeper s began lunch hour pr ot est s against wor king condit ions in t he hot el, saying
t hat t heir daily r oom quot a had been incr eased fr om 17 t o 30 r ooms per shift ! We have no r eason t o
believe t hat Manchest er has made any wor kload r educt ions t o addr ess t hese pr ot est s. Acr oss t he
hot el indust r y, incr easing wor kloads have put a gr eat er st r ain on housekeeper s; wor k speedups
have led t o incr easing inj ur y r at es. Accor ding t o t he Depar t ment of Labor , inj ur y r at es for hot el
wor ker s ar e 40% higher t han t he ser vice sect or aver age. Hot el housekeeper inj ur ies ar e
debilit at ing. Back inj ur ies, housemaids' knee ( bur sit is) , and shoulder pain can lead t o per manent
disabilit y. Numer ous st udies have shown t hat unr easonable wor kloads ar e a ser ious occupat ional
healt h issue; her e ar e a few fact s t hat highlight t he sever it y of t hat pr oblem:
I n a r ecent sur vey of mor e t han 600 hot el housekeeper s in t he U. S. and Canada, 91% said t hat t hey
have suffer ed wor k- r elat ed pain. Of t hose who r epor t ed wor kplace pain:
_ 77% said t heir wor kplace pain int er fer ed wit h r out ine act ivit ies.
_ Two out of ever y t hr ee wor ker s visit ed t heir doct or t o deal wit h wor kplace pain.
_ 66% t ook pain medicat ion j ust t o get t hr ough t heir daily quot a.
( UNI TE HERE sur vey r esult s)
ht t p: / / sleepwit ht her ight people. or g
Rally Against Prop H8: Manchester Grand Hyatt : Indybay http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/11/18/18552103.php
1 of 2 9/14/2009 2:33 PM
RR 536

K-61
RR 537
Copyright 2006 The Miami Herald
All Rights Reserved
The Miami Herald
June 15, 2006 Thursday
SECTION: A; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 810 words
HEADLINE: A church names names of gay-marriage foes;
A Jacksonville church published the names of Florida residents who signed a petition backing the ballot initiative to ban
same-sex marriage.
BYLINE: ALEXANDRA ALTER, aalter@MiamiHerald.com
BODY:
A Florida church launched a campaign this week to identify supporters of a proposed state constitutional
amendment to ban same-sex marriage by publishing the names and addresses of 400,000 Florida residents in 60
counties.
The Internet campaign by Christ Church of Peace, a nondenominational church in Jacksonville, has been
denounced by groups that support a state ballot initiative that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Gary Debusk, pastor of Christ Church of Peace, said the church began the ''Know Thy Neighbor'' effort Monday
to encourage dialogue and prevent voter-signature fraud. As the head of a congregation that supports same-sex
marriage, Debusk said he also wanted to add a new perspective to a debate that he said has been dominated largely by
religious conservatives. ''It's time for another voice that is Christian to be heard,'' he said.
The website, knowthy neighbor.org/florida, is linked to the church's home page and contains a searchable database
of names. The names on such petitions are part of the public record, according to the Florida Department of State.
Christian groups such as the Fort Lauderdale-based Center for Reclaiming America and the Florida Family Policy
Council have denounced the website as a misguided effort to intimidate activists.
PRIVACY ISSUE
''It's a gross invasion of people's privacy,'' said John Stemberger, president and general counsel of the Florida
Family Policy Council, an offshoot of James Dobson's national Christian conservative group Focus on the Family.
Page 1
RR 538
Stemberger argued that, if Christian conservatives published the names and addresses of gay-rights activists, they
would likely be condemned as hatemongers.
''A lot of people would be outraged and say it's a hateful, un-Christian gesture,'' he said.
Lisa Owens, a nurse who lives in Pasco County, said she was furious when she learned from the Florida Family
Policy Council that her name and address had been posted online.
''If somebody wanted to do a hate crime, my address was right there,'' she said. ``I felt like my privacy had been
invaded.''
So far, Florida's Department of State had not received any complaints of harassment by people identified on the
website.
The Know Thy Neighbor campaign, modeled on a similar effort in Massachusetts, may further feed controversy
surrounding religious support for a ban on gay marriage.
Christian conservatives leading the petition drive say they have faced increasing interference from opponents of the
ballot initiative.
Last week, Sunrise police investigated allegations that an off-duty officer harassed Christian volunteers who were
collecting signatures for the marriage amendment at a Promise Keepers rally. Stemberger, whose group organized the
petition effort at the event, said the officer verbally harassed volunteers and stopped them from distributing petitions.
More than 466,000 people have signed petitions supporting a state ban on same-sex marriage, zeroing in on the
611,000 signatures required to get the proposed amendment onto the 2008 ballot.
Some political analysts say that while the Internet campaign may deter some people from signing the petition,
others will likely be stirred to activism as a result.
A QUESTION OF ANGER
''The actual activists will not be deterred by this. In fact, they might be angered and their anger will make them
more zealous,'' said John Green, a senior fellow in religion and American politics at the Pew Forum on Religion &
Public Life.
John Schumpert, a founding member of Christ Church of Peace, said he got the idea for the website last February
after reading an article about how gay-rights activists in Massachusetts published the names of residents who supported
a gay-marriage ban there. After the church board unanimously approved the campaign, church leaders contacted
Florida county supervisors of elections and got the information on petition signers. So far, the church has posted names
from 60 of 67 counties.
Schumpert said the website isn't meant to encourage people to harass petition-signers. Instead, he hopes it will offer
those who oppose a marriage amendment the chance to look up friends and family members who signed and engage
them in dialogue.
''The information is really there for people to use in a positive manner,'' he said. ``You cannot legislate to take away
someone's rights or permanently deny them rights under the cover of darkness.''
Still, some Christians who support gay marriage say that publishing names and addresses is going too far.
Garth Thompson, pastor of the Miami Beach Community Church, said that while he favors the legalization of gay
marriage, he disagrees with the church's tactics.
Page 2
A church names names of gay-marriage foes; A Jacksonville church published the names of Florida residents who
signed a petition backing the ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage. The Miami Herald
RR 539
''Even though we are definitely a pro-gay-rights church and an open and affirming church, it seems to me that they
have a right to their opinion and a right to privacy,'' he said. ``It's almost like blackmail.''
LOAD-DATE: June 15, 2006
Page 3
A church names names of gay-marriage foes; A Jacksonville church published the names of Florida residents who
signed a petition backing the ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage. The Miami Herald
RR 540

K-62
RR 541
text sizeA A A
Ba cker s Of Ca lif. Ga y Ma r r ia ge Ba n Fa ce Ba ckla sh
by KAREN GRIGSBY BATES
March 5, 2009
Since California voters passed a ban on gay marriage, some
supporters of the measure have found themselves squarely in the
bull's-eye of angry gay rights activists.
It's no secret who gave money for and against the controversial
amendment to the state's constitution, known as Proposition 8.
California's secretary of state publicized the lists of contributors,
which were picked up by local media and Web sites.
And in the aftermath of a contentious campaign, protests followed. In Los Angeles, would-be patrons of a
popular Tex-Mex restaurant were greeted by furious protestors like John Dennison.
"El Coyote millions in gay margarita money funding hatred," Dennison yelled during the protest. "Boycott
El Coyote!"
The restaurant owner's daughter, Margie Christofferson, a faithful Mormon, had made a modest $100
contribution to the "Yes on 8" campaign and the restaurant's gay patrons, like Edward Stanley, felt
betrayed.
"I won't be eating here," Stanley said.
Business dipped about 30 percent at the height of the protest, and it still hasn't returned to pre-protest
levels. Several members of the restaurant's staff including many of its gay employees have seen
their hours cut back in response. And Christofferson, who managed the restaurant, has resigned.
Others Feel The Heat
In Sacramento, the owners of Leatherby's Family Creamery found themselves part of the backlash when
The Sacramento Bee printed the list of contributors. Dave Leatherby, a devout Roman Catholic father of
10, says he was responding to a direct request from his bishop to give generously.
"We gave $20,000 for Yes on Proposition 8," he says.
And once that was known, retaliation was swift. "We soon started getting very nasty e-mails and letters
and phone calls by the hundreds," he says.
Leatherby says he was mystified, because the Creamery had always enjoyed good relations with the gay
and lesbian community.
And he says something interesting happened when demonstrators arrived outside his shop: Business went
up, instead of down. "The day they picketed us, there were about 15 picketers, and that day we had
people waiting two hours to get into our restaurant for four or five hours," he says.
Not every backlash story ends that way.
Richard Raddon, director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, and Scott Eckern, director of the California
Musical Theater in Sacramento, are devout Mormons. Both made contributions to Yes on 8, and both got
demands for their resignations from gay rights protestors. They quit so their organizations wouldn't face
further controversy. Ironically, the film festival has been instrumental in introducing works by gay and
lesbian filmmakers to a broader audience and the musical theater included works by gay playwrights
and composers.
Attempt To Intimidate?
"This seems to be an effort to indiscriminately go after anyone who contributed money, regardless of their
position on gay issues," says Frank Schubert, spokesman for the Yes on 8 campaign. He says the
backlash has endangered individuals who exercised their constitutional right to freedom of religion.
"I think that overall the attempt here is to intimidate and punish people so that they are less inclined to
speak out in the future," he says.
And it's given rise to charges that as gay rights advocates tried to change public opinion, some stepped
over the line and turned their protest into a witch hunt.
Interactive: State-By-State Look At
Gay Marriage
Backers Of Calif. Gay Marriage Ban Face Backlash : NPR http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101460517
1 of 4 9/14/2009 11:21 AM
RR 542

K-63
RR 543
4 of 12 DOCUMENTS
Copyright 2009 The Salt Lake Tribune
All Rights Reserved
The Salt Lake Tribune
February 12, 2009 Thursday
SECTION: BREAKING; Business
LENGTH: 500 words
HEADLINE: Gay-rights group, Garff Automotive meet; boycott goes on
BYLINE: By Tony Semerad The Salt Lake Tribune
BODY:
A boycott of one of Utah's most prominent car dealers remains in place for now, in spite of what both sides
described Thursday as an amicable and productive face-to-face meeting aimed at resolving it.
John Garff, president of Salt Lake City-based Ken Garff Automotive Group, and Fred Karger, head of
Californians Against Hate, both said a resolution to the conflict was in the works, after a two-hour meeting on
Wednesday.
The California group has called for a boycott of 53 Garff dealerships across six states, including California and
Utah, in retaliation for a $100,000 campaign donation made by Katharine Garff, matriarch of the Garff family, in
support of Proposition 8, last year's successful initiative to ban same-sex marriage.
Katharine Garff, who was out of town Thursday and unavailable for comment, is company president John Garff's
mother. She made the donation to the pro-Prop 8 group ProtectMarriage.com, a week before the Nov. 4 election,
according to filings with the California Secretary of State.
Karger and John Garff said they had agreed to keep the substance of their settlement discussions confidential for
now, but both confirmed that Karger was drafting a proposal for steps the company might take to resolve the boycott,
following the pair's meeting late Wednesday at Garff offices.
"Fred and I focused on common ground, and there is plenty of common ground,'' Garff said of their meeting,
adding that the exchange included details of the company's extensive history of support for Utah's gay and lesbian
community.
Karger called the meeting with Garff "a good healthy dialogue" and said he hoped his call for customers to stay
away from Garff dealerships could be withdrawn soon, though he refused to be specific about a time frame.
Karger said the group's Internet site, boycottkengarffautomotive.com, and other Internet-based efforts would
remain active until final details of the settlement were worked out.
Page 1
RR 544
"This is a civil rights issue," Karger said.
In addition to having a nondiscriminatory policy on hiring and employment, Garff Automotive is an annual donor
to the pro-gay rights Human Rights Campaign and has donated vehicles to the Utah Pride parade, along with a range of
other diversity-promoting causes, Garff said.
"Fred learned some things I don't think he knew," Garff said.
Jerry Rapier, Utah's representative on the Human Rights Campaign's national board of governors, confirmed that
annual donations from the Garff company made up a sizable share of corporate largess for the group's banquet and
silent auction.
Noting that he was expressing his personal view, Rapier said the boycott call "offends me and seems shortsighted."
Garff and his father, former Utah House Speaker and Salt Lake Olympic organizer Bob Garff, have both
characterized Katharine Garff's donation to Prop 8 -- the fifth-largest made by any Utahn -- as a personal gesture,
unrelated to the company.
"We are a politically neutral company and we always have been," John Garff said.
tsemerad@sltrib.com
GRAPHIC:
Page 2
Gay-rights group, Garff Automotive meet; boycott goes on The Salt Lake Tribune February 12, 2009 Thursday
RR 545

K-64
RR 546
Copyright 2009 The San Diego Union-Tribune
The San Diego Union-Tribune
May 9, 2009 Saturday
SECTION: LOCAL; Pg. B-5
LENGTH: 460 words
HEADLINE: Hotelier Manchester offering $125,000 to gay, lesbian groups
BYLINE: Matthew T. Hall, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO
BODY:
DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO -- San Diego hotelier Doug Manchester offered $125,000 in cash and hotel credit to
gay and lesbian groups yesterday, more than a year after contributing an equal amount to the successful campaign to
ban gay marriage statewide.
The offer won't end a 10-month boycott by gay-rights supporters and their union allies of Manchester's three
hotels, including the downtown Grand Hyatt. It was announced by a Manchester employee at the International Gay
and Lesbian Travel Association convention in Toronto.
In an interview after his announcement, Kelly Commerford, marketing director for the Manchester Grand Hyatt,
said Manchester is trying to say "he made the mistake from the standpoint of offending the (gay) community as it
relates to everyone thinking that he is anti-gay and homophobic."
Manchester is a devout Catholic who says he is against gay marriage, not gays and lesbians.
"All I'm doing is clarifying what I've said," Manchester said yesterday. "Our gay and lesbian employees have
contributed enormously to our success. We're certainly in support of domestic partnerships and civil unions."
He declined to elaborate further, deferring to crisis-management consultant Howard Bragman. Bragman said that
Manchester's views on gay marriage are no different from President Barack Obama's, but that the hotelier attracts
"more heat."
"Doug Manchester could save a busload full of schoolchildren from going over a cliff, and certain people would
find something to criticize about it," Bragman said.
Fred Karger formed Californians Against Hate last July to target major donors who backed Proposition 8, the
gay-marriage ban. He said the boycott launched by his group will continue, and he criticized Manchester's offer of
$100,000 in hotel credit.
Page 1
RR 547
"The only way someone could take advantage of that credit is to break the picket line," he said. "It's blood money.
I'm deeply offended by it."
Karger said Commerford told him yesterday that the hotel has lost $7 million in business because of the boycott.
Neither Commerford nor Bragman would comment on the hotel's loss of business.
Bragman said Manchester's move was not meant to be divisive.
"What you need to understand is like almost every not-for-profit organization in this country, gay and lesbian
groups are hurting," he said. "They don't have the money they did, and they don't have the resources they did. They
don't have the endowments they once did. They're looking for places to hold fundraisers and places to meet. I think that
our actions are very upfront."
Bragman said Manchester doesn't yet know how to distribute the money, only that gay and lesbian nonprofits must
request it. He said meetings with local gay-rights groups will be arranged for that purpose, but he didn't know when.
LOAD-DATE: May 11, 2009
Page 2
Hotelier Manchester offering $125,000 to gay, lesbian groups The San Diego Union-Tribune May 9, 2009 Saturday
RR 548

K-65
RR 549
SAN FRANCI SCO In many ways it is a typical map, showing states, highways, cities and
streets.
But also dotting the online display are thousands of red arrows, marking spots from Bryn Mawr,
Pennsylvania, to Jamacha, California, identifying the addresses of donors who supported
Proposition 8, which outlawed same-sex marriage in California.
It is exactly those arrows that concern supporters of the measure, who say they have been regularly
harassed since the election - with threatening e-mail messages and sometimes with boycotts of
their businesses.
"Some gay activists have organized Web sites to actively encourage people to go after supporters of
Proposition 8," said Frank Schubert, the campaign manager for Protect Marriage, the leading
group behind the proposition. "And giving these people a map to your home or office leaves
supporters of Proposition 8 feeling especially vulnerable. Really, it is chilling."
So chilling, apparently, that supporters have filed suit in U.S. District Court in Sacramento seeking
a preliminary injunction against a state election law that requires donors of $100 or more to
disclose their names, addresses, occupations and other personal information. In particular, the suit
seeks to stop the final filing for the 2008 election, which is due Jan. 31. That filing includes
donations made in the closing days of the campaign, when the proposition surged to victory.
James Bopp Jr., a lawyer from Indiana who filed the lawsuit on behalf of Protect Marriage, said
the harassment of Proposition 8 supporters violated their constitutional rights of free speech and
assembly.
"The cost of transparency cannot be discouragement of people's participation in the process," said
Bopp, who has argued several prominent cases challenging campaign-finance laws in California
and other states. "The highest value in the First Amendment is speech, and some amorphous idea
about transparency cannot be used to subvert those rights."
The election law in question, the Political Reform Act of 1974, was approved by California voters as
Proposition 9, and gay rights advocates say there is rich irony in supporters of Proposition 8
opposing the earlier ballot measure.
"They believe in the will of the people if it's in tune with what they believe," said Jennifer Pizer,
marriage project director of Lambda Legal, the gay rights legal organization, in Los Angeles.
Donors against gay marriage want to be anonymous - The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/world/americas/19iht-letter.1.1948...
1 of 3 9/14/2009 12:35 PM
RR 550
Opponents of Proposition 8 are also suspicious of the intent of trying to prevent donors from being
identified. "Do they want to hide something?" said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National
Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco.
Schubert insisted that there was "no smoking gun" and that the filing would show only "modest
in-kind contributions" from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Church members
contributed millions to the "Yes on 8" campaign, and the California Fair Political Practices
Commission is investigating accusations that the Mormon leadership neglected to report a battery
of nonmonetary contributions, including phone banks, a Web site and online commercials on the
behalf of Proposition 8.
The lawsuit is just one part of the continuing legal wrangling over Proposition 8, whose
constitutionality is being reviewed by the State Supreme Court. The court legalized same-sex
marriage in May, a decision that was overturned by Proposition 8.
The court is expected to hear arguments on the proposition as soon as March and will probably
also decide the fate of some 18,000 same-sex marriages that were performed in the state.
Several prominent groups filed or signed on to briefs in recent days expressing opposition to
Proposition 8, including civil rights and women's rights organizations, labor and religious groups,
and Google, which created the mapping technology.
In his suit, which is also being argued by the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal group,
Bopp alleges a wide range of acts against supporters, including "death threats, acts of domestic
terrorism, physical violence, threats of physical violence, vandalism of personal property,
harassing phone calls, harassing e-mails, blacklisting and boycotts."
In one instance, a supporter found a flier in his neighborhood calling him a bigot and listing his
employer. In another, white powder was sent to a Mormon temple and a facility run by the Knights
of Columbus, the Catholic group, which contributed more than $1 million in support of Proposition
8. Other supporters, including the director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, Richard Raddon, have
been forced to resign because of their backing of the measure, while some businesses have been
boycotted because of Proposition 8.
Bopp also said that the level set under California's campaign law for public disclosure, anything
above $100, was too low.
"There certainly would be an amount that would influence more than a few voters," he said. "But
it's way above $100."
Opponents of Proposition 8 have condemned any attacks on supporters but noted that those
claiming harassment were already protected by laws. "Violence and vandalism are illegal, and
2 of 3 9/14/2009 12:35 PM
RR 551
those laws should be enforced," Pizer said. "And sadly people on both sides of this issue have
experienced some of that."
John Vincour is on vacation. His Politicus column will resume next Tuesday.

3 of 3 9/14/2009 12:35 PM
RR 552

K-66
RR 553
Switch Client Preferences Sign Out Help
My Lexis Search Research Tasks Get a Document
Shepard's
Alerts Total Litigator Transactional Advisor Counsel Selector Dossier History

FOCUS Terms Search Within Using Semantic Concepts What's this? Advanced...
All Results - (20) News - (20)
Source: Combined Source Set 20 - Major Newspapers
Select for FOCUS or Delivery
THE REGI ON; L.A. college is sued over speech on gay mar r iage; St udent opposed t o t he unions says t eacher r eact ed impr oper ly. Los
Angeles Times Febr uar y 16, 2009 Monday
Copyr i ght 2009 Los Angel es Ti mes
Al l Ri ght s Reser ved
Los Angel es Ti mes
Febr uar y 16, 2009 Monday
Home Edi t i on
SECTI ON: CALI FORNI A; Met r o Desk; Par t B; Pg. 3
LENGTH: 623 wor ds
HEADLI NE: THE REGI ON;
L.A. col l ege i s sued over speech on gay mar r i age;
St udent opposed t o t he uni ons says t eacher r eact ed i mpr oper l y.
BYLI NE: Gal e Hol l and
BODY:
A cl assr oom di sput e at Los Angel es Ci t y Col l ege i n t he emot i onal aft er mat h of Pr oposi t i on 8 has gi ven r i se t o a l awsui t t est i ng t he
bal ance bet ween 1st Amendment r i ght s and school codes on offensi ve speech.
St udent Jonat han Lopez says hi s pr ofessor cal l ed hi m a "fasci st bast ar d" and r efused t o l et hi m fi ni sh hi s speech agai nst same-sex
mar r i age dur i ng a publ i c speaki ng cl ass l ast November , weeks aft er Cal i for ni a vot er s appr oved t he ban on such uni ons.
When Lopez t r i ed t o fi nd out hi s mar k for t he speech, t he pr ofessor , John Mat t eson, al l egedl y t ol d hi m t o "ask God what your gr ade
i s," t he sui t says.
Lopez al so sai d t he t eacher t hr eat ened t o have hi m expel l ed when he compl ai ned t o hi gher - ups.
I n addi t i on t o fi nanci al damages, t he sui t , fi l ed l ast week i n U.S. Di st r i ct Cour t i n Los Angel es, seeks t o st r i ke down a sexual
har assment code bar r i ng st udent s fr om ut t er i ng "offensi ve" st at ement s.
Jean- Paul Jassy, a 1st Amendment l awyer i n Los Angel es, sai d a number of cases have expl or ed t he t ensi on bet ween offensi ve speech
and t he expr essi on of r el i gi ous vi ews. Oft en, he sai d, t he deci si on depends on t he speci fi cs of t he si t uat i on.
"Fr ee speech r eal l y t hr i ves when peopl e ar e goi ng back and for t h, di sagr eei ng somet i mes and somet i mes fi ndi ng t hi ngs each ot her
says offensi ve, but t her e ar e l i mi t s, par t i cul ar l y i n a school set t i ng," Jassy sai d aft er r evi ewi ng t he l awsui t .
Lopez, a Los Angel es r esi dent wor ki ng t owar d an associ at e of ar t s degr ee, i s descr i bed i n t he sui t as a Chr i st i an who consi der s i t a
r el i gi ous dut y t o shar e hi s bel i efs, par t i cul ar l y wi t h ot her st udent s. He decl i ned t o comment . Mat t eson coul d not be r eached.
Lopez i s r epr esent ed by t he Al l i ance Defense Fund, a Chr i st i an l egal or gani zat i on based i n Scot t sdal e, Ar i z., and co- founded by
evangel i cal l eader James Dobson of Focus on t he Fami l y. The gr oup al so advi sed pr oponent s of Pr oposi t i on 8 and sued,
unsuccessful l y, t o st op t he r el ease of t he names and addr esses of donor s, who sai d t hey had been har assed dur i ng t he weeks of
demonst r at i ons t hat fol l owed t he measur e's passage.
Al l i ance st aff counsel Davi d J. Hacker sai d Lopez was a vi ct i m of r el i gi ous di scr i mi nat i on.
"He was expr essi ng hi s fai t h dur i ng an open- ended assi gnment , but when t he pr ofessor di sagr eed wi t h some mi nor t hi ngs he
ment i oned, t he pr ofessor shut hi m down," Hacker sai d. "Basi cal l y, col l eges and uni ver si t i es shoul d gi ve Chr i st i an st udent s t he same
r i ght s t o fr ee expr essi on as ot her st udent s."
Hacker sai d Al l i ance fi l ed a si mi l ar sui t i n 2006 agai nst Mi ssour i St at e Uni ver si t y over t he school 's at t empt t o di sci pl i ne a Chr i st i an
soci al - wor k st udent who r efused t o suppor t adopt i ons by same- sex coupl es. The col l ege set t l ed t he sui t by, among ot her t hi ngs,
or der i ng an ext er nal r evi ew of t he soci al - wor k pr ogr am, Hacker sai d.
The Los Angel es Communi t y Col l ege Di st r i ct ' s offi ces wer e cl osed Fr i day for t he Pr esi dent s Day hol i day, and t he gener al counsel ,
1 of 2 9/14/2009 12:39 PM
RR 554
Cami l l e A. Goul et , coul d not be r eached. But i n a l et t er t o Al l i ance, t he di st r i ct sai d i t deemed Lopez's compl ai nt "ext r emel y ser i ous i n
nat ur e" and had l aunched a pr i vat e di sci pl i nar y pr ocess.
I n t he l et t er , Dean Al l i son Jones al so sai d t hat t wo st udent s had been "deepl y offended" by Lopez' s addr ess, one of whom st at ed t hat
"t hi s st udent shoul d have t o pay some pr i ce for pr eachi ng hat e i n t he cl assr oom."
Hacker sai d t he di st r i ct ' s r esponse was i nadequat e.
"What t hey di dn' t do was ensur e t hi s woul dn' t happen t o ot her st udent s," he sai d. "The dean accused Jonat han of offendi ng ot her
st udent s."
The sui t names t he Los Angel es Communi t y Col l ege Di st r i ct , whi ch oper at es ni ne campuses i ncl udi ng L.A. Ci t y Col l ege; i t s boar d of
t r ust ees; Mat t eson; and var i ous admi ni st r at or s. Lopez i s aski ng for a j ur y t r i al .
- -
gal e.hol l and@l at i mes.com
LOAD- DATE: Febr uar y 16, 2009
Source: Combined Source Set 20 - Major Newspapers
View: Full
Date/Time: Monday, September 14, 2009 - 12:38 PM EDT
My Lexis | Search | Research Tasks | Get a Document | Shepard's | Alerts | Total Litigator | Transactional Advisor | Counsel Selector
History | Delivery Manager | Dossier | Switch Client | Preferences | Sign Out | Help
About Lexi sNexi s | Terms & Condi t i ons | Cont act Us
Copyri ght 2009 Lexi sNexi s, a di vi si on of Reed El sevi er I nc. Al l ri ght s reserved.
2 of 2 9/14/2009 12:39 PM
RR 555

K-67
RR 556
E-Mail Story Print Story ShareThis Text Size: A A A
Search:
KNX1070.com Web KNX 1070
Audio
Traffic: 11 Incidents
Weather: 71F Go
10:05am PDT, 09/14/09
KNX 1070 News
Gay Activists Protest Mormons in NYC
NYC (AP) -- Carrying signs reading "Love not H8" and "Did you cast a ballot or a stone?", a large crowd of
gay-marriage supporters gathered outside a Mormon temple to protest the church's endorsement of a
same-sex marriage ban in California.
The rally Wednesday night outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints temple came hours
after gay couples exchanged vows for the first time in Connecticut amid cheers and tears of joy.
The milestone did not ease the sting of a major loss for gay-marriage supporters last week. Gay activists
planned protests across the country over the vote that took away their right to wed in California.
In the Upper West Side of Manhattan, demonstrators chanted "Shame on you!" outside the temple.
Leaders of the Mormon church had encouraged members to support passage of California's Proposition 8,
a referendum banning same-sex marriage.
"I'm fed up and disgusted with religious institutions taking political stances and calling them moral when it's
nothing but politics," said Dennis Williams, 36. "Meanwhile they enjoy tax-free status while trying to deny
me rights that should be mine at the state and federal level."
Church spokesman Michael Otterson said that while citizens have the right to protest, he was "puzzled" and
"disturbed" by the gathering since the majority of California's voters had approved the amendment.
"This was a very broad-based coalition that defended traditional marriage in a free and democratic
election," Otterson said, referring to the numerous religious and social conservative groups that sponsored
Proposition 8.
Organizers of the rally estimated at least 10,000 people participated. Police said they could not give a
crowd estimate.
Gay-marriage advocates said they were planning nationwide demonstrations this weekend in more than
175 cities and outside the U.S. Capitol. A Seattle blogger was trying to organize simultaneous protests
outside statehouses and city halls in every state Saturday.
Earlier in Connecticut, Jody Mock and Elizabeth Kerrigan emerged from Town Hall in West Hartford to the
cheers of about 150 people and waved their marriage license high. The couple led the lawsuit that
overturned the state law.
"We feel very fortunate to live in the state of Connecticut, where marriage equality is valued, and hopefully
other states will also do what is fair," Kerrigan said.
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled on Oct. 10 that same-sex couples have the right to wed rather than
accept a 2005 civil union law designed to give them the same rights as married couples. A lower-court
judge entered a final order permitting same-sex marriage Wednesday morning. Massachusetts is the only
other state that allows gay marriages.
Connecticut officials had no information Wednesday on how many marriage licenses were issued to
same-sex couples. According to the state public health department, 2,032 civil union licenses were issued
between October 2005 and July 2008.
Like the highest courts in Connecticut and Massachusetts, the California Supreme Court ruled this spring
that same-sex marriage is legal. After about 18,000 such unions were conducted in California, however, its
voters last week approved Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment.
Gay rights groups said Wednesday they may ask California voters to overturn the ban on same-sex
marriage if legal challenges to Proposition 8 are unsuccessful.
ADVERTISEMENT
KNX - Gay Activists Protest Mormons in NYC http://www.knx1070.com/pages/3313034.php?
1 of 2 9/14/2009 1:06 PM
RR 557
E-Mail Story Print Story ShareThis Text Size: A A A
The California vote has sparked protests in several states, many targeting Mormon churches. Some have
been vandalized.
Activists also are aiming boycotts and protests at businesses and individuals who contributed to the
campaign to pass Proposition 8.

ShareThis
Print Page Email This Page

Search:
Sponsored Links:
Wedding
Find Wedding Centerpiece, Wedding Ideas, Bridal Show, and ot her wedding resources in t he Los Angeles area f rom Part yPOP. com
Unemployed Mom Makes $77/Hr (Online)
Mom makes $8,673/Month Part-Time! Read this special report to see how.
www.NewYorkGazetteNews.com
Does Acai Berry Work?
Warning! Want to Try Acai Berry? Make Sure You Read This First.
www.HealthNews3.tv
Leadership & Negotiation
Notre Dame Management Training Certificates Online
www.NotreDameOnline.com
DON'T Pay for White Teeth
Learn the trick, discovered by a mom, to turn yellow teeth white.
MomsTeethStory.com
Need Credit Card Debt Bailout?
10K+debts? We get rid of high credit card debt. Save 60%! List debt.
www.DebtReliefCenter.org/DebtHelp
Weichert, Realtors: Your Source for over 2 Million Homes for Sale
Find Los Angeles Real Estate, LA Real Estate, LA Homes for Sale. There's no bet t er t ime t o buy t hen now!
KNX 1070 NEWSRADIO is Southern California's most trusted and honored news radio station serving Los Angeles County / Orange County / Ventura County / Riverside County /
San Bernardino County / San Diego County. 50,000 watt clear signal. CBS News. Traffic & Weather Together on the Fives. Money news, sports, weather, entertainment and special
features. Streaming live online and offering News On Demand with free podcast downloads. Available in HD. Video webisodes of Money 101 Online with Bob McCormick, Cookin' Up
a Kitchen with Melinda Lee. www.knx1070.com.
Home | KNX 1070 Los Angeles News | US and World News | Los Angeles Traffic | Los Angeles Weather | Business News | Sports News | Entertainment News | Health News | Listen
Live | Podcasts / News On Demand | Local Los Angeles News | KNX Program Schedules | KNX Personalities | Join our Listener Club | Contests / Special Offers | Events/ Promotions |
Resources / Local Links | California Lottery Results | Contact Us | Advertise on KNX | Advertiser Directory | Jobs | KNX History | Money 101 Online with Bob McCormick
MMIX CBS Radio Stations Inc., All Rights Reserved.
Powered by Intertech Media, LLC
Advertise | Privacy Policy / Your California Privacy Rights | Terms Of Use | EEO Report
KNX - Gay Activists Protest Mormons in NYC http://www.knx1070.com/pages/3313034.php?
2 of 2 9/14/2009 1:06 PM
RR 558

K-68
RR 559
Copyright 2009 The San Diego Union-Tribune
The San Diego Union-Tribune
February 13, 2009 Friday
SECTION: LOCAL; Pg. B-1
LENGTH: 611 words
HEADLINE: Clinton won't cancel talk at boycotted hotel;
Owner supported gay-marriage ban
BYLINE: Jeff McDonald, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO
BODY:
DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO -- Despite pressure from supporters of same-sex marriage and organized labor, former
President Bill Clinton will speak as planned at a San Diego hotel whose owner gave money to help pass Proposition 8.
Union leaders, political activists and an elected official issued an open letter to Clinton yesterday, urging him to
reconsider delivering a speech Sunday at the Manchester Grand Hyatt.
The hotel has been the target of a boycott since July, after owner Doug Manchester donated $125,000 to the
successful campaign to ban same-sex marriage in California.
Union officials also accuse Manchester of requiring more work of maids and other employees than most hotels.
"Please do not violate our boycott," states the letter, signed by San Diego City Councilman Todd Gloria, labor
leader Lorena Gonzalez and six others. "Please do not speak at the Manchester Hyatt."
But a spokesman for the former president said Clinton will stick to his plan to speak before 2,500 members of the
International Franchise Association.
Clinton "feels like he has an obligation to the people who invited him to speak," spokesman Matthew McKenna
said yesterday. "He's obviously sympathetic to this cause. I don't think you can name a leader in the world who has done
more to advance gay and lesbian issues."
McKenna noted that Clinton campaigned against Proposition 8 last year and said that if Manchester or the hotel
had extended the invitation -- rather than the trade group -- Clinton would not have accepted.
Manchester did not return a call seeking comment.
Some who signed the letter, which notes that other organizations moved meetings and conferences to honor the
Page 1
RR 560
boycott, were unhappy when told of Clinton's decision.
"It's shameful and hypocritical that President Clinton wouldn't stand by his principles and honor two groups that
he's historically supported -- labor groups and gay rights," said Brigette Browning, president of Unite Here Local No.
30.
Cleve Jones, a longtime gay-rights activist who founded the NAMES Project/AIDS Memorial Quilt, said Clinton
should have known he'd create controversy.
"The boycott has been in effect and very well-publicized since July," said Jones, who also signed the letter. "He's
had ample foreknowledge of the situation."
Supporters of the boycott plan to gather outside the hotel at 11 a.m. Sunday and remain throughout Clinton's
scheduled 12:30 p.m. speech.
A spokeswoman for the International Franchise Association said the convention was booked six or seven years ago.
She said the trade group has no stance on gay marriage or the rally.
"The boycott really is between the hotel and this group," Alisa Harrison said.
Keynote speakers are typically booked up to a year in advance, said Stacy Tetschner, chief executive of the
National Speakers Association, a trade group for professional speakers. Top-tier speakers such as Clinton can command
fees of $100,000 or more.
"More than likely, it's his handlers that accepted this rather than himself," Tetschner said. "I don't know that the
owner of a hotel's personal political beliefs or support is something they would normally research."
Gay-rights leaders have targeted other Yes on 8 contributors, including A-1 Self Storage owner Terry Caster, a San
Diegan who gave almost $700,000 to the campaign.
Supporters of Proposition 8 say such donors are being unfairly targeted and that opponents should accept the will of
the majority.
The measure passed Nov. 4 with 52 percent of the vote but has since been challenged in court on multiple grounds.
The state Supreme Court is to hear oral arguments March 5.
Online:
To read the open letter to Bill Clinton, go to uniontrib.com/more/documents
GRAPHIC: 1 PIC; CAPTIONS: President Clinton will speak Sunday at Manchester Grand Hyatt.; PHOTOBY:
Associated Press
Page 2
Clinton won't cancel talk at boycotted hotel; Owner supported gay-marriage ban The San Diego Union-Tribune
February 13, 2009 Friday
RR 561

K-69
RR 562
Back to Article Click to Print
Mo n d a y, J u n . 22, 20 0 9
By DAVI D VAN BI EMA
Last November, J ay Pimentel began hearing that people in his neighborhood were receiving letters
about him. Pimentel lives in Alameda, Calif., a small, liberal-leaning community hanging off Oakland
into the San Francisco Bay. Pimentel, who is a Mormon, had supported Proposition 8, the ballot
initiative banning same-sex marriage. And that made him a target. "Dear Neighbor," the letter began,
"Our neighbors, Colleen and J ay Pimentel" and it gave their address "contributed $1,500.00 to the
Yes on Proposition 8 campaign. NEIGHBORS SHOULD BE AWARE OF THEIR NEIGHBORS'
CHOICES." The note accused the Pimentels of "obsessing about same-sex marriage." It listed a variety of
local causes that recipients should support "unlike the Pimentels."
Pimentel, a lawyer and a lay leader in the small Mormon congregation in Alameda, is markedly
even-keeled. Yet the poison-pen note still steams him, even though in May the California Supreme Court
validated Prop 8 as constitutional. He is bothered less by the revelation of his monetary contribution,
which he stands by, than the fact that the letter's author didn't bother to find out that every other
Saturday for 15 years, he or someone else from Alameda's 184-member Mormon ward has delivered a
truckload of hot meals to the Midway Shelter for Abused and Homeless Women and Children one of
the organizations the Pimentels allegedly wouldn't support. "The church does a lot of things in the
community we don't issue press releases about," he says. "And when people criticize us, we often just
take it on the chin. I guess you could say I'm not satisfied with the way we're seen." (See pictures from
inside a Mormon ward.)
Across the country, that's the dilemma facing the Church of J esus Christ of Latter-day Saints. With 13
million members worldwide (by its own count), the LDS is the fourth largest church in the country, the
richest per capita and one of the fastest-growing abroad. The body has become a mainstream force,
counting among its flock political heavyweights like former Republican presidential candidate Mitt
Romney and Democratic Senate majority leader Harry Reid, businesspeople like the Marriotts and
entertainers like Glenn Beck and Twilight novelist Stephenie Meyer. The passage of Prop 8 was the
church's latest display of its power: individual Mormons contributed half of the proposition's $40 million
The Church and Gay Marriage: Are Mormons Misunderstood? -- Printout ... http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1904146,00.html
1 of 6 9/14/2009 2:41 PM
RR 563
war chest despite constituting only 2% of California's population. LDS spokesman Michael Otterson says,
"This is a moment of emergence." (See pictures of Stephenie Meyer's career.)
But that emergence has its costs. Even as Mormons have become more prominent, they have struggled to
overcome lingering prejudices and misrepresentations about the sources of their beliefs. Polls suggest that up
to half of Americans would be uncomfortable with a Mormon President. And though the Prop 8 victory was a
high-water mark for Mormon political advocacy, it also sparked a vicious backlash from gay-rights activists,
some of whom accused Mormons of bigotry and blind religious obedience.
The LDS regards such charges as the product of ignorance. It sees itself as primarily apolitical; on issues on
which it has taken a stand, the church's positions have been roughly consistent with other conservative faiths.
But Mormon activism, when it occurs, does differ from the American norm in significant ways, because of both
the dominating role played by LDS President and Prophet Thomas Monson and the church's remarkable
electoral cohesion. After the California Supreme Court's ruling to uphold Prop 8, gay-rights groups announced
their intent to return same-sex marriage to the California ballot in 2010, almost challenging the Mormons to
respond. By championing the California traditional-marriage initiative so forcefully and successfully the first
time, the Mormon church has stepped onto America's next big cultural battleground. But in figuring out if it
should pick up the gauntlet again, the Mormons, who feel they have so much else to offer, must consider
whether the issue is becoming a referendum on Mormonism itself.
Wh a t Mo r mo n s Believe
"Our Message for the World," says M. Russell Ballard J r., one of the 14 apostles just under Monson, "is that we
are His children, we lived with Him before we came here ... we're striving to keep His commandments so that
when we die we can be entitled to receive all the blessings that the Heavenly Father has for His children."
Ballard adds emphatically, "People like to make it complex. But it's really pretty simple."
See the top 10 religion stories of 2008.
See pictures of J ohn 3:16 in pop culture.
Actually, it's pretty complex. Beyond some (extremely) colorful details, there are two radical Mormon
theological deviations from conventional Christianity, both of which have at least some bearing on the
gay-marriage battle. The first is an expansion of the drama of salvation. In creedal Christianity, J esus'
divinity, incarnation, teachings, death and resurrection are the entire point. Mormons, too, believe in Christ
as Saviour and model and are as committed as any other Christians to his emulation. But they also believe we
existed prenatally as God's "spirit children," that our earthly life is an interlude for learning and testing and
that we continue developing after death. The best Mormons may become in the afterlife parents to their own
batch of spirit children. "As Man is, God once was; as God is, Man may become," goes the couplet by the fifth
Mormon President, Lorenzo Snow. This unusual scheme underlies Mormon sunniness, industriousness and
charity. Says J ana Riess, a comparative-religions expert who converted to Mormonism and is a co-author of
Mormonism for Dummies: "There's no other Christian theology as beautifully open to human beings' eternal
2 of 6 9/14/2009 2:41 PM
RR 564
potential." (See people finding God on YouTube.)
Gays constitute a notable exception. Some Mormons have a conventional view of homosexuality as sin. But
their marriage preference has an additional aspect. The return to God is accomplished by heterosexually
founded families, not individuals, and only as a partner in a procreative relationship can a soul eventually
create spirit children. "I've had personal experience with gay people, and I weep with them," says official LDS
historian Marlin J ensen, but the "context for our being so dogged about preserving the family is that
Mormons believe that God is their father and that they have a heavenly mother and that eventually their
destiny is to become like that." The alienation felt by gay Mormons was highlighted in 2000, when one of
them, 32-year-old Stuart Matis, committed suicide on the steps of the Los Altos, Calif., church headquarters.
The second politically controversial Mormon teaching is the belief in a living, breathing Prophet in Salt
Lake City. Prophets have even more authority than Popes do in Catholicism; among other things, they are
able to add to Scripture. Because they make key decisions with their apostles, the model is oligarchic rather
than absolute, but it still vests extraordinary influence in Monson, his two counselors and his apostles, who
transmit orders downward through the Salt Lake City based general authorities, regional stake presidents
and local pastors called bishops. (See pictures of spiritual healing around the world.)
Mormons bristle at the notion of "blind obedience" to the Prophet. The faith makes much of free will, and
each believer divines his path privately with the help of reason, prayer and the Holy Spirit. But most often, the
outcome of that process affirms the Prophet's instructions. The combination of free-will rhetoric and de facto
obedience produces what Stephen Carter, editor of the independent Mormon magazine Sunstone, calls
"people who are psychologically healthy, have a good sense of direction and who are for the most part ready to
follow orders."
Th e Or ga n ized Mo r mo n
Richard and J oan Ostling, authors of Mormon America, calculated that pious Mormons devote an astonishing
20 hours a week to church-related activities, an expectation Richard Ostling says exists in "no other big
denomination." Constant interaction through Bible study, family home evenings, Mormon scout troops and
other community-building activities yield a practiced, seamless unity more common to much smaller insular
groups like the Amish and ultra-Orthodox J ews.
The biggest manifestation of that unity is one of America's largest private welfare networks, a charitable
wonder called the Bishop's Storehouse system that kept thousands of LDS members off the dole during the
Great Depression (and is humming again). In the past, the only knock against the church's largesse was that
it aided mostly Mormons: the Ostlings write that in the 14 years ending in 1997, the LDS spent a paltry $30.7
million in cash on non-Mormon humanitarian aid. But that changed in the late '90s, and humanitarian
expenditures in 2008 alone topped $110 million (including noncash donations). "We're there when the
tornadoes hit and hurricanes hit and the volcanoes explode," says Ballard. Notes Marian Sylvestre of the Bay
Area Red Cross, which developed a fruitful cooperation with Pimentel: "They're quiet soldiers with plenty of
resources."
3 of 6 9/14/2009 2:41 PM
RR 565
See pictures of a drive-in church.
Read "What Is Mormonism? A Baptist Answer."
It's precisely those resources, though, that have drawn the LDS into the eye of the country's biggest cultural
tempest. The church embraced church-state separation in the 1800s and explicitly recognizes the right of
independent-minded officeholders like Romney and Reid to make their own calls. Retail politics, however, is
different. Although Salt Lake City officially rejects wading in on most issues, it makes a large exception:
matters of morals, with an emphasis on gender debates. Mormon activists helped halt the Equal Rights
Amendment in the 1970s and '80s and gay marriage in Hawaii (1998) and California (2000). (Read "What
Romney Belives.")
Prop 8 constituted a kind of perfect political storm of theology, demographics and organization. At the
Alameda Meeting House last J une (as at other Mormon churches statewide), a letter from Monson and his
counselors advised believers to "do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating
of your means and time." A string of Protect Marriage coalition meetings followed. They never occurred on
LDS property, but they were overwhelmingly Mormon in attendance and sought Mormon support. Alaina
Stewart, a church member, was asked to employ a list of "who in the ward we thought could contribute. We'd
call and say, 'We're asking you to give such and such an amount,'" she says.
Some declined. A senior church official had promised Mormons who disagreed on Prop 8 that "we love them
and bear them no ill will." This played well in Alameda, where many LDS members ferry their children to
classmates' birthday parties thrown by same-sex parents. Stewart says she intended from the start to vote yes.
But she adds, "I can certainly understand why members of the gay community wanted to receive this rite. I
think there were ward members on the fence, thinking, Why not give them marriage?"
But the general authorities in Salt Lake City increased the pressure. A broadcast to all churches outlined the
pro-8 ground campaign, with titles like "Thirty People in Each Ward" and "More than Four Hours per Week."
Craig Teuscher, the Alameda ward's regional stake president, reiterated in church the seriousness of Monson's
request to congregants.
The new push for the proposition had a rational side: the church claimed that the legalization of gay marriage
would threaten its tax-exempt status if it refused to perform gay nuptials. (Most legal scholars disagree.) But
belief in Monson's supernatural connection also played a big role. Says Stewart: "The Prophet's telling us to
stand up. When he speaks, you're realizing that there may be things that I don't see." Asks Gayle Teuscher,
the stake president's wife: "If I believe that the Prophet is a true prophet of God and disregard his counsel,
what does that say about my belief in God?" Sunstone's Carter says most Mormons who explained their stance
for his publication "said, 'The Prophet has a longer view than we do' or 'It was revealed to me.'" Clark Pingree,
a Bay Area Mormon gay activist, says that of the various Mormon pro-8 rationales, the Prophet-
made-me-do-it line was "the most infuriating, because people say, 'I'm showing my faith by voting against
what I know in my heart.' It's a force field you will never penetrate."
4 of 6 9/14/2009 2:41 PM
RR 566
Po lit ics o r Per s ecu t io n ?
Proposition 8 won by less than 5% of the vote. Individual Mormons contributed $20 million of its $40 million
war chest. Asked whether the belief in prophecy, transmuted into funding and activism, could have been
decisive, David Campbell, a University of Notre Dame political scientist (and a Mormon) who has studied LDS
political activity, says, "I think that's arguable, in the positive sense of the word." Many Alameda congregants
who had initially refused Stewart's fundraising efforts changed their mind; she exceeded her goals. Mormons
made calls, placed flyers and planted lawn signs. They thought they were being good citizens.
Watch a gay marriage wedding video.
See more about Mormonism.
That has made the aftermath of Prop 8 all the more disturbing to them. Furious gay-rights activists targeted
the church, picketing temples in several states. A prominent Mormon Sacramento musical-theater director
was hounded from his job. Tom Hanks declared the Mormons "un-American." (He later apologized.) Alameda
Mormons like Pimentel read fire-breathing quotes in the San Francisco Chronicle and fielded "Dear
Neighbor" notes.
Says Stewart: "I hear they threw bags of urine at a temple. If we had lost, it never would have occurred to me
to react that way." Three months after the election, she says, "I don't feel quite the same way about our
community." She felt frozen out of conversations among other parents. "You think, This will go away. But it
doesn't seem to. I think about my kids in school," she says. "I want them to be accepted, to feel it's O.K. to be
different." Of course, this is precisely the sentiment motivating the gay-marriage movement. (See pictures of
the gay rights movement.)
But as a Mormon concern, it long predates Prop 8. For a century, the Mormon church had a rocky and
sometimes bloody relationship with American culture at large; persecution by "gentiles" became key to LDS
self-understanding. But thanks to their industry, optimism and civic-mindedness, many Mormons have found
their place in the American fabric. Ballard says, "We'd like to be seen as mainstream if that means being
part of the national conversation about issues of morality and having our members respected as contributing
members of society. But we have to hang on to what's true, regardless of where society goes." He adds, "We've
never felt that we were being more understood or more appreciated, at least in my 30 years as a general
authority." Ballard helped supervise an outreach program during the heightened "Mormon Moment" of the
Romney campaign as apostles fanned out to visit media editorial boards. However, he contends that the "real
power" determining public perception of his faith is "when a member of the church meets his neighbor, and
the neighbor sees that he has objectives to his life and is finding happiness in his field. That's starting to
happen all over." (See pictures of Mitt Romney on the campaign trail.)
Not everyone is as upbeat. Christopher Bigelow, a publisher and satirist (he edited the Sugar Beet, a kind of
LDS Onion), says, "In the 20th century, we were allowed to grow and even gain a measure of respect." But
Bigelow sees that as a mere "doughnut hole" in a darker dynamic. Gay marriage, he says, belongs to a class of
5 of 6 9/14/2009 2:41 PM
RR 567
Click to Print
behaviors increasingly tolerated in the broader society that the church must nonetheless oppose. He dips into
an old but potent vocabulary: "As civilization keeps moving from standards we think God wants people to
hold, it's inevitable that we expect persecution." Back in Alameda, Stewart's husband Brad says about Prop 8,
"I hope I never have to do it again," but adds grimly, "I expect that I will."
Th e Dilemma o f Dep lo ymen t
The Church has not decided on its future role in the gay-marriage debate. The heat surrounding Prop 8 may
die down by next year. "Talking about what may or may not happen in 2010 would be speculation, and I
wouldn't want to do that," says Apostle Quentin Cook. The LDS abstained from same-sex-marriage battles in
Iowa and New England. But avoiding a California rematch may be tougher. Notre Dame's Campbell says, "If it
appeared that the church sat out next time because it was criticized this time, there might be a credibility
question." But given a national trend toward supporting gay marriage, he asks, "Does the church want the
public to identify it primarily as a political body opposing an issue that comes back again and again?"
J ay Pimentel, for one, will be spared that profoundly tricky question for now. Shortly after the "Dear
Neighbor" letter, Salt Lake City tapped him to lead all missionary activity in eastern Germany. The move
entails sacrifices; he'll be leaving his job and uprooting an adult son with special needs. But it will put him in
a field where the LDS has concerns its spectacular international growth has begun to plateau and
incidentally remove him from any 2010 proposition battle.
Is he relieved? "I might feel relief," he says finally. "Or I might feel a kind of longing, a desire to be there."
Then Pimentel expresses an archetypal LDS sentiment: "I like to help where I can be helpful."
See TIME's Pictures of the Week.
See the world's most influential people in the 2009 TIME 100.
Fin d t h is a r t icle a t :
http:/ / www.time.com/ time/ magazine/ article/ 0,9171,1904146,00.html
6 of 6 9/14/2009 2:41 PM
RR 568

K-70
RR 569

Advertisement
Prop. 8 foes plan protest
at Long Beach Hyatt

By James Rasmussen, Staff Writer

Posted: 05/12/2009 09:12:21 PM PDT
LONG BEACH - Gay activists will be protesting at
the Hyatt Regency Long Beach this afternoon
because an owner of another Hyatt hotel is a
strong opponent of gay marriage and last year
made a six-figure donation to the Yes on
Proposition 8 campaign.

The event is co-sponsored by the Long Beach
Coalition for Good Jobs and a Healthy Community
and has two demands of the Hyatt Corp.: the first
is for Hyatt to publicly support marriage equality
and the second is for Hyatt to sever all ties with
Doug Manchester.

This protest comes after Manchester, owner of
the Manchester Grand Hyatt in San Diego,
donated $125,000 to help put California's
Proposition 8 on the ballot last November.

Hyatt spokesman Mike Murchison said Tuesday
that he had no comment on the protest at this
time.

The Manchester Grand Hyatt and leaders of the
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
community in San Diego have been butting heads
since July when groups called for a boycott of the
hotel during the San Diego Gay Pride Parade.

In a phone interview for San Diego television
station KGTV's Web site published July 10, 2008,
Manchester said the boycott is just another tactic
in the labor group's long-time effort to unionize
the hotel.
Manchester added that he supported gay and
lesbian employees who work at his hotel, but he
said his Catholic faith motivates him to support
traditional marriage.
The coalition is not calling for a boycott of the
Hyatt Hotel, but pledges to hold the Hyatt Long
Beach and its owner and operator, The Hyatt
Corp., accountable for their relationship to
Manchester.
The press conference, which is open to the
public, will be held at 5p.m. today at the Hyatt
Regency, 200 S. Pine Ave.
james.rasmussen@presstelegram.com , 562-
499-1281
http://www.whittierdailynews.com/fdcp?1253059677106
1 of 1 9/15/2009 8:08 PM
RR 570

K-71
RR 571
Copyright 2009 Daily News, L.P.
Daily News (New York)
February 3, 2009 Tuesday
SPORTS FINAL EDITION
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 8
LENGTH: 287 words
HEADLINE: ARTIST DRAWS GAYS' IRE FOR SAME-SEX NUPS BAN SUPPORT
BYLINE: BY NANCY DILLON DAILY NEWS WEST COAST BUREAU CHIEF With Edgar Sandoval in
Chappaqua, N.Y.
BODY:
LOS ANGELES - A New York artist known for her colorful canvases of drag queens and gay pride parades gave
$1,000 to help pass California's ban on same-sex marriage.
Maureen Mullarkey, 66, made her sizable contribution to the National Organization for Marriage's "Yes on 8" fund
in June, a Daily News review of campaign records found.
The Westchester County woman was one of tens of thousands who poured a total of more than $83 million into the
coffers of Proposition 8 support groups - money that helped convince California voters to overturn an earlier court
decision granting gays the right to marry in the Golden State.
Questioned outside her home in tony Chappaqua - the same town where Bill and Hillary Clinton live - she refused
to discuss her donation last night.
When asked how she could have donated money to fight gay marriage after making money from her depictions of
gays, she just said, "So?"
"If you write that story, I'll sue you," she said.
On her Web site, Mullarkey says gay parades are a "marvelous spectacle" and "assertion of solidarity."
"It is an erotic celebration loosed for a day to keep us all mindful that Dionysus is alive, powerful and under our
own porch," said Mullarkey, a former art critic for the now-defunct New York Sun.
Gay activists felt betrayed at word of Mullarkey's donation.
Page 1
RR 572
"If I were a buyer of her work, I wouldn't buy it anymore," said Charles Leslie, co-founder of Leslie/Lohman Gay
Art Foundation in Manhattan.
Leslie stopped short of calling for a boycott of Mullarkey's work, but the threat of boycotts was part of the reason
supporters of Proposition 8 asked a judge to keep secret the names of most donors.
The federal judge denied the request last Thursday.
ndillon@nydailynews.com
Page 2
ARTIST DRAWS GAYS' IRE FOR SAME-SEX NUPS BAN SUPPORT Daily News (New York) February 3, 2009
Tuesday
RR 573

K-72
RR 574
News Food Opinion Health & Science Entertainment Features Current Issue

KeywordSearch
How Do I?
Advertising | Masthead | Archives | Contact | Home

A Note From the Editors
It is not the policy of Synapse to run opinion articles anonymously, but we have broken that rule to
publish the accompanying article on Proposition 8.
We do so because we think it is important for all shades of opinion within the campus community
to be heard. We do so because we have printed many articles from those opposing Prop 8, but
hadnt received any from the other side.
Efforts were made to get the writer to agree to use his name, but he refused, citing fear of
harassment. While we devoutly hope that would not be the case, we were sobered by a column
on November 23 by the San Francisco Chronicles Editorial Page Editor John Diaz. He wrote:
A supporter of Proposition 8, fed up with what he believed was the gay communitys and liberal
medias refusal to accept the voters verdict, fired off a letter to the editor.
Please show respect for democracy, he wrote, in a letter we published.
What he encountered instead was an utter lack of respect for free speech.
Within hours, the intimidation game was on. Because his real name and city were listed a
condition for publication of letters to The Chronicle opponents of Prop. 8 used Internet search
engines to find the letter writers small business, his Web site (which included the names of his
children and dog), his phone number and his clients. And they posted that information in the
Comments section of SFGate.com urging, in ugly language, retribution against the authors
business and its identified clients.
We at Synapse would like to think that this would never happen at UCSF, but finally decided to let
the accompanying article run anonymously, to spare the writer of any of the harassment that has
occurred since the passage of Prop 8.
In this democracy, the way to rectify errors at the polls is to convince a majority at a future election
of the rightness of your cause. No matter how passionately one feels about an issue, it is
important to maintain a civil dialogue and a reasoned debate.
We welcome any and all comments from the campus community. Email them to us at
synapse@ucsf.edu
The Editors

Argosy University
Earn a Business
Degree on Your
Schedule. Learn More
Today!
www.argosy.edu
HP Deals for Your
School
Buy Direct from HP
and Save on PCs and
Printers for your
School!
www.shopping.hp.com/st
Sales Letter
Business
Copy Our Software
Business We Used To
Make Over $900,000
in 60 Days
www.SalesLetterBusiness
Test IM Practice
Manager
at UCSF Hospitalist
Conference Sept
24-26, 2009 San
Francisco, CA
www.ingeniousmed.com
UCSF: Synapse: Archive http://synapse.ucsf.edu/articles/2008/december/04/editorsnote.html
1 of 2 9/15/2009 6:11 PM
RR 575

Exhibit L
RR 576
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


1
Nicole J. Moss
Jesse Panuccio

andrew@pugnolaw.com

braum@telladf.org




ZARRILLO,

Plaintiffs,

v.

G. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as At-
torney General of California; MARK B. HOR-


DECLARATION OF HAK-SHING
WILLIAM TAM IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS MO-
TION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

Time: 10:00AM
RR 577
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


2
TON, in his official capacity as Director of the
California Department of Public Health and State
Registrar of Vital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT,
in her official capacity as Deputy Director of
Health Information & Strategic Planning for the
California Department of Public Health; PA-
TRICK OCONNELL, in his official capacity as
Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda; and
DEAN C. LOGAN, in his official capacity as
Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for

Defendants,

and

SHING WILLIAM TAM, and MARK A. JANS-
SON; and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM YES
ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RE-
NEWAL,






I, Hak-Shing William Tam, make the following declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746:
1. I am a resident of California over 18 years of age, and my statements herein are based on
personal knowledge.
RR 578
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


3
2. I am one of the Official Proponents of the California ballot measure in 2008 known as
Proposition 8. I am also a Defendant-Intervener in this case. As an official proponent I had private
communications regarding political strategy and my own personal political and moral views with
other members of ProtectMarriage.com and the campaign.
3. In addition to being an Official Proponent, I volunteered as the head of a coalition of
Asian churches whose membership also had an interest in the passage of Proposition 8. The
coalition communicated with interested churches about the campaign and encouraged them to get
out and vote. As the head of this coalition, I had numerous private communications reflecting mine
and others deeply held political and religious views and our thoughts on political strategy and
petitioning the government. I engaged in these communications as part of this coalition, not in my
capacity as an official proponent of Proposition 8. I am very concerned that Plaintiffs broad
discovery requests make no distinction in this regard and would require me to produce all such
private communications because they were between me and a third-party.
4. If I am required to disclosure such communications, whether the non-public communi-
cations I had as an official proponent or the communications I had as the head of a coalition inter-
ested in Proposition 8, it would affect how I communicate in the future. I would change what I say,
who I feel I can speak to, and who I associate with for fear that such communications would not
remain private as they were intended.
5. I am also concerned about disclosing such communications because I am aware of
many instances of harassment and retaliation against supporters of Proposition 8 that occurred after
their support for the ballot initiative or their affiliation with Protect Marriage became public. For
example, a friend in my church was beaten by a person when he was passing out Yes on 8 flyers.
Another friends house was vandalized with spray paint graffiti. Another friends name was put
RR 579
RR 580

Exhibit M
RR 581
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DECLARATION OF SARAH TROUPIS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS

1
Nicole J. Moss
Jesse Panuccio

andrew@pugnolaw.com

braum@telladf.org




ZARRILLO,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MUND G. BROWN, JR., in his official capaci-
ty as Attorney General of California; MARK


DECLARATION OF SARAH
TROUPIS IN SUPPORT OF DE-
FENDANT-INTERVENORS MO-
TION FOR A PROTECTIVE OR-
DER

Time: 10:00 a.m.
RR 582
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


2
B. HORTON, in his official capacity as Direc-
tor of the California Department of Public
Health and State Registrar of Vital Statistics;
LINETTE SCOTT, in her official capacity as
Deputy Director of Health Information & Stra-
tegic Planning for the California Department of
Public Health; PATRICK OCONNELL, in his
official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the
County of Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in
his official capacity as Registrar-
Recorder/County Clerk for

Defendants,

and

RENEWAL,






RR 583
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


3
I, Sarah E. Troupis, make the following declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746:
1. I am a resident of Indiana over 18 years of age, and my statements herein are based on
personal knowledge.
order.
3. ProtectMarriage.com is a Defendant-Intervenor in this case.
4. I am an attorney who represents ProtectMarriage.com as a plaintiff in another casea
lawsuit challenging various election disclosure provisions of California law. The case is styled as
ProtectMarriage.com v. Bowen, No. 09-0058 (E.D. Cal., filed Jan. 7, 2009).
5. One of ProtectMarriage.coms assertions in the Bowen case is that California laws re-
quiring the public disclosure of the identity of certain referendum campaign donors violate the
First Amendment by chilling core political speech. As part of its factual showing in that case,
ProtectMarriage.com has submitted nearly 60 declarations of individuals who attested to harass-
ment and threats leveled against them because of their support of traditional marriage.
6. I was the attorney responsible for collecting these declarations. As part of that
process, I spoke with each of the declarants, who reported to me many instances of harassment and
threats as a result of their support for Prop. 8.
7. True and correct copies of those declarations, as filed in the Bowen case, are available
on the District Court for Eastern District of Californias PACER website. See Docs # 32-33, 35-
40, 45, 113-162, ProtectMarriage.com v. Bowen, No. 09-00058 (E.D. Cal. filed Jan. 9, 2009). The
declarations of Does 1 through 9 were filed in support of ProtectMarriage.coms motion for a
preliminary injunction. The majority of the declarationsthose of Does 10 through 58were
filed in support of ProtectMarriage.coms motion for summary judgment.
RR 584
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


4
8. I have had several other individuals who support traditional marriage come to me with
incidents of harassment and threats they suffered because of their support for traditional marriage.
Even though we have a protective order in place in the Bowen case that allows individuals to
submit declarations under seal, these individuals were unwilling to submit declarations because of
the fear that, despite the protective order, their names would become public knowledge and they
would be subject to further threats and harassment.

RR 585
I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND
CORRECT.
Executed on September 15,2009
DECLARATION OF SARAH E. TROUPIS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS'
RR 586
NOS. 09-17241, 09-17551


v.

California

RELEVANT PARTS OF THE RECORD VOLUME IV OF IV

Andrew P. Pugno
(916) 608-3065; (916) 608-3066 Fax

Brian W. Raum
James A. Campbell
(480) 444-0020; (480) 444-0028 Fax

Charles J. Cooper
David H. Thompson
Nicole J. Moss
Jesse Panuccio
Peter A. Patterson
(202) 220-9600
(202) 220-9601 Fax




Volume I


USDC Dkt # 252

RR 1-10


USCD Dkt # 237

RR 11-23


USDC Dkt # 214

RR 24-41

Volume II

Review

USDC Dkt # 251

RR 42-44


USDC Dkt # 249

RR 45-48


USDC Dkt # 247

RR 49


USDC Dkt # 246

RR 50-96


USDC Dkt # 238

RR 97-98

Protective Order

USDC Dkt # 220-1

RR 99-104


USDC Dkt # 212

RR 105-178


USDC Dkt # 197-2

RR 179-185


USDC Dkt # 197-3

RR 186-192


USDC Dkt # 197-4

RR 193-195

Campaign

USDC Dkt # 197-7

RR 196-210


USDC Dkt # 191

RR 211-228

(U.S. Mar. 17, 2009)
USDC Dkt # 187-1 RR 229-255


USDC Dkt # 187-2

RR 256-260


USDC Dkt # 187-3

RR 261-267


USDC Dkt # 187-4

RR 268-289


USDC Dkt # 187-5

RR 290-291


USDC Dkt # 187-6

RR 292-294

Volume III

Moss Declaration

USDC Dkt # 187-7

RR 295-301


USDC Dkt # 187-9

RR 302-316

Jannson Declaration

USDC Dkt # 187-10

RR 317-320

Disclosure

USDC Dkt # 187-11

RR 321-575

Tam Declaration

USDC Dkt # 187-12

RR 576-580

Troupis Declaration

USDC Dkt # 187-13

RR 581-586

Volume IV


USDC Dkt # 162

RR 587-603

Statement

USDC Dkt # 159

RR 604-618


USDC Dkt # 157

RR 619-637

Docket Sheet

RR 638-661

Volume 1
Pages 1 - 70
BEFORE THE HONORABLE VAUGHN R. WALKER, JUDGE
KRISTIN PERRY, ET AL., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
VS. ) NO. C 09-2292 VRW
)
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, ET AL., )
) San Francisco, California
Defendants. ) Wednesday
) August 19, 2009
___________________________________) 10:02 a.m.

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiffs: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90071-3197
BY: CHRISTOPHER D. DUSSEAULT, ESQ.
THEANE E. KAPUR, ESQ.
THEODORE J. BOUTROUS, JR., ESQ.
and
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
555 Mission Street
Suite 3000
San Francisco, California 94105-2933
BY: ENRIQUE A. MONAGAS, ESQ.
and
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
Washington, D.C. 20036-5306
BY: THEODORE B. OLSON, ESQ.
MATTHEW D. MCGILL, ESQ.

Reported By: Belle Ball, CSR 8785, RMR, CRR
Official Reporter, U.S. District Court

(Appearances continued, next page)

Belle Ball, CSR #8785, RMR, CRR
(415) 373-2529

RR 587
2

APPEARANCES, CONTINUED:
Also For Plaintiffs: BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER
333 Main Street
Armonk, New York 10504
BY: DAVID BOIES, ESQ.
JEREMY M. GOLDMAN, ESQ.
THEODORE H. UNO, ESQ.

For Defendants Schwarzenegger, Scott and Horton:
Mennemeier, Glassman & Stroud
980 9th Street
Suite 1700
Sacramento, California 95814
BY: KENNETH C. MENNEMEIER, ESQ.

For Defendant Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr.:
California Department of Justice
Office of the Attorney General
1300 I Street
17th Floor
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
BY: GORDON B. BURNS
Deputy Solicitor General
and
California Department of Justice
Suite 11000
San Francisco, California 94102
BY: TAMAR PACHTER, ESQ.

For Defendant Logan:
Office of the County Counsel
County of Los Angeles
500 West Temple Street
Room 652
Los Angeles, California 90012
BY: JUDY W. WHITEHURST
Principal Deputy County Counsel


(415) 373-2529

RR 588
3

For Defendant Patrick O'Connell:
Office of County Counsel
County of Alameda
1221 Oak Street
Suite 450
Oakland, California 94612
BY: CLAUDE F. KOLM
LINDSEY STERN
Deputy County Counsel

For Proposed Intervenor Plaintiffs Our Family Coalition,
Lavender Seniors of East Bay, and PFLAG:
American Civil Liberties
Union Foundation
125 Broad Street
18th Floor
New York City, New York 10004-2400
BY: JAMES D. ESSEKS, ESQ.
and
American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation of Northern California
39 Drumm Street
BY: ELIZABETH GILL, ESQ.
and
Lambda Legal
3325 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 1300
Los Angeles, California 90010
BY: JENNIFER C. PIZER, ESQ.
and
National Center for Lesbian Rights
870 Market Street
Suite 370
BY: SHANNON PRICE MINTER, ESQ.
CHRISTOPHER STOLL, ESQ.


(415) 373-2529

RR 589
4

For Proposed Intervenor Defendant Campaign for California
Families:
Liberty Counsel
Post Office Box 11108
Lynchburg, Virginia 24506
BY: RENA M. LINDEVALDSEN, ESQ.

For Intervenor Defendants:
Cooper & Kirk
1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
BY: CHARLES J. COOPER, ESQ.
DAVID H. THOMPSON, ESQ.

For Intervenor Defendants:
Alliance Defense Fund
BY: BRIAN W. RAUM, ESQ.
JAMES A. CAMPBELL, ESQ.

For City and County of San Francisco:
City and County of San Francisco
Office of the City Attorney
1390 Market Street
Seventh Floor
BY: THERESE STEWART, ESQ.
ERIN BERNSTEIN, ESQ.
CHRISTINE VAN AKEN, ESQ.
DENNIS HERRERA, ESQ.

Reported By: Belle Ball, CSR 8785, RMR, CRR
Official Reporter, U.S. District Court

(415) 373-2529

RR 590
JJUtFFDINt-
57
1 which the -- and it is unclear at this point the degree to
2 which the State Defendants may seek to defend these alleged
3 governmental interests, San Francisco's motion for permissive
4 intervention under Rule 24(b) will be granted.
5 And I would suggest, unless any of the parties
6 object, that any answer or otherwise -- any answer or
7 responsive pleading to the complaint and intervention by the
8 City and County of San Francisco be answered in ten days.
9 Is that possible, Mr. Cooper, on your side?
10 MR. COOPER: It is, indeed, Your Honor.
11 THE COURT: Very well. Now, let's turn to case
12 management. And first of all, I want to commend the parties,
13 and particularly Mr. Olson and Mr. Cooper. You have obviously
14 taken to heart the discussion that we had here last month, and
15 the order that was issued in the wake of the earlier case
16 management statements.
17 I thought that the specification of issues that the
18 Plaintiffs proposed and the responses by the Intervenor
19 Defendants was very helpful, very helpful indeed, in narrowing
20 the issues, and defining what it is that is before us, in terms
21 of how we are going to develop the record in this case.
22 Obviously, not every one of these facts is agreed to
23 by the Intervenors, but a number of them were. And, quite
24 understandable that in some instances Mr. Cooper might have a
25 little different verbal formulation of some of them.

