You are on page 1of 15

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document639 Filed04/22/10 Page1 of 5

1 STEPHEN V. BOMSE (State Bar No. 40686)


sbomse@orrick.com
2 JUSTIN M. ARAGON (State Bar No. 241592)
jaragon@orrick.com
3 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
405 Howard Street
4 San Francisco, California 94105-2669
Tel.: (415) 773-5700
5 Fax: (415) 773-5759

6 ALAN L. SCHLOSSER (State Bar No. 49957)


aschlosser@aclunc.org
7 ELIZABETH O. GILL (State Bar No. 218311)
egill@aclunc.org
8 ACLU FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
39 Drumm Street
9 San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel.: (415) 621-2493
10 Fax: (415) 255-8437

11 Attorneys for
NO ON PROPOSITION 8,
12 CAMPAIGN FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY:
A PROJECT OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL
13 LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

14 (Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page)

15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


16 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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


18 Plaintiffs, STATEMENT OF OBJECTORS IN
and RESPONSE TO APRIL 17, 2010 ORDER
19 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
Judge: Chief Judge Walker
20 Plaintiff-Intervenor, Location: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor
v.
21
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,
22
Defendants,
23 and
24 PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al.,
25
Defendant-Intervenors.
26

27

28

CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW STATEMENT OF OBJECTORS IN RESPONSE TO APRIL 17, 2010 ORDER
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document639 Filed04/22/10 Page2 of 5

1 In its April 17 Order, the Court observed that the parties did not appear to be all that far apart

2 with respect to the measures required to bring the existing discovery disputes – or at least those

3 involving Objectors – to a close. Accordingly, it directed the parties to meet and confer to see if

4 those differences could be bridged in a manner satisfactory to all. Unfortunately that has proven to

5 be easier said than done and each party, now, will be setting forth its respective position.

6 The position of Objectors is simple: We believe that the Court need merely incorporate the

7 essential recitations of the Ninth Circuit regarding the privilege applicable to inter-group

8 communications into an amended production order. That can be done while permitting plaintiffs and

9 Proponents to reserve their respective arguments and positions regarding their own separate

10 discovery disputes that do not involve Objectors. In short, Objectors wish simply to get out of the

11 middle of whatever disputes exist among the other parties while allowing the underlying case to be

12 decided on the merits without the delay that a further appeal by Objectors would create.

13 Objectors’ position is reflected in a letter and attached proposed stipulation that Objectors sent

14 to Proponents and plaintiffs on Monday, the 19th. See Exhibit A. For different reasons, this proposal

15 did not generate enthusiasm from either Proponents or plaintiffs, thus necessitating this separate

16 response and proposal.

17 PROPONENTS’ POSITION

18 Proponents put their views in writing and we submit them here (as Exhibit B) for the Court’s

19 review. Essentially, their position is that while they are content to have the Court’s earlier order (Doc

20 # 623) amended in the manner that Objectors propose, they insist that any stipulation to that effect

21 needs to be joined with a further express provision assuring them “equal treatment” with regard to

22 their discovery obligations to plaintiffs. Not surprisingly, plaintiffs are not agreeable to that

23 suggestion — a position that they made that clear in a telephone conference call among all parties on

24 Tuesday, the 20th.

25 Objectors believe that Proponents are simply – and needlessly – asking for too much. They

26 have a discovery dispute with plaintiffs that may or may not be affected by what the Ninth Circuit

27 said on April 12. They should be free to make their arguments about that matter to the Court —

28 including an argument that any modification in favor of Objectors needs to be extended to them.

1
CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW STATEMENT OF OBJECTORS IN RESPONSE TO APRIL 17, 2010 ORDER
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document639 Filed04/22/10 Page3 of 5

1 However, that position should not get in the way of resolving the separate issue involving Objectors.

2 Their arguments, like those of plaintiffs, should simply be reserved and dealt with separately. In

3 other words, any amendment that is needed to resolve Objectors’ concerns should be without

4 prejudice as to any other matter. Proponents and plaintiffs should address the implications of the

5 Ninth Circuit’s order after the issues involving Objectors are over and done with.

6 This Court, in fact, can impose that solution without any agreement from either plaintiffs or

7 Proponents. If it does so, that will satisfy Objectors and they will produce documents forthwith.

8 PLAINTIFFS’ POSITION

9 Plaintiffs’ position has only been stated orally during the parties’ April 20 telephone

10 conference call. However, that position seems quite clear: there is no need for the Court to do

11 anything. As we understand it, that is true for two reasons. First, Proponents assert that although the

12 Ninth Circuit’s April 12 Order recognized in principle that there could be an “association” consisting

13 of people working for more than one organization, it did not actually recognize the existence of any

14 privilege among the multiple core groups in this case. Second, Proponents claim that although the

15 Ninth Circuit may have concluded that this Court mis-read the intended scope of footnote 12 in

16 Perry, it also made certain evidentiary findings that preclude recognition of a cross-entity association

17 in this case.

18 The problem with this position is that it seems destined to lead to what should be an

19 unnecessary appeal. While it is fine for plaintiffs to resist even the slightest compromise in order to

20 resolve this controversy, that will be a result of their own making since, as noted, Objectors have

21 offered a compromise in which no party is required to relinquish any argument or position that it may

22 wish to assert as to other discovery disputes.

23 Moreover, plaintiffs’ position misses the point. There can be no question that both Magistrate

24 Judge Spero and this Court made their orders based on a misapprehension regarding the intended

25 scope of footnote 12. The Ninth Circuit has made it clear in its April 12 opinion that the First

26

27

28

2
CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW STATEMENT OF OBJECTORS IN RESPONSE TO APRIL 17, 2010 ORDER
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document639 Filed04/22/10 Page4 of 5

1 Amendment privilege is not limited to a “core group” within a single enterprise.1 To the extent that

2 the orders from Magistrate Judge Spero and this Court were based upon a contrary assumption, as

3 they plainly were, they need to be reconsidered and this Court’s March 22nd Order needs to be

4 amended in accordance with the Ninth Circuit's subsequent ruling.

5 Insofar as plaintiffs’ position rests upon a supposed “evidentiary” finding by Magistrate Judge

6 Spero and this Court, there would need to be, at a minimum, a remand to the Magistrate Judge for

7 further consideration in light of the Ninth Circuit's clarification of its decision. Failing that,

8 Objectors will be content to appeal that determination since it is plainly contradicted by the

9 undisputed evidence in the record.

10 Lest there be any misunderstanding, that is not the result that Objectors wish to occur, nor

11 need it be what happens. Objectors do not insist on anything more than what their evidentiary

12 submissions establish when applied in accordance with what the Ninth Circuit has said regarding the

13 scope of the First Amendment privilege. That is what their proposed stipulation provided — and it

14 further provided that by agreeing to it, plaintiffs were not waiving any position that they might wish

15 to take with regard to the obligations or the evidence presented by Proponents. In sum, as we set

16 forth below, it will not take all that much to satisfy Objectors and bring this matter to a close.

17 However, it will take more than nothing.

18 OBJECTORS’ POSITION

19 Like the Court, Objectors thought that there was only a narrow gap between their position and

20 that of the other parties. That may be true, but it is a gap that neither of those parties appears

21 interested in bridging by budging an inch. So here is what Objectors propose:

22 1. The Court, on its own motion, adopt the terms of Objectors' proposed stipulation as its

23 order, applicable to Objectors only. If it does so, Objectors represent that they will produce

24 documents forthwith in accordance with the terms of such an amended order.

25
1 The Court said that under its January 4 decision, “the privilege applies to the core group of persons
26 engaged in the formulation of strategy and messages, whether or not they are members of a single
organization or entity. The operative inquiry is whether they are part of an association subject to
27 First Amendment protection. We did not hold that the privilege cannot apply to a core group of
associated persons spanning more than one entity.” Doc # 14 at 9 (emphasis in original).
28

3
CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW STATEMENT OF OBJECTORS IN RESPONSE TO APRIL 17, 2010 ORDER
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document639 Filed04/22/10 Page5 of 5

2 2. Alternatively, without adopting the specific language of Objectors’ stipulation, the Court

3 enter its own revised order amending its prior Order (Document #623) to conform to the Ninth

4 Circuit's April 12 statements regarding the scope of the First Amendment privilege for inter-

5 organization communications. If the Court selects this alternative, Objectors, understandably, must

6 reserve the right to decline compliance, be held in contempt and, then, appeal. However, Objectors

7 assure the Court that so long as the principles articulated by the Ninth Circuit regarding the scope of

8 the First Amendment privilege are fairly acknowledged through amendment, it is their intention to

9 accept such amendment and produce documents in accordance with the amended Order without

10 seeking any further review by the court of appeals.

11 CONCLUSION

12 For the foregoing reasons, the Court should adopt one of the two proposals outlined by

13 Objectors above.

14 Dated: April 22, 2010 STEPHEN V. BOMSE


JUSTIN M. ARAGON
15 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
16 ALAN L. SCHLOSSER
ELIZABETH O. GILL
17 ACLU Foundation Of Northern California
18
By: _______/s/_________
19 STEPHEN V. BOMSE
20 Attorneys for No on Proposition 8, Campaign for
Marriage Equality: A Project of the American Civil
21 Liberties Union of Northern California
22 LYNN H. PASAHOW
CAROLYN CHANG
23
LESLIE KRAMER
24 LAUREN WHITTEMORE
Fenwick & West LLP
25
Attorneys for Equality California
26

27

28

4
CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW STATEMENT OF OBJECTORS IN RESPONSE TO APRIL 17, 2010 ORDER
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document639-1 Filed04/22/10 Page1 of 5

V IIE[IHXJ
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document639-1 Filed04/22/10 Page2 of 5

ORRICK
Q in’IuCIc. HLKUI

41 ‘, HOWA1W STlt,
%I. HAN’.S I
‘,

OIkI( V F’IIt ii?’

1.1 .‘.‘,.

•\pril 19, 2010 Stephen V. Bomse


(415) 773-4145
sbomse@orrick.com

I i,: I ‘,mail ((lid I . S. .A’lui/

Iheodore 3. Bourrous, Jr.


Gibson, 1)unn & Crutcher LLP
.333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90071-3197

Charles 3. Cooper
Cooker and Kirk, PLLC
[52.3 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036

Re: Pern’ v. Schwarzenneger. et al.

Dear ‘led and Chuck:

We write on behalf of the ACLU and Equality California (“Objectors”) in response to Judge
Walker’s Order of the 17th. We hope that the Judge is correct that the parties are in substantial
agreement as to discovery issues involving the Objectors, since it is their clearly expressed desire
to
resoivc any discovery disputes in your litigation so that the underlying controversy can be resolved
without unnecessary further delay.

What concerns us is that while both plaintiffs and Proponents separately express agreement to our
suggestion that there be a modification ofJudge Walker’s March 22nd Order in light of the Ninth
Circuit’s April 12 opinion, you each attach “conditions” to your approval that relate to discovery
disputes that do not involve Objectors. We see no reason why those separate issues should prevent
resolution of the current matter which relates only to the discovery sought from Objectors.

We. therefore, reiterate our proposal that the Court be asked jointly to modir its March 22nd
decision to make clear that the First Amendment privilege asserted by Objectors may protect
communications regarding campaign strategy and messages among people from different
organizations who have chosen to associate together in support of a common political objective.
We further suggest that your agreement to such a stipulation be without prejudice to any patty’s
right to argue about the significance, or lack of significance, of the Ninth Circuit’s order with
respect to any other party or to any other matter in the pending district court litigation involving

1)115 \\ I2d1i9Q469. I
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document639-1 Filed04/22/10 Page3 of 5

:.Q
0
CK

Iheodore J. Boutrous,jr.
Charles I. c:ooper
\pril l),2Olfl
Pagc 2

your respective clients. We attach some language that would be sufficient, in Objectors’ view, to
accomplish that goal.

