3:09-cv-02292 #340

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document340 Filed01/04/10 Page1 of 4
1 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

Theodore B. Olson, SBN 38137
2 tolson@gibsondunn.com
Matthew D. McGill, pro hac vice
3 Amir C. Tayrani, SBN 229609
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
4 Telephone: (202) 955-8668, Facsimile: (202) 467-0539
5 Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., SBN 132009

tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
6 Christopher D. Dusseault, SBN 177557
Ethan D. Dettmer, SBN 196046
7 Sarah E. Piepmeier, SBN 227094
Theane Evangelis Kapur, SBN 243570
8 Enrique A. Monagas, SBN 239087
333 S. Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90071
10 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

David Boies, pro hac vice
11 dboies@bsfllp.com
333 Main Street, Armonk, New York 10504
13 Jeremy M. Goldman, SBN 218888

jgoldman@bsfllp.com
14 Theodore H. Uno, SBN 248603
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900, Oakland, California 94612
16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER,
17 PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO
18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
20 KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al., CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

21 Plaintiffs,
and DECLARATION OF ETHAN D. DETTMER
22 IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH
23 Plaintiff-Intervenor, SUBPOENA BY FORMERLY “UNNAMED
v. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER”
24 DOUG SWARDSTROM
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,
25 Defendants,
26 and
PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS
27 DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al.,
28 Defendant-Intervenors.
Gibson, Dunn &

Crutcher LLP
09-CV-2292 VRW DECLARATION OF ETHAN D.DETTMER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA BY DOUG SWARDSTROM
1 I, Ethan D. Dettmer, declare as follows:
2 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and in the Northern
3 District of California. I am an partner in the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, counsel of
4 record for Plaintiffs Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo in the
5 above-captioned matter. I make this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the
6 Deposition of ProtectMarriage.com Executive Committee member Doug Swardstrom. The
7 information below is stated on personal knowledge and if called as a witness, I could and would
8 testify competently thereto.
9 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of a letter sent by
10 ProtectMarriage.com to Jim Abbott revealing the identity of ProtectMarriage.com Executive
11 Committee Member Edward Dolejsi, dated October 22, 2008.
12 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Defendant-Intervenors’
13 Response to Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Interrogatories, dated November 9, 2009.
14 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of an email from Kaylan
15 Phillips, counsel for Doug Swardstrom, to Ethan D. Dettmer, dated December 29, 2009.
16 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of a letter from Nicole Jo Moss
17 to Matthew McGill and Ethan Dettmer, dated December 15, 2009.
18 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of an email message from
19 Andrew Pugno to the Editorial Board of The Wall Street Journal, attaching a letter to the editor
20 signed by, inter alia, Doug Swardstrom as a member of the Executive Committee of
21 ProtectMarriage.com.
22 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of the Subpoena to Testify at a
23 Deposition or to Produce Documents in a Civil Action, directed to the Unnamed “Yes on 8” Ad Hoc
24 Committee Member, c/o James Bopp, Jr., dated October 26, 2009.
25 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of an email from Kaylan
26 Phillips to Ethan D. Dettmer, dated October 27, 2009.
27 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of a letter from James Bopp,
28 Jr. to Ethan D. Dettmer, dated November 9, 2009.
Gibson, Dunn &

2
Crutcher LLP
1 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the transcript
2 of the deposition of Mark Jansson, taken on December 3, 2009.
3 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the transcript
4 of the deposition of Edward Dolejsi, taken on December 16, 2009.
5 12. Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the transcript
6 of the deposition of Ronald Prentice, taken on December 17, 2009.
7 I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States, that these facts
8 are true and correct and that this Declaration is executed this 4th day of January, 2010, at San
9 Francisco, California.
10
11 /s/ Ethan D. Dettmer

Ethan D. Dettmer
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &

3
Crutcher LLP
1 ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER NO. 45
2 Pursuant to General Order No. 45 of the Northern District of California, I attest that
3 concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from each of the other signatories to this
4 document.
5 /s/ Theodore Boutrous, Jr

Theodore Boutrous, Jr.
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &

4
Crutcher LLP
Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document340-1 Filed01/04/10 Page1 of 6
Exhibit A
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW
Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document340-1
Document250-2 Filed01/04/10
Filed11/06/09 Page2
Page1ofof65
Exhibit 2
OCT. 2 3 . 2 0 0 8 8 : 3 0 A M J I M ABBOTT AND A S S O C I A T E S NO. 4846-P. 1
Filed11/06/09 Page3
Page2ofof65
October, ao, 2008
Certified Mail
Return Receint Reauested
Jim Abbott
Managing Partner
Abbott Bt Associates/Abbott Realty Group
435 4" Avenue
San Diego, CA gzioi
Dear Mr. Abbott,
We write as the Executive Committee of ProtectMarriage.com, the coalition

of churches, organizations and individuals who qualified Proposition 8 for the
November ballot. We represent the 61 percent of California voters who affirmed in
2000 that, "Only mamiage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in
California." Proposition 8 will restore what four judges took away from the
citizernry- this same definition of marriage. As you know, the majority of citizens
of California and the United States agree with us that marriage should be between
a man and a woman.
Equality California is advertising on its website that it has received a

contribution of at least $io,ooo from you. Equality California opposes traditional
marriage and i s working to defeat Proposition 8. We are sure that you would want
to review the way that they are using Abbott &Associates' name, since niai~ymore
of your clients support traditional marriage than support same sex marriage. A
copy of an advertising page from Equality California's website is enclosed for your
information.
Be assured that this is not about lifestyle or rights for they are already codified and
protected in California. It is about a meaningFul tradition - marriage, which is
ageless, key to the well-being of our society and the rearing of children. It is too
important to be left to four unelectedjurists.
915 L Street, Suite C-259 Sacramento CA 95814 916.446.2956

OCT. 2 3 . 2 0 0 8 8:31AM J I M A B B O T T AND A S S O C I A T E S NO. 4 8 4 6 P. 2
Filed11/06/09 Page4
Page3ofof65
Mr. Jim Abbott
Abbott & Associates
October 20,2008
We respectfully request that Abbott & Associates withdraw its support of

Equality California. Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMamiage.com
which will help us correct this error and restore Traditional Marriage. A donation
form is enclosed. We will be most grateful and will advertise on our website
Abbotk &Associates9generous contribution.
Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication

that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. You would leave us no other
reasonable assumption. The names of any companies and organizations that
choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to
Equality California will be published. It is only fair fop Proposition 8 supporters to
know which companies and organizations oppose traditional marriage.
We will contact you shortly to discuss your contribution sincerely hoping to

receive your positive response.
The Executive Committee of ProtectMarriage.com and the millions of

Californians supporting Proposition 8 thank you for your thoughtful
consideration of this request.
ProteetlMarriage.com
By:
Ron Prentice
Yes on Prop 8, Edward Dolejsi
Campaign Chairman Executive Director, California
". . . -. Catholic-Conference
Mark A. Jansson Andrew Pugno

Executive Committee Member General Counsel
Enclosures
915 L Street, Suite G-259 Sacramento CA 95814 916.446.2956

OCT. 2 3 . 2 0 0 8 8 : 3 1 A M J I M ABBOTT AND A S S O C I A T E S NO. 4846-P. 3
Document250-2 Filed01/04/10 Page4ofof65Page I of 6
Filed11/06/09 Page5
Sponsors
COI-porateand individual sponsors rnaltc a significant investment, providing EQCA with critically-
needccl resources to achieve equality.
If you are interested in learning more about sponsorship benefits, including Equality Awards
sponsorships, enlaii Michellc Ortiz or call her at 415.581.0005 x307.
EQCA's Sponsors Include,
$250,000 and above
$50,000 and above
$10,000 and above
bbotr antty' ..roup

\ \! ;\&\I ! f iY: ll<OlAl 5
.. . .
OCT. 2 3 . 2 0 0 8 8 : 3 1 A M J I M ABBOTT AND A S S O C I A T E S NO. 4846-P.
Filed11/06/09 Page6
Page5ofof65
Donation Form
yes;! X'III T ~ I ~ ! Enclosed is my gift OT:

$1,000 a $500 $250 $100 $50 $25 O t h e r $
(Note! There is no limf on the amount of individ~wlcantrlbutlons M this Cismpalgn)
Clreck Darrztinns (WBMAIL)

Please make your creck payable to ProtectflrrlJr.r/agc.m"- Yes on S'andmail th13f o m andpvrcheck m:
Pro[ectMarriage.com .Yes on B
PO Box 162657
Sacramento, CA 95Bl6
Credit Card ~ o ~ i a i i o n s
(Please note there is a $10.00 minimum donation)
Type of credit ~ a r d :0 Visa 0 MastcrCard 0 Amerlcan ExDress

Card Number: A I I i i i I A A A J 1 1 1 IJ Expiration Date: 11(Month) AA (Year)
Name as it appears on the card:
Address as it appears on bllllng statements:

City: State: ZIP,
Your sigllaturc: Date:
Thank you! Please provide t h e following information so we may accept your gift.
A l l fields nvarked wirh an acler.i$k (*) ate required by California Law.
*'Full name of Individual, Company o r Organization
WMailing address
*City *State *Zip County
- -u
Phone rlumber Fax number E-mail Address

... ..
*Your Occupatiun *Your Employer (If self-employed, enter name of buslnsss)
Iwill also help by:

Volunteering/speaking a t events 4 Displaying a yard signfbumper sticker
Placing a newsletter article Distributing materials
Posting a link on our Web slte 4 Wrltinq a letter to the editor
Thank you for your donation!
Conwibulions lo PmleclM3rnaoe.Com - Yes on 8 are no1 tax deduable. Coroorale. PAC and oersonsl checks are accaetable. Thcre is no I m I on Ihe amounl of individual conlfibutions.
~~ ~
Or i i r r )I' 1.. r@;.r@r .C ICr.r c , 'ep?rtr.rr. I .e :07:ro.:)r: 01!10: o.rnore F0.62" ~ J I ~ P ?1rLc'(10.?0
F I),5:. I s m l~a*n?c@rtm:ons:o:nsconr 15e .>:i: nz
rE.t[:rTIJrir rerclir, i ? .i r,'.? .rtta93les:'4nirc? ??,eer Cxo Ccr rc.l:ri*r?l . e a ( a o~!l)OC1a-~lcrar I c l e ~ o 3 r , : a ~ ' o : r i : a n o a ? n 2 ? 0 :?.w
C3 I:,? i "3.2~1OJ: (~P[.:JIS I ;lit 12 (.. 1 lj(13aqr .~:OI.E ?O aalo?i :arrr?g? S!rP 5 i . ' art? Iin5.m 1 r t.o r Ir?g.sr r3 C.c81 Inr' TI ;'i <L6-281
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document340-2 Filed01/04/10 Page1 of 8
Exhibit B
1 COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC

Charles J. Cooper (DC Bar No. 248070)*
2 ccooper@cooperkirk.com
David H. Thompson (DC Bar No. 450503)*
3 dthompson@cooperkirk.com
Howard C. Nielson, Jr. (DC Bar No. 473018)*
4 hnielson@cooperkirk.com
Nicole J. Moss (DC Bar No. 472424)*
5 nmoss@cooperkirk.com
Jesse Panuccio (DC Bar No. 981634)*
6 jpanuccio@cooperkirk.com
Peter A. Patterson (OH Bar No. 0080840)*
7 ppatterson@cooperkirk.com
1523 New Hampshire Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
9 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO

Andrew P. Pugno (CA Bar No. 206587)
10 andrew@pugnolaw.com
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630
12 ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND

Brian W. Raum (NY Bar No. 2856102)*
13 braum@telladf.org
James A. Campbell (OH Bar No. 0081501)*
14 jcampbell@telladf.org
15100 North 90th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
16 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH,

GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM,
17 MARK A. JANSSON, and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM – YES ON 8, A
PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL
18
* Admitted pro hac vice
19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
21 KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL

T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO, CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
22
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’
Plaintiffs, RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’
23
SECOND SET OF
24 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, INTERROGATORIES
25 Plaintiff-Intervenor,
26 v.
27
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official
28 capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G.
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES

CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
1 BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Attorney

General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his
2 official capacity as Director of the California
Department of Public Health and State Registrar of
3
Vital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her official
4 capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information
& Strategic Planning for the California Department
5 of Public Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his
official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County
6 of Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his official
7 capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for
the County of Los Angeles,
8
Defendants,
9
and
10
PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS
11 DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J.
KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-
12 SHING WILLIAM TAM, and MARK A.
JANSSON; and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM –
13 YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA
RENEWAL,
14
Defendant-Intervenors.
15
16
Additional Counsel for Defendant-Intervenors
17
18 ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND

Timothy Chandler (CA Bar No. 234325)
19 tchandler@telladf.org
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630
21 Jordan W. Lorence (DC Bar No. 385022)*

jlorence@telladf.org
22 Austin R. Nimocks (TX Bar No. 24002695)*
animocks@telladf.org
23 801 G Street NW, Suite 509, Washington, D.C. 20001
Telephone: (202) 393-8690, Facsimile: (202) 347-3622
24
* Admitted pro hac vice
25
26
27
28

1 Defendant-Intervenors (the “Proponents”), pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal
2 Rules of Civil Procedure, file these responses to Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Interrogatories.
3 Proponents generally reserve the right to supplement and/or amend these responses to the extent
4 required and/or allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In particular Proponents reserve
5 the right to supplement and/or amend these responses as necessitated by ongoing legal and factual
6 development, discovery and/or judicial rulings in this case.
7 RESPONSES
8 INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
9 Identify each individual likely to have discoverable information that you may use to
10 support you claims or defenses in this action, along with the subjects of that information.
11 RESPONSE:
12 Proponents specifically reserve the right to supplement and/or amend this Response as
13 necessitated by ongoing legal and factual development, discovery, and/or judicial rulings in this
14 case. Subject to that reservation, Proponents identify the following individuals as likely to have
15 discoverable information that they may use to support their claims or defenses in this action:
16 • Experts and rebuttal experts. Both Proponents’ and Plaintiffs’ experts and rebuttal experts
17 are likely to have discoverable information that Proponents may use to support their claims
18 or defenses in this action. The identity of these experts, along with the subjects of the
19 discoverable information they are likely to possess, is set forth in the reports and rebuttal
20 reports they have submitted in this action.
21 • Organizations upon which Proponents have served subpoenas. Proponents have issued
22 subpoenas to a number of organizations that opposed Proposition 8. These subpoenas
23 generally seek information related to the subject of the intent of the voters with respect to
24 Proposition 8. Proponents have taken the position that much, if not all, of this information
25 is irrelevant and/or privileged, and thus non-discoverable; nevertheless, should they fail to
26 obtain a judicial ruling consistent with those positions they may use information obtained
27 from the organizations they have subpoenaed to support their claims or defenses at trial.
28 Proponents refer Plaintiffs to the subpoenas they have issued for the identity of these
1
1 organizations.
2 • Attorney General Brown. Attorney General Brown is likely to have information related to
3 the intent of the voters with respect to Proposition 8. Proponents have taken the position
4 that much, if not all, of this information is irrelevant and/or privileged, and thus non-
5 discoverable; nevertheless, should they fail to obtain a judicial ruling consistent with those
6 positions they may use information obtained from the Attorney General to support their
7 claims or defenses at trial.
8 • City and County of San Francisco. The City and County of San Francisco is likely to have
9 information related to the intent of the voters with respect to Proposition 8. Proponents
10 have taken the position that much, if not all, of this information is irrelevant and/or
11 privileged, and thus non-discoverable; nevertheless, should they fail to obtain a judicial
12 ruling consistent with those positions they may use information obtained from San
13 Francisco to support their claims or defenses at trial.
14 San Francisco is also likely to have discoverable information related to the economic
15 impact of same-sex marriage and the same-sex and opposite-sex marriages it has licensed.
16 • Plaintiffs. The individual plaintiffs in this action—Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul
17 T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo—likely have discoverable information on a number of
18 subjects that we may use to support our claims or defenses, including the history of
19 discrimination gays and lesbians have faced; whether sexual orientation can be changed;
20 whether a married mother and father provide the optimal child-rearing environment and
21 whether excluding same-sex couples from marriage promotes this environment; whether
22 the availability of opposite-sex marriage is a meaningful option for gays and lesbians; and
23 the difference in actual practice of registered domestic partnerships, civil unions and
24 marriage, including whether married couples are generally treated differently than
25 domestic partners in governmental and non-governmental contexts.
26 • California agencies and officials upon which Proponents have served subpoenas.
27 Proponents have issued subpoenas to the California Secretary of State and the Office of
28 Vital Records in the California Department of Health. The former is the custodian of
2
1 records related to domestic partnerships; the latter of records related to marriages and
2 births. These records constitute discoverable information that we may use to support our
3 claims or defenses at trial. Proponents refer Plaintiffs to these subpoenas for additional
4 information.
5 • The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, Box 951476, Los Angeles, CA, 90095,
6 (310) 267-4382. The Williams Institute is a think tank that studies issues related to sexual
7 orientation and same-sex marriage. It is likely to have discoverable information related to
8 those issues that we may use to support our claims or defenses at trial, including
9 information related to the potential economic impact of same-sex marriage and the
10 characteristics of same-sex couples.
11 • Proponents also generally note that they may use at trial to support their claims or defenses
12 any individuals identified by Plaintiffs as possessing discoverable information.
14 Identify each individual whom you plan to call as a witness at trial in this action.
15 RESPONSE:
16 Proponents object to this Request to the extent it purports to impose obligations beyond
17 those set forth in the orders of the Court pertaining to the timing of the disclosure of the identity of
18 witnesses. See Doc # 164 at 2. Subject to and without waiving this objection, Proponents note
19 that they will, consistent with the orders of the Court, produce at the appropriate time the identity
20 of each individual they plan to call as a witness at trial in this action.
22 Identify each person who was a member of the ProtectMarriage.com executive committee
23 on or before November 4, 2008.
24 RESPONSE:
25 Proponents object to this Request as calling for information privileged from disclosure
26 under the First Amendment. As Proponents have explained, see, e.g., Hr’g of November 2, 2009,
27 Tr., the identity of members of the ProtectMarriage.com executive committee whose names have
28 never been disclosed publicly is privileged from disclosure under the First Amendment.
3
1 Without waiving this objection, Proponents state that the ProtectMarriage.com ad hoc
2 executive committee, established in connection with the Proposition 8 campaign, had four
3 members from November 27, 2007, when the official Proposition 8 campaign committee was
4 formed, through November 4, 2008. The identity of two of those individuals has been publicly
5 disclosed, and Proponents have already provided that information to Plaintiffs. Nevertheless,
6 Proponents will identify them again here:
7 • Ron Prentice
2900 Adams Street, Suite C25
8 Riverside, CA 92504
9 • Mark Jansson
9110 Union Park Way
10 Suite 118
Elk Grove, CA 95624
11
12 It was recently brought to our attention that a third member of the ad hoc executive
13 committee’s identity is also publicly known. His information is as follows:
14 • Edward Dolejsi
California Catholic Conference
15 1119 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
16
17 Producing the identity of the member whose name has not been disclosed publicly is
18 objectionable on First Amendment Grounds. Proponents have already provided Plaintiffs with the
19 names of counsel for that member:
20
• Doe No. 1
21 Represented by James Bopp, Jr.
BOPP, COLESON & BOSTROM
22 1 South 6th Street
Terre Haute, IN 47807
23 (812) 232-2434
24
25
26
27
28
4
1 Dated: November 9, 2009
7 / Fl
3 Ron'Prentice for Defendant-Intervenors

4
D COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTER\'ENORS
6 DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTI-I, GAIL J. KNIGHT,
MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-SHING W]LLIAM TAM,
7 MARK A. JANSSON, AND PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM -
YES ON 8, A PRWECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL
8
9
By: /s/Charles J, Cooper
10
Charles J. Cooper
I'
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
'9
20
21
77
23
24
25
26
27
S
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Exhibit C
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document340-3
Document333-6 Filed12/31/09 Page2
Filed01/04/10 Page1 of 4
3
Exhibit F
3
Monagas, Enrique A.
Subject: RE: Unnamed Member of the Proposition 8 Committee
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Kaylan Phillips [mailto:kphillips@bopplaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 1:50 PM
To: Dettmer, Ethan D.
Cc: jboppjr@aol.com; Boutrous Jr., Theodore J.

Mr. Dettmer,

Respectfully, it was your decision not to conduct the deposition within a reasonable time
frame. You waived your opportunity to depose our client pursuant to the subpoena by not
accepting our proposed dates or requesting additional dates within the discovery period. Our
initial objections to the subpoena were made in good faith and were timely submitted.

Please keep us informed, as necessary, of any actions you intend on undertaking regarding
this matter.

Kaylan Lytle Phillips
Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom
1 South 6th Street
Terre Haute, IN 47807‐3510
voice: 812‐232‐2434 (ex. 42)
fax: 812‐234‐3736
email: kphillips@bopplaw.com

NOTICE AND DISCLAIMERS

The preceding message may be confidential or protected by the attorney‐client privilege.
It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you
believe that this message has been sent to you in error, please (i) do not read it,
(ii) reply to
the sender that you have received the message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the
message.
To the extent this e‐mail message contains legal advice it is solely for the benefit of the
client(s) of Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom represented by the Firm in the particular matter that is
the subject of this message and may not be relied upon by any other party.

From: Dettmer, Ethan D. [mailto:EDettmer@gibsondunn.com]
To: kphillips@bopplaw.com
Cc: jboppjr@aol.com; Boutrous Jr., Theodore J.

Dear Kaylan:

Thanks for your email, which I forwarded to the Cooper & Kirk lawyers.
1
3
We now have the unredacted documents.

We do intend to take your client's deposition and obtain the requested documents, and we will
request relief from the Court if necessary. Your objections to the subpoena and the
prohibitive conditions you placed on any deposition were based on an assertion that your
client's identity was confidential, never publicly disclosed, and subject to First Amendment
protection. We had no reason to doubt the factual basis of this assertion at the time, but
as is now clear, that assertion was not correct and your client's identity had been sent to
at least two media outlets including the Wall Street Journal. Given that your assertions of
privilege and confidentiality were based on incorrect representations of fact, your
procedural objections are not well taken.

Please let me know whether you intend to produce documents and make your client available for
deposition, or whether we should seek relief from the Court.

Thanks very much and I look forward to hearing from you.

Ethan

From: kphillips [mailto:kphillips@bopplaw.com]
To: Dettmer, Ethan D.; Boutrous Jr., Theodore J.
Cc: jboppjr@aol.com; kphillips@bopplaw.com
Subject: Unnamed Member of the Proposition 8 Committee

Mr. Dettmer,

We have decided not to seek a protective order for the two documents in question. We will
inform Defendant‐Intervenors that they may produce
the documents without the redactions.

Regarding the deposition, we sent you a list of possible deposition dates along with our
timely subpoena objections. It was then your responsibility to respond and let us know which
of those available dates would work for a deposition. We did not hear back from your office.
Since you served us with a subpoena duces tecum, any documents would have been produced at
the deposition. The court ordered that discovery be completed by November 30th. So, the time
for discovery is now closed.

Thank you.

Kaylan Phillips
1 South 6th Street
voice: 812‐232‐2434 (ex. 42)
fax: 812‐234‐3736


It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you
believe that this message has been sent to you in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii)
reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy
the message.
2
Exhibit D
Cooper & Kirk

Lawyers
A Professional Limited Liability Company
1523 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.
Nicole J. Moss Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 220-9600
nmoss@cooperkirk.com Fax (202) 220-9601
December 15, 2009
BY EMAIL and HAND DELIVERY
Matthew McGill, Esq.

Ethan Dettmer, Esq.
1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-5306
Re: Perry, et. al. v. Schwarzenegger, et. al., (U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., C-09-2292 VRW)
Dear Matt and Ethan:
Enclosed herewith please find a supplemental production of non-privileged documents

that we have determined are responsive to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production.
The bulk of these documents are e-mail communications that one of

ProtectMarriage.com’s spokespersons, Sonja Eddings Brown, had with individual reporters in
the course of distributing press releases and media advisories. Likewise, a handful of the
documents are communications from Andrew Pugno to individual reporters or radio and
television personnel. We had previously produced the underlying press releases and media
advisories, but had not included the surrounding e-mails with reporters. Upon further
consideration of Plaintiffs’ Request No. 1, we have determined that, under its broadest reading,
these communications constitute emails distributed to “members of the media” regarding
Proposition 8, even though the emails themselves were clearly not for public distribution.
With respect to the above noted communications, I am obliged to bring to your attention
one specific document. It is a communication from Mr. Pugno to a member of the press
concerning requested corrections to a news article. The communication inadvertently identified
a member of the protectmarriage.com executive committee who has otherwise remained
anonymous outside of the campaign. This document has not been made public and thus this Doe
member’s identity is still not publicly known. Pursuant to instructions from this Doe member’s
counsel, we have produced the document in redacted form.
We are also supplementing our production with some additional materials related to the
organization of which Dr. Bill Tam is the Executive Director – the Traditional Family Coalition
(“TFC”). In light of Dr. Tam’s testimony and requests by counsel at Dr. Tam’s deposition, we
have concluded that these documents fall outside of a claim of First Amendment privilege. As
his deposition makes clear, you are already aware of the existence of TFC’s website
(http://tfcus.homestead.com/), on which it is possible more responsive materials may reside.
Matthew McGill, Esq.
Ethan Dettmer, Esq.
December 15, 2009
Page 2 of 2
Lastly, many of the remaining documents are “blast” emails and flyers, similar to those
previously produced. We could not verify with certainty that these materials were included in
our initial production effort that was geared toward identifying and producing all such
documents, so out of an abundance of caution, we are providing (or re-providing) them herewith.
Sincerely,
Nicole Jo Moss
Cc: All counsel (w/o enclosures)

Exhibit E
5
Exhibit B
5
REDACTED
DEFINT_PM_003660
5
DEFINT_PM_003661
5
DEFINT_PM_003662
5
DEFINT_PM_003663
Exhibit F
A 0 88A (Rev. 01/09) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition or to Produce Documents in a Civil Action
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
for the
Northern District of California
Kristin M. Perry, et al. )

Plainlzff 1
v. ) Civil Action No. 09-cv-2292 VRW
Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al. 1
) (If the action is pending in another district, state where:
Defendant 1
SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION
OR TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: Unnamed "Yes on 8" Ad Hoc Committee Member

C/OJames Bopp, Jr., BOPP, COLESON & BOSTROM, 1 South 6th St., Terre Haute, IN 47807
d Testimony: YOU ARE COMMANDE D to appear at the time, date, and place set forth below to testify at a
deposition to be taken in this civil action. If you are an organization that is not a party in this case, you must designate
one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on your behalf
about the following matters, or those set forth in an attachment:
-
Place: GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP Date and Time:
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 11/09/2009 09:30
San Francisco. CA 94105-2933
The deposition will be recorded by this method: Both stenoara~hicallvand by videotape.

- - - - -
@fproduction: You, or your representatives, must also bring with you to the deposition the following documents,
electronically stored information, or objects, and permit their inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the
material:
S e e attached EXHIBIT A for list of requested documents and electronically stored information.
The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena, and Rule
45 (d) and (e), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so, are
attached.
The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name ofparty) Plaintiffs
Kristin M. Perry, et al. ,who issues or requests this subpoena, are:
Ethan Dettmer (EDettmer@gibsondunn.com)
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000, San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
T: (415) 393-8292; F: (415) 374-8444
A 0 88A (Rev. 01 109) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition or to Produce Documents in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No. 09-CV-2292VRW
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.)
This subpoena for (name of individual and tille,.fany)

--
was received by me on (date)
Cl I personally served the subpoena on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or
CJ I left the subpoena at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)
,a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) ,and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or
0 I served the subpoena on (name of individual) ,who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name oforganization)
on (date) ; or
CJ I returned the subpoena unexecuted because -

- ; or
Cl Other (spec~fy):
Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also
tendered to the witness fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of
$
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date: -
Server's signature
Printed name and title
Server's address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