(415) 373-2529

RR 591
JJUtFFDINt-
58
1 But nonetheless, I think we have made and you have
2 made some very considerable progress in shaping up the issues
3 so that we can proceed to a prompt determination of the cause
4 that is before the Court.
5 Now, before telling you what schedule I have in mind,
6 I gather, Mr. Cooper, at some point or other, it would be your
7 intent to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to
8 some -- perhaps more than some issues. Perhaps quite a number
9 of issues. Is that a fair reading?
10 MR. COOPER: That is, Your Honor, yes, sir. We -- we
11 believe that there are several issues on which -- on which this
12 Court's not free to depart from binding precedent in the Ninth
13 Circuit. And that -- and that if we are right on that, it
14 would significantly skinny down the -- now the discovery
15 burdens that will face the Plaintiffs and the Defendant
16 Intervenors as we go forward.
17 We may not be right, but we -- we would certainly --
18 we believe we are, and we would like an initial opportunity to
19 present those arguments to the Court.
20 THE COURT: I'm inclined to think that while we
21 should, in view of your position, schedule a dispositive motion
22 schedule with a hearing date, that at least some of the basic
23 discovery in the case can and should go forward very promptly.
24 I assume you want to take the depositions of the
25 Plaintiffs. And, Mr. Olson has indicated that he has some

(415) 373-2529

RR 592
JJUtFFDINt-
59
1 depositions in mind of your folks. And, seems to me we can get
2 those depositions out of the way very quickly. And, should do
3 so.
4 What's your reaction to that?
5 MR. COOPER: Your Honor, I don't quarrel with that
6 proposition.
7 I will say that some of the things that Mr. Olson
8 would like to inquire into of my clients -- the official
9 Proposition 8 proponents -- going to voter motivation are
10 issues that we earnestly believe are not fit and appropriate
11 for judicial inquiry, and that in fact, would raise the gravest
12 possible First-Amendment issues.
13 And we -- we have cited to the Court a case called
14 Sasso (Phonetic), but we would like an opportunity to fully
15 brief that proposition before we get off in the direction of
16 taking depositions of our clients and subpoenaeing their
17 e-mails and the rest of it, going to their internal campaign
18 strategies and the rest of it.
19 THE COURT: Disagreements as to the scope of
20 discovery are not unusual.
21 MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, they're not. But
22 discovery that at least we believe we would be privileged
23 against on a constitutional basis are pretty unusual.
24 And we think this is a -- this, at least as we
25 understand their intentions, would be unprecedented insofar as

(415) 373-2529

RR 593
JJUtFFDINt-
60
1 we have been able to tell. We have not been able to find a
2 single case where this kind of discovery was taken of the
3 proponents of a referendum measure in this state or in any
4 other.
5 And, so we think it's gravely serious issue, Your
6 Honor. We would urge the Court to give us an opportunity to
7 fight this out in briefing to the Court before we get down that
8 road.
9 And if we do go down that road, obviously we will
10 want to take the same kind of deposition testimony, as well as
11 document inquiries of those --
12 THE COURT: Who oppose Proposition 8.
13 MR. COOPER: Of course, Your Honor.
15 MR. COOPER: But --
16 THE COURT: What, in your view -- without getting too
17 far down the road, in your view, what is the scope of
18 appropriate discovery with reference to the proponents and the
19 opponents of Proposition 8?
20 MR. COOPER: That -- and I don't want to get too far
21 in front of myself, because to be quite honest with Your Honor,
22 I'm not sure where that line can safely be drawn as a
23 First-Amendment matter.
24 I do believe that when a judicial inquiry into the
25 intendment and meaning and purpose of a voter referendum is

(415) 373-2529

RR 594
JJUtFFDINt-
61
1 before the Court, that the one clear and certain analysis is to
2 test the conceivable legitimate state interests that it might
3 serve. And if it will serve none, the inference that flows
4 from that is that there was some illegitimate purpose at work.
5 That was the Romer case.
6 The Romer case concluded, the Court concluded that
7 "We have assessed against the language of the statute, we have
8 assessed against every conceivable purpose offered to us, or
9 that we could think of ourselves," the Court. "And we've
10 assessed it against its various impacts and effects."
11 And --
12 THE COURT: What discovery was taken in the Romer
13 case on that issue?
14 MR. COOPER: Your Honor, the interesting thing, I
15 understand there was a trial in this case. I don't understand
16 there was any discovery taken into the --
17 THE COURT: Well, that's refreshing, a trial without
18 discovery. That's like the old days.
19 MR. COOPER: Well, actually, there was discovery, but
20 it -- but there was no discovery taken into -- that we've been
21 able to find, in that case or any other, into the subjective
22 motivations of the voters, which -- or into the subjective
23 motivation presumably of their proxies, those that organized
24 the referendum effort, and those who organized and provided the
25 strategy for the campaign for the referendum, itself. We

(415) 373-2529

RR 595
JJUtFFDINt-
62
1 haven't been able to find any evidence that a party was allowed
2 to make inquiry into those things.
3 And, think of what that might mean. How could
4 proposition proponents, future proposItion proponents, not be
5 chilled in the exercise of their First-Amendment rights as they
6 sought to bring forward for consideration by the people these
7 types of propositions. So, Your Honor, we think that that's
8 off the table.
9 Clearly, the kind of inquiry that Romer engaged in is
10 plenty on the table. I think it is going to be hard for me
11 probably to convince myself, let alone you, that -- that the
12 types of public statements, official campaign literature,
13 certainly the official ballot information and brochures that
14 have the imprimatur of the state, and go to every voter, those
15 things are, it would appear, legitimate sources of information
16 about the purposes of the referendum.
17 But again, Your Honor, the -- the inquiries that we
18 think neither side should be allowed to take of the other are
19 those that go to -- and we believe would encroach and gravely
20 threaten First-Amendment freedoms.
21 THE COURT: Mr. Olson, what are your views on this
22 subject?
23 MR. OLSON: I would like to have my colleague,
24 Mr. Boies, address the case management issues.
25 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Boies? You've taken a

(415) 373-2529

RR 596
JJUtFFDINt-
63
1 lot of discovery in your life.
2 MR. BOIES: I have, Your Honor. And one of the
3 things that I think it underscores is what the Court said,
4 which is that discovery disputes are not uncommon, and that
5 they ordinarily are worked out in the course of discovery.
6 I think the very issue that Mr. Cooper candidly
7 addresses, which is the difficulty of finding exactly where
8 that line is, is something that experiences counsel can try to
9 work out among themselves, and if there's a problem, bring to
10 the Court.
11 I frankly do not believe that we will have a problem,
12 at least at the initial stages of the discovery, in limiting
13 discovery in a way that does not impermissibly infringe on any
14 First-Amendment issues. I think --
15 THE COURT: But I gather that you are planning some
16 discovery of the proponents.
17 MR. BOIES: Yes, Your Honor. And for example, I
18 think Mr. Cooper's exactly right, that there is some stuff that
19 is clearly on the table; there's some stuff that I think is
20 probably not on the table unless we were to make a showing that
21 we have not yet made; and then there's a number of things that
22 are in the middle.
23 I think that in terms of their official statements,
24 the statements that were made publicly, none of those, I think,
25 are something that can be plausibly argued should not be

(415) 373-2529

RR 597
JJUtFFDINt-
64
1 subject to discovery. Certainly, there are subjective,
2 unexpressed motivations. Those things I think we would not be
3 inquiring into, because we do not believe that those would
4 actually go to the issues that we are presenting to the Court.
5 So, I think that if there is a -- if there's a gray
6 area, there will be some objectively-stated assertions,
7 propositions, that may be encompassed in documents and the like
8 that may or may not have become public, and there may be some
9 issue as to what it means to say something has become public.
10 How broad does have it to be distributed in order to be
11 classified as public?
12 Those are all the kinds of gray-area discovery
13 decisions that we will make along the way. And I don't think
14 that any of those ought to hold up the commencement of
15 discovery, because no matter whose view you take, and -- and it
16 may be that we're not even in disagreement as to where the line
17 will ultimately be drawn, we are in agreement that there are
18 many areas that are going to be subject to discovery.
19 And if we are going to get this process going, and
20 really achieve what I know the Court's objective is and what
21 all of our objective is, which is a prompt resolution of this,
22 I think we need to get started. And I think that we can get
23 started on fact discovery, we can get started in preparing
24 expert reports now.
25 That doesn't mean that you can't have dispositive

(415) 373-2529

RR 598
JJUtFFDINt-
65
1 motions. But what it means is that we don't have to delay the
2 commencement of the work towards trial until we go through the
3 dispositive motions.
4 THE COURT: Well, with that in mind, let me discuss
5 with you and Mr. Cooper a schedule that I have in mind, based
6 upon what lies before me in the next several months.
7 And, that would be that we commence discovery in this
8 case today. That by the 2nd of October, experts, expert
9 witnesses, opinion witnesses, will be designated. We will have
10 a close of discovery by November 30, except for rebuttal
11 witnesses, which will be designated at that time, rebuttal
12 expert witnesses.
13 We will have a pretrial conference on the 17th of
14 December, a close of rebuttal expert recovery on the 31st of
15 December, and a trial beginning January 11.
16 Is that --
17 MR. BOIES: Your Honor, I think that is easily
18 doable.
19 THE COURT: Good. Mr. Cooper?
20 MR. COOPER: Your Honor, I wasn't able, honestly, to
21 get all of that down, but --
22 THE COURT: Well, let's go through it again.
23 MR. COOPER: Yeah, thank you.
24 THE COURT: Close of all discovery except expert
25 rebuttal discovery, November 30. Designation of experts,

(415) 373-2529

RR 599
JJUtFFDINt-
66
1 October 2. Pretrial conference, December 17. We will have to
2 pick a time. The Clerk will remind me, that's a Wednesday, I
3 believe. Is it not?
4 THE CLERK: December 17, Your Honor?
5 THE COURT: No, it's a Thursday.
6 THE CLERK: That's a Thursday.
7 THE COURT: Maybe we ought to --
8 THE CLERK: Move it up to 16?
9 THE COURT: Why don't we make that the 16th. That is
10 a Wednesday, I believe.
11 THE CLERK: It is a Wednesday, Your Honor.
12 THE COURT: And what does the calendar look like on
13 the 16th?
14 (Off-the-Record discussion)
15 THE COURT: Well, we're in trial on the 16th. Let's
16 set it for the 16th, in any event. I may be in trial that
17 week, but we can work around that in some fashion.
18 And in any event, in any event, if you have to wait
19 and listen to the evidence in that case, it is an interesting
20 case.
21 MR. COOPER: Well, that's a relief, Your Honor.
23 MR. COOPER: Your Honor, this schedule, while a
24 bit -- a bit more relaxed than the one which the Plaintiffs
25 initially offered, is quite an aggressive schedule. I don't

(415) 373-2529

RR 600
JJUtFFDINt-
67
1 think it's impossible. I think it is something we may be able
2 to cope with.
3 I am mainly concerned, frankly, about the expert
4 witness and expert discovery element of this. And in all
5 candor, Your Honor, we -- we have been in a reactive profile,
6 of course, as -- as is typical of Defendants, especially
7 Defendant Intervenors.
8 And so, it isn't -- it hasn't been, honestly, until
9 we received the supplemental case management papers from
10 Plaintiffs, which were, as you say, very -- very helpful, that
11 we became clear on -- on exactly where the Plaintiffs were
12 going, and -- and came to our own resolves, that okay, we are
13 going to now need to really hurry up and line up expert
14 analysis -- experts, in order to help us analyze some subject
15 matters that we weren't altogether clear we were going to be
16 involved with.
17 And so the truth is, we haven't done the hundreds and
18 hundreds of hours or had a chance to do the hundreds and
19 hundreds of hours that the City of San Francisco, in their
20 papers, indicated it took them to identify potential experts,
21 interview those experts, assess their backgrounds, and all the
22 things that you know, as a litigator, one has to do before one
23 commits oneself to designating an expert.
24 But with all that having been said, Your Honor, I
25 have -- I -- we will commit all the resources that we have

(415) 373-2529

RR 601
JJUtFFDINt-
68
1 available to us to comply with this schedule, with the hope
2 that the Court will keep an open mind as this thing unfolds.
3 THE COURT: Well, I do remember what it is like to
4 practice law, so --
5 MR. COOPER: Yes, Your Honor.
6 THE COURT: But I think if I were to set anything
7 other than an ambitious schedule, why, this case might
8 metastasize into something that would be un- --
9 MR. COOPER: I don't think so with these guys, but --
10 I might also add, I very much welcome Mr. Boies's
11 clarification, perhaps, of some of the points that were made in
12 their supplemental case management order, in terms of what they
13 intended to inquire of the proponents.
14 And with the comments that he's made, which I accept,
15 it may well be possible --
16 THE COURT: I suspect most of these issues, you will
17 be able to work out between yourselves. But, I'm prepared to
18 rule on any discovery disputes that you have, to do so
19 informally. I commend to you our local rules with respect to
20 how those are handled, on the telephone or a short letter.
21 And in the event you have a dispute and I'm
22 unavailable, I'm going to appoint Magistrate Judge Spero to
23 handle any of those discovery disputes, so that you get a very
24 prompt resolution. And so the discovery can move on and not be
25 impeded by having to wait for some kind of a decision on a

(415) 373-2529

RR 602
JJUtFFDINt-
69
1 discovery dispute.
2 So, I'm sure you will have some disputes on
3 discovery, but probably less than in the hands -- in
4 less-capable hands would arise.
5 MR. COOPER: Very well, Your Honor. Thank you.
6 THE COURT: All right? Now. I have not built in a
7 dispositive motion hearing date. The date that I had in mind
8 for that -- and Mr. Cooper, this is probably of more interest
9 to you than it is to the Plaintiffs, although the Plaintiffs
10 may have some issues that they want to bring forward by a
11 motion -- I was thinking about October 14th.
12 I don't know whether that's too soon, or whether that
13 date works on your calendars, but we can build in that date.
14 MR. BOIES: We can do that, Your Honor.
15 THE COURT: Mr. Cooper?
16 MR. COOPER: Your Honor, that should work fine.
17 THE COURT: All right. Fine. Now, what else do we
18 have to do this morning?
19 MR. BOIES: I don't think anything, from our
20 standpoint, Your Honor.
21 THE COURT: Mr. Cooper?
22 MR. COOPER: We have no further business, Your Honor.
23 THE COURT: Very well. Mr. Mennemeier, anything
24 further on behalf of the Governor?
25 MR. MENNEMEIER: Nothing, Your Honor. Thank you.

(415) 373-2529

RR 603
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DEFENDANTS-INTERVENORS SUPPLEMENTAL CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

andrew@pugnolaw.com

braum@telladf.org

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH,



ZARRILLO,

Plaintiffs,

v.



DEFENDANTS-INTERVENORS
PROPOSITION 8 PROPONENTS AND
PROJECTMARRIAGE.COMS
SUPPLEMENTAL CASE
MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Date: August 19, 2009
Time: 10:00 a.m.

RR 604
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


Defendants,

and

RENEWAL,






RR 605
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1
In accordance with the Courts August 12, 2009 Order, see Doc. # 141, the Defendants-
Intervenors (Proposition 8 Proponents or Proponents) respectfully submit this supplemental
case management statement. The Court has ordered all parties to provide responses to the
following questions:
1. The specific elements of the claims plaintiffs assert and the defenses, if any,
intervenors contend apply.
Plaintiffs assert claims grounded in the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the
Fourteenth Amendment. These claims are foreclosed by the Supreme Courts decision in Baker v.
Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972). Baker notwithstanding, Plaintiffs claims fail for the following
reasons.
1

a. Fundamental liberty interest under the Due Process Clause
To establish a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause, Plaintiffs
must offer a careful description of their asserted interest and show that it is objectively, deeply
rooted in this nations history and tradition. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720-21
(1997) (quotation marks omitted).
Carefully described, Plaintiffs assert a fundamental liberty interest in extending the civil
status of marriage to same-sex relationships. This asserted interest is not objectively, deeply
rooted in this nations history and tradition. As for plaintiffs claims that Proposition 8 infringes
upon their sexual autonomy, Proposition 8 does not criminalize or in any way punish private
sexual behavior, and thus it does not implicate the liberty interest identified in Lawrence v. Texas,
539 U.S. 558 (2003). Significantly, both the majority opinion and the separate concurrence of
Justice OConnor in Lawrence made clear that the liberty interest upheld in that case did not entail
a right to same-sex marriage. See id. at 578 (majority); id. at 585 (OConnor, J., concurring in

1
Proponents do not dispute that in implementing and enforcing Proposition 8, Defendants
have acted under the color of state law. But Proponents do not concede that Plaintiffs have
(Continued)
RR 606
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
judgment).
b. Standard of review under the Equal Protection Clause for sexual orientation
discrimination
Plaintiffs claim that discrimination based on sexual orientation should be subject to
heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. This claim must be rejected under binding
Ninth Circuit precedent. See High Tech Gays v. Defense Indus. Sec. Clearance Office, 895 F.2d
563, 574 (9th Cir. 1990); see also See Flores v. Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist., 324 F.3d 1130,
1137 (9th Cir. 2003); Holmes v. California Army Natl Guard, 124 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir.
1997); Philips v. Perry, 106 F.3d 1420, 1425 (9th Cir. 1997). Every other federal circuit that has
considered the matter has reached the same conclusion. See Cook v. Gates, 528 F.3d 42, 61 (1st
Cir. 2008); Veney v. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726, 731-32 (4th Cir. 2002); Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d
503, 532 (5th Cir. 2004); Scarbrough v. Morgan County Bd. of Educ., 470 F.3d 250, 261 (6th Cir.
2006); Ben-Shalom v. Marsh, 881 F.2d 454, 464 (7th Cir. 1989); Citizens for Equal Prot. v.
Bruning, 455 F.3d 859, 866 (8th Cir. 2006); Rich v. Secy of the Army, 735 F.2d 1220, 1229 (10th
Cir. 1984); Lofton v. Secy of Dept of Children and Family Servs., 358 F.3d 804, 818 (11th Cir.
2004); Steffan v. Perry, 41 F.3d 677, 684 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1994); Woodward v. United States, 871
F.2d 1068, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
If the court nevertheless determines that this is an open question, Plaintiffs claim fails
nonetheless for several independent reasons.
i. Whether Proposition 8 discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation
At the outset, Plaintiffs must show that Proposition 8 discriminates on the basis of sexual
orientation. See Aleman v. Glickman, 217 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2000) (In resolving [an]
equal protection challenge, we must first determine what classification has been created by the
[challenged] provision.).
(Contd)
satisfied the other elements of their claims that Plaintiffs have identified.
RR 607
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
Plaintiffs cannot make this showing. Proposition 8, by limiting civil marriage to the union
of a man and a woman, does not classify individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation.
ii. Whether same-sex and opposite-sex couples are similarly situated for
purposes of civil marriage recognition
Plaintiffs must demonstrate that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are similarly
situated with respect to marriage. See Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 10 (1992); Rostker v.
Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 79 (1981).
Plaintiffs cannot make this threshold showing. Marriage has always been limited to
opposite sex relationships because of the naturally procreative nature of the male-female
relationship. Same-sex relationships are different in this relevant respect.
iii. Whether sexual orientation is a suspect or quasi-suspect classification
As we have explained, rational basis scrutiny applies to laws that classify on the basis of
sexual orientation as a matter of binding precedent and is therefore not an open question.
Heightened scrutiny, moreover, is reserved for classifications affecting groups that require
extraordinary protection from the political process. See, e.g., United States v. Carolene Products,
304 U.S. 144, 152 n.4 (1938). To demonstrate that they require this extraordinary protection,
Plaintiffs must show, among other things, that gays and lesbians (1) are politically powerless,
see, e.g., Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 445 (1985); and (2) are defined by an
immutable characteristic, see, e.g. Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 686 (1973)
(plurality). See also High Tech Gays, 895 F.2d at 573.
Plaintiffs cannot show that gays and lesbians meet the requirements for receiving
heightened equal protection scrutiny.
c. Sex Discrimination
To demonstrate that Proposition 8 merits heightened scrutiny as a sex-based classification,
Plaintiffs must show that it classifies on the basis of sex. See Aleman, 217 F.3d at 1195.
RR 608
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4
Plaintiffs cannot make this showing, as the overwhelming weight of authority, including
every federal court to have addressed this issue, establishes that the traditional definition of
marriage does not classify on the basis of sex.
d. Rational basis review
Because Proposition 8 is not, as a matter of law, subject to heightened review under the
Due Process Clause or the Equal Protection Clause, it is constitutional if it passes rational basis
review. Under this standard, Proposition 8 is presumed to be constitutional and Plaintiffs bear the
burden to negative any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis
for the law. Bd. of Trs. of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 367 (2001)
(quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiffs cannot meet this standard, as Proposition 8 is rationally related to several
legitimate government interests, including, among others:
Preserving the traditional definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Promoting the formation of naturally procreative unions.
Promoting stability and responsible behavior in naturally procreative relationships.
Promoting enduring and stable family structures for the responsible raising and care of
children by their biological parents.
Promoting the natural and mutually beneficial bond between parents and their biological
children by encouraging parents to raise their biological children.
Acting incrementally and with caution when considering radical change to the fundamental
nature of a bedrock social institution.
e. Heightened review
In the alternative, if the Court determines that either strict or intermediate scrutiny applies,
the burden shifts to the defenders of Proposition 8. To satisfy the strict scrutiny standard, a law
RR 609
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 721
(quotation marks omitted). A law satisfies the intermediate scrutiny standard when it is
substantially related to an important government interest. United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S.
515, 533 (1996) (quotation marks omitted).
If necessary, the Proponents will show that Proposition 8 meets these standards.
f. Affirmative defenses
The Proponents continue to maintain the affirmative defenses that (1) Plaintiffs have failed
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (2) neither the challenged provision nor
Defendants have deprived Plaintiffs of any right or privilege guaranteed by the United States
Constitution.
These defenses will rise or fall with our legal arguments in response to Plaintiffs claims.
2. Admissions and stipulations that Proponents are prepared to enter with respect to
the forgoing elements and applicable defenses at issue

Proponents response to the stipulations proposed by the Plaintiffs are attached as Exhibit
B. In addition, Proponents now propose additional stipulations that Proponents are prepared to
enter, which are attached as Exhibit A. The parties are unlikely to agree whether or not these
stipulations, if entered, suffice to resolve any of the elements identified above.
3. Proponents discovery plans
Set forth below are Proponents current intentions with respect to discovery. We wish to
emphasize that our thinking continues to evolve on these subjects, especially as Plaintiffs trial
and discovery strategy emerges, and we may pursue additional lines of discovery or decide not to
pursue issues identified below. Of course, we may also take discovery of plaintiffs.
RR 610
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6
a. Level of scrutiny relevant to Plaintiffs claims
i. The history of discrimination against gays and lesbians
Depending upon the nature of the evidence adduced by Plaintiffs on this issue, the
Proposition 8 Proponents may present evidence (including expert opinion) on the discrimination
that gays and lesbians have experienced in the past. Also, we plan to present evidence
demonstrating that such discrimination has decreased significantly in recent years, both in
governmental and non-governmental contexts. We do not anticipate fact discovery on this issue.
ii. Whether the characteristics defining gays and lesbians as a class might
in any way affect their ability to contribute to society
Because of their natural and spontaneous ability to create children, opposite-sex
relationships have a different impact on society, for good and for ill, than same-sex relationships.
We do not dispute that, with the exception of certain matters relating to procreation, the ability of
individuals to contribute to society is not affected by the fact that they are gay or lesbian.
Plaintiffs, however, have not agreed to resolve this issue by stipulation. The nature of the
evidence presented by Plaintiffs may therefore make it necessary for the Proposition 8 Proponents
to present evidence on this matter as well. We do not anticipate fact discovery on this issue.
iii. Immutability
The Ninth Circuit has held that homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic. To the
extent the Court nonetheless desires to receive evidence on this matter, we will dispute Plaintiffs
claim that homosexuality is immutable. The precise contours of our argument will depend upon
the definition of sexual orientation adopted by the Court, but we plan to present evidence in the
form of references to scientific and other scholarly literature, and if Plaintiffs seek to introduce
expert opinion on this issue, we may do so as well.
We will also develop evidence that homosexuality is not immutable by analyzing marriage
and domestic partnership records from California. We will obtain this data by issuing subpoenas
RR 611
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

7
to government agencies that maintain these records. In California, we understand that the Office
of Vital Records, a branch of the Department of Public Health, maintains statewide marriage
records and that the Secretary of States Office maintains statewide domestic partnership records.
From the domestic partnership records, we will compile a list of all the individuals in
California who have entered a same-sex domestic partnership. We will then cross-reference these
names with the marriage records to identify individuals were previously or subsequently married
to a member of the opposite sex. We may also obtain additional data by issuing subpoenas to
relevant government agencies in other states that recognize same-sex relationships.
iv. The relative political power of gays and lesbians
We will present evidence that gays and lesbians wield substantial political power. Many
underlying facts relevant to gauging the political power of gays and lesbians are not subject to
dispute as reflected in the detailed stipulations we have drafted on this issue. Those stipulations
cover the extensive legal rights that gays and lesbians have attained under state and local law in
California. The stipulations also cover the gay and lesbian communitys success in blocking state
laws that were perceived as adverse to its interests. In addition to this undisputed evidence
supporting our proposed stipulations, if Plaintiffs seek to introduce expert evidence on this
subject, we may do so as well.
We do not anticipate any fact discovery on this issue.
b. The campaign by which Proposition 8 was adopted
The Proposition 8 Proponents believe that the subjective motivations of voters and other
political participants for supporting Proposition 8 are both legally irrelevant and are protected
from discovery by the First Amendment. It is therefore inappropriate to inquire into such matters.
The Court should ascertain the Propositions purpose by reference to the text of the law and its
necessary legal implications. If it is appropriate to consider any other evidence, the Court should
RR 612
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

