Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 601

Declaration of JAMES BRIAN CARROLL in Support of #546 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant-Intervenors' Motion to Compel Compliance With Non-Party Document Subpoenas filed byEquality California. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) #546 ) (Whittemore, Lauren) (Filed on 2/24/2010)

Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Doc. 601

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document601

Filed02/24/10 Page1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
FENWICK & WEST LLP
A T T O R N E Y S A T LA W S A N FR A N C I S C O

LYNN H. PASAHOW (CSB NO. 054283) [e-mail] CAROLYN CHANG (CSB NO. 217933) [e-mail] LESLIE KRAMER (CSB NO. 253313) [e-mail] LAUREN WHITTEMORE (CSB NO. 255432) [e-mail] FENWICK & WEST LLP 555 California Street, Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Third-Party, Equality California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO, v. Plaintiffs, Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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 & 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, and Defendants,

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF JAMES BRIAN CARROLL IN SUPPORT OF EQUALITY CALIFORNIA'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL Trial: January 11, 2010 Judge: Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker Location: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor

PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM, and MARK A. JANSSON; and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM ­ YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL, Defendant-Intervenors.
DECLARATION OF JAMES BRIAN CARROLL IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
Dockets.Justia.com

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document601

Filed02/24/10 Page2 of 4

J. J a m e s B r i a n Carroll. hereby declare:

2
3
4

I.

I am the M a n a g i n g Director o f third party Equality California (EOC A). I have

p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e o r t h e faels s t a t e d b e l o w a n d . i f c a l l e d u p o n a s a w i t n e s s , c o u l d t e s t i f y c o m p e t e n t l y t o s u c h facts, 2. A s describ<:d
ln

5
6

the \ k d a n u i o n o f G . : o f f Kors

~ubmilled

10 lhe Court o n Februar}

2 2 . 2 0 1 0 . and which I herein incorporate by reference as it pertains to the structure o f Equality for AlL the Equality for All c a m p a i g n involved o v e r 100 m e m b e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s and discussion o f c a m p a i g n s t r a t e g y and messaging took place at many levels a f t h e campaign. 3. E Q C A was one o f the m e m b e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s u f the No on 8 Equality for All
Commiue~ "ngag~

7
8
9 10
II

Campaign Committe.:, Members o f l h e Campaign

in open. , p i r i l e d and " i d e

ranging discl!ssion o f the issues i n v o l w d in the No un 8 c a m p a i g n including the Strak!?) employed by the p r o p o n e n t s o f Proposition 8, h o w to respond to the Yes o n 8 campaign regarding the effect o f Proposition 8, h o w to target discrete g r o u p s o f voters with appropriate messaging. and potential t a r g e t s for fundraising l o r the campaign. The issues in the campaign were d",eply personal t o r many o f us and o u r discussions touched o n " e r y d e e p l ) held , ' i e " s and beliefs, 4.

,
, "

12
lJ

· ·

, ,

14 15
16 17

It

i~

my opinion that the ability to freely express o u r indi\'idual \ i " , , , , and d e w t ' "

h o w to beSt c o m m u n i c a t e t h o s e views t o the voters played an in\'ahmble role in the campaign. Vigorous d e w t e took p l a c e at all levels o f the campaign. during meetings and o v e r email, T h o s e d e b a t e s were essential to determining the c a m p a i g n strategy a n d m e s s a g i n g adopted by the campaign. I a l s o personally e n g a g e d in frank discussions with people at all levels o r t h e c a m p a i g n - it was vital that people tasked with carrying out s p e c i l i c
stratq~ies had

18 19
20 21

a lull

22 23

lIIlderstanding o f what they were being asked t o do, I f I had k n o \ \ n that m) communications could b e c o m e public or could be provided t o oW" o p p o n e n t s in the c a m p a i g n I would not have expressed m y s e l f so freely. Public dissemination o f those communication~ will undoubtedly limit the ability o f large and d i v e r s e campaign~ to vigorously debate the issues. will limit expression o f my " i e w s and \\ ill undoubtedly prevent the free flow o f information ifl future political campaigfls. 5. While those u r u s in leadership rol,," in L B U T o r g a n i l a t i u n s are c o m f o n a b l e " i l h

24
25 26

27
28

being publicly a l l i l i a t e d Wilh LUBT causes. some i n d i " i d u a l s provided vall!1lble advice regarding
CO~tPEL

DECLARATION O f JAMES BRIAN CARROLL IN SUPPORT O f OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO

I

CASE NO 0'I-CV.2292 VRW

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document601

Filed02/24/10 Page3 of 4

c a m p a i g n strategy p r e f e r to remain anonymous. Public disclosure o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n s wilh such
2

individuals \\ o u l d limit EQC A . S lIbilil)' [0

communicat~

with individuals II h o fear that public

J

affiliation wjlh L G B T causes " o u l d have a negalive impact on (heir professionalli\es.

