Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 256

Letter from Ethan D. Dettmer. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Dettmer, Ethan) (Filed on 11/16/2009)

Download PDF
Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al Doc. 256 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document256 LAWYERS Filed11/16/09 Page1 of 2 GIBSON, DUNN &CRUTCHERLLP A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, Calforna 94105-2933 (415) 393-8200 EDetter(ęgibsondunn. com November 16, 2009 Direct Dial Client No. (415) 393-8292 Fax No. T 36330-00001 (415) 374-8444 The Honorable Vaughn R. Walker Chief Judge of the United States District Cour for the Northern District of California 450 Golden Gate Ave. San Francisco, California 94102 Re: Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Case No. C-09-2292 VRW Dear Chief Judge Walker: I write pursuant to this Cour's standing orders to request that the Cour direct immediate production of those documents and categories of documents found to be relevant, responsive and non-privileged in the Cour's Order of November 11. Doc #252. As the Court is aware, Proponents objected to producing certain documents requested by Plaintiffs relating to their campaign and messaging strategy, despite the fact that their principal campaign strategists have repeatedly and publicly boasted about those strategies. Doc #191-2; (F. Schubert discussing campaign strategy). After months of litigation over these objections, the Cour ordered production of a subset of the disputed documents-those having to do with Proponents' messaging strategies in the Proposition 8 campaign-which the Cour specified following its in camera review of documents submitted by Proponents. Doc #252 (identifying document numbers 3-4, 6-7, 9,1112, 17,27-29,30,48-51,53,55-56,58, and 60 as responsive to Plaintiffs' discovery request). In ordering production, the Cour "look( edJ to the paries' able counsel to work out a production schedule." Doc #252 at 9. this Order, counsel for Proponents made clear that "(wJhile there is a possibility of a stay, we must respectfully decline to produce any documents over which we are privilege." Nov. 13,2009 email from N. Moss to E. Dettmer (attached asserting a claim of the stay request they fied hereto as Exh. A). Proponents did not seek expedited treatment of with the Ninth Circuit this past Friday. See Doc. #7129821 fied Nov. 13,2009 (Case NO.09But after issuance of LOS ANGELES NEW YORK WASHINGTON, D.C. SAN FRANCISCO PALO ALTO LONDON PARIS MUNICH BRUSSELS DUBAI SINGAPORE ORANGE COUNTY CENTURY CITY DALLAS DENVER Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document256 Filed11/16/09 Page2 of 2 GIBSON, DUNN &CRUTCHERLLP The Honorable Vaughn R. Walker November 16,2009 Page 2 17241 (9th Cir.) Thus, with less than two months remaining before the scheduled trial date in this matter, briefing in the Ninth Circuit over Proponents' stay request wil not be completed the Ninth until December 3, 2009 (see Fed. R. App. P. 27(a)), much less ruled upon. Even if Circuit denies the requested stay, and the Supreme Cour denies the anticipated stay request from Proponents, no documents wil have been produced to the Plaintiffs in time for use during discovery, and perhaps not even at triaL. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs ask the Cour to enter an order directing Proponents to produce the documents and categories of documents that the Court found to be relevant, responsive and non-privileged in the November 11 Order, and that such production occur within three days of issuance of the order compelling production. (1:~ç submitted, ~ttmer Counsel for Plaintiffs cc: All Counsel

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?