• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
09-CV-2292 VRW PLAINTIFFS’ CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLPTheodore B. Olson, SBN 38137
tolson@gibsondunn.com
 Matthew D. McGill,
 pro hac vice
 Amir C. Tayrani, SBN 2296091050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036Telephone: (202) 955-8668, Facsimile: (202) 467-0539Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., SBN 132009
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
 Christopher D. Dusseault, SBN 177557Ethan D. Dettmer, SBN 196046Sarah E. Piepmeier, SBN 227094Theane Evangelis Kapur, SBN 243570Enrique A. Monagas, SBN 239087333 S. Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90071Telephone: (213) 229-7804, Facsimile: (213) 229-7520BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLPDavid Boies,
 pro hac vice
 
dboies@bsfllp.com
Theodore H. Uno, SBN 248603333 Main Street, Armonk, New York 10504Telephone: (914) 749-8200, Facsimile: (914) 749-8300Attorneys for Plaintiffs KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER,PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO
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 & StrategicPlanning 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 for the County of Los Angeles,Defendants.CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
PLAINTIFFS’ CASE MANAGEMENTSTATEMENT
Date: August 19, 2009Time: 10:00 a.m.Judge: Chief Judge Walker Location: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor 
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document134 Filed08/07/09 Page1 of 24
 
 i
09-CV-2292 VRW PLAINTIFFS’ CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PageI. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................1II. OVERVIEW OF PLAINTIFFS’ POSITION ON CASE MANAGEMENT...........................3A. Trial...............................................................................................................................3B. Discovery.......................................................................................................................6C. Dispositive Motions......................................................................................................7III. PLAINTIFFS’ CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN WITH RESPECT TO THEDEVELOPMENT AND RESOLUTION OF SPECIFIC FACTUAL ISSUES.......................8A. Facts Pertaining to the Appropriate Level of Scrutiny..................................................91. The History of Discrimination Faced by Gay and LesbianIndividuals.......................................................................................................102. Whether the Characteristics Defining Gays and Lesbians as aClass Might Affect Their Ability to Contribute to Society.............................113. Whether Sexual Orientation Can Be Changed and, If So,Whether Gay and Lesbian Individuals Should Be Encouraged toChange It.........................................................................................................124. The Relative Political Power of Gay and Lesbian Individuals,Including Successes of Both Pro-Gay and Anti-Gay Legislation...................12B. Facts Pertaining to Whether Plaintiffs’ Claims Involve a FundamentalRight and Warrant Strict Scrutiny on That Basis........................................................131. The History of Marriage and Why Its Confines Have EvolvedOver Time.......................................................................................................13C. Facts Pertaining to Potential State Interests Raised by Intervenors............................141. The Longstanding Definition of Marriage in California.................................142. Whether the Exclusion of Same-Sex Couples from MarriageLeads to Increased Stability in Opposite-Sex Marriages or Whether Permitting Same-Sex Couples to Marry DestabilizesOpposite-Sex Marriages..................................................................................143. Whether a Married Mother and Father Provide the OptimalChild-Rearing Environment and Whether Excluding Same-SexCouples from Marriage Promotes This Environment.....................................154. Whether and How California Has Acted to Promote TheseInterests in Other Family Law Contexts.........................................................15D. Facts Pertaining to Whether Prop. 8 Discriminates Based on SexualOrientation, Gender, or Both.......................................................................................16
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document134 Filed08/07/09 Page2 of 24
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS[Continued]
Pageii
09-CV-2292 VRW PLAINTIFFS’ CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP
1. The History and Development of California’s Exclusion of Same-Sex Couples from Marriage..................................................................162. Whether the Availability of Opposite-Sex Marriage Is aMeaningful Option for Gays and Lesbians.....................................................163. Whether the Exclusion of Same-Sex Couples from MarriageMeaningfully Restricts Options Available to Heterosexuals..........................174. Whether Requiring One Man and One Woman in MarriagePromotes Stereotypical Gender Roles.............................................................17E. Facts Pertaining to Whether Prop. 8 Was Passed with DiscriminatoryIntent............................................................................................................................181. The Voters’ Motivation or Motivations for Supporting Prop. 8,Including Advertisements and Ballot Literature Considered byCalifornia Voters.............................................................................................192. The Differences in Actual Practice of Registered DomesticPartnerships, Civil Unions and Marriage, Including Whether Married Couples Are Treated Differently from DomesticPartners in Governmental and Non-Governmental Contexts.........................19IV. PROPOSED SCHEDULE......................................................................................................20
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document134 Filed08/07/09 Page3 of 24
of 00

Leave a Comment

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