4
5
6
7 8

6.

While the litigation over Proposition 8 continues. new elforts are underway 10

place a n o t h e r initialive regarding t h e righl o f s a m e g e n d e r c o u p l e s to marry o n t h e ballo! in California. Disclosure o f private internal c o m m u n i c a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g campaign strategy would be vt'T) valuable 10 (he o p p o n e n t s u f t h e right o f s a m e g e n d e r c o u p l e s to marr} , Such disclosure would inhibit (he ability u f future p<JlilicaJ c a m p a i g n o r g a n i : a n i o n s to ellc.th"e1y r « r o i t w o r h r s and v o l u n t e e r and w o u l d inhibit t h e free n o w o f i n f o m l a t i o n a m o n g campaign s t a f f and volunteers. In this case, while EQCA a n d the o t h e r third p a n i e s involved in the campaign will not have a c c e s s t o any d o c u m e n t s p r o d u c e d b y t h e d e l e n d a n t s to t h e plaintiffs in this litigation. the very p e o p l e who placed Proposition 8 o n t h e ballot and could likely be im'olved in future c a m p a i g n s \\-ould have a c c e s s to any documl.'nts produced b) E Q e A. 7. EQCA has been involved in many political c a m p a i g n s in thc past and continues t o

9
10
II

, ,
·
·

·

12
IJ

14

· ·

15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22

work for ballot initiatives that a d v a n c e the cause o f equal rights for the L O B T community. However, t h e p r o s p e c t o f being required to gather, s e a r c h , r e v i e w , log and produce tens o f t h o u s a n d s o f d o c u m e n t s as a result o f litigation after e a c h c a m p a i g n would se\'erely limit E Q C A ' s ability to a d v o c a t e for the rights ofthl.' L U B T c u m m u n i t y in this manner. T h i s exercise would require a s i g n i l i c a m invl.'sunem o f t i m e and monl.') on the p a n o f EQC A. 8. E Q C A h a s a w e b p a g e which i d e n t i t i e s certain d o n o r s to the organi/-lltiun. One o f

t h e d o n o r s to E Q C A , l i m A b b o t t o f Abbott & Associates a n d Abbott Realty Group, received a leller from t h e E x e c u t i v e C o m m i n e e o f Yes o n 8 P r o t e c t M a r r i a g e . c o m d u r i n g the Proposition 8 campaign. T h e letter asked A b b o t t & Associates and Abbott Realt) G r o u p to withdra\\ its sUPfXlrt o f EQCA and donat . . . . a like a m o u n t " to I'rutectMarriage,l'om. I f Abbott & Associates and Abbott Really G r o u p did not c om ply, ProtectMarriage.com wuuld publish their names, While d o n o r s to E Q C A are publicly i d e n t i t i e d and the threat o f e x p o s u r e is not as signiticant as for a d v i s o r s who wish to r e m a i n anonymous, no business wants to b e targeted by an organization claiming 10 r e p r e s e n t a majority o f t h e popUlation. Disclosure o f internal EQCA emails could
DECLARATION OF l A M E S BRtAN CARROLL IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL 2 CASE NO 09-CV':l~92 VRW

2J

24
25
26 27

28

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document601

Filed02/24/10 Page4 of 4

rl:sult i n furth.t:r c o n t a c t s from orl;&li~81ions s o c h a s I ' r o l t c l M a r r i a j ?...... o m arK! " o u l J make It

2

mOlT c h a l l e n g i n g f o r E Q C A 10 recruit n e w slLpporters a n d b u i l d positj,-e rcolalK,ll1s11ips " j i l l

, ·
7

,

J

current supponcl'll. AnllC~ a s Exhibit A is a true and correct copy o f i l l e letter senl by
Prol~tMarriallc.com

10 Jim Abbott on Ocloher 20. 2008.

1 d c c l a l T u n d e r p : n a h ) u f p e r j u r y u m k r lho: l a " s o f Ith: U n u a l Stoll"''' lhal the IOrt'l!Olnll is
InK

a n d corre<:t.

EX~Uled

o n F c b n w ) 2 4 . 2 0 1 0 a t S a n FranciSl.'O. C a J i f o m u l.

·
9
10

11

·, ·
i~
L

·, ,
,
'

12

13
I'

,

P

l'
1. 17 1. 19
20

21

"
"

,-

24

" 26

"

28
O f C L A R A n O N OF JAMES B R I A N C A R R O L L IN S U P P O R T O F O P P O S I T I O N T O MOTION T O

COMPEL

l

CASE N O Cl9-C"·22Q2 VRW