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)

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
[phone]

ww.gibsondunn.com
EDetter(ęgibsondunn. com

November 16, 2009

Direct Dial

Client No.

[phone]
Fax No.

T 36330-00001

[phone]
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; http://ww.youtube.com/watch?v=ngbAPVVPD5k (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

Dockets.Justia.com

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