2:14-cv-00200 #18

Peter K. Michael, (Wyo. Bar. No.
5-2309)
Attorney General of Wyoming
Martin L. Hardsocg (Wyo. Bar No. 6-2919)
Deputy Attorney General
James C. Kaste, (Wyo. Bar No. 6-3244)
Jared S. Crecelius (Wyo. Bar No. 6-4118)
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Ryan T. Schelhaas (Wyo. Bar No. 6-3321)
Michael M. Robinson (Wyo. Bar. No. 6-2658)
Wyoming Attorney Generals Office
123 State Capitol Building
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-7876
(307) 777-3687 fax

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF WYOMING

Anne Marie Guzzo and Bonnie Robinson; )
Ivan Williams and Charles Killion; )
Brie Barth and Shelly Montgomery; )
Carl Oleson and Rob Johnston; and )
Wyoming Equality, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Civil No. 14-CV-200-SWS
)
Matthew H. Mead, in his official capacity as )
the Governor of Wyoming; Dean Fausset, in )
his official capacity as Director of the )
Wyoming Department of Administration and )
Information; Dave Urquidez, in his official )
Capacity as Administrator of the State of )
Wyoming Human Resources Division; and )
Debra K. Lathrop, in her official capacity )
as Laramie County Clerk, )
)
Defendants. )

GOVERNOR MEADS MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 18 Filed 10/13/14 Page 1 of 9
2

Defendant, Governor Matthew H. Mead, through the Office of the Attorney
General, hereby moves to quash the Subpoena to Appear and Testify at a Hearing or Trial
in a Civil Action, served on Governor Meads Deputy Chief of Staff by Plaintiffs on
October 9, 2014. In support of this motion, Governor Mead states as follows:
1. On October 7, 2014, Plaintiffs initiated this case by filing their Complaint
for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, alleging that the State of Wyoming unlawfully
denies same sex couples the right to marry. Compl. at 1. The following day, Plaintiffs
filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order barring the
Defendants from enforcing Wyo. Stat. Ann. 20-1-101 and requiring them to issue or
permit the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples. Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at
9-10. On October 9, 2014, the Court set Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction for
hearing on October 16, 2014, at 10:00 a.m., in Casper, Wyoming. Despite regular
communications between the parties both before and after the filing of this suit, counsel
for Governor Mead was not advised that Plaintiffs would seek to compel the Governor to
testify at the hearing.
2. On the evening of October 9, 2014, five minutes before the scheduled start
of a debate between gubernatorial candidates, two unidentified individuals approached
Governor Meads staff and security detail on the campus of Casper College. Mead Aff.
at 2. These individuals attempted to serve Governor Mead with a Subpoena to Appear
and Testify at a Hearing or Trial in a Civil Action commanding Governor Mead to appear
at the hearing of Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction. Id. Governor Meads
Deputy Chief of Staff received the subpoena on his behalf, and a copy of the subpoena is
3

attached hereto as Exhibit A.
1
Id. At no time prior to service of the subpoena did
Plaintiffs approach counsel for Governor Mead to inquire whether they would accept
service of the subpoena on his behalf.
2

3. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, on timely motion a court must
quash or modify a subpoena that either fails to allow a reasonable time to comply or
subjects a person to an undue burden. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(i) and (iii). This
subpoena should be quashed for both reasons.
4. First, the subpoena fails to give Governor Mead a reasonable time to
comply. Although Rule 45 does not define reasonable time, many courts have found
that anything less than fourteen days from the date of service is not reasonable. SEC v.
Art Intellect, Inc., 2012 WL 776244, at *3 fn.43 (D. Utah March 7, 2012) (listing cases);
Tri Investments, Inc. v. Aiken Cost Consultants, 2011 WL 5330295, at *2 (W.D.N.C.
November 7, 2011) (citing cases).
5. This subpoena only gives Governor Mead seven total and five working
days notice of the hearing. Ex. A. For most witnesses five working days notice does not
provide enough time to rearrange their professional and personal schedules without

1
Governor Mead does not assert that service of the subpoena was defective because it
was accepted by the Deputy Chief of Staff rather than served on the Governor personally.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (b)(1). However, the subpoena was not accompanied by the
required witness fee and mileage allowance. Id.

2
Concerned that service upon the Deputy Chief of Staff was defective, upon the
suggestion of counsel for Governor Mead, Plaintiffs eventually requested, and counsel
for Governor Mead did accept service of the subpoena in the late afternoon on October
10, 2014.

4

imposing a hardship on them and the people around them. This is even more true for the
Governor of a state and the citizens who have made their way onto his busy schedule. In
fact, Governor Mead has multiple preexisting commitments that make it nearly
impossible for him to attend the hearing. Mead Aff. at 3. On the night before the
hearing Governor Mead will be in Cheyenne for a long scheduled Industry Roundtable
Reception and Dinner with many attendees who are traveling from out of state for the
event. Id. The following day, in addition to a host of other meetings and duties, he is
scheduled to travel from Cheyenne to Riverton for a gubernatorial debate. Id. These
debates are scheduled long in advance and cannot be rescheduled. Id. Governor Mead
cannot attend the hearing as commanded by the subpoena without significantly disrupting
the plans of a host of different individuals and potentially missing the debate. Id.
6. Accordingly, at a minimum, the subpoena should be quashed for failing to
allow Governor Mead a reasonable time to comply. Moreover, and more importantly, the
subpoena should be quashed because it imposes an undue burden on Governor Mead to
require his testimony at a hearing where he has no personal knowledge of any of the facts
likely to be at issue. Mead Aff. at 4.
7. In evaluating a motion to quash a subpoena, the district court may consider
whether (i) the subpoena was issued primarily for purposes of harassment, (ii) there are
other viable means to obtain the same evidence, and (iii) to what extent the information
sought is relevant, nonprivileged, and crucial to the moving party's case. Bogosian v.
Woloohojian Realty Corp., 323 F.3d 55. 66 (1st Cir.2003). The Court may quash or
modify a subpoena that is unreasonable on the basis of annoyance, embarrassment,
5

oppression, or undue burden or expense or seeks privileged or otherwise protected
information. Meacham v. Church, 2010 WL 1576711, at *2 (D. Utah April 19, 2010).
The Court also considers whether the information is necessary and available from any
other source. Id. (quoting 9A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. 2463.1).
8. These same considerations are at issue when a party has subpoenaed a
government employee to testify. When a government employee is subpoenaed, the court
must determine whether it would be an undue burden for the government to produce [the
employee] and to weigh that burden against the Plaintiffs need for the testimony.
Solomon v. Nassau County, 274 F.R.D. 455, 458 (E.D.N.Y. 2011). [] Department heads
and similarly high-ranking officials should not ordinarily be compelled to testify unless it
has been established that the testimony to be elicited is necessary and relevant and
unavailable from a lesser ranking officer. Halderman v. Pennhurst State Sch. &
Hosp., 96 F.R.D. 60, 64 (E.D. Pa. 1982) (citing Sneaker Circus, Inc. v. Carter, 457 F.
Supp. 771, 794 n. 33 (E.D.N.Y.1978) (emphasis added); United States v. Northside
Realty Assoc., 324 F. Supp. 287, 293 (N.D. Ga. 1971)). Because [h]igh ranking
government officials have greater duties and time constraints than other witnesses ...
[they] should not, absent extraordinary circumstances, be called to testify regarding
their reasons for taking official actions. In re U.S., 197 F.3d 310, 313 (8th Cir. 1999)
(citations and internal quotations omitted) (emphasis added).
9. In this case, Governor Mead has no necessary or relevant information to
offer on any of the four factors the Court must consider at the hearing on the motion for
preliminary injunction. Neither Governor Mead, nor any member of his staff, are
6

responsible for issuing marriage licenses in Wyoming. Mead Aff. at 4; Wyo. Stat. Ann.
20-1-103 (marriage licenses obtained from Wyoming County Clerks). The Governor
does not oversee, nor does he have any control over the County Clerks across the State of
Wyoming who do issue marriage licenses. Id. Similarly, he has no personal knowledge
or control over the determination of eligibility for any benefits provided by the State of
Wyoming to married couples. Id. These determinations are made by other individuals
within the executive branch of government. Id. Finally, because information related to
his decisions with regard the defense of Wyoming statutes in this and other cases is
privileged, Governor Mead does not have any information that would assist the Court in
its resolution of the motion for preliminary injunction. Id.
10. Moreover, there are no extraordinary circumstances that would justify
compelling Governor Mead to testify at this hearing. Instead, this case is analogous to
Babin v. Breaux, 2012 WL 83672 (M.D. La. January 11, 2012), in which the plaintiffs
sought to compel the deposition testimony of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. In his
motion to quash, Governor Jindal explained that he had no personal knowledge of the
specific claims at issue, that neither he nor his staff were responsible for approving the
decisions at issue, and that these decisions were made by other officials. Id. at *1. The
plaintiffs argued that Governor Jindal had knowledge of the political motivations behind
the decisions, but the court noted that they failed to show his personal involvement in the
process leading to the decisions by other officials, and granted the Governors motion to
quash. Id. at *2-3.
7

