US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
-
Upload
true-the-vote -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
1/58
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 HISPANICCOUNTY JUDGES AND COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, et al.,
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-263 (NGR)
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 1 of 19
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
2/58
TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP
BRANCHES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN STEEN, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-291 (NGR)
JOINT REPORT OF THE RULE 26(f) MEETING AND
JOINT DISCOVERY/CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN
1. State when the Rule 26 Conference of the parties was held and identify the counselwho attended for each party.
On September 18, 2013, the parties held a telephonic Rule 26(f) conference at which
the following counsel participated:
Armand Derfner, Gerry Hebert, and Neil Baron for Plaintiffs in Veasey v.Perry
Meredith Bell-Platts, Elizabeth Westfall, Bruce Gear, Anna Baldwin, DanielFreeman, and Jennifer Maranzano for the Plaintiff in United States v. Texas Danielle Conley, Ryan Haygood, Leah Aden, Hasan Ali, and Kelly Dunbar
for Plaintiff-Intervenors Texas League of Young Voters Education Fund, et al.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 2 of 19
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
3/58
John Scott, Reed Clay, and David Whitley for the Defendants State of Texaset al.
Rolando Rios for Movant-Intervenors Texas Association of Hispanic Judgesand Commissioners, et al.
Joseph Nixon for Movant-Intervenor True the Vote2. List any cases related to the present action that are pending in any state or federal
court, with the style, case number, court, and a brief description of the case.
Saldana, et al. v. Hidalgo County, et al., No. C-6392-13I (398th Judicial District
Court, Hidalgo County, Texas) (filed Oct. 18, 2013). Plaintiffs seek temporary and
permanent enjoinment of Senate Bill 14 (2011) (SB 14).
On August 30, 2013, the Court ordered the consolidation of United States v. Texas,
No. 2:13-cv-263 (S.D. Tex.) (NGR) with Veasey v. Perry, No. 2:13-cv-193 (S.D.Tex.) (NGR) (ECF No. 14).
On September 19, 2013, the Court ordered the consolidation ofTexas State
Conference of NAACP Branches v. Steen, No. 2:13-cv-291 (S.D. Tex.) (NGR) with
Veasey v. Perry, No. 2:13-cv-193 (S.D. Tex.) (NGR) and United States v. Texas, No.
2:13-cv-263 (S.D. Tex.) (NGR) (ECF No. 31).
3. Briefly describe the pertinent facts and legal theories upon which the present actionsare based.
United States v. Texasis a challenge under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42U.S.C. 1973, to the State of Texass photographic voter identification law, SB 14, to
enforce the voting rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments tothe United States Constitution.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 3 of 19
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
4/58
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
5/58
7. If this is a class action, describe any issues regarding certification of the class.The parties do not seek certification of a class.
8. State whether each party represents that it has made the initial disclosures required byRule 26(a). If not, describe the arrangements that have been made to complete the
disclosures.
The plaintiff United States, the Veaseyplaintiffs, the plaintiffs in Texas NAACP,and
Plaintiff-Intervenors Texas League of Young Voters Education Fund will make theirinitial disclosures on November 21, 2013.
9. Describe the proposed discovery plan the parties have agreed upon, including:A. Responses to all the matters raised in Rule 26(f). The parties have been unable to
agree upon a joint scheduling order. The Courts standard deadlines are not
applicable to this case. The plaintiff United States, the Texas NAACPplaintiffs,
and the Plaintiff-Intervenors Texas League of Young Voters Education Fund
propose the schedule that is attached as Exhibit 1. The plaintiff United Statessubmits a statement in support of its proposed schedule at Exhibit 2. The Veasey
plaintiffs propose the schedule that is attached as Exhibit 3. The Veaseyplaintiffs
submit a statement in support of their proposed schedule at Exhibit 4. The Stateof Texas proposes the schedule that is attached as Exhibit 5.
*
a.
Interrogatories: The plaintiff United States, the Texas NAACPplaintiffs, theVeaseyPlaintiffs, and the Plaintiff-Intervenors Texas League of Young Voters
Education Fundpropose that each party shall be permitted to propound twenty-
five (25) interrogatories on any other party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1); S.D. Tex. R.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 5 of 19
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
6/58
b. Depositions of Fact Witnesses: Notwithstanding the limits set forth in FederalRule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2), Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Intervenors, and Movant-
Intervenors Texas Association of Hispanic Judges and Commissioners (ifintervention is granted) shall be permitted to depose sixty (60) fact witnesses
collectively. Likewise, Defendants and Movant-Intervenor True the Vote (if
intervention is granted) shall be permitted to depose sixty (60) fact witnessescollectively. The parties will attempt to coordinate the issuance of notices and
subpoenas for depositions so as to avoid duplication of effort and promote
efficiency. The parties will attempt to coordinate the scheduling of depositions in
advance of submitting notices for deposition.
c. Discovery Cut-Off Date:The plaintiff United States, the plaintiffs in Texas NAACP, Plaintiff-Intervenors
Texas League of Young Voters Education Fund, and the Defendants State of
Texas et al. propose the following: fact discovery shall conclude on August 15,2014; expert discovery shall conclude onNovember 21, 2014; and the parties may
conduct fact discovery limited to the 2014 November general election between
October 1, 2014 and December 23, 2014. The plaintiff United States further
proposes that, notwithstanding Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33(b)(2),34(b)(2)(A), during this supplemental discovery period, the responding party must
serve or produce, where applicable, answers, objections, and responsive
documents within twenty-one (21) days.
The Veaseyplaintiffs propose that fact discovery shall conclude on May 2, 2014,
and expert discovery shall conclude on July 15, 2014.
d. Federal Rule 26(a)(2) Disclosure (Experts):
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 6 of 19
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
7/58
to the history of the states consideration and/or enactment of legislation requiring
photographic identification, up to and including SB 14, as a requirement to cast a
ballot in person. If Texas does make such an assertion, the plaintiff United States,the Veaseyplaintiffs, the plaintiffs in Texas NAACP, and the Plaintiff-Intervenors
Texas League of Young Voters Education Fundwill likely move to compel at
least a portion of the discovery withheld on those grounds.
f. Dispositive Motions:The plaintiff United States, the plaintiffs in Texas NAACP, Plaintiff-Intervenors
Texas League of Young Voters Education Fund, and the Defendants State ofTexas et al. propose that dispositive motions shall be filed on January 12, 2015,
responses shall be due February 11, 2015, and replies to responses shall be due
February 23, 2015.
The Veaseyplaintiffs propose that dispositive motions shall be filed by July 22,
2014, responses shall be filed by August 4, 2014, and replies to responses shall befiled by August 11, 2014.
g. Pretrial Order: The pretrial statement shall be due 14 days before the pretrialconference. Pursuant to Local Rule 46, objections to exhibits shall be made at
least seven days before trial.
h. Electronic Discovery: The parties have agreed on a proposed production formatfor documents and electronically stored information. SeeAgreement Concerning
Production Format (Ex. 6).
i. Protective Orders: The plaintiff United States has circulated several drafts ofproposed protective orders to govern the exchange of certain confidential
i f i i l di b li i d h id i d h i i f
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 7 of 19
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
8/58
Defendants will serve interrogatories at any time during fact discovery provided
that sufficient time is given to respond by the fact discovery cut-off. Defendantswill serve interrogatories on opposing parties including named individual
plaintiffs and various federal agencies. Defendants reserve the right to serve
interrogatories on additional parties.
D. When and from whom Plaintiff(s) anticipate(s) taking oral depositions.
The plaintiff United States, the Veaseyplaintiffs, the plaintiffs in Texas NAACP,
and Plaintiff-Intervenors Texas League of Young Voters Education Fundwillnotice depositions of current and former state legislators; state and local officials,
employees, agents, and counsel of the State of Texas, including, but not limitedto, the Office of the Texas Secretary of State, the Texas Division of Elections, the
Texas Department of Public Safety, and other state agencies responsible for
issuing identification; county and local election officials; and third parties whomay have information relevant to the United States claim. Additionally, the
plaintiff United States, the Veaseyplaintiffs, the plaintiffs in Texas NAACP, and
Plaintiff-Intervenors Texas League of Young Voters Education Fund intend todepose the fact and expert witnesses on whom Defendants intend to rely insupport of their defenses.
The plaintiff United States, the Veaseyplaintiffs, the plaintiffs in Texas NAACP,and Plaintiff-Intervenors Texas League of Young Voters Education Fundwill
begin noticing depositions of fact witnesses after they have received and reviewed
Defendants responses to written discovery requests and no earlier than December1, 2013.
E. When and from whom Defendant(s) anticipate(s) taking oral depositions.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 8 of 19
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
9/58
reports shall be disclosed by October 6, 2014. Surrebuttal experts and surrebuttal
reports shall be disclosed by October 31, 2014.