8
limit its inquiry to objective matters such as official statements and information presented to the
voters. Nevertheless, if Plaintiffs are permitted to take discovery into the subjective motivations
and strategies of Proponents and other supporters of Proposition 8, then we will likewise take
extensive fact discovery into the motivations and strategies of the individuals and organizations
that opposed Proposition 8, possibly including the following individuals and groups:
Courage Campaign
o Founder and Chair: Rick Jacobs
o Chief Operating Officer: Sarah Callahan
o Advertising/Media Director: Billy Pollina
No on 8: Equality for All
o Treasurer: Steven Mele, West Hollywood, CA
o Other Principal Officers (as listed on Statement of Organization):
Heather Carrigan, Los Angeles, CA, Chief Operating Officer, ACLU of
Southern California
Oscar De La O, Los Angeles, CA, President and CEO, Bienestar Health
Services
Sue Dunlop, Los Angeles, CA
Michael Fleming, Beverly Hills, CA, Executive Director, David Bohnett
Foundation
Maya Harris, San Francisco, CA
Dan Hawes, Los Angeles, CA, Director of Organizing and Training,
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
Dennis Herrera, San Francisco, CA, City Attorney of San Francisco
Delores Jacobs, San Diego, CA, CEO, San Diego LGBT Community
RR 613
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

9
Center
Lorri Jean, Los Angeles, CA, CEO, Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center
Kate Kendall, San Francisco, CA, Executive Director, National Center for
Lesbian Rights
Geoff Kors, Sacramento, CA, Executive Director, Equality California
Joyce Newstat, San Francisco, CA
Tawal Panyacosit, San Francisco, CA, Director, Asian and Pacific Islander
Equality in San Francisco
Rashad Robinson, Los Angeles, CA
Marty Rouse, Washington, DC, National Field Director, Human Rights
Campaign
Kevin Tilden, San Diego, CA
o Political Consultants
Mark Armour, Armour Griffin Media Group
Chad Griffin, Armour Griffin Media Group
Steve Smith, Dewey Square Group
Maggie Linden, Ogilvy Public Relations
Win Marriage Back
o Treasurer: Timothy Hohmeier, San Francisco, CA
o Assistant Treasurer: Steven Mele, West Hollywood, CA
Human Rights Campaign California Marriage PAC
o Treasurer: James Rinefierd, Washington, DC
o Assistant Treasurer: Andrea Green, Washington, DC
No on Proposition 8, Campaign for Marriage Equality
RR 614
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

10
o Treasurer: Bonnie Anderson
Californians Against Eliminating Basic Rights
o Treasurer: Daralyn Reed, Ykrea, CA
o Consultants:
Kristina Schake, Los Angeles, CA
Chad Griffin, Beverly Hills, CA
The Field Poll, San Francisco, CA
o Mark DiCamillo
o Mervin Field
Public Policy Institute of California
o Mark Baldassare, Survey Director
Los Angeles Times Poll
o Susan Pinkus, Director
c. Character of the rights plaintiffs contend are infringed or violated
Plaintiffs assert a constitutional right to State recognition of same-sex unions as marriages.
This claim is not objectively, deeply rooted in this Nations history and tradition. As the
stipulations referenced above reflect, no state recognized same-sex marriage at the time of the
Founding, nor at the time of the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, nor at any other time
prior to 2003. We do not anticipate factual discovery on this issue. But to the extent Plaintiffs
seek to introduce an expert opinion on this issue, we may do so as well.
d. Effect of Proposition 8 upon Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals
As our proposed stipulations reflect, the parties should be able to agree that California
affords to domestic partnerships the same core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes
afforded to married couples. Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal. 4th 364, 411 (Cal. 2009) (quotation marks
RR 615
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

11
omitted, emphases in original).
With respect to the effects of same-sex marriage in the non-governmental context, we plan
to take discovery to develop evidence showing substantial equality in non-governmental treatment
of same-sex couples regardless of the label the government affixes to their relationships. We also
plan to take discovery of the state agencies in California and other states that track the number of
couples electing domestic partnerships and the number of couples choosing same sex marriage in
various jurisdictions throughout the country. In California, the Office of Vital Records, a branch
of the Department of Public Health, maintains statewide marriage records and the Secretary of
States Office maintains statewide domestic partnership records.
e. Effect of Proposition 8 on opposite-sex couples and others not in same-sex
relationships in California

Although the Proposition 8 Proponents do not at this time know whether, or the precise
effect that, permitting same sex couples to marry would have on traditional marriage, we intend to
inquire into and develop evidence on this issue, by, among other things, seeking records relating
to the formation and dissolution of marriages and domestic partnerships from relevant agencies in
states that recognize same-sex relationships. In California, the Secretary of States Office
maintains domestic partnership records and domestic partnership dissolution records.
f. Other issues pertinent to the parties claims or defenses
As indicated above, Proposition 8 rationally serves a number of legitimate governmental
interests. At this time, however, we do not plan on requiring fact discovery to develop evidence
related to these interests, with one exception. Proposition 8 promotes the natural and mutually
beneficial bond between parents and their biological children by encouraging parents to raise their
biological children. We plan to develop evidence that many gay and lesbian individuals desire to
have biological rather than adopted or foster children, and that many satisfy these desires with the
assistance of technology or by other means. We will seek discovery of the names of Californians
RR 616
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

12
in registered domestic partnerships with the parents listed on birth records from the Department of
Healths Office of Vital Records (which maintains birth records) and the Secretary of States
Office (which maintains domestic partnership records). We may also seek discovery from
companies and organizations that offer assisted reproductive technology and services to develop
evidence on this issue.
4. Expert Testimony
Proponents have not finalized the areas as to which they will submit expert evidence
testimony. As previously discussed, much of our need for expert testimony will turn upon the
nature of the expert testimony plaintiffs offer. In addition to the foregoing discussion, we set forth
below our current views on expert testimony that may be necessary:
If the Court asks for evidence on the immutability of sexual orientation, we will present
evidence demonstrating that homosexuality is not immutable. This evidence may include
expert evidence. Proponents experts will have experience in the field of psychology.
Proponents may present expert opinion on the nature of discrimination that gays and
lesbians experienced in the past.
Proponents may present expert evidence on the political power of gays and lesbians. The
expert(s) would have substantial knowledge of Californias political landscape. Such an
expert would be a political consultant or a professor of political science, or both.
Proponents may submit an expert opinion that marriage has always been defined as the
union of a man and a woman. Proponents expert would have extensive knowledge of the
institution of marriage.
Proponents may submit expert opinion that a childs biological parents provide the optimal
environment for raising that child. Proponents expert will have significant experience in
psychology, biology, and/or the analysis of family structures.
RR 617
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

13
Proponents may present expert evidence demonstrating substantial equality in non-
governmental treatment of same-sex couples regardless of the label the government affixes
to their relationships. Proponents expert will have knowledge as to the factors that
influence non-governmental views towards same-sex relationships.
As noted above, although the Proposition 8 Proponents do not at this time know whether,
or the precise effect that, permitting same sex couples to marry would have on traditional
marriage, we may present an expert opinion analyzing the data we acquire regarding the
formation and dissolution of domestic partnerships, civil unions, and marriages. Our
expert would have extensive knowledge about the institution of marriage and may well
have a political science background.
We may also present an expert opinion analyzing the evidence we discover regarding gay
and lesbian individuals desire to have biological rather than adopted or foster children,
and the number of gays and lesbians who satisfy these desires with the assistance of
technology or by other means. Proponents expert will have significant experience in
psychology, biology, and/or the analysis of family structures.
Dated: August 17, 2009
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS-INTERVENORS
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT,
MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM,
MARK A. JANSSON, AND PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM
YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL

By: /s/ Charles J. Cooper
Charles J. Cooper
RR 618

09-CV-2292 VRW PLAINTIFFS SUPPLEMENTAL CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
Theodore B. Olson, SBN 38137
tolson@gibsondunn.com
Matthew D. McGill, pro hac vice
Amir C. Tayrani, SBN 229609
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036

Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., SBN 132009
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
Christopher D. Dusseault, SBN 177557
Ethan D. Dettmer, SBN 196046
Sarah E. Piepmeier, SBN 227094
Theane Evangelis Kapur, SBN 243570
Enrique A. Monagas, SBN 239087
333 S. Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90071

David Boies, pro hac vice
dboies@bsfllp.com
Theodore H. Uno, SBN 248603
333 Main Street, Armonk, New York 10504

Attorneys for Plaintiffs KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER,
PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO
ZARRILLO,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS SUPPLEMENTAL
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Date: August 19, 2009
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Judge: Chief Judge Walker
RR 619

i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 1
II. ELEMENTS OF PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS............................................................................... 2
A. CLAIM ONE: DUE PROCESS ............................................................................................ 2
B. CLAIM TWO: EQUAL PROTECTION.................................................................................. 3
C. CLAIM THREE: VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 1983 ........................................................... 5
III. DEFENDANTS AND INTERVENORS DEFENSES .......................................................... 5
A. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.............................................................................................. 5
B. THE ADMINISTRATION ................................................................................................... 5
C. LOS ANGELES COUNTY.................................................................................................. 5
D. ALAMEDA COUNTY........................................................................................................ 6
E. INTERVENORS................................................................................................................. 6
IV. ADMISSIONS AND STIPULATIONS................................................................................... 6
A. ADMISSIONS AND STIPULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE ELEMENTS OF
PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS ...................................................................................................... 6
B. ADMISSIONS AND STIPULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO DEFENSES.................................... 8
V. DISCOVERY PLAN................................................................................................................ 8
A. LEVEL OF SCRUTINY RELEVANT TO PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS............................................. 8
B. THE CAMPAIGN BY WHICH PROPOSITION 8 WAS ADOPTED........................................... 9
C. CHARACTER OF THE RIGHTS PLAINTIFFS CONTEND ARE INFRINGED OR
VIOLATED ...................................................................................................................... 9
D. EFFECT OF PROPOSITION 8 UPON PLAINTIFFS AND SIMILARLY SITUATED
INDIVIDUALS ................................................................................................................ 10
E. EFFECT OF PROPOSITION 8 ON OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES AND OTHERS
NOT IN SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS IN CALIFORNIA..................................................... 10
F. OTHER ISSUES PERTINENT TO THE PARTIES CLAIMS OR DEFENSES ........................... 10
VI. EXPERT EVIDENCE ............................................................................................................ 10
A. HISTORY AND ECONOMICS .......................................................................................... 11
B. SOCIOLOGY AND ECONOMICS...................................................................................... 12
RR 620
TABLE OF CONTENTS
[Continued]
Page

ii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
C. PSYCHOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 13
D. POLITICAL SCIENCE...................................................................................................... 15

RR 621

1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
Pursuant to this Courts August 12, 2009 Order, Doc #141, Plaintiffs respectfully submit this
Supplemental Case Management Statement.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs are gay and lesbian residents of California who are involved in long-term,
committed relationships with individuals of the same sex and who desire to marry those individuals
to demonstrate publicly their commitment to their partner and to obtain all the benefits that come
with this official recognition of their family relationship. They are now prohibited from doing so as a
direct result of Proposition 8 (Prop. 8), a California constitutional amendment prohibiting them
from marrying the person of their choice. Yet, prior to the passage of Prop. 8, the California
Constitution accorded Plaintiffs a constitutional right to marry. Prop. 8 irrationally stripped gay and
lesbian individualsand no one elseof that state constitutional right, and therefore plainly violates
the federal constitution. See Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 632 (1996).
Prop. 8, however, does not preclude same-sex domestic relationships within California.
Indeed, California permitted approximately 18,000 same-sex couples who married prior to Prop. 8
to remain legally married. Thus, some individuals in California may be married to individuals of the
same sex; yet Plaintiffs and other same-sex couples are denied that fundamental right. Additionally,
California has accorded gay and lesbian individuals the right to enter into domestic partnerships,
which enables them to obtain many of the substantive legal benefits and privileges that California law
provides to individuals who are afforded the right to marry, but denies them access to civil marriage
itself. Thus, while Prop. 8 does not preclude same-sex relationships, it denies gay and lesbian
individuals such as Plaintiffs access to the highly valued and respected institution of civil marriage,
relegating them instead to the lesser-known second-class status of domestic partnership.
The United States Supreme Court has long recognized the right to marry as one of the vital
personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men, Loving v. Virginia, 388
U.S. 1, 12 (1967), and yet Prop. 8 was specifically designed to and does deny gay and lesbian
individuals the fundamental right to marry the person they love. Such restrictions, whether enacted
by legislation or by popular vote, are impermissible under the constitution. Denying same-sex
couples the right to marry does not enhance or protect any legitimate state interest. Granting the right
RR 622

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
to marry would not damage, inhibit, or impair any rights of individuals who wish to marry persons of
the opposite sex or otherwise impair any legitimate state interest. Prop. 8 is therefore
unconstitutional under any standard of review.
II. ELEMENTS OF PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS
Plaintiffs assert three claims in this action: (1) violation of the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment; (2) violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment;
and (3) violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiffs set forth the elements of those claims below.
A. CLAIM ONE: DUE PROCESS
1. Prop. 8 Infringes On Plaintiffs Right To Marry And Fails To Survive
Strict Scrutiny
a. Elements:
(1) The right to marry is a fundamental right, Loving v. Virginia,
388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967);
(2) Prop. 8 infringes on Plaintiffs fundamental right to marry; and
(3) Defendants/Intervenors cannot meet their burden of establishing
that Prop. 8 is narrowly drawn to further a compelling state
interest. P.O.P.S. v. Gardner, 998 F.2d 764, 767-68 (9th Cir.
1993).
Intermediate Scrutiny
a. Elements:
(1) The right to marry is a significant liberty interest, see Witt v.
Dept of the Air Force, 527 F.3d 806, 819 (9th Cir. 2008);
(2) Prop. 8 infringes on Plaintiffs right to marry; and
that Prop. 8 is substantially related to an important state interest.
See id.
Rational Basis Scrutiny
a. Elements:
(1) Prop. 8 infringes on Plaintiffs right to marry; and
(2) Prop. 8 does not bear a rational relationship to an independent
and legitimate legislative end. See Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.
620, 632-33 (1996).
RR 623

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
4. Prop. 8 Infringes On Plaintiffs Right To Privacy And Personal Autonomy
And Fails To Survive Strict Scrutiny
a. Elements:
(1) The right to privacy and personal autonomy is a fundamental
right, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 578 (2003).
(2) Prop. 8 infringes on Plaintiffs fundamental right to privacy and
personal autonomy; and
interest. P.O.P.S., 998 F.2d at 767-68.
And Fails To Survive Intermediate Scrutiny
a. Elements:
(1) The right to privacy and personal autonomy is a significant
liberty interest, see Witt, 527 F.3d at 819;
(2) Prop. 8 infringes on Plaintiffs right to privacy and personal
autonomy; and
See id.
And Fails To Survive Rational Basis Scrutiny
a. Elements:
(1) Prop. 8 infringes on Plaintiffs right to privacy and personal
autonomy; and
(2) Prop. 8 does not bear a rational relationship to an independent
and legitimate legislative end. See Romer, 517 U.S. at 632-33.
B. CLAIM TWO: EQUAL PROTECTION
1. Prop. 8 Discriminates On The Basis Of Sexual Orientation And Fails To
Survive Strict Scrutiny
a. Elements:
(1) Gay and lesbian individuals are a suspect class;
(2) Prop. 8 discriminates against gay and lesbian individuals on the
basis of their sexual orientation; and
interest. Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 432-33 (1984).
RR 624

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
2. Prop. 8 Discriminates On The Basis Of Sexual Orientation And Fails To
Survive Intermediate Scrutiny
a. Elements:
(1) Gay and lesbian individuals are a quasi-suspect class;
United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 524 (1996).
3. Prop. 8 Discriminates On The Basis of Sexual Orientation And Fails To
Survive Rational Basis Scrutiny
a. Elements:
(2) Prop. 8s classification based on sexual orientation does not
bear a rational relationship to an independent and legitimate
legislative end. Romer, 517 U.S. at 632-33.
4. Prop. 8 Discriminates On The Basis Of Sex And Fails To Survive
Intermediate Scrutiny
a. Elements:
basis of their sex; and
Virginia, 518 U.S. at 524.
5. Factors Considered When Determining The Appropriate Level Of
Scrutiny To The Extent Not Already Established By Binding Precedent
a. Whether gay and lesbian individuals have been subject to a history of
discrimination, Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U.S. 587, 602 (1987);
b. Whether gay and lesbian individuals are defined by a characteristic that
bears no relation to ability to perform or contribute to society, City of
Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 440-41 (1985);
c. Whether gay and lesbian individuals exhibit obviously immutable or
distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group,
Bowen, 483 U.S. at 602; and
d. Whether gay and lesbian individuals have been prevented from
protecting themselves through the political process. Id.
RR 625

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
C. CLAIM THREE: VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 1983
1. Enforcement Of Prop. 8 Violates 42 U.S.C. 1983
a. Elements:
(1) Defendants are acting under color of state law;
(2) Prop. 8 violates Plaintiffs rights under the Due Process or
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and
(3) Defendants are depriving Plaintiffs of their rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the
United States.

III. DEFENDANTS AND INTERVENORS DEFENSES
Two of the six Defendants, as well as Intervenors, purport to raise affirmative defenses in
their Answers. Doc #9, 41, 42. As part of the meet-and-confer process,
1
Plaintiffs have asked each
party that asserted defenses whether it intends to pursue each defense articulated in its Answer.
A brief summary of the position of each Defendant and Intervenors is set forth below.
A. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The Attorney General admits in his Answer that Prop. 8 violates the Due Process and Equal
Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Doc #39 at 8-9. The Attorney General raises no
defenses to Plaintiffs claims.
B. THE ADMINISTRATION
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mark B. Horton, and Linette Scott (collectively the
Administration) either admit or do not dispute in their Answer the allegations of Plaintiffs
Complaint. Doc #46. The Administration raises no defenses to Plaintiffs claims.
C. LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Dean C. Logan, in his capacity as Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk
(Los Angeles County), denies in his Answer many of the allegations in Plaintiffs Complaint.
Doc #41. Los Angeles County purports to raise three affirmative defenses: (1) that it has a

1
After receiving the Courts August 12, 2009 Order, Plaintiffs counsel contacted counsel for
each Defendant and Intervenors to reopen the meet-and-confer process and to discuss the
issues raised by the Court and how best to respond.
RR 626

6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
ministerial duty to apply the laws of the State of California; (2) that it has no discretion to issue
marriage licenses other than in accordance with State law; and (3) that it acted in good faith.
D. ALAMEDA COUNTY
Patrick OConnell, in his capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda (Alameda
County), denies in his Answer many of the factual allegations in Plaintiffs Complaint. Doc #42.
Although Alameda County purports to raise twenty-one (21) affirmative defenses, it has in the meet-
and-confer process narrowed those defenses to the following (identified by the number of the
corresponding affirmative defense in its Answer): (1) that it has no discretion in the performance of
ministerial duties; (2) that any injury or damage to Plaintiffs was caused by the acts or omissions of
others; (9) that its acts were privileged under applicable statutes and case law; (13) that attorneys
fees should not be assessed due to special circumstances mandating its ministerial duties; (19) that
damages caused by third parties for whom it is not responsible and thus its conduct was not the
proximate or legal cause of such damages; and (20) that it did not take affirmative acts to deprive
Plaintiffs of any right or privilege guaranteed by the constitution or laws of the United States.
2

E. INTERVENORS
The Intervenors deny in their Answer many of the allegations of Plaintiffs Complaint.
Doc #9. Although Intervenors purport to raise six affirmative defenses, they have in the meet-and-
confer process narrowed those defenses to the following (identified by the number of the
corresponding affirmative defense in its Answer): (1) that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim; and
(6) that neither the challenged provisions nor the Defendants have deprived Plaintiffs of a right or
privilege guaranteed by the Constitution.
IV. ADMISSIONS AND STIPULATIONS
A. ADMISSIONS AND STIPULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE ELEMENTS OF
PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS
Following receipt of the Courts August 12, 2009 Order, Plaintiffs met-and-conferred with
Defendants and Intervenors about the elements of Plaintiffs claims. Plaintiffs distributed draft

2
Alameda County has indicated that its 20th affirmative defense may possibly be included
among those that it pursues in this case going forward.
RR 627

7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
written statements of those elements to Defendants and Intervenors, asking each whether they were
willing to stipulate that any or all of the stated elements were satisfied. As of the time of this filing,
only Los Angeles and Alameda Counties have agreed to stipulate that any specific element is
satisfied. Specifically, the Counties will stipulate that they acted under color of law, thus satisfying
the first element of Plaintiffs Section 1983 claim.
In addition, Plaintiffs circulated to Defendants and Intervenors a list of proposed factual
stipulations. Plaintiffs have drawn these facts primarily from two sources: (1) the specific factual
findings of state courts that have considered, after extensive proceedings, the constitutionality of
excluding gay and lesbian individuals from civil marriage; and (2) proposed findings of law and fact
that parties have submitted in those cases. Plaintiffs proposed stipulations are set forth in Exhibit A
hereto.
3
As of the time of this filing, none of the Defendants or Intervenors has agreed to stipulate to
the facts presented by Plaintiffs.
Nonetheless, in his Answer, the Attorney General admitted the following facts: (1) Prop. 8
cannot be squared with guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment, Doc #39 at 2; (2) domestic
partnerships are not equal to civil marriage, and that this unequal treatment denies lesbians and gay
men rights guarantees by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, id.;
(3) sexual orientation is a characteristic that bears no relation to a persons ability to perform or
contribute to society and that the sexual orientation of gays and lesbians has been associated with a
stigma of inferiority and second-class citizenship, manifested by the groups history of legal and
social disabilities, id. at 5; (4) the inability to marry the person of their choice denies gays and
lesbians, as well as their families, the personal and public affirmation that accompanies state-
sanctioned civil marriage, id. at 7; (5) under the California Constitution, gay and lesbian same sex
couples are unequal to heterosexual opposite sex couples, id. at 10, (6) Prop. 8 was passed as a

3
By proposing stipulations as to particular facts, Plaintiffs do not concede that they bear the
burden of proof as to each such fact or that each such fact must be resolved in their favor to
prevail. Lastly, Plaintiffs reserve the right not to rely on any particular fact, even if stipulated,
based on the development of their legal theories and other evidence as this case proceeds.
RR 628

8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
result of disapproval of or animus by the majority of voters against same-sex marriages, id.; and
(7) Prop. 8 imposed a special disability on gays and lesbians alone[.] Id.
B. ADMISSIONS AND STIPULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO DEFENSES
The Attorney General and the Administration have raised no defenses to Plaintiffs claims.
Thus, no stipulations are appropriate or necessary as to the claims against those parties. With respect
to the defenses raised by Los Angeles County, Alameda County, and the Intervenors, Plaintiffs have
carefully reviewed and considered each such purported defense. Plaintiffs have concluded that each
such purported defense is without merit, and thus Plaintiffs are unwilling to stipulate to the existence
of any such defense to Plaintiffs claims.
Nonetheless, with respect to Los Angeles County, Plaintiffs have agreed to stipulate that Los
Angeles County was a defending party in In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008); and that
Los Angeles County was a co-petitioner in Strauss v. Horton, 207 P.3d 48 (Cal. 2009).
V. DISCOVERY PLAN
This section identifies the fact discovery that Plaintiffs presently anticipate seeking from other
parties and non-parties.
4
This section does not identify all evidence Plaintiffs intend to gather
through means other than formal discovery, such as informal interviews or review of publicly
available materials. Plaintiffs address expert discovery in Section VI. As explained in Plaintiffs
initial Case Management Statement, Doc #134, Plaintiffs intend to use written discovery and
depositions to build a record with respect to a number of factual issues that are relevant to the Courts
evaluation of their claims, and Plaintiffs are prepared to conduct fact discovery on an expedited basis.
A. LEVEL OF SCRUTINY RELEVANT TO PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS
Plaintiffs intend to propound interrogatories and requests for admission (RFAs) to
Defendants and Intervenors, and to ask questions in the depositions of these parties and their
representatives, in an effort to establish and seek admissions that the factors justifying heightened