A 0 88A (Rev. 01109) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition or to Produce Documents in a Civil Action (Page 3)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), and (e) (Effective 12/1/07)
(c) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena. (d) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.
(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or (1) Protlucing Documents or Electronically Stored Znformadbn.
attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically
reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a stored information:
person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this (A)Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce
duty and impose an appropriate sanction -which may include lost documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary
earnings and reasonable attorney's fees - on a party or attorney course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to
who fails to comply. the categories in the demand.
(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection. (B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not
(A)Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce SpeciJied If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing
documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or electronically stored information, the person responding must
to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or
place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear in a reasonably usable form or forms.
for a deposition, hearing, or trial. (C) Electronically Stored Infarmation Produced in Only One
(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or Form. The person responding need not produce the same
tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or electronically stored information in more than one form.
attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to (D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person
inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored
to inspecting the premises - or to producing electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably
information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel
served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show
days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue
following rules apply: burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless
(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows
party may move the issuing court for an order compelling production good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The
or inspection. court may specify conditions for the discovery.
(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and (2) Claiming Privilege or Protecfion
the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's ( A )Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed
officer from significant expense resulting from compliance. information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to
(3) Quashing or Modifling a Sulpoena. protection as trial-preparation material must:
( A ) When Required. On timely motion, the issuing court must (i) expressly make the claim; and
quash or modify a subpoena that: (ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents,
(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without
(ii) requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the
to travel more than 100 miles from where that person resides, is parties to assess the claim.
employed, or regularly transacts business in person -except that, (B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a
subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iii), the person may be commanded to subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-
attend a trial by traveling from any such place within the state where preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any
the trial is held; party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it.
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or
no exception or waiver applies; or destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use
(iv) subjects a person to undue burden. or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take
( B ) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it
a subpoena, the issuing court may, on motion, quash or modify the before being notified; and may promptly present the information to
subpoena if it requires: the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The person
(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, who produced the information must preserve the information until
development, or commercial information; the claim is resolved.
(ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that
does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from (e) Contempt. The issuing court may hold in contempt a person
the expert's study that was not requested by a party; or who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the
(iii) a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to incur subpoena. A nonparty's failure to obey must be excused if the
substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial. subpoena purports to require the nonparty to attend or produce at a
(C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances place outside the limits of Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii).
described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or
modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under
specified conditions if the serving party:
(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that
cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship; and
(ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably
compensated.
EXHIBIT A
DEFINITIONS:
1. "You" and "your" mean the person identified in the Subpoena to which this Exhibit
is attached. It includes all agents or representatives of that person.
2. "Proposition 8" means the proposition that was placed on the November 2008 ballot
in the State of California and became known as "Proposition 8" for purposes of that election. No
reference to "Proposition 8" shall be construed as limited by the date on which Proposition 8
received its official number ("8") or ballot title on the November 2008 California ballot.
3. "Document" shall be synonymous in meaning and equal in scope to the broadest
meaning provided by Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including without limitation,
hard copies, electronic documents, electronic or computerized data compilations, software, software
images, or downloads. This term shall apply to documents, whether in hard copy or electronic
form, on your computers or the computers of your agents or representatives, whether provided by
you to such individuals or otherwise.
4. "Communication~y
means the transmittal of information in the form of facts, ideas,
inquiries, thoughts, or otherwise, and without limitation as to means or method.

5. "Protect Marriage" means Proposition 8 Campaign Committee ProtectMarriage.com
- Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal.

6. The terms "any," "all," "each," and "every" should be understood in either their most
or least inclusive sense as necessary to bring within the scope of the discovery request all responses
that might otherwise be construed to be outside of their scope.
7. Each of the words "reflecting," "relating," "supporting," "concerning," "evidencing,"
and "referring" as used herein include the common meanings of all those terms, as well as indirect
and direct references to the subject matter set forth in the document request.
8. The words "and" and "or" shall be construed conjunctively or disjunctively,
whichever makes the request most inclusive.
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. In producing documents and things, you are required to furnish all documents or
things in your possession, custody, or control, or known or available to you, regardless of whether
such documents or things are possessed directly by you or your agents, representatives, accountants,
attorneys, investigators, and consultants.
2. All documents should be produced in the same order as they are kept or maintained
by you in the ordinary course of business, or the documents should be organized and labeled to
correspond to the categories of the documents requested below.
3. All electronically stored information should be produced in the same manner as it is
kept in the ordinary course of business, or that information should be organized and labeled to
correspond to the categories in these requests.
4. If you object to a portion or an aspect of a request, state the grounds for your
objection with specificity. If any document called for by these requests is withheld because you
claim that such information is protected under the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine,
or other privilege or doctrine, you are requested to so state, specifying for each such document its
title, subject matter, sender, author, each person to whom the original or copy was circulated,
recipients of copies, the persons present during the communication, the identity of the privilege
being asserted, and the basis upon which the privilege is claimed.
5. If production of any portion of a document is required pursuant to these requests,
produce the entirety of that document.
6. If any document cannot be produced in full, produce to the extent possible,
specifying the reasons for your inability to produce the remainder and stating whatever information,
knowledge, or belief you do have concerning the portion not produced.
7. Each request applies to the period fiom January 1,2006 through and including the
date of production.
REQUESTS:
1. All versions of any documents that reflect communications relating to Proposition 8
between you and those who (1) had any role in managing or directing ProtectMarriage.com or the
2
EXHIBIT A
Yes on 8 campaign, or (2) provided advice, counseling, information, or services with respect to the
efforts to encourage persons to vote for Proposition 8 or otherwise to educate persons about
Proposition 8, including its meaning, intent, effects if enacted, or effects if rejected; including
communications among and between any two or more of the following persons or entities:
Defendant-Intervenors, members of the "Yes on 8" campaign's Ad Hoc Committee, Frank
Schubert, Jeff Flint, Sonia Eddings Brown, Andrew Pugno, Chip White, Ron Prentice, Cheri
Spriggs Hernandez, Rick Ahern, Laura Saucedo Cunningham, Schubert Flint Public Affairs,
Lawrence Research, Bader & Associates, Bieber Communications, Candidates Outdoor Graphic
Service Inc., Cardinal Communication Strategies, Church Communication Network Inc., The
Monaco Group, Connell Donatelli, Message Impact Consulting, K Street Communications,
Marketing Communications Services, Sterling Corp, and JRM Enterprises.
2. All documents, including without limitation literature, pamphlets, flyers, direct mail,
advertisements, emails, text messages, press releases, or other materials, that were distributed to
voters or potential voters in coordination with Protect Marriage regarding Proposition 8.
Exhibit G
Monagas, Enrique A.
From: Kaylan Phillips [kphillips@bopplaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:11 AM
To: Dettmer, Ethan D.; Monagas, Enrique A.
Cc: JBoppjr@aol.com
Subject: RE: Perry v. Schwarzenegger, N.D. Cal. No. C 09-2292 VRW
Mr. Dettmer,

We’ve reviewed the subpoena. We do need more time to finalize our objections. However, so that we may begin to
come to an agreement, we are providing an initial list of requirements below.

1) Jim is unavailable on November 9th as he will be arguing before the Eastern District of Louisiana on that day. We
will seek our client’s availability and provide alternative dates as soon as possible.
2) Regarding the deposition itself:
a. We do not agree to the deposition being videotaped;
b. Our client will not disclose his or her identity at any point.
3) Regarding any document production: all identifying information will be redacted prior to production.
4) Further, we will seek a protective order. We must have this order in place prior to the deposition. While we are
still finalizing what will be included, at a minimum it will include:
a. All protections being afforded to the Proposition 8 committee;
b. Specific protections to preserve our client’s anonymity;
c. An agreement that, if our client’s identity is discovered, the parties will agree to keep the client
anonymous (absent a court order to the contrary).
I look forward to working with you.

Kaylan Lytle Phillips
1 South 6th Street
voice: 812‐232‐2434 (ex. 42)
fax: 812‐234‐3736


It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you believe
that this message has been sent to you in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to
the sender that you have received the message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the message.
To the extent this e‐mail message contains legal advice it is solely for the benefit of the client(s)
of Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom represented by the Firm in the particular matter that is the
subject of this message and may not be relied upon by any other party.

1
From: EDettmer@gibsondunn.com
To: jboppjr@aol.com
CC: EMonagas@gibsondunn.com
Sent: 10/26/2009 6:54:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: Perry v. Schwarzenegger, N.D. Cal. No. C 09-2292 VRW
Dear Jim:
Thanks again for taking the time to talk with us earlier today, and thanks very much for accepting service of this
subpoena by email on your client's behalf. As we discussed, the attached subpoena is directed to "Unnamed
'Yes on 8' Ad Hoc Committee Member" because the Prop 8 Proponents have not divulged the individual's name.
Although we have noticed the production and deposition for November 9 here in San Francisco, we would
certainly like to discuss with you your client's responses and the time and place of deposition so as to make them
as convenient as possible, while still abiding by the Court's schedule.
For your convenience, I have also attached copies of the Court's recent orders related to the Prop 8 Proponents'
First Amendment objections.
I look forward to talking with you again shortly.
Best,
Ethan
___________________________
Ethan D. Dettmer
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
San Francisco, California 94105
Phone: (415) 393-8292
Fax: (415) 374-8444
<<2009-10-26 Plainitffs' Subpoena to Unnamed Yes on 8 Ad Hoc Committee Member.pdf>> <<2009-10-01

Court Order re Protective Order.pdf>> <<2009-10-23 Court Order Denying Motion to Stay.pdf>>
==============================================================================
This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has
been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and
then immediately delete this message.
==============================================================================
2
Exhibit H
JAMES BOPP, JR.1 BOPP, COLESON & BOSTROM THOMAS J. MARZEN

Senior Associates ATTORNEYS AT LAW (1946 2007)
RICHARD E. COLESON1 (not a partnership)
BARRY A. BOSTROM1 E MAIL ADDRESSES
jboppjr@aol.com
Associates THE NATIONAL BUILDING
rcoleson@bopplaw.com
RANDY ELF2 1 South Sixth Street bbostrom@bopplaw.com
JEFFREY P. GALLANT3 TERRE HAUTE, INDIANA 47807 3510 relf@bopplaw.com
ANITA Y. WOUDENBERG1 jgallant@bopplaw.com
JOSIAH S. NEELEY4 awoudenberg@bopplaw.com
JOSEPH E. LA RUE5 Telephone 812/232 2434 Facsimile 812/235 3685 jneeley@bopplaw.com
SARAH E. TROUPIS6 jlarue@bopplaw.com
KAYLAN L. PHILLIPS7 stroupis@bopplaw.com
JOSEPH A. VANDERHULST 1 kphillips@bopplaw.com
SCOTT F. BIENIEK8 jvanderhulst@bopplaw.com
ZACHARY S. KESTER1 sbieniek@bopplaw.com
1
admitted in Ind.
zkester@bopplaw.com
2
admitted in N Y and Penn.
3
admitted in V a.
4
5
admitted in Tex. November 9, 2009
admitted in O h.
6
admitted in W is.
7
admitted in O kla.
8
admitted in Ill.
Re: Perry v. Schwarzenegger, et al.,
Civil Action No. 09-cv-2292 (N.D. CA)
Via facsimile and electronic mail
Ethan Dettmer (edettmer@gibsondunn.com)

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP
555 Mission Street
Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
Fax: (415) 374-8444
Dear Mr. Dettmer,
I write on behalf of the Unnamed “Yes on 8” Ad Hoc Committee Member (“Unnamed

Committee Member”) in response to the October 26, 2009, non-party subpoena issued to the
Unnamed Committee Member in the above-referenced case. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 45(c)(2)(B), the Unnamed Committee Member objects to the call for testimony and
objects to production of documents pursuant to your subpoena and to Exhibit A attached thereto.
On behalf of the Unnamed Committee Member, we herein provide specific objections to

the subpoena. These objections are in addition to the objections noted in the email we sent on
October 27, 2009. Among other comments, that email stated that the Unnamed Committee
Members (1) objects to a videotaped deposition; (2) objects to disclosing any identifying
information; and (3) objects to producing any documents without a protective order in place.
Furthermore, as noted in the email, we have consulted the Unnamed Committee Member’s
Mr. Ethan Dettmer

November 9, 2009
Page 2
schedule and the following dates are available for deposition: November 18, November 19,
November 20, or November 24.
Despite these objections, the Unnamed Committee Member reserves any and all
objections as to competency, relevance, materiality, privilege, admissibility, or any other grounds
on which an objection may be made. The Unnamed Committee Member expressly reserves the
right to object to further discovery into the subject matter of these requests. Any objection that
inadvertently discloses privileged documents/information is not intended to and shall not be
deemed or construed to constitute a waiver of any privilege or right of the Unnamed Committee
Member.
General Objections
1. The Unnamed Committee Member objects to the Requests to the extent that they purport to
call for the production of documents/information that: (a) contain privileged attorney-client
communications; (b) constitute attorney work product; (c) disclose the mental impressions,
conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of any attorneys or other representatives of the
Unnamed Committee Member; (d) were prepared in anticipation of litigation; or (e) are
otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable privileges, immunities, laws, or rules.
While the Unnamed Committee Member 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.
2. The Unnamed Committee Member specifically incorporates by reference the objections and
arguments set forth by Defendant-Intervenors in the following: (a) Defendant-Intervenors’
responses to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests; (b) Defendant-Intervenors’ Motion for
Protective Order (Doc. 187); (c) Defendant-Intervenors’ Reply in Support of Motion for
Protective Order (Doc. 197); and (d) in any stay and/or appeals papers Defen-
dant-Intervenors have filed or 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. The Unnamed Committee Member objects to the Requests to the extent that they are vague,
not limited in scope, unreasonably broad and burdensome, or beyond the scope of either
category of permissible discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). See Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1) advisory committee’s note (2000).
4. The Unnamed Committee Member objects to the instructions accompanying the Requests
to the extent that they purport to impose obligations beyond those imposed by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure or local rules and to the extent they require the Unnamed Commit-
Mr. Ethan Dettmer

November 9, 2009
Page 3
tee Member to conduct an unreasonable search for responsive documents or a search for
documents that are not discoverable under Rule 26(b)(1), requiring a search in locations
where the Unnamed Committee Member does not believe responsive materials are likely to
be found, and requiring a restoration and review of electronic data tapes containing an
unknown volume of archived data that is not readily available.
5. The Unnamed Committee Member objects to the subpoena as unduly burdensome and
beyond the scope of obligations imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to the
extent that it seeks information and documents that: (a) are already in Plaintiffs’ possession;
(b) are duplicative of documents already produced by Defendant-Intervenors; or (c) are as
equally available to Plaintiffs from other sources that are more convenient, less burden-
some, and/or less expensive. To the extent Plaintiffs’ Requests place an obligation on the
Unnamed Committee Member to produce documents and information from entities and/or
individuals who are not uniquely within the Unnamed Committee Member’s custody and
control, the Requests are objectionable. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(ii).
6. The Unnamed Committee Member objects to the subpoena to the extent the benefit of it is
outweighed by its lack of importance in resolving the issues at stake in this case. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(i), (iii) (discovery cannot be “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or
. . . obtain[able] from some other source . . .” and is limited if “the burden or expense of the
proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account . . . [inter alia] the
importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues.”)
7. The Unnamed Committee Member objects to the subpoena as overly broad to the extent it
seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party in the above
captioned case or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Because virtually all of the discovery sought by the subpoena
is legally irrelevant and not designed to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, it
would be objectionably burdensome for the Unnamed Committee Member to have to
collect, review, produce, and/or log all such documents. Because of the irrelevant nature of
these materials, the time and expense that would be required to gather and produce them
cannot be reasonably justified.
8. The Unnamed Committee Member objects to the subpoena to the extent that it seeks
information, documents, or other materials protected from disclosure by the First Amend-
ment. Communications that reflect core First Amendment activity e.g., political views,
legislative or political strategy, religious beliefs, voter intent, political speech, and associa-
tional activity are not an appropriate subject of discovery and are protected from disclo-
sure under applicable law.
9. The Unnamed Committee Member objects to the subpoena to the extent it calls for the
Mr. Ethan Dettmer

November 9, 2009
Page 4
production of documents and information postdating the passage of Proposition 8 in

November of 2008. Not only are such communications and materials irrelevant to any
conceivable issue in this lawsuit, their disclosure will violate the Unnamed Committee
Member’s First Amendment rights.
10. The Unnamed Committee Member objects to the subpoena on the grounds that it imposes
undue burden and expense in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), including but not limited to
requiring the Unnamed Committee Member to produce electronically-stored information
that is not reasonably accessible and/or the production of which would entail substantial
cost. To the extent the Unnamed Committee Member is required to 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.
11. The Unnamed Committee Member objects to the subpoena, and to the definitions and
instructions included therewith, 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) and the
order of October 23, 2009 (Doc. 237) issued by the District Court for the Northern District
of California in this case. Specifically, the Court requires that any document requests must
“share a clear nexus with the information put before the voters,” for example, to be
relevant. Doc. 214 at 16. “Discovery not sufficiently related to what the voters could have
considered is not relevant and will not be permitted.” Id.
12. The Unnamed Committee Member objects to the subpoena as being inconsistent with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(1), which requires your clients to “take reasonable
steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense” on third parties. A search of the
Unnamed Committee Member’s files for the material identified in the subpoena would
entail an enormous amount of staff time by a non-party. Such a burden is unreasonable in
any circumstance, but particularly onerous here in light of Plaintiffs’ ability to obtain the
information necessary for their claims and defenses elsewhere.
13. The Unnamed Committee Member objects to the extent the subpoena seeks information
and/or documents protected from discovery by privileges arising from the First Amend-
ment, including but not limited to the rights to associate and to petition the government.
14. The Unnamed Committee Member objects to Plaintiffs seeking to conduct a deposition as
such an event would violate the Unnamed Committee Member’s constitutional rights of
privacy and association. Furthermore, there is no evidence that such testimony is relevant
or would lead to the production of admissible evidence, especially beyond that already
produced by Intervenor-Defendants or already in the possession, custody, or control of the
Mr. Ethan Dettmer

November 9, 2009
Page 5
Plaintiffs.
Request #1
15. Specifically, the Unnamed Committee Member objects to Request #1 as calling for
irrelevant documents and documents privileged from disclosure under the First Amend-
ment specifically including documents not distributed to the electorate at large.
16. The Unnamed Committee Member objects to these Requests to the extent that they are
broader than the requests presented to the parties. Specifically, Request #1 seeks all
communications relating to Proposition 8, with no contextual filters like the ones served
upon the parties and required by the Court. Furthermore, the Unnamed Committee
Member objects to the extent that these Requests are broader than even the understanding
between the parties. For example, the parties had an understanding that Plaintiffs were not
seeking internal communications among and between the Defendant-Intervenors. No such
narrowing is present in this Request.
17. The Unnamed Committee Member objects to Request #1 to the extent that it is contrary to
the Court’s October 1, 2009, and October 23, 2009, orders. This request is far too broad
and is not sufficiently related to what voters could have considered. It is not limited to
campaign strategy, id. at 17, messages to be conveyed to voters, id., nor is it limited to
communications just between Proponents and those with a directorial or managerial role.
Id.
18. The Unnamed Committee Member objects to Request #1 as it is unclear what additional
communications apart from those already requested from the Defendant-Intervenors are
being requested here. On its face, this Request appears to be seeking any communication
related to Proposition 8 in any way. In addition to being objectionable on First Amendment
grounds, this incredibly broad Request is objectionable because of the undue burden it
would impose on the Unnamed Committee Member if required 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).
Request #2
19. Specifically, the Unnamed Committee Member objects to Request #2 as documents

responsive to this Request have already been produced by Defendants-Intervenors.
As a non-party, the Unnamed Committee Member believes the discovery sought by the
subpoena far exceeds the permissible scope under the Federal and Local Rules. The burden and
expense potentially imposed by the subpoena far outweigh the need for discovery.
Mr. Ethan Dettmer

November 9, 2009
Page 6
Please consider this letter, in addition to the email sent on October 27, 2009, to be efforts to
resolve a discovery dispute without court action. Please advise us whether Plaintiffs will
withdraw or modify the subpoena in light of the Unnamed Committee Member’s objections.
Sincerely,
BOPP , COLESON & BOSTROM
James Bopp, Jr.

