You are on page 1of 121

No.

14-35427
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT


NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE, INC.
Appellant-Proposed Intervenor

v.

DEANNA L. GEIGER, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees

and

JOHN KITZHABER, et al.
Defendants-Appellees


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon
Civil Case Nos. 6:13-cv-01834-MC and 6:13-cv-02256-MC (Hon. Michael J. McShane)


DECLARATION OF ROGER K. HARRIS IN SUPPORT OF
PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC



Roger K. Harris (OSB No. 78046)
HARRIS BERNE CHRISTENSEN LLP
5000 SW Meadows Road, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
(503) 968-1475
(503) 968-2003 Fax
roger@hbclawyers.com

John C. Eastman (Cal. Bar No. 193726)
CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE
c/o Chapman University Fowler School of Law
One University Dr.
Orange, CA 92866
(877) 855-3330
(714) 844-4817 Fax
jeastman@chapman.edu
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 1 of 121
DECLARATION OF ROGER K. HARRIS
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Page 1
I, Roger K. Harris, hereby declare and state as follows:
1. I am a named partner with the law firm of Harris Berne Christensen LLP,
attorneys for Appellant/Proposed Intervenor National Organization for Marriage,
Inc. (NOM), in this matter. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated in
this declaration and could and would so testify if called as a witness.
2. Shortly before the close of business on September 9, 2014 the evening
before NOMs petition for rehearing en banc was due I received from the
Attorney Generals office 75KB of digital documents in response to a public
records act request that this office had made back on May 19, 2014. This
production of documents included more than 800 e-mail (86 with attachments)
strings with more than 2000 discreet e-mail messages.
3. On September 10, 2014, I was able to quickly review some of the
documents in the production and learn that there had been a high degree of
cooperation between attorneys for Plaintiffs and attorneys with the Office of the
Attorney General in the underlying litigation challenging the constitutionality of
Oregons state constitutional definition of marriage passed by voters as Measure 36
in 2004, and that this cooperation began even before the lawsuit was filed.
4. As a result of that quick initial review, co-counsel and I determined to
include reference to these documents in NOMs petition for rehearing en banc,
with a promise of this declaration to follow, because the documents demonstrate a
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 2 of 121
DECLARATION OF ROGER K. HARRIS
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Page 2
lack of adversarialness sufficient to raise serious questions about the jurisdiction of
the court below to have issued the broad-ranging declaratory and injunctive relief
that it issued.
5. Submission of newly-discovered evidence to the appellate court, even at
the petition for rehearing en banc stage, is permitted in rare circumstances, such as
where the new evidence casts a shadow on the integrity of the process. Prof'l
Air Traffic Controllers Org. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 672 F.2d 109, 111
(D.C. Cir. 1982), cited with approval in Portland Audubon Soc'y v. Endangered
Species Comm., 984 F.2d 1534, 1549 (9th Cir. 1993); cf. Mirchandani v. United
States, 836 F.2d 1223 (9th Cir. 1988) (ordering limited remand to permit District
Court to address governments motion to reopen proceedings to consider newly
discovered evidence). Indeed, the evidence summarized herein demonstrates a
lack of adversarialness in the proceedings below that raise serious questions about
the lower courts jurisdiction, and this Court has an ongoing obligation to be sure
that jurisdiction exists. Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d
1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003).
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit A (Bates #1001) is a true and correct copy of
an email from Lake Perriguey (counsel for the Geiger Plaintiffs) to Defendant
Ellen Rosenblum, Attorney General of Oregon, asking for a phone call to discuss
a potential challenge to Oregons constitutional provision defining marriage.
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 3 of 121
DECLARATION OF ROGER K. HARRIS
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Page 3
The email is dated July 25, 2013, nearly three months before the Geiger complaint
was filed.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit B (Bates #1046-1049) is a true and correct
copy of an email chain dated between August 14, 2013 and August 21, 2013,
between Lake Perriguey and staff at the office of Attorney General setting up a
meeting on September 5, 2013 between Perriguey and Attorney General Ellen
Rosenblum, Deputy Attorney General Mary Williams, and Deputy Chief Trial
Counsel Sheila Potter to discuss a federal constitutional challenge of Oregons
anti-gay definition of marriage. The scheduled meeting was approximately six
weeks before the Geiger complaint was filed.
8. Attached hereto as Exhibit C (Bates #1051) is a true and correct copy of
an email exchange between Sheila Potter and Lake Perriguey dated between
September 7 and September 9, 2013, confirming that a meeting had taken place in
the past week at which Potter had agreed to have her contacts, which she then
identified as Marc Abrams (sic) friends, communicate with Perriguey.
9. Attached hereto as Exhibit D (No Bates) is a true and correct copy of
internet pages from linkedin.com and blueorgeon.com disclosing biographical
information about Marc Abrams. The biographical sketches describe Abrams as a
Senior Assistant Attorney General at the Oregon Department of Justice (counsel
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 4 of 121
DECLARATION OF ROGER K. HARRIS
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Page 4
for Defendants in the Geiger and consolidated Rummell cases) and also a member
of the ACLU (counsel for Plaintiffs in the consolidated Rummell case).
10. Attached hereto as Exhibit E (Bates #1055) is a true and correct copy of
an email exchange between Lake Perriguey and Sheila Potter dated September 17,
2013, in which Perriguey references prior discussions he had had with Potter
during which Potter apparently agreed that Oregons marriage laws were
unconstitutional. Perriguey asked for Potters approval to inform the Court once
the case is filed that the State agrees with the Plaintiffs that Oregons marriage
laws violate fundamental due process and equal protection. He also proposed
submitting to the Court a stipulated Judgment declaring Measure 6 [sic]
unconstitutional (and the marriage statutes as well, insofar as they prevent same-
sex couple from marrying), in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, and
enjoining the State and its instrumentalities from enforcing Measure 36 and the
marriage statutes. Finally, Perriguey asked Potter, Could it be this direct?
Potter replied that she did not think this approach is the way to go, promising to
call later that morning to discuss further. The exchange demonstrates collaboration
between counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for Defendants on litigation tactics
about a month before the Geiger complaint was filed.
11. Attached hereto as Exhibit F (Bates #1061-1062) is a true and correct
copy of an email exchange dated September 17, 2013 between Lake Perriguey and
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 5 of 121
DECLARATION OF ROGER K. HARRIS
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Page 5
Sheila Potter in which Perriguey expresses his hope to have a draft complaint to
[Potter] in a couple of days, recognizes problems with a judicial determination of
unconstitutionality absent some kind of adversarial process but nevertheless asks
Potter and her office to consider a stipulated judgment, and then expresses
concern that if the federal judge decides to stay the effective date of any such
stipulated judgment until a Supreme Court ruling on the issue, then we [i.e.,
Perriguey and Potter] may not have accomplished anything by suing in Oregon.
After Potter reminded Perriguey that they had discussed on the phone that the State
would not be able to sign a stipulated judgment on constitutionality, Perriguey
acknowledged that the two of them had concluded that this approach did not make
sense to either of them.
12. Attached hereto as Exhibit G (Bates #1087-1091) is a true and correct
copy of an email exchange dated September 23, 2013, between David Fidanque,
Executive Director of ACLU-Oregon (counsel for Plaintiffs in the Rummell case),
and Deputy Attorney General Mary Williams (counsel for defendants in both
Geiger and Rummell cases) referencing discussions between the two about the
possibility of intervention in the prospective lawsuit if the state elects not to
defend Measure 36. The exchange and attached memo indicates joint concern
about litigation tactics and discloses the sharing of legal research nearly a month
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 6 of 121
DECLARATION OF ROGER K. HARRIS
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Page 6
before the Geiger complaint was filed and three months before the Rummell
complaint was filed.
13. Attached hereto as Exhibit H (Bates #1123) is a true and correct copy of
an email exchange dated October 1, 2013, between Lake Perriguey and Sheila
Potter transmitting a draft complaint and seeking the States position on venue.
14. Attached hereto as Exhibit I (Bates #1151-1152) is a true and correct
copy of an email exchange dated October 22, 2013 between Lake Perriguey and
Sheila Potter requesting an in-person meeting and referencing the States decision
to cease enforcing the Oregon constitutional prohibition on recognizing as
marriages same-sex relationships treated as marriages in other states. That State
defendants made that determination the day after the Geiger lawsuit was filed. See
State Defendants Answer 26 and Ex. A (D.Ct. Dkt. ## 9, 10).
15. Attached hereto as Exhibit J (Bates #1182) is a true and correct copy of
an email exchange dated October 31, 2013 between Sheila Potter and Katharine
von Ter Stegge (counsel for co-defendant Multnomah County Assessor) in which
von Ter Stegge seeks the States agreement to indemnify the County for Plaintiffs
fee petition and noting that Lake Perriguey had already agreed not to seek fees
from the County. This exchange, which treats the obligation to pay fees (and,
therefore, plaintiffs as the prevailing parties) as a foregone conclusion, occurs
before the defendants had even answered the complaint, before the parties had
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 7 of 121
DECLARATION OF ROGER K. HARRIS
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Page 7
taken discovery, before any dispositive motions had been filed, and certainly
before any ruling on the merits had been issued by the Court.
16. Attached hereto as Exhibit K (Bates #1187-1188) is a true and correct
copy of an email exchange between Lake Perriguey and Sheila Potter dated
November 5, 2013, in which Perriguey expresses his hope that the state will
encourage the court to apply a strict scrutiny analysis and asks whether Potter
anticipates that the state will acknowledge the history of discrimination against
gay people and advance a strict scrutiny/compelling basis analysis. At the time of
this exchange, governing precedent in the Ninth Circuit treated sexual orientation
classifications as subject only to rational basis review, not strict scrutiny. See High
Tech Gays v. Def. Indus. Sec. Clearance Office, 895 F.2d 563, 574 (9th Cir. 1990);
Witt v. Dept of the Air Force, 527 F.3d 806, 821 (9th Cir. 2008). The exchange,
therefore, evidences a request from counsel for Plaintiffs to counsel for Defendants
to burden the defense with a higher standard of review than was required under
existing precedent. Defendants honored that request in their response to Plaintiffs
motion for summary judgment by urging the district court to apply heightened
scrutiny to evaluate plaintiffs equal protection claims and by asserting as fact
(without any substantiation) that the reason for the ban [on treating same-sex
relationships as marriages] was to enshrine in the state constitution a belief that
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 8 of 121
DECLARATION OF ROGER K. HARRIS
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Page 8
same-sex couples are disfavored. See State Defendants Response to Motion for
Summary Judgment at 14 (D.Ct. Dkt. #64).
17. Attached hereto as Exhibit L (Bates #1193-1194) is a true and correct
copy of an email dated November 5, 2013 from Sheila Potter to Lea Ann Easton
(co-counsel for Geiger Plaintiffs) forwarding Lake Perrigueys request that the
State encourage the court to apply strict scrutiny, asking to speak by phone and
stating: I don't want to worry Lake, but I also want to be careful about discretion
in a case in which a lot of people want to know what were going to say before we
say it, and are battering down the AGs door to find out so that they can lobby her
to say what they want her to say.
18. Attached hereto as Exhibit M (Bates #1197) is a true and correct copy of
an email dated November 9, 2013 from Lake Perriguey to Sheila Potter and
Katharine von Ter Stegge asking for a phone call because [t]here is a new
development in the case that we should discuss prior to the filing of responsive
pleadings, evidencing collaboration between counsel for plaintiffs and counsel for
defendants on the answer to the complaint that the respective defendants would be
filing.
19. Attached hereto as Exhibit N (Bates #1228-1231) is a true and correct
copy of an email exchange dated November 19-21, 2013 between Sheila Potter and
Lake Perriguey/Lea Ann Easton in which Potter points out ambiguities in the
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 9 of 121
DECLARATION OF ROGER K. HARRIS
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Page 9
complaint about which statutes will be enjoined and offers to attach a list to the
States answer as a stipulation, because [t]hat seems the quickest way to all get
on the same page. Potter also advises Plaintiffs counsel that the relief requested
doesnt ask for an order compelling equal application of the benefits of laws that
specifically refer to 'husband and wife, noting that If thats something that
belongs in the suit (and it may), I imagine that it should be in the pleadings, so that
its within the Courts authority to grant or deny that relief, rather than the Court
ordering it sua sponte. In their First Amendment Complaint, Plaintiffs accepted
this suggestion by counsel for the Defendants to broaden the requested relief
sought. Compare Complaint, Request for Relief 2 (D.Ct. Dkt. #1) with First
Amended Complaint, Request for Relief 2 (D.Ct. Dkt. #8).
20. Attached hereto as Exhibit O (Bates #1280 and #1297) is a true and
correct copy of an email exchange between Lea Ann Easton and Sheila Potter
dated December 3-4, 2013, providing Potter with an advance copy of Plaintiffs
First Amended Complaint and inviting a call if Potter would like to discuss it, and
a response by Potter noting that the amendments address our issues.
21. Attached hereto as Exhibit P (Bates #1342-1343) is a true and correct
copy of an email from Lea Ann Easton to Kate von Ter Stegge dated December 4,
2013, transmitting Plaintiffs First Amendment Complaint and acknowledging that
the amendments adding specific statutes and clarifying the relief requested were
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 10 of 121
DECLARATION OF ROGER K. HARRIS
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Page 10
made "[i]n response to the email dialogue with Sheila that started on November
21
st
.
22. Attached hereto as Exhibit Q (Bates #1499; also see Exhibit T Bates
#1578) is a true and correct copy of an email exchange between Lea Ann Easton
and Sheila Potter dated December 20, 2013, in which Potter acknowledges the
involvement of both the Attorney General and Governor in decisions being made
about the litigation, and in which Easton asks to confer with Potter about the
Rummell Plaintiffs motion to consolidate and a response.
23. Attached hereto as Exhibit R (Bates #1384-1385) is a true and correct
copy of an email exchange dated December 17-18, 2013 between Lake Perriguey
and Sheila Potter in which Perriguey notes that an implied interest [by the
Rummell plaintiffs in the consolidated case] in delaying the case appear to be at
odds with our clients urgency in getting the matter before the court as soon as
possible. By use of the plural phrase, our clients, Perriguey indicates
congruence of interest between Plaintiffs and Defendants.
24. Attached hereto as Exhibit S (Bates #1500) is a true and correct copy of
an email dated December 20, 2013 from Lake Perriguey to Sheila Potter requesting
to confer about [the Rummell Plaintiffs] motion [to consolidate] and a
response, suggesting the possibility that a joint response could be filed by the
Geiger plaintiffs and the Geiger defendants.
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 11 of 121
DECLARATION OF ROGER K. HARRIS
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Page 11
25. Attached hereto as Exhibit T (Bates #1576-1579) is a true and correct
copy of an email exchange dated December 24, 2013 between Lea Ann Easton and
Sheila Potter sharing legal analysis about one of the Rummell Plaintiffs standing,
in which Easton vent[s] that if we can make a cogent argument [that the Basic
Rights Organization lacks organizational standing], we can use it in the response to
consolidate as a reason why the court shouldnt consolidate the cases, (emphasis
added), indicating by use of the plural we a planned collaboration between the
Geiger plaintiffs and defendants in response to the Rummell plaintiffs motion to
consolidate.
26. Attached hereto as Exhibit U (Bates #1771-1773) is a true and correct
copy of an email exchange between Jennifer Middleton (counsel for the Rummell
Plaintiffs) and Sheila Easton/Lake Perriguey dated January 15, 2014, in which
Middleton acknowledges that Sheila Potter, an attorney for defendants in the
Attorney Generals office, was giving input on and had been given an advance
copy of the Rummell amended complaint, and in which Perriguey asks whether the
Rummell plaintiffs would agree to separate the cases if any issue the Rummell
plaintiffs raised resulted in need for a trial, thereby indicating that the Geiger
complaint (on which the Attorney General had provided input in advance of filing)
had been structured to avoid a trial. Easton then forwarded the exchange to Sheila
Potter, and Potter replied that the suggestion of separation of the cases seemed
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 12 of 121
DECLARATION OF ROGER K. HARRIS
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Page 12
worth raising, thereby revealing that counsel for defense was complicit in the
effort to avoid a trial.
27. Attached hereto as Exhibit V (Bates #1779-1780) is a true and correct
copy of an email exchange between Misha Isaak (counsel for the Rummell
Plaintiffs) and Sheila Potter, dated January 14-16, 2014, in which Isaak transmits
an advance copy of an amended complaint and acknowledges a prior telephone
conversation with Potter collaborating on language that is both broad enough to
enjoin all State actions excluding same-sex couples from the rights and obligations
of marriage, and also specific enough to identify portions of the domestic relations
statutes we would like found unconstitutional.
28. Attached hereto as Exhibit W (Bates #1785-1786) is a true and correct
copy of email exchange between Lea Ann Easton and Sheila Potter dated January
17, 2014 regarding the amended Rummell complaint, in which Potter refers to the
Geiger attorneys for both plaintiffs and defendants, collectively, as our team.
29. Attached hereto as Exhibit X (Bates #1818-1819) is a true and correct
copy of an email exchange dated January 17, 2014, between Misha Isaak and
Sheila Potter, in which Isaak admits that the Rummell Plaintiffs modified the
prayer for relief in their complaint in response to suggestions made by Defendants,
and to which Potter responded: Thanks! Yes. I can live with this. Thank you so
much for working with me on this.
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 13 of 121
DECLARATION OF ROGER K. HARRIS
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Page 13
30. Attached hereto as Exhibit Y (Bates #1912) is a true and correct copy of
an email exchange between Lea Ann Easton and Sheila Potter dated January 24,
2014, in which Easton expresses concern about a prior dialogue between Judge
McShane and counsel for the Rummell plaintiffs regarding a discovery cutoff. The
concern expressed by Easton is noteworthy because the Geiger plaintiffs and
defendants had agreed early in the case to forgo the discovery required by Rule
26(a)(1). See D.Ct. Dkt. #7 (Nov. 25, 2013).
31. Attached hereto as Exhibit Z (Bates #1927) is a true and correct copy of
an email dated January 30, 2014 from Lea Ann Easton to Sheila Potter and
Katharine von Ter Stegge describing the opposing counsel in the cases as the
consolidated cooperative happy attorneys.
32. Attached hereto as Exhibit AA (Bates #1928) is a true and correct copy
of an email from Sheila Potter to Lea Ann Easton dated February 5, 2014,
expressing hope that things are going well with all of the various cooperatings.
33. Attached hereto as Exhibit BB (Bates #1971) is a true and correct copy of
an email exchange between Lake Perriguey and Sheila Potter dated February 10,
2014, in which Perriguey asks Potter what position/theory/statement you and the
[AGs] office are going to put forth about the SmithKline decision and noting that
[i]t would be great if there was a way to move this forward without a hearing in
two months.
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 14 of 121
DECLARATION OF ROGER K. HARRIS
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Page 14
34. Attached hereto as Exhibit CC (Bates #1975-1976) is a true and correct
copy of an email dated February 10, 2014 from Sheila Potter to Tom Johnson
(counsel for the Rummell Plaintiffs) stating that the smaller the group [on a
planned phone conference], the more candid I will be comfortable being! :), and
informing Johnson that shed like to check in with him in advance of filing the
[States] answer, so that the parties know what were filing before it hits PACER.
Johnson confirmed the meeting the following day and noted that he was working
to keep the group as small as possible for the reasons we discussed.
35. Attached hereto as Exhibit DD (Bates #1991) is an email from Sheila
Potter to Tom Johnson dated February 13, 2014, proposing to provide a Local Rule
7-1 meet and confer certification for Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment
stating that counsel for the respective parties had concluded that they were unable
to resolve the dispute in this case among themselves, a position which she
claimed had the virtue of being completely, literally true, despite the fact that the
proposed certification failed to disclose that the nominally opposing parties were
actually collaborating to have Oregons marriage laws declared unconstitutional
and that Local Rule 7-1 embraces the understanding of all counsel that the court
must, ultimately accept or ratify any agreed upon resolution, even if stipulated to or
unopposed. See LR 7-1(4). The Rummell Plaintiffs accepted Potters proposed
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 15 of 121
DECLARATION OF ROGER K. HARRIS
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Page 15
language. See Rummell Motion for Summary Judgment, D.Ct. Dkt.#42 (Feb. 18,
2014).
36. Attached hereto as Exhibit EE (Bates #2005-2006) is a true and correct
copy of an email exchange dated February 14-17, 2014 between Sheila Potter and
Lea Ann Easton, referencing concerns that had been raised by Misha Isaak about a
possible mandamus action forcing the Attorney General to appeal a judgment in
plaintiffs favor, in which Potter notes shes not worried about mandamus but is
glad that people are thinking about all the ways that things could go pear-shaped,
thereby indicating collaboration between plaintiffs and defendants attorneys not
to have the anticipated final judgment of unconstitutionality thwarted by outside
factors. During the exchange, Easton asked Potter: Dont the Plaintiffs get to vet
and edit the AGs remarks?
37. Attached hereto as Exhibit FF (Bates #2038) is a true and correct copy of
an email dated March 10, 2014, from Sheila Potter to all Plaintiffs counsel noting
that a decision out of Michigan is expected soon and that, if the Michigan court
bucks the trend, the State might want a couple more days for their response to
the Motions for Summary Judgment to address anything in the opinion that looks
like it could use some talking about, implying that the State would want to
distinguish away any decision upholding Michigans marriage law.
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 16 of 121
DECLARATION OF ROGER K. HARRIS
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Page 16
38. Attached hereto as Exhibit GG (Bates #2064) is a true and correct copy
of an email exchange between Tom Johnson (counsel for the Rummell plaintiffs)
and Sheila Potter dated March 11, 2014, in which Johnson notes that We are
totally on the same page, and Potter responds, You know, I rather suspected we
might be.
39. Attached hereto as Exhibit HH (Bates #2057-2060) is a true and correct
copy of an email exchange between Lake Perriguey and Sheila Potter dated March
11, 2014, in which Perriguey proposes to request that oral argument be moved up,
and to which Sheila responds that it is a bad idea because Judge McShane really
reacted unhappily to the perceived push for a quick decision and notes that we
havent filed our response yet. Perriguey then agreed with Potters assessment,
noting that we dont want it to appear that we are pushing the judge . . . despite
the fact that everyone in the room appears to agree.
40. Attached hereto as Exhibit II (Bates #2083-2084) is a true and correct
copy of an email from Sheila Potter to a group of both Plaintiff and Defendant
attorneys dated March 14, 2014, stating: We want a speedy resolution as well, but
my clients have a significant interest in an open and transparent process leading to
that resolution, thereby characterizing the resolution as a foregone conclusion
and the so-called transparency for pretense.
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 17 of 121
DECLARATION OF ROGER K. HARRIS
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Page 17
41. Attached hereto as Exhibit JJ (Bates #2132) is a true and correct copy of
an email dated March 19, 2014, from Lea Ann Easton to Sheila Potter stating:
Wonderful response [to motion for summary judgment, in which the State join in
Plaintiffs attack on the constitutionality of the Oregon marriage law it was
defending]. I want to play on your team instead of my team.
42. Attached hereto as Exhibit KK (Bates #2209-2210) is a true and correct
copy of an email exchange between Lake Perriguey and Mary Williams dated
March 19, 2014, in which Perriguey praises Williams brief for the State
defendants in response to Plaintiffs motions for summary judgment as beautiful,
elegant, and inspiring, to which Williams responded: Im very proud to have
played a role in this one. The exchange includes the following statements by
Perriguey, confirming the initial coordination meeting between opposing counsel
more than a month before the Geiger complaint was filed: Thank you and Sheila
for meeting me back in August. Perriguey also thanks Williams for managing to
deftly represent the States interests while appreciating my and my clients goals,
confirming that attorneys for defendants in the Attorney Generals office viewed
the States interests not as defending the Oregon law but in helping to advance
Plaintiffs goals of having Oregons marriage law ruled unconstitutional.
43. Attached hereto as Exhibit LL (Bates #2333-2334) is a true and correct
copy of an email exchange between Lea Ann Easton and Sheila Potter dated March
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 18 of 121
DECLARATION OF ROGER K. HARRIS
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Page 18
21, 2014, in which Easton transmitted a copy of a recent Michigan marriage
decision to Potter and in which Potter replied that We should send to the courts
clerk who is working on the case. Potter also added: This decision is so, so
good. The Regnerus piece alone has totally made my day, referencing the
criticism of expert testimony in support of marriage laws that was contained in the
Michigan decision.
44. Attached hereto as Exhibit MM (Bates #2397) is a true and correct copy
of an email exchange between Sheila Potter and Misha Isaak dated April 1, 2014,
in which Isaak responds to Potters evident excitement about the amicus briefs that
had been filed against Oregons marriage law by expressing his view that We
have reached a tipping point at which opposing marriage equality is just not an
acceptable position anymore (as you so eloquently said in your own brief),
thereby confirming defendants complete abdication of their duty to defend
Oregons law.
45. Attached hereto as Exhibit NN (Bates #2425-2427) is a true and correct
copy of an email exchange between counsel for all parties, plaintiffs and
defendants, setting up a meeting to confer on oral argument. Counsel for the
Geiger Plaintiffs Lea Ann Easton noted: We think it makes sense to try to
coordinate part of the argument so that we dont repeat arguments as well as
brainstorm questions that Judge McShane is likely to ask. Sheila Potter, counsel
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 19 of 121
DECLARATION OF ROGER K. HARRIS
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Page 19
for the State defendants, and Katharine von Ter Stegge, counsel for the county
defendant, thought having a meeting to coordinate their oral argument with
Plaintiffs' counsel was, respectively, an Awesome idea and a Great idea.
46. Attached hereto as Exhibit OO (Bates #2452-2454) is a true and correct
copy of an email dated April 15-16, 2014 from Lake Perriguey to counsel for all
parties, plaintiffs as well as defendants, circulating a table of legal issues raised in
the briefing which might be helpful for us to begin a conversation about what
topics we each might focus on in the [oral argument] presentation. Forwarding
the email to Mary Williams, who had been omitted from the original distribution
list, Perriguey notes that a group of lawyers [from both sides are] planning to
meet in advance of the oral . . . conversation . . . next week. Among the topics
Perriguey proposed to discuss were: 1) Ballot Measure Animus, a concession of
which by the State would trigger analysis and likely determination of
unconstitutionality under Romer v. Evans); 2) the States interest in protecting
[gay] families, thereby indicating that the State was only advancing interests that
supported Plaintiffs attack on Oregons marriage laws, not interests that supported
the laws themselves; 3) that the State [was] harmed by ban on same-sex
marriage; and 4) concerns that had surfaced in talks among counsel that Judge
McShane might consider issuing a stay, even though no one has asked him to do
so.
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 20 of 121
DECLARATION OF ROGER K. HARRIS
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Page 20
47. Attached hereto as Exhibit PP (Bates #2546) is a true and correct copy of
an email dated April 18, 2014 from Sheila Potter to Ms. Pew (in Judge
McShanes chambers), confirming that the opposing parties had met to discuss
plans for oral argument, and asking whether the Judge might have some thoughts
on how we might collectively make oral argument as productive and useful for him
as we can.
48. Attached hereto as Exhibit QQ (Bates #2619) is a true and correct copy
of an email from Sheila Potter to Tom Johnson and Misha Isaak dated April 21,
2014, noting in response to a press release issued by the National Organization for
Marriage announcing that it would seek to intervene in defense of the Oregon
marriage laws that the government defendants were supposed to be defending, that
the release made me want to beat them. They dont get to win this. The
exchange is evidence that one of the principal attorneys for Defendants viewed
herself as though she were an attorney for Plaintiffs in the case.
49. Attached hereto as Exhibit RR (Bates #2629) is a true and correct copy of
an email dated April 22, 2014, from Lake Perriguey to the group of attorneys for
both Plaintiffs and Defendants sharing ideas about how to respond to NOMs
motion to intervene and referring to Judge McShane on a first-name basis,
demonstrating continuing collaboration between the opposing parties in the case
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 21 of 121
DECLARATION OF ROGER K. HARRIS
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Page 21
and an aura of familiarity with the Judge that is at least troubling, particularly in a
case that already lacked adversarialness between the parties.
50. Attached hereto as Exhibit SS (Bates #2792-2793) is a true and correct
copy of an email exchange dated May 10, 2014, between counsel for Plaintiffs and
Defendants, setting up a phone conference call in advance of the [hearing on
NOMs motion to intervene] to discuss our presentations and how to promote
efficiency, indicating collaboration between the nominally opposing sides in joint
opposition to the motion to intervene.
51. Attached hereto as Exhibit TT (Bates #2797) is a true and correct copy of
an email dated May 12, 2014, from Lake Perriguey to the group of attorneys
representing both Plaintiffs and Defendants, sharing with the group a definition of
the word collusion, indicating that the nominally opposing counsel were
colluding even on their objection to NOMs use of the word collusion in
describing the relationship between what should have been opposing sides in the
case.
52. Attached hereto as Exhibit UU (Bates #2839-2841) is a true and correct
copy of an email dated May 15, 2014, from Sheila Potter to the group of attorneys
for both Plaintiffs and Defendants transmitting a draft order even before Judge
McShane had issued a ruling. The order, drafted by the State, states that there is
no legitimate state interest and, while acknowledging that the state is not
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 22 of 121
DECLARATION OF ROGER K. HARRIS
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Page 22
enforcing the recognize out-of-state marriages part of the law, nevertheless
Declares that Fourteenth Amendment requires that outcome and enjoins the
County from not recognizing out-of-state marriages.
53. Attached hereto as Exhibit VV (Bates #3024-3028) is a true and correct
copy of an email exchange dated May 19, 2014, between Anna Joyce (AGs
office), Lea Ann Easton, and Sheila Potter, in which Joyce noted that the State
defendants would, like Plaintiffs, be filing an opposition to NOMs stay
application, and in which Potter and Easton offer to buy each other a glass of
wine to celebrate the ruling against Potters clients and make a deal for Potter
and other attorneys in the office of the Attorney General to hang out at Eastons
house to celebrate the ruling.
54. Attached hereto as Exhibit WW (Bates #3029) is a true and correct copy
of an email dated May 20, 2014, from Lake Perriguey to the group of attorneys for
both Plaintiffs and Defendants, expressing Huge gratitude to everyone who
advanced this case, and especially, today, I appreciate the vision and work and
intelligence of the women in the office of the Attorney General.
55. Attached hereto as Exhibit XX (Bates #3071) is a true and correct copy
of an email dated May 28, 2014, from Lake Perriguey to Mary Williams asking for
shared legal research regarding Oregon election law and voter standing.
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 23 of 121
DECLARATION OF ROGER K. HARRIS
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Page 23
56. Attached hereto as Exhibit YY (Bates #3688) is a true and correct copy
of an email exchange dated July 10-11, 2014, between Lake Perriguey and Sheila
Potter, in which Potter agrees to Perrigueys request that the stipulated fee
agreement include a line that he agreed to a reduced fee in recognition of the
Oregon taxpayers who did not vote for Measure 36, providing further evidence
that Plaintiffs and Defendants were collaborating to negate the votes cast in favor
of Measure 36.
57. The full text and context of all documents produced by the Oregon
Attorney Generals office in response to NOMs public records request may be
found at: http://myop.us/YgmMXw.
Dated: September 25, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Roger K. Harris
Roger K. Harris
HARRIS BERNE CHRISTENSEN LLP

John C. Eastman
CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL
JURISPRUDENCE

Attorneys for Appellant
National Organization for Marriage, Inc.

Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 24 of 121
From Lake J ames Perriguey
To Rosenblum Ellen F
Sent 7 25 2013 3 42 34 PM
Subject Potential challenge to Or Const defining marriage
Greetings Ellen
I would like to schedule a call with you about a potential federal challenge to Oregon s constitutional provision
defining marriage
Lake J ames H Perriguey
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street
Portland Oregon 97205
T 503 227 1928
F 503 334 2340
http www law works com
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
PLEASE DON T PRINT CONSERVE RESOURCES
This e mail may contain confidential or privileged information If you are not the i ntended recipient please notify
the sender immediatelyby return e mail with a copy to lake law works com and delete this e mail and all copies
and attachments
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 1
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 25 of 121
From Bader Chrystal M
To Lake Perriguey
Sent 8 21 2013 2 12 54 PM
Subject RE Lake Perriguey request for Meeting with Ellen Rosenblum
Sounds good Thanks
Chrystal Bader
Public Aairs Legislative Coordinator
Oce of the Aorney General
1162 Court Street NE Salem OR 97301
503 378 6002
Description
OregonStateSeal
From Lake Perriguey mailto lake law works com
Sent Wednesday August 21 2013 2 12 PM
To Bader Chrystal M
Subject Re Lake Perriguey request for Meeting with Ellen Rosenblum
Lets plan on 10 amon Sept 5 at the down town offices
Lake J ames Perriguey
LAW WORKS LLC
1906 SW Madison St
Portland OR 97205 1718
503 803 5184
On Aug 21 2013 at 1 03 PM Bader Chrystal M Chrystal mbader doj state or us wrote
th
Oops sorry It is September 5 when they are both available and at our Portland oce 1515 SW Fifth
Ave Ste 410 Are you able to come there Thanks
Chrystal Bader
Public Aairs Legislative Coordinator
Oce of the Aorney General
1162 Court Street NE Salem OR 97301
503 378 6002
image001 jpg
Exhibit B
Page 1 of 4
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 26 of 121
From Lake Perriguey mailto lake law works com
Sent Wednesday August 21 2013 12 30 PM
To Bader Chrystal M
Subject Re Lake Perriguey request for Meeting with Ellen Rosenblum
Hi Chrystal
Your email indicates that it is next week s schedule but then the date identifies a day that is two weeks away
Can we do a google hangout I do not expect themto drive to my office
Lake J ames H Perriguey
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street
Portland Oregon 97205
T 503 227 1928
F 503 334 2340
http www law works com
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
PLEASE DON T PRINT CONSERVE RESOURCES
This e mail may contain confidential orprivileged information If you are not the i ntended recipient
please notify the sender immediately by return e mail with a copy to lake law works com and delete
this e mail and all copies and attachments
On Aug 21 2013 at 12 22 PM Bader Chrystal M Chrystal mbader doj state or us wrote
Hi Lake
I can help with geing you a meeting with Mary Williams Deputy Aorney G eneral Below is her
availability next week Also aending will be Sheila Poer Deputy Chief Trial Couns el
Thursday September 5 10 00 AM 12 00 noon 2 00 4 00 PM
Please let meknow if this date works for you If not we can look out further Thanks
Chrystal Bader
Public Aairs Legislative Coordinator
Oce of the Aorney General
1162 Court Street NE Salem OR 97301
503 378 6002
image001 jpg
Exhibit B
Page 2 of 4
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 27 of 121
From Lake Perriguey mailto lake law works com
Sent Thursday August 15 2013 9 50 AM
To Busey J ennifer
Subject Re Lake Perriguey request for Meeting with Ellen Rosenblum
Hi there
Thank you so much
Lake J ames Perriguey
LAW WORKS LLC
1906 SW Madison St
Portland OR 97205 1718
503 803 5184
On Aug 15 2013 at 9 48 AM Busey J ennifer jennifer busey doj state or us wrote
Hello Lake
We met recently by phone when I helped schedule you a little time with AG Rosenblumand Deputy Williams Hope all is well
I have your request on my list and will be in touch as soon as I can regarding availability Both the AG and Deputy are out of the
office today and tomorrow I ll review scheduling requests next week and will be back in touch
Thank you and have a good day
J ennifer Busey
Executive Assistant and Scheduler for
Ellen Rosenblum Attorney General
503 378 6002
From Lake Perriguey mailto lake law works com
Sent Wednesday August 14 2013 11 21 AM
To Attorney General
Subject Request for Meeting with Ellen Rosenblum
Hello
I would like to set up a meeting with Ellen Rosenblum to discuss a federal constitutional challenge of Oregon s
anti gay definition of marriage
Lake J ames H Perriguey
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street
Portland Oregon 97205
T 503 227 1928
F 503 334 2340
http www law works com
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
PLEASE DON T PRINT CONSERVE RESOURCES
Exhibit B
Page 3 of 4
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 28 of 121
This e mail may contain confidential orprivileged information If you are not the i ntended recipient
please notify the sender immediately by return e mail with a copy to lake law works com and delete
this e mail and all copies and attachments
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e mail may contain information that is privileged confidential or otherwise ex empt fromdisclosure under
applicable law If you are not the addressee or it appears fromthe context or otherwise that you have received this
e mail in error please advise me immediatelyby reply e mail keep the contents conf idential and immediatelydelete
the message and any attachments fromyour system
Exhibit B
Page 4 of 4
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 29 of 121
From Potter Sheila H
To Lake Perriguey
Sent 9 9 2013 5 32 34 PM
Subject RE Meeting
It was so nice to meet you The contacts are Marc Abrams s friends and he says he knows you a
bit so you will hear from him or them if you haven t already
And please call me Sheila
Sheila
From Lake Perriguey mailto lake law works com
Sent Saturday September 07 2013 5 56 PM
To Potter Sheila H
Subject Meeting
Dear Ms Potter
It was nice to see you this past week I will look forward to hearing from your contacts soon
Lake
Lake J ames H Perriguey
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street
Portland Oregon 97205
T 503 227 1928
F 503 334 2340
http www law works com http www law works com
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
PLEASE DON T PRINT CONSERVE RESOURCES
This e mail may contain confidential or privileged information If you are not the intended
recipient please notify the sender immediately by return e mail with a copy to lake law
works com mailto lake law works com and delete this e mail and all copies and attachments
Exhibit C
Page 1 of 1
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 30 of 121
Exhibit D
Page 1 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 31 of 121
Exhibit D
Page 2 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 32 of 121
From Potter Sheila H
To Lake Perriguey
Sent 9 17 2013 9 13 57 AM
Subject RE Litigation
I don t think that this approach is the way to go I ll give you a call in a bit if you have
time this morning
From Lake Perriguey mailto lake law works com
Sent Tuesday September 17 2013 8 28 AM
To Potter Sheila H
Subject Litigation
Dear Sheila
The first paragraph of every motion in federal court must certify that the parties made a good
faith effort to resolve the issues in the complaint which will be those discussed in my prior
discussions with you The constitution and the underlying statutory framework as clarified in
Li limit marriage to same sex couples in violation of fundamental due process and equal
protection So I am writing to discuss a resolution Once the case is filed I would like to
say that the parties have conferred and the State agrees with the plaintiffs
If so then I could simultaneously submit a stipulated J udgment declaring Measure 6
unconstitutional and the marriage statutes as well insofar as they prevent same sex couple
from marrying in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and enjoining the State and its
instrumentalities from enforcing Measure 36 and the marriage statutes
Could it be this direct If so then I could get a stipulated judgment as above with an
additional injunction against the multnomah county clerk requiring him or her to issue a
license
Lake J ames H Perriguey
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street
Portland Oregon 97205
T 503 227 1928
F 503 334 2340
http www law works com http www law works com
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
PLEASE DON T PRINT CONSERVE RESOURCES
This e mail may contain confidential or privileged information If you are not the intended
recipient please notify the sender immediately by return e mail with a copy to lake law
works com mailto lake law works com and delete this e mail and all copies and attachments
Exhibit E
Page 1 of 1
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 33 of 121
From Lake Perriguey
To Potter Sheila H
Sent 9 17 2013 10 31 42 PM
Subject Re Marriage Stipulated J udgment and other thoughts
Yes we did speak about this I appear to have drafted this before we spoke and sent it once we
concluded that this approach did not make sense to either of us
Lake J ames H Perriguey
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street
Portland Oregon 97205
T 503 227 1928
F 503 334 2340
http www law works com
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
PLEASE DON T PRINT CONSERVE RESOURCES
This e mail may contain confidential or privileged information If you are not the intended
recipient please notify the sender immediately by return e mail with a copy to lake law
works com and delete this e mail and all copies and attachments
On Sep 17 2013 at 10 22 PM Potter Sheila H sheila potter doj state or us wrote
Lake Did our wires get crossed If I wasn t clear this morning I apologize the State
wouldn t and couldn t sign onto a stipulated judgment I had understood you to say that you
didn t think was a good idea anyway even from your perspective
It remains something that I can t imagine my office would sign onto and that I wouldn t
recommend to any client It s not the way to resolve important questions of constitutional
law
Besides a federal judge presented with a question of law can be expected to analyze and
decide the question of law Lawyers don t get to bind judges legal rulings by agreeing with
each other J udges are charged with getting the law right as best they can whether the
lawyers agree or not
But that s secondary We won t stipulate to a judgment on constitutionality It s just not
the way to handle those kinds of questions
Sheila H Potter
Deputy Chief Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon Department of J ustice
On Sep 17 2013 at 3 42 PM Lake J ames Perriguey lake law works com mailto lake law
works com wrote
Sheila
I don t know if a federal judge would even declare a provision of a state constitutional and
statutes unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and find a fundamental right to
marriage without some kind of adversarial process I don t know of any case in which that has
been done but then neither I nor my team are familiar with every one of the thousands of
constitutional law cases In any event a stipulated judgment would require mutual agreement
I would like your office to consider whether this idea has any appeal
Ideally it would contain a declaratory judgment that Measure 36 cited by its actual
article and section number in the constitution and the relevant marriage statutes violate the
Equal Protection Clause and are void and unenforceable to the extent that they prohibit
same sex couples from obtaining marriage licenses and 2 an order injunction requiring the
state and all of its subdivisions to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples
I wonder if a federal judge would stay the effective date of the judgment pending Exhibit F
Page 1 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 34 of 121
resolution of any appeal in the cases in other states
What would happen to the judgment if no one appealed but a Supreme Court ruling later
establishes that the legal conclusion in the judgment is erroneous Would Oregon still be
bound by the judgment That doesn t sound reasonable And if the federal judge in Oregon
thinks such thoughts at 3 a m and decides that the better course is to stay the effective
date of a judgment then we may not have accomplished anything by suing in Oregon before there
is a US Supreme Court ruling on the issue
J ust a few thoughts
Lake
Lake J ames H Perriguey
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street
Portland Oregon 97205
T 503 227 1928
F 503 334 2340
http www law works com http www law works com
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
PLEASE DON T PRINT CONSERVE RESOURCES
This e mail may contain confidential or privileged information If you are not the intended
recipient please notify the sender immediately by return e mail with a copy to lake law
works com mailto lake law works com and delete this e mail and all copies and attachments
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e mail may contain information that is privileged confidential or otherwise exempt
from disclosure under applicable law If you are not the addressee or it appears from the
context or otherwise that you have received this e mail in error please advise me immediately
by reply e mail keep the contents confidential and immediately delete the message and any
attachments from your system
Exhibit F
Page 2 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 35 of 121
From Dave Fidanque
To Mary Williams
Sent 9 23 2013 3 13 33 PM
Subject Continue Our Conversation
Mary
I d like to touch base with you briefly about additional info that came to my attention over the weekend on the topic I
discussed last week
I can be reached on mycell 541 954 7731
Thanks
Dave
David Fidanque
Executive Director
ACLU of Oregon
P O Box 40585 Portland OR 97240
pdx 503 227 6928 eug 541 683 9277
m541 954 7731 dfidanque aclu or org
www aclu or org
This message maycontain information that is confidential or legally privileged If y ou are not the intended recipient please immediately advise the sender by
reply email that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete th is email fromyour system
Exhibit G
Page 1 of 5
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 36 of 121
From Dave Fidanque
To Mary Williams
CC Kevin Diaz
Sent 9 23 2013 5 45 25 PM
Subject Memo
Attachments 22636408 1 DOCX ATT00001 txt
Mary
With the caveat we discussed that this does not represent an official ACLU position here is
Greg s take on intervention in the circumstance I described to him
Dave F
Exhibit G
Page 2 of 5
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 37 of 121
Suite 2400
1300 SW Fifth Avenue
Portland OR 97201 5610
Gregory A Chaimov
503 778 5328 tel
503 778 5299 fax
gregorychaimov dwt com
MEMORANDUM
To David Fidanque and J ann Carson
From GregoryA Chaimov and Paul Southwick
Date September 23 2013
Subject Intervention
This memorandum responds to your request for our views on whether after Hollingsworth v
Perry 133 SCt 2652 186 L Ed 2d 768 2013 a person s roleas chief petitioner is a sufficient
basis to require a district court to allow the person to intervene in an action that challenges the
validity of the state measure of which the person was chief petitioner
1
The answer depends primarily on the whether the state defends the challenged measure
A court must grant a timely motion to intervene that shows
1 The applicant has a significant protectable interest relating to the propertyor
transaction that is the subject of the action
2 The disposition of the action may as a practical matter impairor impede the
applicant s ability t o protect its interest and
3 The existing parties may not adequately represent the applicant s interest
Prete v Bradbury 438 F3d 949 954 2007 quoting United States v Alisol Water Corp 370
F3d 915 919 2004 By virtue of having been chief petitioner a chief petitioner fulfills the first
two requirements Prete 438 F3d at 955
Absent a very compelling showing Prete 438 F3d at 956 quoting Arakai v Cayetano 324
F3d 1078 1086 2003 a state s defense of a measure will be deemed a dequate and preclude a
district court frompermitting a chief petitioner fromintervening as a matter of right InPrete
the Court of Appeals ruled that the district court erred when allowing the chief petitioner to
intervene as a matter of right in a ch allenge to 2002 Ballot Measure 26 438 F3d at 957 court
presumes the Oregon government adequately represents the interests of the chief petitioner
1
A district court may permit a chief petitioner to intervene despite the chief petitioner s lacking the qualifications to
intervene as a matter of right t he decision to grant or deny permissive intervention is discretionary subject to
considerations of equity and judicial economy Prete v Bradbury 438 F3d 949 958 n 13 2007 quoting Garza
v County of Los Angeles 918 F2d 763 777 1990
DWT 22636408v1 0050062 082039
Exhibit G
Page 3 of 5
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 38 of 121
Fromthis analysis we conclude that a district court must allow a person to intervene under
FRCP 24 a if the state elects not to defend a challenge to the measure of which the person was
chief petitioner
Hollingsworth v Perry holds that a person does not establish standing to sue by virtue of having
served as chief petitioner of a challenged measure and therefore the person may not appeal an
adverse decision rendered in the action inwhich the person intervened Hollingsworth v Perry
did not address whether a chief petitioner must establish standing to sue to intervene as a matter
of right
We expect therefore that if the state elects not the defend Measure 36 the district court will
permit the chief petitioners to intervene to defend the measure
First notwithstanding a statement in Prete and inother cases that the Ninth Circuit has not
decided whether an intervenor must establish standing to sue inaddition the requirements of
FRCP 24 a 438 F3d at 955 n 8 we expect the district court to consider the Ninth Circuit not to
require an independent showing of standing See e g State of CaliforniaDep t of Soc Servs v
Thompson 321 F3d 835 846 9th Cir 2003 Ms Rosales did not need to meet Article III
standing requirements to intervene
2
Second district courts are interpreting Hollingsworth v Perry not to require a showing of
standing to inaddition meeting the requirements of FRCP 24 a For example in Vivid
Entertainment Inc v Fielding 2013 US Dist LEXIS 109251 p 2 CD Cal 2013 the district
court permitted the official proponents of a measure to intervene because in Hollingsworth v
Perry the Supreme Court left the district court s judgment intact In so doing it implicitly
approved of the framework currentlyat issue at the district court level intervention by initiative
proponents is proper when the government is enforcing the initiative but refuses to defend it
regardless of whether the interveners have standing independent of the government defendants
citation omitted
2
There are Ninth Circuit cases thatcould be read to say that a person establishes standing to sue by virtue of
meeting the requirements of FRCP 24 a Those statements are not viable afterHollingsworth v Perry
2
DWT 22636408v1 0050062 082039
Exhibit G
Page 4 of 5
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 39 of 121
Sent frommyiPad
Exhibit G
Page 5 of 5
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 40 of 121
From Potter Sheila H
To Lake Perriguey Williams Mary H
Sent 10 1 2013 2 36 45 PM
Subject RE Legal Challenge Discriminatory Provision of Or Constitution
Thanks Lake Keep us posted Eugene strikes me as an equally appropriate venue as Portland
for a suit against the Governor and the AG Marion County disputes are properly heard in the
Eugene Division under the Local Rules and it s not at all uncommon for the State to be sued
there
From Lake Perriguey mailto lake law works com
Sent Sunday September 29 2013 2 39 PM
To Potter Sheila H Williams Mary H
Subject Legal Challenge Discriminatory Provision of Or Constitution
Dear Sheila and Mary
Attached is an updated draft of the lawsuit we plan to file We may add additional plaintiffs
who have children My hope is to file within the next 10 days
This draft anticipates a filing in Portland we are considering filing in Eugene Though our
clients live in Portland the state officials act throughout the state
It is in all parties interest to advance the case expeditiously With this in mind I would
like to know the State s position with regard federal venue and to a possible filing in
Eugene
Lake J ames H Perriguey
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street
Portland Oregon 97205
T 503 227 1928
F 503 334 2340
http www law works com http www law works com
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
PLEASE DON T PRINT CONSERVE RESOURCES
This e mail may contain confidential or privileged information If you are not the intended
recipient please notify the sender immediately by return e mail with a copy to lake law
works com mailto lake law works com and delete this e mail and all copies and attachments
Exhibit H
Page 1 of 1
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 41 of 121
From Potter Sheila H
To Lake Perriguey
Sent 10 22 2013 10 56 32 AM
Subject RE Geiger v Kitzhaber
Sure I m in Portland both days
From Lake Perriguey mailto lake law works com
Sent Tuesday October 22 2013 10 44 AM
To Potter Sheila H
Subject Re Geiger v Kitzhaber
Sheila
I would like to meet with you in person if that works for you in Portland
Lake J ames H Perriguey
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street
Portland Oregon 97205
T 503 227 1928
F 503 334 2340
http www law works com http www law works com
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
PLEASE DON T PRINT CONSERVE RESOURCES
This e mail may contain confidential or privileged information If you are not the intended
recipient please notify the sender immediately by return e mail with a copy to lake law
works com mailto lake law works com and delete this e mail and all copies and attachments
On Oct 22 2013 at 10 05 AM Potter Sheila H
sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter doj state or us wrote
I am indeed Today and tomorrow are all jammed up but how are Thursday or Friday for you and
Lea Ann
Sheila
From Lake Perriguey mailto lake law works com http law works com
Sent Monday October 21 2013 3 51 PM
To Potter Sheila H
Subject Geiger v Kitzhaber
Dear Sheila
I understand you are just returning from time away from the office Welcome back
Are you available to meet this week to discuss this case in anticipation of a Rule 16
scheduling conference discovery and case planning
Each day that Bob and Bill and their children and Deanna and J anine are denied equal access
to marriage by Oregon while they witness similarly situated citizens in NJ CA WA NY and
other states marry without unconstitutional government direction and intervention the damage
to them and their families is greater and more palpable
While my clients are elated by the movement toward equality effected by the recent decision to
extend some equal rights to those citizens married out of state we would like to move the
case along straightaway
Lake J ames H Perriguey
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street x apple data detectors 0 0 Exhibit I
Page 1 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 42 of 121
Portland Oregon 97205 x apple data detectors 0 0
T 503 227 1928 tel 503 20227 1928
F 503 334 2340 tel 503 20334 2340
http www law works com http www law works com
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
PLEASE DON T PRINT CONSERVE RESOURCES
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e mail may contain information that is privileged confidential or otherwise exempt from
disclosure under applicable law If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context
or otherwise that you have received this e mail in error please advise me immediately by
reply e mail keep the contents confidential and immediately delete the message and any
attachments from your system
Exhibit I
Page 2 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 43 of 121
From Potter Sheila H
To Katharine VON TER STEGGE
Sent 10 31 2013 10 39 46 AM
Subject RE Geiger
J ust got an adjuster assigned and he s the one I need to talk to and will
From Katharine VON TER STEGGE mailto katevts multco us
Sent Thursday October 31 2013 10 13 AM
To Potter Sheila H
Subject Geiger
Hi Sheila
Have you had any more thoughts discussions as to whether the State will indemnify the County
or at least agree to not seek to split the Plaintiff s fee petition Lake says that he won t
seek from fees from the County
Happy Halloween
Kate von Ter Stegge
Assistant County Attorney Multnomah County Attorney
501 SE Hawthorne Suite 500 Portland OR 97214
503 988 3138 503 988 3377 fax
katevts mailto katevts co multnomah or us multco us http multco us
Exhibit J
Page 1 of 1
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 44 of 121
From Lake Perriguey
To Potter Sheila H
Sent 11 5 2013 6 47 08 AM
Subject Re Geiger
Dear Sheila
Thank you for responding I amon holiday today it is not a dude ranch though it is Texas
Do you anticipated that the state will acknowledge the history of discriminationagai nst gay people and advance a
strict scrutiny compelling basis analysis
The video of the New Mexico arguments were fascinating
I have always been stunned at the sophistry promoted by otherwise intelligent people who would deny that gay
people are a minority with a history of discriminationand that only a rational basis test should apply
At one point inthe colloquy a NM Supreme Court justice asked Have you never hear d of the concept inthe
closet
Mary Williams letter to Michael J ordan articulating the basis for the directive to r ecognize same sex marriages
performed out of state recognizes that a court could apply a strict scrutiny analysis
I do hope that the state will encourage the court to apply a strict scrutiny analysis
Lake
Lake J ames H Perrigueyc
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street
Portland Oregon 97205
T 503 227 1928
F 503 334 2340
http www law works com
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
PLEASE DON T PRINT CONSERVE RESOURCES
This e mail may contain confidential or privileged information If you are not the i ntended recipient please notify
the sender immediatelyby return e mail with a copy to lake law works com and delete this e mail and all copies
and attachments
On Nov 1 2013 at 1 40 PM Potter Sheila H sheila potter doj state or us wrote
I ve got timethis afternoon I mnot sure how much I mina position to tell you at this point but I malways
happy to give you a call
From Lake Perriguey mailto lake law works com
Sent Tuesday October 29 2013 8 29 AM
To Potter Sheila H
Subject Geiger
Sheila
Exhibit K
Page 1 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 45 of 121
I ampreparing a Motion for Summary J udgment in anticipation of your and the county s answer
Do you have a few moments this week to speak with me on the phone about your anticipa ted arguments
Lake J ames H Perriguey
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street
Portland Oregon 97205
T 503 227 1928
F 503 334 2340
http www law works com
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
PLEASE DON T PRINT CONSERVE RESOURCES
This e mail may contain confidential or privileged information If you are not the i ntended recipient please notify
the sender immediatelyby return e mail with a copy to lake law works com and delete this e mail and all copies
and attachments
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e mail may contain information that is privileged confidential or otherwise ex empt fromdisclosure under
applicable law If you are not the addressee or it appears fromthe context or otherwise that you have received this
e mail in error please advise me immediatelyby reply e mail keep the contents conf idential and immediatelydelete
the message and any attachments fromyour system
Exhibit K
Page 2 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 46 of 121
From Potter Sheila H
To Lea Ann Easton
Sent 11 5 2013 9 16 59 AM
Subject Re Geiger
Thank you
Sheila H Potter
Deputy Chief Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon Department of J ustice
On Nov 5 2013 at 9 15 AM Lea Ann Easton
LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com wrote
I do I need to finish up a project by 10 30 am so any time after 10 30 would be fine I am in
the rest of the day
My office number is 503 790 9060
Lea Ann
From Potter Sheila H mailto sheila potter doj state or us
Sent Tuesday November 05 2013 9 12 AM
To Lea Ann Easton
Subject Fwd Geiger
Hey do you have any time for a call today I don t want to worry Lake but I also want to be
careful about discretion in a case in which a lot of people want to know what we re going to
say before we say it and are battering down the AG s door to find out so that they can lobby
her to say what they want her to say
Begin forwarded message
From Lake Perriguey lake law works com mailto lake law works com mailto lake law
works com mailto lake law works com 3e 3e
Date November 5 2013 6 47 08 AM PST
To Potter Sheila H sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter doj state or us
mailto sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter doj state or us 3e 3e
Subject Re Geiger
Dear Sheila
Thank you for responding I am on holiday today it is not a dude ranch though it is Texas
Do you anticipated that the state will acknowledge the history of discrimination against gay
people and advance a strict scrutiny compelling basis analysis
The video of the New Mexico arguments were fascinating
I have always been stunned at the sophistry promoted by otherwise intelligent people who would
deny that gay people are a minority with a history of discrimination and that only a rational
basis test should apply
At one point in the colloquy a NM Supreme Court justice asked Have you never heard of the
concept in the closet
Mary Williams letter to Michael J ordan articulating the basis for the directive to recognize
same sex marriages performed out of state recognizes that a court could apply a strict
scrutiny analysis
I do hope that the state will encourage the court to apply a strict scrutiny analysis
Lake
Lake J ames H Perrigueyc
Law Works LLC Exhibit L
Page 1 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 47 of 121
1906 SW Madison Street
Portland Oregon 97205
T 503 227 1928
F 503 334 2340
http www law works com http www law works com http www law works com 3e
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
PLEASE DON T PRINT CONSERVE RESOURCES
This e mail may contain confidential or privileged information If you are not the intended
recipient please notify the sender immediately by return e mail with a copy to lake law
works com mailto lake law works com mailto lake law works com mailto lake law works com 3e
and delete this e mail and all copies and attachments
On Nov 1 2013 at 1 40 PM Potter Sheila H
sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter doj state or us
mailto sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter doj state or us 3e 3e wrote
I ve got time this afternoon I m not sure how much I m in a position to tell you at this
point but I m always happy to give you a call
From Lake Perriguey mailto lake law works com
Sent Tuesday October 29 2013 8 29 AM
To Potter Sheila H
Subject Geiger
Sheila
I am preparing a Motion for Summary J udgment in anticipation of your and the county s answer
Do you have a few moments this week to speak with me on the phone about your anticipated
arguments
Lake J ames H Perriguey
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street
Portland Oregon 97205
T 503 227 1928
F 503 334 2340
http www law works com http www law works com http www law works com 3e
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
PLEASE DON T PRINT CONSERVE RESOURCES
This e mail may contain confidential or privileged information If you are not the intended
recipient please notify the sender immediately by return e mail with a copy to lake law
works com mailto lake law works com mailto lake law works com mailto lake law works com 3e
and delete this e mail and all copies and attachments
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e mail may contain information that is privileged confidential or otherwise exempt from
disclosure under applicable law If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context
or otherwise that you have received this e mail in error please advise me immediately by
reply e mail keep the contents confidential and immediately delete the message and any
attachments from your system
Exhibit L
Page 2 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 48 of 121
From Lake Perriguey
To Potter Sheila H Katharine VON TER STEGGE
Sent 11 9 2013 6 43 03 PM
Subject Geiger
Hi Sheila and Katharine
There is a new development in the case that we should discuss prior to the filing of responsive pleadings
Please let me know if there is a good time to speak on Monday or Tuesday I mhappy to call you both we do not
need a conference call
Lake J ames H Perriguey
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street
Portland Oregon 97205
T 503 227 1928
F 503 334 2340
http www law works com
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
PLEASE DON T PRINT CONSERVE RESOURCES
This e mail may contain confidential or privileged information If you are not the i ntended recipient please notify
the sender immediatelyby return e mail with a copy to lake law works com and delete this e mail and all copies
and attachments
Exhibit M
Page 1 of 1
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 49 of 121
From Potter Sheila H
To Lake Perriguey Lea Ann Easton
CC Katharine VON TER STEGGE Sage Teton
Sent 11 21 2013 1 29 48 PM
Subject RE Question on pleadings
Thanks Boy there are some odd artifacts in there aren t there
I was thinking more in terms of the laws that the Complaint specifically seeks to invalidate
or enjoin which I presume don t include all laws that refer to marriage or to husbands and
wives Like rather than invalidating the privilege for marital communications my guess is
that the desired result would be for the privilege to apply equally to same sex spouses
Which I guess raises another issue in that the relief requested doesn t ask for an order
compelling equal application of the benefits of laws that specifically refer to husband and
wife If that s something that belongs in the suit and it may I imagine that it should be
in the pleadings so that it s within the Court s authority to grant or deny that relief
rather than the Court ordering it sua sponte That one might require an amendment to the
Complaint
But in terms of the laws sought to be invalidated wholly in the existing Complaint if you
Lake and Lea Ann could e mail us a letter setting out the laws that you are asking the Court
to declare unconstitutional and to enjoin then I think we could make that an exhibit to our
Answer and incorporate that list into the pleadings that way Does that make sense And I
agree with Lea Ann that language can be crafted to allow for there being something that
doesn t get picked up in the initial list a stipulation that Paragraph Nos 3 5 22 26
33 etc etc refer to ORS numbers and that you have not to date identified
others but that you reserve the right to amend to add to the list any other laws that have
the effect of barring same sex couples from the benefits of marriage in Oregon But when it
comes to declaring Oregon laws unconstitutional I think it s important to know which ones are
on the table
On an unrelated note should we get on J udge McShane s calendar for a Rule 16 conference
From Lake Perriguey mailto lake law works com
Sent Thursday November 21 2013 1 03 PM
To Lea Ann Easton
Cc Potter Sheila H Katharine VON TER STEGGE Sage Teton
Subject Re Question on pleadings
Hello all
Plaintiffs seek full equality
The Domestic Partnership law in ORS 106 includes language that generally identifies laws and
rules of marriage and attempts to create a and unequal equal scheme ORS 106 calls out all
laws in Oregon in the following way it does not cite each one specifically I think we
should be able to stipulate generally that the same Oregon laws that ORS 106 speaks to are the
same Oregon laws that the plaintiffs are claiming should be equally applied
And exhaustive list will no doubt leave something out
106 340 Certain privileges immunities rights benefits and responsibilities granted or
imposed 1 Any privilege immunity right or benefit granted by statute administrative or
court rule policy common law or any other law to an individual because the individual is or
was married or because the individual is or was an in law in a specified way to another
individual is granted on equivalent terms substantive and procedural to an individual
because the individual is or was in a domestic partnership or because the individual is or
was based on a domestic partnership related in a specified way to another individual
2 Any responsibility imposed by statute administrative or court rule policy common law or
any other law on an individual because the individual is or was married or because the
individual is or was an in law in a specified way to another individual is imposed on
equivalent terms substantive and procedural on an individual because the individual is or
was in a domestic partnership or because the individual is or was based on a domestic
partnership related in a specified way to another individual
Exhibit N
Page 1 of 4
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 50 of 121
3 Any privilege immunity right benefit or responsibility granted or imposed by statute
administrative or court rule policy common law or any other law to or on a spouse with
respect to a child of either of the spouses is granted or imposed on equivalent terms
substantive and procedural to or on a partner with respect to a child of either of the
partners
4 Any privilege immunity right benefit or responsibility granted or imposed by statute
administrative or court rule policy common law or any other law to or on a former or
surviving spouse with respect to a child of either of the spouses is granted or imposed on
equivalent terms substantive and procedural to or on a former or surviving partner with
respect to a child of either of the partners
5 Many of the laws of this state are intertwined with federal law and the Legislative
Assembly recognizes that it does not have the jurisdiction to control federal laws or the
privileges immunities rights benefits and responsibilities related to federal laws
6 ORS 106 300 to 106 340 do not require or permit the extension of any benefit under ORS
chapter 238 or 238A or under any other retirement deferred compensation or other employee
benefit plan if the plan administrator reasonably concludes that the extension of benefits
would conflict with a condition for tax qualification of the plan or a condition for other
favorable tax treatment of the plan under the Internal Revenue Code or regulations adopted
under the Internal Revenue Code
7 ORS 106 300 to 106 340 do not require the extension of any benefit under any employee
benefit plan that is subject to federal regulation under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974
8 For purposes of administering Oregon tax laws partners in a domestic partnership
surviving partners in a domestic partnership and the children of partners in a domestic
partnership have the same privileges immunities rights benefits and responsibilities as are
granted to or imposed on spouses in a marriage surviving spouses and their children 2007
c 99 9
Lake J ames H Perriguey
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street
Portland Oregon 97205
T 503 227 1928
F 503 334 2340
http www law works com http www law works com
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
PLEASE DON T PRINT CONSERVE RESOURCES
This e mail may contain confidential or privileged information If you are not the intended
recipient please notify the sender immediately by return e mail with a copy to lake law
works com mailto lake law works com and delete this e mail and all copies and attachments
On Nov 21 2013 at 12 55 PM Lea Ann Easton
LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com wrote
Notice This communication including any attachments may contain privileged or confidential
information intended for a specific individual and purpose and is protected by law If you
are not the intended recipient you should delete this communication and or shred the
materials and any attachments and are hereby notified that any disclosure copying or
distribution of this communication or the taking of any action based on it is strictly
prohibited
Notice 2 To comply with IRS regulations we inform you that any U S federal tax advice
contained in this communication including any attachments is not intended to be used and
cannot be used for the purpose of i avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or
ii promoting marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed
herein
Sheila
Exhibit N
Page 2 of 4
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 51 of 121
I ve attached a list we ve compiled of various places in Oregon Revised Statutes which
reference husband and wife in response to your request While we have attempted to capture all
such reference in ORS I am not confident that the list is inclusive of all such references in
statutes despite our efforts to identify each and every place in the statutes Additionally
it does not include references in Oregon Administrative Rules which also would be affected by
this litigation
While I agree that we should be able to come up with a stipulation on this issue I am
concerned that attaching a list may not capture all of such references It seems as though we
should be able to craft the stipulation to cover this issue but look forward to hearing your
thoughts on it
Lea Ann
Dorsay Easton LLP
Suite 440 1 SW Columbia
Portland OR 97258
503 790 9060
From Potter Sheila H mailto sheila potter doj state or us
Sent Tuesday November 19 2013 8 59 AM
To Lea Ann Easton Lake Perriguey
Cc Katharine VON TER STEGGE
Subject Question on pleadings
Lake and Lea Ann
In a couple of places in the complaint there is a reference to other laws alleging that
those laws are unconstitutional and or calling for them to be enjoined See Complt 3 all
other Oregon statutes that exclude gay and lesbian people from equal access to civil
marriage 5 Oregon statutes which refer to husband and wife and by implication
restrict marriage to only a man and a woman 22 Oregon s discriminatory marriage laws
26 all Oregon statutes restricting marriage to heterosexual couples 33 all Oregon
statutes referring to marriage and describing only husband and wife 34 all state
statutes to the extent they limit marriage to heterosexuals 30 35 37 38 and request for
relief 12 Oregon statutes that limit marriage to husband and wife Request fo r relief
1 laws that bar or in any way impede same sex marriage
Ordinarily we would want plaintiffs to specifically list the state statutes they are seeking
to invalidate in the complaint It helps focus the argument and ensures that the final order
can be definitive and easy to implement
We re not in light of everything going to ask for an amended complaint here but can you
provide us with a list that we can incorporate into our Answer as a stipulation That seems
like the quickest way to all get on the same page
Thanks
Sheila H Potter
Deputy Chief Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon Department of J ustice
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e mail may contain information that is privileged confidential or otherwise exempt from
disclosure under applicable law If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context
or otherwise that you have received this e mail in error please advise me immediately by
reply e mail keep the contents confidential and immediately delete the message and any
attachments from your system
Exhibit N
Page 3 of 4
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 52 of 121
Oregon Laws Conferring Rights Obligations on Husbands and Wives docx
Exhibit N
Page 4 of 4
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 53 of 121
From Lea Ann Easton
To Potter Sheila H
Sent 12 3 2013 3 53 08 PM
Subject RE amended complaint
Attachments amended complaint 12032013 redline docx
Yes here it is
Lea Ann
From Potter Sheila H mailto sheila potter doj state or us
Sent Tuesday December 03 2013 3 21 PM
To Lea Ann Easton
Subject RE amended complaint
Thanks Do you by any chance have a redline version of it
From Lea Ann Easton mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com
Sent Tuesday December 03 2013 2 07 PM
To Potter Sheila H
Cc Lake Perriguey
Subject amended complaint
Notice This communication including any attachments may contain privileged or confidential
information intended for a specific individual and purpose and is protected by law If you are not the
intended recipient you should delete this communication and or shredthe materials a nd any
attachments and are hereby notified that any disclosure copying or distribution of this communication
or the taking of any action based on it is strictly prohibited
Notice 2 To comply with IRS regulations we informyou that any U S federal tax advice contained in this
communication including any attachments is not intended to be used and cannot be used for the
purpose of i avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or ii promoting marketing or
recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein
Sheila
Attached is the amended complaint we discussed earlier today Please let me know if you would like to discuss it
Thank you
Lea Ann Easton
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e mail may contain information that is privileged confidential or otherwise ex empt fromdisclosure under
applicable law If you are not the addressee or it appears fromthe context or otherwise that you have received this
e mail in error please advise me immediatelyby reply e mail keep the contents conf idential and immediatelydelete
the message and any attachments fromyour system
Exhibit O
Page 1 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 54 of 121
From Potter Sheila H
To Lea Ann Easton
Sent 12 4 2013 10 11 33 AM
Subject RE amended complaint
Thanks Sorry I didn t have a chance to get back to you yesterday family emergency But I
think that your amendments address our issues Thanks so much
From Lea Ann Easton mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com
Sent Wednesday December 04 2013 9 39 AM
To Potter Sheila H
Subject amended complaint
Notice This communication including any attachments may contain privileged or confidential
information intended for a specific individual and purpose and is protected by law If you
are not the intended recipient you should delete this communication and or shred the
materials and any attachments and are hereby notified that any disclosure copying or
distribution of this communication or the taking of any action based on it is strictly
prohibited
Notice 2 To comply with IRS regulations we inform you that any U S federal tax advice
contained in this communication including any attachments is not intended to be used and
cannot be used for the purpose of i avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or
ii promoting marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed
herein
Hi Sheila
We are going through final hard edits for amended complaint and plan to file it today I will
send you the final complaint as soon as it is ready to be filed
Lea Ann
Exhibit O
Page 2 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 55 of 121
From Lea Ann Easton
To Katharine VON TER STEGGE
CC Potter Sheila H Lake Perriguey
Sent 12 4 2013 1 58 44 PM
Subject RE Amended Complaint
Noce This communica on including any aachments maycontain privilegedor conde nal informaon
intended for a specic individual and purpose and is protected by law If you are not the intended recipient you
should delete this communica on and or shred the materials and any aachments and are hereby noed that
any disclosure copying or distribuon of this communica on or the taking of any ac on based on it is strictly
prohibited
Noce 2 To comply with IRS regulaons we inform you that any U S federal taxadvi ce contained inthis
communica on including any aachments is not intended to be used and cannot be us ed for the purpose of i
avoiding penal es under the Internal Revenue Code or ii promong marke ng or recom mendingto another
party any transac on or maer addressed herein
Kate
st
In response to the email dialogue with Sheila that started on Nov 21 about which specic state statutes we amendedthe
factual basis of the complaint to allege specic state statutes These changes are i n Paragraph 21 22 and 23 pages 6 7 of
Amended Complaint We ve added specic state statutes in Paragraph 22 that use the t erms husband and wife and
added Paragraph 23 on how Defendants interpret those terms based on 5a of Constuon We ve also claried the relief
requested These are the substan ve changes
We also triedto clean up and use consistent terminology in reference to same sex cou ples and opposite sex couples as
opposed to heterosexual couples or gay couples
And we triedto make sure we spelledeveryone s names correctly which regreably we f ailed at
In terms of ling other pleadings we have led the waivers of service and the FRCP 26 disclosure statement and that s it
Lea Ann
From Katharine VON TER STEGGE mailto katevts multco us
Sent Wednesday December 04 2013 1 46 PM
To Lea Ann Easton
Cc Potter Sheila H Lake Perriguey
Subject Re Amended Complaint
Lea Ann
Can you tell me what s different in the amended complaint Has anything else been fi led in PACER I just realized
I mnot getting any electronic notices inthe case
Kate von Ter Stegge
Senior Assistant County Attorney Multnomah County Attorney
501 SE Hawthorne Suite 500 Portland OR 97214
503 988 3138 503 988 3377 fax
Exhibit P
Page 1 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 56 of 121
katevts multco us
On Wed Dec 4 2013 at 1 42 PM Lea Ann Easton LEaston dorsayindianlaw com wrote
Notice This communication including any attachments may contain privileged or con fidential information intended
for a specific individual and purpose and is protected by law If you are not the intended recipient you should
delete this communication and or shred the materials and any attachments and are here by notified that any
disclosure copying or distribution of this communication or the taking of any action based on it is strictly
prohibited
Notice 2 To comply with IRS regulations we informyou that any U S federal tax advice contained in this
communication including any attachments is not intended to be used and cannot be used for the purpose of i
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or ii promoting marketing or recommending to another party
any transaction or matter addressed herein
Attached is the first amended complaint that we filed today in the Geiger v Kitzhaber We will correct the spelling of
Mr Walruff in all future pleadings
Thank you
Lea Ann
Dorsay Easton LLP
Suite 440 1 SW Columbia
Portland OR 97258
Exhibit P
Page 2 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 57 of 121
From Potter Sheila H
To Lake Perriguey lake law works com leaston dorsayindianlaw com Katharine VON TER
STEGGE katevts multco us
Sent 12 20 2013 5 12 21 PM
Subject At 5 11pm
I am growing pessimistic about my chances for an answer from my boss and the Governor on
the schedule I dutifully nagged today but it may be Monday before I have an answer
Interesting certificate of conferral on the consolidation motion
Sheila H Potter
Deputy Chief Trial Counsel
Oregon Department of J ustice
1515 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 410
Portland OR 97201
Phone 971 673 1880 FAX 971 673 5000
Exhibit Q
Page 1 of 1
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 58 of 121
From Potter Sheila H
To Lake Perriguey
CC leaston dorsayindianlaw com
Sent 12 18 2013 10 11 39 AM
Subject RE Geiger case
I think a briefing schedule is a fine idea Is Kate back in town
From Lake Perriguey mailto lake law works com
Sent Tuesday December 17 2013 11 59 PM
To Potter Sheila H
Cc leaston dorsayindianlaw com
Subject Re Geiger case
Sheila
We responded in like fashion requesting to see a copy of whatever it is the intend to file
and who the plaintiffs are and whether they can commit to an expedited timeline We have
reason to believe that BRO will be a named plaintiff which raises standing questions Their
pecuniary interest as a fundraising organization the ballot measure and an implied interest
in delaying the case appear to be at odds with our clients urgency in getting the matter
before the court as soon as possible
It would be interesting to know if you office has ever been asked to delay any filing or to
otherwise defer the adjudication of this case
We have not yet heard back from J ennifer about timelines nor with details about the claims
they are raising now months after I notified them about my intent to file suit
Thank you for the update I guess their concerns about unknown third party intervenors are
being realized after all
We will continue the loop to hopefully ensure a continued smooth and expedited resolution
Perhaps we should agree this on a briefing schedule
Lake J ames H Perriguey
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street x apple data detectors 0 0
Portland Oregon 97205 x apple data detectors 0 0
T 503 227 1928 tel 503 20227 1928
F 503 334 2340 tel 503 20334 2340
http www law works com http www law works com
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
PLEASE DON T PRINT CONSERVE RESOURCES
On Dec 17 2013 at 11 10 PM Potter Sheila H
sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter doj state or us wrote
I was moving at 100 mph all day and only just realized that I failed to update you BRO
counsel called today to ask if I would agree to a motion to consolidate their lawsuit which
they would file with the complaint You know before we have so much as seen the lawsuit
would we just agree to consolidate whatever they file This presumably is what prompted
Lake s question to me today
I said no Obviously I didn t use the word obviously with J ennifer But it would not
have been unreasonable for her to have inferred it from my tone
So that s everything I know I ll keep you posted on any other conversations with BRO counsel
so that we re all in the loop
Sheila H Potter
Deputy Chief Counsel
Trial Division
Exhibit R
Page 1 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 59 of 121
Oregon Department of J ustice
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e mail may contain information that is privileged confidential or otherwise exempt from
disclosure under applicable law If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context
or otherwise that you have received this e mail in error please advise me immediately by
reply e mail keep the contents confidential and immediately delete the message and any
attachments from your system
Exhibit R
Page 2 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 60 of 121
From Lake J ames Perriguey
To Potter Sheila H
CC Lea Ann Easton Katharine VON TER STEGGE katevts multco us
Sent 12 20 2013 5 19 13 PM
Subject Re At 5 11pm
Thank you for the update Very generous
Yes The certificate about our conference is accurately oblique
It might be nice to confer with you briefly next week at your convenience about their motion and a response
Lake J ames H Perriguey
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street
Portland Oregon 97205
T 503 227 1928
F 503 334 2340
http www law works com
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
PLEASE DON T PRINT CONSERVE RESOURCES
This e mail may contain confidential or privileged information If you are not the i ntended recipient please notify
the sender immediatelyby return e mail with a copy to lake law works com and delete this e mail and all copies
and attachments
On Dec 20 2013 at 5 12 PM Potter Sheila H sheila potter doj state or us wrote
I amgrowing pessimistic about mychances for an answer frommy boss and the Governor on the
schedule I dutifully nagged today but it may be Monday before I have ananswer
Interesting certicate of conferral on the consolidation motion
Sheila H Potter
Deputy Chief Trial Counsel
Oregon Department of J ustice
1515 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 410
Portland OR 97201
Phone 971 673 1880 FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e mail may contain information that is privileged confidential or otherwise ex empt fromdisclosure under
applicable law If you are not the addressee or it appears fromthe context or otherwise that you have received this
e mail in error please advise me immediatelyby reply e mail keep the contents conf idential and immediatelydelete
the message and any attachments fromyour system
Exhibit S
Page 1 of 1
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 61 of 121
From Lea Ann Easton
To Potter Sheila H
Sent 12 24 2013 3 48 35 PM
Subject Re Proposed Schedule for Summary J udgment Motion
Go Home It s Christmas Eve I amstill puzzling over it as well
On Dec 24 2013 at 3 33 PM Potter Sheila H sheila potter doj state or us wrote
The silence is mereading cases rather than stony disagreement You probably gured that out
From Lea Ann Easton mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com
Sent Tuesday December 24 2013 9 45 AM
To Potter Sheila H
Subject RE Proposed Schedule for SummaryJ udgment Motion
Sheila
I mnot convinced that BRO has organiza onal standing to raisecons tuonal challenge s on behalf of its members BRO
doesn t have members it representsthe amorphous LGB and arguablyT Oregonians but there aren t any actual members
BRO is a grassroots lobbying organiza on which is essenally using educa on to engag e organiza ons inits three
plaorms marriage equality transgender jusce and racial jusce It is organized as a 501 c 4 social welfare non prot
corpora on which means it is acivic organiza on opera ng exclusively forthe promo on of social welfare the
membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons and the net earnings of which are
devoted exclusively to charitable educa onal or recrea onal purposes 26 U S C 50 1 The statute requires that a
501 c 4 be primarilyengaged in promong the common good and general welfare of the people of the community Id
The cons tuonal minimumof standing consists of these three elements 1 injuryin fact 2 causaon and 3
redressability While the Lujan decision established the irreducible cons tuonal minimum test for standing in the
context of an individual plain the same analysis is used to determine whether an organiza onal plain has standing in
a parcular case Havens Realty Corp v Coleman 455 U S 363 378 102 S Ct 1114 71 L Ed 2d 214 1982 In determining
whether HOME has standing under the FairHousing Act we conduct the same inquiry as inthe case of an individual
An organiza on suing on its own behalf can establish an injurywhen it suered both ad iversion of its resources and a
frustraon of its mission Combs 285 F 3d at 905 It cannot manufacture the injurybyincurring li ga on costs or simply
choosing to spend money xing a problemthat otherwise would not aect the organiza o n at all See e g Fair Employment
Council v BMC Mktg Corp 28 F 3d 1268 1276 77 D C Cir 1994 It must instead show that it would have suered some
other injuryif it had not diverted resources to counterac ng the problem In Havens forexample housing discriminaon
threatened to make it more dicult for HOME to counsel people on where they might liv e if the organiza on didn t spend
money gh ng it 455 U S at 379 102 S Ct 1114 The organiza on could not avoid suering one injuryor the other and
therefore had standing to sue Cf Smith v Pacic Props Dev Corp 358 F 3d 1097 1105 9th Cir 2004 organiza on had
to divert its scarce resources fromother eorts El Rescate Legal Servs Inc v Exec Oce of Immigraon Rev 959 F 2d
742 748 9th Cir 1992 challenged policy require d the organiza ons to expend resources they otherwise would spend
in other ways
In this instance I wonder whether BRO can establish that it suered 1 a diversion o f its resources and 2 afrustraon of its
mission For example BRO isnt as an entypursuingoverturn of Oregon s cons tuo nal ban on same gender marriage
Marriage Equality or whatever the non prot established to pursue the ini ave I suppose they d argue that bycreang
the separate non prot to pursue the ini ave that it had to divert resources fromBR O s educaonal advocacy to the
ini aon
So this mayjust be aven ng email trying to come up with an argument on why BRO la cks organiza onal standing I
suppose if we can make a cogent argument we can use it in the response to consolidat eas a reason why the court
Exhibit T
Page 1 of 4
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 62 of 121
shouldn t consolidate the cases
Lea Ann
From Potter Sheila H mailto sheila potter doj state or us
Sent Monday December 23 2013 1 21 PM
To Katharine VON TER STEGGE
Cc Lea Ann Easton Lake Perriguey
Subject Re Proposed Schedule for SummaryJ udgment Motion
Thanks all
With respect to the other case I know I had brought up the issue of standing in our call last week My initial take
froma quick swing through the case law is that the Basic Rights plaintiff probably does have organizational standing
on behalf of its members If someone thinks I moff base on that I always welcome pe ople pointing out that I might
be wrong about a thing
Sheila H Potter
Deputy Chief Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon Department of J ustice
On Dec 23 2013 at 1 14 PM Katharine VON TER STEGGE katevts multco us mailto katevts multco us
wrote
That deadline works for us We will file our answer today
Kate von Ter Stegge
Senior Assistant County Attorney Multnomah County Attorney
501 SE Hawthorne Suite 500 Portland OR 97214
503 988 3138 503 988 3377 fax
katevts mailto katevts co multnomah or us multco us http multco us
On Mon Dec 23 2013 at 1 09 PM Lea Ann Easton
LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com wrote
Notice This communication including any attachments may contain privileged or conf idential information intended
for a specific individual and purpose and is protected by law If you are not the in tended recipient you should delete
this communication and or shred the materials and any attachments and are hereby noti fied that any disclosure
copying or distribution of this communication or the taking of any action based on it is strictly prohibited
Exhibit T
Page 2 of 4
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 63 of 121
Notice 2 To comply with IRS regulations we inform you that any U S federal tax advice contained in this
communication including any attachments is not intended to be used and cannot be u sed for the purpose of i
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or ii promoting marketing or recommending to another party
any transaction or matter addressed herein
Sheila
Yes that will work for the response to the MSJ We are looking at new complaint today and possible responses to
motion to consolidate
Lea Ann
Dorsay Easton LLP
Suite 440 1 SW Columbia
Portland OR 97258
503 790 9060 tel 503 790 9060
From Potter Sheila H mailto sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter doj state or us
Sent Monday December 23 2013 1 06 PM
To Lea Ann Easton
Cc Katharine VON TER STEGGE Lake Perriguey
Subject Re Proposed Schedule for Summary J udgment Motion
Given the demands on the AG and Governor we d like to have until Feb 10 for the MSJ response That work for
you
Sheila H Potter
