2Unfortunately, Texas has failed to act with the same diligence and sense of urgency.Although Texas states that its paramount objective is obtaining preclearance and implementingS.B. 14 in time for the November 2012 general election, Texas’ actions reflect a wholly differentview. Rather than engaging in expedited discovery consistent with its stated goal, Texas hastaken steps that can only be interpreted as having the aim of delaying Defendants’ ability toreceive and analyze data and documents in a timely fashion. Texas has repeatedly ignored orviolated directives and orders of this Court that were designed to expedite discovery, and Texashas failed to produce in a timely manner key documents that Defendants need to prepare theirdefense. Most troubling is Texas’ conduct with respect to producing its key state databases,which are central to Defendants’ claim that S.B. 14 has a disparate and retrogressive impact onracial and/or language minority groups.
The record reflects that these databases arevoluminous, complex, and essential to the preparation of the opinions of Defendants’ expertwitnesses. Yet, according to Texas, the full production of such databases to the United Stateswas only complete on May 4, 2012—35 days after they were initially due. (Dkt. No. 43 at ¶ 5).The production to Defendant-Intervenors is still not complete.
Texas’ discovery violations are well-documented in Defendants’ pending motions and inthe countless discovery conferences with the Court. It should be no surprise to Texas that thisCourt has been troubled by Texas’ dilatory conduct. The specific instances of delay detailed in
It was apparent at the May 3, 2012 status hearing that Texas does not consider evidencefrom the databases to be a critical part of the evidence it will rely upon at trial.
One of the many examples of Texas’ dilatory conduct is that, although Texas representedto the Court on Thursday, May 3, 2012, that it would finally complete production of all relevantdatabase information to Defendants by Friday, May 4, 2012, Texas filed a Notice on 5:15 p.m.EST May 4 advising that it would, in fact, not be able to produce that information to Defendant-Intervenors until the next week. (Dkt. No. 105). Texas claimed that the delay was due in part tothe fact that its “internal audit [was] necessarily more extensive for databases that will beproduced to private parties, as opposed to a federal law enforcement agency.” (Dkt. No. 105 at2). Texas had every opportunity, but failed, to raise this concern to the Court the previous day.
Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 107 Filed 05/07/12 Page 2 of 11