11. The same reasoning holds true in this case. Governor Mead does not make
the decision to grant or deny marriage licenses in Wyoming, does not have any authority
over the individuals who make these decisions, and he does not determine who is or is
not eligible for any particular state benefit. As a result, he has no facts to offer the Court
on any of the four factors at issue in these preliminary injunction proceedings.
Accordingly, it would be an undue burden on him to testify in these proceedings, and the
subpoena should be quashed.
12. Moreover, the Court can infer from the Governors lack of personal
knowledge and the manner and timing of service that the subpoena was issued primarily
for the purposes of harassment and annoyance. The Attorney Generals Office routinely
accepts service of process for the State, its officers, and agencies, and most certainly
would have done so in this case, had it been given the opportunity. There is simply no
need for and no excuse for approaching the Governor immediately before a debate
without first seeking to secure an acceptance of service from counsel. Similarly, there is
no legitimate reason for attempting to elicit the testimony of the Governor in this matter,
particularly where doing so would disrupt his ability to participate in a gubernatorial
debate.
13. In conformity with U.S.D.C.L.R. 7.1 counsel for Governor Mead conferred
with counsel for the Plaintiffs about this motion on October 10-11, 2014, but the parties
were unable to resolve their dispute. Plaintiffs did offer to attempt to arrange either a
video deposition or a video conference to allow Governor Mead to testify at the hearing,
but that offer is neither reasonable nor appropriate. Neither suggestion cures the untimely
8

notice or addresses the fact that Governor Meads schedule is already full. More
importantly, even if the notice had not been untimely, Governor Mead still has no factual
information to offer at the hearing and this subpoena appears calculated merely to harass
and annoy the Governor right before an important debate.
WHEREFORE Governor Mead requests that the Court quash the subpoena
commanding his attendance at the hearing on Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary
Injunction.
Dated this 13
th
day of October, 2014.

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

/s/ James C. Kaste
Peter K. Michael, (Wyo. Bar. No. 5-2309)
James C. Kaste, (Wyo. Bar No. 6-3244)
Jared S. Crecelius (Wyo. Bar No. 6-4118)
Attorneys for the State Defendants
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-7876
(307) 777-3687 fax
pete.michael@wyo.gov
marty.hardsocg@wyo.gov
james.kaste@wyo.gov
jared.crecelius@wyo.gov
ryan.schelhaas@wyo.gov
mike.robinson@wyo.gov
9

I certify that on this 13
th
day of October, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing
with the CM/ECF system which sent notice to the following:

Tracy L. Zubrod James Lyman
zubrod@aol.com Thomas W. Stoever, Jr.
james.lyman@aporter.com

Qusair Mohamedbhai Shannon P. Minter
qm@rmlawyers.com Christopher F. Stoll
sminter@nclrights.org

/s/ James C. Kaste
James C. Kaste

EXHIBIT A
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 18-1 Filed 10/13/14 Page 1 of 3
I
t\0 .. 118 (!lev. IUI3) SubpocM to Appear nnd Temlfy nl "Hearing orTrlalln a Civil Action
for the
District of Wyoming
.. -.--..b!!n.e Marie Guzzo, et al. )
Plalnli.ff )
v. ) Civil Action No. 14-cv-00200SWS
Governor of Wyoming, et ?..h._. )
Defendam )
SUBPOENA TO APPEAR AND TESTIFY
AT A HEARING OR TRIAL IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: Governor Matthew H. Mead
' -- -----------...(N.,.,..a_m_e o..,if,...pe.-rs-on_t_o ,'"'"'vlr,.....om..--,.th.,..fs-.subpo-en-a""':'ls-d:-:-ire-c-ted)-::-----------
YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States district court at the time, date
1
and place set forth below
to testIfy at a hearing or trial in this civil action. When you arrive, you must remain at the court until the judge or a court
officet allows you to leave.
l Place: Ewing f.KerrFederal Building
Courtroom No.: 2
1 111 South Wolcott St.
Date and Time: 10/16/201410:00 am
I Casper, WY 82601-2534 ___ _.. ______________ ---..!
You must also bring with you the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects (leaw bftmk If
llllf llf1(11/r:able.J:
The following provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 are attached- Rule 45(c)
1
relating to the place of
Rule 45(d), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena; and Rule 45(e) and (g), relating to your duty to
respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so.
()ale: 10/09/2014
CLERK OF COURT
OR
S/gtte1111re of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
The name, address. e-mail address, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name ()jpal'ly) All Plaintiffs
Anne Marie Guzzo, et al. , who issues or requests this subpoena, are:
L. James Lyman; ARNOLD & PORTER LLP; 370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 4400, Denver, Colorado 60202-1370;
Telephone: (303) Email: james.lyman@aporter.com
Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena
I r this subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored or tangible things, a notice
nnd n copy of the subpoena must be served on each party in this oase before it is served on the person to whom It is
directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4). ,
., 11r muumwu
.;
)
.

i\0 1\!l 12/13) Subpoc: to and 'l'cstll'!f at n f;enringorTrial hu Civil Action (pngc l)
Federal Rule ()f Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effectiwe 12/1/13)
!lAce
( 1) For n Trln/, Htnrl11g, or DtpMitlon. A aubpoeno mny command 11
fllll'l\Un tn attend ntrinl, heatlng. or deposition only as follows:
(t\) within 100 miles ofwht:rc the ptrton rtsidcs,. is employed. or
n:I)Ulnrlv transacts In person: or
(ll} \Vitllin till: statu where the person resides. employed, or regularly
business lrt person. lftllc porson
(I) Is a Jlnrty or u pmty's officer; at
(II) 111 eommundud to attend a ttinl nnd would no' Incur aubstnntlnl
i:Sfl\)nill.l,
(l) Fnr Othl!r D/sctJvl!ry, A subpocnn mey commnnd:
(;\)production ol'ckJcumeniS. e!el.'tl'llnicnlly Stot'l:d infhrrnlltlolt. or
tUilJ!,ihlc things nt a within 100 milt:., nfwhcte the person resides, Is
l!lllttlnyl!tl, nr regularly transncts business In person: 11nd
(ll)fllSflUCiion orprcmlSCl!D\ the prel1l1Ses to be inspected.
(d) Pr111attlng a Person Subject to a Subpocllhll'i:nforcemeut.
( l) .iiV()/ttlug tl111lm! Bttrtlllll or Expell.ft:l Sttnctlont. A p11rty or attorney
M'Jiilll!-lihlc lor Issuing nnd serving a subpnena m11st ll1kc reli$0nabte steps
tunvold Imposing undue burden or expense on 11 plli'SOn to the
1'1\u oourt fur Ute district. whcro cotnpllanco is required must
.:unucu this duty and Impose an appruprintc Sllttetlon-which may Include
unmings and n:nsonabh: attorney'$ fees-on o party or atturney who
In oon1ply.
(l) C'umm1tntlto Pt11duce Mnterlnfs nr Pf!lrtrtlt ltrspectloll,
(,\) .lppunmnct Not Rtqulred. A petron to produce
thlcllmcnlll. ch:ctronlcally stored intorn1ation. or t"n&ible things, or to
purmltthc lnspectinn need not nppear in person at the plnoe or
or lnspcetlon unless also to uppenr ror n depositlort,
huurin!.l. ur trinl.
(\1) Oh}tctlmrs. A porno\' oonlmDndc,l to pro<htce dneumcnts or
or to permit !n:;pecbon may sei'VI! on thu pnrty or auomey designated
In thu 1\tlbpOCilR n wrfllen objection l<J il1$jltdin&. copying. testing, or
or all nrttw materials or tn inspecting t!w premises-or to
tnnduoing stored inronnndon in the form or fotms
'11tu objuction must be servetl!M:fcnu the cnrlicr ofthu time for
or 14 tll!ys after the subpoena Is sCIVI!d. tfnrt objection is mndt:,
thll ntiJtiWfl'lg rules apply:
0) At any lime. on notice to the t,:ommnntled person. the pnftY
uny mnw tho court lor thll district where compliance is required for nn
uroor cumpclling production or Inspection. .
(II) 11u:su acl!ltnny be required only ns directed hi the order, and tho
11nkr must pmtt)(.'t 11 pcrmm who is neither a pnrty nor n pnrty's officer ftom
llCilllt cxpen:IC resuhlng !TOm t:Omplinncc.
(J) Qtllf.flllllg or Mod{/)'l1tg 11 Sttbpotlla.
(A) IJih4n Rectttll'lld On timely motlort. the court for the district whtlll
is required 1\lUS! quash or modify ll subp<Jcnathat:
(I) fnlls tn allow a time to comply.
(ii) n lll!r"SOII to comply beyond the gcogrnphlcalllmlts
In Rulc45(o);
(Iii) ll!qulrc$ disclosure of or other protllctcd mnucr, if no
or waiver applhm; or
(lv) l!Uhjects a person to burdctl.
(ll) Ptrmilled, To protect a person subject to or nll'ceted by 11
,.;uhpncnn. tl\l! court ror the district where compliance Is required mey, on
uwtlun, quash nr mndif}t subpoena If it requires:
(1) n tmde or othor confidcntlnl rcscnrcl1,
dcwh1pmcnt. or commcrciol information: or
(II) disdoslng nn unretalned opinion or information tbnt does
not describe 5]lCCifio occurrenues 11nd results ftom Ute exp!ll't'll
study lhHl Wl\S not requested by a pmrty.
(C) S}JIIc{f.vlng Condltilms Q$ an,IK/tmmlfYt. In the elreumstances
described in Rule 45(d)(3)(S), the tllllurt nlay, lnstend of quashing or