Deputy Chief Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon Department of J ustice
On Dec 19 2013 at 11 52 AM Lea Ann Easton
LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com
mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com 3e 3e wrote
Notice This communication including any attachments may contain privileged or conf idential information intended
for a specific individual and purpose and is protected by law If you are not the in tended recipient you should delete
this communication and or shred the materials and any attachments and are hereby noti fied that any disclosure
copying or distribution of this communication or the taking of any action based on it is strictly prohibited
Notice 2 To comply with IRS regulations we inform you that any U S federal tax advice contained in this
communication including any attachments is not intended to be used and cannot be u sed for the purpose of i
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or ii promoting marketing or recommending to another party
any transaction or matter addressed herein
Here is our proposed schedule for a summary judgment motion
Plaintiffs Motion filed on 1 9 2014 We will be asking for expedited hearing on the motion
Exhibit T
Page 3 of 4
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 64 of 121
State and County Defendants Reponses due on or before 1 30 2014
Plaintiffs Reply due on or before 2 13 2014
Also the Court will set a scheduling conference after the County files its answer wh ich we anticipate will be on or
before 12 23 2013
Obviously this may be affected by whatever BRO files J ennifer Middleton BRO s lead counsel has been calling
Lake and I today they ve filed the complaint today
Also I ve attached the New Mexico Supreme Court decision affirming gay marriage is al lowed under state statutes
Lea Ann
Greigo v Oliver NM SCT 12192013 pdf
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e mail may contain information that is privileged confidential or otherwise ex empt fromdisclosure under
applicable law If you are not the addressee or it appears fromthe context or otherwise that you have received this
e mail in error please advise me immediatelyby reply e mail keep the contents conf idential and immediatelydelete
the message and any attachments fromyour system
Exhibit T
Page 4 of 4
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 65 of 121
From Potter Sheila H
To Lea Ann Easton
Sent 1 15 2014 4 39 14 PM
Subject RE Geiger
It s weird that you don t trust her absolutely Why on earth is that
From Lea Ann Easton mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com
Sent Wednesday J anuary 15 2014 4 38 PM
To Potter Sheila H
Subject RE Geiger
Yes I am working on that I find it fascinating that J ennifer keeps wanting us to commit to
something without first having seen their pleadings
From Potter Sheila H mailto sheila potter doj state or us
Sent Wednesday J anuary 15 2014 4 22 PM
To Lea Ann Easton
Subject RE Geiger
Hm Still seems like a proposal worth raising if a person wanted to suggest it to the court
Maybe a you person rather than a Lake person
From Lea Ann Easton mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com
Sent Wednesday J anuary 15 2014 4 15 PM
To Potter Sheila H
Subject FW Geiger
From J ennifer Middleton mailto J Middleton jjlslaw com
Sent Wednesday J anuary 15 2014 4 14 PM
To Lea Ann Easton Lake J ames Perriguey
Cc Rose Saxe Misha Isaak Tom J ohnson
Subject Re Geiger
Hi Lake
We don t see the few weeks involved in our proposal as a material delay in the resolution of
this case In fact by coordinating the State s responses into a single brief we will be
promoting efficiency and quicker resolution because the J udge will not be having to wade
through all of the additional briefs and the possible delay that would be occasioned by the
State having to respond twice Having said that though we cannot agree to your proposal We
do want to work with you all to streamline this as much as possible improve communication
and avoid delays that could be occasioned by failure to coordinate
J ennifer
J ennifer J Middleton
J ohnson J ohnson Schaller PC
975 Oak Street Ste 1050
Eugene OR 97401
541 683 2506
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message may contain confidential communications protected by the
attorney client privilege If you have received this message in error please delete it and
notify the sender
Lake J ames Perriguey lake law works com mailto lake law works com 1 15 2014 2 56 PM
Hi J ennifer
The State had planned to respond to our MSJ on Feb 10
The BRO situation is going to cause delay despite the assurances made by y all to our
clients
Is there any way you could get it done sooner
Exhibit U
Page 1 of 3
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 66 of 121
Our clients are very wary that your intent is to get in the case and to delay it
Would your side be willing to stipulate that if there were any delay requested by BRO or any
of the Rummel plaintiffs or if issue you raise result in the need for a trial or if anything
you do were to cause any delay that you all would agree to separate from our suit
Lake J ames H Perriguey
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street
Portland Oregon 97205
T 503 227 1928
F 503 334 2340
http www law works com http www law works com
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
PLEASE DON T PRINT CONSERVE RESOURCES
This e mail may contain confidential or privileged information If you are not the intended
recipient please notify the sender immediately by return e mail with a copy to lake law
works com mailto lake law works com and delete this e mail and all copies and attachments
On J an 15 2014 at 2 34 PM J ennifer Middleton
J Middleton jjlslaw com mailto J Middleton jjlslaw com wrote
Hi Lea Ann
Thanks for letting us know about the summary judgment motion We have been speaking with
Sheila Potter about some concerns she has about how we framed our prayer for relief which I
understand are similar to concerns she expressed to you We agreed to revise some of the
language and sent her a proposal yesterday We expect to file the amendment as soon as she
gets back to us and we have her agreement on proposed language possibly as soon as today or
tomorrow Along those lines I understand that Sheila spoke with Lake about the timeline that
we agreed upon with the State for summary judgment We intend to file a motion for summary
judgment by February 10 and propose that the Defendants should respond to both of our motions
jointly on or before March 10 with any reply due two weeks later This timeline should
obviate any concerns that our presence in the case would materially delay the Court s
consideration of the claims Would you agree to that schedule
J ennifer
J ennifer J Middleton
J ohnson J ohnson Schaller PC
975 Oak Street Ste 1050
Eugene OR 97401
541 683 2506
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message may contain confidential communications protected by the
attorney client privilege If you have received this message in error please delete it and
notify the sender
Lea Ann Easton LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com 1 15 2014
11 26 AM
Notice This communication including any attachments may contain privileged or confidential
information intended for a specific individual and purpose and is protected by law If you
are not the intended recipient you should delete this communication and or shred the
materials and any attachments and are hereby notified that any disclosure copying or
distribution of this communication or the taking of any action based on it is strictly
prohibited
Notice 2 To comply with IRS regulations we inform you that any U S federal tax advice
contained in this communication including any attachments is not intended to be used and
cannot be used for the purpose of i avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or
ii promoting marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed
herein
We filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of our clients yesterday I believe that you
all received notice and copies of our pleadings through the ECF system but I thought I d check
to make sure
Exhibit U
Page 2 of 3
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 67 of 121
I re read your complaint recently and it seems likely the existing complaint is subject to
motions under FRCP 12 on a couple of grounds I have been told that you ve had conversations
with the State AGGs about their misgivings about the complaint So I am wondering if you are
going to file an amended complaint and if so what s your timeline for filing one
Lea Ann
Dorsay Easton LLP
Suite 440 1 SW Columbia
Portland OR 97258
503 790 9060
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e mail may contain information that is privileged confidential or otherwise exempt from
disclosure under applicable law If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context
or otherwise that you have received this e mail in error please advise me immediately by
reply e mail keep the contents confidential and immediately delete the message and any
attachments from your system
Exhibit U
Page 3 of 3
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 68 of 121
From Potter Sheila H
To Isaak Misha Perkins Coie
CC J ohnson Thomas R J r Perkins Coie J ennifer Middleton J Middleton jjlslaw com
Sent 1 16 2014 3 13 04 PM
Subject RE Rummell Complaint Modified Prayer for Relief
Okay here s where I ve landed The only remaining issue we have is the such as in relief
paragraph B and the squishy and all other sources of state law that preclude marriage for
same sex couples in paragraphs 61 and 73 If you can pop in a paragraph that lists the laws
that to your mind are part of the package of laws denying rights to same sex couples and
then refer back to that paragraph then we all know what laws we re looking at the court
ruling on And if the paragraph has some language saying that these are the statutes
identified to date but that the list is not exclusive and may be subject to supplementation
that s fine we just need some sense of what s at issue in the case and which laws you re
asking the Court to find unconstitutional to some extent Is every statute that contains the
words husband and wife unconstitutional to some degree
Without this I think I m still being asked to go into court and respond as to the
constitutionality of a completely unknown number and list of state laws at which point I
think I don t have any choice but to move for a more definite statement It s not something
we ve agreed to in any other case
Sheila
From Isaak Misha Perkins Coie mailto misaak perkinscoie com
Sent Tuesday J anuary 14 2014 4 05 PM
To Potter Sheila H
Cc J ohnson Thomas R J r Perkins Coie J ennifer Middleton J Middleton jjlslaw com
Subject Rummell Complaint Modified Prayer for Relief
Sheila
Thanks for conferring with me this afternoon I think we may have arrived at language that is
both broad enough to enjoin all State actions excluding same sex couples from the rights and
obligations of marriage and also specific enough to identify portions of the domestic
relations statutes we would like found unconstitutional
Attached to this email is a modified Prayer for Relief and a redline document showing the
changes from our current complaint As I said on the phone we would like to accommodate your
concern as best we can so if this doesn t do it we would welcome any suggestion from you
about what language would
Thanks
Misha
Misha Isaak Perkins Coie LLP
1120 N W Couch Street
Tenth Floor
Portland OR 97209 4128
PHONE 503 727 2086
FAX 503 346 2086
E MAIL misaak perkinscoie com mailto misaak perkinscoie com
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE To ensure compliance with Treasury Department and IRS
regulations we inform you that unless expressly indicated otherwise any federal tax advice
contained in this communication including any attachments is not intended or written by
Perkins Coie LLP to be used and cannot be used by the taxpayer for the purpose of i
avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code or ii
promoting marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed
herein or any attachments
Exhibit V
Page 1 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 69 of 121
NOTICE This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information If you
have received it in error please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the
message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents Thank you
Exhibit V
Page 2 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 70 of 121
From Potter Sheila H
To Lea Ann Easton
Sent 1 17 2014 8 33 23 AM
Subject Re Quick note
Thank god it s not just our raggedy team of schmucks and dolts anymore Lord only knows what
kind of destruction we all might have wrought without adult supervision
Sheila H Potter
Deputy Chief Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon Department of J ustice
On J an 16 2014 at 5 16 PM Lea Ann Easton
LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com wrote
Well at least we are assured that their clients are well represented by a very skilled team
of veteran lawyers with experience in this kind of litigation who can go to its very deep
bench of attorneys for help on these issues
I know I sleep better having been assured of their abilities and I know you do too
On J an 16 2014 at 4 41 PM Potter Sheila H
sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter doj state or us wrote
You were quite right The such as still makes me itchy
From Lea Ann Easton mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com
Sent Thursday J anuary 16 2014 4 40 PM
To Potter Sheila H
Subject RE Quick note
Interesting We re having a call with J ennifer and Tom tomorrow to talk about their amended
complaint and scheduling J ennifer said in her email today that they expected the state to
sign off on their language this morning and the changes were minor When I read through the
proposed amendment I didn t think that it would address your concerns based on our
discussions
Lea Ann
From Potter Sheila H mailto sheila potter doj state or us
Sent Thursday J anuary 16 2014 4 21 PM
To Lea Ann Easton
Subject Quick note
Perkins Coie and I are still wrangling over the wording of their allegations and prayer Hence
no amended complaint I m guessing it ll be tomorrow We have an agreement in principle and
we ll see if what they have in mind is also what I have in mind
Sheila H Potter
Deputy Chief Trial Counsel
Oregon Department of J ustice
1515 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 410
Portland OR 97201
Phone 971 673 1880 FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e mail may contain information that is privileged confidential or otherwise exempt from
disclosure under applicable law If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context
or otherwise that you have received this e mail in error please advise me immediately by
reply e mail keep the contents confidential and immediately delete the message and any
attachments from your system
Exhibit W
Page 1 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 71 of 121
From Isaak Misha Perkins Coie
To Potter Sheila H
CC J ohnson Thomas R J r Perkins Coie J ennifer Middleton J Middleton jjlslaw com
Sent 1 17 2014 12 05 50 PM
Subject Rummell complaint Modified Prayer for Relief
Attachments Amended Complaint marriage case DOCX
Sheila
I think we re there We modified the Prayer for Relief to fit the concept discussed with you by phone yesterday Please take a
look to see if it accommodates your concern
Thanks
Misha
Misha Isaak Perkins Coie LLP
1120 N W Couch Street
Tenth Floor
Portland OR 97209 4128
PHONE 503 727 2086
FAX 503 346 2086
E MAIL misaak perkinscoie com
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE To ensure compliance with Treasury Department and IRS regulations we inform you that
unless expressly indicated otherwise any federal tax advice contained inthis communication including any attachments is not
intended or written by Perkins Coie LLP to be used and cannot be used by the taxpayer for the purpose of i avoiding penalties
that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code or ii promotingmarketing or recommending to another
party any transaction or matter addressed herein or any attachments
NOTICE This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information If you have received it inerror please
advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the
contents Thank you
Exhibit W
Page 2 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 72 of 121
From Isaak Misha Perkins Coie
To Potter Sheila H
CC J ohnson Thomas R J r Perkins Coie J ennifer Middleton J Middleton jjlslaw com
Sent 1 17 2014 1 46 34 PM
Subject RE Rummell complaint Modified Prayer for Relief
Excellent Thank you
Misha
Misha Isaak Perkins Coie LLP
PHONE 503 727 2086
From Potter Sheila H mailto sheila potter doj state or us
Sent Friday J anuary 17 2014 12 13 PM
To Isaak Misha Perkins Coie
Cc J ohnson Thomas R J r Perkins Coie J ennifer Middleton J Middleton jjlslaw com
Subject RE Rummell complaint Modified Prayer for Relief
Thanks Yes I can live with this Thank you so much for working with meon this
From Isaak Misha Perkins Coie mailto misaak perkinscoie com
Sent Friday J anuary 17 2014 12 06 PM
To Potter Sheila H
Cc J ohnson Thomas R J r Perkins Coie J ennifer Middleton J Middleton jjlslaw com
Subject Rummell complaint Modified Prayer for Relief
Sheila
I think we re there We modified the Prayer for Relief to fit the concept discussed with you by phone yesterday Please take a
look to see if it accommodates your concern
Thanks
Misha
Misha Isaak Perkins Coie LLP
1120 N W Couch Street
Tenth Floor
Portland OR 97209 4128
PHONE 503 727 2086
FAX 503 346 2086
E MAIL misaak perkinscoie com
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE To ensure compliance with Treasury Department and IRS regulations we informyou that
unless expressly indicated otherwise any federal tax advice contained inthis communication including any attachments is not
intended or written by Perkins Coie LLP to be used and cannot be used by the taxpayer for the purpose of i avoiding penalties
that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code or ii promotingmarketing or recommending to another
party any transaction or matter addressed herein or any attachments
NOTICE This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information If you have received it inerror please
advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the
contents Thank you
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
Exhibit X
Page 1 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 73 of 121
This e mail may contain information that is privileged confidential or otherwise ex empt fromdisclosure under
applicable law If you are not the addressee or it appears fromthe context or otherwise that you have received this
e mail in error please advise me immediatelyby reply e mail keep the contents conf idential and immediatelydelete
the message and any attachments fromyour system
Exhibit X
Page 2 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 74 of 121
From Potter Sheila H
To Lea Ann Easton
Sent 1 24 2014 8 22 31 AM
Subject Re Geiger et al
I do Probably mid to late afternoon would work best for me although the day s meetings are
still sorting themselves out Definitely by the end of the day
Sheila H Potter
Deputy Chief Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon Department of J ustice
On J an 24 2014 at 8 15 AM Lea Ann Easton LEaston dorsayindianlaw com wrote
Hi Sheila
Do you have time for a phone call either this afternoon or Monday about this week s hearing
I am concerned about the dialogue with the judge related to Ms Middleton s question about a
discovery cutoff I have a meeting in Salem from 10 until 12 ish and then am generally
available until 6 pm
Also we are considering whether to withdraw our motion for summary judgment and filing a
joint brief with Rummel plaintiffs who are supervised by adults
Thanks
Lea Ann
Exhibit Y
Page 1 of 1
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 75 of 121
From Potter Sheila H
To Lea Ann Easton
CC Katharine VON TER STEGGE
Sent 1 30 2014 5 59 46 PM
Subject Re Geiger Rummel
Of course
Sheila H Potter
Deputy Chief Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon Department of J ustice
On J an 30 2014 at 4 56 PM Lea Ann Easton
LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com wrote
Notice This communication including any attachments may contain privileged or confidential
information intended for a specific individual and purpose and is protected by law If you
are not the intended recipient you should delete this communication and or shred the
materials and any attachments and are hereby notified that any disclosure copying or
distribution of this communication or the taking of any action based on it is strictly
prohibited
Notice 2 To comply with IRS regulations we inform you that any U S federal tax advice
contained in this communication including any attachments is not intended to be used and
cannot be used for the purpose of i avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or
ii promoting marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed
herein
Kate and Sheila
This afternoon Lake and I met with J ennifer Middleton Tom J ohnson Misha Issac and Kevin
Diaz to talk about the upcoming filings in our consolidated cases We agreed that we want to
try to coordinate our briefings as much as possible and as such we believe that we need an
extra week in order to work through the various levels of approvals required and have
opportunities to review and etc
Will you please let me know if your clients are amendable to this request so the consolidated
cooperative happy attorneys can submit a motion to J udge McShane
Thank you
Lea Ann
Exhibit Z
Page 1 of 1
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 76 of 121
From Potter Sheila H
To Lea Ann Easton
Sent 2 5 2014 2 54 53 PM
Subject Apologies
I ve owed you a phone call for like a week but I ve been sprinting from thing to thing and I
keep not being able to call you during normal human business hours Anyway For the love of
Mike the MSJ apology was very sweet and oh my god totally unnecessary and honestly please
don t give it another thought
I hope things are going well with all of the various cooperatings
Sheila H Potter
Deputy Chief Trial Counsel
Oregon Department of J ustice
158 12th Street NE
Salem OR 97301
503 947 4700
Exhibit AA
Page 1 of 1
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 77 of 121
From Potter Sheila H
To Lake Perriguey
Sent 2 10 2014 5 30 11 PM
Subject RE Nevada s Ninth Circuit filing
Will get back to you on that
From Lake Perriguey mailto lake law works com
Sent Monday February 10 2014 5 27 PM
To Potter Sheila H
Subject Re Nevada s Ninth Circuit filing
Sheila
Can you clue me in on what position theory statement you and the office are going to put
forth It would be great if there was a way to move this forward without a hearing in two
months
Lake J ames H Perriguey
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street x apple data detectors 0 0
Portland Oregon 97205 x apple data detectors 0 0
T 503 227 1928 tel 503 20227 1928
F 503 334 2340 tel 503 20334 2340
http www law works com http www law works com
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
On Feb 10 2014 at 7 07 PM Potter Sheila H
sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter doj state or us wrote
Counsel
The Nevada SG sent us a copy of his motion to withdraw Nevada s answering brief to the Ninth
Circuit in their marriage case he s conceding that in all candor it appears that Windsor
viewed through the SmithKline lens is dispositive I imagine copies of this will be popping
up all over the internet soon but I thought I d pass it along since I happen to have a copy
right here
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e mail may contain information that is privileged confidential or otherwise exempt from
disclosure under applicable law If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context
or otherwise that you have received this e mail in error please advise me immediately by
reply e mail keep the contents confidential and immediately delete the message and any
attachments from your system
filed motion pdf
Exhibit BB
Page 1 of 1
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 78 of 121
From Potter Sheila H
To J ohnson Thomas R J r Perkins Coie
Sent 2 10 2014 7 16 00 PM
Subject RE Meeting
The smaller the group the more candid I will be comfortable being Will check here on
timing what I d like to do ideally is check in with you in advance of filing the answer
so that the parties know what we re filing before it hits PACER Unless I can pull people
together like tomorrow eek that might mean asking for another short extension I ll
give you a call in the morning
From J ohnson Thomas R J r Perkins Coie mailto TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com
Sent Monday February 10 2014 7 13 PM
To Potter Sheila H
Subject RE Meeting
Great I ll check on availability and I understand your side might be the tougher group to
schedule I m free every day this week but Friday My sense which I m not overly attached to
is that this should be a small group and that s what I will propose on this end although
others here may disagree Let me know your timing and I ll make it happen
Thomas R J ohnson Perkins Coie LLP
1120 N W Couch Street
Tenth Floor
Portland OR 97209 4128
PHONE 503 727 2176
CELL 503 914 8918
FAX 503 346 2176
E MAIL trjohnson perkinscoie com mailto trjohnson perkinscoie com
From Potter Sheila H mailto sheila potter doj state or us
Sent Monday February 10 2014 2 04 PM
To J ohnson Thomas R J r Perkins Coie
Subject Meeting
Short answer Yes let s have one Longer answer Trying to figure out timing and
participants so will get back to you on that But sometime this week I think maybe check
with your people to figure out availability on your end of things
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e mail may contain information that is privileged confidential or otherwise exempt from
disclosure under applicable law If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context
or otherwise that you have received this e mail in error please advise me immediately by
reply e mail keep the contents confidential and immediately delete the message and any
attachments from your system
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE To ensure compliance with Treasury Department and IRS
regulations we inform you that unless expressly indicated otherwise any federal tax advice
contained in this communication including any attachments is not intended or written by
Perkins Coie LLP to be used and cannot be used by the taxpayer for the purpose of i
avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code or ii
promoting marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed
herein or any attachments
NOTICE This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information If you
have received it in error please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the
message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents Thank you
Exhibit CC
Page 1 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 79 of 121
From J ohnson Thomas R J r Perkins Coie
To Potter Sheila H
Sent 2 11 2014 2 52 43 PM
Subject Meeting to Discuss Rummell Case
Sheila
We re on for 10 00 amon Thursday your office I mworking to keep the group as small as possible for
the reasons we discussed So far we will have me Misha and J eana Frazzini BRO s ED ACLU is
sending one maybe two people one or both of Kevin Diaz Legal Director and Dave Fidanque ED
J ennifer Middleton may also attend but she is in Eugene and I haven t been able to discuss with her yet
I ll let you know
Anyway thanks for doing this
Best regards
Tom
Thomas R J ohnson Perkins Coie LLP
1120 N W Couch Street
Tenth Floor
Portland OR 97209 4128
PHONE 503 727 2176
CELL 503 914 8918
FAX 503 346 2176
E MAIL trjohnson perkinscoie com
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE To ensure compliance with Treasury Department and IRS regulations we inform you that
unless expressly indicated otherwise any federal tax advice contained inthis communication including any attachments is not
intended or written by Perkins Coie LLP to be used and cannot be used by the taxpayer for the purpose of i avoiding penalties
that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code or ii promotingmarketing or recommending to another
party any transaction or matter addressed herein or any attachments
NOTICE This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information If you have received it inerror please
advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the
contents Thank you
Exhibit CC
Page 2 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 80 of 121
From Potter Sheila H
To J ohnson Thomas R J r Perkins Coie TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com Isaak Misha Perkins Coie
misaak perkinscoie com
CC J oyce Anna
Sent 2 13 2014 4 33 51 PM
Subject Conferral certification
Looking at LR 7 1 what about a certification that counsel met to discuss the legal questions
at issue in the motion and concluded that they were unable to resolve the dispute in this
case among themselves
Something like that has the virtue of being completely literally true while meeting the
certification requirements we cannot in fact just agree to resolve the dispute
ourselves
Sheila H Potter
Deputy Chief Trial Counsel
Oregon Department of J ustice
1515 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 410
Portland OR 97201
Phone 971 673 1880 FAX 971 673 5000
Exhibit DD
Page 1 of 1
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 81 of 121
From Lea Ann Easton
To Potter Sheila H
Sent 2 20 2014 8 04 44 AM
Subject Re Question
Don t the Plaintiffs get to vet and edit the AG s remarks
On Feb 17 2014 at 12 26 PM Potter Sheila H sheila potter doj state or us wrote
Heh I mnot surprised to see that you are way ahead of us all
From Lea Ann Easton mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com
Sent Monday February 17 2014 12 24 PM
To Potter Sheila H
Subject RE Question
Thanks I found one more She signed onto to the Nevada appeal to the Ninth Circuit It s the same states as in
Perryand Windsor
Based on the questions and conversations during the meeting on Thursday I agree with you Misha is just catching
up to mynightmares and questions fromthe fall
From Potter Sheila H mailto sheila potter doj state or us
Sent Monday February 17 2014 12 22 PM
To Lea Ann Easton
Subject RE Question
Anna and I don t know of any SSM amicus briefs that we ve signed onto other than those two but
Anna s checking
I mreally not worried about a mandamus action I mglad that people are thinking about all theways that
things could go pear shaped but that just isn t one of them Discretionary choices aren t up for mandamus
review and no court is going to entertain the notion that the AG has to appeal everydecision rendered in
the other side s favor I have to believe that any mandamus action would die a quickand ignominious
death
Exhibit EE
Page 1 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 82 of 121
From Lea Ann Easton mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com
Sent Friday February 14 2014 3 10 PM
To Potter Sheila H
Subject Question
Notice This communication including any attachments may contain privileged or con fidential information intended
for a specific individual and purpose and is protected by law If you are not the intended recipient you should
delete this communication and or shred the materials and any attachments and are here by notified that any
disclosure copying or distribution of this communication or the taking of any action based on it is strictly
prohibited
Notice 2 To comply with IRS regulations we informyou that any U S federal tax advice contained in this
communication including any attachments is not intended to be used and cannot be used for the purpose of i
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or ii promoting marketing or recommending to another party
any transaction or matter addressed herein
Hi Sheila
I hate to bother you but I have a question for you Can you tell me how many amicus briefs the AG has signed onto
in same gender cases I know she signed the amicus briefs inPerryin the Ninth Cir cuit and Supreme Court and
nd
Windsor in2 Circuit and Supreme Court
Also I talked with Misha today about his comment on possible mandamus action His theory is one that I had
considered and think the probability of occurring is unlikely The theory is that a citizen could file mandamus and
force the Attorney General to file an appeal of a favorable decision to the Ninth Cir cuit Although the mandamus
action likely would be unsuccessful if the AG was forced to file notice of appeal t he notice itself is jurisdictional in
Ninth Circuit I had thought of this option a while ago but think probability is incredibly small Plus one would
think if a circuit court issued mandamus the AG would file appeal and seek a stay pe nding the appeal
Lea Ann
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e mail may contain information that is privileged confidential or otherwise ex empt fromdisclosure under
applicable law If you are not the addressee or it appears fromthe context or otherwise that you have received this
e mail in error please advise me immediatelyby reply e mail keep the contents conf idential and immediatelydelete
the message and any attachments fromyour system
Exhibit EE
Page 2 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 83 of 121
From Potter Sheila H
To Lake Perriguey Lea Ann Easton J ohnson Thomas R J r Perkins Coie
TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com Isaak Misha Perkins Coie misaak perkinscoie com
J Middleton jjlslaw com
CC J oyce Anna
Sent 3 10 2014 3 05 18 PM
Subject Geiger Rummell MSJ timing
All
The Michigan court is probably going to issue a written decision sometime next week with
findings of fact and conclusions of law If the decision comes out on Monday or Tuesday of
next week and bucks the trend we may ask for an extension of a day or two on our MSJ
response to address anything in the opinion that looks like it could use some talking about
If the judge there goes in the same direction that almost all the others have for the same
reasons they have we probably won t need any extra time
So Right now we re not asking for anything But I wanted to give you a heads up that we
might
Sheila
Sheila H Potter
Deputy Chief Trial Counsel
Oregon Department of J ustice
158 12th Street NE
Salem OR 97301
503 947 4700
Exhibit FF
Page 1 of 1
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 84 of 121
From Potter Sheila H
To J ohnson Thomas R J r Perkins Coie
Sent 3 11 2014 8 06 56 PM
Subject Re Rummell Case
You know I rather suspected we might be
Doug Pahl and I were just talking about what a good egg you are in case you noticed a warming
sensation about the ears
Sheila H Potter
Deputy Chief Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon Department of J ustice
On Mar 11 2014 at 6 43 PM J ohnson Thomas R J r Perkins Coie
TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com mailto TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com wrote
Got your voicemails Sorry I ve been in Florida on another matter We are totally on the same
page
Thomas R J ohnson Perkins Coie LLP
1120 N W Couch Street
Tenth Floor
Portland OR 97209 4128
PHONE 503 727 2176
CELL 503 914 8918
FAX 503 346 2176
E MAIL trjohnson perkinscoie com mailto trjohnson perkinscoie com
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE To ensure compliance with Treasury Department and IRS
regulations we inform you that unless expressly indicated otherwise any federal tax advice
contained in this communication including any attachments is not intended or written by
Perkins Coie LLP to be used and cannot be used by the taxpayer for the purpose of i
avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code or ii
promoting marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed
herein or any attachments
NOTICE This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information If you
have received it in error please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the
message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents Thank you
Exhibit GG
Page 1 of 1
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 85 of 121
From Potter Sheila H
To Lake Perriguey
CC Lea Ann Easton
Sent 3 11 2014 4 11 52 PM
Subject Re 12 17668 Beverly Sevcik et al v BrianSandoval et al NOTICE Oral Argument Schedule
Attached
Thanks Lake
Sheila
On Mar 11 2014 at 4 05 PM Lake Perriguey lake law works com wrote
Thank you Sheila
Let s leave the dates as they are
Lake
Lake J ames H Perriguey
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street
Portland Oregon 97205
T 503 227 1928
F 503 334 2340
http www law works com
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
On Mar 11 2014 at 4 02 PM Potter Sheila H sheila potter doj state or us wrote
I don t see anything in there that I d read as an invitation from the court She s giving
you a time that you could ask for if you moved to reset argument I m suggesting that you
shouldn t
And we can agree all we want The court still gets to decide if we re collectively right
or wrong He won t like any appearance of us forgetting that you know
Sheila H Potter
Deputy Chief Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon Department of J ustice
On Mar 11 2014 at 3 57 PM Lake Perriguey lake law works com mailto lake law
works com wrote
Sheila
The clerk simply noted that there is time on the docket No one is asking the court at this
point
Sheila I really welcome your sense of this and do not want to push something that is going
to make anyone involved concerned that it will play badly or otherwise appear that we are
pushing the judge despite the fact that everyone in the room appears to agree
While Charlene has noted that there is an opening it is not clear to me whether the court
is inviting us to fill it or simply letting us know so that if we want we can ask to move
the dates
Lake J ames H Perriguey
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street
Portland Oregon 97205
Exhibit HH
Page 1 of 4
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 86 of 121
T 503 227 1928
F 503 334 2340
http www law works com http www law works com
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
On Mar 11 2014 at 3 45 PM Potter Sheila H
sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter doj state or us wrote
I haven t seen responses to this e mail I believe that I am free on Monday afternoon at
2 30 the time that Charlene provided The timing would be a real scramble for us though and
I would really rather not cut it that close Are all plaintiffs counsel united in asking for
this
I have to tell you Lake I do not think that it would be a good idea to push the judge to
push up oral argument or to try to impose our timing on him He really reacted unhappily to
the perceived push for a quick decision rather than as he framed it a careful one and I
think that this will play very badly with him when he s already told us that he wants to take
his time with this and get it right What you re cutting out of the schedule is his time to
prepare We haven t filed our response yet you anticipate no replies but you don t know that
no one will want a reply And you don t know the judge s schedule or how much time he will
have to digest the arguments and to think through the law from his perspective This would
give the judge less than a week from whatever amicus briefs are filed It would almost
certainly not allow him to go into argument already having worked through a draft opinion with
his clerk as federal judges often like to do
I ll check with my co counsel on their availability for the time you provided and if they
can do it I ll let you know and then you may represent to the court that the state
defendants lawyers are available at that time but you may not represent that we join the
motion or agree to it I think it s a bad idea and I think it will backfire
From Lake J ames Perriguey mailto lake law works com
Sent Monday March 10 2014 12 43 PM
To Lea Ann Easton
Cc Misha Isaak Tom J ohnson J ennifer Middleton Potter Sheila H Katharine VON TER STEGGE
Subject Re 12 17668 Beverly Sevcik et al v Brian Sandoval et al NOTICE Oral
Argument Schedule Attached
If the 9th circuit rules before McShane it could moot our case
There is a jury trial before judge McShane the week of the April 7th that may settle
freeing up time on the court s docket
If the court were to open dates for us could we all be available during that week for oral
argument
Lake J ames H Perriguey
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street
Portland Oregon 97205
T 503 227 1928
F 503 334 2340
http www law works com http www law works com
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
On Mar 10 2014 at 12 25 PM Lea Ann Easton
LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com wrote
Notice This communication including any attachments may contain privileged or
confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose and is protected by
law If you are not the intended recipient you should delete this communication and or shred
the materials and any attachments and are hereby notified that any disclosure copying or
distribution of this communication or the taking of any action based on it is strictly
prohibited
Notice 2 To comply with IRS regulations we inform you that any U S federal tax advice
Exhibit HH
Page 2 of 4
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 87 of 121
contained in this communication including any attachments is not intended to be used and
cannot be used for the purpose of i avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or
ii promoting marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed
herein
Ninth Circuit has set oral argument is set in Sevcik Nevada case for April 9th at 9 am
Lea Ann
From ca9 ecfnoticing ca9 uscourts gov mailto ca9 ecfnoticing ca9 uscourts gov
mailto ca9 ecfnoticing ca9 uscourts gov
Sent Monday March 10 2014 12 23 PM
To Lea Ann Easton
Subject 12 17668 Beverly Sevcik et al v Brian Sandoval et al NOTICE Oral Argument
Schedule Attached
NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS J udicial Conference of the United States policy permits
attorneys of record and parties in a case including pro se litigants to receive one free
electronic copy of all documents filed electronically if receipt is required by law or
