Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 654

Transcript of Proceedings held on April 28, 2010, before Judge Vaughn R. Walker. Court Reporter/Transcriber Joan Marie Columbini, Telephone number 415-255-6842. 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 8/2/2010. (Columbini, Joan) (Filed on 5/3/2010)

Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al Doc. 654 PAGES 1 - 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BEFORE THE HONORABLE VAUGHN R. WALKER KRISTIN M. PERRY, ET AL. ) ) PLAINTIFFS, ) ) VS. ) NO. C 09-2292 VRW ) ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, ET ) ) AL., ) SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA DEFENDANTS. ) WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 2010 ___________________________________) TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS APPEARANCES: FOR PLAINTIFFS BY: FOR PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS BY: FOR ACLU FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA BY: GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 555 MISSION STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105 CHRISTOPHER D. DUSSEAULT, ESQUIRE ENRIQUE A. MONAGAS, ESQUIRE COOPER & KIRK 1523 NEW HAMPSHIRE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 JESSE PANUCCIO, ESQUIRE ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE 405 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105 STEPHEN V. BOMSE, ESQUIRE ELIZABETH O. GILL, ESQUIRE (FURTHER APPEARANCES ON FOLLOWING PAGE) REPORTED BY: JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR #5435, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, U.S. DISTRICT COURT Dockets.Justia.com 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 APPEARANCES (CONTINUED): FOR CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 455 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE, SUITE 11000 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 TAMAR PACHTER DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL FENWICK & WEST 555 CALIFORNIA STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA LYNN PASAHOW, ESQUIRE LESLIE KRAMER, ESQUIRE BY: FOR EQUALITY CALIFORNIA BY: 94104 FOR CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO BY: FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DEFENDANTS BY: DENNIS J. HERRERA OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 1300 MARKET STREET, SEVENTH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA RONALD P. FLYNN, ESQUIRE MOLLIE LEE, ESQUIRE MENNEMEIER, GLASSMAN & STROUD 980 NINTH STREET, SUITE 1700 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 ANDREW W. STROUD, ESQUIRE JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 415-255-6842 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 PROCEEDINGS; WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 2010 THE CLERK: CALLING CIVIL CASE 09-2292, KRISTIN M. PERRY, ET AL. VERSUS ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, ET AL. WILL COUNSEL STATE YOUR APPEARANCES? MR. BOMSE: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. STEPHEN BOMSE AND ELIZABETH GILL FOR THE ACLU. THE COURT: MR. BOMSE: GOOD MORNING, MR. BOMSE. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. LYNN PASAHOW MR. PASAHOW: AND LESLIE KRAMER FOR EQUALITY CALIFORNIA. THE COURT: MR. PASAHOW. GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. JESSE MR. PANUCCIO: PANUCCIO FOR DEFENDANT INTERVENORS. THE COURT: MR. PANUCCIO, GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. CHRIS MR. DUSSEAULT: DUSSEAULT AND ENRIQUE MONAGAS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS. THE COURT: MR. FLYNN: MR. DUSSEAULT. GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. RON FLYNN AND MOLLIE LEE ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO. THE COURT: MR. FLYNN, GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. DEPUTY MS. PACHTER: ATTORNEY GENERAL TAMAR PACHTER ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL. JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 415-255-6842 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 PRODUCED. THE COURT: GOOD MORNING. ANY OTHER APPEARANCES? MR. STROUD: YES, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS ANDREW STROUD, MENNEMEIER, GLASSMAN & STROUD, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ADMINISTRATION DEFENDANTS. THE COURT: MR. STROUD: THE COURT: MR. STROUD: THE COURT: THAT IS THE GOVERNOR? YES, YOUR HONOR. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. VERY WELL. IN VIEW LET ME ASK MR. PANUCCIO AND MR. DUSSEAULT: OF THE COMMUNICATION WHICH THE COURT RECEIVED YESTERDAY FROM THE OBJECTORS, OR THE NO ON 8 GROUPS, HAVE THEY COMPLIED WITH THE MARCH 5 AND MARCH 22 ORDERS? MR. DUSSEAULT: MR. DUSSEAULT? THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. WE HAVE NOT YET ACTUALLY SEEN THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE THEY WERE SENT BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY TODAY, AND APPARENTLY HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AT MY OFFICE, BUT COUNSEL HAS REPRESENTED THEY ARE IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDERS, AND WE HAVE NO REASON TO QUESTION THAT, YOUR HONOR. WE ARE HOPEFUL THAT AT THIS POINT WE CAN, THEREFORE, MOVE FORWARD. THE COURT: MR. PANUCCIO. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. MR. PANUCCIO: LIKEWISE, I DID NOT -- THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION OR THE LETTER COMMUNICATION COMMISSION CAME WHILE I WAS ACTUALLY ON JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 415-255-6842 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 THE PLANE OUT HERE, SO I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY OF THESE DOCUMENTS. THE COURT: WERE GOING THERE. MR. PANUCCIO: PLACES. EXACTLY. THEY, ACTUALLY, WENT TO TWO YOU WERE COMING HERE, AND THE DOCUMENTS ONE SET OF DOCUMENTS HAVE GONE TO ARIZONA -THE COURT: YOU HAVE SOME COLLEAGUES ON THE EAST COAST WHO CAN OPEN UP THE -MR. PANUCCIO: YES, THIS IS TRUE. BUT, WE HAVE NOT BEEN THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS YET. AGAIN, THE REPRESENTATION HAS BEEN THERE HAS BEEN COMPLIANCE. I WOULD JUST NOTE, ON THE FACE OF THE LETTER, FROM THE ACLU ANYWAY, IT'S CLEAR THAT OF THE 25- TO 60,000 DOCUMENTS THEY REPRESENTED THAT WOULD BE RESPONSIVE TO THE SUBPOENAS, THEY HAVE PRODUCED ABOUT 400 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS. THAT SEEMS LIKE A SMALL PORTION GIVEN THE AMOUNT THAT THEY HAD TO REVIEW, ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE A CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR UNILATERALLY CHOOSING THE SEARCH TERMS, AS WE PREVIOUSLY OBJECTED TO -THE COURT: THEIR WHAT? THEIR UNILATERALLY CHOOSING THE SEARCH MR. PANUCCIO: TERMS THEY WOULD USE FOR THEIR DOCUMENTS, WHICH HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF PREVIOUS OBJECTIONS, BUT WE HAVE NO REASON TO QUESTION THE REPRESENTATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE. THE COURT: CAN YOU SHED ON THIS? MR. BOMSE: YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE, AS WE INDICATED IN WELL, MR. BOMSE, MR. PASAHOW, WHAT LIGHT JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 415-255-6842 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 OUR SUBMISSION TO THE COURT YESTERDAY, PRODUCED THE DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO THE MARCH 5TH ORDER, AS CONFIRMED BY YOUR HONOR. THE REPRESENTATION WAS NEVER MADE THAT THERE WAS ANYWHERE CLOSE TO THAT NUMBER OF RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS. THE REPRESENTATION THAT WAS MADE, AT LEAST AS FAR AS THE ACLU WAS CONCERNED, WAS THAT THAT NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS WOULD NEED TO BE REVIEWED. THEY WERE REVIEWED, AND DOCUMENTS THAT ARE RESPONSIVE UNDER THE MARCH 5TH ORDER HAVE BEEN PRODUCED. THE COURT: MR. BOMSE: YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. PASAHOW? FOLLOWING THE VERY THAT'S YOUR REPRESENTATION TO THE COURT. IT IS MY REPRESENTATION TO THE COURT, MR. PASAHOW: YES, YOUR HONOR. EXACT PRESCRIPTION OF THE MARCH 5TH ORDER, MY FIRM'S I.T. DEPARTMENT REVIEWED FIRST ELECTRONICALLY THE DOCUMENTS ON THE SERVER THAT WE WERE DIRECTED TO SEARCH. THOSE DOCUMENTS WERE THEN -- THE HITS OF THOSE DOCUMENTS WERE THEN REVIEWED BY PEOPLE TO MAKE SURE THEY MET THE SUBJECT MATTER QUALIFICATION, AND THOSE DOCUMENTS HAVE ALL BEEN PRODUCED. SO WE BELIEVE WE HAVE COMPLIED EXACTLY WITH THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S PRESCRIPTION OF WHAT WAS TO BE PRODUCED. THE COURT: IS IT? MR. PASAHOW: THE COURT: YES, YOUR HONOR. HOW LONG, MR. DUSSEAULT AND THAT IS YOUR REPRESENTATION TO THE COURT, OKAY. JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 415-255-6842 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 MR. PANUCCIO, DO YOU THINK YOU NEED TO REVIEW THESE DOCUMENTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER, IN YOUR VIEW, THERE HAS BEEN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDERS? MR. DUSSEAULT: TAKE A LOT OF TIME. YOUR HONOR, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD AND I THINK, IN THE INTEREST OF ALL PARTIES, WE WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD AS QUICKLY AS WE COULD. WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS WE SET A DEADLINE OF ONE WEEK FROM TODAY, MAY 5TH, AS THE DEADLINE FOR ANY SHOWING OF ANY DOCUMENTS THAT OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR SUPPLEMENTATION OF THE RECORD, GIVEN THAT THE PREVIOUS DEADLINE THAT WAS SET FOR THAT WAS DURING THE PERIOD -- WAS DELAYED GIVEN THE LACK OF PRODUCTION PREVIOUSLY. THE COURT: IN THAT REGARD? MR. PANUCCIO: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. MR. PANUCCIO, WHAT SUGGESTION DO YOU HAVE WELL, I WOULD JUST NOTE, TO START, AGAIN, WE KNOW FROM THE FACE OF THE ACLU'S LETTER, THE QUANTITY OF DOCUMENTS, AND CERTAINLY THAT WOULD NOT TAKE US VERY LONG TO REVIEW. ABOUT 400 DOCUMENTS. THAT. I SUPPOSE I WOULD JUST HAVE A QUESTION FROM MY FRIENDS FROM EQUALITY CALIFORNIA, WHICH IS HOW MANY -- DO THEY KNOW HOW MANY DOCUMENTS THEY'VE SENT ALONG? I'M JUST NOT IT'S SO A WEEK IS CERTAINLY SUFFICIENT FOR ADVISED OF THAT NUMBER YET, AND I WOULD BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU A BETTER ANSWER IF I KNEW THAT. JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 415-255-6842 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 PAGES. THE COURT: MR. PASAHOW. I BELIEVE IT IS IN THE RANGE OF 4500 MR. PASAHOW: THE COURT: MR. BOMSE: OKAY. YOUR HONOR, IF I MAY? THERE SEEMS TO BE A MODEST MISUNDERSTANDING WHICH I'M -- I UNDERSTAND HOW MR. PANUCCIO WOULD HAVE HAD IT. BUT THE NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS THAT WE ACTUALLY PRODUCED WERE APPROXIMATELY 450 ADDITIONAL PAGES, PLUS SOME ONE THOUSAND E-MAILS WHICH ARE NOT IN A FORM THAT THEY CAN BE COUNTED AS PAGES, BUT THAT IS THE NATURE OF THE PRODUCTION THAT WAS MADE YESTERDAY AND WHICH I REPRESENTED TO THE COURT CONSTITUTES COMPLIANCE WITH THE MARCH 5TH ORDER. MR. PANUCCIO: I'M JUST ADDING IN MY HEAD. I WAS JUST I APOLOGIZE FOR THE MISUNDERSTANDING. GOING ON THE BATES NUMBER IN THE LETTER, BUT I UNDERSTAND HOW THAT HAPPENS. I THINK THE ORIGINAL ORDER CONTEMPLATED THAT WE WOULD HAVE 12 DAYS FROM THE FINAL INSTALLMENT OF A ROLLING PRODUCTION SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE HAD TIME IN ADVANCE OF THAT. SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT WOULD BE REASONABLE. WE THINK AT LEAST A WEEK, JUST OFF CERTAINLY WITHIN TWO WEEKS I THINK THIS COULD BE DONE. THE TOP OF MY HEAD, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE ARE 5- TO 6000 DOCUMENTS, PERHAPS. SO ASSUMING WE COULD REVIEW -HERE'S WHAT I WAS THINKING. THE COURT: LET ME LAY OUT THE SCHEDULE THAT I HAD IN MIND AND SEE HOW THAT FITS WITH JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 415-255-6842 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 THE PRACTICALITIES THAT YOU CONFRONT. I WAS THINKING ABOUT GIVING MR. DUSSEAULT AND MR. PANUCCIO UNTIL MAY 3 TO DETERMINE -- WELL, NO, ACTUALLY, HERE IS, I THINK, PERHAPS A BETTER SCHEDULE: THAT THE PLAINTIFFS AND THE PROPONENT WILL HAVE UNTIL FRIDAY OF THIS WEEK, THAT IS APRIL 30, WITHIN WHICH TIME TO CONFIRM OR TO DENY THAT THE NO ON 8 GROUPS' PRODUCTION COMPLIES WITH THE MARCH 5TH AND MARCH 22ND ORDERS. IF, BY THAT TIME, THEY INDICATE THAT, IN THEIR VIEW, THERE HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIANCE, THEN THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO APPEAR HERE ON MONDAY, MAY 3, AT 10:00 A.M. FOR A FURTHER HEARING ON THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT. IF THE PLAINTIFFS AND THE PROPONENTS DETERMINE THAT THERE HAS BEEN COMPLIANCE, THEN THE PROPONENTS WILL HAVE UNTIL MAY 5 AT NOON TO SERVE AND FILE A SUPPLEMENT TO THE EVIDENTIARY RECORD WHICH THEY INTEND TO OFFER TO THE COURT. THEN THE PLAINTIFFS WILL HAVE UNTIL MAY 7, AT WHICH TIME THEY MAY FILE OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPONENTS' NEW OFFERED EVIDENCE, AT WHICH TIME THE PROPONENTS' PROFFER AND THE PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS WILL BE SUBMITTED, AND THE EVIDENTIARY RECORD WILL BE CLOSED IN THIS CASE. NOW, I'M ALSO INCLINED AT THIS TIME TO SET A SCHEDULE WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPONENTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND ALSO DR. TAM'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. BEFORE WE SET THE REST OF THAT SCHEDULE. JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 415-255-6842 BUT LET ME ASK, 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 MR. DUSSEAULT AND MR. PANUCCIO, IS WHAT I'VE OUTLINED WITH RESPECT TO THE NO ON 8 GROUPS' DOCUMENTS A PRACTICAL SCHEDULE IN YOUR VIEW? MR. DUSSEAULT? YES, IT IS, YOUR HONOR. MR. DUSSEAULT: THE COURT: MR. PANUCCIO? I SUPPOSE THE ONLY AMENDMENT I MIGHT MR. PANUCCIO: MAKE IS IF WE COULD HAVE UNTIL THE END OF THE DAY ON MAY 5, I BELIEVE IT WAS, TO MAKE OUR SUBMISSION. THE COURT: THIS COMING FRIDAY? I'M SORRY. ASSUMING THERE WAS MR. PANUCCIO: COMPLIANCE, I BELIEVE THE SECOND DATE WAS THAT WE COULD MAKE THE EVIDENTIARY PROFFER ON MAY 5TH AT NOON, YOUR HONOR SAID. THE COURT: THAT'S FINE. OH, UNTIL 5:00 P.M. ON MAY 5, IS THAT -- OF COURSE. AND THEN MY ONLY OTHER QUESTION FOR MR. PANUCCIO: YOUR HONOR WOULD BE WHETHER THE PROPONENTS WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO OBJECTIONS. I SUPPOSE IF THIS WERE IN A TRIAL SETTING AND A PARTY OBJECTED TO EVIDENCE COMING IN, WE WOULD HAVE SOME OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS. THE COURT: I THINK THAT'S FAIR. LET'S SEE. THE THE PROPONENTS WILL MAKE THEIR PROFFER ON MAY 5. PLAINTIFFS WILL SERVE AND FILE THEIR OBJECTIONS ON MAY 7. AND WOULD YOU LIKE UNTIL THE 11TH OR THE 12TH TO FILE A RESPONSE TO THE OBJECTIONS? MR. PANUCCIO: THE 12TH WOULD BE FINE, YOUR HONOR. JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 415-255-6842 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 HONOR. THE COURT: WHAT'S THAT? THE 12TH WOULD BE, YES, GREAT, YOUR MR. PANUCCIO: THE COURT: THAT WILL BE FINE. OKAY. MR. PANUCCIO: THE COURT: MAY 12 FOR THE PROPONENTS TO FILE THEIR REPLY TO THE PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS. MR. PANUCCIO: THE COURT: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. AND AT WHICH POINT THEN THE EVIDENTIARY RECORD IN THE CASE WOULD BE CLOSED. MR. PANUCCIO: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. ONE FURTHER POINT, I'M SORRY. THE COURT: SURE. WE DID, AT THE END OF TRIAL -- WE MR. PANUCCIO: DON'T ANTICIPATE AT THIS POINT -- WELL, LET ME GO BACK AND SAY, AT THE END OF TRIAL WHEN MR. THOMPSON BROUGHT THIS ISSUE UP, HE SAID THERE MAY BE A NEED TO CALL WITNESSES ON A SUBJECT MATTER BASED ON WHAT THE DOCUMENTS SHOW. WE DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT AT THIS TIME, BUT I DON'T WANT MY -- WITHOUT HAVING -- WITHOUT OUR HAVING REVIEWED THE DOCUMENTS, I DON'T WANT MY AGREEMENT HERE TO THE SCHEDULE TO BE SEEN AS A WAIVER OF THAT RESERVATION AT THIS TIME. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT'S FAIR ENOUGH. I WILL UNDERSTAND YOUR AGREEMENT TO THIS SCHEDULE IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT LIMITATION. JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 415-255-6842 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 THE 3RD? MR. PANUCCIO: THE COURT: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. WELL, THAT BEING -I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR. ONE QUESTION MR. PASAHOW: ABOUT OUR MINOR PART OF THIS, AND THAT IS, IF THERE ARE OBJECTIONS ABOUT OUR PRODUCTION, SHOULD WE HAVE A MEET AND CONFER BUILT INTO THIS, BEFORE WE ALL WIND UP BACK BEFORE YOUR HONOR TO SEE IF WE CAN RESOLVE WHATEVER THE QUESTION IS? THE COURT: WHY NOT MEET AND CONFER THAT MORNING OF MR. PASAHOW: THAT'S FINE, YOUR HONOR. SO, WE WILL HEAR FROM THE PARTIES ABOUT ANY CONCERNS, THOUGH, BEFORE THEY FILE SOME OBJECTIONS? THE COURT: YOU WILL HEAR ABOUT THAT ON FRIDAY, AND YOU CAN OBVIOUSLY CONFER BEFORE THE 3RD, WHICH IS MONDAY, BUT IF YOU'VE NOT BEEN ABLE TO WORK THINGS OUT, LET'S COME HERE AND SIT DOWN AND IF YOU NEED ANY JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE IN THIS ENDEAVOR. I'LL BE HAPPY TO TRY TO BE OF ASSISTANCE, OR THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILL TRY TO BE OF ASSISTANCE. I'M HOPEFUL THAT WHAT WE WILL HEAR FROM THE PROPONENTS AND THE PLAINTIFFS ON FRIDAY IS THEIR VIEW THAT THERE HAS BEEN COMPLIANCE, AND, IN THAT EVENT, THEN I'LL DISCHARGE THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. MR. BOMSE: YOUR HONOR, I FULLY EXPECT THAT IS WHAT YOU WILL HEAR, BUT IN THE EVENT THAT THERE ARE QUESTIONS OR ISSUES, IT DOES SEEM TO ME THAT THERE IS SOME UTILITY IN HAVING JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 415-255-6842 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 AN ACTUAL CONVERSATION, SUFFICIENT IN ADVANCE SO THAT IF THERE'S SOMETHING MORE THAT WE NEED TO DO, WE CAN HAVE IT DONE BY THE TIME WE APPEAR HERE ON MONDAY MORNING, OR OBVIATE THE NECESSITY FOR THAT APPEARANCE, AND I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST IF THE COURT COULD SET A SATURDAY MORNING CONVERSATION, THAT MIGHT BE USEFUL IN THE EVENT, WHICH, AS I SAY, I DON'T EXPECT TO HAPPEN. THE COURT: LAWYERS? MR. BOMSE: AMONG THE LAWYERS. ALTHOUGH WE HAVE A SATURDAY MORNING CONVERSATION AMONG THE RECEIVED ORDERS FROM YOUR HONOR OVER THE WEEKENDS SUGGESTING THAT YOU ARE NOT CONFINING YOUR WORKDAY TO MONDAY TO FRIDAY. CERTAINLY DON'T INTEND TO IMPOSE UPON YOUR HONOR'S SCHEDULE. THIS WAS MY SUGGESTION JUST FOR THE COUNSEL. THE COURT: WELL, IS THAT AGREEABLE, MR. PANUCCIO? YES, YOUR HONOR. WE MR. PANUCCIO: THE COURT: AND MR. DUSSEAULT? THAT'S FINE. MR. DUSSEAULT: THE COURT: MR. BOMSE: THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR. ONE HOPES IT WILL NOT BE NECESSITY. THANK YOU, MR. BOMSE. IF IT IS, IT'S A GOOD IDEA. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THE CLERK HAS REMINDED ME THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO BE SURE THAT THE PROPONENTS AND THE PLAINTIFFS CAN FILE THEIR SUBMISSIONS BY NOON ON FRIDAY. MR. DUSSEAULT AND MR. PANUCCIO? JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 415-255-6842 IS THAT AGREEABLE, 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 FRIDAY? MR. DUSSEAULT: MR. PANUCCIO: MR. DUSSEAULT: YES. YES, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, MAY WE CLARIFY WHICH THE COURT: FRIDAY, THE 30TH. FRIDAY THE 30TH, SUBMISSION BY NOON, MR. DUSSEAULT: ABSOLUTELY. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. OKAY. I THINK THAT WILL TAKE CARE OF THE MATTER WITH RESPECT TO THE NO ON 8 GROUPS' PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER MATTERS, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS SET A SCHEDULE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE CASE, AND HERE'S WHAT I HAVE IN MIND: THAT I AM INCLINED TO GRANT THE PROPONENTS' AND DR. TAM'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND SO WOULD, THEREFORE, ASK THE PLAINTIFFS TO SERVE AND FILE THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE PROPONENTS' AND DR. TAM'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON OR BEFORE MAY 6, WITH THE PROPONENTS AND DR. TAM TO SERVE AND FILE THEIR REPLY BY MAY 10 AT NOON ON BOTH DAYS, AND THEN TO SET CLOSING ARGUMENT IN THE CASE FOR JUNE 16 AT 10:00 A.M. WHAT I WILL DO PRIOR TO THAT JUNE 16 DAY DATE IS TO ISSUE AN ORDER WITH SOME ISSUES THAT WILL BE HELPFUL TO THE COURT IN DECIDING WHAT SHOULD BE ARGUED ON JUNE 16, SO THAT MAY GIVE WHOEVER DOES THE ARGUMENTS SOME GUIDANCE, BUT I'M HOPEFUL THAT WE CAN PUT THE CASE ON THAT TRACK TO A DISPOSITION ON THE JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 415-255-6842 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 16TH OF JUNE. NOW, WHAT YOU, MR. DUSSEAULT AND MR. PANUCCIO, SHOULD DO IS CONFER WITH YOUR COLLEAGUES, AND IF THAT JUNE 16 DATE IS NOT PRACTICAL, TO CONTACT THE COURT CLERK AND GIVE US SOME SUGGESTED DATES WHEN YOUR COLLEAGUES ARE ABLE TO APPEAR FOR CLOSING ARGUMENTS. MR. PANUCCIO? MR. PANUCCIO: JUST ONE QUESTION. IF THAT DATE DOES NOT WORK -- AND I DON'T KNOW -- BUT IS THERE ANY RANGE OF DATES YOU WOULD PREFER SUGGESTED DATES TO COME WITHIN? THE COURT: PRACTICAL MATTER. I THINK IT WILL HAVE TO BE IN JUNE AS A IT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME TO GET READY. IN ADDITION, I'D LIKE TO GET ALL OF THE MATTERS ASSOCIATED WITH THESE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE COMING IN FROM THE NO ON 8 GROUPS TAKEN CARE OF, AND THAT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME. SO I THINK, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GO INTO JUNE FOR THE CLOSING ARGUMENTS, BUT THAT'S THE TIMEFRAME I HAVE IN MIND. MR. PANUCCIO: THE COURT: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. MR. DUSSEAULT? YOUR HONOR, YOUR PROPOSAL IS THANK YOU. ANYTHING FURTHER? MR. BOMSE? MR. DUSSEAULT: ACCEPTABLE TO PLAINTIFFS. THE COURT: MR. PASAHOW? MR. BOMSE: ALL RIGHT. NO, YOUR HONOR. JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 415-255-6842 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 MR. PASAHOW: THE COURT: NO, YOUR HONOR. MR. DUSSEAULT? NO, YOUR HONOR. MR. DUSSEAULT: THE COURT: MR. PANUCCIO. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. MR. PANUCCIO: THE COURT: MR. STROUD: THE COURT: HOW ABOUT YOU, MR. STROUD? NO, YOUR HONOR. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL? MS. PACHTER: THE COURT: NOTHING, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU. VERY WELL. COUNSEL, I APPRECIATE YOUR GOOD EFFORTS TO WORK THIS OUT AND HOPE WE DON'T TO HAVE VISIT THIS SUBJECT. MR. BOMSE: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. MR. PASAHOW: (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED.) JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 415-255-6842 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER I, JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, 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, ET AL. V. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, ET AL., 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/B JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI ________________________________________ JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR 5435, RPR MONDAY, MAY 3, 2010 JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 415-255-6842