1 Comment Sagesse
Walker upholds disclosure ruling
March 22, 2010
By Julia Rosen
Today Judge Walker upheld the ruling by a federal magistrate mandating that Prop 8 opponents (the good guys) turn over internal documents and emails to the other side. It looks like the issue over though. SFGate:
Walker’s decision could delay a verdict.
The American Civil Liberties Union, one of the three groups that must turn over the campaign materials, has said it would appeal if Walker upholds the magistrate’s order.
While it looked like it would only be a few weeks between oral arguments and the scheduling of closing arguments, it has been fights like this one that has been slowing down the process. The wheels of justice move slowly. We could be into summer by the time there is a ruling.
Filed under: Trial analysis
74 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Chris | March 22, 2010 at 7:53 am
I think I'm behind the power curve. Why don't "we" want to do this?
2.
cc | March 22, 2010 at 7:54 am
No more delays! This is our future, our families and our lives that are on trial. Sorry I am just so sick of waiting to start my life.
3.
Jake | March 22, 2010 at 7:57 am
Good afternoon.
Which side will appeal this to the 9th Circuit? My understanding is the Yes On 8 people wanted MORE documents than the magistrate had ordered, and consequently they weren't happy either.
Jake
Phoenix
4.
Tim | March 22, 2010 at 7:58 am
I don't know how much longer I can take this! I am going to remain cautiously opomistic! We don't have anything to hide! Do we? lol
5.
fiona64 | March 22, 2010 at 7:58 am
The documents requested have nothing, really, to do with the case. Furthermore, the cost of reproducing them and providing them is significant — and the organizations from which they are sought are not parties to the case.
Love,
Fiona
6.
Monty | March 22, 2010 at 7:58 am
As I understand, that's exactly it. They wanted more, and we wanted less.
7.
Monty | March 22, 2010 at 7:58 am
No, but the expense and effort in getting all those extra documents is significant enough that we don't want to do more than we have to.
8.
Kristin | March 22, 2010 at 7:59 am
Isn't it a bit hypocritical of our side to demand internal campaign documents from the Yes on 8 people and then fight turning over our own?
9.
fiona64 | March 22, 2010 at 8:00 am
The documents being demanded have NOTHING to do with the case. That's the whole point. Furthermore (and Kathleen, please chime in if I explain it incorrectly) this is NOT how discovery ordinarily works in a suit. The people demanding these documents are the *defendants.*
Love,
Fiona
10.
JusB | March 22, 2010 at 8:02 am
It really isn't because the documents that were request on from the Yes on 8 are from the parties that are directly involved in the trail (defense-intervenors), as opposed to the documents that are currently being asked of parties that are not directly involved in the trial, but were involved in the campaign.
At least that is my understanding of it.
Happy Days!
Jus
11.
Kathleen | March 22, 2010 at 8:04 am
@Chris,
There are a couple of things about the discovery order that to consider:
1. The organizations which are being ordered to turn over documents are not parties to this lawsuit. And there is expenditure in both time and money required to comply with the order.
2. The more important issue is that these are political campaigns that are being told to turn over documents. Whatever the ultimate outcome of this battle over discovery, it's going to have ramifications for future campaigns — how freely people within the campaigns can communicate with each other of things like strategy, without fear of documents becoming part of a public record. So there are important first amendment issues at stake here.
12.
Kathleen | March 22, 2010 at 8:15 am
@Kristin, a lot of people have suggested that. But disclosure isn't just a tit for tat. In order to compel discovery, the evidence being requested must be both relevant and necessary to the party's case. (and both the defendants and plaintiffs in a suit have a right to evidence).
The reason plaintiffs asked the "Yes on 8" campaign to turn over documents was because being able to show the motive of the campaign goes to the heart of the argument the plaintiffs are making. P's are saying that the campaign was driven by animus toward gay people and promoting a specific religious agenda; neither are legitimate state interests.
The "No on 8" campaign orgs are arguing that what is being asked for by the D-Is are not relevant to the case.
