3:09-cv-02292 #224

8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

1/32

8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

2/32

8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

3/32

2

09-CV-2292 VRW DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER D. DUSSEAULT

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

Gibson, Dunn &

Crutcher LLP

incorporated by reference Defendant-Intervenors First Amendment privilege defense (and

Defendant-Intervenors interlocutory appeal of the order rejecting that defense as presented). A true

and correct copy of Schubert Flints Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs Subpoena to Produce

Documents is attached as Exhibit B.

7. On September 1, 2009, Defendant-Intervenors served a subpoena seeking

communications substantially similar to those they seek to protect here from Fred Karger, founder of

Californians Against Hate, as part of their discovery in ProtectMarriage.com v. Bowen (E.D. Cal.

Case No. 2:09-cv-00058-MCE-DAD). A true and correct copy of this subpoena is attached hereto as

Exhibit C.

8. Defendant-Intervenors have not disclosed the identities of three members of the ad hoc

executive committee who provided the executive direction to the campaign or whether such

individuals have evidence relevant to this case.

I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States, that these facts

are true and correct and that this Declaration is executed this 13th day of October 2009 at

Los Angeles, California.

/s/ Christopher D. Dusseault

Christopher D. Dusseault

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document224 Filed10/13/09 Page3 of 4

8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

4/32

3

09-CV-2292 VRW DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER D. DUSSEAULT

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

Gibson, Dunn &

Crutcher LLP

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.

By: /s/ Theodore B. OlsonTheodore B. Olson

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document224 Filed10/13/09 Page4 of 4

8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

5/32

Exhibit A

Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document224-1 Filed10/13/09 Page1 of 6

8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

6/32

8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

7/32

heane Evangelis; Malzahn, Scott; Dettmer, Ethan D.; Piepmeier, Sarah E.; Monagas, Enrique A.; Justice Lazarus,Rebecca; Janky, Mary; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; Chuck Cooper; David Thompson; Howard Nielson;Pete Patterson; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; Nicole Moss

Subject: RE: Perry v. Schwarzenegger: stipulation on briefing schedule/hearing for stay motion

Jesse,

While I appreciate your effort to look for a solution, that also does not work for us. Defendant-Intervenors took a week after Chief Judge Walker's ruling to prepare their motion to stay, whichwe first heard about this morning. Your latest proposal would give us one business day (orfour calendar days including the weekend and a holiday) to prepare our response.

Given your representation that Defendant-Intervenors do not anticipate filing a reply, we think

the better course is to give Plaintiffs a full two business days for our opposition and agree thatthe issue will be resolved on each side's primary brief.

Best,

Chris

From: Jesse Panuccio [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 12:17 PMTo: Dusseault, Christopher D.; Olson, Theodore B.; McGill, Matthew D.; Tayrani, Amir C.; Boutrous Jr., TheodoreJ.; Kapur, Theane Evangelis; Malzahn, Scott; Dettmer, Ethan D.; Piepmeier, Sarah E.; Monagas, Enrique A.;

Justice Lazarus, Rebecca; Janky, Mary; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Chuck Cooper; Davidhompson; Howard Nielson; Pete Patterson; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; Nicole MossSubject: RE: Perry v. Schwarzenegger: stipulation on briefing schedule/hearing for stay motion

Chris,

Would you be amenable to having a response in by 5pm EST on Monday and a reply, if any, by 5pm EST on

Tuesday? If it helps your consideration of the issue, the opening paper is not very long--less than seven pages.

Regards,

Jesse

From: Dusseault, Christopher D. [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 2:52 PMTo: Jesse Panuccio; Olson, Theodore B.; McGill, Matthew D.; Tayrani, Amir C.; Boutrous Jr., Theodore J.; Kapur,

Page 2 of 5

10/12/2009


8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

8/32

heane Evangelis; Malzahn, Scott; Dettmer, Ethan D.; Piepmeier, Sarah E.; Monagas, Enrique A.; Justice Lazarus,Rebecca; Janky, Mary; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; Chuck Cooper; David Thompson; Howard Nielson;Pete Patterson; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; Nicole Moss

Subject: RE: Perry v. Schwarzenegger: stipulation on briefing schedule/hearing for stay motion

Jesse,

This does not work for Plaintiffs. We want to have this matter fully briefed by Tuesday so thatChief Judge Walker can address and decide the issue, should he wish to so do, when we arebefore him on Wednesday. Therefore, we will agree to your proposed schedule if you willagree that there will be no reply and the matter is fully briefed upon submission of anyresponse on Tuesday. Otherwise, we cannot agree to your proposal.

Best,

Chris

From: Jesse Panuccio [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 11:14 AMTo: Dusseault, Christopher D.; Olson, Theodore B.; McGill, Matthew D.; Tayrani, Amir C.; Boutrous Jr., TheodoreJ.; Kapur, Theane Evangelis; Malzahn, Scott; Dettmer, Ethan D.; Piepmeier, Sarah E.; Monagas, Enrique A.;Justice Lazarus, Rebecca; Janky, Mary; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Chuck Cooper; Davidhompson; Howard Nielson; Pete Patterson; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; Nicole MossSubject: RE: Perry v. Schwarzenegger: stipulation on briefing schedule/hearing for stay motion

Chris,

Thank you for your prompt response. While we do not anticipate submitting a reply, we do reserve the right to doso. We are willing to agree that a reply would be filed within 48 hours of receiving the last-filed response brief.

Regards,

Jesse

From: Dusseault, Christopher D. [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 1:58 PMTo: Jesse Panuccio; Olson, Theodore B.; McGill, Matthew D.; Tayrani, Amir C.; Boutrous Jr., Theodore J.; Kapur,heane Evangelis; Malzahn, Scott; Dettmer, Ethan D.; Piepmeier, Sarah E.; Monagas, Enrique A.; Justice Lazarus,

Rebecca; Janky, Mary; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; Chuck Cooper; David Thompson; Howard Nielson;Pete Patterson; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

Page 3 of 5

10/12/2009


8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

9/32

8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

10/32

been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and

then immediately delete this message.

==============================================================================

==============================================================================

This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has



==============================================================================

==============================================================================

This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has



==============================================================================

Page 5 of 5

10/12/2009


8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

11/32

Exhibit B

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document224-2 Filed10/13/09 Page1 of 16

8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

12/32

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

SCHUBERT FLINTS RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS,

INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES

CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

ADVOCATES FOR FAITH AND FREEDOMRobert H. Tyler (CA Bar No. 179572)[email protected] L. Monk (CA Bar No. 245512)[email protected] Las Brisas Road, Suite 110Murrieta, California 92562

Telephone:951-304-7583; Facsimile: 951-600-4996

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL

T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO,

Plaintiffs,

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 ofVital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her official

capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information

& Strategic Planning for the California Departmentof Public Health; PATRICK OCONNELL, in his

official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the Countyof Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his officialcapacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for

the County of Los Angeles,

Defendants,

and

PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTSDENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J.KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM, and MARK A.JANSSON; and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIARENEWAL,

Defendant-Intervenors.

CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW (NorthernDistrict of California)

SCHUBERT FLINTS RESPONSESAND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFSSUBPOENA TO PRODUCEDOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OROBJECTS OR TO PERMITINSPECTION OF PREMISES

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

13/32

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

12

13

14

20

21

23

27

28

8

9

10

11

15

16

17

18

19

22

24

25

26

1SCHUBERT FLINTS OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SUBPOENA


Pursuant to Rules 26 and 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Schubert Flint Public

Affairs, Inc., (Schubert Flint) hereby objects to the Subpoena issued by Plaintiffs in the above

captioned matter dated September 17, 2009 and served on Schubert Flint on September 24, 2009 as

follows:

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

1. Schubert Flint is still in the process of completing its factual investigation in connectionwith the Subpoena served on it less than two weeks ago. Accordingly, these objections and

responses are provided without prejudice to Schubert Flints right to produce subsequently

discovered documents and materials, or to modify, change or amend these responses and

objections. The information provided in these objections is nevertheless true and correct to the

best of Schubert Flints knowledge at this time.

2. Schubert Flint specifically incorporates by reference the objections and arguments setforth by Defendant-Intervenors in the following: 1) Defendant-Intervenors responses to Plaintiffs

Discovery Requests; 2) Defendant-Intervenors Motion for Protective Order (Doc # 187); 3)

Defendant-Intervenors Reply in Support of Motion for Protective Order (Doc # 197); and 4) in

any stay and/or appeals papers Defendant-Intervenors may file regarding Plaintiffs attempt to

discover internal campaign strategy documents and/or nonpublic and/or anonymous

communications related to Proposition 8. These objections are based, inter alia, on relevance,

burden, and First Amendment privilege grounds.

3. More specifically, Schubert Flint shares in Defendant-Intervenors objection thatPlaintiffs requests as set forth in the Subpoena violate protected First Amendment rights and

therefore incorporates all of Defendant-Intervenors First Amendment arguments and objects on

those grounds to producing anything other than the public documents that have already been

provided to our client, Protect Marriage.com, for production to Plaintiffs. The incorporated


8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

14/32

1

2

3

6

4

5

7

12

13

19

20

21

24

27

28

8

9

10

11

14

15

16

17

18

22

23

25

26



objections referenced above also include but are not limited to the objections made by Defendant-

Intervenors to producing drafts and other nonpublic pre-decisional documents or communications

associated with preparing final documents or communications regarding Proposition 8 that were

actually disseminated to the electorate and objections to producing documents and information

postdating the passage of Proposition 8 in November 2008.

4. Schubert Flint objects to these Requests as vague, ambiguous, and/or undulyburdensome to the extent that the terms public and third-party are not defined and/or limited in

any way, and taken at face value would encompass all communications Schubert Flint may have

had with any third partyeven a single individual, whether or not a California voterbearing

any relationship to Proposition 8 whatsoever. Such documents include, but are not limited to,

communications with individual donors, volunteers, or voters; communications with political

strategists and other agents or contractors of Defendant-Intervenors; and communications with

friends, colleagues, and casual acquaintances. Moreover, Plaintiffs seek these communications

regardless of whether they relate to the public understanding of or motivation for enacting

Proposition 8. This presents not only First Amendment concerns, but also creates an undue burden

on Schubert Flint in attempting to gather, review, and produce all such communications.

5. Schubert Flint objects to the Subpoena on the grounds that it seeks production ofdocuments which are not legally relevant to any claims or defenses in the litigation and are not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(1).

6. Schubert Flint objects to the Subpoena on the grounds that it imposes undue burden andexpense in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c) including but not limited to requiring Schubert Flint to

produce electronically-stored information (ESI) that is not reasonably accessible and/or the

production of which would entail substantial cost. To the extent Schubert Flint is required to


8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

15/32

1

2

3

4

5

6

12

13

14

16

20

21

23

27

28

7

8

9

10

11

15

17

18

19

22

24

25

26



produce documents that are not reasonably accessible and/or is required to undertake unduly

burdensome measures in response to the Subpoena, the cost of any production (including but not

limited to any electronic media restoration, processing, scanning, exporting, storage, etc.) would be

borne by Plaintiffs.

7. Schubert Flint objects to the Subpoena to the extent that it seeks information anddocuments that: are already in Plaintiffs possession; are duplicative of documents already

produced by Defendant-Intervenors; or are as equally available to Plaintiffs from other sources that

are more convenient, less burdensome, and/or less expensive. Schubert Flint further objects to the

Subpoena to the extent it purports to place an obligation on Schubert Flint to produce documents

and information from entities and/or individuals who are not within Schubert Flints custody and

control in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(ii).

8. Schubert Flint objects to the Subpoena to the extent it requires disclosing confidentialresearch and proprietary information.

9. Schubert Flint objects to the Subpoena to the extent it calls for the production ofdocuments or information protected from disclosure by any claim of privilege, including but not

limited to the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, and the right to privacy. While

Schubert Flint does not intend to produce any such privileged or protected documents or

information, should any inadvertent disclosure occur, it shall not be deemed a waiver of any

privilege.

10.Schubert Flint objects to the Subpoena, and to the definitions and instructions includedtherewith, to the extent that it purports to impose upon Schubert Flint obligations broader than, or

inconsistent with, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules and Orders of this Court,

or the Local Rules and Order of the District Court for the Northern District of California where this

action is pending.


8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

16/32

1

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

2

3



11.Schubert Flint objects to the Subpoena, and to the definitions and instructions includedtherewith, to the extent that it calls for the production of documents or information beyond what is

authorized by the order of October 1, 2009 (Doc # 214) issued by the District Court for the

Northern District of California in this case.

Subject to and without waiving any of the foregoing General Objections, which are hereby

incorporated into each response given below, Schubert Flint is answering these Requests in

substance to the extent practicable and reasonable under the present circumstances, as stated

below. Schubert Flint hereby objects and responds to the individual Requests as follows:

SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:

All documents, including without limitation literature, pamphlets, flyers, direct mail,

advertisements, emails,text messages, press releases, or other materials that you distributed to

voters, donors, potential donors, or members of the media regarding Proposition 8.

RESPONSE:

Shubert Flint reiterates its General Objections as if specifically set forth below in response

to this Request. Schubert Flint objects to this Request as calling for irrelevant documents and

documents privileged from disclosure under the First Amendment. Schubert Flint further

specifically objects to this Request to the extent it calls for the production of documents and

information to donors or potential donors. Schubert Flint further specifically objects to this

Request to the extent it calls for production of documents and information that are not relevant

and/or protected by the First Amendmentincluding documents not publically distributed. As

noted above, Schubert Flint incorporates by reference the objections and explanations set forth by

Defendant-Intervenors in the briefing on their Motion for a Protective Order and any stay and/or

appeal papers they may file.


8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

17/32

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



Subject to and without waiving any objection, and without conceding the relevancy of any

materials being produced in response to this Request, Schubert Flint has already provided to

Defendant-Intervenors for production to Plaintiffs final copies of public communications

responsive to this Request that were distributed to and or available to the public.


All versions of any internet advertisement relating to Proposition 8 that you had any involvement

in producing, creating or distributing.

RESPONSE:

Schubert Flint reiterates its General Objections as if specifically set forth below in response


documents privileged from disclosure under the First Amendment. Schubert Flint objects to

producing drafts of final public communications, which would include, e.g., nonpublic versions of

Internet advertisements relating to Proposition 8 that were never actually posted on the Internet.

Schubert Flint objects to this Request to the extent it calls for production of documents not

available to the public (e.g., Internet communications of limited or invite-only distribution).

Schubert Flint also specifically objects to this Request to the extent it calls for the production of

material from the Internet that is not uniquely within Schubert Flints custody or control in

violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i). To the extent there were or are Internet advertisements

related to Proposition 8 posted on the Internet that information is as equally available to Plaintiffs

as it is to Schubert Flint and thus is not the proper subject of discovery to Schubert Flint.

Subject to and without waiving these objections, and without conceding the relevancy of

any materials being produced in response to this Request, Schubert Flint has already provided to


8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

18/32

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 for production to Plaintiffs final versions of internet advertisements posted

on the Internet that Schubert Flint had involvement in producing, creating, or distributing.


All versions of any television advertisement relating to Proposition 8 that you had any

involvement in producing creating, or distributing.

RESPONSE:




producing drafts of final public communications, which would include nonpublic versions of

television advertisements relating to Proposition 8 that were never actually aired. Schubert Flint

objects to this Request to the extent it calls for production of documents not available to the public.

Schubert Flint also specifically objects to this Request to the extent it calls for the production of

material not uniquely within Schubert Flints custody or control in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(2)(C)(i).



Defendant-Intervenors for production to Plaintiffs final versions of any television advertisements

that Schubert Flint had any involvement in creating, producing, or distributing and that were

actually aired on television.


All versions of any radio advertisement relating to Proposition 8 that you had any involvement in

producing, creating, or distributing.


8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

19/32

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



RESPONSE:




producing drafts of final public communications, which would include nonpublic versions of radio

advertisements relating to Proposition 8 that were never actually aired. Schubert Flint objects to

this Request to the extent it calls for production of documents not available to the public. Schubert

Flint also specifically objects to this Request to the extent it calls for the production of material not

uniquely within Schubert Flints custody or control in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i).



Defendant-Intervenors for production to Plaintiffs final versions of radio advertisements that

Schubert Flint had involvement in creating, producing, or distributing that were actually aired on

the radio.


All plans, schematics, and versions of the websites relating to Proposition 8 that you hosted, paid

for, designed, or sponsored.

RESPONSE:




producing drafts of final public communications, which would include nonpublic versions of


8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

20/32

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



websites relating to Proposition 8 that were never actually accessible by the public. Schubert Flint

objects to this Request to the extent it calls for production of documents not available to the public.



Defendant-Intervenors for production to Plaintiffs final versions of Internet pages from websites

related to Proposition 8 that Schubert Flint hosted, paid or, designed, or sponsored.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.6:

All documents you prepared for use in communicating with voters, donors, potential donors, or

members of the media, including but not limited to speeches, scripts, talking points, articles, notes,and automated telemarketing phone calls.

RESPONSE:



documents privileged from disclosure under the First Amendment. Schubert Flint objects to this

Request as calling for confidential and proprietary information. As written, this Request on its

face is not even limited to the subject matter of this litigation, Proposition 8. Schubert Flint also

objects to this Request to the extent it calls for drafts of final public communications, which would

include nonpublic versions of documents relating to Proposition 8 that were never actually

distributed or available to the public.



Defendant-Intervenors for production to Plaintiffs final versions of documents responsive to this

Request that are outside the scope of the stated objections.


8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

21/32

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




All documents constituting postings related to Proposition 8 that were made by you on social

networking websites, including but not limited to Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter.

RESPONSE:




Request to the extent it calls for production of documents not available to the public. Schubert

Flint further specifically objects to this Request to the extent it purports to reach the nonpublic

communications and postings of individual employees of Schubert Flint on their personal (as

opposed to postings publicly accessible by any member of the electorate at large) social-

networking sites. While Schubert Flint does not, at this time, believe that any such postings exist,

were such postings to exist Schubert Flint would object to producing them, as this would violate

the First Amendment rights of Schubert Flint and its employees and call for information that is

entirely irrelevant to any issue in this matter. Thus, to the extent any such postings do exist,

Schubert Flint objects to their production.



Defendant-Intervenors for production to Plaintiffs postings on public social networking sites

maintained for the Yes on 8 campaign.


All versions of any documents that reflect communications relating to Proposition 8 between

you and any third party, including, without limitation, emails between you and Protect Marriage,


8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

22/32

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



documents you provided to Protect Marriage, and communications between you and members of

the media.

RESPONSE:




Request to the extent it calls for production of documents not available to the public. Schubert

Flint objects to producing drafts of final public communications, which would include nonpublic

versions of communications relating to Proposition 8 that were never available to the public.

Schubert Flint objects to the phrase any third party as vague, ambiguous, not defined, and not

reasonably narrowed. Schubert Flint further notes that when a similarly broad request was made to

Defendant-Intervenors, the Court in which this action is pending found the request to be too broad

and Defendant-Intervenors undue burden objections well-taken. Plaintiffs were directed to

revise request no 8 to target those communications most likely to be relevant to the factual issues

identified by plaintiffs. Doc. # 214 at 16. No such attempt to redraft the Request being

propounded on Schubert Flint has been made. On its face, this Request appears to be seeking any

communication related to Proposition 8 in any way, whether or not it is related to a public

communication or was actually available to the public. This Request appears to include, for

example: any and all communications Schubert Flint may have had with other vendors,

consultants, donors, members, friends, associates, or other correspondents. Such a broad request is

objectionable on First Amendment grounds and because of the undue burden and expense it would

impose on Schubert Flint to gather, review, log and/or produce all responsive materials, the

overwhelming majority of which are irrelevant to any issue in dispute in this case in violation of

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) and 45(c).


8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

23/32

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



Based on the objections asserted above, Schubert Flint has no additional documents to

produce at this time.


Documents sufficient to show the title of everyone employed by you from January 1, 2006 to

December 31, 2008, including but not limited to organizational charts.

RESPONSE:


to this Request. Schubert Flint objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information pre-dating

its involvement in the Proposition 8 campaign. Schubert Flint further objects to this Request as

overly broad and as calling for irrelevant information. Not everyone employed by Schubert Flint

worked on the Proposition 8 campaign nor did everyone who did work on the campaign have

substantive involvement or decisionmaking authority related to the campaign; the identity of such

employees is therefore irrelevant.

Subject to and without waiving these objections, Schubert Flint is in the process of

determining whether there are any reasonably accessible, non-privileged or non-confidential

documents that already exist that can be produced in response to this Request.


All documents reflecting public media coverage of Proposition 8 referring or related to your

organization.

RESPONSE:


to this Request. Schubert Flint further specifically objects to this Request to the extent it purports

to call for the production of publicly available information that is not uniquely within Schubert


8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

24/32

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



Flints custody and control and is as readily available to Plaintiffs as it is to Schubert Flint. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i). To the extent Plaintiffs wish to review the public media coverage of

Proposition 8, they can access such materials just as easily as Schubert Flint. Schubert Flint

further objects to this Request to the extent it calls for collections, compilations, summaries, or

analysis of public media coverage that may have been created by Schubert Flint for personal,

political, strategic, or other reasons.

Subject to and without waiving these objections, and without conceding the legal relevancy

of such materials, Schubert Flint has already provided to Defendant-Intervenors for production to

Plaintiffs documents created by Schubert Flint and produced to the media for dissemination to the

public.


All documents constituting, reflecting, or referring to coordination or cooperation among

organizations and/or individuals supporting the passage of Proposition 8.

RESPONSE:


to this Request. In particular, Schubert Flint objects to this Request to the extent it calls for

irrelevant documents and documents protected from disclosure under the First Amendment.

Schubert Flint further objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome.


All minutes or other memorializations for meetings in which you participated concerning

Proposition 8.

RESPONSE:



8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

25/32

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



to this Request. In particular, Schubert Flint objects to this Request to the extent it calls for

irrelevant documents and documents protected from disclosure under the First Amendment.

Schubert Flint further objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome. The term

meetings is undefined. As the campaign manager for Protect Marriage.com, staff for Schubert

Flint engaged in thousands of discussions, conferences, gatherings, etc., which may or may not

constitute a meeting covered by this Request. Thus, this Request read literally could require the

production of scores of notes, emails, etc. bearing even the remotest relationship to Proposition 8

whether or not actually related to Plaintiffs purported interests in seeking such discovery.

Subject to these objections, Schubert Flint has no documents to produce at this time.


Documents sufficient to show all expenditures by you and payments to you in connection with

Proposition 8.

RESPONSE:

Schubert Flint reiterates its General Objections as if specifically set forth below in response to this

Request. In particular, Schubert Flint objects to this Request to the extent it calls for irrelevant

documents and documents protected from disclosure under the First Amendment. Schubert Flint

further objects to this Request as impermissibly seeking private and/or proprietary information. The

amount of expenditures made or payments received by Schubert Flint in connection with Proposition

8 are irrelevant to any claim or defense in this action and is not information designed to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence.

Subject to these objections, Schubert Flint has no additional documents to produce at this

time.


8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

26/32

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



October 7, 2009

/s/ Robert H. Tyler________________________

ADVOCATES FOR FAITH AND FREEDOMRobert H. Tyler(CA Bar No. 179572)

[email protected] L. Monk (CA Bar No. 245512)[email protected] Las Brisas Road, Suite 110Murrieta, California 92562Telephone:951-3-4-7583; Facsimile: 951-600-4996

Attorneys for Schubert Flint Public Affairs, Inc.

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

27/32

Exhibit C


8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

28/32


8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

29/32


8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

30/32

8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

31/32


8/7/2019 3:09-cv-02292 #224

32/32
