Belle Ball, CSR #8785, RMR, CRR Official Reporter - U.S. District Court (415) 373-2529
Belle Ball, CSR #8785, RMR, CRR Official Reporter - U.S. District Court (415) 373-2529
Belle Ball, CSR #8785, RMR, CRR Official Reporter - U.S. District Court (415) 373-2529
Volume 1
Pages 1 - 70
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
APPEARANCES:
APPEARANCES, CONTINUED:
APPEARANCES, CONTINUED:
APPEARANCES, CONTINUED:
2 10:02 A.M.
3 P R O C E E D I N G S
17 Plaintiff.
5 Plaintiffs.
11 of his administration.
8 O'Connell.
18 Pizer, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, also for the
20 et cetera.
24 Intervenor Plaintiffs.
4 San Francisco.
12 Defendant Intervenor.
24 But because the case management issues may depend upon who's in
25 the case and who's not in the case, and exactly what role
2 intervene first.
22 the lawsuit.
5 supporters.
13 California.
17 putting together the kind of factual record that the Court has
23 permission.
6 the moment.
8 the Plaintiffs?
23 that the two Plaintiffs -- and quite frankly, Your Honor, any
8 Plaintiffs?
18 inequality.
20 question?
1 help this Court grapple with the degree and the nature of the
8 have solved.
10 LGBT couples --
22 diverge.
2 factual issues and the legal issues that the Court has to
9 One.
16 Texas.
7 our clients can provide about all the different ways in which
21 members.
4 have the best interests of the community at heart, and can, you
5 know, bring easily together a full range of the harms that are
6 inflicted by Proposition 8.
10 participating as amici.
22 litigation, Your Honor, the Court will make rulings and factual
1 rights litigation and gay rights law. And these are issues
4 marriage.
10 Mr. Esseks.
16 Lindevaldsen.
1 litigation.
4 intervention, but --
5 (Reporter interruption)
18 client.
4 suspect classification.
7 give-and-take --
9 would do so.
25 examples, here.
12 case.
22 classification.
4 aspect.
6 36, that lesbians and gays are unable to secure hate crimes in
8 et cetera.
16 suspect classifications.
2 classification.
5 part.
14 just came out in August of 2009, even that report by the APA
21 There are two more, Nos. 20 and 59, that are related
23 classification.
1 Again, the APA task force report just issued in the beginning
4 admits that.
21 that factor.
25 has a broader interest it's fought for for years that if this
5 and a woman.
9 "marriage" as one man and one woman, it's going to impair the
11 would characterize it, that preserves the name and the rights
12 of marriage.
17 classification.
25 suspect classification.
4 Ms. Lindevaldsen.
16 decision.
18 little different from those that we have heard from the Our
1 perspective, number one, that comes from being a city that has
3 highest, I think -- of any city across the nation, and has been
9 regard?
14 inform the Court about -- I mean, one of the key issues in the
17 issue.
19 not be from our city, but our experience is that the costs are
20 very high on cities, and in fact, on the state and the federal
21 government.
1 goes quite far back, and in part also because of our work on
9 to the fore?
11 is, Your Honor. Most significantly, the Governor and the State
13 litigation.
18 local government.
22 and supported.
7 same-sex couples are offered marriage, they are far more likely
9 partnerships.
11 certain social costs of the kind that you are talking about?
14 the social support that comes with marriage, and they take on
18 partnership?
22 available.
11 fact, that is probably why some of the Plaintiffs may have not
12 married, and some of the people in the groups, that they are
17 and have mutual obligations, they then are much more likely to
20 Supreme Court heard not too long ago that involved a couple
22 walk away from the child. And, you know, the county ended up
23 trying to sue for support, and in the end, did obtain support.
25 recognized or relationships --
12 perspective.
14 besides the purely economic one. And that has to do with the
15 fact that when society has a law, when the government has a law
16 that makes this distinction between lesbians and gay men on the
23 thousands of lesbian and gay youth who come here from other
24 states where they are kicked out of their homes, and from
16 remind the Court, Romer versus Evans, the city government, city
18 case.
21 about --
24 correct, Your Honor. However, it went all the way to the U.S.
7 the Supreme Court did not suggest in any way that there was
10 that neither the state nor the local government entities object
14 that we have dealt with them and with the Court, that we won't
17 the Court had not decided that we were a party, and I didn't
1 permitted to marry.
5 obviously to get the case decided quickly, but the Court has to
9 Ms. Stewart?
13 situation and they have people who are trying to come in on the
15 attitude?
17 Your Honor. And I know that the Court has read the briefs and
19 question.
4 the strategy, timing, and issues in this case that they brought
10 the process?
21 we went along with -- and you may have come to the same
9 intervenors will add to the complexity and the time that this
10 case takes. And as you heard from Our Family Our Families
16 right to marry. And they are concerned that they are being
19 Constitution.
4 they tender nothing new to this case, other than the talent and
11 Campaign for California Families, and then the City and County?
14 longer and more complicated case, because they are not willing
2 virtually everything.
5 States that were willing to say "The proponents are not being
7 that I'm not willing to admit, and I want to put them to their
11 avoid.
13 San Francisco?
22 kind of thing. They are looking out for citizens that are
4 of San Francisco.
19 about The City and County of San Francisco is what they wish to
19 that were not raised before the California courts and then were
25 can. They're not groups. And I respect the fact that these
3 and represent issues. And they have demonstrated that they are
3 response?
9 become easier the more lawyers you put in a room, Your Honor.
14 In terms --
20 pursue.
22 us. They say it's a tactical mistake not to contest each one
1 tactical concern.
2 for -- they say that their interests may diverge. But they
5 may want to have Proposition 8 struck down, but when you look
7 their members want and what the Plaintiffs want, you see
5 redressable.
12 under that provision of Title VII that was at issue, the Ninth
15 public right of action under the Supreme Court cases that we've
18 this claim, but the City cannot turn on its creator like a
21 And when they say, "Oh, but the Attorney General and
24 in this matter. And they have not given San Francisco the
5 this case.
11 in this litigation.
16 various issues.
4 permissive intervention.
7 permissive intervention.
14 four-part showing:
4 controversy.
8 claims at issue.
12 interest.
15 the union between one man and one woman. The Campaign argues
16 that this interest arises from its work to ensure the passage
17 of Proposition 8.
10 appropriate.
15 proponents of Proposition 8.
1 where the existing party and the applicant have the same
3 adequate.
18 introduce that are consistent with the law and the facts.
25 right is denied.
4 current Plaintiffs.
14 this interest directly as they are the parties who allege that
3 socioeconomic class.
12 Plaintiffs and the Our Family Coalition assert that the root of
20 denied.
2 the parties.
10 our circuit.
25 action.
4 the record before the Court suggests that the current parties
10 similar issues.
16 time and resources of both the Court and the parties that have
20 Our Family Coalition and the Campaign may seek to file amicus
24 granted.
5 8.
14 permissively.
24 does appear distinct from any other party except possibly the
13 and particularly Mr. Olson and Mr. Cooper. You have obviously
14 taken to heart the discussion that we had here last month, and
15 the order that was issued in the wake of the earlier case
16 management statements.
16 Intervenors as we go forward.
3 so.
6 proposition.
11 for judicial inquiry, and that in fact, would raise the gravest
4 other.
7 fight this out in briefing to the Court before we get down that
8 road.
19 opponents of Proposition 8?
23 First-Amendment matter.
1 before the Court, that the one clear and certain analysis is to
11 And --
24 the referendum effort, and those who organized and provided the
1 haven't been able to find any evidence that a party was allowed
22 subject?
10 the Court.
18 think Mr. Cooper's exactly right, that there is some stuff that
21 we have not yet made; and then there's a number of things that
8 that may or may not have become public, and there may be some
11 classified as public?
13 decisions that we will make along the way. And I don't think
3 dispositive motions.
5 with you and Mr. Cooper a schedule that I have in mind, based
12 expert witnesses.
16 Is that --
18 doable.
3 believe. Is it not?
10 a Wednesday, I believe.
13 the 16th?
14 (Off-the-Record discussion)
20 case.
24 bit -- a bit more relaxed than the one which the Plaintiffs
2 to cope with.
7 Defendant Intervenors.
12 going, and -- and came to our own resolves, that okay, we are
16 involved with.
2 that the Court will keep an open mind as this thing unfolds.
4 practice law, so --
1 discovery dispute.
3 worry about, and water, and fires, and other things, but this
5 And you're his lawyer, and I'm sure you have his
12 Counsel, thank you. And I will see you at our next proceeding.
13 (Conclusion of Proceedings)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER