Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 456

Response re #413 Order ATTORNEY'S GENERAL'S MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO COURT'S INQUIRY [DOC #413] INTO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ROLE IN THE INITIATIVE PROCESS byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: #1 proof of service)(Pachter, Tamar) (Filed on 1/14/2010)

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

RICHARD E. WINNIE [68048] County Counsel CLAUDE F. KOLM [83517] Deputy County Counsel MANUEL F. MARTINEZ [245113] Associate County Counsel Office of County Counsel County of Alameda 1221 Oak Street, Suite 450 Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: [phone] Attorneys for PATRICK O'CONNELL, Clerk-Recorder of the County of Alameda UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL R. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO, Plaintiffs, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Plaintiffs-Interveners, 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 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 and 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 RegistrarRecorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles, Defendants,
Perry v. Schwartzenegger et al, Case No. CV 09 2292

Case No.: CV 09 2292 VRW STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING ATTENDANCE OF TRIAL BY DEFENDANT PATRICK O'CONNELL CLERK-RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA Trial Date: January 11, 2010 Courtroom: No. 6, 17th Floor United States District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker Action Filed: May 27, 2009

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order

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

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, as official proponents of Proposition 8, Defendants-Interveners. WHEREAS, Patrick O'Connell Clerk-Recorder of the County of Alameda ("Alameda County Clerk-Recorder"), has stated in his trial memorandum filed on December 4, 2009 (Document Nos. 277), that he takes no position on the merits of the case as to the validity of Proposition 8. WHEREAS, in the same trial memorandum, Defendant Patrick O'Connell ClerkRecorder of the County of Alameda further indicated that he does not intend on presenting any evidence or argument on the merits, but reserves the right to provide a defense as to any specific wrongdoing as to him. NOW THEREFORE, the parties, through their respective counsel of record, do hereby stipulate and agree, and ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 as follows: 1. The attendance at trial by counsel of record for Defendant

Patrick O'Connell Clerk-Recorder of the County of Alameda will not be necessary, but Defendant Patrick O'Connell Clerk-Recorder of the County of Alameda's counsel may attend the hearing, as budgetary restraints permit, for selected arguments. 2. Defendant Patrick O'Connell Clerk-Recorder of the County of Alameda will

continue to be served in the normal practice throughout the proceedings. /// /// /// /// ///
Perry v. Schwartzenegger et al, Case No. CV 09 2292

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order

2

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

3.

Defendant Patrick O'Connell Clerk-Recorder of the County of Alameda will

be bound by the final judgment of the Court in this matter. IT IS SO STIPULATED. DATED: 1/5/10 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL By: /s/ Judy W. Whitehurst Judy W. Whitehurst Principal Deputy County Counsel

Attorneys for DEAN C. LOGAN, LOS ANGELES REGISTARREORDER/COUNTY CLERK DATED: 1/5/10 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP By: /s/ Christopher D. Dusseault Christopher D. Dusseault

Attorneys for Plaintiffs KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL T. KATAMI, and FEFFREY J. ZARRILLO

DATED:

1/6/10

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY By: /s/ Terese M. Stewart Terese M. Stewart Chief Deputy City Attorney

Attorneys Plaintiff-Intervenor CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

DATED:

1/7/10

LAW OFFICE OF TERRY L. THOMPSON By: /s/ Terry L. Thompson Terry L. Thompson

Attorney for Defendant-Intervener HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM
Perry v. Schwartzenegger et al, Case No. CV 09 2292

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order

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

DATED:

1/7/10

COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC By: /s/ David H. Thompson David H. Thompson

Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenors PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS; and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM ­ YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL

DATED:

1/5/10

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL By: /s/ Tamar Pacher Tamar Pachter Deputy Attorney General

Attorneys for Defendant ATTORNEY GENERAL EDMUND G. BROWN, JR.

DATED:

1/5/10

MENNEMEIIER, GLASSMAN & STROUD LLP By: /s/ Andrew W. Stroud Andrew W. Stroud

Attorneys for Defendants ARNOLD SCHWARZNEGGER, MARK B. HORTON and LINETTE SCOTT (the "Administration Defendants")

DATED:

1/5/10

RICHARD E. WINNIE, County Counsel in and for the County of Alameda, State of California By: /s/ Claude F. Kolm Claude F. Kolm Deputy County Counsel

Attorneys for Defendant PATRICK O'CONNELL, Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda

Perry v. Schwartzenegger et al, Case No. CV 09 2292

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order

4

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

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 13, 2010 DATED: ___________________

_____________________________________ Chief Judge of the United States District Court, Northern District of California

ER

N

D IS T IC T R

OF

Perry v. Schwartzenegger et al, Case No. CV 09 2292

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order

5

A

C

LI

aughn R Judge V

FO

Walker

R NIA

DERED SO OR R. WALKER HONORABLE VAUGHN IT IS
NO

UNIT ED

S

S DISTRICT TE C TA

RT U O

RT

H

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

ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER NO. 45 Pursuant to General Order No. 45 of the Northern District of California, I attest that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from each of the other signatories to this document.

RICHARD E. WINNIE, County Counsel in and for the County of Alameda, State of California By: /s/ Manuel F. Martinez Manuel F. Martinez Associate County Counsel

Attorneys for Defendant PATRICK O'CONNELL, Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda

Perry v. Schwartzenegger et al, Case No. CV 09 2292

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order

6