As I've said before, it's my opinion that the D-Is are on a fishing expedition, but they made their case with Spero, saying they "seek the documents to help elucidate voter intent and the purpose of Proposition 8 and because the documents may address the political power of gays and lesbians." (from Spero's Mar 5 order)
13.
Kathleen | March 22, 2010 at 8:20 am
Yes, the hearing in Walker's court last week, involved objections on both sides to Spero's Mar 5 order. Walker just denied both appeals to modify the order, leaving Spero's order intact.
ACLU had previously stated their intention to appeal to the 9th Circuit if they didn't prevail on their motion. If the ACLU doesn't appeal, I don't know if the D-Is intend to. I haven't read any public statements from them on the issue.
14.
Ronnie | March 22, 2010 at 8:20 am
They are on trial…..we are not…..a fact that they refuse to accept…..their Lawyers are FOOLS!!!!…….<3…Ronnie
15.
Chris | March 22, 2010 at 8:28 am
Glad you asked. That's the way it sounded to me too.
16.
Ronnie | March 22, 2010 at 8:33 am
O.T…..but happy time…..Happy 80th B-Day to Steven Soldheim….."Here's to Ladies"……….."A toast to that invincible Bunch(LGBTQQIA)"……… <3….Ronnie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6Ci39PRNYo&fe…
17.
Ronnie | March 22, 2010 at 8:41 am
typo….Stephen Sondheim…..I always miss spell his name…..ugggg…..<3….Ronnie
18.
PDXAndrew | March 22, 2010 at 8:45 am
No expert here, but the way I see it, it's two couples challenging the protectmawwage.com group, who ran the Yes on (H)8 campaign. Since the No team isn't the ones suing, they shouldn't need to supply much documentation.
I believe the H8ers are looking for proof of our political strength to show we are not a subject class and thus not deserving of the highest level of scrutiny (I'm not sure what that means, tho… Something about how we have enough clout that we would have won if the people really wanted it, so we don't get to use the repressed minority card.)
On the other hand, I understand
the cost involved in digging our all these documents, but just imagine how much fun it would be to give them ALL this data, and watch them choke on it…
… Can we volunteer time to help the ACLU make the necessary copies?
Love,
Andrew
19.
bJason | March 22, 2010 at 8:47 am
I've been reading too much on the interwebs today and am feeling combative! PLEASE, someone talk me down!
20.
Brenda Roehrich | March 22, 2010 at 8:47 am
All of this because people want to practice legitimate discrimination. This is really sad for a so-called free country.
21.
Chris | March 22, 2010 at 8:48 am
LET IT LOOSE! I've been all over my old bigoted friends and family today.
22.
Chris | March 22, 2010 at 8:50 am
Isn't it ironic how hatred and self-victimization gets your agenda moving. I guess it's got to do with the squeeky hinge getting the oil. It makes me sick.
Your straight ally,
Chris
23.
Kathleen | March 22, 2010 at 8:50 am
(these are the things that work for me).
XOXO
K
24.
Ronnie | March 22, 2010 at 8:55 am
Do a Whitley from "A Different World"…
Relax….Relate….Release…..Relax….Relate….Release….aaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh……<3…Ronnie
25.
bJason | March 22, 2010 at 8:59 am
Thank you dear! Great suggestion – it SNOWED here today (after a Saturday of 70+ degree weather). I'm having trouble controlling myself against: A) people who don't know about which they speak and 2) poor grammar. I'm afraid to "let it loose" as Chris suggests.
26.
bJason | March 22, 2010 at 9:01 am
I am afraid to do so. I need help (or someone with whom to rant)!
27.
Sagesse | March 22, 2010 at 9:04 am
Guys, remember that delay is part of the legal process, part of the game. Unless something comes of the disclosures that ends up in evidence, and unless it hurts the plaintiff's side, it doesn't change the outcome. Sometimes a delay is just a delay.
28.
bJason | March 22, 2010 at 9:08 am
oh yeah, AND my cat is in heat (and I'm not too far behind) !
29.
Chris | March 22, 2010 at 9:08 am
Find Chris Gibson on Facebook in Alaska and rant to me. I'm in one of those moods today.
30.
Kathleen | March 22, 2010 at 9:09 am
Argh.. I fear I may be feeding your frustration with posts that contain sentences like "There are a couple of things about the discovery order that to consider." They're the result of bad cut and paste jobs, I swear! (and not taking enough time to carefully proofread)
31.
bJason | March 22, 2010 at 9:10 am
"BOB-AY"
32.
Kristin | March 22, 2010 at 9:10 am
Thanks everybody for the explanations. If the parties are not directly involved in the case, then I don't agree that they should have to turn over documents.
Kathleen mentioned a fishing expeditions and that's exactly what it sounds like to me!
33.
bJason | March 22, 2010 at 9:11 am
nice to meet you – going to look for you now!! JASON HEWETT, here. (didn't mean to yell)
34.
bJason | March 22, 2010 at 9:14 am
are you on the prop8TT friends/fan page – found several Chris Gibsons?
35.
Chris | March 22, 2010 at 9:31 am
No. I've got a pic of me in sunglasses with my daughter.
36.
Chris | March 22, 2010 at 9:31 am
I lied. I am on there.
37.
Richard A. Walter (s | March 22, 2010 at 9:33 am
Julia, it really could have been worse. Walker could have ruled in favor of the D-I's and demanded that more be handed over, which is what they wanted. This way, he is telling them that what you were granted is all that you can have. I would rather that Judge Wal;ker be cautious in this, and that some things be appealed to the 9th Circuit, than to have him issue a ruling that could be overturned by being to hasty or rash.
38.
bJason | March 22, 2010 at 9:39 am
Lying is bad, m'kay…
39.
Bob | March 22, 2010 at 9:56 am
@b jason, can you identify anything specific you're really mad about, I'm with Chris, don't hold it in, let er rip, say what's on your mind.
I've read some pretty nasty posts on this web, what are you afraid of. go at it. blow your wad
40.
Straight Dave | March 22, 2010 at 10:32 am
That's right, bJason. One of the good things about this site is that people can let their emotions out safely. Nobody gets too bent out of shape ( or rarely). Just check out Ronnie, and a few others. He is a master at cutting loose, but we all love him anyway. You are who you are and it's OK. If you're pissed, chances are you have a few good reasons. The moderators don't censor being pissed, or even foul language. This is a safe zone, so feel free to share. You will have a lot of empathy from like-minded brothers and sisters.
41.
Richard A. Walter (s | March 22, 2010 at 10:34 am
Amen on that one, Dave. Hope all is going good for you this evening. Hope I didn't upset you the other day. As far as feeling free to call when you need to, that is definitely a go, so don't worry about the time. We want to be here for you since you are here for all of us.
42.
Alex | March 22, 2010 at 11:02 am
Ok EQCA ACLU it's time to hand over the
documents! Stop acting like a bunch of
hypocrytical people like the yes on 8 groups. What do you all have to hide?
43.
Ed-M | March 22, 2010 at 11:09 am
Judge Walker and the Plaintiffs' team have to bend over backwards for the D-I team and the hateros lest they accuse Judge Walker of being a gay judicial activist. Oh wait a minute, they already are!
44.
Straight Dave | March 22, 2010 at 1:44 pm
All is cool, Richard. Just very busy with work, house, and pregnant daughter these days. It's good to know that you're there.
45.
Sheryl | March 22, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Since we are talking about the trial again, anyone read this article in the New York Times today?
Trial in Same-Sex Marriage Case Is Challenged
Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/us/23bar.html?r…
You'll have to do a copy and paste, seems I'm not doing the link correctly.
Anyway, here's a quote I really liked:
Theodore B. Olson said he had a theory about the new objections.
“They’ve got to complain about something,” Mr. Olson said. “They think they’re going to lose.”
Sheryl
46.
Sheryl | March 22, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Guess it doesn't show as a link until I submit. Guess I can post links.
Sheryl
47.
Chris | March 22, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Didn't see the NYT article but I did hear a bit on NPR today. I was so damn excited it got some publicity.
48.
Richard A. Walter (s | March 22, 2010 at 3:45 pm
When is the baby due? And we will be praying that she has a relatively easy delivery (There is no such thing as a truly easy one, just hopefully short) and a happy , healthy baby.
49.
dieter | March 22, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Choi to HRC: "I Feel So Betrayed"
By Advocate.com Editors
Lt. Dan Choi is profiled in the week’s copy of Newsweek, recounting what really happened to him after he was arrested at the White House gates and spent the night in jail.
Choi tells the magazine he was denied a phone call and at numerous points throughout the interview, slams the Human Rights Campaign.
Some highlights:
"Within the gay community so many leaders want acceptance from polite society. I think there's been a betrayal of what is down inside of us in order to achieve what looks popular, what looks enviable. The movement seems to be centered around how to become an elite. There is a deep schism [in the gay-rights movement], everyone knows this. But this shouldn't be about which group has better branding. There is a tremor right now in every gay and transgender youth that these groups are not grasping. I would say to them—you do not represent us if all you are looking for is a ladder in to elite society.”
"Ghandi (sic) did not need three-course dinners and a cocktail party to get his message out."
"When I heard Kathy Griffin was going to be a spokeswoman for Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I wondered about that. I have great respect for her as an advocate. But if [the Human Rights Campaign] thinks that having a rally at Freedom Plaza with a comedienne is the right approach, I have to wonder. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not a joking matter to me. To be at Freedom Plaza and not at the White House or Congress? Who are they trying to influence? I felt like they were just trying to speak to themselves. If that's the best the lobbying groups and HRC can do, then I don't know how these powerful groups are supposed to represent our community. Kathy Griffin and [HRC president] Jay (sic) Solmonese said they would march with me to the White House but didn’t. I feel so betrayed by them."
Read the full interview here.
50.
Kathleen | March 22, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Here's the Newsweek article: http://www.newsweek.com/id/235290
51.
draNgNon | March 22, 2010 at 4:51 pm
didn't AFER tell the ACLU to back off when the ACLU tried to intervene becuase they felt the ACLU was going to undermine their case?
and look, they are finding a way to screw it up anyway. bah
52.
K!r!lleXXI | March 22, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Isn't it easier for our side to just produce those documents and stop delaying?
I think the PropH8 side simply wants to stall the process as much as they can — to delay the ruling… that's all they can do in this trial… they know they won't win! Why should we be helping them with these delays? I don't believe our side's campaign was as nearly filthy as theirs! We have nothing to be afraid of… especially because those documents have nothing really to do with the campaign.
53.
K!r!lleXXI | March 22, 2010 at 6:44 pm
@Kathleen
What do you think would be better — contest Spero's order or comply with it and produce those documents — in terms of time and money, and, of course, in terms of our side's image remaining honest and fair? I mean, maybe it's worth it to comply and give them all they want to let them see we have nothing to hide? If we fiercely contest those orders, people may think we have something to hide… hell, judge may think we have something to hide… Justices of the Supreme Court may think we have something to hide… I'm curious what Olson and Boies think about it…
If it's about money, then our community has to help with that… Who else will help us if not ourselves?
I understand about those First Amendment issues, it is important, but sometimes it is also important to be as open as possible for the public and show that our enemies did everything they could to hide all the information they could, and we instead did the opposite about our documents… Just saying…
54.
Robert | March 22, 2010 at 7:18 pm
"To think that somehow the rules of evidence can lead you to the right answer is just not right"
Is there any legal sense in which this isn't as stupid as it sounds? Stuff the evidence, we know we're right!
55.
Straight Dave | March 22, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Due date is April 19th. Same as Boston Marathon. I'm usually standing at mile 9 cheering. Must remember to take my cell phone.
56.
John | March 22, 2010 at 9:28 pm
I think I’m missing something in all this. Correct me if I’m wrong, please. Their team fought the disclosure of internal communications on things like strategy and items directly involved in the case citing first amendment rights and fear of retaliation. They won. Yet, our team must surrender the same types of internal documents from parties not directly involved in the case? I realize they are on a fishing expedition, but why must we have to turn over documents when they don’t? How is that not having your cake and eating it too?
57.
Sagesse | March 22, 2010 at 9:58 pm
It does sound a little desperate. They win the right to disclosure, which they could be crowing about, and instead they move their publicity campaign onto a new, and not very convincing objection.
They argue that “California voters got all of this evidence, more or less, during the campaign for or against Prop. 8”.
All of the proponents arguments are based on dated or questionable research, yet freedom of speech puts no constraints on using specious, unsupported arguments. This just emphasizes why the courts need to be involved.
58.
Straight Grandmother | March 22, 2010 at 10:01 pm
I know I am in a minority here but I agree with the order of Discovery. No expert but it seems fair that the judge let the DI's seek evidence that will debase our claim that GLBT's are politically impotent. I know it is nto a popular opinion but I think the ruling is correct.
I do not conser this to be dealying since they have been asking for this since before the trial started and Judge Walker just didn't schedule it for a hearing.
If you go into the court documents, way way back you will see that Judge Walker set this up under a certain process to expedite the trial. It is literally fast tracked. He should have gotten the discovery phase all ruled upon before the trial started and he didn't, hwe moved full speed ahead to trial. So now we kind of have thecart before the horse.
59.
Ronnie | March 22, 2010 at 10:35 pm
In my opinion John, it has to do with one of the basic traits of Hateros…….they are right and we are wrong…… in everything from thought process(whether it would be legal or not) to the way we live our lives (acknowledging only the stereotypes and ignoring everyone else including the straight allies)……For some reason they do not think they have to follow the law….but we do…….They are greedy, selfish, spoiled condescending, egocentric, narcissistic, hypocritical, Naziesque little piss ants….and they need to be SQUASHED…..like the insects they are….and then of course we will have world peace…..<3….Ronnie
60.
Ed | March 22, 2010 at 11:13 pm
OT, but, i urge everyone to go to http://www.nationformarriage.org and read the news update for march 19….crazy stuff, too much to cut and paste. My favorite is when Brian Brown (the Grand Imperial Wizard, umm i mean executive director) said…..(We have more up our sleeve–I'll tell you about that later.)
What a dipshit
Ed
61.
PDXAndrew | March 22, 2010 at 11:23 pm
New Hampshire results silence NOM's Maggie Gallagher (from Box Turtle Bulletin)
Heh… the idea of NOM being silent is music to my ears
Love, Andrew
62.
Richard A. Walter (s | March 22, 2010 at 11:38 pm
Especially if you have picture capabilities. That way, you will get to see pictures as soon as the baby is born. Mazel Tov to all!
63.
Bill | March 23, 2010 at 12:26 am
Any idea why those seeking to strip human beings of rights don't have to provide OUR side with THEIR internal documents, but the VICTIMS of this crime have to provide OUR internal documents to the CRIMINALS?
The Supreme Court ruled that the Prop H8 folks didn't have to show us THEIR documents, so why do we have to show them ours????
Sincere question. Makes no sense to me, unless I am missing a piece of the puzzle here.
64.
Bill | March 23, 2010 at 12:28 am
But the Supreme COurt ruled that Prop h* didn't have to release documents, so WHY DO WE???
65.
Ronnie | March 23, 2010 at 12:32 am
Happy note:
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/03/2…
Posted on Advocate.com March 23, 2010
Gay Prom Date Approved in Georgia
By Julie Bolcer
"A high school in the small Georgia town of Cochran will allow a gay senior to take his boyfriend to the prom next month."
(me) SWEET!!!…..
"Derrick Martin, an 18-year-old honor student at Bleckley County High School, told The Telegraph of Macon that he expected his request to prove too controversial for the small town of 5,200 residents, but school officials surprised him by approving it last week."
(me) The fact that he even has to ask is what really sticks in my craw…..do straight couples have to ask? NO!!!…..
“You don’t have the right to say no,” principal Michelle Masters told The Telegraph. “As a principal, I don’t judge him. I’m taught not to judge. I have to push my own beliefs to the background.”
(me) Exactly…..she's human….I heart her…..
”Even if there is backlash, both educators said they won’t cancel or change their plans for prom. It would not be fair to the students, Pipkin said,” according to The Telegraph."
(me) HECK YEAH!!!!….."F" the Hateros…..<3….Ronnie
66.
Bill | March 23, 2010 at 12:41 am
While I certainly feel for Lt. Choi, he should NEVER have engaged in civil disobedience while wearing his military uniform.
He had my full support until that moment.
Military personnel are to put country before themselves. If he wanted to make a statement, he should have done it in plain clothes.
What he did was wrong. I understand his motive, but it was still wrong. And not the message to be sending.
67.
Bill | March 23, 2010 at 12:43 am
The mere fact that he had to 'request' to take his loved one makes me want to vomit.
68.
Bob | March 23, 2010 at 4:12 am
I don't see anywhere where it says he had to ask, that's part of the emancipation of our own thinking, we need to take responsibility for,
We don't know why he did ask, wether he felt he needed to, which would be wrong thinking on his part, or if he did it to raise awareness before hand which it did, and that's good
He could have just gone to the prom with his date, eventually that will happen. In that case the reaction to that reality would only draw attention, make a news flash, or perhaps go unnoticed.
69.
Bob | March 23, 2010 at 4:20 am
@Bill, did you read the full interview of Choi, at the above post, he's put all he has on the line including his military career, that's why he dressed in his uniform, he's prepared to loose everything in this fight, and he's squarely challenged us all by his actions, we either put all our chips into the pile, or hang on the sidelines and watch, for fear of loosing something we value more than freedom. It's a call to ACTION time to march, Obama gave him his marching orders, bring full pressure to the president., can we do that?
70.
Kathleen | March 23, 2010 at 4:47 am
In fairness to the ACLU, it's the D-Is/Prop 8 Proponents who dragged the ACLU into this by requesting evidence from them. When asked to open up their internal campaign communications to an outside source, they're simply being the staunch defender of First Amendment rights that they've always been (nothing surprising there). I'm not sure how you think they're screwing things up; at most, the ACLU's actions here are simply delaying proceedings.
71.
Ronnie | March 23, 2010 at 5:12 am
My point Bob, was that he shouldn't have had to feel that he needed to ask…..it's not their (the school) decision to make….he is his boyfriend…..he is his date…he has to pay for what he wears, the limo, the tickets….that is what is wrong that some kids still feel that they need to ask permission to be who they are….true a kid should ask permission from their parents about who they date….but lets be realistic they're not going to listen….My mom didn't…<3…Ronnie
72.
Ronnie | March 23, 2010 at 5:13 am
I'm willing to die for Equality……<3….Ronnie
73.
Ronnie | March 23, 2010 at 5:35 am
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/03/2…
Posted on Advocate.com March 23, 2010
Frank, Baldwin: Time for ENDA Is Now
By Advocate.com Editors
"Rep. Barney Frank and Rep. Tammy Baldwin have both made it clear in separate interviews — they want a House vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act very soon."
(me)….now that health care is dealt with for the time being……D.C. should have some free time to work on the other promises they made….yeah?…..
This is the part of the short article that I want to address:
“Certainly there are members of Congress who are nervous because of the economy, the rate of joblessness,” she said. “Across the country, people are agitated. On the other hand, my constituents want to see bolder and quicker change, and so I actually see positive signs to follow through [on DADT and ENDA].”
(me) DADT will put over 65 thousand soldiers out of a job and the possibility of them finding a job…next to impossible….. ENDA will keep people from losing their jobs and not getting hired based on S.O…..sooo the joblessness and economy thing doesn't fly…..it's a sad excuse for I don't want gays….get over it….that excuse means you only care about joblessness and economic struggles of heterosexuals…..its bull shite and not only is it a waste of my tax money but its stealing my money to use against me and all of us…..Well it's over….no more…..EQUALITY NOW!!!!!!!!!…..<3…Ronnie
74.
Bob | March 23, 2010 at 5:38 am
Me too Ronnie
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.