Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 187

MOTION for Protective Order filed by Martin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal, Hak-Shing William Tam. Motion Hearing set for 9/25/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A -- Reply Br. for Aplt., Citizens United v. FEC, #2 Exhibit B -- Prentice Declaration, #3 Exhibit C -- Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production, #4 Exhibit D -- Defendant-Intervenors' Response to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production, #5 Exhibit E -- Letter of August 27, 2009, #6 Exhibit F -- Letter of August 31, 2009, #7 Exhibit G -- Moss Declaration, #8 Exhibit H -- Doe v. Reec Opinion, #9 Exhibit I -- Schubert Declaration, #10 Exhibit J -- Jannson Declaration, #11 Exhibit K -- Articles Discussing Negative Effects of Public Disclosure, #12 Exhibit L -- Tam Declaration, #13 Exhibit M -- Toupis Declaration, #14 Proposed Order)(Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 9/15/2009)

Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Doc. 187 Att. 1

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document187-2

Filed09/15/09 Page1 of 6

Exhibit B

Dockets.Justia.com

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document187-2

Filed09/15/09 Page2 of 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 26 27 28

COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC Charles J. Cooper (DC Bar No. 248070)* [e-mail] David H. Thompson (DC Bar No. 450503)* [e-mail] Howard C. Nielson, Jr. (DC Bar No. 473018)* [e-mail] Nicole J. Moss [e-mail] (DC Bar No. 472424) Jesse Panuccio [e-mail] (DC Bar No. 981634) Peter A. Patterson (Ohio Bar No. 0080840)* [e-mail] 1523 New Hampshire Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: [phone] LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO Andrew P. Pugno (CA Bar No. 206587) [e-mail] 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: [phone] ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND Brian W. Raum (NY Bar No. 2856102)* [e-mail] James A. Campbell (OH Bar No. 0081501)* [e-mail] 15100 North 90th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: [phone] ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM, MARK A. JANSSON, and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM ­ YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL * Admitted pro hac vice UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO, Plaintiffs, 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.

CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW DECLARATION OF RONALD PRENTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER Date: September 25, 2009 Time: 10:00AM Judge: Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker Location: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor 1

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document187-2

Filed09/15/09 Page3 of 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 26 27 28

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 Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his official capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles, Defendants, and PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAKSHING WILLIAM TAM, and MARK A. JANSSON; and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM ­ YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL, Defendant-Intervenors.

Additional Counsel for Defendant-Intervenors ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND Timothy Chandler (CA Bar No. 234325) [e-mail] 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: [phone] Jordan W. Lorence (DC Bar No. 385022)* [e-mail] Austin R. Nimocks (TX Bar No. 24002695)* [e-mail] 801 G Street NW, Suite 509, Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: [phone] * Admitted pro hac vice I, Ronald Prentice, make the following declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746: 1. I am a resident of California over 18 years of age, and my statements herein are based on personal knowledge. 2
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document187-2

Filed09/15/09 Page4 of 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 26 27 28

2. The California ballot measure in 2008 known as Proposition 8 had five "Official Proponents" pursuant to California law, Cal. Elec. Code §342. Those five Proponents are DefendantIntervenors in this case: Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Hak-Shing William Tam, and Mark A. Jansson ("the Proponents"). 3. The Proponents endorsed ProtectMarriage.com ­ Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal ("Protect Marriage"), a "primarily formed committee" under the California Political Reform Act, Cal. Gov. Code § 82047.5, as the official Proposition 8 campaign committee. Protect Marriage was designated to receive all contributions and to disburse expenditures for the Proposition 8 campaign. 4. For purposes of state law, Protect Marriage has a single officer responsible for filing required disclosures. David Bauer serves as that officer. 5. Unofficially, Protect Marriage was and is supported by many volunteers with varying levels of involvement and input, including an ad hoc "executive committee" consisting of several individuals. Some of those individuals served as agents for other organizations with an interest in the qualification and passage of Proposition 8, and the marriage debate generally. I serve as chairman of the ad hoc executive committee. 6. The ad hoc executive committee was often advised by an attorney, who was retained to serve as Protect Marriage's general counsel. 7. Protect Marriage employed a public relations firm to serve as the Proposition 8 campaign manager. 8. Volunteers of Protect Marriage corresponded with each other, with the public relations firm, with various vendors and independent contractors, and with other third parties about political beliefs, campaign strategy, personal beliefs, and much else relating to Proposition 8.

3
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document187-2

Filed09/15/09 Page5 of 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 26 27 28

9. As chairman of the ad hoc executive committee, I had extensive dealings with Protect Marriage's donors and volunteers. Many of the donors were quite concerned that publiclydisclosed affiliation with Protect Marriage would lead to retaliation against them. They were specifically concerned with the scope of information that would be revealed, and for some donors the determining factor in favor of donating was that the only information that would be publicly disclosed was the amount of their contribution and their name, address, occupation and employer. 10. I am aware of many instances of harassment and retaliation against Protect Marriage's donors and volunteers that occurred after their affiliation with Protect Marriage became public. The names of donors to Proposition 8 were widely distributed on the Internet, and many donors experienced boycotts of their businesses. I am aware of several individuals who chose to resign from their employment in order to escape the harassment and intimidation brought upon them and their employers. Volunteers who made a public stand in support of Proposition 8 by holding signs or distributing materials were victims of physical assaults such as being spat upon and having hot coffee thrown on them by passengers in passing automobiles. Several reports of vandalism to property came from volunteers who placed Yes on 8 bumper strips on their cars. 11. Widespread retaliation and harassment against donors and volunteers had a negative effect on participation in the campaign in favor of Proposition 8. As acts of harassment against Proposition 8 donors and volunteers became public, donors expressed concern over being publicly identified and placing themselves, their family members, and their employees at possible risk. Potential donors contacted me to ask how donations could be made without publicly disclosing their identity, and when campaign finance disclosure laws were explained to those donors, many declined to make any contribution. After receiving significant media attention and public protests, several major donors to the Proposition 8 campaign refused to make further contributions.

4
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document187-2

Filed09/15/09 Page6 of 6