4
In addition to use at trial, Plaintiffs plan to use this discovery, and the expert evidence
discussed in Section VI, in support of a motion for summary judgment.
RR 629

9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
scrutiny (set forth in Section II.B.5 above) are satisfied in this case. Plaintiffs do not presently intend
to pursue other fact discovery on this issue.
B. THE CAMPAIGN BY WHICH PROPOSITION 8 WAS ADOPTED
Plaintiffs will present evidence at trial that no compelling or even rational basis exists for
Prop. 8s exclusion of gay and lesbian individuals from the institution of civil marriage and for
stripping gay and lesbian individuals of their previously recognized right to marry. As part of this
showing, Plaintiffs will demonstrate that Prop. 8 was instead driven by irrational considerations,
including but not limited to misconceptions, animus and moral disapproval of gay and lesbian
individuals. Plaintiffs will demonstrate that Prop. 8 was devised, promoted, and supported by groups
and individuals that disapprove of gay and lesbian individuals and did not want the committed, long-
term relationships of gay and lesbian individuals to be deemed as good as the marital relationships
entered into by couples of the opposite sex. Plaintiffs also will demonstrate that some or all of the
rationales offered to the voters in support of Prop. 8 do not bear any rational nexus to what Prop. 8
actually does, which is exclude gay and lesbian individuals from the institution of civil marriage.
Plaintiffs intend to serve interrogatories and requests for the production of documents on, and
to depose, Intervenors and possibly other individuals and groups involved in the Prop. 8 campaign,
including Protectmarriage.com Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal (as a corporate entity)
and the Official Proponents of Prop. 8Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez,
Hak-Shing William Tam, and Mark A. Jansson. Specifically, Plaintiffs plan to seek documents
relating to Prop. 8s genesis, drafting, strategy, objectives, advertising, campaign literature, and
Intervenors communications with each other, supporters, and donors. Plaintiffs will also seek
documents and deposition testimony relating to the rationales now being offered by Intervenors as
legitimate state interests. Plaintiffs also intend to depose Frank Schubert and Jeff Flint of Schubert
Flint Public Affairs, the public affairs firm that managed the Yes on Prop. 8 campaign. Mr. Schubert
is the president of Schubert Flint Public Affairs, and Mr. Flint is a partner.
C. CHARACTER OF THE RIGHTS PLAINTIFFS CONTEND ARE INFRINGED OR VIOLATED
Plaintiffs intend to propound interrogatories and RFAs to Defendants and Intervenors, and to
ask questions in the depositions of these parties and their representatives, in an effort to seek
RR 630

10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
admissions and establish the absence of dispute on this issue. Plaintiffs do not presently intend to
pursue other fact discovery on this issue.
D. EFFECT OF PROPOSITION 8 UPON PLAINTIFFS AND SIMILARLY SITUATED
INDIVIDUALS
E. EFFECT OF PROPOSITION 8 ON OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES AND OTHERS NOT IN
SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS IN CALIFORNIA
F. OTHER ISSUES PERTINENT TO THE PARTIES CLAIMS OR DEFENSES
Plaintiffs will serve discovery on Intervenors and Defendants concerning the potential state
interests raised by any party to this action. Plaintiffs will also serve RFAs in an effort to narrow the
number of factual issues that need to be resolved at trial and interrogatories to define the scope of and
refute any defenses raised by Defendants or Intervenors.
VI. EXPERT EVIDENCE
Plaintiffs presently anticipate presenting expert reports and testimony from between five and
seven expert witnesses.
5
This testimony will draw on the witnesses expertise in five basic subjects:
(1) history; (2) economics; (3) sociology; (4) psychology; and (5) political science. Even before the
July 2, 2009 case management conference, Plaintiffs, consulting with the San Francisco City

5
Plaintiffs provide this good faith estimate to respond as directly as possible to the Courts
inquiry and to assist the Court in evaluating the specifics of how this case will proceed with
respect to expert discovery and testimony. The actual number of experts whose testimony is
presented may change based on factors such as the ability of specific retained experts to
address multiple topics and the availability of particular experts once the Court sets the
schedule on which this case will proceed.
RR 631

11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
Attorneys Office, have been actively engaged in identifying the most qualified experts in these fields
to testify on their behalf in this matter, and discussions with several experts about their involvement
in this matter have taken place. Plaintiffs intend to promptly decide which experts will testify and the
subjects as to which each will testify once the schedule in this matter is set (in order to ensure that
each expert is available on the governing schedule) and once the issues that will be presented for trial,
as opposed to stipulated between the parties, are resolved. Plaintiffs provide below a more specific
summary of the expert testimony they intend to offer in each of the five subject matters
described above.
A. HISTORY AND ECONOMICS
Plaintiffs intend to present expert evidence from one or more historians and economists
concerning the history and evolution of marriage as a social institution in this country, the
discrimination faced by gay and lesbian individuals, the development of an anti-gay movement in this
country, and gay and lesbian individuals relative lack of political power. Plaintiffs intend to
demonstrate that civil marriage has never been a static institution. Historically, marriage has
changed, sometimes dramatically, to reflect the changing needs, values and understanding of our
evolving society. Additionally, Plaintiffs intend to demonstrate that the persecution suffered by gay
and lesbian individuals in the United States has been severe and has had significant negative effects
on gay and lesbian individuals.
Specifically, Plaintiffs history experts will address the following topics:
(1) The history of severe, invidious discrimination gay and lesbian individuals have faced
and the harm inflicted as a result of that discrimination;
(2) The development of an anti-gay movement in the United States that sought to
engender anti-gay animus for political and financial gain;
(3) That lesbians and gay men have been and remain the subject of invidious
stereotypes and have long been portrayed in a negative light to the extent they
were not rendered invisible because of social prejudice against them;
(4) The discrimination currently faced by gay and lesbian individuals, including the fact
that they are still among the most stigmatized groups in the country, that the refusal to
RR 632

12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
recognize and the animus toward their intimate family relationships has caused them
to suffer psychological and economic harm, and that hate crimes against them
remain prevalent;
(5) The relative lack of political power of gay and lesbian individuals, including successes
of both pro-gay and anti-gay legislation and the current lack of representation in
government;
(6) The meaning of marriage in California, including the fact that civil marriage has never
been a static institution and has changed over time, sometimes dramatically, to reflect
the changing needs, values and understanding of our evolving society;
(7) The fact that race- and gender-based reforms in civil marriage law did not deprive
marriage of its vitality and importance as social institution; and
(8) The history and development of Californias ban on marriage by same-sex couples.
B. SOCIOLOGY AND ECONOMICS
Plaintiffs intend to present expert evidence from one or more sociologists and/or economists
concerning families led by same-sex couples, the sociological and economic effect of marriage laws
on opposite-sex marriage, and the sociological and economic effect of marriage laws on same-sex
couples and their children. Plaintiffs intend to demonstrate that civil marriage is a deeply meaningful
institution to individuals, families, communities, and the State, which brings with it a host of tangible
legal rights, privileges, benefits, and obligations. The tangible and intangible benefits of marriage
flow not only to those who marry, but also to their children. Denying same-sex couples the right to
marry harms individuals, families, communities, and the State.
Specifically, Plaintiffs sociology experts will address the following topics:
(1) The characteristics defining gay and lesbian individuals as a class do not in any way
affect their ability to contribute to society;
(2) The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage does not lead to increased stability
in opposite-sex marriage or alternatively, permitting same-sex couples to marry does
not destabilize opposite-sex marriage;
RR 633

13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
(3) There is no credible evidence suggesting any difference in the quality of the child-
rearing environment in households led by same-sex couples than in households led by
opposite-sex couples;
(4) The best interests of a child are equally served by being raised by same-sex parents
because lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide
supportive and healthy environments for children;
(5) Californias public policy allows gay and lesbian individuals in same-sex relationships
to serve as foster parents and to adopt children, and its public policy reflects the
States understanding that sexual orientation bears no relation to an individuals
capacity to enter into a stable family relationship that is analogous to marriage and
otherwise to participate fully in all economic and social institutions;
(6) The availability of opposite-sex marriage is not a meaningful option for gay and
lesbian individuals;
(7) The voters and proponents motivation or motivations for supporting Prop. 8,
including moral disapproval of and irrational views concerning gay and lesbian
individuals;
(8) The differences in actual practice of registered domestic partnerships, civil unions and
marriage, including whether married couples are treated differently from domestic
partners in governmental and non-governmental contexts; and
(9) Prohibiting marriage by same-sex couples hurts the State of California and local
governments in California financially.
C. PSYCHOLOGY
Plaintiffs intend present expert evidence from one or more psychologists concerning child
development, parenting, family building, gender, sexuality, the importance of sexual orientation in
the formation of ones identity, families led by same-sex couples and children within those families,
the psychological effect of laws prohibiting marriage by same-sex couples on such couples and their
children, and the psychological harm of stigmatization. Plaintiffs intend to demonstrate that
relegating lesbian and gay families to a separate legal institution for state recognition marginalizes
RR 634

14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
and stigmatizes gay families; that there is a significant symbolic disparity between domestic
partnership and marriage; that the inability to marry relegates gay and lesbian relationships to second-
class status; that the creation of the alternative regime of domestic partnership reinforces anti-gay
prejudice, which has the potential to escalate into violence; and that the stigma associated with
discrimination and second-class treatment takes a toll on the well-being of gay men and lesbians and
their families.
Specifically, Plaintiffs psychology experts will address the following topics:
(1) The characteristics defining gay and lesbian individuals as a class do not in any way
affect their ability to contribute to society;
(2) The medical and psychiatric communities do not consider sexual orientation an illness
or disorder;
(3) Same-sex sexual orientation does not result in any impairment in judgment or general
social and vocational capabilities;
(4) The States policy that sexual orientation bears no relation to an individuals ability to
raise children, to an individuals capacity to enter into a relationship that is analogous
to marriage, or otherwise to participate fully in all economic and social institutions;
(5) Sexual orientation and sexual identity is so fundamental to ones identity that a person
should not be required to abandon them;
(6) The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage does not lead to increased stability
in opposite-sex marriage or alternatively, permitting same-sex couples to marry does
not destabilize opposite-sex marriage;
(7) There is no credible evidence suggesting any difference in the quality of the child-
rearing environment in households led by same-sex couples than in households led by
opposite-sex couples;
(8) The availability of opposite-sex marriage is not a meaningful option for gay and
lesbian individuals;
(9) An individuals capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship
with another person does not depend on the individuals sexual orientation;
RR 635

15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
(10) An individuals capacity to raise children does not depend on the individuals
sexual orientation;
(11) The stigma associated with discrimination and second-class treatment takes a toll on
the well-being of gay men and lesbians and their families;
(12) Establishing a separate legal institution for State recognition and support of lesbian
and gay families, even if well-intentioned, marginalizes and stigmatizes lesbian and
gay families;
(13) There is a significant symbolic disparity between domestic partnership and
marriage; and
(14) Denying same-sex couples and their families access to the familiar and favorable
official designation marriage harms them by denying their family relationships the
same dignity and respect afforded to opposite-sex couples and their families.
D. POLITICAL SCIENCE
Plaintiffs intend to present expert evidence from one or more political scientists concerning
the relative political powerlessness of gay and lesbian individuals and the political history and
development of Californias ban on marriage by same-sex couples. Plaintiffs intend to demonstrate
that although social antipathy toward gay and lesbian individuals has moderated, these groups suffer
from continuing political disabilities and discrimination.
Specifically, Plaintiffs political science experts will address the following topics:
(1) The history of discrimination that gay and lesbian individuals have faced;
(2) The development and operation of a well-funded, politically effective national anti-
gay movement that has encouraged anti-gay sentiment and hindered gay and lesbian
individuals ability to achieve or sustain fair and equal treatment through the political
process at any level of government;
(3) The relative political power of gay and lesbian individuals, including successes of both
pro-gay and anti-gay legislation;
(4) The history and development of Californias ban on marriage by same-sex couples;
RR 636

16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
(5) The voters and proponents motivation or motivations for supporting Prop. 8,
including advertisements and ballot literature considered by California voters;
(6) The differences in actual practice of registered domestic partnerships, civil unions and
marriage, including whether married couples are treated differently from domestic
partners in governmental and non-governmental contexts; and
(7) Prohibiting marriage by same-sex couples limits the State of Californias ability to
ensure that its citizens are treated equally regardless of sexual orientation.

DATED: August 17, 2009
By: /s/
Theodore B. Olson
and

David Boies

Attorneys for Plaintiffs KRISTIN M. PERRY,
SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL T. KATAMI, and
JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO
RR 637
ADRMOP, APPEAL, E-Filing
U.S. District Court
California Northern District (San Francisco)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:09-cv-02292-VRW
Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al
Assigned to: Hon. Vaughn R. Walker
Demand: $0
Case in other court: 9th Circuit, 09-16959
9th Circuit, 09-17241
Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Date Filed: 05/22/2009
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Date Filed # Docket Text
05/22/2009 1 COMPLAINT for Declaratory, Injunctive or other Relief - [Summons Issued] against
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Edmund G. Brown, Jr, Mark B. Horton, Linette Scott, Patrick
O'Connell & Dean C. Logan, [Filing Fee: $350.00, Receipt Number 34611032459]
Filed by Plaintiffs Sandra B. Stier, Kristin M. Perry, Paul T. Katami & Jeffrey J.
Zarrillo. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2009) (tn, COURT STAFF). (Additional
attachment(s) added on 5/26/2009: # 1 Complaint) (tn, COURT STAFF). (Entered:
05/26/2009)
05/22/2009 2 SUMMONS Issued as to Defendants Arnold Schwarzenegger, Edmund G. Brown, Jr,
Mark B. Horton, Linette Scott, Patrick O'Connell & Dean C. Logan. (tn, COURT
STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2009) (tn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/2009)
05/22/2009 3 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Joint Case Management Statement due 8/27/2009 &
InitialCase Management Conference set for 9/3/2009 at 3:30 PM.. (tn, COURT
STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2009) (tn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/2009)
05/22/2009 4 CERTIFICATION of Interested Entities or Persons Filed by Plaintiffs Sandra B. Stier,
Kristin M. Perry, Paul T. Katami & Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on
5/22/2009) (tn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/2009)
05/22/2009 5 APPLICATION of Attorney Matthew D. McGill for Leave to Appear in Pro Hac Vice
-[Filing Fee: $210.00, Receipt Number 34611032460] Filed by Plaintiffs Sandra B.
Stier, Kristin M. Perry, Paul T. Katami & Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (tn, COURT STAFF)
(Filed on 5/22/2009) (tn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/2009)
05/22/2009 6 [Proposed] Order Granting re 5 Application for Admission of AttorneyPro Hac Vice
Submitted by Plaintiffs Sandra B. Stier, Kristin M. Perry, Paul T. Katami & Jeffrey J.
Zarrillo. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2009) (tn, COURT STAFF). (Entered:
05/26/2009)
05/22/2009 CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered:
05/26/2009)
05/26/2009 18 MOTION of David Boies for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 210,
receipt number 34611032473.) filed by Sandra B. Stier, Kristin M. Perry, Paul T.
Katami, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/26/2009) (gsa, COURT
CAND-ECF https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?654288330419612-L_95...
1 of 24 11/12/2009 10:30 AM
RR 638
STAFF). (Entered: 05/29/2009)
05/27/2009 7 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Sandra B. Stier, Kristin M. Perry, Paul T.
Katami, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. Motion Hearing set for 7/2/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6,
17th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Katami Declaration, # 2
Affidavit Perry Declaration, # 3 Affidavit Stier Declaration, # 4 Affidavit Zarrillo
Declaration, # 5 Proposed Order Granting Preliminary Injunction)(Boutrous,
Theodore) (Filed on 5/27/2009) (Entered: 05/27/2009)
05/28/2009 8 MOTION to Intervene filed by Proposition 8 Official Proponents, Dennis
Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Hak-Shing William Tam, Mark A.
Jansson, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal. Motion
Hearing set for 7/2/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit
E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11
Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Proposed Order, # 16
Certificate of Service)(Chandler, Timothy) (Filed on 5/28/2009) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
05/28/2009 9 Proposed Intervenors' ANSWER to Complaint byDennis Hollingsworth, Gail J.
Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Hak-Shing William Tam, Mark A. Jansson,
ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal. (Attachments: # 1
Certificate of Service)(Chandler, Timothy) (Filed on 5/28/2009) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
05/28/2009 10 Certificate of Interested Entities by Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F.
Gutierrez, Hak-Shing William Tam, Mark A. Jansson, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8,
A Project of California Renewal (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Chandler,
Timothy) (Filed on 5/28/2009) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
05/29/2009 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Sandra B. Stier, Kristin M. Perry, Paul T. Katami,
Jeffrey J. Zarrillo OF SUMMONS, COMPLAINT, MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION, etc., ON EDMUND G. BROWN (Dettmer, Ethan) (Filed on 5/29/2009)
(Entered: 05/29/2009)
INJUNCTION, etc., ON PATRICK O'CONNELL (Dettmer, Ethan) (Filed on
5/29/2009) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
INJUNCTION, etc., ON ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER (Dettmer, Ethan) (Filed on
5/29/2009) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
INJUNCTION, etc., ON MARK B. HORTON (Dettmer, Ethan) (Filed on 5/29/2009)
(Entered: 05/29/2009)
INJUNCTION, etc., ON LINETTE SCOTT (Dettmer, Ethan) (Filed on 5/29/2009)
(Entered: 05/29/2009)
2 of 24 11/12/2009 10:30 AM
RR 639
INJUNCTION, etc., ON DEAN C. LOGAN (Dettmer, Ethan) (Filed on 5/29/2009)
(Entered: 05/29/2009)
05/29/2009 17 ORDER by Chief Judge Vaughn R Walker granting doc 5 Motion Application for
Admission of Attorney Matthew McGill Pro Hac Vice representing the Plaintiffs. (cgk,
COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/29/2009) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
06/01/2009 19 ORDER by Judge Vaughn R Walker granting 18 Motion Application for Admission of
Attorney David Boies Pro Hac Vice representing Plaintiffs. (cgk, COURT STAFF)
(Filed on 6/1/2009) (Entered: 06/01/2009)
06/01/2009 20 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice - James A. Campbell ( Filing fee $ 210,
receipt number 34611032700.). (gsa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2009) (Entered:
06/05/2009)
06/01/2009 21 Proposed Order re 20 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 210,
06/05/2009)
06/01/2009 22 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice - Brian W. Raum ( Filing fee $ 210,
06/05/2009)
06/01/2009 23 Proposed Order re 22 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 210,
06/05/2009)
06/09/2009 24 ORDER by Chief Judge Vaughn R Walker granting 20 Motion Application for
Admission of Attorney James A Campbell Pro Hac Vice representing Proposed
Intervenors. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/9/2009) (Entered: 06/09/2009)
06/09/2009 25 ORDER by Chief Judge Vaughn R Walker granting 22 Motion Application for
Admission of Attorney Brian W Raum Pro Hac Vice representing Proposed
06/09/2009 26 Letter from Bill Plummer to the Honorable Judge Walker regarding Alliance Defense
Fund hearing 7/2/2009. (gsa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/9/2009) (Entered:
06/10/2009)
06/11/2009 27 Statement of No Position to the 7 Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Dean C.
Logan. (Whitehurst, Judy) (Filed on 6/11/2009) Modified on 6/15/2009 (slh, COURT
06/11/2009 28 Statement of No Position to 8 Motion to Intervene by Dean C. Logan. (Whitehurst,
Judy) (Filed on 6/11/2009) Modified on 6/15/2009 (slh, COURT STAFF). (Entered:
06/11/2009)
06/11/2009 29 Certificate of Interested Entities by Dean C. Logan (Whitehurst, Judy) (Filed on
6/11/2009) (Entered: 06/11/2009)
06/11/2009 30 RESPONSE in Support re 7 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Defendant Patrick
O'Connell's Statement of Non-Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction and Certificate of Service filed byPatrick O'Connell. (Attachments: # 1
Certificate of Service)(Kolm, Claude) (Filed on 6/11/2009) (Entered: 06/11/2009)
3 of 24 11/12/2009 10:30 AM
RR 640
06/11/2009 31 Statement of Non-Opposition to Proposed Intervenors' 8 Motion to Intervene by Paul
T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Olson, Theodore)
(Filed on 6/11/2009) Modified on 6/15/2009 (slh, COURT STAFF). (Entered:
06/11/2009)
06/11/2009 32 Statement of Non-Opposition re 8 MOTION to Intervene filed byMark B. Horton,
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linette Scott. (Related document(s) 8 ) (Mennemeier,
Kenneth) (Filed on 6/11/2009) (Entered: 06/11/2009)
06/11/2009 33 Memorandum in Opposition re 7 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed byMark B.
Horton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linette Scott. (Mennemeier, Kenneth) (Filed on
6/11/2009) (Entered: 06/11/2009)
06/11/2009 34 MEMORANDUM in Opposition Attorney General's Opposition to Plaintiffs' 7
Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Pachter, Tamar)
06/11/2009)
06/11/2009 35 Statement of Non-Opposition Defendant's Notice of Non-Opposition to Proposed
Intervenors' 8 Motion to Intervene filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Pachter, Tamar)
06/11/2009)
06/11/2009 36 Memorandum in Opposition re 7 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed byMartin
F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight,
ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal, Hak-Shing William
Tam. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5
Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Proposed Order, # 8 Certificate of Service)(Raum, Brian)
(Filed on 6/11/2009) (Entered: 06/11/2009)
06/12/2009 37 Statement of Non-Opposition To 8 Proposed Intervenors' Motion to Intervene filed
byPatrick O'Connell. (Kolm, Claude) (Filed on 6/12/2009) Modified on 6/15/2009
(gsa, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/12/2009)
06/12/2009 38 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Patrick O'Connell re 37 Statement of
Non-Opposition To Proposed Intervenors' Motion to Intervene (Kolm, Claude) (Filed
on 6/12/2009) (Entered: 06/12/2009)
06/12/2009 39 ANSWER to Complaint of California Attorney General byEdmund G. Brown, Jr.
(Pachter, Tamar) (Filed on 6/12/2009) (Entered: 06/12/2009)
06/15/2009 40 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Edmund G. Brown, Jr (Pachter, Tamar) (Filed on
6/15/2009) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
06/15/2009 41 ANSWER to Complaint byDean C. Logan. (Whitehurst, Judy) (Filed on 6/15/2009)
(Entered: 06/15/2009)
06/15/2009 44 MOTION of Austin R. Nimocks for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $ 210,
receipt number 34611033246) filed by Martin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth,
Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight, Proposition 8 Official Proponents,
Tam. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2009)
(Entered: 06/16/2009)
4 of 24 11/12/2009 10:30 AM
RR 641
06/15/2009 45 MOTION of Jordan W. Lorence for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $ 210,
(Entered: 06/16/2009)
06/16/2009 42 ANSWER to Complaint byPatrick O'Connell. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)
(Kolm, Claude) (Filed on 6/16/2009) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
06/16/2009 43 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Patrick O'Connell re 30 Response in Support,
(Kolm, Claude) (Filed on 6/16/2009) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
06/16/2009 46 The Administration's ANSWER to Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive, or Other
Relief byMark B. Horton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linette Scott. (Mennemeier,
06/17/2009 47 Statement of Non-Opposition re Plantiff's 7 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed
by Patrick O'Connell. (Related document(s) 7 ) (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on
6/17/2009) (Entered: 06/17/2009)
06/17/2009 48 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Patrick O'Connell re 47 Statement of
Non-Opposition. (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2009) (Entered: 06/17/2009)
06/17/2009 49 CLERKS NOTICE re: Failure to E-File and/or Failure to Register as an E-Filer re 47 ,
48 . (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2009) (Entered: 06/17/2009)
06/18/2009 50 MOTION to File Amicus Curiae Brief filed by City and County of San Francisco.
Motion Hearing set for 7/2/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco.
(Van Aken, Christine) (Filed on 6/18/2009) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
06/18/2009 51 Proposed Order re 50 MOTION to File Amicus Curiae Brief by City and County of
San Francisco. (Van Aken, Christine) (Filed on 6/18/2009) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
06/18/2009 52 Reply Memorandum re 7 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed byPaul T. Katami,
Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Olson, Theodore) (Filed on
6/18/2009) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
06/18/2009 53 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Christine Van Aken on behalf of City and
County of San Francisco. (Van Aken, Christine) (Filed on 6/18/2009) (Entered:
06/18/2009)
06/18/2009 54 Declaration of Mollie M. Lee in Support of 53 Amicus Curiae Appearance filed byCity
and County of San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - J)(Related document(s)
53 ) (Van Aken, Christine) (Filed on 6/18/2009) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
06/19/2009 55 MOTION of Howard C. Nielson, Jr. for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $
210, receipt number 34611033459) filed by Martin F. Gutierrez, Dennis
Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight, Proposition 8 Official Proponents,
(Entered: 06/22/2009)
06/19/2009 56 MOTION of Charles J. Cooper for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $ 210,
5 of 24 11/12/2009 10:30 AM
RR 642
(Entered: 06/22/2009)
06/19/2009 57 MOTION of David H. Thompson for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $
210, receipt number 34611033457) filed by Martin F. Gutierrez, Dennis
Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight, Proposition 8 Official Proponents,
(Entered: 06/22/2009)
06/19/2009 58 MOTION of Peter A. Patterson for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $ 210,
(Entered: 06/22/2009)
06/23/2009 59 MOTION to Appear by Telephone filed by Dean C. Logan. Motion Hearing set for
7/2/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1
Proposed Order)(Whitehurst, Judy) (Filed on 6/23/2009) (Entered: 06/23/2009)
06/25/2009 60 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Elizabeth O. Gill on behalf of ACLU
Foundation of Northern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gill, Elizabeth)
(Filed on 6/25/2009) (Entered: 06/25/2009)
06/25/2009 61 MOTION to File Amicus Curiae Brief filed by ACLU Foundation of Northern
California. Motion Hearing set for 7/2/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San
Francisco. (Gill, Elizabeth) (Filed on 6/25/2009) (Entered: 06/25/2009)
06/25/2009 62 Brief re 61 MOTION to File Amicus Curiae Brief filed byACLU Foundation of
Northern California. (Related document(s) 61 ) (Gill, Elizabeth) (Filed on 6/25/2009)
(Entered: 06/25/2009)
06/25/2009 63 MOTION of Tobias Barrington Wolff for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $
210, receipt number 34611033644) filed by Equality California. (Attachments: # 1
Proposed Order)(slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2009) (Entered: 06/26/2009)
06/26/2009 64 MOTION for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae Equality California filed by
Equality California. Motion Hearing set for 7/2/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th
Floor, San Francisco. (Brosnahan, James) (Filed on 6/26/2009) (Entered: 06/26/2009)
06/26/2009 65 Brief re 64 MOTION for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae Equality California
Brief of Amicus Curiae Equality California filed byEquality California. (Related
document(s) 64 ) (Brosnahan, James) (Filed on 6/26/2009) (Entered: 06/26/2009)
06/26/2009 66 Proposed Order re 64 MOTION for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae Equality
California [Proposed] Order Granting Motion for Leave to File Brief of Amicus
Curiae Equality California by Equality California. (Brosnahan, James) (Filed on
6/26/2009) (Entered: 06/26/2009)
06/26/2009 91 MOTION to Intervene filed by Campaign for California Families. Motion Hearing set
for 9/3/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (gsa, COURT
STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2009) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
6 of 24 11/12/2009 10:30 AM
RR 643
06/26/2009 92 Declaration of Randy Thomasson in Support of 91 MOTION to Intervene filed
byCampaign for California Families. (Related document(s) 91 ) (gsa, COURT STAFF)
(Filed on 6/26/2009) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
06/26/2009 93 Proposed Order re 91 MOTION to Intervene by Campaign for California Families.
(gsa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2009) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
06/27/2009 67 ORDER by Judge Vaughn R Walker granting 50 motion to File Amicus Curiae Brief
(vrwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2009) (Entered: 06/27/2009)
06/27/2009 68 ORDER by Judge Vaughn R Walker granting 61 motion to File Amicus Curiae Brief
(vrwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2009) (Entered: 06/27/2009)
06/27/2009 69 ORDER by Judge Vaughn R Walker granting 64 motion for Leave to File (vrwlc3,
06/30/2009 70 ORDER by Judge Vaughn R Walker granting doc 55 Motion Application for
Admission of Attorney Howard C Nielson Jr. Pro Hac Vice representing Proposed
Intervernors. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2009) (Entered: 06/30/2009)
Admission of Attorney Charles J Cooper Pro Hac Vice representing Proposed
Admission of Attorney David H Thompson Pro Hac Vice representing Proposed
Admission of Attorney Peter A Patterson Pro Hac Vice representing Proposed
06/30/2009 74 ORDER by Judge Vaughn R Walker granting doc 59 Motion to Appear by Telephone.
Defendant's counsel may listen to the proceedings at the 7/2/09 hearing. (cgk, COURT
Admission of Attorney Tobias Barrington Wolff Pro Hac Vice representing amicus
curiae Equality California. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2009) (Entered:
06/30/2009)
06/30/2009 76 ORDER granting 8 Motion to Intervene, continuing hearing on preliminary injunction
in favor of a case management conference on 7/2/2009 at 10AM. (vrwlc1, COURT
07/02/2009 77 Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 7/2/2009, Motion Hearing
held on 7/2/2009 before Chief Judge Vaughn R Walker re 7 MOTION for Preliminary
Injunction filed by Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo, Paul T. Katami, Kristin M.
Perry. The Court heard argument from counsel. The parties to submit joint case
management statement no later than August 7, 2009.The matter is scheduled for
further hearing on August 19, 2009 at 10:00 AM. (Court Reporter Sahar McVickar.)
(cgk, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/2/2009) (Entered: 07/06/2009)
07/02/2009 Set/Reset Hearings: Further Case Management Conference set for 8/19/2009 10:00
AM. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2009) (Entered: 07/06/2009)
7 of 24 11/12/2009 10:30 AM
RR 644
07/02/2009 101 Letter from Citizen X (anonymous voter) to Chief Judge Vaughn Walker dated
6/22/2009. (gsa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2009) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
07/08/2009 78 Transcript of Proceedings held on 07/02/09, before Judge Vaughn R. Walker. Court
Reporter/Transcriber Sahar McVickar, Telephone number (415)
626-6060/sahar_mcvickar@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial
Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public
terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the
deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained
through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no
later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set
for 10/5/2009. (McVickar, Sahar) (Filed on 7/8/2009) (Entered: 07/08/2009)
07/08/2009 79 MOTION to Intervene filed by ACLU Foundation of Northern California. Motion
Hearing set for 9/3/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Gill,
Elizabeth) (Filed on 7/8/2009) (Entered: 07/08/2009)
07/08/2009 80 Declaration of Elizabeth Gill in Support of 79 MOTION to Intervene filed byACLU
Foundation of Northern California. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Complaint in
Intervention)(Related document(s) 79 ) (Gill, Elizabeth) (Filed on 7/8/2009) (Entered:
07/08/2009)
07/08/2009 81 Declaration of Judith K. Appel in Support of 79 MOTION to Intervene filed byACLU
Foundation of Northern California. (Related document(s) 79 ) (Gill, Elizabeth) (Filed
on 7/8/2009) (Entered: 07/08/2009)
07/08/2009 82 Declaration in Support of 79 MOTION to Intervene filed byACLU Foundation of
Northern California. (Related document(s) 79 ) (Gill, Elizabeth) (Filed on 7/8/2009)
(Entered: 07/08/2009)
07/08/2009 83 Declaration of Jody Huckaby filed byACLU Foundation of Northern California. (Gill,
07/08/2009 84 Proposed Order re 79 MOTION to Intervene by ACLU Foundation of Northern
California. (Gill, Elizabeth) (Filed on 7/8/2009) (Entered: 07/08/2009)
07/08/2009 85 MOTION to Shorten Time filed by ACLU Foundation of Northern California. (Gill,
07/08/2009 86 Declaration of Elizabeth Gill filed byACLU Foundation of Northern California. (Gill,
07/09/2009 87 NOTICE of Appearance by Alan Lawrence Schlosser (Schlosser, Alan) (Filed on
7/9/2009) (Entered: 07/09/2009)
07/09/2009 88 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 85 MOTION to Shorten Time filed byPaul T.
Katami, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Related document(s) 85
) (Olson, Theodore) (Filed on 7/9/2009) (Entered: 07/09/2009)
07/10/2009 89 Memorandum in Opposition re 85 MOTION to Shorten Time filed byMartin F.
Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight,
Tam. (Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 7/10/2009) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
8 of 24 11/12/2009 10:30 AM
RR 645
07/10/2009 90 Declaration of Charles J. Cooper in Support of 89 Memorandum in Opposition, filed
byMartin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight,
Tam. (Related document(s) 89 ) (Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 7/10/2009) (Entered:
07/10/2009)
07/10/2009 94 NOTICE of Appearance by Christopher Francis Stoll (Stoll, Christopher) (Filed on
7/10/2009) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
07/10/2009 95 Statement of Non-Opposition to Proposed Intervenors Our Families Coalition, et al.'s
Motion to Intervene and Motion to Shorten Time filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr.
(Pachter, Tamar) (Filed on 7/10/2009) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
07/10/2009 96 NOTICE of Appearance by Shannon Minter (Minter, Shannon) (Filed on 7/10/2009)
(Entered: 07/10/2009)
07/10/2009 97 NOTICE of Appearance by Ilona Margaret Turner (Turner, Ilona) (Filed on
7/10/2009) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
07/10/2009 98 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Gordon Bruce Burns (Attachments: # 1 Certificate
of Service)(Burns, Gordon) (Filed on 7/10/2009) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
07/13/2009 99 NOTICE by Edmund G. Brown, Jr re 98 Notice of Change In Counsel Certificate of
Service (Burns, Gordon) (Filed on 7/13/2009) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
07/13/2009 100 Statement of Non-Opposition re 85 MOTION to Shorten Time Defendant Patrick
O'Connell's Statement of Non-Opposition to Motion to Shorten Time and Motion to
Intervene Filed by Our Family Coalition, Lavender Seniors of the East Bay, and
Parents, Friends, and Families of Lesbians and Gays filed byPatrick O'Connell.
(Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Related document(s) 85 ) (Kolm, Claude)
(Filed on 7/13/2009) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
07/13/2009 102 NOTICE of Appearance by James Dixon Esseks (Esseks, James) (Filed on 7/13/2009)
(Entered: 07/13/2009)
07/13/2009 103 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew Albert Coles (Coles, Matthew) (Filed on
7/13/2009) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
07/13/2009 104 ORDER re motions to intervene. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2009)
(Entered: 07/13/2009)
07/13/2009 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion. Motion Hearing re Docs #79 and 91 set for 8/19/2009
10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on
7/13/2009) (Entered: 07/14/2009)
Admission of Attorney Austin R. Nimocks Pro Hac Vice representing proposed
intervenors. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/14/2009) (Entered: 07/14/2009)
Admission of Attorney Jordan W. Lorence Pro Hac Vice representing proposed
intervenors. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/14/2009) (Entered: 07/14/2009)
07/21/2009 107 NOTICE of Appearance by Jennifer Carol Pizer (Pizer, Jennifer) (Filed on 7/21/2009)
(Entered: 07/21/2009)
9 of 24 11/12/2009 10:30 AM
RR 646
07/21/2009 108 NOTICE of Appearance by Jon Warren Davidson (Davidson, Jon) (Filed on
7/21/2009) (Entered: 07/21/2009)
07/23/2009 109 MOTION to Intervene Notice of Motion and Motion to Intervene as Party Plaintiff;
Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by City and County of San Francisco.
Motion Hearing set for 8/19/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San
Francisco. (Bernstein, Erin) (Filed on 7/23/2009) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
07/23/2009 110 Declaration of Erin Bernstein in Support of 109 MOTION to Intervene Notice of
Motion and Motion to Intervene as Party Plaintiff; Memorandum of Points and
Authorities Declaration of Erin Bernstein regarding Electronic Signatures on
Documents Filed in Support of Motion to Intervene as Party Plaintiff filed byCity
and County of San Francisco. (Related document(s) 109 ) (Bernstein, Erin) (Filed on
7/23/2009) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
07/23/2009 111 Declaration of Therese M. Stewart in Support of 109 MOTION to Intervene Notice of
Motion and Motion to Intervene as Party Plaintiff; Memorandum of Points and
Authorities filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 5
Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 8A,
# 9 Exhibit Exhibit 8B, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit 10A, # 12 Exhibit
Exhibit 10B, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit 11, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit 12A, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit
12B, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit 13, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit 14A, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit 14B, # 19
Exhibit Exhibit 15, # 20 Exhibit Exhibit 16A, # 21 Exhibit Exhibit 16B, # 22 Exhibit
Exhibit 17, # 23 Exhibit Exhibit 18)(Related document(s) 109 ) (Bernstein, Erin)
(Filed on 7/23/2009) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
07/23/2009 112 Proposed Order re 109 MOTION to Intervene Notice of Motion and Motion to
Intervene as Party Plaintiff; Memorandum of Points and Authorities [Proposed]
Order Granting Motion to Intervene by City and County of San Francisco. (Bernstein,
Erin) (Filed on 7/23/2009) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
07/24/2009 128 MOTION to File Amicus Curiae Brief filed by Mark S. Shirlau. (gsa, COURT STAFF)
(Filed on 7/24/2009) (Entered: 08/07/2009)
07/24/2009 129 Brief re 128 MOTION to File Amicus Curiae Brief filed byMark S. Shirlau.
(Attachments: # 1 2nd half of brief)(Related document(s) 128 ) (gsa, COURT STAFF)
(Filed on 7/24/2009) (Entered: 08/07/2009)
07/28/2009 115 Statement of Non-Opposition re 109 MOTION to Intervene Notice of Motion and
Motion to Intervene as Party Plaintiff; Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed
byMark B. Horton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linette Scott. (Related document(s) 109 )
(Mennemeier, Kenneth) (Filed on 7/28/2009) (Entered: 07/28/2009)
07/28/2009 116 Statement of Non-Opposition re 91 MOTION to Intervene Defendant Patrick
O'Connell's Statement of Non-Opposition to Motion to Intervene Filed by Campaign
10 of 24 11/12/2009 10:30 AM
RR 647
for California Families filed byPatrick O'Connell. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of
Service)(Related document(s) 91 ) (Kolm, Claude) (Filed on 7/28/2009) (Entered:
07/28/2009)
Motion to Intervene as Party Plaintiff; Memorandum of Points and Authorities
Defendant Patrick O'Connell's Statement of Non-Opposition to Motion to Intervene
Filed by the City and County of San Francisco filed byPatrick O'Connell.
(Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Related document(s) 109 ) (Kolm, Claude)
(Filed on 7/28/2009) (Entered: 07/28/2009)
07/29/2009 118 *** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 121 . ***
MOTION to Intervene OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO filed by
Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Motion Hearing set for 8/19/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6,
17th Floor, San Francisco. (Pachter, Tamar) (Filed on 7/29/2009) Modified on
7/29/2009 (feriab, COURT STAFF). Modified on 7/30/2009 (ewn, COURT STAFF).
(Entered: 07/29/2009)
MOTION to Intervene OF CAMPAIGN FOR CALIFORNIA FAMILIES filed by
Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Motion Hearing set for 8/19/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6,
17th Floor, San Francisco. (Pachter, Tamar) (Filed on 7/29/2009) Modified on
7/29/2009 (feriab, COURT STAFF). Modified on 7/30/2009 (ewn, COURT STAFF).
(Entered: 07/29/2009)
07/29/2009 120 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Edmund G. Brown, Jr (Pachter, Tamar) (Filed on
7/29/2009) (Entered: 07/29/2009)
byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 109 ) (Pachter, Tamar) (Filed on
7/29/2009) (Entered: 07/29/2009)
07/29/2009 122 Statement of Non-Opposition re 91 MOTION to Intervene filed byEdmund G. Brown,
Jr. (Related document(s) 91 ) (Pachter, Tamar) (Filed on 7/29/2009) (Entered:
07/29/2009)
08/03/2009 123 Statement re 79 MOTION to Intervene Statement of No Position by Dean C. Logan.
(Whitehurst, Judy) (Filed on 8/3/2009) (Entered: 08/03/2009)
08/03/2009 124 Statement re 109 MOTION to Intervene Notice of Motion and Motion to Intervene as
Party Plaintiff; Memorandum of Points and Authorities - Statement of No Position
by Dean C. Logan. (Whitehurst, Judy) (Filed on 8/3/2009) (Entered: 08/03/2009)
08/03/2009 125 Statement re 91 MOTION to Intervene - Statement of No Position by Dean C. Logan.
08/03/2009 130 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 210, receipt number
34611035060.) filed by Campaign for California Families. (gsa, COURT STAFF)
(Filed on 8/3/2009) (Entered: 08/07/2009)
08/03/2009 131 Proposed Order - Rena M. Lindecaldsen re 130 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro
Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 210, receipt number 34611035060.) by Campaign for
California Families. (gsa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2009) (Entered: 08/07/2009)
11 of 24 11/12/2009 10:30 AM
RR 648
08/07/2009 126 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint Case Management Statement filed by
Dean C. Logan and Patrick O'Connell filed by Dean C. Logan. (Whitehurst, Judy)
(Filed on 8/7/2009) (Entered: 08/07/2009)
08/07/2009 127 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case Management Statement of The Attorney
General filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Pachter, Tamar) (Filed on 8/7/2009)
(Entered: 08/07/2009)
08/07/2009 132 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Mark B. Horton, Arnold
Schwarzenegger, Linette Scott. (Stroud, Andrew) (Filed on 8/7/2009) (Entered:
08/07/2009)
08/07/2009 133 NOTICE of Appearance by Tara Lynn Borelli (Borelli, Tara) (Filed on 8/7/2009)
(Entered: 08/07/2009)
08/07/2009 134 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Paul T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry,
Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Olson, Theodore) (Filed on 8/7/2009) (Entered:
08/07/2009)
08/07/2009 135 Memorandum in Opposition re 79 MOTION to Intervene, 109 MOTION to Intervene
Notice of Motion and Motion to Intervene as Party Plaintiff; Memorandum of Points
and Authorities, 91 MOTION to Intervene filed byPaul T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry,
Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Olson, Theodore)
(Filed on 8/7/2009) (Entered: 08/07/2009)
08/07/2009 136 Memorandum in Opposition re 91 MOTION to Intervene filed byEdmund G. Brown,
Jr, Martin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight,
Proposition 8 Official Proponents, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of
California Renewal, Hak-Shing William Tam. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh. A -
Declaration of James A. Campbell, # 2 Exhibit Exh. B - VoteYesMarriage.com
Amendment Comparison, # 3 Exhibit Exh. C - Bennet v. Brown, No. S164520, # 4
Exhibit Exh. D - 11/18/08 Letter Brief to the California Supreme Court)(Cooper,
Charles) (Filed on 8/7/2009) Modified on 8/10/2009 (gsa, COURT STAFF). Modified
on 8/10/2009 (gsa, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/07/2009)
08/07/2009 137 Memorandum in Opposition re 109 MOTION to Intervene Notice of Motion and
byMartin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight,
California Renewal, Hak-Shing William Tam. (Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 8/7/2009)