The Veaseyplaintiffs request that the Court instead order the following schedule
for the disclosure of experts and expert reports: Experts and expert reports shall
be disclosed as required by Rule 26(a)(2) by May 9, 2014. Rebuttal experts andrebuttal reports shall be disclosed by June 6, 2014. Surrebuttal experts and
surrebuttal reports shall be disclosed by June 13, 2014.
G. List expert depositions Plaintiff(s) (or the party or parties with the burden of proof
on an issue) anticipate(s) taking and their anticipated completion date.
The plaintiff United States, the Veaseyplaintiffs, the plaintiffs in Texas NAACP,and Plaintiff-Intervenors Texas League of Young Voters Education Fund
anticipate that they will depose all experts disclosed by any Defendant.
The plaintiff United States, the plaintiffs in Texas NAACP, and Plaintiff-
Intervenors Texas League of Young Voters Education Fundanticipate that they
will complete all such expert depositions by November 21, 2014.
The Veaseyplaintiffs anticipate that they will complete all such expert depositions
by July 15, 2014.
H. List expert depositions the opposing party or parties anticipate(s) taking and their
anticipated completion date.
Defendants will depose experts disclosed by any Plaintiff or Plaintiff-Intervenor.
Defendants anticipate they will complete all such expert depositions by November
21, 2014.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 9 of 19
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
10/58
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
11/58
the combined total number of hours that it will take for all parties to present evidence
in this case is 100 hours, with the division of time per side to be allotted later.
The State of Texas anticipates that the combined total number of hours that it will
take for all parties to present evidence in this case is 60 hours. Each side should be
allocated 30 hours to present its case.
17. List pending motions that could be ruled on at the Initial Pretrial Conference.Motions to intervene by True the Vote (ECF No. 38) and Texas Association of
Hispanic County Judges, et al. (ECF No. 41).
18. List other pending motions.Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 25, 2013. Pursuant to the minute
order issued on October 18, 2013, responses are due by November 22, 2013, and theDefendants reply is due by December 6, 2013.
19. Indicate other matters peculiar to this caseincluding discoverythat deserve thespecial attention of the Court at the Initial Pretrial Conference.
The plaintiff United States and defendant the State of Texas have stipulated, without
waiving any other objection under the Federal Rules of Evidence, to the authenticityof documents produced in discovery inTexas v. Holder, No. 1:12-cv-128 (D.D.C.).
20. Certify that all parties have filed Certificates of Interested Partiesas directed in theOrder of Conference and Disclosure of Interested Partieslisting the date of filing
for the originals and any amendments to the Certificates.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 11 of 19
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
12/58
/s/ Elizabeth S. Westfall
T. Christian Herren Jr.
AL Bar No. HER025
Robert S. Berman
WI Bar No. 1015402
Meredith Bell-Platts
[email protected] Bar No. 048948
OH Bar No. 0072917
Elizabeth S. Westfall
DC Bar No. 458792NY Bar No. 2799963
Bruce I. Gear
[email protected] Bar No. 463388
Jennifer L. [email protected]
DC Bar No. 483420
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 12 of 19
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected] -
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
13/58
John A. Smith, III
Assistant United States Attorney
800 N. Shoreline, Suite 500Corpus Christi, TX 78401
(361) 903-7926
[email protected] No. 18627450
For Plaintiffs Marc Veasey, et al.
/s/ Chad W. Dunn
Armand G. Derfner
South Carolina State Bar No. 1650South Carolina Federal Bar No. 502
Derfner, Altman & Wilborn, LLC
P.O. Box 600Charleston, SC 29402Phone: (843) 723-9804
Chad W. [email protected]
Texas State Bar No. 24036507
K. Scott Brazil
Texas State Bar No. 02934050
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 13 of 19
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected] -
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
14/58
Neil G. Baron
[email protected] State Bar No. 01797080
Law Office of Neil G. Baron
914 FM 517 W, Suite 242Dickinson, TX 77539
Phone: (281) 534-2748
Fax: (281) 534-4309
David [email protected]
Texas State Bar No. 16846000Richards, Rodriguez & Skeith, LLP
816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1200
Austin, TX 78701Phone: (512) 476-0005
Fax: (512) 476-1513
Luis Roberto Vera, Jr.LULAC National General Counsel
Texas State Bar No. 20546740
The Law Offices of Luis Vera Jr., and Associates1325 Riverview Towers, 111 Soledad
San Antonio, TX 78205
Phone: (210) 225-3300Fax: (210) 225-2060
Craig M. Watkins
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 14 of 19
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
15/58
Ste 500
Princeton, NJ 08540-6531
(609-955-3200)[email protected]
Amy L. Rudd (TX 24043561, S.D. TX 1149768)Steven B. Weisburd (TX 24054515, S.D. TX 1691215)
Lindsey B. Stelcen (TX 24083903)
Dechert LLP
300 West 6th Street
Suite 2010Austin, TX 78701
[email protected]@dechert.com
Wendy Weiser (NY 2919595)
Myrna Perez (NY 4874095)
Jennifer Clark (NY 5064100)Vishal Agraharkar (NY 4931457)Brennan Ctr for Justice
NYU School of Law
161 Avenue of the Americas, 12th Fl.New York, NY 10013
(646-292-8310)
[email protected]@nyu.edu
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 15 of 19
http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=&daddr=30.269103,-97.745672+(Austin%20Office:%20300%20West%206th%20Street,%20Suite%202010,%20+1.512.394.3000)http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=&daddr=30.269103,-97.745672+(Austin%20Office:%20300%20West%206th%20Street,%20Suite%202010,%20+1.512.394.3000)http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=&daddr=30.269103,-97.745672+(Austin%20Office:%20300%20West%206th%20Street,%20Suite%202010,%20+1.512.394.3000)mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=&daddr=30.269103,-97.745672+(Austin%20Office:%20300%20West%206th%20Street,%20Suite%202010,%20+1.512.394.3000)http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=&daddr=30.269103,-97.745672+(Austin%20Office:%20300%20West%206th%20Street,%20Suite%202010,%20+1.512.394.3000)http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=&daddr=30.269103,-97.745672+(Austin%20Office:%20300%20West%206th%20Street,%20Suite%202010,%20+1.512.394.3000) -
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
16/58
Austin, TX 78701
(512-474-7563)
Gary Bledsoe (TX 02476500)
PotterBledsoe, LLP316 West 12
thStreet, Suite 307
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 322-9992
Kim Keenan (DC 419241)
Marshall Taylor (DC 454615)Victor Goode (MD 08145525)
NAACP
4805 Mt. Hope DriveBaltimore, MD 21215
(410-580-5120)
[email protected]@[email protected]
Jose Garza (TX 07731950)Law Office of Jose Garza
7414 Robin Rest Drive
San Antonio, TX 98209(210-392-2856)
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 16 of 19
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected] -
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
17/58
PA Bar. No. 83616
NY Bar No. 2619252
Ryan P. Haygood
NY Bar No. 4089397
Natasha M. Korgaonkar
NY Bar No. 4653168
Leah C. Aden
[email protected] Bar No. 4555207
NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund40 Rector Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Tel: (212) 965-2200Fax: (212) 226-7592
Danielle Y. Conley
[email protected] Bar No. 503345
NY Bar No. 647886
Jonathan E. Paikin
DC Bar No. 466445
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 17 of 19
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
18/58
M. Hasan Ali
NY Bar No. 5005772DC Bar No. 1014497
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, LLP1875 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Tel: (202) 663-6000
Fax: (202) 663-6363
For Defendants State of Texas, et al.:
/s/John B. Scott
John B. [email protected]
Texas State Bar No. 17901500
Jonathan [email protected]
Texas State Bar No. 24075463
Reed Clay
Texas State Bar No. 24072039
Patrick Sweeten
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 18 of 19
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected] -
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
19/58
Texas State Bar No. 24059754
Office of the Texas Attorney GeneralP.O. Box 12548
Austin, Texas 78711-2458
Phone: 512-936-1414Fax: 512-936-0545
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 19 of 19
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
20/58
Exhibit 1
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-1 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 1 of 4
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
21/58
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.,
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-263 (NGR)
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-1 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 2 of 4
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
22/58
TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP
BRANCHES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN STEEN, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-291 (NGR)
(PROPOSED) ORDER
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and upon consideration of the parties joint report of theRule 26(f) meeting and joint discovery/case management plan, the following schedule is hereby
ORDERED:
1. Fact discovery shall conclude on August 15, 2014. Notwithstanding the limits set forth inFed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2), Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Intervenors, and Movant- Intervenors Texas
Association of Hispanic Judges and Commissioners, et al. (if intervention is granted)shall be permitted to depose sixty (60) fact witnesses collectively. Likewise, Defendants
and Movant-Intervenor True the Vote (if intervention is granted) shall be permitted to
depose sixty (60) fact witnesses collectively.
2. The deadline to amend pleadings is August 15, 2014.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-1 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 3 of 4
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
23/58
motions filed prior to January 12, 2015, responses shall be filed within thirty (30) days
and replies within ten (10) days after that.
7. The pretrial statement shall be filed two weeks prior to the pretrial conference.8. The parties will be ready for trial as of March 17, 2015.
_________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
United States District Judge
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-1 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 4 of 4
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
24/58
Exhibit 2
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-2 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 1 of 5
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
25/58
UNITED STATES STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS PROPOSED SCHEDULE
The scheduling order that the plaintiff United States requests (Ex. 1) requires the parties
to be ready for trial as of March 17, 2015; the plaintiff Texas State Conference of NAACP and
the plaintiff-intervenor Texas League of Young Voters Education Fund join in this request, and
the defendant State of Texas does not oppose it. The proposed trial date is based on two factors:
(1) the necessity that this Court has a full, complete, and accurate record upon which to render its
decision; and (2) the litigation experience of several of the parties in the instant case in litigating
a challenge to SB 14 under an expedited schedule last year.
The scheduling order provides for nine months of fact discovery, followed by a period of
expert discovery and limited fact discovery related to the 2014 general election, then an
opportunity to file dispositive motions, and finally, preparation of the necessary pre-trial papers,
such as motions in limineand proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
At the outset, the United States fully understands the gravity of the issues that this case
presents. The ability of all qualified citizens to participate fully and equally in the electoral
process is fundamental. The United States will seek to avoid any unnecessary delay in providing
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-2 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 2 of 5
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
26/58
Examining the previous litigation over SB 14 should obviate any concern that the
requested time for fact and expert discovery is not warranted. The State of Texas filed a
declaratory judgment action under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973c,
seeking a judicial determination that SB 14 had neither a discriminatory purpose nor would have
a discriminatory effect. Texasv.Holder, No. 1:12-cv-128 (D.D.C. 2012). On March 14, 2012,
Texas requested a decision by a date that, if the court ruled in its favor, would permit it to
implement SB 14 for the November 2012 election. The court granted this request, indicated that
it would issue a decision by August 31, 2012, and ordered an expedited trial schedule.
In the months that followed, the parties undertook complex and voluminous discovery.
To determine which voters in Texas possessed requisite state forms of photographic
identification under SB 14, the United States and defendant-intervenors sought data from Texas
voter registration, driver license, and license to carry concealed handguns databases.
Data discovery in this action will be even more complex. As a result of the expedited
trial schedule, the parties did not exchange or present expert testimony on the federal forms of
photographic identification permitted by SB 14. Nor did the parties analyze data maintained by
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-2 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 3 of 5
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
27/58
Here, Texas has already indicated that it will seek data from five federal agencies related
to federal forms of allowable photographic identification under SB 14 and exemptions from SB
14s identification requirements based on disability status. The agencies are the Department of
Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, Social Security Administration, State Department, and
the Citizenship and Immigration Services. None of these agencies produced any information
during the Section 5 declaratory judgment action. This has the potential to magnify the data
discovery issues considerably. As with the state databases, these are massive databases that
contain large quantities of personal identification information, statutorily protected from
disclosure under federal law. Although the parties have already started discussions as to
appropriate protective orders and methods of production, it is likely that disputes will arise
concerning the appropriate scope and relevance of the discovery that Texas will seek. Based on
our past experiences, these disputes are likely to be complex and resolving them will be time
consuming. For example, during a seven-week period, the court hearing the Section 5
declaratory judgment action held six telephonic conferences related to protective orders and
discovery of data maintained by Texas. Once these issues are resolved, experts will require
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-2 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 4 of 5
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
28/58
withholding large categories of documents and deposition testimony. The legal issues
surrounding these disputes were complicated and necessitated several rounds of briefing. The
briefing of privilege issues occurred over the course of two months, from March 22, 2012,
through May 30, 2012, and the court issued several orders related to privilege during that period
up until June 7, 2012.
In this action, the United States again intends to seek discovery from Texas legislators
and staff and executive agencies to show that passage of SB 14 was motivated by discriminatory
intent. Texas has stated that it will continue to assert, at least as broadly as it did during the
declaratory judgment action, that such an inquiry is precluded by legislative privilege. Because
the United States expects that it will again be required to compel some portion of the discovery
that Texas withholds on the basis of legislative or other privileges, its proposed schedule
provides sufficient time for the parties to brief motions to compel, the Court to consider the
arguments and issue orders, and the parties to conduct discovery based on those orders.
In sum, the Court should enter a scheduling order that provides the parties with an
adequate period of time to prepare a complete factual record and an adequate time for the Court
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-2 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 5 of 5
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
29/58
Exhibit 3
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-3 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 1 of 4
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
30/58
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.,
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-263 (NGR)
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-3 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 2 of 4
C 2 3 00 93 6 3 il d i S /0 / 3 3 f
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
31/58
TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP
BRANCHES,et al.
,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN STEEN, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-291 (NGR)
(PROPOSED) ORDER
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and upon consideration of the parties joint report of the
Rule 26(f) meeting and joint discovery/case management plan, the following schedule is hereby
ORDERED:
1. Fact discovery shall conclude on May 2, 2014. Notwithstanding the limits set forth inFed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2), Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Intervenors, and Movant- Intervenors Texas
Association of Hispanic Judges and Commissioners, et al. (if intervention is granted)shall be permitted to depose sixty (60) fact witnesses collectively. Likewise, Defendants
and Movant-Intervenor True the Vote (if intervention is granted) shall be permitted to
depose sixty (60) fact witnesses collectively.
2. Expert disclosure under Fed. R. Civ. P 26(a)(2)(A) and disclosure of all expert reportsunder Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) shall be no later than May 9, 2014. Disclosure of
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-3 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 3 of 4
C 2 13 00193 D t 61 3 Fil d i TXSD 11/04/13 P 4 f 4
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
32/58
_________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOSUnited States District Judge
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-3 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 4 of 4
C 2 13 00193 D t 61 4 Fil d i TXSD 11/04/13 P 1 f 4
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
33/58
Exhibit 4
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-4 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 1 of 4
C 2 13 00193 D t 61 4 Fil d i TXSD 11/04/13 P 2 f 4
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
34/58
THE VEASEY PLAINTIFFS POSITION WITH RESPECT TO SCHEDULING
The Veasey plaintiffs propose a schedule thatunlike the other parties schedulewould
provide an opportunity for plaintiffs to obtain relief on behalf of Texas voters in time for the
November 2014 elections, the first major turnout elections in which Texas seeks to enforce the
Voter ID law. The Veasey plaintiffs believe it is critically important to obtain a decision on SB
14s validity before, not after, the first major elections, and they further believe it is feasible for
the parties and the Court to have a trial on such a schedule.
The Veasey plaintiffs filed their initial complaint on June 26, 2013, the day after the
Supreme Court handed down its decision in Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612, and the
State of Texas announced its intention to implement SB 14. This Court promptly entered a
scheduling order in which trial was scheduled for June 2014. The Veasey plaintiffs then filed an
amended complaint, and other parties filed complaints or sought to intervene, within 60 days
thereafter. Thus, even if this Courts initial scheduling order were pushed back by 60 days, the
parties could still have a trial in time for a decision before the November 2014 elections.
Under the schedule proposed by the other parties, however, trial would not occur until
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-4 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:13 cv 00193 Document 61 4 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 3 of 4
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
35/58
Accordingly, the Veasey plaintiffs propose the following schedule:
Initial Disclosures Due November 21, 2013
Fact Discovery Ends May 2, 2014
Expert Reports Due May 9, 2014
States Expert Rebuttal Reports Due June 6, 2014
Plaintiffs Expert Reply Reports Due June 13, 2014
Expert Witness Discovery Deadline July 15, 2014
Dispositive Motions Due1
July 22, 2014
Dispositive Motion Responses Due August 4, 2014
Replies to Dispositive Responses Due August 11, 2014
Trial September 2, 2014
In proposing the foregoing schedule, the Veasey plaintiffs are mindful of the need to
develop a complete factual record in this case, but believe this schedule would permit the
development of such a record. Adopting the Veasey plaintiffs proposed schedule does not
t th t th liti ti ill b bl f T ill b bj ti t
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-4 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:13 cv 00193 Document 61 4 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 4 of 4
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
36/58
In support of the Veasey plaintiffs proposed schedule, it is important to note that the
parties are not starting from scratch in this case. A three-judge federal court in Washington, D.C.
held a week-long trial in July 2012 and concluded that the Texas photo voter ID law
discriminated against minority voters. The parties took dozens of depositions in that case, and
the record included hundreds of exhibits and hundreds of pages of trial testimony. The
significant evidence the parties have already amassed should allow a shorter discovery schedule
here, and a trial before the November 2014 elections.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-4 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 4 of 4
Case 2:13 cv 00193 Document 61 5 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 1 of 4
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
37/58
Exhibit 5
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-5 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:13 cv 00193 Document 61 5 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 2 of 4
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
38/58
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 COUNTYCOMMISSIONERS, et al.,
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-263 (NGR)
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-5 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-5 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 3 of 4
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
39/58
TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP
BRANCHES,et al.
,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN STEEN, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-291 (NGR)
(PROPOSED) ORDER
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and upon consideration of the parties joint report of the
Rule 26(f) meeting and joint discovery/case management plan, the following schedule is hereby
ORDERED:
1. The deadline for adding new parties is December 6, 2013.2. The deadline to amend pleadings deadline is May 1, 2014.3. Fact discovery shall conclude on August 15, 2014. Notwithstanding the limits set forth in
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2), Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Intervenors, and Movant- Intervenors Texas
Association of Hispanic Judges and Commissioners, et al. (if intervention is granted)shall be permitted to depose sixty (60) fact witnesses collectively. Likewise, Defendants
and Movant-Intervenor True the Vote (if intervention is granted) shall be permitted to
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-5 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-5 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 4 of 4
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
40/58
7. Dispositive motions shall be filed by January 12, 2015; responses shall be filed byFebruary 11, 2015; and replies shall be filed by February 23, 2015. For any dispositive
motions filed prior to January 12, 2015, responses shall be filed within thirty (30) daysand replies within ten (10) days after that.
8. The pretrial statement shall be filed two weeks prior to the pretrial conference.9. The parties will be ready for trial as of March 17, 2015.
_________________________NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
United States District Judge
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-5 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 4 of 4
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 1 of 18
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
41/58
Exhibit 6
Case 2:13 cv 00193 Document 61 6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 1 of 18
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 2 of 18
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
42/58
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 VOTERSEDUCATION FUND, et al.,
Plaintiff-Intervenors,
TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF HISPANIC
COUNTY JUDGES AND COUNTYCOMMISSIONERS, et al.,
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 18
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 3 of 18
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
43/58
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
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 18
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 4 of 18
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
44/58
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 orif
placement in the lower right hand corner would obliterate, conceal, or interfere with any
information from the source documentanother 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.
Case 2:13 cv 00193 Document 61 6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 4 of 18
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 5 of 18
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
45/58
identified on the physical Production Media includes: (1) the case number, (2) the producing
partys 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.
Case 3 c 00 93 ocu e t 6 6 ed S o /0 / 3 age 5 o 8
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 6 of 18
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
46/58
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
g
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 7 of 18
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
47/58
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
g
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 8 of 18
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
48/58
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 partys search of ESI, including the partys 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 partys 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.
g
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 9 of 18
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
49/58
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
g
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 10 of 18
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
50/58
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 documentincluding but not limited to draft documentsexchanged
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
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 11 of 18
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
51/58
producing party or destroyed at the producing partys option. This includes all copies
electronic or otherwiseof 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 partys 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
partywithin fourteen (14) days of notification of the inadvertent disclosureshall 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 partys assertions with
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 12 of 18
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
52/58
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, theparties 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
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 13 of 18
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
53/58
Dated: November 4, 2013
For the Veasey Plaintiffs
/s/ Chad W. Dunn
CHAD W. DUNNK. SCOTT BRAZILBrazil & Dunn4201 Cypress Creek ParkwaySuite 530
Houston, Texas 77068J. GERALD HEBERTCampaign Legal Center215 E Street, NEWashington, D.C. 20002
NEIL G. BARON
Law Office of Neil G. Baron914 FM 517 WestSuite 242Dickinson, Texas 77539
DAVID RICHARDSRichards, Rodriguez & Skeith LLP816 Congress Avenue
Suite 1200Austin, Texas 78701
For the United States of America
KENNETH MAGIDSONUnited States AttorneySouthern District of Texas
JOCELYN SAMUELSActing Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
/s/ Elizabeth S. Westfall
T. CHRISTIAN HERREN, JR.MEREDITH BELL-PLATTSELIZABETH S. WESTFALLBRUCE I. GEARJENNIFER L. MARANZANO
ANNA 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 500
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 14 of 18
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
54/58
For NAACP Plaintiffs:
/s/ Ezra D. Rosenberg
EZRA D. ROSENBERGDechert LLP902 Carnegie Center, Suite 500Princeton, New Jersey 08540
STEVEN B. WEISBURD
AMY L. RUDDLINDSEY B. STELCENDechert LLP500 W. 6th Street, Suite 2010Austin, Texas 78701
ROBERT A. KENGLEMARK A. POSNER
SONIA KAUR GILLERANDI ZAMORALawyers Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law1401 New York Avenue, NWSuite 400Washington, D.C. 20005
WENDYWEISERMYRNA PREZVISHAL AGRAHARKAR
KIM KEENANMARSHALL TAYLORVICTOR GOODENAACP4805 Mt. Hope DriveBaltimore, Maryland 21215
JOSE GARZALaw Office of Jose Garza7414 Robin Rest DriveSan Antonio, Texas 98209
CLAY BONILLADANIEL G. COVICH
The 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 15 of 18
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
55/58
For Texas League of Young Voters
Educational Fund, et al. Intervenors:
/s/ Ryan P. HaygoodSHERRILYN IFILLCHRISTINA SWARNSRYAN P. HAYGOODNATASHA M. KORGAONKARLEAH C. ADENNAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, Inc.40 Rector Street, 5th FloorNew York, New York 10006
DANIELLE CONLEYJONATHAN PAIKINKELLY P. DUNBARSONYA L. LEBSACK
Wilmer 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. Scott
JOHN B. SCOTT
Deputy Attorney General209 West 14th StreetAustin, Texas 78711
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 16 of 18
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
56/58
1
Attachment A
Name of Field Type of
field
Contents
E-mail Word Processingor PDFs
Spreadsheets Digital Photos Paper
Begin_Bates Text Bates number forthe TIFF/jpg
image of the first
page
Bates number forthe TIFF/jpg
image of the first
page
Bates number ofthe placeholder
page
Bates number forthe TIFF/jpg
image of the first
page
Bates number forthe TIFF/jpg
image of the first
page
End_Bates Text Bates number forthe TIFF/jpg
image of the last
page
Bates number forthe TIFF/jpg
image of the last
page
Bates number ofthe placeholder
page
Bates number forthe TIFF/jpg
image of the last
page
Bates number forthe TIFF/jpg
image of the last
page
AttachmentRange
Text Bates rangestarting with thefirst page of the
parent documentthrough the last
page of the lastattachment.
Blank if there are
no childdocuments
Bates rangestarting with thefirst page of the
parent documentthrough the last
page of the lastattachment or
embedded file.
Included only ifpart of a group of
documents like anemail or zip file.
Bates rangestarting with thefirst page of the
parent documentthrough the last
page of the lastattachment or
embedded file.
Included only ifpart of a group of
documents like anemail or zip file.
Bates rangestarting with thefirst page of the
parent documentthrough the last
page of the lastattachment or
embedded file.
Included only ifpart of a group of
documents like anemail or zip file.
Bates range of alldocuments thatwere grouped
together/physically attached
by clips, staples, orbinding or folder.
Blank if a single
non groupeddocument
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 17 of 18
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
57/58
2
Name of Field Type of
field
Contents
E-mail Word Processing
or PDFs
Spreadsheets Digital Photos Paper
Custodian Text The name of the
person who had
primary controlover the location
from which thedocument was
collected
The name of the
person who had
primary controlover the location
from which thedocument was
collected
The name of the
person who had
primary controlover the location
from which thedocument was
collected
The name of the
person who had
primary controlover the location
from which thedocument was
collected
The name of the
person maintaining
the file from whichthe paper was
obtained
Author Paragraph From field
To Paragraph To field
CC Paragraph CC field
BCC Paragraph BCC field
Subject Paragraph Subject field
DateSent Date The date themessage was
sent (format:9/28/2012)
TimeSent Text The time themessage was
sent (format:11:16:46 AM)
MD5Hash Text The MD5 hash
value calculated
when the filewas collected or
processed.
The MD5 hash
value calculated
when the file wascollected or
processed.
The MD5 hash
value calculated
when the file wascollected or
processed.
The MD5 hash
value calculated
when the file wascollected or
processed.
Prod_FilePath Paragraph The path to the
native file on theproduction
media
The path to the
native file on theproduction media
The path to the
native file on theproduction media
The path to the
native file on theproduction media
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 61-6 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/13 Page 18 of 18
-
8/14/2019 US v. Texas joint scheduling proposal
58/58
3
Name of Field Type of
field
Contents
E-mail Word Processing
or PDFs
Spreadsheets Digital Photos Paper
Orig_filename Paragraph Original name of
the native file
when the filewas collected or
processed
Original name of
the native file
when the file wascollected or
processed
Original name of
the native file
when the file wascollected or
processed
Original name of
the native file
when the file wascollected or
processed
Responsive to Text Document
request numbers
for which this
document is
responsive.
Document request
numbers for which
this document is
responsive.
Document request
numbers for which
this document is
responsive
Document request
numbers for which
this document is
responsive
Document request
numbers for which
this document is
responsive