Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al
Letter from Counsel for Plaintiffs to The Honorable Joseph C. Spero. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Dettmer, Ethan) (Filed on 11/23/2009)
Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al Doc. 262 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document262 LAWYERS Filed11/23/09 Page1 of 2 GIBSON, DUNN &CRUTCHERLLP A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, Californa 94105-2933 (415) 393-8200 ww.gibsondunn.com EDettmer~gibsondunn. com November 23, 2009 Direct Dial Client No. (415) 393-8292 Fax T 36330-00001 No. (415) 374-8444 The Honorable Joseph C. Spero United States Magistrate Judge United States District Court for the Northern District of California 450 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, California 94102 Re: Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Case No. C 09-2292 VRW Dear Magistrate Judge Spero: At the Cour's direction, I write with an update on the status of the parties' negotiations over a stipulated protective order in this case. As an initial matter, however, Proponents' counsel stated on November 21, and again this morning, their belief that the Court's Order of November 19 and oral directions to the paries on November 20. Plaintiffs respectfully disagree with this position; the Ninth Circuit did not stay the Cour's November 19 Order and, in any event, there is no doubt that a protective order wil be beneficial in moving discovery in this case forward fairly and expeditiously. the same date, are forestalled by the Ninth Circuit's temporar stay order of With respect to the paries' negotiations over the proposed protective order: prior to their indication on November 21 that the Ninth Circuit's November 20 Order foreclosed these discussions, Proponents had proposed a revision to the Cour's standard form of protective order. Proponents' proposed addition would bar from reviewing designated documents any counselor employee who has "previously been involved ( or) has () intention in the future of being involved in any organization, association, campaign, group, coalition, or other entity that advocated for or against Proposition 8 or for or against any other ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or the state) that advocated for or against same-sex mariage." Nov. state law (regardless of 19,2009 email from N. Moss (attached hereto as Exh. A). LOS ANGELES NEW YORK WASHINGTON, D.C. SAN FRANCISCO PALO ALTO LONDON PARIS MUNICH BRUSSELS DUBAI SINGAPORE ORANGE COUNTY CENTURY CITY DALLAS DENVER Dockets.Justia.com Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document262 Filed11/23/09 Page2 of 2 GIBSON, DUNN &CRUTCHERLLP The Honorable Joseph C. Spero November 23, 2009 Page 2 Plaintiffs objected to this broad exclusion, but sought to address Proponents' asserted concern that their strategic plans could be divulged to their "political enemies." Specifically, Plaintiffs offered to exclude "any Counselor employee who held an offcial position in any primarily formed ballot committee related to Proposition 8" or a similar organization circulating this disagreement, by the close of petitions to repeal Prop. 8 in 2010.1 With the exception of business on November 20, Plaintiffs and Proponents had agreed upon most of the substantial terms of the stipulated protective order. Plaintiffs continue to believe that a protective order should be entered in this case protective the Court's standard form of promptly, and Plaintiffs remain amenable to the entry of order. Plaintiffs respectfully ask the Cour to enter an appropriate protective order without delay. Ethan D. Dettmer Counsel for Plaintiffs cc: All Counsel I 00767527 JDOC Plaintiffs proposed the following restriction on those who could view "Attorneys' Eyes Only"-designated materials: "any Counselor employee who held an official position in any primarily formed ballot committee related to Proposition 8 (see http://calaccess.ss.ca.gov/campaign/measures/detail.aspx?id= 1302602&session=2007) or now holds an official position in a primarily formed ballot committee that is now circulating petitions this section (7.3) an for a 2010 ballot initiative to repeal Proposition 8. For puroses of 'official position' is defined as one which authorizes the holder of said position to contractually bind (either solely or in conjunction with others) the primarily formed ballot committee with respect to matters relating to communications disseminated by the committee or otherwise to spend funds exceeding $10,000 on behalf of the committee."