DESENA et al v. STATE OF MAINE et al

Filing 13

SCHEDULING ORDER- Stipulated Facts and Opening Briefs shall be filed by NOON on 5/20/2011; Reply Briefs are to be filed by NOON on 5/31/2011. By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
)
)
)
)
) Docket No.
) 1:11-cv-117-GZS-DBH-BMS
)
)
)
)

WILLIAM DESENA &
SANDRA DUNHAM,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF MAINE et al.,
Defendants.

SCHEDULING ORDER
The three-judge panel held an initial conference of counsel on April 27, 2011 in
order to discuss how to best expedite the disposition of this matter. At the conference,
Attorney Timothy Woodcock appeared for Plaintiffs; Maine Deputy Attorney General
Paul Stern along with Maine Assistant Attorney General Phyllis Gardiner appeared for
Defendants; and Attorney Janet Mills appeared for Intervenor Defendant.
At the conference, the panel orally granted without objection the pending Motion
to Intervene (Docket # 8) by the Maine Democratic Party. Additionally, Defendants,
through their counsel, waived the notice requirement contained in 28 U.S.C. §
2284(b)(2).
For case management purposes, this case is assigned to the complex track in
accordance with District of Maine Local Rule 16.1. To the extent the parties have nondispositive matters that need to be addressed by a judicial officer, those matters will be
handled primarily by Judge Singal in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2284(b)(3).
As discussed at the conference, the panel believes the interests of all parties are
best served by initially bifurcating this case into a “liability” phase and a “remedy” phase.

1

This scheduling order pertains only to the first “liability” phase. In this first phase, the
panel will seek to decide two legal questions:
First, is Maine’s apportionment scheme, as laid out in the Maine Constitution and
relevant state statutes, unconstitutional per se with respect to Congressional districts?
Second, having received the relevant 2010 Census data, is it unconstitutional for
Maine not to engage in redistricting of its Congressional districts prior to the 2012
election cycle?
In answering these two questions, the panel will necessarily consider the
constitutionality of: (1) any difference in population between Maine’s two Congressional
districts and (2) the timing of Maine’s reapportionment process.
With the agreement of the parties, the Court hereby lays out the following
schedule for the first phase of these proceedings:

Stipulations: All parties agreed that no discovery was necessary in the first
phase. In lieu of conducting any discovery, the parties shall confer and draft a single set
of stipulated facts. The stipulations shall be jointly submitted to the Court on or before
May 20, 2011 at noon.
Opening Briefs:

The parties shall each submit a brief addressing the legal

questions laid out above on or before May 20, 2011 at noon. Each brief shall not exceed
30 pages and otherwise comply with the filing requirements contained in District of
Maine Local Rule 7(e) & Appendix IV. To the extent that there are any remaining
questions regarding the Court’s jurisdiction to decide the legal questions presented in the

2

first phase of these proceedings, the parties shall include any jurisdictional arguments in
their opening briefs.
Reply Briefs: Each party may submit a reply brief on or before May 31, 2011 at
noon. Each reply brief shall not exceed 10 pages and otherwise comply with the filing
requirements contained in District of Maine Local Rule 7(e) & Appendix IV.
Oral Argument: After reviewing the submitted briefs, the three-judge panel will
hold oral argument on June 9, 2011 at 11:00 A.M. Each party shall have thirty minutes
for oral argument. The order of oral argument shall be: Plaintiffs, Defendants, and
finally, Intervenor Defendant. Plaintiffs then will have an additional ten minutes for
rebuttal.
Exhibits:

The panel does not anticipate necessarily needing any exhibits.

Exhibits shall generally be filed via ECF in accordance with the District of Maine Local
Rules Appendix IV. To the extent that paper exhibits are filed or otherwise presented at
oral argument, three courtesy copy sets of these exhibits shall be delivered to the Clerk’s
Office no later than June 2, 2011. Each set of exhibits shall be in a tabbed binder with an
appropriate table of contents. Additionally, counsel shall provide the Clerk’s Office with
an additional electronic copy of any paper exhibits on CD.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ George Z. Singal
United States District Judge
Dated this 28th day of April, 2011.

3