• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR PROPOSITION 8 PROPONENTS’ CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENTCASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
COOPER AND KIRK, PLLCCharles J. Cooper (DC Bar No. 248070)*
ccooper@cooperkirk.com
David H. Thompson (DC Bar No. 450503)*
dthompson@cooperkirk.com
Howard C. Nielson, Jr. (DC Bar No. 473018)*
hnielson@cooperkirk.com
Peter A. Patterson (Ohio Bar No. 0080840)*
 ppatterson@cooperkirk.com
 1523 New Hampshire Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036Telephone: (202) 220-9600, Facsimile: (202) 220-9601LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNOAndrew P. Pugno (CA Bar No. 206587)
andrew@pugnolaw.com
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630Telephone: (916) 608-3065, Facsimile: (916) 608-3066ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUNDBrian W. Raum
 
(NY Bar No.
 
2856102)*
braum@telladf.org
James A. Campbell (OH Bar No. 0081501)*
 jcampbell@telladf.org
15100 North 90th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260Telephone: (480) 444-0020, Facsimile: (480) 444-0028A
TTORNEYS FOR
D
EFENDANT
-I
NTERVENOR
D
ENNIS
H
OLLINGSWORTH
,G
AIL
J.
 
K
NIGHT
,
 
M
ARTIN
F.
 
G
UTIERREZ
,
 
H
AK
-S
HING
W
ILLIAM
T
AM
,M
ARK
A.
 
J
ANSSON
, and P
ROTECT
M
ARRIAGE
.
COM
–
 
Y
ES ON
8,
 
AP
ROJECT OF
C
ALIFORNIA
R
ENEWAL
 *
 
Admitted
 pro hac vice
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER,PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J.ZARRILLO,Plaintiffs,v.ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his officialcapacity as Governor of California; EDMUNDG. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity asAttorney General of California; MARK B.HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health andState Registrar of Vital Statistics; LINETTESCOTT, in her official capacity as DeputyDirector of Health Information & StrategicCASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
DEFENDANTS-INTERVENORSPROPOSITION 8 PROPONENTS ANDPROJECTMARRIAGE.COM’S CASEMANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Date: August 19, 2009Time: 10:00 a.m.Judge: Chief Judge Vaughn R. WalkerLocation: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document139 Filed08/07/09 Page1 of 27
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR PROPOSITION 8 PROPONENTS’ CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENTCASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
Planning for the California Department of PublicHealth; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his officialcapacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his officialcapacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk forthe County of Los Angeles,Defendants,andPROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTSDENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J.KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM, and MARK A.JANSSON; and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM –YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIARENEWAL,Defendant-Intervenors.Additional Counsel for Defendant-IntervenorsALLIANCE DEFENSE FUNDTimothy Chandler (CA Bar No. 234325)
tchandler@telladf.org
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630Telephone: (916) 932-2850, Facsimile: (916) 932-2851Jordan W. Lorence (DC Bar No. 385022)*
 jlorence@telladf.org
Austin R. Nimocks (TX Bar No. 24002695)*
animocks@telladf.org
801 G Street NW, Suite 509, Washington, D.C. 20001Telephone: (202) 637-4610, Facsimile: (202) 347-3622*
 
Admitted
 pro hac vice
 
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document139 Filed08/07/09 Page2 of 27
 
 i
TABLE OF CONTENTSPAGE
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..............................................................................................................iiiCASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT.............................................................................................1I. A Trial is Not Necessary to Resolve this Case........................................................................3A. There are dispositive legal issues that will resolve this case.......................................3B. Trial is not necessary to build a factual record sufficient to decide the caseeffectively and efficiently............................................................................................4II. Proposed Schedule.................................................................................................................10A. Cross-motions for summary judgment on dispositive legal issues............................11B. Discovery...................................................................................................................11C. Comprehensive briefs on remaining disputed issues.................................................11III. Factual Issues Identified in the Court’s June 30, 2009 Order................................................13A. The Appropriate Level of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause...................141. The history of discrimination gays and lesbians have faced..................................142. Whether the characteristics defining gays and lesbians as a class might inany way affect their ability to contribute to society...................................................153. Whether sexual orientation can be changed, and if so, whether gays andlesbians should be encouraged to change it...............................................................154. The relative political power of gays and lesbians, including successes of both pro-gay and anti-gay legislation........................................................................15B. Whether the Right Asserted by Plaintiffs Is Deeply Rooted in this Nation’sHistory and Tradition and thus Subject to Strict Scrutiny Under the DueProcess Clause...........................................................................................................16C. Whether the Asserted State Interest Can Survive Plaintiffs’ ConstitutionalChallenge...................................................................................................................161. The longstanding definition of marriage in California..........................................172. Whether the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage leads toincreased stability in opposite sex marriage or alternatively whether permittingsame-sex couples to marry destabilizes opposite sex marriage.................................173. Whether a married mother and father provide the optimal child-rearingenvironment and whether excluding same-sex couples from marriagepromotes this environment.........................................................................................18
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document139 Filed08/07/09 Page3 of 27
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...