You are on page 1of 2

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 152 Filed 05/04/15 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
SEXUAL MINORITIES UGANDA,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION
v.

NO. 3-12-CV-30051-MAP

SCOTT LIVELY, individually and as President of
Abiding Truth Ministries,
Defendant.
DECLARATION OF DANIEL W. BEEBE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO AMEND THE ORDER REGARDING CONFIDENTIALITY
OF CERTAIN DISCOVERY MATERIAL
I, DANIEL W. BEEBE, declare and state as follows:
1.

I am an associate at the law firm Dorsey & Whitney LLP, counsel to Plaintiff

Sexual Minorities Uganda (“SMUG” or “Plaintiff”) in the above-captioned case and submit this
declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Order Regarding Confidentiality of
Certain Discovery Materials (Dkt. No. 106) (the “Protective Order”) so that SMUG may
designate a specific set of exceptionally sensitive documents for “Attorneys’ Eyes Only”
protection (the “Motion”). I make this declaration upon personal knowledge.
2.

Pursuant to Local Rule 37.1, the parties met and conferred by telephone on

Thursday, April 23, 2015 to discuss whether Defendant Scott Lively (“Lively”) would agree to
allow “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” designations for a discrete set of approximately 220 documents
(the “AEO Documents”).

For purposes of the conference, SMUG sent Lively’s counsel an

index titled “Index of Documents for Attorneys’ Eyes Only Designation,” identifying each of the

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 152 Filed 05/04/15 Page 2 of 2

AEO Documents by bates range, date, author, recipient, and description with SMUG’s basis for
making an AEO designation.
3.

My colleague, Mr. Kaleb McNeely, and I participated in the telephonic

conference on behalf of SMUG, and Mr. Horatio Mihet and Mr. Roger Gannam, participated on
behalf of Lively.
4.

Despite conferring in good faith, the parties were unable to reach agreement.

5.

SMUG’s position is that, as set forth in greater detail in its contemporaneously-

filed Memorandum of Law, the Protective Order should be amended to permit SMUG to
designate documents “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” if they fit within any of the four AEO Categories,
and that documents so-marked should not be disclosed to Lively.
6.

Lively’s position, as articulated by his counsel during the telephonic conference,

is that he personally should be allowed to review all documents produced by SMUG in this
litigation.

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 5, 2015 at New York, New York.

_/s/ Daniel W. Beebe___
Daniel W. Beebe

2