Windsor v. The United States Of America
Filing
43
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons listed herein, the plaintiff's letter motion to compel is granted to the extent that BLAG shall answer Interrogatories 1 and 3 and RFA no. 1 by August 1, 2011. In all other respects, the motion is denied. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis on 7/28/2011) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (mro)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
(ECF)
EDITH SCHLAIN WINDSOR, in her
capacity as Executor of the
Estate of THEA CLARA SPYER,
10 Civ. 8435 (BSJ)
(JCF)
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
- against
USDSSDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
DOC#: ______________
DATE FILED:
JAMES C. FRANCIS IV
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Edith
Schlain Windsor brings
this
action
r/ l.~ /20\ \
challenging
the
constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act
("DOMA"), 1 U. S. C.
§
7, on the ground that it discriminates against
her on the basis of her sexual orientation in violation
equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment.
the
Ms. Windsor's
claim arises from the fact that, upon the death of her spouse, Thea
Spyer,
the government refused to apply the estate tax marital
deduction on the basis of DOMA.
The Bipartisan Legal Advisory
Group of the United States House of Representatives ("BLAG") has
intervened as a party defendant in order to present arguments for
upholding DOMA.
plaintiff
admission.
served
Accordingly, during the course of discovery, the
BLAG
with
interrogatories
and
requests
for
BLAG objected to all of the interrogatories and most of
the requests for admission.
The plaintiff has now submitted a
1
letter motion pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure seeking an order compelling BLAG to respond.
For the
reasons that follow, the plaintiff's motion is granted in part and
denied in part.
Discussion
On May 11, 2011, I issued a scheduling order providing in part
that the part
would exchange written discovery requests by June
3, 2011 and that all discovery would be completed by July 11, 2011.
In accordance with that schedule, the plaintiff served BLAG with
requests for admission and interrogatories on June 3,
served its responses and objections on July 8.
and BLAG
After the parties
met and conferred and were unable to resolve the
disputes over
BLAG's objections, the plaintiff submitted the instant motion.
A. Interrogatories
The two interrogatories pressed by the plaintiff ask "What, if
anything,
do you contend are the compelling justifications for
section 3 of DOMA, 1 U.S.C.
§
77"
(Interrogatory no. 1) and "What,
if anything, do you assert are the legitimate government interests
rationally
advanced
(Interrogatory no. 3).
by
section
3
of
DOMA,
1
U.S.C.
§
7?"
BLAG objects to both on the ground that, to
the extent they are construed as contention interrogatories, they
are premature.
responded,
That argument is disingenuous; at the time BLAG
the discovery deadline was three days away, and it is
2
now closed.
BLAG also objects to Interrogatory no. 1 because"
the
legal
conclusion
justification
to
that
enact
Congress
Section
3
of
assumes
required
a
compelling
DOMA."
In
fact,
interrogatory assumes only that, if the Court finds st
the
ct scrutiny
to be the appropriate standard of review, BLAG may wish to proffer
compelling justifications for DOMA.
The plaintiff is entitled to
know what those justifications are, and BLAG is there
directed
to answer Interrogatory 1.
In response to Interrogatory no. 3, BLAG sets forth authority
for the proposition that under rational basis analysis, there is no
need to demonstrate the basis on which the legislature actually
chose to create classifications.
That may be an accurate summary
of the law, but it misses the point.
BLAG will presumably suggest
to the Court potentially rational grounds for the enactment of
DOMA, and it must disclose those to the plaintiff in response to a
proper contention interrogatory.
Accordingly, BLAG shall answer
Interrogatory no. 3 as well.
Requests for Admission
Fourteen requests for admission ("RFAs") are in dispute.
first asks BLAG to
[a]dmit that if, at the time of her death, Thea Spyer had
been married to a man instead of a woman, who was a U.S.
citizen and who survived Thea Spyer's death, her estate
3
The
would have qualified for the estate tax marital
deduction, 26 U.S.C. § 2056(a), and would not have been
liable for any federal estate tax.
(RFAno.l).
Although BLAG acknowledges that opposite-sex spouses
may
for
qualify
the
estate
tax
marital
deduction,
it
denies
knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the specific
request for admission.
It is not conceivable that BLAG lacks the
wherewithal to make a determination based on the tax forms that Ms.
Windsor has produced in discovery whether the estate tax marital
deduction would apply if she and Ms. Spyer had been opposite sex
spouses.
The
BLAG shall either admit or deny RFA no. 1.
balance
of
the
RFAs
at
issue
seek
sweeping historical and sociological phenomena.
admissions
about
For example, RFA
no. 3 requests that BLAG "[a] dmit that in the twentieth century and
continuing to the present, lesbians and gay men have experienced a
history of unequal treatment in the United States because of the
sexual orientation.
Similarly, RFA no. 10 seeks an admission that
II
"sexual orientation is unrelated to an individual's ability to
perform in society.
II
And RFA no.
14 asks BLAG to "[a] dmit that
lesbians and gay men are generally no less capable of
loving,
nurturing, and supporting their children than heterosexual men and
women.
II
Requests
admission are ill-suited to such complex issues.
Any complete answer to the questions posed here could fill volumes
4
~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _',"1I,!'
Had the RFAs
and would not serve to streamline this litigation.
been framed as contention interrogatories - - for example,
BLAG contend that
"Does
lesbians and gay men have not experienced a
history of unequal treatment in the United States because of their
sexual
they
have
served
litigation position.
But
orientation?"
flushing
out
appropriate
BLAG's
requests
for
might
admission,
a
purpose
they
and BLAG need not
are
in
not
respond
further to them.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the plaintiff's letter motion
to
compel
is
granted
to
the
extent
that
BLAG
shall
Interrogatories 1 and 3 and RFA no. 1 by August 1, 2011.
other respects, the motion is denied.
SO ORDERED.
~r'~~E
JAMES C. FRANCIS IV
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated: New York, New York
July 28, 2011
Copies mailed this date:
Roberta A. Kaplan, Esq.
Andrew J. Ehrlich, Esq.
Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019
5
answer
In all
Al
s B. Karteron, Esq.
Arthur N.
senberg, Esq.
Melissa Goodman, Esq.
New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation
125 Broad Street, 19th Floor
New York, New York 10004
James D. Esseks, Esq.
Rose A. Saxe, Esq.
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
Lesbian and Gay Rights Project
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10004
Paul D. Clement, Esq.
H. Christopher Bartolomucci, Esq.
Bancroft PLLC
1919 M Street, NW
Suite 470
Washington, DC 20036
Jean Lin, Esq.
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division
20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., 7th Fl.
Washington, DC 20530
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?