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)

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: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] E-Mail: [e-mail] 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. Case No. 2:09-CV-00058-MCE-DAD

DECLARATION OF MOLLIE M. LEE IN SUPPORT OF SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF JOINDER IN STATE DEFENDANTS' RULE 56(F) MOTION

Dated: July 16, 2009 2:00 p.m. Debra Bowen, Secretary of State for the State Time: of California, in her official capacity; Edmund Courtroom: 7, 14th Floor The Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr. G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General for the State of California, in his official capacity; Dean C. Logan, Registrar-Recorder of Los Angeles Trial Date: March 14, 2011 County, California, in his official capacity; Action Filed: January 7, 2009 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 Johnson, Timothy Hodson, Eugene Huguenin, Jr., Robert Leidigh, and Ray
DECLARATION OF MOLLIE M. LEE CASE NO. 2:09-CV-00058-MCE-DAD

1

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

Remy, members of the California Fair Political Practices Commission, in their official capacities, Defendants.

I, Mollie M. Lee, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of California. I am an attorney

at the Office of the San Francisco City Attorney. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration, and if called as a witness, I can and would testify competently thereto. 2. After reviewing Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary

Judgment ("Motion"), I believe that, absent a denial of the Motion or continuance thereof, Defendants City and County of San Francisco and City Attorney Dennis J. Herrera ("San Francisco Defendants") will be deprived of a fair and adequate opportunity to obtain and present facts in support of their opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion. 3. The parties exchanged initial disclosures on April 1, 2009. Since that date, the parties

have not taken any discovery. 4. On May 18, 2009, the Court issued a pretrial scheduling order establishing a discovery

cut-off date of May 14, 2010. 5. Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to an exemption from disclosure requirements

because there is a reasonable probability that disclosure will result in threats, harassment or reprisals. In support of this allegation, Plaintiffs filed nine redacted declarations in support of their motion for preliminary injunction and an additional 49 redacted declarations in support of their motion for summary judgment. 6. In each such declaration served on Defendants, Plaintiffs have redacted the name of

the declarant. 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. 7. 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, DECLARATION OF MOLLIE M. LEE 2
CASE NO. 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

Defendants cannot assess whether Plaintiffs' assertions have evidentiary support and cannot adequately plan discovery. 8. For example, Plaintiffs allege that contributions to the pro-Proposition 8 campaign

leads to a risk of retaliatory harassment. But without knowing the identities of the declarants, Defendants cannot investigate whether the declarants who claim to have been harassed took public or vocal positions in support of Proposition 8 in addition to making political contributions. 9. Similarly, Plaintiffs claim that the harassment experienced by supporters of

Proposition 8 has chilled those supporters' willingness to contribute to the campaign. Without identifying information, Defendants cannot test this assertion by reviewing Plaintiffs' campaign filings to determine whether declarants continued to contribute to the campaign after alleged incidents of harassment. 10. Defendants cannot verify the most basic information in the declarations, including

whether the declarants made any contributions to support Proposition 8. 11. San Francisco Defendants are seeking to obtain unredacted versions of the declarations

for review by counsel. On Wednesday, June 10, I discussed San Francisco Defendants' need for the redacted information with Plaintiffs' counsel Scott Bieniek. If San Francisco Defendants are unable to resolve this issue through informal discussions with Plaintiffs' counsel or a stipulation, they intend to seek a modified protective order from the Court that would permit counsel to review unredacted declarations, subject to the condition that these declarations are not disclosed to the public. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: June 11, 2009 By: MOLLIE LEE /s/

Attorneys for Defendants DEFENDANTS DEPARTMENT OF ELECTIONS ­ CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AND DENNIS J. HERRERA
DECLARATION OF MOLLIE M. LEE CASE NO. 2:09-CV-00058-MCE-DAD

3