modifYing. 8 order appclll'!lance or production under specified
conditions ifthe serving party:
(I) shows 1\ substanl!al need f<!!fiUtt: testimony or material that C$tnut be
oUterwisc met without undue nnd
(II) ensures that the subpoena$! person will be reasonably compenmtud.
(e) Duties Ill Rcspnudlng to 11
(I) Producing or Eltmrulllcu/ly Stnrtd 11(/'ormat/ott. 1'lwsu
prt>Qilduros apply to producing dot:mmcnts or clettronlcnlly stored
information:
(A) DocumenLt. A respomiling to a subpoena to produce documents
must produc:e them they arc kCJ!I:Jn the ordinary ofbusiness or
must orgnnlzo nnd label then1 to c:amespond to the catcsories in lhe dcmnnd.
(B) Form for Electrmnica//y Slored llt{ormatlon Not Specified.
Ira subpoena does 1\otspcoify a folfm for producing elc:ctronlcally ston:d
informatio!\, the pcll'Son teSpondin&'mttSt produce it in 11 form or fontlS In
which it Is ordinarily maintained rur in 11 reasonably usnble fonn or farms.
(q /t!clmnlcalb S1ored ln[onmallrm Pra<IIICI!d In On/JI Ollt F'omr. Thu
pci'SQI\ need not produ>W tbe Stllllc clccuonically stored
informuti nn in morn tlmn ono ronna.
(D) lllfiCCI!SIS/ble Information. Tht person
res]JOndmg need not provide disct,'!Ycry or elcctronicnlly stored lnfonuntiotl
li'om sources that the person idcntfilies 11s not reasonably acces.siblc btlcllll$ll
or undue burden or cost. On mollilm. to cornp&l discovery or for n
order, the person responding mustLshow that the infonniltion is not
reasonably necessiblt: because ofmndue burden or cost. lftlult sbowing Is
made, the court may IIQnethcless llllrdcr discovery from such sources if U1c
requesting pPrty shows good oauSI!I, considering the limitations of Rule
26(b)(2)(C). Tl\c coun may SpQcilf)l conditions for tho discovery.
(l) C/n/ml11g PriPI/ege or Pr1Jtectlio11.
{A) Informal/on With/wid A pem;on withholding lnronnatlon
under n clnint that It ill Jlfivllugedltor to protection ns ttial-prcparation
material must:
(I) expressly make the clalm:_(IBIId
(II) describe the nature oftluw.vithheld documents. commUllicatlcms, or
tangible things Inn mnnncr that, 1wlthout revealing infomtatlon ltsolf
privileged or protected. will cnnfille the parties to assess the ctnhn.
(B) fn/ormul/on Produr:ed. If inllhm1ntion produced ill respons ton
subpoena Is to u claim of;jprivilegeor afprotection as
trial-prepal'lltlon mntcrinl,thc pel'l!lon making the claim may notifY nny pmty
that tQCCived the lnfotmntlon ofln112 c\olm nnd tile bll.'lis for IL After being
notified, n party must promptly r!'t!tum, sequester. or destroy the Sllll'ified
lnfom1nt1on and nny copies It has;; must not use or dlstlosc U1c information
until the claim is rcsol ved; must- Uukc rellSQnnble steps to retrieve the
infotmlllion lrthc party dlsclose\\1 It befon: being notified: and may promptly
prcSCllt the lnfonnaUM under stlllil to the court for the district
compliance is required for a tmmination ofthc claim. Tho per:ron who
produced the Information mustwvcserve tbet informatiun until the clolm IN
ri!Bolvcd,
(g) Contempt.
The court for tbu district whcre:ll'JOmpliancc is required-and also, a!ler n
motion I$ tnmsfc:rrcd,the issuln)M court-mny hold In co11tcmpt a pctSIJn
who. hnvlng been served, falls wilthout adequate excuse to obey the
subpucnn or an related to_, He.
1
1
or access Ia subpoena motoria Is. aec Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(ft) Committee Note (llO 13).
----,----
_____ , _____ ....;...;.._
----.......--------- - .
' Tll'l" UilliiiiiUIDII
J ames C. Kaste, (Wyo. Bar No. 6-3244)
J ared S. Crecelius (Wyo. Bar No. 6-4118)
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-7876
(307) 777-3687 fax