Modified on 8/10/2009 (gsa, COURT STAFF). Modified on 8/10/2009 (gsa, COURT
08/07/2009 138 Memorandum in Opposition re 79 MOTION to Intervene filed byMartin F. Gutierrez,
Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight, Proposition 8 Official
Proponents, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal,
Hak-Shing William Tam. (Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 8/7/2009) Modified on
8/10/2009 (gsa, COURT STAFF). Modified on 8/10/2009 (gsa, COURT STAFF).
(Entered: 08/07/2009)
08/07/2009 139 Statement of Case Management by Martin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark
A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight, Proposition 8 Official Proponents, ProtectMarriage.com -
Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal, Hak-Shing William Tam. (Cooper, Charles)
(Filed on 8/7/2009) (Entered: 08/07/2009)
12 of 24 11/12/2009 10:30 AM
RR 649
Admission of Attorney Rena M Lindevaldsen Pro Hac Vice representing proposed
intervenor The Campaign. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2009) (Entered:
08/11/2009)
08/12/2009 141 ORDER to submit joint or separate case management statements not later than August
17, 2009 at noon PDT. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2009) (Entered:
08/12/2009)
08/12/2009 142 NOTICE of Change of Address by Jordan W. Lorence (Lorence, Jordan) (Filed on
8/12/2009) (Entered: 08/12/2009)
08/12/2009 143 NOTICE of Change of Address by Austin R. Nimocks (Nimocks, Austin) (Filed on
8/12/2009) (Entered: 08/12/2009)
08/13/2009 144 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options and Certificate of
Service (Kolm, Claude) (Filed on 8/13/2009) (Entered: 08/13/2009)
08/13/2009 145 NOTICE of need for ADR Phone Conference (ADR L.R. 3-5 d) re 144 ADR
Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b)of discussion of ADR options and Certificate of
Service re document 144 ) (Kolm, Claude) (Filed on 8/13/2009) (Entered: 08/13/2009)
08/13/2009 146 NOTICE of Appearance by Danny Yeh Chou (Chou, Danny) (Filed on 8/13/2009)
(Entered: 08/13/2009)
08/14/2009 147 Reply Memorandum re 91 MOTION to Intervene filed byCampaign for California
Families. (McAlister, Mary) (Filed on 8/14/2009) (Entered: 08/14/2009)
08/14/2009 148 RESPONSE in Support CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S REPLY IN
SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO INTERVENE AS PARTY PLAINTIFF filed byCity
and County of San Francisco. (Chou, Danny) (Filed on 8/14/2009) (Entered:
08/14/2009)
08/14/2009 149 RESPONSE in Support of Motion to Intervene filed byACLU Foundation of Northern
08/14/2009 150 ASSOCIATION of Counsel Gary G. Kreep by Campaign for California Families.
(McAlister, Mary) (Filed on 8/14/2009) (Entered: 08/14/2009)
08/17/2009 151 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Campaign for California Families.
(McAlister, Mary) (Filed on 8/17/2009) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
08/17/2009 152 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (Supplemental) filed by Mark B. Horton,
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linette Scott. (Mennemeier, Kenneth) (Filed on 8/17/2009)
(Entered: 08/17/2009)
08/17/2009 153 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ATTORNEY GENERAL'S SUPPLEMENTAL
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: #
1 certificate of service)(Pachter, Tamar) (Filed on 8/17/2009) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
08/17/2009 154 AMENDED 7/2/2009 CASE MANAGEMENT CIVIL MINUTE ORDER. (Court
Reporter Sahar McVickar.) (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/17/2009) (Entered:
08/17/2009)
08/17/2009 155 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (Supplemental) filed by Dean C. Logan.
13 of 24 11/12/2009 10:30 AM
RR 650
08/17/2009 156 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Supplemental Case Management Statement of
Defendant PatrickO'Connell, Clerk-Recorder of Alameda County and Certificate of
Service filed by Patrick O'Connell. (Kolm, Claude) (Filed on 8/17/2009) (Entered:
08/17/2009)
08/17/2009 157 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (Supplemental) filed by Paul T. Katami,
Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
A)(Olson, Theodore) (Filed on 8/17/2009) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
08/17/2009 158 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by ACLU Foundation of Northern
08/17/2009 159 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (Supplemental) filed by Dennis Hollingsworth.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -- Proposed Stipulations, # 2 Exhibit B -- Responses to
Proposed Stipulations)(Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 8/17/2009) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
08/18/2009 163 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice, Mathew D. Staver, Esq., ( Filing fee $
210, receipt number 346110035676.) filed by Campaign for California Families. (sis,
08/19/2009 160 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 8/19/2009 before Chief Judge Vaughn R
Walker. PROCEEDINGS and RESULTS: The Court heard argument from counsels
and ruled as follows: 1. Motion to intervene as party plaintiffs filed by the Our Family
coalition, Doc #79 - denied. 2.Motion for intervention as intervenor-defendant filed by
Campaign for California Families, Doc # 91 - denied. 3. Motion to intervene filed by
City and County of San Francisco, Doc #109 - granted in part to allow San Francisco
to present issue of alleged effect on governmental interests. 4.Trial setting and
scheduling as follows:a). Designation of witnesses presenting evidence under FRE 702,
703 or 705 and production of written reports pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(2)(B): October
2, 2009; b). Dispositive motions to be served and filed so as to be heard on October
14, 2009 at 10 AM; c). Completion of all discovery, except for evidence intended
solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified by another
party under FRCP 26(a)(2)(B): November 30, 2009; d). Completion of discovery on
the same subject matter identified by another party under FRCP 26(a)(2)(B):
December 31, 2009; see FRCP 26(a)(2)(C)(ii); e). Pretrial conference: December 16,
2009 at 10 AM; f). Trial: January 11, 2010 at 8:30 AM. 5. With respect to any disputes
regarding discovery, counsel are directed to comply with Civ LR 37-1(b) and the
court's standing order 1.5. 6. In the absence of the assigned judge, counsel are directed
to bring any discovery disputes before Magistrate Judge Joseph C Spero. (Court
Reporter Belle Ball.) (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/19/2009) (Entered:
08/19/2009)
08/19/2009 Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 10/14/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6,
17th Floor, San Francisco. Pretrial Conference set for 12/16/2009 10:00 AM. Trial set
for 1/11/2010 08:30 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (cgk, COURT
08/20/2009 161 COMPLAINT in Intervention for Declaratory, Injunctive or Other Relief against
Edmund G. Brown, Jr, Mark B. Horton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linette Scott (Filing
fee $ 350.). Filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Flynn, Ronald) (Filed on
8/20/2009) (Entered: 08/20/2009)
14 of 24 11/12/2009 10:30 AM
RR 651
08/21/2009 162 Transcript of Proceedings held on August 19, 2009, before Judge Vaughn R. Walker.
Court Reporter/Transcriber Belle Ball, CSR, RMR, CRR, Telephone number
(415)373-2529, belle_ball@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial
Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public
terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the
deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained
through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no
later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set
for 11/16/2009. (Ball, Belle) (Filed on 8/21/2009) (Entered: 08/21/2009)
08/24/2009 164 PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Judge Vaughn R Walker on
8/21/2009. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2009) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
08/26/2009 168 NOTICE OF APPEAL re 160 Civil Minute Order by Campaign for California
Families. Filing fee $ 455.00. Receipt Number 34611035917. (Attachments: # 1 Civil
Appeals Docketing Statement, # 2 Representation Statement) (gba, COURT STAFF)
(Filed on 8/26/2009) (Entered: 09/02/2009)
08/28/2009 165 ANSWER to Complaint byMartin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A.
Jansson, Gail J. Knight, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of California
Renewal, Hak-Shing William Tam. (Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 8/28/2009) (Entered:
08/28/2009)
08/28/2009 166 ANSWER to Complaint in intervention byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Pachter, Tamar)
(Filed on 8/28/2009) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
09/02/2009 167 STIPULATION to Extend Time for the Administration Defendants to File and Serve
Answer to Complaint in Intervention by Mark B. Horton, Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Linette Scott. (Mennemeier, Kenneth) (Filed on 9/2/2009) (Entered: 09/02/2009)
09/02/2009 171 MOTION for Admission of Attorney Nicole J. Moss Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $ 210.00,
receipt number 34611036190) filed by Campaign for California Families, Martin F.
Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight, Lavender Seniors of
the East Bay, Our Family Coalition, Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and
Gays, Proposition 8 Official Proponents, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of
California Renewal, Hak-Shing William Tam. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on
9/2/2009) (Entered: 09/09/2009)
Admission of Attorney Mathew D. Staver Pro Hac Vice representing Proposed
Intervenor. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2009) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
09/04/2009 169 The Administration's ANSWER to Complaint in Intervention for Declaratory,
Injunctive or Other Relief byMark B. Horton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linette Scott.
(Mennemeier, Kenneth) (Filed on 9/4/2009) (Entered: 09/04/2009)
09/04/2009 170 STIPULATION AND ORDER granting a two-day extension of time in which to file its
answer to the City's Complaint in intervention for declaratory, injunctive or other
relief, re doc 167 filed by Mark B. Horton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linette Scott.
Signed by Judge Vaughn R Walker on 9/4/2009. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on
9/4/2009) (Entered: 09/04/2009)
09/09/2009 172 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Martin F. Gutierrez, Dennis
Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A
15 of 24 11/12/2009 10:30 AM
RR 652
Project of California Renewal, Hak-Shing William Tam. Motion Hearing set for
Attachment 1 - Defendant-Intervenors' Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary
Judgment, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for
Summary Judgment, # 2 Exhibit A -- D.C. Superior Court Opinion, # 3 Exhibit B --
California Laws, # 4 Exhibit C -- AG Brown Brief, # 5 Exhibit D -- AB 205
Legislative History, # 6 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Exceed Page Limit, # 7
Proposed Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment)(Cooper, Charles) (Filed on
9/9/2009) (Entered: 09/09/2009)
09/09/2009 173 Declaration of Nicole J. Moss in Support of 172 MOTION for Leave to File Excess
Pages filed byMartin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J.
Knight, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal, Hak-Shing
William Tam. (Related document(s) 172 ) (Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 9/9/2009)
(Entered: 09/09/2009)
09/10/2009 174 Memorandum in Opposition re 172 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed
byPaul T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Olson,
09/10/2009 175 Letter from Charles J. Cooper to Court re Request for Leave to File Mot. for
Protective Order. (Attachments: # 1 Enclosure (RFPs), # 2 Enclosure (Ltr.), # 3
Enclosure (Ltr.))(Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 9/10/2009) (Entered: 09/10/2009)
09/10/2009 176 Declaration of Matthew D. McGill in Support of 174 Memorandum in Opposition of
Motion for Administrative Leave to Exceed Page Limitations filed byPaul T. Katami,
Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Related document(s) 174 )
(Olson, Theodore) (Filed on 9/10/2009) (Entered: 09/10/2009)
09/10/2009 177 Proposed Order re 174 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Administrative
Leave to Exceed Page Limitations by Paul T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B.
Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Olson, Theodore) (Filed on 9/10/2009) (Entered: 09/10/2009)
09/10/2009 178 ORDER clarifying discovery dates. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2009)
(Entered: 09/10/2009)
09/10/2009 179 Memorandum in Opposition City and County of San Francisco's Opposition to
Defendant-Intervenors' Motion for Administrative Leave to Exceed Page Limitations
filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Flynn, Ronald) (Filed on 9/10/2009)
(Entered: 09/10/2009)
09/10/2009 180 Declaration of Therese M. Stewart in Support of 179 Memorandum in Opposition,
Declaration of Therese M. Stewart re City and County of San Francisco's Opposition
to Defendant-Intervenors' Motion for Administrative Leave to Exceed Page
Limitations filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Related document(s) 179 )
(Flynn, Ronald) (Filed on 9/10/2009) (Entered: 09/10/2009)
09/11/2009 181 Letter from Ethan D. Dettmer re Request for Leave to File Mot. for Protective
Order. (Dettmer, Ethan) (Filed on 9/11/2009) (Entered: 09/11/2009)
09/11/2009 182 Letter from Therese M. Stewart. (Flynn, Ronald) (Filed on 9/11/2009) (Entered:
09/11/2009)
09/11/2009 183 ORDER re 172 GRANTING defendant-intervenors' motion for leave to file their
motion papers. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2009) (Entered: 09/11/2009)
16 of 24 11/12/2009 10:30 AM
RR 653
09/11/2009 184 ORDER re 175 181 182 . Defendant-intervenors shall file motion for protective order
not later than 9/15/09. Plaintiffs shall file their opposition not later than 9/18/09.
Defendant-intervenors may file a reply not later than 9/22/09. The court will hear the
matter on 9/25/09 at 10AM. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2009) (Entered:
09/11/2009)
09/11/2009 185 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Richard J. Bettan ( Filing fee $ 210,
receipt number 34611036579.) filed by Paul T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B.
Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(far, COURT STAFF)
(Filed on 9/11/2009) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
09/11/2009 186 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Joshua Schiller ( Filing fee $ 210,
(Filed on 9/11/2009) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
09/15/2009 NOTICE of Hearing: Hearing on Defendant-Intervenors' motion for leave to file a
motion for a protective order, doc #175, set for 9/25/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6,
17th Floor, San Francisco. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2009) (Entered:
09/15/2009)
09/15/2009 187 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Martin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth,
Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of
California Renewal, Hak-Shing William Tam. Motion Hearing set for 9/25/2009 10:00
AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -- Reply
Br. for Aplt., Citizens United v. FEC, # 2 Exhibit B -- Prentice Declaration, # 3 Exhibit
C -- Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production, # 4 Exhibit D -- Defendant-
Intervenors' Response to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production, # 5 Exhibit E
-- Letter of August 27, 2009, # 6 Exhibit F -- Letter of August 31, 2009, # 7 Exhibit G
-- Moss Declaration, # 8 Exhibit H -- Doe v. Reec Opinion, # 9 Exhibit I -- Schubert
Declaration, # 10 Exhibit J -- Jannson Declaration, # 11 Exhibit K -- Articles
Discussing Negative Effects of Public Disclosure, # 12 Exhibit L -- Tam Declaration, #
13 Exhibit M -- Toupis Declaration, # 14 Proposed Order)(Cooper, Charles) (Filed on
9/15/2009) (Entered: 09/15/2009)
09/15/2009 188 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Rosanne C. Baxter ( Filing fee $ 210,
(Filed on 9/15/2009) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
09/16/2009 189 USCA Case Number 09-16959 9th Circuit for 168 Notice of Appeal, filed by
Campaign for California Families. (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2009)
(Entered: 09/16/2009)
09/17/2009 190 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE DISCOVERY OF EXPERT
WITNESSES by Paul T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo.
(Monagas, Enrique) (Filed on 9/17/2009) (Entered: 09/17/2009)
09/18/2009 191 Memorandum in Opposition re 187 MOTION for Protective Order filed byCity and
County of San Francisco, Paul T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J.
Zarrillo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Olson, Theodore)
(Filed on 9/18/2009) (Entered: 09/18/2009)
17 of 24 11/12/2009 10:30 AM
RR 654
Admission of Attorney Rosanne C. Baxter Pro Hac Vice representing Plaintiffs. (cgk,
09/21/2009 194 Statement of Non-Opposition to 187 Defendant-Intervenors' Motion for Protective
Order filed byMark B. Horton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linette Scott. (Mennemeier,
Kenneth) (Filed on 9/21/2009) Modified on 9/22/2009 (far, COURT STAFF).
(Entered: 09/21/2009)
09/21/2009 195 Letter from The Administration Formal Written Request to Appear by Telephone at
the Hearing on Defendant-Intervenors' Motion for Protective Order. (Mennemeier,
09/22/2009 196 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY OF EXPERT
WITNESSES re doc 190 filed by Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo, Paul T. Katami,
Kristin M. Perry. Signed by Chief Judge Vaughn R Walker on 9/22/2009. (cgk,
09/22/2009 197 Reply Memorandum re 187 MOTION for Protective Order filed byMartin F.
Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight, Proposition 8
Official Proponents, Hak-Shing William Tam. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2
Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit
F)(Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 9/22/2009) (Entered: 09/22/2009)
09/22/2009 198 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Jesse Panuccio ( Filing fee $ 210,
receipt number 34611036917.) filed by Campaign for California Families, Martin F.
Tam. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2009)
(Entered: 09/23/2009)
09/23/2009 199 Statement in Response to Defendant-Intervenors' Motion for Summary Judgment by
Mark B. Horton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linette Scott. (Mennemeier, Kenneth)
(Filed on 9/23/2009) (Entered: 09/23/2009)
09/23/2009 200 Joinder Defendant Attorney General's Joinder in Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors
Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments:
# 1 Certificate of Service)(Burns, Gordon) (Filed on 9/23/2009) (Entered: 09/23/2009)
09/23/2009 201 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Amendment to 200 Joinder
Amended Certificate of Service. (Burns, Gordon) (Filed on 9/23/2009) (Entered:
09/23/2009)
09/23/2009 202 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant-Intervenors' Motion for Summary
Judgment filed byCity and County of San Francisco, Paul T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry,
Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Olson, Theodore) (Filed on 9/23/2009) (Entered:
09/23/2009)
09/23/2009 203 Declaration of Christopher D. Dusseault in Support of 202 Memorandum in Opposition
to Defendant-Intervenors' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byCity and County of
San Francisco, Paul T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo.
(Related document(s) 202 ) (Olson, Theodore) (Filed on 9/23/2009) (Entered:
09/23/2009)
18 of 24 11/12/2009 10:30 AM
RR 655
09/23/2009 204 Declaration of Enrique A. Monagas in Support of 202 Memorandum in Opposition
filed byCity and County of San Francisco, Paul T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B.
Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4
Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, #
10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N)(Related
document(s) 202 ) (Olson, Theodore) (Filed on 9/23/2009) (Entered: 09/24/2009)
Admission of Attorney Nicole J. Moss Pro Hac Vice representing Intervenor
Defendants. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2009) (Entered: 09/25/2009)
Admission of Attorney Richard J. Bettan Pro Hac Vice representing Plaintiffs. (cgk,
Admission of Attorney Joshua Schiller Pro Hac Vice representing Plaintiffs. (cgk,
09/25/2009 208 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Martin F. Gutierrez, Dennis
Project of California Renewal, Hak-Shing William Tam. Motion Hearing set for
Declaration of Nicole Jo Moss)(Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 9/25/2009) (Entered:
09/25/2009)
09/28/2009 209 ORDER granting 208 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Proponents' reply shall
not exceed 25 pages. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2009) (Entered:
09/28/2009)
Admission of Attorney Jesse Panuccio Pro Hac Vice representing Defendant-
09/29/2009 211 Minute Entry: Discovery Hearing re leave to file motion for protective order held on
9/25/2009 before Chief Judge Vaughn R Walker (Date Filed: 9/29/2009). (Court
Reporter Kelly Bryce.) (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/29/2009) (Entered:
09/29/2009)
Reporter/Transcriber Kelly Bryce, E-mail courtreporter232@aol.com Telephone
number (510)828-9404. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this
transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be
purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of
Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice
of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from
date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/28/2009. (Bryce, Kelly)
(Filed on 9/30/2009) (Entered: 09/30/2009)
09/30/2009 213 Reply Memorandum re 172 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages and Defendant-
Intervenors' Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment, and Memorandum
of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMartin
F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight,
19 of 24 11/12/2009 10:30 AM
RR 656
Tam. (Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 9/30/2009) (Entered: 09/30/2009)
10/01/2009 214 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 187 Motion for Protective Order (vrwlc1,
10/02/2009 215 Letter from Christopher Dusseault to the Honorable Chief Judge Walker. (Piepmeier,
Sarah) (Filed on 10/2/2009) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
10/02/2009 216 MOTION TO REALIGN DEFENDANT ATTORNEY GENERAL EDMUND G.
BROWN filed by Martin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J.
Knight, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal, Hak-Shing
William Tam. Motion Hearing set for 1/7/2010 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor,
San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cooper, Charles) (Filed on
10/2/2009) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
10/02/2009 217 Declaration of Jesse Panuccio in Support of 216 MOTION TO REALIGN
DEFENDANT ATTORNEY GENERAL EDMUND G. BROWN filed byMartin F.
Tam. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Related document(s)
216 ) (Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 10/2/2009) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
10/05/2009 218 Letter from Charles J. Cooper to The Honorable Chief Judge Walker. (Cooper,
Charles) (Filed on 10/5/2009) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
10/05/2009 219 ORDER of USCA as to 168 Notice of Appeal, filed by Campaign for California
Families (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2009) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
10/08/2009 220 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal and/or Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by
Martin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight,
California Renewal, Hak-Shing William Tam. Motion Hearing set for 1/7/2010 10:00
AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -
Declaration of Jesse Panuccio, # 2 Proposed Order)(Cooper, Charles) (Filed on
10/8/2009) Modified on 10/9/2009 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/08/2009)
10/09/2009 221 ERRONEOUSLY E-FILED, DISREGARD - SEE DOC 222
NOTICE by Martin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J.
Knight, Proposition 8 Official Proponents, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project
of California Renewal, Hak-Shing William Tam of Appeal (Cooper, Charles) (Filed on
10/9/2009) Modified on 10/9/2009 (ewn, COURT STAFF). Modified on 10/9/2009
(far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2009)
10/09/2009 222 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 214 Order on Motion for Protective Order by Martin F.
Tam. Filing fee $ 455, Receipt Number 34611037633.(far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on
10/9/2009) (Entered: 10/09/2009)
10/13/2009 223 *** FILED IN ERROR. REFER TO DOCUMENT 225 . ***
Memorandum in Opposition re 220 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal and/or Petition
for Writ of Mandamus filed byCity and County of San Francisco, Paul T. Katami,
Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Olson, Theodore) (Filed on
10/13/2009) Modified on 10/14/2009 (feriab, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/13/2009)
20 of 24 11/12/2009 10:30 AM
RR 657
10/13/2009 224 Declaration of Christopher D. Dusseault in Support of 223 Memorandum in
Opposition, TO DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS MOTION FOR A STAY PENDING
APPEAL AND/OR PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS filed byCity and County
of San Francisco, Paul T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 223 )
10/13/2009 225 Memorandum in Opposition re 220 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal and/or Petition
for Writ of Mandamus CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 223 . filed byCity and County
of San Francisco, Paul T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo.
10/14/2009 226 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 10/14/2009 before Chief Judge Vaughn R
Walker re doc 172 Defendant Intervenors' MOTION for summary judgment.
PROCEEDINGS: 1. Defendant-intervenors' motion for summary judgment, Doc #172
- denied. 2. Defendant-intervenors shall file their reply memorandum in support of the
motion to stay, Doc #220, not later than October 16, 2009. The court will submit the
matter on the papers or hear argument by telephone as necessary. 3. Plaintiffs and the
Attorney General shall file their oppositions to defendant-intervenors motion to realign
the Attorney General, Doc #216, not later than October 28, 2009. Defendant-
intervenors shall file their reply not later than November 4, 2009. The matter will be
submitted on the papers. (Court Reporter Lydia Zinn.) (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Date
Filed: 10/14/2009) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
10/15/2009 227 *** FILED IN ERROR. REFER TO DOCUMENT 228 . ***
Transcript of Proceedings held on 10/14/2009, before Judge Vaughn R. Walker. Court
Reporter/Transcriber Lydia Zinn, Telephone number (415) 531-6587. Per General
Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the
Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court
Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After
that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request
Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing.
Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/11/2010. (Zinn, Lydia) (Filed on
10/15/2009) Modified on 10/15/2009 (feriab, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/15/2009)
Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/11/2010. (Zinn, Lydia) (Filed on
10/15/2009) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
10/15/2009 229 Copy of Notice of Appeal and Docket sheet mailed to all counsel (Attachments: # 1
docket sheet)(far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2009) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
10/15/2009 230 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 222
Notice of Appeal, (Attachments: # 1 Docket Sheet, # 2 Cover Letter, # 3 USCA
Appeal Notification Form)(far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2009) (Entered:
10/15/2009)
21 of 24 11/12/2009 10:30 AM
RR 658
10/15/2009 231 Certificate of Record forwarded to USCA re 222 Notice of Appeal (far, COURT
Hak-Shing William Tam, Dennis Hollingsworth, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A
Project of California Renewal, Mark A. Jansson, Martin F. Gutierrez, Gail J. Knight.
(far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2009) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
10/16/2009 233 REPLY to Response to Motion re 220 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal and/or
Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed byMartin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth,
Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of
California Renewal, Hak-Shing William Tam. (Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 10/16/2009)
(Entered: 10/16/2009)
Hak-Shing William Tam, Dennis Hollingsworth, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A
Project of California Renewal, Mark A. Jansson, Martin F. Gutierrez, Gail J. Knight.
(far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2009) (Entered: 10/20/2009)
10/21/2009 235 STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3.d in support
of Joint Opposition to Defendant-Intevenors Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal
and/or Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed byCity and County of San Francisco, Paul
T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 225 ) (Olson, Theodore) (Filed on 10/21/2009)
(Entered: 10/21/2009)
10/23/2009 236 Letter from Plaintiffs per Paragraph 1.5 of the Court's Standing Orders.
(Attachments: # 1 Attachment to Letter to The Hon. Vaughn R. Walker)(Dettmer,
Ethan) (Filed on 10/23/2009) (Entered: 10/23/2009)
10/23/2009 237 ORDER denying 220 Motion to Stay (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/23/2009)
(Entered: 10/23/2009)
10/28/2009 238 Letter from Charles J. Cooper. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Cooper, Charles) (Filed
on 10/28/2009) (Entered: 10/28/2009)
10/28/2009 239 Memorandum in Opposition re 216 MOTION TO REALIGN DEFENDANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL EDMUND G. BROWN filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr.
(Attachments: # 1 DECLARATION OF TAMAR PACHTER)(Pachter, Tamar) (Filed
on 10/28/2009) (Entered: 10/28/2009)
10/28/2009 240 Memorandum in Opposition re 216 MOTION TO REALIGN DEFENDANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL EDMUND G. BROWN filed byCity and County of San
Francisco, Paul T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Olson,
10/28/2009 241 CLERKS NOTICE : Telephone conference re discovery scheduled for 11/2/2009 at
2:30 PM. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2009) (Entered: 10/28/2009)
10/28/2009 Set/Reset Hearings: Telephonic Discovery Hearing set for 11/2/2009 02:30 PM. (cgk,
10/29/2009 242 Letter from Ethan D. Dettmer. (Dettmer, Ethan) (Filed on 10/29/2009) (Entered:
10/29/2009)
22 of 24 11/12/2009 10:30 AM
RR 659
Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/29/2010. (Zinn, Lydia) (Filed on 11/3/2009)
Modified on 11/3/2009 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/03/2009)
Redaction Request due 11/23/2009. (Zinn, Lydia) (Filed on 11/3/2009) Modified on
11/3/2009 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/03/2009)
Modified on 11/3/2009 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/03/2009)
(Entered: 11/03/2009)
11/03/2009 247 Minute Entry: TELEPHONIC Discovery Hearing held on 11/2/2009 before Chief
Judge Vaughn R Walker (Date Filed: 11/3/2009). (Court Reporter Lydia Zinn.) (cgk,
COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/3/2009) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
11/04/2009 248 Reply Memorandum re 216 MOTION TO REALIGN DEFENDANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL EDMUND G. BROWN filed byMartin F. Gutierrez, Dennis
Project of California Renewal, Hak-Shing William Tam. (Cooper, Charles) (Filed on
11/4/2009) (Entered: 11/04/2009)
23 of 24 11/12/2009 10:30 AM
RR 660
11/06/2009 249 Letter from Nicole J. Moss. (Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 11/6/2009) (Entered:
11/06/2009)
11/06/2009 250 Letter from Ethan D. Dettmer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit
3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Dettmer, Ethan) (Filed on 11/6/2009) (Entered: 11/06/2009)
11/06/2009 251 NOTICE OF FILING of Sealed Documents For In Camera Review by Dennis
Hollingsworth (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2009) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
11/11/2009 252 ORDER re 251 in camera discovery review. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on
11/11/2009) (Entered: 11/11/2009)
PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
11/12/2009 07:02:30
PACER Login: cc0358 Client Code: 333-0
Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 3:09-cv-02292-VRW
Billable Pages: 18 Cost: 1.44
24 of 24 11/12/2009 10:30 AM
RR 661

09-17241 #13

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

09-17241 #13

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOS.

Alerts Total Litigator Transactional Advisor Counsel Selector Dossier History

Alerts Total Litigator Transactional Advisor Counsel Selector Dossier History

You might also like