Exhibit I
1
3
4 KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA )
B. STIER, PAUL T. KATAMI, )
5 JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO, )
)
6 Plaintiffs, ) No. 09-CV-2292
) VRW
7 vs. )
)
8 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in )
his official capacity as )
9 Governor of California; )
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR. in )
10 his official capacity as )
Attorney General of )
11 California; MARK B. )
HORTON, in his official )
12 capacity as Director of )
the California Department )
13 of Public Health and )
State Registrar of Vital )
14 Statistics; LINETTE )
SCOTT, in her official )
15 capacity as Deputy )
Director of Health )
16 Information & Strategic )
Planning for the )
17 California Department of )
Public Health; PATRICK )
18 O'CONNELL, in his )
official capacity as )
19 Clerk-Recorder for the )
County of Alameda; and )
20 DEAN C. LOGAN, in his )
official capacity as )
21 Registrar-Recorder/County )
Clerk for the County of )
22 Los Angeles, )
)
23 Defendants, )
)
24
25
2
1
and
2
PROPOSITION & OFFICIAL
3 PROPONENTS DENNIS
HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J.
4 KNIGHT, MARTIN F.
GUTIERREZ, HAKSHING
5 WILLIAM TAM, and MARK A.
JANSSON; and
6 PROTECTMARRIAGE COM-YES
ON 8; A PROJECT OF
7 CALIFORNIA RENEWAL,
8 Defendant-Intervenors.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 DEPOSITION OF MARK A. JANSSON
16 Folsom, California
17 Thursday, December 3, 2009
18
19
20
21
22 REPORTED BY: YVONNE FENNELLY, CSR NO. 5495
California Certified Realtime Reporter
23
24 FILE NO.: 35818
25 Pages 1 - 304
54
1 Q. And who were the four members of the
2 executive committee for ProtectMarriage.com - Yes
3 on 8 during 2008?
4 MS. MOSS: To the extent that the response
5 to that question would require you to reveal the
6 identity of any anonymous members of the executive
7 committee, I would instruct you not to provide
8 that information, but you can provide any
9 publically-available information.
10 THE WITNESS: Ron Prentice, Ned Dolejsi,
11 myself, and John Doe.
12 BY MR. UNO:
13 Q. Was Mr. Pugno a member of the
14 ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8 executive committee
15 in 2008?
16 A. He was our legal counsel.
17 Q. He was legal counsel to the executive
18 committee -- sorry.
19 Was Mr. Pugno legal counsel to the
20 executive committee of ProtectMarriage.com - Yes
21 on 8 during 2008?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Is there a distinction between Mr. Pugno
24 being legal counsel to the executive committee of
25 ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8 during 2008 and his

304
1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
3
4 I, YVONNE FENNELLY, hereby certify that
5 the witness in the foregoing deposition was by me
6 duly affirmed to testify to the truth, the whole
7 truth and nothing but the truth, in the
8 within-entitled cause; that said deposition was
9 taken at the time and place herein named; that the
10 deposition is a true record of the witness's
11 testimony as reported to the best of my ability,
12 by me, a duly Certified Shorthand Reporter and
13 disinterested person, and was thereafter
14 transcribed under my direction into typewriting by
15 computer; that the witness was given an
16 opportunity to read, correct and sign the
17 deposition.
18 I further certify that I am not interested
19 in the outcome of said action nor connected with
20 nor related to any of the parties in said action
21 nor to their respective counsel.
22
23
24 YVONNE FENNELLY, CCRR, CSR No. 5495
25
Exhibit J
Edward Dolejsi December 16, 2009
Elk Grove, CA
Page 1
3 KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al., )
4 Plaintiffs, )
5 and )No. 09-CV-2292 VRW
6 )
7 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,)
8 Plaintiff-Intervenor )
9 vs. )
10 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al. )
11 Defendants, )
12 and )
13 PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS)
14
15 DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al. )
16 Defendant-Intervenors. )
17 Videotaped Deposition of
18 EDWARD DOLEJSI
19 Wednesday, December 16, 2009
20 --o0o--
21 Reported by: CATHERINE D. LAPLANTE
22 CSR License No. 10140
23
24
25
Alderson Reporting Company

1-800-FOR-DEPO
Elk Grove, CA
Page 74 Page 76
1 A. I don't recall the exact dates. My own recollection is 1 Q. How did it come to be? Were you invited? Did you call
2 that there was ProtectMarriage.com prior to California 2 somebody? How did you become a participant?
3 Renewal, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. 3 A. I -- hard to recollect whether I was -- I was
4 Q. Okay. Were you a member or were you on the Executive 4 interested as the initiative moved towards qualification to
5 Committee of ProtectMarriage.com prior to the time it was 5 be more directly involved in the ProtectMarriage.com effort.
6 ProtectMarriage.com, Yes on 8, a Project of California 6 I think it was at my instigation to ask the others if I
7 Renewal? 7 could attend their meetings at that point and be part of the
8 A. No. 8 Executive Committee.
9 Q. Maybe for simplicity sake in this deposition we can 9 Q. Okay.
10 just refer to ProtectMarriage.com to mean 10 A. I was aware of their ongoing meetings prior to that.
11 ProtectMarriage.com, Yes on 8, a Project of California 11 Q. Okay. Now, in this litigation what we have learned,
12 Renewal so we don't have to say the whole title each time; 12 just to give you some background of what's been happening in
13 is that fair? 13 our case, is that there are four members, four identified
14 A. That's fair as long as we distinguish between the 14 members of the Executive Committee and one unidentified
15 latter description, which was a formal gathering of the 15 member of the Executive Committee, if I'm remembering
16 committee. I mean, we gathered as the Protect Marriage 16 correctly. Yourself, Mr. Hollingsworth --
17 Committee on Proposition 8. Prior to that time, there was a 17 Sorry. That's not correct.
18 ProtectMarriage.com of which I was not a participant on the 18 MS. MOSS: That's not correct.
19 Executive Committee. 19 MR. DETTMER: I'm getting the proponents and the
20 Q. Okay. So I guess with -- 20 Executive Committee members --
21 A. As long as we are referring to the organization called 21 Q. Well, let me ask you this: What's your understanding
22 ProtectMarriage.com, as you've described it, subsequent to 22 of the -- of who was on the Executive Committee of
23 Proposition 8, I'm in agreement with describing it that way, 23 ProtectMarriage.com during the time you were on it?
24 ProtectMarriage.com. 24 MS. MOSS: And in answering that, I'm going to instruct
25 Q. Okay. Maybe let me ask you just a background question. 25 you not to reveal the name of the anonymous Executive
Page 75 Page 77
1 Do you remember when you became -- when you joined the 1 Committee member.
2 Executive Committee of this organization, when in time? 2 THE WITNESS: Understood.
3 A. Roughly, yes. May or June of 2008. 3 It was Ron Prentice, Andy Pugno and Mark Jansson, and
4 Q. Okay. 4 Andy Pugno was the General Counsel.
5 A. Yeah. 5 Q. BY MR. DETTMER: Okay. And it was your understanding
6 Q. So at that point obviously Proposition 8 had been 6 that he wasn't a part of the Executive Committee?
7 placed on the ballot if it qualified for the ballot? 7 A. Correct. He was our General Counsel.
8 A. I think it was subsequent to its qualifying for the 8 Q. And then -- an individual who hasn't been publicly
9 ballot. I think shortly before it qualified for the ballot 9 identified, as far as you know?
10 because the indications were it was going to qualify, and I 10 A. That's correct.
11 wanted to be a participant in the Executive Committee at 11 Q. So four members plus Mr. Pugno as General Counsel?
12 that point. 12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Okay. 13 Q. Okay.
14 A. I don't know the exact date. 14 A. Four participants.
15 Q. That's fair. Best of your recollection is it was 15 Q. Fair enough.
16 approximately the time it was qualified? 16 A. Again, I don't think we deliberated membership
17 A. Late spring of '08. 17 criteria.
18 Q. Okay. And obviously before it qualified for the 18 Q. And I think you're also aware that there are official
19 ballot, it couldn't have been known as Yes on 8 because 19 proponents of Proposition 8; is that correct?
20 nobody knew it was named 8? 20 A. It is.
21 A. Correct. 21 Q. And who do you understand those people to be?
22 Q. How did you become a member, or how did you become a 22 A. I should probably know them all intimately. I don't.
23 participant in the Executive Committee of 23 Q. Okay.
24 ProtectMarriage.com? 24 A. Dennis Hollingsworth, a gentleman by the name of
25 A. What do you mean by how? 25 Mr. Tam. I can't remember whether -- I think Gayle Knight
20 (Pages 74 to 77)
1-800-FOR-DEPO
Elk Grove, CA
Page 166 Page 168

1 let's close the deposition for now. We'll see what happens 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2 with the 9th Circuit or any other rulings that occur, and we 2
3 may or may not see you again at least before trial, so thank 3 I, CATHERINE D. LAPLANTE, a Certified Shorthand
4 you. 4 Reporter for the State of California, do hereby certify:
5 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 5 That I am a disinterested person herein; that the
6 MR. SWEENEY: Thank you again. 6 witness, EDWARD DOLEJSI, in the foregoing deposition, was by
7 MR. DETTMER: Any questions? 7 me duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth and
8 MS. MOSS: I have no questions. 8 nothing but the truth; that the deposition was reported in
9 MR. DETTMER: We're off the record. 9 shorthand by me, CATHERINE D. LAPLANTE, a Certified
10 VIDEO OPERATOR: This ends tape three, Volume I, of the 10 Shorthand Reporter of the State of California, and
11 deposition of Edward Dolejsi. This also ends his deposition 11 thereafter transcribed into typewriting; that the foregoing
12 we are off the record at 3:19 p.m. 12 is a true and correct record of the testimony given by the
13 THE REPORTER: Will you be ordering? 13 witness.
14 MR. DETTMER: Yes. 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereby certify this transcript at
15 THE REPORTER: Mr. Sweeney, are you ordering a copy? 15 my office in the County of Placer, State of California, this
16 MR. SWEENEY: I don't think so. 16 23rd day of December, 2009.
17 THE REPORTER: Will you be ordering? 17
18 MS. MOSS: Yes. Absolutely. I'd like a rough as soon 18
19 as possible. 19 __________________________________
20 Also, we just need the witness to have two weeks to 20 CATHERINE D. LAPLANTE, CSR #10140
21 read and sign so we can get the transcript and exhibits for 21
22 trial. If we can get a rough draft as soon as possible and 22
23 final on the 28th of December with exhibits scanned. 23
24 The witness -- after we get the transcript on the 28th, 24
25 he'll have two weeks to read and sign, and you can release 25
Page 167
1 the original for us to use in court.
2 THE REPORTER: What will you be ordering?
3 MS. MOSS: Rough and E-tran is fine. Well, go ahead
4 and give me the hard copy. I'll have exhibits scanned and
5 attached to the hard copy.
6 THE REPORTER: Do you want exhibits scanned and sent to
7 you?
8 MR. DETTMER: I want a hard copy, hard copy exhibits.
9 And E-tran of the transcript.
10 (Today's proceedings concluded at 3:26 p.m.)
11
12
13 ____________________________
14 Edward Dolejsi
15
16
17 Subscribed and Sworn to before me this ________________
18 of ________________, 200______.
19
20
21
22 ___________________________
23 Notary Public
24
25 My Commission Expires:
43 (Pages 166 to 168)

1-800-FOR-DEPO
Exhibit K
Page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
---oOo---
KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs. Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,
et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
Deposition of
RONALD PRENTICE
Volume I
Thursday, December 17, 2009
REPORTED BY: LESLIE CASTRO, CSR #8876
BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES

Court Reporting Services
41 Sutter Street, Suite 1605
San Francisco, California 94104
(415) 982-4849
14 (Pages 50 to 53)
Page 50 Page 52
10:01:57 1 compensation; is that correct? 10:05:23 1 A. It was created by an ad hoc executive
10:01:58 2 A. Correct. I believe that I operate as its 10:05:26 2 committee.
10:02:02 3 executive director without compensation. 10:05:27 3 Q. And earlier you said something about
10:02:06 4 Q. And what are your responsibilities as 10:05:32 4 California Renewal being the sponsoring -- I can't
10:02:14 5 executive director for California Renewal? 10:05:37 5 remember the language you used -- but member or
10:02:19 6 A. Prior to -- there has been no activity by 10:05:39 6 sponsoring -- in some way sponsoring. And I was unclear
10:02:27 7 California Renewal leading up to the 10:05:48 7 whether you were saying they sponsored the formation of
10:02:36 8 ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8 campaign. 10:05:52 8 ProtectMarriage.com or something else.
10:02:41 9 Q. I'm not sure I understand what you just said 10:05:55 9 Can you explain?
10:02:43 10 so let me try to ask. You say there's been no activity 10:05:57 10 A. Well, I'm not sure that I can explain it much
10:02:49 11 by California Renewal leading up to the Yes on 8 10:05:59 11 better than I have because of my lack of legal
10:02:55 12 campaign. I'm trying to understand the connection 10:06:02 12 intellect. And it would have to do with that there is a
10:03:00 13 between California Renewal and ProtectMarriage. 10:06:13 13 board of directors, too.
10:03:04 14 Is there one? 10:06:18 14 California Renewal who gave authority to an ad
10:03:06 15 A. When you say "ProtectMarriage," are you 10:06:24 15 hoc executive committee to move forward with a
10:03:08 16 referring to the ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8 campaign? 10:06:28 16 primarily-formed ballot measure called
10:03:13 17 Q. Yes. 10:06:34 17 ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8.
10:03:14 18 A. The sponsoring entity was the (c)(4) 10:06:40 18 Q. I would say that's not an intellect issue, I
10:03:17 19 California Renewal. 10:06:45 19 think it was very clear.
10:03:19 20 Q. The sponsoring entity of the initiative 10:06:46 20 A. Thank-you. Let's just hope it's accurate.
10:03:24 21 measure? 10:06:50 21 MS. MOSS: Can we take a bathroom break?
10:03:24 22 A. Yes, of ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8 campaign 10:06:54 22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off record at 10:08.
10:03:30 23 committee. 10:09:30 23 (Brief break.)
10:03:40 24 Q. So just to be clear: California Renewal was 10:09:30 24 (Ms. Piepmeier is not present.)
10:03:43 25 the sponsor of -- 10:14:51 25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the record at 10:14.
Page 51 Page 53
10:03:44 1 (Mr. Pugno enters the room.) 10:15:01 1 MS. STEWART: Q Mr. Prentice, when you were
10:03:47 2 MS. STEWART: Q -- the entity, the Yes on 8 10:15:03 2 employed by Focus on the Family, what was the
10:03:51 3 ProtectMarriage entity or are you saying it was the 10:15:06 3 approximate annual budget of that organization?
10:03:54 4 sponsor of the initiative itself, the ballot measure. 10:15:11 4 A. Approximately -- well, it varied within those
10:03:59 5 A. To the best of my knowledge, the way that I 10:15:13 5 ten years. Anywhere from 125 million to 145 million.
10:04:01 6 would frame it would be that the initiative was put 10:15:35 6 Q. Earlier you mentioned that the board of
10:04:20 7 forth by the campaign committee called 10:15:36 7 directors of California Renewal gave authority to an ad
10:04:24 8 ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8. 10:15:39 8 hoc committee to move forward to create
10:04:32 9 Q. Okay. 10:15:42 9 ProtectMarriage.com or what became ProtectMarriage.com.
10:04:32 10 So ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8 actually was 10:15:49 10 A. Became the ballot measure committee.
10:04:36 11 the official proponent or an official proponent of 10:15:56 11 Q. What did -- well, first of all, who was on the
10:04:41 12 Proposition 8; is that correct? 10:16:01 12 ad hoc committee?
10:04:44 13 MS. MOSS: Object to the extent it calls for a 10:16:04 13 A. Of?
10:04:46 14 legal conclusion. 10:16:05 14 Q. You said the board of directors of California
10:04:48 15 MS. STEWART: I'm asking for his understanding 10:16:08 15 Renewal gave authority to an ad hoc committee. And I
10:04:49 16 counsel. 10:16:11 16 was wondering who was on that committee.
10:04:52 17 THE WITNESS: I believe that there was a campaign 10:16:15 17 MS. MOSS: And in responding to that, I'm going to
10:04:56 18 committee formed and there were individual proponents. 10:16:17 18 instruct you to the extent that there's a member of that
10:05:01 19 MS. STEWART: Q But just from a lay person's 10:16:20 19 committee who has asked us to keep his identity
10:05:03 20 understanding, how was ProtectMarriage.com, the entity, 10:16:23 20 confidential while he pursues his claim of privilege, I
10:05:07 21 involved in that process? 10:16:27 21 would instruct you not to reveal that identity.
10:05:13 22 A. ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8, to the best of 10:16:29 22 Otherwise, you can respond.
10:05:15 23 my understanding, is primarily formed ballot measure 10:16:30 23 MS. STEWART: Q And are you going to follow your
10:05:18 24 committee. 10:16:32 24 counsel's instruction?
10:05:19 25 Q. And who formed that ballot measure committee? 10:16:35 25 A. Yes.

(415) 982-4849
15 (Pages 54 to 57)
Page 54 Page 56
10:16:35 1 MS. STEWART: Just before you respond, I want to 10:19:38 1 (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 1 was
10:16:37 2 see if we can make a stipulation for the record going 10:19:54 2 Marked for identification.)
10:16:40 3 forward that I don't have to repeatedly ask the witness 10:20:06 3 MS. STEWART: Q A document that at the top says
10:16:45 4 if he is going to follow your instruction. 10:20:08 4 "Protect Marriage." And I'm going to ask you to take a
10:16:48 5 MS. MOSS: That is fine. 10:20:15 5 look at it and tell me if you recognize it.
10:16:49 6 MS. STEWART: I'm going to pretty much assume it 10:20:37 6 (Pause in the proceedings.)
10:16:51 7 unless there's something in the way he answers it 10:20:38 7 THE WITNESS: I would say I can only go so far as
10:16:52 8 that -- 10:20:42 8 to say I'm familiar with its general content. I don't
10:16:54 9 MS. MOSS: Sure. 10:20:45 9 know if it's in any way been altered, but yes.
10:16:55 10 MS. STEWART: -- that assumes otherwise. 10:20:48 10 MS. STEWART: Q And on the left, it has, sort of,
10:16:58 11 Q. So going back to the question with your 10:20:52 11 a gray box that says "ProtectMarriage.com" and has some
10:17:03 12 counsel's instruction, who was on the ad hoc committee 10:20:57 12 little people.
10:17:04 13 that the board of directors of California Renewal gave 10:20:59 13 Do you see that?
10:17:07 14 authority to form a ballot committee? 10:20:59 14 A. Yes.
10:17:11 15 A. There was myself. There was Ned Dolejsi. 10:21:00 15 Q. Is that the logo of ProtectMarriage.com or a
10:17:13 16 There was Mark Jansson. And there's the anonymous 10:21:07 16 logo?
10:17:18 17 person. 10:21:08 17 (Ms. Piepmeier enters the room.)
10:17:19 18 Q. What was the last name? 10:21:16 18 THE WITNESS: I wouldn't say that it's a formal
10:17:20 19 A. I said anonymous. 10:21:19 19 logo, no.
10:17:23 20 Q. Yourself, Ned Dolejsi, Mr. Jansson? 10:21:21 20 MS. STEWART: Q Has ProtectMarriage.com --
10:17:27 21 A. Yes. 10:21:26 21 A. Thank-you.
10:17:29 22 Q. And then an anonymous person? 10:21:26 22 Q. -- does it have a logo that it has adopted?
10:17:33 23 A. A person who chooses to remain confidential. 10:21:39 23 A. There was a logo that was used during the
10:17:40 24 Q. Did you form an entity that is -- did that ad 10:21:42 24 campaign. So when you refer to ProtectMarriage.com, it
10:17:46 25 hoc committee then form an entity? 10:21:48 25 does not have a formal logo.
Page 55 Page 57
10:17:48 1 A. Yes. 10:21:52 1 Q. Was there a logo that it used on its website?
10:17:48 2 Q. And what is that entity? 10:22:04 2 MS. MOSS: Just by point of clarification,
10:17:51 3 A. The primarily formed ballot measure committee 10:22:05 3 objection. When you're referring to
10:17:55 4 of ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8. 10:22:09 4 ProtectMarriage.com, are you referring to -- I guess
10:17:58 5 Q. And what is the form of that entity, if you 10:22:12 5 what specifically are you referring to? Is it a
10:18:01 6 know? 10:22:16 6 shorthand for Yes on 8 or --
10:18:02 7 A. When you say "form" -- 10:22:19 7 MS. STEWART: You're getting to my other line of
10:18:04 8 Q. I mean the legal organization. 10:22:21 8 questioning, which I diverted from. So let me go back
10:18:06 9 A. Again, I would -- the best I can do is a 10:22:24 9 to that and then we'll go back to the logo.
10:18:09 10 ballot measure committee. 10:22:27 10 As I mentioned earlier, sometimes it's not a linear
10:18:19 11 Q. Is -- what is the title of that ballot measure 10:22:31 11 process, this deposition business.
10:18:28 12 committee? 10:22:33 12 Q. Do you see the first paragraph of this
10:18:31 13 A. ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8. 10:22:35 13 document where it says "ProtectMarriage.com is a growing
10:18:33 14 Q. Is ProtectMarriage.com used in any sense 10:22:38 14 broad-based coalition of organizations, churches and
10:18:39 15 that's broader than that ballot measure committee? 10:22:42 15 individuals who believe that marriage's foremost purpose
10:18:47 16 A. As you know, there are now -- there is now a 10:22:47 16 is raising of healthy children in a family with a mom
10:18:56 17 (c)(3) and (c)(4), ProtectMarriage.com Education 10:22:50 17 and a dad"?
10:19:01 18 Foundation and ProtectMarriage.com Action Fund. 10:22:51 18 A. Yes.
10:19:04 19 Q. Do you sometimes use ProtectMarriage.com to 10:22:52 19 Q. Is that language that was on
10:19:06 20 describe a coalition of entities? 10:22:54 20 ProtectMarriage.com's website at some point in time?
10:19:16 21 A. I think that there are a number of entities 10:23:00 21 A. Apparently, this was printed off of its
10:19:19 22 that would say that they align with the general purposes 10:23:02 22 website, and so I would imagine so.
10:19:32 23 of ProtectMarriage.com. 10:23:05 23 Q. And is it accurate that the title
10:19:36 24 MS. STEWART: I'm going to have marked as 10:23:08 24 "ProtectMarriage.com" was used to refer to a broad-based
10:19:38 25 Exhibit 1. 10:23:13 25 coalition of organizations and people?

(415) 982-4849
69 (Pages 270 to 273)
Page 270 Page 272
1 DEPOSITION OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE 1 ERRATA SHEET
2 2
3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 3 PAGE LINE CHANGE
4 ) Ss. 4 ____ ____ _____________________________________
5 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA ) 5 ____ ____ _____________________________________
6 6 ____ ____ _____________________________________

7 ____ ____ _____________________________________
7 I LESLIE CASTRO, CSR, hereby certify:
8 ____ ____ _____________________________________
8 I am a duly qualified Shorthand Reporter in
9 ____ ____ _____________________________________
9 the State of California, holder of Certificate Number
10 ____ ____ _____________________________________
10 8876 issued by the Court Reporter's Board of California
11 ____ ____ _____________________________________
11 and which is in full force and effect. (Fed R. Civ. P.
12 ____ ____ _____________________________________
12 28(a)).
13 ____ ____ _____________________________________
13 I am authorized to administer oaths of
14 ____ ____ _____________________________________
14 affirmations pursuant to California Code of Civil
15 ____ ____ _____________________________________
15 Procedure, Section 2093(b), and prior to being examined, 16 ____ ____ _____________________________________
16 the deponent was first duly sworn by me. (Fed. R. Civ. 17 ____ ____ _____________________________________
17 P. 28(a), 30(f) (1)). 18 ____ ____ _____________________________________
18 I am not a relative or employee or attorney or 19 ____ ____ _____________________________________
19 counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or 20 _
20 employee of such attorney or counsel, nor am I 21 I, RONALD PRENTICE, have made the following changes
21 financially interested in this action. (Fed. R. Civ. P. 22 to my deposition taken in the matter of PERRY, ET AL.
22 28). 23 vs. SCHWARZENEGGER, ET AL. taken on DECEMBER 17, 2009.
23 I am the deposition officer that 24 DATE:______________ ________________________________
24 stenographically recorded the testimony in the foregoing RONALD PRENTICE
25 deposition and the foregoing transcript is a true record 25
Page 271 Page 273

1 of the testimony given by the deponent. (Fed. R. Civ. 1 CERTIFICATION OF WITNESS
2 P. 30(f) (1)). 2
3 Before completion of the deposition, review of 3
4 the transcript [ ] was [X ] was not requested. If 4 I, RONALD PRENTICE, hereby declare that I have read
5 requested, any changes made by the deponent (and 5 the foregoing testimony, and the same is true and a
6 provided to the reporter) during the period allowed, are 6 correct transcription of my said testimony except as I
7 appended hereto. (Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)). 7 have corrected.
8 8
9
9
10
10
11 ________________________
11
Signature
12 Dated: 28th of December, 2009.
12
13
13
14
14
15
15 ________________________
16 _________________________ Date
17 LESLIE CASTRO, CSR 16
State of California 17
18 CSR License No. 8876 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25

(415) 982-4849
70 (Page 274)
Page 274
COURT REPORTING SERVICE
41 SUTTER STREET, SUITE 1605
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
(415) 982-4849
January 4, 2010
Ronald Prentice
c/o Nicole J. Moss, Esq.
Cooper & Kirk
1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Re: Perry, et al. vs.
Schwarzenegger, et al.
Dear Mr. Prentice:

You are hereby notified that pursuant to the California
Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019(E), your deposition
is available for your review within 35 days from the
date of this letter.
If you are represented by an attorney in this matter

contact your attorney before contacting this office.
Do not ask that we send you the original deposition.
State law does not allow us to do so.
Yours very truly,
Leslie Castro, CSR

Bonnie L. Wagner & Associates
CC: Original Transcript

All Counsel

3:09-cv-02292 #340

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

3:09-cv-02292 #340

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document340 Filed01/04/10 Page1 of 4

1 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

5 Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., SBN 132009

10 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

13 Jeremy M. Goldman, SBN 218888

16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20 KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al., CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

Gibson, Dunn &

1 I, Ethan D. Dettmer, declare as follows:

6 Deposition of ProtectMarriage.com Executive Committee member Doug Swardstrom. The

8 testify competently thereto.

9 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of a letter sent by

10 ProtectMarriage.com to Jim Abbott revealing the identity of ProtectMarriage.com Executive

11 Committee Member Edward Dolejsi, dated October 22, 2008.

12 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Defendant-Intervenors’

13 Response to Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Interrogatories, dated November 9, 2009.

17 to Matthew McGill and Ethan Dettmer, dated December 15, 2009.

26 Phillips to Ethan D. Dettmer, dated October 27, 2009.

28 Jr. to Ethan D. Dettmer, dated November 9, 2009.

Gibson, Dunn &

2 of the deposition of Mark Jansson, taken on December 3, 2009.

4 of the deposition of Edward Dolejsi, taken on December 16, 2009.

6 of the deposition of Ronald Prentice, taken on December 17, 2009.

11 /s/ Ethan D. Dettmer

Gibson, Dunn &

1 ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER NO. 45

5 /s/ Theodore Boutrous, Jr

Gibson, Dunn &

October, ao, 2008

Dear Mr. Abbott,

We write as the Executive Committee of ProtectMarriage.com, the coalition

Equality California is advertising on its website that it has received a

915 L Street, Suite C-259 Sacramento CA 95814 916.446.2956

We respectfully request that Abbott & Associates withdraw its support of

Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication

We will contact you shortly to discuss your contribution sincerely hoping to

The Executive Committee of ProtectMarriage.com and the millions of

Mark A. Jansson Andrew Pugno

915 L Street, Suite G-259 Sacramento CA 95814 916.446.2956

EQCA's Sponsors Include,

$250,000 and above

$50,000 and above

$10,000 and above

bbotr antty' ..roup

yes;! X'III T ~ I ~ ! Enclosed is my gift OT:

Clreck Darrztinns (WBMAIL)

Type of credit ~ a r d :0 Visa 0 MastcrCard 0 Amerlcan ExDress

Address as it appears on bllllng statements:

Your sigllaturc: Date:

*'Full name of Individual, Company o r Organization

*City *State *Zip County

Phone rlumber Fax number E-mail Address

*Your Occupatiun *Your Employer (If self-employed, enter name of buslnsss)

Iwill also help by:

1 COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC

9 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO

12 ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND

16 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH,

21 KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL

DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES

1 BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Attorney

18 ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND

21 Jordan W. Lorence (DC Bar No. 385022)*

City State *Zip County

Your Occupatiun Your Employer (If self-employed, enter name of buslnsss)