DISTRICT OF WYOMING

Carl Oleson and Rob J ohnston; and )
Wyoming Equality, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
)
)
Defendants. )

AFFIDAVIT OF MATTHEW H. MEAD

Matthew H. Mead, being first duly sworn, deposes and states of his own knowledge:

I. I am the Governor of the State of Wyoming and a Defendant in this matter. I
have knowledge of the facts stated herein from my own personal knowledge and am competent
to testify thereto.
2. On the evening of October 9, 2014, five minutes before the scheduled start of a
debate between gubernatorial candidates, two unidentified individuals approached my staff and
security detail on the campus of Casper College. These individuals attempted to reach me, and
my Deputy Chief of Staff received a Subpoena to Appear and Testify at a Hearing or Trial in a
Civil Action. The subpoena commands me to appear and testify at the hearing on Plaintiffs'
Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order on October 16, 2014, at
10:00 a.m. in Casper, Wyoming. This subpoena does not allow me a reasonable time to comply,
subjects me to an undue burden, and any testimony I might be asked to provide is not necessary
or relevant to the proceedings before the Court.
3. As an initial matter, the subpoena only gives me seven total and five working
days notice of the hearing. I have multiple preexisting commitments that make it very
burdensome for me to attend the hearing. On the night before the hearing I will be in Cheyenne
for a long scheduled Industry Roundtable Reception and Dinner with attendees who are traveling
from out of state for the event. The following day, in addition to a host of other meetings and
duties, I am scheduled to travel from Cheyenne to Riverton for a gubernatorial debate. These
debates are scheduled long in advance. I cannot attend the hearing as commanded by the
subpoena without significantly disrupting the plans of a host of different individuals and
potentially missing the debate.
4. Moreover, I have no personal knowledge of any facts likely to be at issue at the
hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. I am not responsible for issuing
marriage licenses in Wyoming. Similarly, I have no personal knowledge or control over the
determination of eligibility for benefits provided by the State of Wyoming to married couples.
These determinations are made by other individuals within the executive branch of government.
Because information related to my decisions with regard to the defense of Wyoming statutes in
this and other cases is privileged, I do not have any testimony information that would assist the
Court in its resolution of the motion for preliminary injunction.
FURTHER AFFIANT SA YETH NAUGHT.
DATED this /0 day of October, 2014.
_g: ~ -r?
Matthew H. Mead
STATE OF WYOMING
COUNTY OF LARAMIE
)
) ss
)
The foregoing AFFIDAVIT OF MATTHEW H. MEAD was subscribed and sworn to
before me by Matthew H. Mead this _jQ_ day of October, 2014.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My Commission Expires: J/-/ 3/ 2{J / G

DISTRICT OF WYOMING

Carl Oleson and Rob J ohnston; and )
Wyoming Equality, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
)
)
Defendants. )

ORDER GRANTING GOVERNOR MEADS MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA
THIS MATTER, having come before the Court on Governor Meads Motion to
Quash Subpoena, and this Court having reviewed the motion and being fully advised in
the premises,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that for the reasons set forth in the motion, Governor
Meads Motion to Quash Subpoena is granted, the subpoena is quashed, and Governor
Mead is relieved of any obligation to comply with the subpoena.
DATED this ____ day of October, 2014.

______________________________________
Scott W. Skavdahl
United States District J udge

J ames C. Kaste, (Wyo. Bar No. 6-3244)
J ared S. Crecelius (Wyo. Bar No. 6-4118)
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-7876
(307) 777-3687 fax


2:14-cv-00200 #18

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2:14-cv-00200 #18

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Peter K. Michael, (Wyo. Bar. No.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen