IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION MARC VEASEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RICK PERRY, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-193 (NGR)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, TEXAS LEAGUE OF YOUNG VOTERS EDUCATION FUND, et al., Plaintiff-Intervenors, TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF HISPANIC COUNTY JUDGES AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, et al., Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-263 (NGR)
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 1 of 15
1
TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NANDITA BERRY, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-291 (NGR)
BELINDA ORTIZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Defendants
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-348 (NGR)
UNITED STATES’ OPPOSITION TO TEXAS LEGISLATORS’
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS
Defendants the State of Texas, John Steen, and Nandita Berry demanded that the United
States issue subpoenas to obtain vital discovery from current and former legislators who have
supported photographic voter identification legislation in Texas. See, e.g., Defs. Br. on
Subpoenas (ECF No. 199). Once the United States issued those subpoenas, counsel for the
Legislators repeatedly assured counsel for the United States that legislators would produce some
documents responsive subject to the subpoenas on April 25, 2014. Despite those assurances, and
without attempting to confer with the United States, the Legislators moved to quash the
subpoenas in their entirety. See Mot. to Quash (ECF. No. 251).
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 2 of 15
2
The Legislators’ motion should be denied. First, the documents sought are highly
relevant to claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973. The Legislators
fail to address the Section 2 standard and the discovery deficiencies revealed by the production
of documents withheld during Texas v. Holder, No. 1:12-cv-128 (D.D.C.). Second, many of the
documents the subpoenas seek lie outside any possible scope of a state legislative privilege and
cannot be quashed in their entirety based on any such privilege. Third, this Court has already
concluded that Defendants’ assertion of state legislative privilege over analogous documents
sought through party discovery must yield; the same analysis applies here. Therefore, the
Legislators’ motion to quash should be denied and the Legislators should be ordered to comply
with the United States’ subpoenas, subject to the protective procedures established in this Court’s
Order on the United States’ Motion to Compel. See Veasey v. Perry, No. 2:13-cv-193, 2014 WL
1340077, at *3-4 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 2014) (ECF No. 226).
I. LEGAL STANDARD
A party may serve a subpoena under Rule 45 to obtain “documents, electronically stored
information, or tangible things.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(C). The recipient of the subpoena may
move to quash or modify a subpoena only for one of four specific reasons, namely if the
subpoena “(1) fails to allow a reasonable time for compliance; (2) requires a person who is not a
party to travel more than 100 miles from where the person resides; (3) requires disclosure of
privileged or protected matter; or (4) subjects a person to undue burden.” Texas Keystone, Inc. v.
Prime Nat. Res., Inc., 694 F.3d 548, 554 (5th Cir. 2012). “The individual seeking to quash or
modify must meet ‘the heavy burden of establishing that compliance with the subpoena would be
unreasonable and oppressive.’” Hussey v. State Farm Lloyds Ins. Co., 216 F.R.D. 591, 596 (E.D.
Tex. 2003) (quoting Williams v. City of Dallas, 178 F.R.D. 103, 109 (N.D. Tex. 1998)).
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 3 of 15
3
“Among the factors that the court may consider in determining whether there is an undue burden
are ‘relevance, the need of the party for the documents, the breadth of the document request, the
time period covered by it, the particularity with which the documents are described and the
burden imposed.’” Id. (quoting Linder v. Dep’t of Defense, 133 F.3d 17, 24 (D.C. Cir.1998)).
“When a subpoena is issued as a discovery device, relevance for purposes of the undue burden
test is measured according to the standard of Rule 26(b)(1).” Williams, 178 F.R.D. at 110. “[A]
court should give a wider berth of discovery to subpoenas that concern substantial national,
rather than merely parochial, interests.” In re Subpoenas to Plains All Am. Pipeline, L.P., No. H-
13-2975, 2014 WL 204447, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 17, 2014). Resolution of a motion to quash is
subject to a district court’s discretion. See Texas Keystone, Inc., 694 F.3d at 554.
II. THE DOCUMENTS UNDER SUBPOENA ARE HIGHLY RELEVANT TO CLAIMS UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.
As the United States explained in its motion to compel legislative documents,
“[d]etermining whether invidious discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor [in a decision]
demands a sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence as may be available.”
Mot. to Compel at 3 (ECF No. 162) (quoting Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev.
Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266 (1977)). “Contemporary statements by members of the
decisionmaking body” can be a “highly relevant” form of such evidence. Arlington Heights, 429
U.S. at 266. More specifically, the Section 2 results test requires “a searching practical
evaluation of the past and present reality and . . . a functional view of the political process.”
Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 43, 45 (1986) (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted). The Senate Report to the 1982 amendments of the Voting Rights Act identifies a
number of factors that may inform a court’s evaluation of whether a challenged practice or
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 4 of 15
4
procedure denies minority voters the same opportunity to participate in the political process as
other citizens, including “the extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or
political subdivision that touched the right of the members of the minority group to register, to
vote, or otherwise to participate in the democratic process” and “whether political campaigns
have been characterized by overt or subtle racial appeals.” Id. at 36-37 (quoting S. Rep. No. 97-
417, at 28-29 (1982)). The subpoenas in this case are squarely focused on evidence that is
relevant under those two rubrics. See, e.g., Subpoena of Representative Patricia Harless (Ex. 1).
This Court has already found that the topics set out in the subpoenas, which mirror the
United States’ First Set of Requests for Production, are “highly relevant” to the United States’
discriminatory intent and discriminatory results claims. Veasey, 2014 WL 1340077, at *2.
Although the Legislators took issue with six of the requests for documents sought by the
subpoenas, see Mot. to Quash at 6-7, they did not contest the relevance of the remaining
requests. See Harless Subpoena Ex. A ¶¶ 1-14, 19-20. These requests include the consideration
of photographic voter identification proposals, communications concerning such proposals, and
both pre-enactment and post-enactment analyses of the impact of photographic voter
identification laws. See id. ¶¶ 1-11. Moreover, the topics challenged by the Legislators address
whether political campaigns have been characterized by overt or subtle racial appeals, one of the
Section 2 Senate Factors, see id. ¶¶ 15-16, and Defendants’ failure to amend SB 14 following the
Texas v. Holder court’s findings of avoidable harm to minority voters, which is circumstantial
evidence of the intent underlying SB 14, see id. ¶¶ 17-18, 21-22. Thus, these subpoena topics
relate directly to the claims before this Court and should be permitted, particularly under the
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 5 of 15
5
appropriately more expansive standards applied in a case of such importance. See In re
Subpoenas, 2014 WL 204447, at *3.1
The documents already produced by Defendants per this Court’s April 3 Order fail to
comprise the universe of relevant documents. That set of documents contains almost no
legislative email, notwithstanding painstaking negotiations that occurred during Texas v. Holder
concerning email search terms. Those few emails produced suggest that legislators engaged in a
substantial amount of email communication concerning SB 14 and photographic voter
identification laws, extensively using private email addresses. See also, e.g., Deposition of
Colby Beuck, May 14, 2012, at 38:2-8 (Ex. 2) (describing Representative Harless’s use of a
private email account to conduct official business); Deposition of Janice McCoy, May 12, 2012,
at 34:18-22 (Ex. 3) (describing Senator Fraser’s use of a private email account to conduct
official business). Thus, it is highly unlikely that the United States has all of the documents
responsive to the requests for production made during Texas v. Holder—the declaratory
judgment action under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act concerning SB 14. Mot. to Quash at
4-6.
2
1 Although the Legislators state that the subpoenas will impose an undue burden, they do not address any of the factors applied within the Fifth Circuit beyond simple relevance. See Mot. to Quash at 10; see also Hussey, 216 F.R.D. at 596. Even assuming that the Legislators intended the arguments made concerning a state legislative privilege to apply to their burden argument as well, the Legislators have failed to challenge the time period covered by the subpoena and the actual burden imposed by compliance. A good faith search of legislators’ official email and the private email accounts they use to conduct state business would require little more than searches using critical keywords such as “SB 14,” “voter ID,” and “Hispanic voters,” among others. To the extent that the Legislators wish the United States to provide such keywords, the United States will promptly do so upon receipt of a request naming the email systems used by the Legislators. The locations of other electronic and paper documents are likely known to the legislators and their staff.
Moreover, the Legislators fail to take into account the greater universe of relevant evidence
2 Without revealing the contents of the documents produced under seal, the vast majority are publicly available materials over which Defendants appear to have asserted a state legislative privilege by mere virtue of them having been maintained in a legislator’s office.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 6 of 15
6
under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Just as Defendants have sought further discovery in
this litigation, the United States too should not be limited to the discovery taken during Texas v.
Holder.
III. THE LEGISLATORS CANNOT QUASH THE SUBPOENAS IN THEIR ENTIRETY BASED ON A LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGE.
A substantial portion of the documents sought by the United States’ subpoenas are
outside the scope of any possible state legislative privilege. Therefore, the subpoenas cannot be
quashed in their entirety based on the incorrect assertion that compliance would require
disclosure of privileged or protected matter. Mot. to Quash at 6-10; see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
45(d)(3)(A)(iv). Campaign communications, Harless Subpoena Ex. A ¶¶ 15-16, are “outside the
chamber” and therefore outside any protection necessary to “‘preserve the integrity of the
legislative process.’” Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 127 (1979) (quoting United States
v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 517 (1972)); see also FEC v. Wright, 777 F. Supp. 525, 530 (N.D.
Tex. 1991) (concluding that testimony about the use of campaign funds is not protected by the
Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution). Similarly, communications with
“lobbyists, groups, associations, organizations, or members of the public” concerning voter
identification, Harless Subpoena Ex. A ¶¶ 2, 7, 13-15, are not protected by any legislative
privilege. See, e.g., Baldus v. Brennan, No. 11-cv-562, 2011 WL 6122542, at *2 (E.D. Wis.
Dec. 8, 2011) (three-judge court).
As to those documents that potentially implicate state legislative privilege, Defendants’
blanket assertion of privilege violates Rule 26 and thus triggers no protection, see Turner v.
Grumpy, LLC, No. 2:08-cv-49, 2009 WL 259927, at *1 (N.D. Miss. Feb. 2, 2009), particularly
given the limited scope and qualified nature of the privilege, see Veasey, 2014 WL 1340077, at
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 7 of 15
7
*1. Thus, to the extent that the Legislators maintain that some responsive documents are
protected by a state legislative privilege, the legislators should have collected and logged those
documents on a privilege log. See, e.g., Turner, 2009 WL 259927, at *1; Estate of Manship v.
United States, 236 F.R.D. 291, 296 (M.D. La. 2006), vacated in part on other grounds, 237
F.R.D. 141 (M.D. La. 2006).3
IV. THIS COURT’S APRIL 3 DECISION REQUIRES LEGISLATORS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS PROTECTED BY A LEGSISLATIVE PRIVILEGE UNDER SEAL.
They have failed to do so and therefore cannot substantiate any
legislative privilege claim at this time.
This Court has found “that the overall balance of factors” relevant to a state legislative
privilege “weights in favor of disclosure on a confidential basis” in this case. Veasey v. Perry,
2014 WL 1340077, at *3. Under the five-factor test applied by this Court, there is no analytical
distinction between a Rule 34 request for production served on the State of Texas and a Rule 45
subpoena served on Texas legislators. See id. at *2. And while the Legislators strain to argue,
under the Court’s standard, that the state legislative privilege is not overcome, see Mot. to Quash
at 7-10, those efforts fail – a failure implicitly acknowledged by Defendants’ request that this
Court simply reconsider its prior analysis. See id. at 11. This Court should adhere to the
reasoned analysis of its prior decision and should therefore deny the Legislators’ motion.
As this Court properly recognized, any state legislative privilege is qualified. See Veasey,
2014 WL 1340077, at *2.
3 For similar reasons, there is no need to modify the subpoenas in light of potential attorney-client privilege claims. See Mot. to Quash at 10. The mere fact that communications occurred between legislators and the Office of the Attorney General does not categorically place those communications under the absolute protection of the attorney-client privilege. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 517 F.2d 666, 670 (5th Cir. 1975). If the Legislators believe any communications responsive to the subpoenas are privileged, they must object and issue privilege logs to substantiate their claim.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 8 of 15
8
As a qualified privilege, there is an established framework of five factors that courts have weighed in determining whether the legislative documents must be disclosed: (1) the relevance of the evidence sought to be protected; (2) the availability of other evidence; (3) the seriousness of the litigation and the issues involved; (4) the role of the government in the litigation; and (5) the possibility of future timidity by government employees who will be forced to recognize that their secrets are violable.
Id. (citing Perez v. Perry, No. 5:11-cv-1303, 2014 WL 106927, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2014)
(three-judge court)). Under this rubric, the analysis performed by this Court in resolving the
United States’ motion to compel applies fully here.
The Legislators’ attempt to overcome this Court’s prior analysis is unavailing. Under the
first factor, as set out above, the subjects of the subpoenas are relevant, as they address the
legislative process that culminated in SB 14, the discriminatory results of that process, the
motivations underlying that process, and the factors considered under the Section 2 totality of the
circumstances analysis. See supra Part II. Moreover, under the second factor, there is no
alternative to the materials sought from the Legislators, certainly not in the limited set of
documents that the State of Texas collected and already produced in Texas v. Holder (and thus
lie outside the scope of the subpoenas). See supra Part II.4
4 Interested third-parties with intensively relevant information at the heart of significant litigation may not withhold that information and simply declare that the United States “should be able to prove its case” without the information being withheld. See Mot. to Quash at 8. The Legislators here do not dispute that there is no alternative source for the documents that Legislators hold. Rather, they make the unsupportable claim that the United States should have to prove its case without access to potentially probative evidence. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern the scope of discovery, and it is both inappropriate and self-serving for individuals supporting the Defendants to be permitted to decide that the United States has received sufficient discovery and is entitled to no more.
The Legislators do not contest that
the “third[] and fourth factors weigh strongly in favor of disclosure.” Veasey, 2014 WL
1340077, at *2. Finally, this Court should reject the Legislators’ unsupported assertions that,
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 9 of 15
9
under the fifth factor, compliance with the subpoenas would trigger greater future timidity than
the disclosures under seal already ordered by the Court. The relevant consideration is not
whether legislators might wish to avoid the burdens associated with ordinary discovery or
whether they might maintain privacy interests similar to an ordinary litigant, see Mot. to Quash
at 8-9; rather, it is whether the legislative process might be harmed because legislators and staff
would be aware that their communications might be disclosed in litigation. See, e.g., Favors v.
Cuomo, 285 F.R.D. 187, 215 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (addressing whether disclosure “would not serve
to inhibit legislative deliberations in the future”). This Court has rejected blanket protections
from discovery based on the fifth factor alone, and the Legislators have provided no valid reason
to deviate from that conclusion.
Because the balancing test remains unchanged, this Court should deny the Legislators’
motion to quash and order immediate and overdue compliance with the United States’
subpoenas.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 10 of 15
10
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set out above, this Court should deny the Legislators’ motion to quash
subpoenas. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.4(D), a proposed order denying the motion is attached.
Date: April 29, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
KENNETH MAGIDSON JOCELYN SAMUELS United States Attorney Acting Assistant Attorney General Southern District of Texas Civil Rights Division
/s/ Daniel J. Freeman T. CHRISTIAN HERREN, JR. MEREDITH BELL-PLATTS ELIZABETH S. WESTFALL BRUCE I. GEAR JENNIFER L. MARANZANO ANNA M. BALDWIN DANIEL J. FREEMAN Attorneys, Voting Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 11 of 15
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL
Due to the Legislators’ failure to meet and confer prior to filing the instant motion, I met and conferred with counsel for the Legislators on April 29, 2014 in an effort to narrow the instant dispute. The Legislators maintain the position that they will not produce any documents in response to the subpoenas, which necessitates resolution of the motion by the Court.
/s/ Daniel J. Freeman Daniel J. Freeman
Voting Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice [email protected]
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 12 of 15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 29, 2014, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing via
the Court’s ECF system on the following counsel of record:
John B. Scott John Reed Clay, Jr. Gregory David Whitley Jonathan F. Mitchell Sean Flammer Stephen Ronald Keister Arthur D’Andrea Jennifer Marie Roscetii Office of the Texas Attorney General [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Ben Addison Donnell Donnell Abernethy & Kieschnick [email protected] Counsel for Defendants
Chad W. Dunn Kembel Scott Brazil Brazil & Dunn [email protected] [email protected] J. Gerald Hebert Emma Simson Campaign Legal Center [email protected] [email protected] Neil G. Baron Law Offices of Neil G. Baron [email protected] Armand Derfner Derfner, Altman, & Wilborn [email protected] Luiz Roberto Vera, Jr. [email protected] Counsel for Veasey Plaintiffs
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 13 of 15
Christina Swarns Ryan P. Haygood Natasha M. Korgaonkar Leah C. Aden Deuel Ross NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Danielle Conley Jonathan Paikin Kelly P. Dunbar Sonya L. Lebsack
Gerald J. Sinzdak Lynn Eisenberg M. Hasan Ali Richard F. Shordt WilmerHale LLP [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Texas League of Young Voters Plaintiff-Intervenors
Ezra D. Rosenberg Amy L. Rudd Dechert LLP [email protected] [email protected] Wendy Weiser Jennifer Clark Myrna Pérez Vishal Agraharkar Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Mark A. Posner Sonia Kaur Gill Erandi Zamora Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches Plaintiffs
Jose Garza Marinda van Dalen Robert W. Doggett Peter McGraw Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid, Inc. [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Ortiz Plaintiffs
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 14 of 15
Rolando L. Rios Law Offices of Rolando L. Rios [email protected] Preston Edward Henrichson Law Offices of Preston Henrichson [email protected] Counsel for Texas Association of Hispanic County Judges and County Commissioners Plaintiff-Intervenors
/s/ Daniel J. Freeman Daniel J. Freeman Voting Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice [email protected]
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 15 of 15
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION MARC VEASEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RICK PERRY, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-193 (NGR)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, TEXAS LEAGUE OF YOUNG VOTERS EDUCATION FUND, et al., Plaintiff-Intervenors, TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF HISPANIC COUNTY JUDGES AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, et al., Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-263 (NGR)
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-1 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 1 of 2
TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NANDITA BERRY, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-291 (NGR)
BELINDA ORTIZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Defendants
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-348 (NGR)
[Proposed] ORDER
Having reviewed Texas Legislators’ Motion to Quash (ECF No. 251) and the United
States’ Opposition thereto (ECF No. ___), the Legislators’ motion is DENIED. Within seven
days of the entry of this order, the Legislators shall produce all documents responsive to the
United States’ subpoenas, unless subject to an additional valid claims of privilege. Any
document over which the Legislators assert a state legislative privilege shall be shall be produced
under seal per the procedures set out in this Court’s Order of April 3, 2014 (ECF No. 226).
SO ORDERED.
Date:
________________________________ NELVA GONZALES RAMOS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-1 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 2 of 2
AO 88B (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTfor the
__________ District of __________
))))))
Plaintiffv. Civil Action No.
(If the action is pending in another district, state where: Defendant __________ District of __________ )
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTSOR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTION
To:
� Production: YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and permit their inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of thematerial:
Place: Date and Time:
� Inspection of Premises: YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit entry onto the designated premises, land, or other property possessed or controlled by you at the time, date, and location set forth below, so that the requesting partymay inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it.
Place: Date and Time:
The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena, and Rule45 (d) and (e), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so, areattached.
Date:
CLERK OF COURTOR
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk Attorney’s signature
The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party)
, who issues or requests this subpoena, are:
Southern District of Texas
United States of America
State of Texas2:13-cv-263
Rep. Patricia Harless, c/o Office of the Attorney General of Texas, 300 W 15th Street, Austin, TX 78701Tel: 512-463-2100
✔
All documents, electronically stored information and other materials requested in the attached Exhibit A.
U.S. Attorney's Office Attn: John A. Smith III1000 Louisiana, Ste. 2300 Houston, TX 77002 04/14/2014 5:00 pm
N/A /s/ Elizabeth Westfall
United States of America
Elizabeth Westfall, Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Voting Section, 1800 G St. NW, Washington, DC20006 Tel: 202-305-7766 Email: [email protected]
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-2 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 2 of 28
AO 88B (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.)
This subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date) .
� I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows:
on (date) ; or
� I returned the subpoena unexecuted because:
.
Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also tendered to the witness fees for one day’s attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of
$ .
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
0.00
2:13-cv-263
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-2 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 3 of 28
AO 88B (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action(Page 3)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), and (e) (Effective 12/1/07)
(c) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena. (1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party orattorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must takereasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on aperson subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce thisduty and impose an appropriate sanction — which may include lostearnings and reasonable attorney’s fees — on a party or attorneywho fails to comply. (2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection. (A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to producedocuments, electronically stored information, or tangible things, orto permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at theplace of production or inspection unless also commanded to appearfor a deposition, hearing, or trial. (B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents ortangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party orattorney designated in the subpoena a written objection toinspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials orto inspecting the premises — or to producing electronically storedinformation in the form or forms requested. The objection must beserved before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, thefollowing rules apply: (i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the servingparty may move the issuing court for an order compelling productionor inspection. (ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, andthe order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party’sofficer from significant expense resulting from compliance. (3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena. (A) When Required. On timely motion, the issuing court mustquash or modify a subpoena that: (i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (ii) requires a person who is neither a party nor a party’s officerto travel more than 100 miles from where that person resides, isemployed, or regularly transacts business in person — except that,subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iii), the person may be commanded toattend a trial by traveling from any such place within the state wherethe trial is held; (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, ifno exception or waiver applies; or (iv) subjects a person to undue burden. (B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected bya subpoena, the issuing court may, on motion, quash or modify thesubpoena if it requires: (i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research,development, or commercial information; (ii) disclosing an unretained expert’s opinion or information thatdoes not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results fromthe expert’s study that was not requested by a party; or (iii) a person who is neither a party nor a party’s officer to incursubstantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial. (C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstancesdescribed in Rule 45(c)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing ormodifying a subpoena, order appearance or production underspecified conditions if the serving party: (i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material thatcannot be otherwise met without undue hardship; and (ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonablycompensated.
(d) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena. (1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information.These procedures apply to producing documents or electronicallystored information: (A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to producedocuments must produce them as they are kept in the ordinarycourse of business or must organize and label them to correspond tothe categories in the demand. (B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information NotSpecified. If a subpoena does not specify a form for producingelectronically stored information, the person responding mustproduce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained orin a reasonably usable form or forms. (C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only OneForm. The person responding need not produce the sameelectronically stored information in more than one form.
(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The personresponding need not provide discovery of electronically storedinformation from sources that the person identifies as not reasonablyaccessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compeldiscovery or for a protective order, the person responding must showthat the information is not reasonably accessible because of undueburden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonethelessorder discovery from such sources if the requesting party showsgood cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). Thecourt may specify conditions for the discovery. (2) Claiming Privilege or Protection. (A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaedinformation under a claim that it is privileged or subject toprotection as trial-preparation material must: (i) expressly make the claim; and (ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents,communications, or tangible things in a manner that, withoutrevealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable theparties to assess the claim.
(B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to asubpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify anyparty that received the information of the claim and the basis for it.After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, ordestroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not useor disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must takereasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed itbefore being notified; and may promptly present the information tothe court under seal for a determination of the claim. The personwho produced the information must preserve the information untilthe claim is resolved.
(e) Contempt. The issuing court may hold in contempt a personwho, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey thesubpoena. A nonparty’s failure to obey must be excused if thesubpoena purports to require the nonparty to attend or produce at aplace outside the limits of Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii).
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-2 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 4 of 28
EXHIBIT A
INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS
1. “Legislator” means a current or former member of the Texas House of
Representatives or the Texas State Senate, including such member’s employees, staff, interns,
representatives, designees, agents, or other persons acting or purporting to act on the member’s
behalf or on behalf of any committee on which the member serves.
2. “Texas Legislature” and “Legislature” mean the Texas House of Representatives
and the Texas State Senate.
3. The “Secretary of State” means Defendant Texas Secretary of State Nandita
Berry, her predecessors as Secretary of State, and any of the Secretary of State’s past and present
agents, advisors, employees, representatives, attorneys, consultants, contractors, or other persons
or entities acting on behalf of the Secretary of State or the office of the Secretary of State or
subject to the control of that office.
4. The “Department of Public Safety” means the Texas Department of Public Safety
(“DPS”) and any of its past and present agents, advisors, employees, representatives, attorneys,
consultants, contractors, or other persons or entities acting on behalf of the Department of Public
Safety or subject to its control.
5. The term “person” includes, whenever appropriate, not only a natural person, but
also a corporation, partnership, unincorporated association, joint venture, or other association of
persons, and also a governmental agency, office, administration, board, or other body.
6. “SB 14” means 2011 Texas General Laws Chapter 123, which amends the Texas
Transportation Code relating to the issuance of election identification certificates (“EIC”), and
which amends the Texas Election Code relating to procedures for implementing the photographic
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-2 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 5 of 28
2�
�
identification requirements for voting in the State of Texas. This document refers to “SB 14”
and “the Texas Election Code as amended by SB 14” interchangeably.
7. “Document” is defined to be synonymous in meaning and scope as the term
“document” is used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34.
8. In responding to this subpoena, produce all responsive documents and
electronically stored information in your possession, custody, or control, including but not
limited to documents or electronically stored information that are in the custody of one of your
Legislative offices, the Office of the Texas Attorney General, the Texas Legislative Council, or
the Texas State Library and Archives Commission. Sources of responsive documents include
both email sent or received through any of your official State email accounts, as well as email
messages sent or received through any of your private, non-State-issued email accounts.
9. If any document requested was, but is no longer, either in the your possession,
custody, or control, or in existence, state whether it: (a) is missing or lost; (b) has been destroyed;
(c) has been transferred, voluntarily or involuntarily, to others; or (d) has been otherwise
disposed of and explain the circumstances surrounding the disposition, and identify the names of
those persons with knowledge of such circumstances.
10. In construing these requests, apply the broadest construction, so as to produce the
most comprehensive response. Construe the terms “and” and “or” either disjunctively or
conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the request all responses that might
otherwise be construed to be outside that scope. Words used in the masculine gender include the
feminine, and words used in the singular include the plural.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-2 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 6 of 28
3�
�
11. If any part of the requested information is stored in an electronic form, that
portion of it shall be provided in the electronic form consistent with the Agreement Concerning
Production Format (ECF No. 61-6), attached hereto.
12. Those portions of documents available, either in whole or in part, only in paper or
hardcopy should, if possible, be scanned into electronic format and produced consistent with the
Agreement Concerning Production Format (ECF No. 61-6), attached hereto.
13. These document requests apply to the period from January 1, 2007, through the
present unless otherwise limited or expanded by a particular request.
DOCUMENT REQUESTS
1. With regard to any consideration by the Texas Legislature, prior to and including
the 83rd session, of a requirement that voters present a form of identification in addition to or
instead of their voter registration certificate, all documents relating to:
a. the origination(s) or source(s), whether private or public, of all such proposals;
b. the drafting, development, and introduction of all such proposals;
c. all amendments, whether partial or total, to each such proposal and the vote on
each;
d. all analyses of the effect, of any kind, that could result from the
implementation of all such proposals that were conducted for, presented to, or
considered by the respective session of the Legislature; and
e. the consideration of each proposal by each chamber of the Legislature,
including a description of the final action in each chamber with the final vote or
other determinative outcome.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-2 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 7 of 28
4�
�
2. All documents related to communications between, among, or with you, the office
of the Governor, the office of the Lieutenant Governor, the office of the Secretary of State, the
Department of Public Safety, the office of the Texas Attorney General, any Legislator or
Legislators, their staff or agents, lobbyists, groups, associations, organizations, or members of
the public concerning the State of Texas’s consideration of a requirement that voters present
photographic identification to cast a ballot, including the introduction, enactment, and
implementation of SB 14, from December 1, 2010, to the present.
3. All documents related to any calculations, reports, audits, estimates, projections,
or other analyses related to the effect that SB 14 imposes, or that SB 14 was projected to impose,
upon minority voters or on voters who are members of a language minority group, from
December 1, 2010, through May 27, 2011.
4. All documents related to any calculations, reports, estimates, projections, or other
analyses related to the impact of SB 14 on voter turnout or voter registration.
5. All documents related to any calculations, reports, estimates, or other analyses
related to the impact of SB 14 on voter turnout or voter registration in any federal, state, or local
election held in Texas from June 25, 2013, to the present.
6. All documents related to any calculations, reports, estimates, projections, or other
analyses related to the impact that SB 14 has, or that SB 14 was projected to have, on rates, use,
and acceptance of provisional ballots.
7. All documents related to communications between, among, or with you, the office
of the Governor, the office of the Lieutenant Governor, the office of the Secretary of State, the
Department of Public Safety, the office of the Texas Attorney General, any Legislator or
Legislators, their staff or agents, lobbyists, groups, associations, organizations, or members of
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-2 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 8 of 28
5�
�
the public concerning the State of Texas’s consideration of a requirement that voters present
identification to cast a ballot, from January 1, 2005, through November 30, 2010.
8. All documents related to any calculations, reports, audits, estimates, projections,
or other analyses related to the effect that voter identification requirements impose upon minority
voters or on voters who are members of a language minority group, from January 1, 2005,
through November 30, 2010.
9. All documents related to any calculations, reports, estimates, projections, or other
analyses related to the impact of voter identification requirements on voter turnout or voter
registration, from January 1, 2005, through November 30, 2010.
10. All documents related to any calculations, reports, estimates, projections, or other
analyses related to the impact that voter identification requirements were projected to have on
rates, use, and acceptance of provisional ballots, from January 1, 2005, through November 30,
2010.
11. All documents related to any calculations, reports, estimates, projections, or other
analyses related to the impact that voter identification requirements were projected to have on
rates, use, and acceptance of provisional ballots, from January 1, 2005, through November 30,
2010.
12. All documents related to any administrative regulations drafted, proposed, or
finalized pertaining to SB 14.
13. All documents related to the consideration of Senate Bill 362, 81st Leg. (Tex.
2009) (“SB 362”) or other voter identification proposals during the 81st Legislature, including
documents related to communications between or among Legislators, as well as between
Legislators and their staff, lobbyists, groups, organizations or members of the public, concerning
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-2 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 9 of 28
6�
�
the introduction, drafting, and consideration of SB 362, as well as all documents related to SB
362 presented to, produced by, transmitted to, or relied upon by the State of Texas, including but
not limited to the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, the Secretary of State, and the Texas
Attorney General.
14. All documents related to the consideration of House Bill 218, 80st Leg. (Tex.
2007) (“HB 218”) or other voter identification proposals during the 80th Legislature, including
documents related to communications between or among Legislators, as well as between
Legislators and their staff, lobbyists, groups, organizations, or members of the public, concerning
the introduction, drafting, and consideration of HB 218, as well as all documents related to HB
218 presented to, produced by, transmitted to, or relied upon by the State of Texas, including but
not limited to the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, the Secretary of State, and the Texas
Attorney General.
15. All documents related to campaign communications, including but not limited to
mailings, ads, websites, flyers, and correspondence, related to voter identification requirements
or SB 14, made by or on behalf of any candidate for office in the State of Texas from January 1,
2005 to the present.
16. All documents related to campaign communications, including but not limited to
mailings, ads, websites, flyers, and correspondence, related to immigration made by or on behalf
of any candidate for office in the State of Texas from January 1, 2005, to the present.
17. All documents related to any and all efforts or consideration by the Legislature to
amend SB 14 or to enact additional legislation related to the issuance of election identification
certificates.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-2 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 10 of 28
7�
�
18. All documents related to any efforts or consideration by the Legislature to review
or analyze the administration of the November 2012 general election, including any issues
related to election integrity.
19. All documents related to correspondence, including but not limited to
correspondence with constituents, other members of the public, lobbyists, groups, and
organizations, on the subject of voter identification requirements; Senate Bill 14, 82nd Leg. (Tex.
2011); Senate Bill 362, 81st Leg. (Tex. 2009); House Bill 218, 80st Leg. (Tex. 2007); or House
Bill 1706, 79th Leg. (Tex. 2005).
20. All documents containing or related to public statements made by you, or any
Legislator who sponsored or supported SB 14, on the subject of voter identification
requirements; Senate Bill 14, 82nd Leg. (Tex. 2011); Senate Bill 362, 81st Leg. (Tex. 2009);
House Bill 218, 80st Leg. (Tex. 2007); or House Bill 1706, 79th Leg. (Tex. 2005).
21. All documents related to any proposal to amend or modify SB 14’s requirements,
or its implementation plans, so as to respond to the findings of the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia in Texas v. Holder, 888 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 2012) (three-judge
court), vacated, 133 S. Ct. 2886 (2013).
22. All documents related to any proposal to amend or modify SB 14’s requirements,
or its implementation plans, after May 27, 2011.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-2 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 11 of 28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
MARC VEASEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RICK PERRY, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-193 (NGR)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
TEXAS LEAGUE OF YOUNG VOTERS EDUCATION FUND, et al.,
Plaintiff-Intervenors,
TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF HISPANIC COUNTY JUDGES AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, et al.,
Movant-Intervenors,
v.
STATE OF TEXAS, et al.,
Defendants,
TRUE THE VOTE,
Movant-Intervenor.
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-263 (NGR)
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 2 of 18Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-2 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 12 of 28
2
TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN STEEN, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-291 (NGR)
AGREEMENT CONCERNING PRODUCTION FORMAT
Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties agree to
adhere to the following methods of production of documents and electronically stored
information (“ESI”):
1. With the exception of the items specified in paragraphs 10-18, below, the parties agree
that documents and ESI that can be accurately represented in black and white shall be scanned or
converted to single page Tagged Image File Format (“TIFF” or “.tiff format”) files, using CCITT
Group IV compression. All images shall be scanned or converted at 300 d.p.i. and reflect,
without visual degradation, the full and complete information contained on the original
document. Photographs, color brochures, or other like documents that cannot be accurately
represented in black and white or documents that are primarily in color shall be scanned or
converted to JPEG files using a high quality setting. The parties will honor reasonable requests
for either the production of the original document for inspection and copying or production of
any color image of the document, thing, or ESI. All images shall be saved in a directory named
IMAGES. Spreadsheets (e.g., Excel, Quattropro, or .csv) and presentations (e.g., Powerpoint)
Provisions for the Production of Documents and ESI
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 3 of 18Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-2 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 13 of 28
3
shall be produced in native form. Native files shall be saved in a directory named NATIVE with
the proper Windows-associated extension.
2. The parties agree to produce all imaged documents with a legible, unique page identifier
(“Bates Number”) electronically “burned” onto the image in the lower right hand corner or—if
placement in the lower right hand corner would obliterate, conceal, or interfere with any
information from the source document—another blank portion of the TIFF image. The Bates
numbering convention shall be in the format “XXX########” where “XXX” represents the
short character abbreviation for the producing party and “########” represents the eight-digit
sequential number of the page being produced by that party. Documents produced by the parties
shall be abbreviated as follows: Veasey Plaintiffs = VES, United States of America = USA,
Texas League of Young Voters Education Fund = LYV, Texas State Conference of NAACP
Branches = TSC, and Defendants = TEX. For example, the first Bates labeled document
produced by the United States should be labeled “USA00000001.” Images shall be named as the
[Bates Number].tif or [Bates Number].jpg. Native files shall be named as [Bates Number].ext,
where “ext” denotes the native file extension.
3. The parties agree to produce documents on CD-ROM, DVD, or external hard drive (the
“Production Media”), depending on the volume of the production. Each piece of Production
Media shall identify a production number corresponding to the production “wave” and a number
of the volume of material in the wave. For example, if the first production wave by a party
comprises document images on three hard drives, the party shall label each hard drive in the
following manner in numeric sequence: “001.001”; “001.002”; “001.003.” If the second
production comprises three DVDs, the party shall label each DVD in the following manner in
numeric sequence: “002.001”; 002.002”; “002.003.” Additional information that shall be
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 4 of 18Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-2 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 14 of 28
4
identified on the physical Production Media includes: (1) the case number, (2) the producing
party’s name, and (3) the production date. Where practicable, the type of materials on the media
(e.g., “Documents”, “OCR Text”, etc.) and the Bates Number range of the materials on the
Production Media shall also be denoted thereon; where such material cannot reasonably be listed
on the Production Media, they shall be provided in an accompanying letter.
4. The parties agree not to produce documents or ESI using FTP, SFTP, or other hosted
locations without notifying all parties. All such productions must include a single archive file
per production wave (e.g., .zip, .rar, or .cab), labeling of such archives in numerical sequence in
accordance with paragraph 4, supra, and immediate notice to all parties after a new archive has
been uploaded to a hosted location. All requirements of this agreement shall apply to any
production using FTP, SFTP, or other hosted locations.
5. The parties shall produce an “image cross reference file” in Concordance Opticon .log
format, to accompany the produced images. The image cross reference file shall provide the
Bates Numbers, relative path to images, and document break indicators. The image cross
reference file shall be provided in a directory named DATA.
6. The parties shall produce a “load file” containing the fields specified in Attachment A.
The load file shall be provided in a directory named DATA, in a Concordance .DAT file format
with standard delimiters. The parties agree not to include OCR/extracted text in the .DAT file.
7. For documents that exist natively in electronic format and that have not been redacted,
the parties shall produce extracted text files reflecting the full text that was electronically
extracted from the original native file. For all scanned hard-copy documents, any electronic
documents that require redaction prior to production and native files for which native text is not
available (e.g., graphic files and some PDFs), the parties will produce corresponding Optical
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 5 of 18Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-2 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 15 of 28
5
Character Recognition (“OCR”) text files. The OCR and extracted text files shall be produced in
ASCII text format and shall be labeled and produced on Production Media in accordance with
the provisions of paragraph 3, above. These text files will be named with the unique Bates
Number of the first page of the corresponding document followed by the extension “.txt.” The
OCR and extracted text files shall be produced in a manner suitable for importing the
information into Concordance. OCR and extracted text files shall be saved in a directory named
TEXT. All documents should have an accompanying text file, even if that file is of zero size.
8. Irrespective of which party issued the requests for production of documents, tangible
things, and ESI, the producing party shall serve a copy of responsive production to each of the
other parties.
Format for the Production of ESI
9. E-mail will be produced as image files with related searchable text and available
metadata as described in Attachment A.
10. All spreadsheets, e.g., Excel or Quattropro, should be produced only in native format
with related searchable text and available metadata as described in Attachment A. Spreadsheets
should not be imaged, but a placeholder image must be included to represent the spreadsheet.
11. All presentations, e.g., Powerpoint, should be produced only in native format with related
searchable text and available metadata as described in Attachment A. Presentations should not
be imaged, but a placeholder image must be included to represent the presentation.
12. The parties will meet and confer regarding the production of video, audio, and any file
stored in a proprietary formats (i.e., non-Microsoft or Corel Suite compatible files). Any such
conference shall be held within fourteen (14) days (unless the parties agree to a later date) of
identification of such materials in initial disclosures, a direct request for the production of such
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 6 of 18Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-2 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 16 of 28
6
materials, or a determination by a producing party that such materials are responsive to a broader
request, and any such conference shall include the custodians of the materials, as well as
technicians with sufficient knowledge to explain the content and format of the material at issue.
13. The parties will meet and confer regarding the production of records or data from systems
of record, databases, or federal agency comparisons in an agreed upon format. Any such
conference shall be held within fourteen (14) days (unless the parties agree to a later date) of
identification of databases in initial disclosures, a direct request for the production of databases,
or a determination by a producing party that databases are responsive to a broader request, and
any such conference shall include the custodians of the databases, as well as technicians with
sufficient knowledge to explain the content and format of the databases.
14. Other electronic documents not specifically discussed elsewhere will be produced as
image files with related searchable text and available metadata as described in Attachment A. If
said documents in their original form cannot be converted to TIFF as described above, the parties
will promptly meet and confer concerning the form of such production.
15. Documents with children (e.g., email with attachments, archive files, and files with
embedded documents) shall be treated as separate documents. Each document (parent and child)
shall have the same attachment range as a way of identifying the group, as specified in the
Attachment Range field of Attachment A.
16. In the event that a party needs to redact a portion of a document for which only a native
file is produced (e.g., Excel and PowerPoint), the parties will meet and confer regarding
production of the redacted document.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 7 of 18Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-2 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 17 of 28
7
17. Encryption or password protection of any file is to be removed or the passwords
provided. If software is required to open encrypted files, the party producing the encrypted files
must provide the software.
Search of Electronically Stored Information
18. To the extent that any party intends to limit the scope of a response to a request for
production through the use of search terms, the parties agree to meet and confer regarding the
responding party’s search of ESI, including the party’s technological search capability and the
most effective means of defining search criteria, such as date ranges, custodians, and key words.
19. The parties agree that the use of an agreed-on search process or set of search criteria shall
not be construed as a waiver of any party’s right to request subsequent searches and productions,
particularly where there is a showing that the agreed-to search process and criteria have resulted
in inadequate productions or failed to identify relevant materials. The parties also reserve their
right to object to any additional requests or subsequent searches.
20. The parties agree that documents identified by search terms may be reviewed for
privilege, confidentiality, relevance, or responsiveness prior to production.
Deduplication
21. The parties agree to use MD-5 hash values to deduplicate exact duplicate documents
across custodians. As noted in Attachment A, MD-5 hash values will be calculated at the time of
collection or processing for all categories of ESI.
Paper Documents
22. The parties agree to produce hard-copy documents as TIFF or JPEG files, as described in
paragraphs 1-3, above.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 8 of 18Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-2 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 18 of 28
8
23. To the extent possible, the parties will endeavor to apply unitization practices consistent
with the following description: Each page of a hard copy document shall be scanned into an
image and if a document is more than one page, the unitization of the document and any
attachments shall be maintained as it existed in the original when creating the image file. For
documents that contain fixed notes, (e.g., post-it notes), the pages will be scanned both with and
without the notes and those pages will be treated as part of the same document. The relationship
of documents in a document collection (e.g., cover letter and enclosures, email and attachments,
binder containing multiple documents, or other documents where a parent-child relationship
exists between the documents) shall be maintained through the scanning or conversion process.
If more than one level of parent-child relationship exists, documents will be kept in order, but all
will be treated as children of the initial parent document. Such information shall be produced in
conformity with the Attachment Range field in Attachment A in a manner which enables the
parent-child relationship among documents in a document collection to be reconstituted by the
receiving party in Concordance.
Privilege Logs
24. The parties agree that for each document, tangible thing, or ESI withheld based on an
asserted claim of privilege or protection, the party asserting the privilege must produce a
privilege log pursuant to Rule 26(b)(5)(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. At minimum,
the privilege log must contain a Bates range, the type of document or ESI, the title of the
document or ESI, the date of the creation or transmission of the document or ESI, the author or
authors of the document or ESI, the recipients of the document or ESI (including individuals
copied or blind-copied), whether the document or ESI contains attachments, the privilege or
privileges claimed, and the basis for the assertion of privilege or protection.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 9 of 18Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-2 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 19 of 28
9
25. The parties agree to provide sufficient information privilege logs to establish the elements
of each asserted privilege. See, e.g., Taylor Energy Co. v. Underwriters at Lloyds of London,
No. C.A. 09-6383, 2010 WL 3952208 (E.D. La. Oct. 7, 2010). However, the Parties need not
note on a privilege log any document—including but not limited to draft documents—exchanged
solely among counsel, individuals working directly on behalf of counsel in connection with this
litigation (e.g., paralegals, analysts, and litigation support staff), or supervisory staff of the U.S.
Department of Justice or the Office of the Texas Attorney General.
26. E-mail attachments must be separately identified and described if they are withheld based
on an assertion of privilege or protection.
Inadvertent Production of Documents and Clawback
27. The parties agree that a disclosure of communications, documents, tangible things, and
ESI covered by the attorney-client privilege, work product protection, or governmental privileges
does not operate as a waiver in this proceeding if (1) the disclosure is inadvertent and is made in
connection with this litigation or prior proceedings under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42
U.S.C. § 1973c, and (2) the holder of the privilege or protection took reasonable precautions to
prevent disclosure and took reasonably prompt measures—once the holder knew or should have
known of the disclosure—to rectify the error.
28. Any party receiving material it believes may have been inadvertently produced that
includes privileged or protected information shall promptly notify the producing party. Within
fourteen (14) days after such notification, the producing party may request in writing that such
materials be returned or destroyed. Upon such written request—and except in the event that the
requesting party disputes the claim of privilege or protection—any materials that the producing
party deems to contain inadvertently disclosed materials shall be promptly returned to the
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 10 of 18Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-2 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 20 of 28
10
producing party or destroyed at the producing party’s option. This includes all copies—
electronic or otherwise—of any such materials and the parties agree that no further copies of the
inadvertently disclosed materials will be made. In the event that copies of inadvertently
produced materials that are privileged or protected are captured on a party’s back-up media used
for disaster recovery, the parties will over-write those copies according to their established back-
up procedures.
29. If privileged or protected information is contained within an item of otherwise
discoverable material, the parties recognize that the requesting party may not be able to destroy
only the portion of the item of the disclosed material that is privileged or protected. Instead, the
requesting party may need to destroy the privileged or protected information along with all of the
otherwise discoverable material within that item. Whenever that is the case, the producing
party—within fourteen (14) days of notification of the inadvertent disclosure—shall provide the
requesting party with a replacement copy of the item materials that are not privileged or
protected and are otherwise discoverable.
30. In the event that the requesting party disputes the producing party’s assertions with
respect to the inadvertently disclosed material, such material shall be sequestered and retained by
and under the control of the requesting party for the purpose of seeking determination of the
issue from the Court. If the Court determines that privilege or protection has been waived or that
the inadvertently disclosed material is not subject to by any applicable privilege or protection,
the requesting party may use the material for any purposes otherwise permitted by law or rule. If
the Court determines that the inadvertently disclosed material is subject to an applicable
privilege or protection, the requesting party must return or destroy the materials at issue, as
provided above.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 11 of 18Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-2 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 21 of 28
11
31. If the producing party does not request the return or destruction of material within
fourteen (14) days of notification by the receiving party of the receipt of material it believes was
inadvertently produced, the producing party waives any claim of privilege or protection as to the
material.
Sample Production
32. On or before fourteen (14) days following the effective date of this Agreement, the
parties shall exchange a sample production of documents formatted to be consistent with this
Agreement. The sample production shall contain a combination of scanned paper files and ESI
and shall include at least one spreadsheet and one email. The production need not be relevant to
this case, as it is intended only to test the adequacy of the specifications in this Agreement and
the compatibility of the parties’ systems. If any party reports problems with the sample
productions, the parties shall confer regarding the terms of this agreement.
Duty to Supplement Discovery Responses
33. The parties must supplement their disclosures and responses in a timely manner if a party
learns that a disclosure was materially incorrect or incomplete, in accordance with Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1)(A). Supplementation must be made at appropriate intervals during
discovery and with special promptness as the trial date approaches.
Costs of Document Production
34. Each party shall bear the costs of producing its own documents, things, and ESI.
Requirement to Confer
35. Before filing any motion regarding the terms of this Agreement, compliance with this
Agreement, or any other discovery dispute, the parties will confer in a good faith attempt to
resolve such disputes.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 12 of 18Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-2 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 22 of 28
12
Dated: November 4, 2013
For the Veasey Plaintiffs
/s/ Chad W. DunnCHAD W. DUNNK. SCOTT BRAZILBrazil & Dunn4201 Cypress Creek ParkwaySuite 530Houston, Texas 77068
J. GERALD HEBERTCampaign Legal Center215 E Street, NEWashington, D.C. 20002
NEIL G. BARONLaw Office of Neil G. Baron914 FM 517 WestSuite 242Dickinson, Texas 77539
DAVID RICHARDSRichards, Rodriguez & Skeith LLP816 Congress AvenueSuite 1200Austin, Texas 78701
ARMAND G. DERFNERDerfner, Altman & Wilborn, LLCP.O. Box 600Charleston, South Carolina 29402
LUIS ROBERTO VERA, JR.Law Offices of Luis Vera Jr.1325 Riverview Towers111 SoledadSan Antonio, Texas 78205
CRAIG M. WATKINSTERESA G. SNELSONDallas County District Attorney’s Office411 Elm StreetFifth FloorDallas, Texas 75202
For the United States of America
KENNETH MAGIDSONUnited States AttorneySouthern District of Texas
JOCELYN SAMUELSActing Assistant Attorney GeneralCivil Rights Division
/s/ Elizabeth S. WestfallT. CHRISTIAN HERREN, JR.MEREDITH BELL-PLATTSELIZABETH S. WESTFALLBRUCE I. GEARJENNIFER L. MARANZANOANNA M. BALDWINDANIEL J. FREEMANAttorneys, Voting SectionCivil Rights DivisionU.S. Department of Justice950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20530
JOHN A. SMITH IIIAssistant United States Attorney800 N. Shoreline, Suite 500Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 13 of 18Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-2 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 23 of 28
13
For NAACP Plaintiffs:
/s/ Ezra D. RosenbergEZRA D. ROSENBERGDechert LLP902 Carnegie Center, Suite 500Princeton, New Jersey 08540
STEVEN B. WEISBURDAMY L. RUDDLINDSEY B. STELCENDechert LLP500 W. 6th Street, Suite 2010Austin, Texas 78701
ROBERT A. KENGLEMARK A. POSNER SONIA KAUR GILL ERANDI ZAMORA Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law1401 New York Avenue, NW Suite 400Washington, D.C. 20005
WENDYWEISERMYRNA PÉREZVISHAL AGRAHARKAR Jennifer ClarkThe Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law
School161 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 12New York, New York 10013
ROBERT NOTZONThe Law Office of Robert Notzon1502 West AvenueAustin, Texas 78701
Gary BledsoePotterBledsoe, L.L.P.316 West 12th Street, Suite 307Austin, Texas 78701
KIM KEENANMARSHALL TAYLORVICTOR GOODENAACP4805 Mt. Hope DriveBaltimore, Maryland 21215
JOSE GARZALaw Office of Jose Garza7414 Robin Rest DriveSan Antonio, Texas 98209
CLAY BONILLADANIEL G. COVICHThe Law Offices of William Bonilla, P.C.2727 Morgan Ave.Corpus Christi, Texas 78405
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 14 of 18Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-2 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 24 of 28
14
For Texas League of Young VotersEducational Fund, et al. Intervenors:
/s/ Ryan P. HaygoodSHERRILYN IFILLCHRISTINA SWARNSRYAN P. HAYGOODNATASHA M. KORGAONKARLEAH C. ADENNAACP Legal Defense andEducational Fund, Inc.40 Rector Street, 5th FloorNew York, New York 10006
DANIELLE CONLEYJONATHAN PAIKINKELLY P. DUNBARSONYA L. LEBSACKWilmer Cutler PickeringHale and Dorr LLP1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NWWashington, D.C. 20006
For the State of Texas et al.
GREG ABBOTTAttorney General of Texas
DANIEL T. HODGEFirst Assistant Attorney General
/s/ John B. ScottJOHN B. SCOTTDeputy Attorney General 209 West 14th StreetAustin, Texas 78711
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 15 of 18Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-2 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 25 of 28
1
Atta
chm
ent “
A”
Nam
e of
Fie
ldT
ype
of
field
Con
tent
sE
-mai
lW
ord
Proc
essi
ng
or P
DFs
Spre
adsh
eets
Dig
ital P
hoto
sPa
per
Beg
in_B
ates
Text
Bat
es n
umbe
r for
th
e TI
FF/jp
gim
age
of th
e fir
st
page
Bat
es n
umbe
r for
th
e TI
FF/jp
gim
age
of th
e fir
st
page
Bat
es n
umbe
r of
the
plac
ehol
der
page
Bat
es n
umbe
r for
th
e TI
FF/jp
gim
age
of th
e fir
st
page
Bat
es n
umbe
r for
th
e TI
FF/jp
gim
age
of th
e fir
st
page
End_
Bat
esTe
xtB
ates
num
ber f
orth
e TI
FF/jp
gim
age
of th
e la
st
page
Bat
es n
umbe
r for
th
e TI
FF/jp
gim
age
of th
e la
st
page
Bat
es n
umbe
r of
the
plac
ehol
der
page
Bat
es n
umbe
r for
th
e TI
FF/jp
gim
age
of th
e la
st
page
Bat
es n
umbe
r for
th
e TI
FF/jp
gim
age
of th
e la
st
page
Atta
chm
ent
Ran
geTe
xtB
ates
rang
e st
artin
g w
ith th
e fir
st p
age
of th
e pa
rent
doc
umen
t th
roug
h th
e la
st
page
of t
he la
st
atta
chm
ent.
Bla
nk if
ther
e ar
e no
chi
ld
docu
men
ts
Bat
es ra
nge
star
ting
with
the
first
pag
e of
the
pare
nt d
ocum
ent
thro
ugh
the
last
pa
ge o
f the
last
at
tach
men
tor
embe
dded
file
. In
clud
ed o
nly
if pa
rt of
a g
roup
of
docu
men
ts li
ke a
n em
ail o
r zip
file
.
Bat
es ra
nge
star
ting
with
the
first
pag
e of
the
pare
nt d
ocum
ent
thro
ugh
the
last
pa
ge o
f the
last
at
tach
men
t or
embe
dded
file
. In
clud
ed o
nly
if pa
rt of
a g
roup
of
docu
men
ts li
ke a
n em
ail o
r zip
file
.
Bat
es ra
nge
star
ting
with
the
first
pag
e of
the
pare
nt d
ocum
ent
thro
ugh
the
last
pa
ge o
f the
last
at
tach
men
t or
embe
dded
file
. In
clud
ed o
nly
if pa
rt of
a g
roup
of
docu
men
ts li
ke a
n em
ail o
r zip
file
.
Bat
es ra
nge
of a
ll do
cum
ents
that
w
ere
grou
ped
toge
ther
/ ph
ysic
ally
atta
ched
by
clip
s, st
aple
s, or
bi
ndin
gor
fold
er.
Bla
nk if
a si
ngle
no
n gr
oupe
d do
cum
ent
Cas
e 2:
13-c
v-00
193
Doc
umen
t 61-
6 F
iled
in T
XS
D o
n 11
/04/
13
Pag
e 16
of 1
8Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-2 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 26 of 28
2
Nam
e of
Fie
ldT
ype
of
field
Con
tent
sE
-mai
lW
ord
Proc
essi
ng
or P
DFs
Spre
adsh
eets
Dig
ital P
hoto
sPa
per
Cus
todi
anTe
xtTh
e na
me
of th
e pe
rson
who
had
pr
imar
y co
ntro
l ov
er th
e lo
catio
n fr
om w
hich
the
docu
men
t was
co
llect
ed
The
nam
e of
the
pers
on w
ho h
ad
prim
ary
cont
rol
over
the
loca
tion
from
whi
ch th
e do
cum
ent w
as
colle
cted
The
nam
e of
the
pers
on w
ho h
ad
prim
ary
cont
rol
over
the
loca
tion
from
whi
ch th
e do
cum
ent w
as
colle
cted
The
nam
e of
the
pers
on w
ho h
ad
prim
ary
cont
rol
over
the
loca
tion
from
whi
ch th
e do
cum
ent w
as
colle
cted
The
nam
e of
the
pers
on m
aint
aini
ng
the
file
from
whi
ch
the
pape
r was
ob
tain
ed
Aut
hor
Para
grap
h“F
rom
” fie
ld<b
lank
><b
lank
><b
lank
><b
lank
>To
Para
grap
h“T
o” fi
eld
<bla
nk>
<bla
nk>
<bla
nk>
<bla
nk>
CC
Para
grap
h“C
C”
field
<bla
nk>
<bla
nk>
<bla
nk>
<bla
nk>
BC
CPa
ragr
aph
“BC
C”
field
<bla
nk>
<bla
nk>
<bla
nk>
<bla
nk>
Subj
ect
Para
grap
h“S
ubje
ct”
field
<bla
nk>
<bla
nk>
<bla
nk>
<bla
nk>
Dat
eSen
tD
ate
The
date
the
mes
sage
was
se
nt(f
orm
at:
9/28
/201
2)
<bla
nk>
<bla
nk>
<bla
nk>
<bla
nk>
Tim
eSen
tTe
xtTh
e tim
eth
e m
essa
ge w
as
sent
(for
mat
: 11
:16:
46 A
M)
<bla
nk>
<bla
nk>
<bla
nk>
<bla
nk>
MD
5Has
hTe
xtTh
e M
D5
hash
va
lue
calc
ulat
ed
whe
n th
e fil
e w
as c
olle
cted
or
proc
esse
d.
The
MD
5 ha
sh
valu
e ca
lcul
ated
w
hen
the
file
was
colle
cted
or
proc
esse
d.
The
MD
5 ha
sh
valu
e ca
lcul
ated
w
hen
the
file
was
co
llect
ed o
r pr
oces
sed.
The
MD
5 ha
sh
valu
e ca
lcul
ated
w
hen
the
file
was
co
llect
ed o
r pr
oces
sed.
<bla
nk>
Prod
_File
Path
Para
grap
hTh
e pa
th to
the
nativ
e fil
e on
the
prod
uctio
n m
edia
The
path
to th
e na
tive
file
on th
e pr
oduc
tion
med
ia
The
path
to th
e na
tive
file
on th
e pr
oduc
tion
med
ia
The
path
to th
e na
tive
file
on th
e pr
oduc
tion
med
ia
<bla
nk>
Cas
e 2:
13-c
v-00
193
Doc
umen
t 61-
6 F
iled
in T
XS
D o
n 11
/04/
13
Pag
e 17
of 1
8Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-2 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 27 of 28
3
Nam
e of
Fie
ldT
ype
of
field
Con
tent
sE
-mai
lW
ord
Proc
essi
ng
or P
DFs
Spre
adsh
eets
Dig
ital P
hoto
sPa
per
Orig
_file
nam
ePa
ragr
aph
Orig
inal
nam
e of
th
e na
tive
file
whe
n th
e fil
e w
as c
olle
cted
or
proc
esse
d
Orig
inal
nam
e of
th
e na
tive
file
whe
n th
e fil
e w
as
colle
cted
or
proc
esse
d
Orig
inal
nam
e of
th
e na
tive
file
whe
n th
e fil
e w
as
colle
cted
or
proc
esse
d
Orig
inal
nam
e of
th
e na
tive
file
whe
n th
e fil
e w
as
colle
cted
or
proc
esse
d
<bla
nk>
Res
pons
ive
toTe
xtD
ocum
ent
requ
est n
umbe
rsfo
r whi
ch th
is
docu
men
t is
resp
onsi
ve.
Doc
umen
t req
uest
nu
mbe
rsfo
r whi
ch
this
doc
umen
t is
resp
onsi
ve.
Doc
umen
t req
uest
nu
mbe
rsfo
r whi
ch
this
doc
umen
t is
resp
onsi
ve
Doc
umen
t req
uest
nu
mbe
rsfo
r whi
ch
this
doc
umen
t is
resp
onsi
ve
Doc
umen
t req
uest
nu
mbe
rsfo
r whi
ch
this
doc
umen
t is
resp
onsi
ve
Cas
e 2:
13-c
v-00
193
Doc
umen
t 61-
6 F
iled
in T
XS
D o
n 11
/04/
13
Pag
e 18
of 1
8Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-2 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 28 of 28
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
STATE OF TEXAS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) )VS. ) )ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. in his )official capacity as Attorney )General of the United States, ) ) Defendant, ) )ERIC KENNIE, et al, ) ) Defendant-Intervenors, ) )TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF ) CASE NO. 1:12-CV-00128NAACP BRANCHES, ) (RMC-DST-RLW) ) Three-Judge Court Defendant-Intervenors, ) )TEXAS LEAGUE OF YOUNG VOTERS )EDUCATION FUND, et al, ) ) Defendant-Intervenors, ) )TEXAS LEGISLATIVE BALCK )CAUCUS, et al, ) ) Defendant-Intervenors, ) )VICTORIA RODRIGUEZ, et al., ) ) Defendant-Intervenors. )
**********************************************
ORAL DEPOSITION OF
COLBY BEUCK
MAY 14, 2012
**********************************************
Colby Beuck May 14, 2012
Toll Free: 800.211.DEPOFacsimile: 512.328.8139
Suite 2203101 Bee Caves Road
Austin, TX 78746www.esquiresolutions.com
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-3 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 2 of 6
2
1 ORAL DEPOSITION OF COLBY BEUCK, produced as a
2 witness at the instance of the Defendant, was duly
3 sworn, was taken in the above-styled and numbered cause
4 on the MAY 14, 2012, from 9:50 a.m. to 6:08 p.m., before
5 Chris Carpenter, CSR, in and for the State of Texas,
6 reported by machine shorthand, at the offices of The
7 United States Attorney, 816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1000,
8 Austin, Texas 78701, pursuant to the Federal Rules of
9 Civil Procedure and the provisions stated on the record
10 or attached hereto.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Colby Beuck May 14, 2012
Toll Free: 800.211.DEPOFacsimile: 512.328.8139
Suite 2203101 Bee Caves Road
Austin, TX 78746www.esquiresolutions.com
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-3 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 3 of 6
31 A P P E A R A N C E S
2 FOR THE PLAINTIFF, STATE OF TEXAS:
3 Patrick K. Sweeten Matthew Frederick
4 Jonathan F. Mitchell OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
5 P.O. Box 12548 Austin, TX 78711-2548
6 209 West 8th Street
7 8th Floor Austin, TX 78701
8 (512) 936-1307
10 FOR THE DEFENDANT, HOLDER, ET AL:
11 Elizabeth S. Westfall Daniel Freeman
12 Risa Berkower Jennifer Maranzano
13 Bruce Gear U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
14 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW NWB - Room 7202
15 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305-7766
17 FOR THE DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OFNAACP BRANCHES AND THE MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE
18 CAUCUS:
19 Ezra D. Rosenberg DECHERT, LLP
20 Suite 500 902 Carnegie Center
21 Princeton, NJ 08540-6531 (609) 955-3200
23
24
25
Colby Beuck May 14, 2012
Toll Free: 800.211.DEPOFacsimile: 512.328.8139
Suite 2203101 Bee Caves Road
Austin, TX 78746www.esquiresolutions.com
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-3 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 4 of 6
4
1 FOR THE KENNIE INTERVENORS:2 Chad W. Dunn
BRAZIL & DUNN, LLP3 4201 Cypress Creek Parkway
Suite 5304 Houston, TX 77068
(281) 580-63105 [email protected] FOR THE RODRIGUEZ INTERVENORS:7 Amy Pederson (by telephone)8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Colby Beuck May 14, 2012
Toll Free: 800.211.DEPOFacsimile: 512.328.8139
Suite 2203101 Bee Caves Road
Austin, TX 78746www.esquiresolutions.com
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-3 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 5 of 6
38
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Do you e-mail her on a work e-mail, or her
3 personal e-mail, or all the above?
4 A. All of the above.
5 Q. What do you generally -- what e-mail do you
6 generally use with Representative Harless?
7 A. It depends. Typically, it is her -- her -- a
8 personal account.
9 Q. Under Texas FOIA, public information law, are
10 citizens able to obtain e-mails through the government
11 account?
12 A. I'm not an expert --
13 Q. To the extent you know.
14 A. -- on the public information law, so I can't --
15 I know state e-mails are subject to the open records
16 law.
17 Q. Do you know whether legislators sometimes use
18 personal e-mail to avoid FOIA?
19 MR. SWEETEN: Objection, calls for
20 speculation.
21 Q. (By Ms. Westfall) You may answer.
22 A. I can't speak to that. I don't know. I can't
23 speak for other legislators.
24 Q. Do you know whether Representative Harless has
25 a Gmail account?
Colby Beuck May 14, 2012
Toll Free: 800.211.DEPOFacsimile: 512.328.8139
Suite 2203101 Bee Caves Road
Austin, TX 78746www.esquiresolutions.com
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-3 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 6 of 6
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
STATE OF TEXAS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) )VS. ) )ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. in his )official capacity as Attorney )General of the United States, ) ) Defendant, ) )ERIC KENNIE, et al, ) ) Defendant-Intervenors, ) )TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF ) CASE NO. 1:12-CV-00128NAACP BRANCHES, ) (RMC-DST-RLW) ) Three-Judge Court Defendant-Intervenors, ) )TEXAS LEAGUE OF YOUNG VOTERS )EDUCATION FUND, et al, ) ) Defendant-Intervenors, ) )TEXAS LEGISLATIVE BLACK )CAUCUS, et al, ) ) Defendant-Intervenors, ) )VICTORIA RODRIGUEZ, et al., ) ) Defendant-Intervenors. )
**********************************************
ORAL DEPOSITION OF
JANICE McCOY
MAY 16, 2012
**********************************************
Janice McCoy May 16, 2012
Toll Free: 800.211.DEPOFacsimile: 512.328.8139
Suite 2203101 Bee Caves Road
Austin, TX 78746www.esquiresolutions.com
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-4 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 1 of 5
2
1 ORAL DEPOSITION OF JANICE McCOY, produced as a
2 witness at the instance of the Defendant, was duly
3 sworn, was taken in the above-styled and numbered cause
4 on the MAY 16, 2012, from 9:39 a.m. to 6:24 p.m., before
5 Chris Carpenter, CSR, in and for the State of Texas,
6 reported by machine shorthand, at the offices of The
7 United States Attorney's Office, 816 Congress Avenue,
8 Suite 1000, Austin, Texas 78701, pursuant to the Federal
9 Rules of Civil Procedure and the provisions stated on
10 the record or attached hereto.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Janice McCoy May 16, 2012
Toll Free: 800.211.DEPOFacsimile: 512.328.8139
Suite 2203101 Bee Caves Road
Austin, TX 78746www.esquiresolutions.com
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-4 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 2 of 5
31
2
3 A P P E A R A N C E S
4 FOR THE PLAINTIFF, STATE OF TEXAS:
5 Matthew Frederick Patrick K. Sweeten
6 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS P.O. Box 12548
7 Austin, TX 78711-2548
8 209 West 14th Street 8th Floor
9 Austin, TX 78701 (512) 936-1307
11
12 FOR THE DEFENDANT, HOLDER, ET AL:
13 Jennifer Maranzano Elizabeth S. Westfall
14 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
15 NWB - Room 7202 Washington, DC 20530
16 (202) 305-7766 [email protected]
18 FOR THE DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OFNAACP BRANCHES AND THE MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE
19 CAUCUS:
20 Ezra D. Rosenberg DECHERT, LLP
21 Suite 500 902 Carnegie Center
22 Princeton, NJ 08540-6531 (609) 955-3200
24
25
Janice McCoy May 16, 2012
Toll Free: 800.211.DEPOFacsimile: 512.328.8139
Suite 2203101 Bee Caves Road
Austin, TX 78746www.esquiresolutions.com
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-4 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 3 of 5
4
1 FOR THE KENNIE INTERVENORS:2 Chad W. Dunn
BRAZIL & DUNN, LLP3 4201 Cypress Creek Parkway
Suite 5304 Houston, TX 77068
(281) 580-63105 [email protected]
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Janice McCoy May 16, 2012
Toll Free: 800.211.DEPOFacsimile: 512.328.8139
Suite 2203101 Bee Caves Road
Austin, TX 78746www.esquiresolutions.com
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-4 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 4 of 5
34
1 your phone now, is that because they weren't archived in
2 some manner or --
3 A. Right. I delete them.
4 Q. Okay. So other than the phone during the
5 interim, do you communicate with the Senator in any
6 other ways?
7 A. I will, if I'm writing a speech or if he needs
8 some information, I fax things to his home. But other
9 than that, I do not communicate with him in any other
10 way.
11 Q. When you're in the legislative session --
12 A. Yes, ma'am.
13 Q. -- how often do you communicate with the
14 Senator?
15 A. Every day.
16 Q. And how do you usually communicate with him?
17 A. Verbally.
18 Q. Do you and the Senator ever exchange e-mails?
19 A. I have sent him e-mail. He does not respond.
20 Q. Do you send e-mail to his personal account or
21 to a government account?
22 A. Personal.
23 Q. During the time that you worked for Senator
24 Fraser, how many election-related bills has the Senator
25 authored?
Janice McCoy May 16, 2012
Toll Free: 800.211.DEPOFacsimile: 512.328.8139
Suite 2203101 Bee Caves Road
Austin, TX 78746www.esquiresolutions.com
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 254-4 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/14 Page 5 of 5