Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 294

Statement of Objections to Evidence 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. (Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 12/7/2009)

Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Doc. 294

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document294

Filed12/07/09 Page1 of 3

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 (DC Bar No. 472424)* [e-mail] 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 CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO, Plaintiffs, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Plaintiff-Intervenor, 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. HORTON, in his DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE Pretrial Conference Date: December 16, 2009 Time: 10:00 a.m. Judge: Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker Location: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor Trial Date: January 11, 2010

DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

Dockets.Justia.com

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document294

Filed12/07/09 Page2 of 3

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

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

DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document294

Filed12/07/09 Page3 of 3

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 · · ·

DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE EXPECTED TO BE OFFERED AT TRIAL Pursuant to the Court's Pretrial Scheduling Order, Doc # 164, Defendant-Intervenors ("Proponents") respectfully submit that they "anticpat[e] making an objection to" the following "testimony or exhibits expected to be offered": · On privilege grounds, exhibits or testimony constituting or relating to nonpublic information and/or Proponents' subjective intent and beliefs, the introduction of which would violate the First Amendment Privilege against compelled disclosure of core political speech and association. On relevance grounds, exhibits or testimony constituting or relating to nonpublic information not before the electorate at the time Proposition 8 was adopted and/or Proponents' subjective intent and beliefs, to the extent introduced in relation to the voters' intent or motivation in adopting Proposition 8 or the purposes or rationality of that provision. On relevance grounds, any exhibits or testimony falling within any of the categories of information that the Court has already deemed irrelevant, not subject to discovery, or both. See Doc # 214; Doc # 252. On relevance grounds, exhibits or testimony constituting or relating to public documents relating to the intent or motivations of the electorate in adopting Proposition 8--aside from the language of the ballot measure and, if necessary to resolve textual ambiguity, the official ballot arguments--and including advertisements, campaign materials, and other communications and information relating to the adoption of Proposition 8. Dated: December 7, 2009 COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS ATTORNEYS 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 By: /s/Charles J. Cooper Charles J. Cooper 1
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW