Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

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


43670-0004/LEGAL122627182.1


Jennifer C. Pizer (Admitted Pro hac vice)
Carmina Ocampo (Admitted Pro hac vice)
Joshua J. Johnson (Admitted Pro hac vice)
LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND
EDUCATION FUND, INC.
4221 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 280
Los Angeles, California 90010
Telephone: (213) 382-7600
Email: jpizer@lambdalegal.org
cocampo@lambdalegal.org
jjohnson@lambdalegal.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Thomas C. Horne
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Robert L. Ellman (Bar No. 014410)
Solicitor General
Kathleen P. Sweeney (Bar No. 011118)
Todd M. Allison (Bar No. 026936)
Assistant Attorneys General
1275 W. Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2997
Telephone: (602) 542-3333
Email: robert.ellman@azag.gov
kathleen.sweeney@azag.gov
todd.allison@azag.gov
Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Nelda Majors; Karen Bailey; David Larance;
Kevin Patterson; Michelle Teichner; Barbara
Morrissey; Kathy Young; Jessica Young;
Kelli Olson; Jennifer Hoefle Olson; Kent
Burbank; Vicente Talanquer; C.J. Castro-
Byrd; Jess Castro-Byrd; Patrick Ralph;
Josefina Ahumada; and Equality Arizona,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Michael K. Jeanes, in his official capacity as
Clerk of the Superior Court of Maricopa
County, Arizona; Will Humble, in his official
capacity as Director of the Department of
Health Services; and David Raber, in his
official capacity as Director of the Department
of Revenue,
Defendants.
No. 2:14-cv-00518- JWS
JOINT INITIAL CASE STATUS
REPORT

AND

SCHEDULING AND PLANNING
CONFERENCE REPORT
Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 42 Filed 07/07/14 Page 1 of 9
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


43670-0004/LEGAL122627182.1
-2-

Additional Co-Counsel

Paul F. Eckstein (Bar No. 001822)
Daniel C. Barr (Bar No. 010149)
Kirstin T. Eidenbach (Bar No. 027341)
Barry G. Stratford (Bar No. 029923)
Alexis E. Danneman (Bar No. 030478)
PERKINS COIE LLP
2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000
Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2788
Telephone: 602-351-8000
Email: PEckstein@perkinscoie.com
DBarr@perkinscoie.com
KEidenbach@perkinscoie.com
BStratford@perkinscoie.com
ADanneman@perkinscoie.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Byron Babione (Bar No. 024320)
Jonathan Caleb Dalton (Bar No. 030539)
James A. Campbell (Bar No. 026737)
Kenneth J. Connelly (Bar No. 025420)
Special Assistant Attorneys General
ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM
15100 N. 90th Street
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
Telephone: (480) 444-0020
Email: CDalton@alliancedefendingfreedom.org
BBabione@alliancedefendingfreedom.org
JCampbell@alliancedefendingfreedom.org
KConnelly@alliancedefendingfreedom.org
Attorneys for Defendants

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 42 Filed 07/07/14 Page 2 of 9
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


43670-0004/LEGAL122627182.1


Plaintiffs contend that Arizonas exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage and
denial of recognition to the marriages they validly have celebrated in other jurisdictions
both violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
Defendants deny all of plaintiffs claims for relief. The parties believe the case can be
resolved on summary judgment and, accordingly, plan to submit cross-motions for
summary judgment without conducting discovery. The parties wish to reserve the right to
conduct pre-trial discovery, including expert discovery, if the Court determines that
material factual issues preclude summary judgment.
Plaintiffs filed their complaint on March 12, 2014 (Doc. 1) and amended their
complaint on April 10, 2014 (Doc. 21). Defendants answered the amended complaint on
April 18, 2014 (Doc. 30). Having conferred, the parties agree to, and suggest to the Court,
the following briefing schedule:
Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (PMSJ): By August 1,
2014.
Defendants response and cross-motion for summary judgment:
September 5, 2014.
Plaintiffs combined (a) reply to response to motion for summary
judgment and (b) response to defendants cross-motion for
summary judgment: October 6, 2014.
Defendants reply in support of cross-motion for summary
judgment: October 27, 2014.
Plaintiffs request oral argument on the proposed cross-motions for summary
judgment. Defendants do not request oral argument. Because the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals has announced it will hold oral argument on September 8, 2014 in two marriage
cases (Latta v. Otter, Ninth Cir. Case No. 14-35420; Sevcik v. Sandoval, Ninth Cir. Case
No. 12-17668), Plaintiffs respectfully request that argument be scheduled in this case at
the earliest date convenient for the Court following the Ninth Circuit arguments in those
cases and completion of summary judgment briefing in this case.
Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 42 Filed 07/07/14 Page 3 of 9
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


43670-0004/LEGAL122627182.1
-2-

I. Meeting. In accordance with Rule 26(f), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a
meeting was held telephonically on June 20, 2014, and was attended by:
Jennifer Pizer of Lambda Legal and Barry Stratford of Perkins
Coie LLP on behalf of plaintiffs; and
Kathleen Sweeney and Todd Allison, Assistant Attorneys General,
and James Campbell and Caleb Dalton of Alliance Defending
Freedom on behalf of defendants.
As a result of that meeting, the parties recommend the following:
II. Disclosures. The information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1):
The parties hereby stipulate to waive the initial disclosure obligations under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1).
A. ( ) Has been exchanged by the parties.
B. ( ) Will be exchanged by the parties on or before (Date).
C. Preliminary witness lists:
1. ( ) Have been exchanged by the parties.
2. ( ) Will be exchanged by the parties on or before (Date).
III. Contested Issues of Fact and Law.
Preliminarily, the parties expect the following issues of fact and/or law to be
presented to the Court: whether Arizonas exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage
and denial of recognition to their out-of-state marriages violate the Equal Protection and
Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
IV. Discovery Plan.
The parties jointly propose to the court the following discovery plan.
A. The parties expect that discovery will be needed on the following issues:
The parties do not expect that any discovery will be needed.
B. Are there issues about preserving discovery information? ( )Yes (xx) No
Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 42 Filed 07/07/14 Page 4 of 9
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


43670-0004/LEGAL122627182.1
-3-

C. Disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information should be
handled as follows:
This does not seem to be applicable to this case at this time.
D. Claims of privilege or of protection of trial preparation materials.
1. xx There is no indication that this will be an issue.
2. ____ The parties have entered into a confidentiality agreement.
3. ____ The parties will submit their proposed confidentiality
agreement on or before: (date)
E. Disclosure of expert reports:
The parties do not plan to retain experts or to disclose expert reports unless
the Court determines that the case cannot be decided on summary judgment.
1. ____ By all parties on or before: (date)
2. ____ By plaintiff(s) on or before: (date)
3. ____ By defendant(s) on or before: (date)
4. ____ Rebuttal reports on or before: (date)
F. Supplementation of disclosures and discovery responses under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(e):
The parties do not plan to undertake discovery unless the Court determines
that the case cannot be decided on summary judgment.
1. At intervals of (Number) days; and final supplements will be served
and filed 60 days before the close of fact discovery.
2. As new information is acquired, but not later than 60 days before the
close of fact discovery.
Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 42 Filed 07/07/14 Page 5 of 9
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


43670-0004/LEGAL122627182.1
-4-

G. A final witness list disclosing all lay and expert witnesses whom a party
may wish to call at trial will be served and filed: (Date).
1

The parties do not intend to try this case either to the Court or to a jury
unless the Court determines that the case cannot be decided on summary judgment.
H. Time for completing discovery:
The parties do not intend to conduct either fact or expert discovery unless
the Court determines that the case cannot be decided on summary judgment.
1. Fact discovery will be completed on or before: (Date);
2. Expert discovery will be completed on or before: (Date);
3. All discovery will be completed on or before: (Date).
I. Limitations on discovery.
Not applicable at this time, per above.
1. ( ) The limitations contained in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b), 30, and 33
will apply except as indicated below.
2. ( ) The maximum number of depositions by each party will not
exceed (number).
(a) Depositions will not exceed (Number) hours as to any
deponent.
(b) Depositions will not exceed (Number) hours as to non-party
deponents.
(c) Depositions will not exceed (Number) hours as to party
deponents.
2

3.

The maximum number of interrogatories posed by each party will
not exceed (Number)

1
This date may be more than but not less than 45 days prior to the close of
discovery. Only those witnesses disclosed at this time will be permitted to testify at trial.
2
Unless otherwise specified, the court will consider corporate officer, Rule
30(b)(6) witness, expert witness deposition to be subject to the time limitation applicable
to party depositions.
Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 42 Filed 07/07/14 Page 6 of 9
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


43670-0004/LEGAL122627182.1
-5-

4. The maximum number of requests for admissions posed by each
party will not exceed (Number)
5. Other limitations: (insert other limitations)
V. Pretrial Motions.
A. Are there preliminary motions as to jurisdiction, venue, arbitration, and/or
statutes of limitation that should be filed within 60 days. __ Yes xx No (If yes,
explain) (Explanation)
B. Motions Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b):
1. (xx) Will be served and filed within the times specified in the
applicable rules.
2. ( ) Motions to amend pleadings or add parties will be filed not later
than
3. ( ) Motions under the discovery rules will be filed not later than
4. ( ) Motions in limine will be filed not later than
5. (xx) Dispositive motions (including motions for summary judgment)
will be filed not later than: September 5, 2014.
VI. Other Provisions:
A. The parties ( ) do (xx) do not request a conference with the court before the
entry of a scheduling order. (If the parties do request a conference prior to entry of the
order, please explain): (Explanation)
B. The parties ( ) do (xx) do not consent to trial before a magistrate judge.
C. The disclosure requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1, if applicable:
1. (xx) Have been complied with.
2. ( ) Compliance will be accomplished on or before (Date)
D. Early settlement/alternative dispute resolution.
1. Do the parties request immediate assistance by way of a settlement
conference or alternative dispute resolution? __Yes xx No If Yes,
explain (Explanation).
Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 42 Filed 07/07/14 Page 7 of 9
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


43670-0004/LEGAL122627182.1
-6-

2. Do the parties wish to consider private mediation or settlement
conference with a judicial officer of this court at a later date?
__Yes xx No
E. The scheduling order will make provision for pretrial conferences,
certification of the case as ready for trial, and a final pretrial order.
VII. Trial:
The parties do not anticipate need for a trial. Were the Court to decide otherwise,
however, the parties estimate:
A. The case is expected to take (7 days for plaintiffs case; 5 days for
defendants case) days to try.
B. 1. A jury trial has been demanded (xx) Yes ( ) No
2. The right to a jury trial ( ) is (xx) is not disputed.
Respectfully submitted this 7th day of July, 2014.
LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND
EDUCATION FUND, INC.

s/ Jennifer C. Pizer
Jennifer C. Pizer (Pro hac vice)
Carmina Ocampo (Pro hac vice)
Joshua J. Johnson (Pro hac vice)

Additional counsel:

Paul F. Eckstein
Daniel C. Barr
Kirstin T. Eidenbach
Barry G. Stratford
Alexis E. Danneman
PERKINS COIE LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Thomas C. Horne
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Robert L. Ellman
Solicitor General

s/ Kathleen P. Sweeney (with permission)
Kathleen P. Sweeney
Todd M. Allison
Assistant Attorneys General

Additional counsel:

Byron Babione
Jonathan Caleb Dalton
James A. Campbell
Kenneth J. Connelly
Special Assistant Attorneys General
ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 42 Filed 07/07/14 Page 8 of 9
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


43670-0004/LEGAL122627182.1
-7-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 7, 2014, I electronically transmitted the attached
documents to the Clerks Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a
Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:
Robert L. Ellman
Kathleen P. Sweeney
Todd M. Allison
ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE
robert.ellman@azag.gov
kathleen.sweeney@azag.gov
todd.allison@azag.gov



S. Neilson
Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 42 Filed 07/07/14 Page 9 of 9