if that stipulation is approved by the Court and a modified opinion is, thereafter, issued reflecting
its
terms, Objectors will proceed to produce documents in accordance with that modified opinion
without seeking any further appellate review or stay. That production will be forthcoming
promptly. Your respective clients thereafter can proceed to argue what significance, if any, the
Ninth Circuit’s April 12 decision has for your separate discovery disputes.

cc: l)avid H. Thompson


Christopher D. Dusseault
I aurcn Whittemore
)ames Esseks

OIlS \\ :2(1)B9J469 I
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document639-1 Filed04/22/10 Page4 of 5

STIPULATION RE DISCOVERY ISSUES

Whereas, on March 5, 2010 Magistrate Judge Spero entered an order directing Equality
California and No on Proposition 8, Campaign for Marriage Equality, a Project of the
American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (collectively, “Objectors”) to
produce certain documents to Intervenor-Defendants (“Proponents”) (Document 610);
and

Whereas on March 22, 2010 the district court affirmed that order in all respects
(Document # 623); and

Whereas, Objectors thereafter sought to appeal those orders to the Ninth Circuit or, in the
alternative, sought review by way of writ of mandamus; and

Whereas, in response to briefing requested by the court of appeals with respect to its
urisdiction and the appropriateness of mandamus, the court of appeals on April 12, 2010
entered an order dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and declining to exercise its
mandamus power; and

Whereas, in the course of its April 12, 2010 order the court of appeals stated that
under its January 4, 2010 opinion in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 591 F.3d 1147, “the [First
Amendment privilege applies to the core group ofpersons engaged in the formulation of
strategy and messages, whether or not they are members of a single organization or
entity”; and

Whereas the Court of Appeals further stated that the “operative inquiry is whether [such
persons] are part of an association subject to First Amendment protection”; and

Whereas the court of appeals further stated that it “did not hold [in Perry] that the [First
Amendment] privilege cannot apply to a core group of associated persons spanning more
than one entity”; and

Whereas, Objectors thereafter have represented to plaintiffs and Proponents that if the
district court’s order is amended in accordance with the foregoing statements of the court
of appeals, they will forthwith produce all documents called for by such amended order
and will take no further appeal therefrom; and

Whereas the parties to this stipulation wish to avoid further unnecessary proceedings with
respect to Proponents’ motion and desire documents to be produced by Objectors
without further delay so that the district court is able to rule on the merits of the
underlying litigation regarding the constitutionality of Proposition 8; and

Whereas, Proponents and plaintiffs are agreeable to the modification provided for herein,
provided that it is without prejudice to any arguments or positions that either of them may
hereafter assert regarding what further action, if any, is required with regard to any other
matter as a result of the Ninth Circuit’s April 12, 2010 order and both Proponents and
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document639-1 Filed04/22/10 Page5 of 5

plaintiffs agree that no inference regarding such matter shall be made by the district court
as a result of plaintiffs or Proponents entering into this stipulation and further agree that
this stipulation is solely for the purpose of resolving the discovery dispute
between Proponents and Objectors,

Now. therefore, it is stipulated as follows:

1. Notwithstanding any language in Documents # 610 or 623 to the contrary, the order
compelling Objectors to produce documents shall be deemed to provide and require as
Follows:

Each No on 8 group is DIRECTED to produce all documents in its possession that


contain, refer or relate to arguments for or against Proposition 8, except those
communications solely among the core group of persons engaged in the formulation of
campaign strategy and messages for the No on 8 Equality for All campaign, whether or
-

not they are members of a single organization or entity. This includes communications
solely among and between the Equality for All core group, the Equality California core
group and the ACLU core group as defined by the Court.”

2. The district court shall make such other or further amendments to its Order dated
March 22, 2010 as are necessary and appropriate, in its judgment, to effectuate the above
language and which are consistent with the statements regarding the scope of the First
Amendment privilege as explained by the Ninth Circuit in its Order dated April 12, 2010.

3. Nothing in this stipulation shall be deemed to represent any admission or agreement on


the part of plaintiffs or Proponents regarding the effect of this stipulation upon the
discovery obligation of any party other than Objectors or as to whether any further action
by the Court is required or appropriate in light of the Ninth Circuit’s April 12, 2010
Order, all such arguments and positions being expressly reserved.

4. upon entry of an amended order in accordance with this stipulation, Objectors, and
each of them, shall produce the documents required pursuant to paragraph 1 above within
3 business days.
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document639-2 Filed04/22/10 Page1 of 5

H JJHIHXJ
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document639-2 Filed04/22/10 Page2 of 5

Cooper & Kirk


Lawyers
A Professional Limited Liability Company
1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Jesse Panuccio Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 220-9600
jpanuccio@cooperkirk.com Fax (202) 220-9601

April 20, 2010

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Mr. Stephen V. Bomse


Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
450 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94 105-2669

Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr.


Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3 197

Re: Perry v. Schwarzenegger, eta!., N.D. Cal. Case No. C-09-2292-VRW

Dear Messrs. Bomse and Boutrous:

I write on behalf of Proponents and in response to Mr. Bomse’s letter of April 19, 2010,
on behalf of the ACLU and Equality California (“Objectors”). We have also spoken with
counsel for Defendant-Intervenor William Tam and he joins the substance of this letter.
Objectors propose, in light of the Ninth Circuit’s recent guidance on the scope of the First
Amendment privilege, that the parties enter a joint stipulation amending the production order that
currently requires Objectors to produce documents. As we have stated throughout this litigation,
however, our position is that whatever First Amendment (and relevance) rules apply in this case
must apply uniformly to all parties. Accordingly, Proponents cannot enter a stipulation that
would establish one set of rules with respect to Objectors’ privilege assertions, but leave open for
further litigation the rules to apply to Proponents’ privilege assertions. Such a piecemeal
approach would leave open the possibility of a non-uniform application of the Ninth Circuit’s
most recent guidance.

This, as you know, is where matters stood on April 16, when Proponents submitted their
joint response to the order to show cause and motion to hold Objectors in contempt. In response
to that filing, the Court ordered the parties to negotiate further. While Objectors’ proposal does
provide specificity that was lacking on April 16, as a substantive matter it does not advance the
parties beyond the disagreement that existed at that time. Indeed, as noted in Mr. Bomse’s letter,
the proposal is a “reiterate[lon]” of the proposal put forth last week.
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document639-2 Filed04/22/10 Page3 of 5

Cooper & Kirk


Lawyers

Stephen V. Bomse
Theodore J. Boutrous
April 20, 2010
Page 2 of 2

While Proponents cannot agree to Objectors’ proposed stipulation, we remain willing to


explore a global resolution of all First Amendment issues in the district court. To that end, we
would be willing to enter into the attached stipulation. It is our hope that this proposed
stipulation would bring an end to continued litigation over the scope of the First Amendment
privilege in the district court.

Thank you for your continued attention to this matter as we endeavor to work toward a
mutually agreeable solution that uniformly protects the important First Amendment rights of all
parties.

Cc: Lauren Whittemore


James Esseks
Christopher D. Dusseault
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document639-2 Filed04/22/10 Page4 of 5

STIPULATION RE APPLICATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE

Whereas the District Court has entered numerous orders and rulings on the scope and application
of the First Amendment privilege in this case, both with respect to privilege assertions by
Defendant-Intervenors (“Proponents”) and Equality California and No on Proposition 8,
Campaign for Marriage Equality, a Project of the American Civil Liberties Union (collectively,
“Objectors) ; and

Whereas, in the course of its April 12, 2010 order the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
stated:

If the district court meant that the privilege cannot apply to persons who are part
of a political association spanning more than one organization or entity, then this
interpretation was questionable. Under Perry I, the privilege applies to the core
group of persons engaged in the formulation of strategy and messages, whether
or not they are members of a single organization or entity. The operative inquiry
is whether they are part of an association subject to First Amendment protection.
We did not hold that the privilege cannot apply to a core group of associated
persons spanning more than one entity.

Whereas, the parties claiming privilege do not waive any objection to any privilege ruling the
District Court has heretofore entered; and

Whereas, the parties to this stipulation wish to avoid further proceedings in the District Court
with respect to First Amendment privilege; and

Whereas, Plaintiffs, Proponents, and Objectors are agreeable to the modifications provided for
herein to the District Court’s prior orders and rulings,

Now, therefore, it is stipulated as follows:

1. Notwithstanding any language in any prior order, or any prior ruling, of the District Court to
the contrary, the Objectors shall only produce to Proponents documents in their possession that
contain, refer or relate to arguments for or against Proposition 8, except those communications
solely within, between, or among the persons in the “core groups” of Equality for All, Equality
California, and the ACLU, as those “core groups” were defined by the District Court in Docs #
610 and 623.

2. Notwithstanding any language in any prior order, or any prior ruling, of the District Court to
the contrary, the following documents or portions of documents, as well as the following
associated portions of the trial transcript, admitted into the record over Proponents’ First
Amendment objections, shall be stricken from the record:

The portions of PX 2341 Bates numbered DEFINT_PM_005614-15, 005617-005661; the


portions of PX 2350 containing email communications (but not the attachment thereto) (and
Trial Tr. 1030:13-14; Trial Tr. 1037:25-1038:2; Trial Tr. 1039:13-14); PX 2385 (and Trial Tr.
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document639-2 Filed04/22/10 Page5 of 5

2394:5-15); PX 2389 (and Trial Tr. 1603:12-1604:22; Trial Tr. 1606:19-1610:6); PX 2403; PX
2455 (and Trial Tr. 2389:8-14); PX 2554 (and Trial Tr. 1622:5-1623:25; Trial Tr. 1627:7-
1628:15); PX 2555 (and Trial Tr. 1633:6-18; Trial Tr. 1633:23-1637:9); PX 2561 (and Trial Tr.
1642:8-21; Trial Tr. 2669:23-2670:21); PX 2562 (and Trial Tr. 1643:14-1644:10); PX 2589 (and
Trial Tr. 2386:6-8); PX 2598 (and Trial Tr. 1645:4-1646:6); PX 2655; PX 2656 (and Trial Tr.
2365:10-25; Trial Tr. 2366:9-12); PX 2773 (and Trial Tr. 2375:13-21); PX 2472 (and Trial Tr.
1902:5-1903:22; Trial Tr. 1990:25-1991:12); PX 2476 (and Trial Tr. 1990:25-1901:21); PX
2504 (and Trial Tr. 1995:25-1996:7); PX 2538 (and Trial Tr. 1912:21-1913:19); PX 2599 (and
Trial Tr. 1975:8-1977:5; Trial Tr. 1995:5-19); PX 2609 (and Trial Tr. 1908:17-25; Trial Tr.
1909:14-1910:17); PX 2612 (and Trial Tr. 1904:6-22); PX 2620 (and Trial Tr. 1898:16; Trial Tr.
1899:1-10; Trial Tr. 1899:25-1900:18); PX 2627 (and Trial Tr. 1999:12-18; Trial Tr. 1999:24-
2002:13); PX 2630 (and Trial Tr. 1994:20-21; Trial Tr. 1995:2-4); PX 2631 (and Trial Tr.
1992:20-1993:4; Trial Tr. 1993:21-25); PX 2633 (and Trial Tr. 1965:3-1971:8; Trial Tr.
1980:16-1981:6; Trial Tr. 1981:21-1982:2 Trial Tr. 1991:24-1992:4; Trial Tr. 1992:13-19; PX
2640 (Trial Tr. 1905:3-8; Trial Tr. 1906:6-12; PX 2650 (and Trial Tr. 1911:23-1912:15); PX
2651 (and Trial Tr. 1906:21-1908:6).

3. If the District Court determines that any portion of this stipulation is not to be entered as a
binding order of the Court, then the parties do not stipulate to any other provision of this
stipulation.

4. This stipulation is entered without prejudice to any party or non-party later assertion of error
with respect to the any order or ruling of the District Court regarding First Amendment privilege.

You might also like