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

Filing 169

MOTION under Rule 56(f) by Timothy Hodson, Eugene Huguenin, Jr, Robert Leidigh, Ray Remy, Debra Bowen, Edmund G. Brown, Jr, Ross Johnson. (Attachments: #1 Declaration Woodlock)(Morazzini, Zackery)

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

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., State Bar No. 37100 Attorney General of California DOUGLAS J. WOODS, State Bar No. 161531 Supervising Deputy Attorney General ZACKERY P. MORAZZINI, State Bar No. 204237 Deputy Attorney General 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State; Edmund G. Brown Jr., California Attorney General SCOTT HALLABRIN, General Counsel, SBN: 076662 LAWRENCE T. WOODLOCK, SBN: 137676 Fair Political Practices Commission 428 J Street, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Members of the Fair Political Practices Commission IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM, et al.,

2:09-cv-00058-MCE-DAD

v.

Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE T. WOODLOCK Date: TBD Time: TBD Courtroom: 7, 14th Floor

DEBRA BOWEN, SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

The Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr. Trial Date: March 14, 2011 Defendants. Action Filed: January 7, 2009

1
Woodlock Declaration (2:09-cv-00058-MCE-DAD)

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

I, Lawrence T. Woodlock, counsel of record for Defendant members of the California Fair Political Practices Commission, make the following declaration in support of State Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion Under Rule 56(f): 1. I am a resident of the State of California, over 18 years of age, and make this declaration based upon personal knowledge and belief. 2. After reviewing the points and authorities filed in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Motion), I believe that, absent a denial of the Motion or continuance thereof to a date no earlier than December 18, 2009, State Defendants will be unable to obtain, through discovery or otherwise, and present facts essential to justify their opposition to Plaintiffs' motion. 3. It will be necessary for State Defendants to obtain and review each of the ballotcommittee Plaintiffs' semi-annual campaign statements, because these statements will demonstrate the total amount of contributions Plaintiffs received, as well as providing information about the amount and nature of expenditures made, by each ballotcommittee Plaintiff for the period between January 1, 2009 ­ June 30, 2009. These campaign reports will cover a period during which Plaintiffs allege continuing reprisals have diminished their ability to raise funds, and State Defendants believe that such information will be essential to demonstrate the actual impact, if any, the alleged reprisals have had on Plaintiffs' ability to raise funds and engage in political speech regarding Proposition 8. Absent this information, State Defendants can only speculate as to the impact, if any, the alleged reprisals have had on Plaintiffs' ability to engage in political speech. 4. It is my understanding and belief that the individuals we will have review the campaign statements will need no less than four months after the statements are filed to analyze and compile the information contained in the reports in a manner sufficient to enable the State Defendants to measure and evaluate the contributions and expenditures from this first post-election reporting period. These campaign statements will provide 2
Woodlock Declaration (2:09-cv-00058-MCE-DAD)

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. 5.

empirical evidence essential to a full and accurate picture of Plaintiffs' ability to engage in political speech regarding Proposition 8. It is my understanding and belief that we will also need to consult experts in order to address Plaintiffs' contentions regarding the impact of modern technology on the ability of ballot committees to successfully engage in fundraising. Plaintiffs appear to argue that modern technology has had a negative impact on their ability to engage in political fundraising regarding Proposition 8. Therefore, the question as to whether ballot measure contributions have been increasing over the years, rather than decreasing as Plaintiffs' claims would suggest, is essential to State Defendants' arguments in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion. State Defendants will need to consult experts in order to address this issue raised by Plaintiffs. I anticipate that State Defendants will need no less than four months to retain experts in this field, and to permit them time to reach well-founded conclusions. It is my understanding and belief that State Defendants will need to consult experts regarding the State's interest in public disclosure of ballot-committee contributor identity, including relatively small donors, and the injury to the State's electoral process if disclosure is withheld whenever a ballot measure election generates controversy. Experts will also need to be consulted regarding "normal" levels of heated debate, discourse, demonstrations, petty vandalism, and boycotts during ballot measure elections, and whether such activity results in any measurable chilled speech. I anticipate that State Defendants will need no less than four months to obtain experts in this field, and to permit them time to reach well-founded conclusions.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on June 10, 2009.

/s/ Lawrence T. Woodlock Lawrence T. Woodlock

3
Woodlock Declaration (2:09-cv-00058-MCE-DAD)