Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 683

ORDER re 673 GRANTING amended motion to supplement the record. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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 O'CONNELL, in his official capacity as clerkrecorder of the County of Alameda; and DEAN C LOGAN, in his official capacity as registrarrecorder/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. / IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No C 09-2292 VRW ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On May 5, 2010, proponents moved to supplement the record with documents produced by various No on 8 groups pursuant to the court's March 5 (Doc #610) and March 22 (Doc #623) orders. #655. Doc Proponents' motion was updated on June 2, 2010 to reflect completed negotiations with the No on 8 groups surrounding the confidentiality of certain exhibits. Doc #673. Proponents' motion argues the relevance of each exhibit proponents seek to have included in the record. See Doc #673-4. Plaintiffs object that the exhibits proponents seek to admit are "hearsay, irrelevant, and untimely." Doc #665 at 2. Plaintiffs do not however object to the court taking judicial notice of the exhibits. Id. Because proponents seek to admit documents without a sponsoring witness, and because plaintiffs do not object, the court finds it appropriate to take judicial notice of the 129 exhibits listed in Doc #673-1. The 129 exhibits will therefore be included in the record as documents subject to judicial notice. IT IS SO ORDERED. VAUGHN R WALKER United States District Chief Judge 2