ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal et al v. Bowen et al

Filing 173

JOINDER by Dennis J. Herrera, Department of Elections - City and County of San Francisco in. State Defendants' Rule 56(F) Motion (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Mollie M. Lee In Support of San Francisco Defendants' Notice of Joinder in State Defendants' Rule 56(F) Motion)(Lee, Mollie)

Download PDF
ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal et al v. Bowen et al Doc. 173 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 DENNIS J. HERRERA, SB# 139669 City Attorney WAYNE SNODGRASS, SB# 148137 MOLLIE LEE, SB# 251404 Deputy City Attorneys One Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place City Hall, Room 234 San Francisco, California 94102-4682 Telephone: (415) 554-4705 Facsimile: (415) 554-4745 E-Mail: mollie.lee@sfgov.org Attorneys for Defendants Department of Elections - City and County of San Francisco and Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal; National Organization for Marriage California - Yes on 8, Sponsored by National Organization for Marriage, John Doe #1, an individual, and as a representative of the Class of Major Donors, Plaintiffs, vs. Debra Bowen, Secretary of State for the State of California, in her official capacity; Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General for the State of California, in his official capacity; Dean C. Logan, Registrar-Recorder of Los Angeles County, California, in his official capacity; Department of Elections - City and County of San Francisco; Jan Scully, District Attorney for Sacramento County, California, in her official capacity and as a representative of the Class of District Attorneys in the State of California; Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco, California, in his official capacity and as a representative of the Class of Elected City Attorneys in the State of California; Ross SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF JOINDER IN SUPPORT OF STATE DEFENDANTS' RULE 56(F) MOTION CASE NO. 2:09-CV-00058-MCEDAD Case No. 2:09-CV-00058-MCEDAD SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF JOINDER IN STATE DEFENDANTS' RULE 56(F) MOTION Date: Time: Courtroom: Judge: Trial Date: Action Filed: July 16, 2009 2:00 p.m. 7, 14th Floor Morrison C. England, Jr. March 14, 2011 January 7, 2009 1 n:\govlit\li2009\090774\00561876.doc Dockets.Justia.com 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 Johnson, Timothy Hodson, Eugene Huguenin, Jr., Robert Leidigh, and Ray Remy, members of the California Fair Political Practices Commission, in their official capacities, Defendants. Defendants Department of Elections - City and County of San Francisco and Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco ("San Francisco Defendants") hereby join in the Rule 56(f) Motion filed by State Defendants Debra Bowen, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., and members of the Fair Political Practices Commission. San Francisco Defendants join in and adopt State Defendants' Motion in its entirety, including all arguments and statements of issue or fact contained therein, and all exhibits incorporated therein. Plaintiffs seek summary judgment on all four counts in their Third Amended Complaint: (1) that the Political Reform Act (the "PRA") is unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiffs because there is a reasonable probability that compliance with the PRA will subject Plaintiffs' supporters to threats, harassment and reprisals; (2) that the PRA's $100 threshold for disclosure is unconstitutionally overbroad; (3) that post-election reporting requirements are unconstitutional facially and as applied; (4) and that post-election disclosure of reported information is unconstitutional facially and as applied. As State Defendants explain in their Rule 56(f) motion, further factual development is necessary to respond to Plaintiffs' arguments that disclosure requirements have a chilling effect on Plaintiffs and their contributors, that the State lacks a sufficiently compelling interest in disclosure, and that the disclosure requirements of the PRA are not narrowly tailored to the State's interests in disclosure. San Francisco Defendants agree that the factual record the State Defendants seek to develop is essential to oppose these arguments in Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. San Francisco Defendants also may seek to discover additional facts regarding Plaintiffs' argument that Plaintiffs are entitled to an exemption from disclosure requirements because there is a reasonable probability that disclosure will result in threats, harassment or reprisals toward their SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF 2 n:\govlit\li2009\090774\00561876.doc JOINDER IN SUPPORT OF STATE DEFENDANTS' RULE 56(F) MOTION CASE NO. 2:09-CV-00058-MCEDAD 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 supporters. As described in the declaration of Mollie M. Lee, filed concurrently herewith, Plaintiffs have filed 58 redacted declarations in support of their motion for summary judgment. In each such declaration served on Defendants, Plaintiffs have redacted the name of the declarant. Plaintiffs have provided the declarants' identities to the Court, but thus far have failed to provide the same basic information to Defendants. In many of the declarations, Plaintiffs have also redacted other details, such as the amount of a contribution, the name of a group or institution with which the declarant is affiliated, or the date or location of a relevant event. Because of the redactions, Defendants do not know the identities of the declarants and, in some instances, details of the facts alleged in the declarations. Without this information, Defendants cannot assess whether Plaintiffs' assertions have evidentiary support and cannot adequately plan discovery. San Francisco Defendants have requested that Plaintiffs' counsel provide unredacted versions of the declarations for review by Defendants' counsel. If Plaintiffs' counsel rejects this request, Defendants will seek a modified protective order from the Court that would permit counsel to review unredacted declarations, subject to an appropriate protective order. San Francisco Defendants believe that a continuance to December 18, 2009, as proposed by State Defendants, would allow sufficient time for resolution of this issue, review of any unredacted declarations that are disclosed, and additional discovery after review of the unredacted declarations. Therefore, San Francisco Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant State Defendants' request to deny Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, to continue the hearing date on Plaintiffs' motion to December 18, 2009. SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF JOINDER IN SUPPORT OF STATE DEFENDANTS' RULE 56(F) MOTION CASE NO. 2:09-CV-00058-MCEDAD 3 n:\govlit\li2009\090774\00561876.doc 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 Dated: June 11, 2009 DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney WAYNE SNODGRASS MOLLIE LEE Deputy City Attorneys By: /s/ MOLLIE LEE Attorneys for Defendants DEFENDANTS CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AND DENNIS HERRERA SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF JOINDER IN SUPPORT OF STATE DEFENDANTS' RULE 56(F) MOTION CASE NO. 2:09-CV-00058-MCEDAD 4 n:\govlit\li2009\090774\00561876.doc