directed by the filer PACER access fees apply to all other users To avoid later charges
download a copy of each document during this first viewing
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Notice of Docket Activity
The following transaction was entered on 03 10 2014 at 12 22 33 PM PDT and filed on
03 10 2014
Case Name
Beverly Sevcik et al v Brian Sandoval et al
Case Number
12 17668 https ecf ca9 uscourts gov cmecf servlet
TransportRoom servlet DocketReportFilter jspcaseId 238600
Docket Text
Notice of Oral Argument on Wednesday April 9 2014 09 00 A M Courtroom 3 San
Francisco CA
View the Oral Argument Calendar for your case here http www ca9 uscourts gov calendar
view php caseno 12 17668
When you have reviewed the calendar download the ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HEARING NOTICE
form http www ca9 uscourts gov calendar info php view Forms complete the form and file it
via Appellate ECF or return the completed form to SAN FRANCISCO Office
9008892 AW
Notice will be electronically mailed to
Mr David Chris Albright Attorney
Mr Byron J effords Babione
Carmine D Boccuzzi J r
Mary Lisa Bonauto Attorney
Tara L Borelli
Daniel W Bower
Professor Gerard Vincent Bradley
Laura W Brill
Mr Dean Robert Broyles Chief Counsel
Marek Bute
Holly Carmichael
Matthew J oseph Christian Attorney
Exhibit HH
Page 3 of 4
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 88 of 121
Carla Christofferson
Mr David C Codell
Melanie Cristol Attorney
Mr J on Davidson
Miss Elizabeth L Deeley
Kelly Harrison Dove Attorney
William C Duncan
Mr Alexander Dushku Attorney
Doctor J ohn C Eastman
Mr Stephen Kent Ehat Attorney
Mr Thomas Molnar Fisher Solicitor General
Suzanne Goldberg
Mr Charles Wayne Howle Solicitor General
Moez Kaba
Herbert Kaplan Deputy District Attorney
Ms Katherine Ann Keating Attorney
Raghav Krishnapriyan Attorney
Mr Charles S LiMandri Attorney
Mary Elizabeth McAlister
Mr Shannon Price Minter Legal Director
Mr Mark William Mosier Attorney
Randal Richard Munn
Ms Genevieve Nadeau
Mr Nicholas M O Donnell
Mr Abram J ohn Pafford Attorney
Ms Sarah E Piepmeier Attorney
Staci J Pratt Legal Director
Peter C Renn Attorney
Mr J erome Cary Roth Attorney
Ms Dawn Sestito
Paul March Smith Attorney
Kevin Trent Snider Chief Counsel
Monte N Stewart
Ms Christina Swarns
Craig G Taylor
Mr Rocky Chiu feng Tsai Attorney
Mr Robert H Tyler Attorney
Mr J oseph Leo Ward J r Senior Deputy District Attorney
Mr Lynn Dennis Wardle Attorney
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e mail may contain information that is privileged confidential or otherwise exempt
from disclosure under applicable law If you are not the addressee or it appears from the
context or otherwise that you have received this e mail in error please advise me immediately
by reply e mail keep the contents confidential and immediately delete the message and any
attachments from your system
Exhibit HH
Page 4 of 4
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 89 of 121
From Potter Sheila H
To J ohnson Thomas R J r Perkins Coie Lea Ann Easton J ennifer Middleton Katharine VON TER
STEGGE
CC lake law works com jmiddleton jjlslaw com kdiaz aclu or org Holm Kristina J Perkins Coie
Isaak Misha Perkins Coie J oyce Anna katevts multco us
Sent 3 14 2014 10 49 56 AM
Subject RE 6 13 cv 01834 MC Geiger et al v Kitzhaber et al
My Monday is open as well
We want a speedy resolution as well but as Tom correctly anticipated my clients also have a
significant interest in an open and transparent process leading to that resolution and I
don t think that we will agree to cancel oral argument on these cases That s not to foreclose
a conversation on Monday just to let people know that that s where we re at and it ll be an
uphill battle to persuade the AG and the Governor and me that this should be resolved
without a hearing open to the public I don t want to slow things down but process is really
important from the perspective of the state defendants
From J ohnson Thomas R J r Perkins Coie mailto TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com
Sent Friday March 14 2014 10 19 AM
To Potter Sheila H Lea Ann Easton J ennifer Middleton Katharine VON TER STEGGE
Cc lake law works com jmiddleton jjlslaw com kdiaz aclu or org Holm Kristina J Perkins
Coie Isaak Misha Perkins Coie J oyce Anna katevts multco us
Subject RE 6 13 cv 01834 MC Geiger et al v Kitzhaber et al
I m pretty free on Monday to talk so Lea Ann set something and I ll get on a call preferably
after kid drop off at 8 30 If any defendant is inclined to have the hearing I think the
court is going to go forward with it in light of his comments at the hearing I can definitely
understand why the state might want to have an open hearing on this to the extent that is how
they come out although for a lot of reasons people would like to get this resolved as early
as possible
Lea Ann I have no issue with you telling the court that we are talking about this and that we
will contact the court early next week
Thomas R J ohnson Perkins Coie LLP
1120 N W Couch Street
Tenth Floor
Portland OR 97209 4128
PHONE 503 727 2176
CELL 503 914 8918
FAX 503 346 2176
E MAIL trjohnson perkinscoie com mailto trjohnson perkinscoie com
From Potter Sheila H mailto sheila potter doj state or us
Sent Thursday March 13 2014 11 36 PM
To Lea Ann Easton J ennifer Middleton Katharine VON TER STEGGE
Cc lake law works com mailto lake law works com
jmiddleton jjlslaw com mailto jmiddleton jjlslaw com kdiaz aclu or org mailto kdiaz aclu
or org Holm Kristina J Perkins Coie Isaak Misha Perkins Coie J ohnson Thomas R
J r Perkins Coie J oyce Anna katevts multco us mailto katevts multco us
Subject RE 6 13 cv 01834 MC Geiger et al v Kitzhaber et al
I couldn t do a call on Friday I ll be in court but could on Monday So that everyone
knows I anticipate that we will ask for oral argument
From Lea Ann Easton mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com
Sent Thursday March 13 2014 9 23 PM
To J ennifer Middleton Potter Sheila H Katharine VON TER STEGGE
Cc lake law works com mailto lake law works com
jmiddleton jjlslaw com mailto jmiddleton jjlslaw com kdiaz aclu or org mailto kdiaz aclu
or org KJ Holm perkinscoie com mailto KJ Holm perkinscoie com
MIsaak perkinscoie com mailto MIsaak perkinscoie com
TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com mailto TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com J oyce Anna Potter Sheila H
katevts multco us mailto katevts multco us
Exhibit II
Page 1 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 90 of 121
Subject Re 6 13 cv 01834 MC Geiger et al v Kitzhaber et al
Folks
I would like to have a conference call to discuss this question from the Court I am in a
meeting all day on Friday but could likely squeeze in a call around 2 pm Or I am available
all day on Monday I believe Lake is available as well
Also I would like your permission on behalf of your clients to advise the court clerk that
the parties are discussing J udge McShane s question and will report back to the court next
week
Lea Ann
On Mar 13 2014 at 4 54 PM
Charlene Pew ord uscourts gov mailto Charlene Pew ord uscourts gov
Charlene Pew ord uscourts gov mailto Charlene Pew ord uscourts gov wrote
Counsel
J udge McShane asked me to contact the parties to see if they were still wanting to have Oral
Argument on the Summary J udgment Motions in this case If you do the court is more than happy
to accommodate the parties if you don t that is fine also Please notify the court either
way Thank you
Charlene Pew
Courtroom Deputy to J udge Michael J McShane
United States District Court
District of Oregon
541 431 4105
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e mail may contain information that is privileged confidential or otherwise exempt from
disclosure under applicable law If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context
or otherwise that you have received this e mail in error please advise me immediately by
reply e mail keep the contents confidential and immediately delete the message and any
attachments from your system
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE To ensure compliance with Treasury Department and IRS
regulations we inform you that unless expressly indicated otherwise any federal tax advice
contained in this communication including any attachments is not intended or written by
Perkins Coie LLP to be used and cannot be used by the taxpayer for the purpose of i
avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code or ii
promoting marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed
herein or any attachments
NOTICE This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information If you
have received it in error please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the
message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents Thank you
Exhibit II
Page 2 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 91 of 121
From Potter Sheila H
To Lea Ann Easton
Sent 3 19 2014 10 15 02 AM
Subject Re Simple marriage case
Aw Thanks I love my team Mary gets all the credit for the beautiful writing
On Mar 19 2014 at 10 09 AM Lea Ann Easton
LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com wrote
Notice This communication including any attachments may contain privileged or confidential
information intended for a specific individual and purpose and is protected by law If you
are not the intended recipient you should delete this communication and or shred the
materials and any attachments and are hereby notified that any disclosure copying or
distribution of this communication or the taking of any action based on it is strictly
prohibited
Notice 2 To comply with IRS regulations we inform you that any U S federal tax advice
contained in this communication including any attachments is not intended to be used and
cannot be used for the purpose of i avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or
ii promoting marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed
herein
Wonderful response I want to play on your team instead of my team
Lea Ann
Exhibit JJ
Page 1 of 1
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 92 of 121
From Lake Perriguey
To Mary Williams
Sent 3 19 2014 4 11 53 PM
Subject Re Geiger v Kitzhaber
I was very happy to see your name come up the day before y all submitted the brief an d expected you might still
have an interest in participating post transition fromthe AG s office to your next a dventure
Though we do not know quite how important and singular your brief will become it is very powerful for Lea Ann
and I personally for the Government to be so honest and direct about these matters ma tters that in our lifetime
could not even be discussed at the dinner table or in polite company
I cannot say it enough Thank you and Sheila for meeting with me back inAugust You and Sheila on the front
lines have been so utterly humane kind and throughly professional in managing to d eftly represent the State s
interests while appreciating my and myclients goals
I amso impressed
Lake J ames H Perriguey
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street
Portland Oregon 97205
T 503 227 1928
F 503 334 2340
http www law works com
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
On Mar 19 2014 at 4 04 PM Mary Williams mary h williams msn com wrote
Thank you Lake I mvery proud to have played a rolein this one
Mary
Sent frommyiPhone
On Mar 19 2014 at 3 47 PM Lake Perriguey lake law works com wrote
Sheila Anna and Mary
The response brief is beautiful elegant and inspiring
Personally your work engenders a feeling of enormous pride and appreciation to live in a state where those entrusted
with the immense responsibilityfor and power of its governing do such patently exc ellent work
Lake J ames H Perriguey
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street
Portland Oregon 97205
T 503 227 1928
F 503 334 2340
http www law works com
Exhibit KK
Page 1 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 93 of 121
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
Exhibit KK
Page 2 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 94 of 121
From Lea Ann Easton
To Potter Sheila H
Sent 3 21 2014 5 02 49 PM
Subject RE NYTimes com Michigan Ban on Same Sex Marriage Is Struck Down
Yes I was planning on doing that I was nishing up amemo fora client and haven t read the decision yet I need to nd
the clerk s email address I thought I d just send it to himand cc everyone rathe r thangoing through eding email
process The email would simply state
At the scheduling conference on Whatever date it was J udge McShane invited counsel to submit cases or decisions
addressing issues involved in our li gaon The federal court in the Eastern Distric t of Michigan issued adecision today
holding that Michigan s Marriage Amendment Act violated same sexplains rights und er the Fourteenth Amendment I
amforwarding a copy of that decision forthe court
What do you think
From Potter Sheila H mailto sheila potter doj state or us
Sent Friday March 21 2014 4 56 PM
To Lea Ann Easton
Subject RE NYTimes com Michigan Ban on Same Sex Marriage Is Struck Down
So we should send this to the court s clerk who is working on the case I mhappy to draft something and
send to the group and then the clerk but you might rather since you are infact thetotally on the ball one
who brought the news to the rest of us
This decision is so so good The Regnerus piece alone has totally made myday
From Lea Ann Easton mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com
Sent Friday March 21 2014 3 24 PM
To Potter Sheila H MIsaak perkinscoie com J ennifer Middleton TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com lake law works com
katevts multco us J oyce Anna kdiaz aclu or org
Subject RE NYTimes com Michigan Ban on Same Sex Marriage Is Struck Down
Here s decision
Lea Ann
From Lea Ann Easton
Sent Friday March 21 2014 3 19 PM
To sheila potter doj state or us MIsaak perkinscoie com J ennifer Middleton TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com lake law
works com katevts multco us
Subject FW NYTimes com Michigan Ban on Same Sex Marriage Is Struck Down
Subject NYTimes com Michigan Ban on Same Sex Marriage Is Struck Down
Sent by uncleannie3 comcast net
Exhibit LL
Page 1 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 95 of 121
Michigan Ban on Same Sex
Marriage Is Struck Down
BY ERIK ECKHOLM
A federal judge issued the latest ina string of rulings that
say it is unconstitutional to deny marriage to gay couples
Or copy and paste this URL into your browser
http nyti ms 1evyFOj
To get unlimited access to all New York Times articles subscribe today See Subscription
Options
To ensure delivery to your inbox please add nytdirect nytimes comto your address book
ADVERTISEMENT
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company NYTimes com 620 Eighth Avenue New
York NY 10018
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e mail may contain information that is privileged confidential or otherwise ex empt fromdisclosure under
applicable law If you are not the addressee or it appears fromthe context or otherwise that you have received this
e mail in error please advise me immediatelyby reply e mail keep the contents conf idential and immediatelydelete
the message and any attachments fromyour system
Exhibit LL
Page 2 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 96 of 121
From Isaak Misha Perkins Coie
To Potter Sheila H J ohnson Thomas R J r Perkins Coie
Sent 4 1 2014 9 24 59 AM
Subject RE Oh mygod
Yes it is wonderful We have reached a tipping point at which opposing marriage equality is just not an acceptable position
anymore as you so eloquently said in your own brief
Misha Isaak Perkins Coie LLP
PHONE 503 727 2086
From Potter Sheila H mailto sheila potter doj state or us
Sent Tuesday April 01 2014 9 23 AM
To J ohnson Thomas R J r Perkins Coie Isaak Misha Perkins Coie
Subject Oh my god
The
l
i
s
t
of amici has seriouslygot meright on the edge of tears Holy crap The world is geing beer
around us as we watch
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e mail may contain information that is privileged confidential or otherwise ex empt fromdisclosure under
applicable law If you are not the addressee or it appears fromthe context or otherwise that you have received this
e mail in error please advise me immediatelyby reply e mail keep the contents conf idential and immediatelydelete
the message and any attachments fromyour system
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE To ensure compliance with Treasury Department and IRS regulations we inform you that
unless expressly indicated otherwise any federal tax advice contained inthis communication including any attachments is not
intended or written by Perkins Coie LLP to be used and cannot be used by the taxpayer for the purpose of i avoiding penalties
that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code or ii promotingmarketing or recommending to another
party any transaction or matter addressed herein or any attachments
NOTICE This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information If you have received it inerror please
advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the
contents Thank you
Exhibit MM
Page 1 of 1
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 97 of 121
From Potter Sheila H
To Amanda Goad LGBT Kevin Diaz J ohnson Thomas R J r Perkins Coie KatharineVON TER
STEGGE Lea Ann Easton
CC Isaak Misha Perkins Coie J oyce Anna Holm Kristina J Perkins Coie J ennifer Middleton
J Middleton jjlslaw com Rose Saxe lake law works com
Sent 4 11 2014 3 39 07 PM
Subject RE Preparingfor Argument Geiger Rummel
And I ve just confirmed that all three of us from the State are available then
From Amanda Goad LGBT mailto agoad aclu org
Sent Friday April 11 2014 3 33 PM
To Kevin Diaz J ohnson Thomas R J r Perkins Coie Potter Sheila H Katharine VON TER
STEGGE Lea Ann Easton
Cc Isaak Misha Perkins Coie J oyce Anna Holm Kristina J Perkins Coie J ennifer
Middleton J Middleton jjlslaw com Rose Saxe lake law works com
Subject RE Preparing for Argument Geiger Rummel
I can make that work also
From Kevin Diaz kdiaz aclu or org mailto kdiaz aclu or org
Sent Friday April 11 2014 3 23 PM
To J ohnson Thomas R J r Perkins Coie Potter Sheila H Katharine VON TER STEGGE Lea
Ann Easton
Cc Isaak Misha Perkins Coie J oyce Anna Holm Kristina J Perkins Coie J ennifer
Middleton J Middleton jjlslaw com mailto J Middleton jjlslaw com Rose Saxe Amanda Goad
LGBT lake law works com mailto lake law works com
Subject RE Preparing for Argument Geiger Rummel
That time works for me
Kevin
From J ohnson Thomas R J r Perkins Coie mailto TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com
Sent Friday April 11 2014 3 22 PM
To Potter Sheila H Katharine VON TER STEGGE Lea Ann Easton
Cc Isaak Misha Perkins Coie J oyce Anna Holm Kristina J Perkins Coie J ennifer
Middleton J Middleton jjlslaw com mailto J Middleton jjlslaw com Kevin Diaz Rose Saxe
rsaxe aclu org mailto rsaxe aclu org Amanda Goad LGBT
agoad aclu org mailto agoad aclu org agoad aclu org mailto agoad aclu org lake law
works com mailto lake law works com
Subject RE Preparing for Argument Geiger Rummel
Misha and I are free at 2pm and after on the 17th
Thomas R J ohnson Perkins Coie LLP
1120 N W Couch Street
Tenth Floor
Portland OR 97209 4128
PHONE 503 727 2176
CELL 503 914 8918
FAX 503 346 2176
E MAIL trjohnson perkinscoie com mailto trjohnson perkinscoie com
From Potter Sheila H mailto sheila potter doj state or us
Sent Friday April 11 2014 3 05 PM
To Katharine VON TER STEGGE Lea Ann Easton
Cc Isaak Misha Perkins Coie J oyce Anna J ohnson Thomas R J r Perkins Coie Holm
Kristina J Perkins Coie J ennifer Middleton
J Middleton jjlslaw com mailto J Middleton jjlslaw com Kevin Diaz kdiaz aclu
or org mailto kdiaz aclu or org kdiaz aclu or org mailto kdiaz aclu or org Rose Saxe
rsaxe aclu org mailto rsaxe aclu org Amanda Goad LGBT
agoad aclu org mailto agoad aclu org agoad aclu org mailto agoad aclu org lake law
Exhibit NN
Page 1 of 3
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 98 of 121
works com mailto lake law works com
Subject RE Preparing for Argument Geiger Rummel
Awesome idea Checking on our availability Thursday the 17th 2pm or after is looking good
for two of us
From Katharine VON TER STEGGE mailto katevts multco us
Sent Friday April 11 2014 12 51 PM
To Lea Ann Easton
Cc Isaak Misha Perkins Coie Potter Sheila H J oyce Anna J ohnson Thomas R J r Perkins
Coie Holm Kristina J Perkins Coie J ennifer Middleton
J Middleton jjlslaw com mailto J Middleton jjlslaw com Kevin Diaz kdiaz aclu
or org mailto kdiaz aclu or org kdiaz aclu or org mailto kdiaz aclu or org Rose Saxe
rsaxe aclu org mailto rsaxe aclu org Amanda Goad LGBT
agoad aclu org mailto agoad aclu org agoad aclu org mailto agoad aclu org lake law
works com mailto lake law works com
Subject Re Preparing for Argument Geiger Rummel
Lea Ann
Great idea I am available all three days you proposed
Kate von Ter Stegge
Senior Assistant County Attorney Multnomah County Attorney
501 SE Hawthorne Suite 500 Portland OR 97214
503 988 3138 503 988 3377 fax
katevts mailto katevts co multnomah or us multco us multco us
https urldefense proofpoint com v1 url u http multco usk 06 2F1 2FwqqQY9VYFo4IV hphQ
3D 3D 0Ar fGEkxHA6QAJ Yf8dfAugINyMqRW5oFdgW9rJ S 2BuHZLxY 3D 0A
m NvoGi0OyJ BRL722C9aCr5cO45hAu2FmuQWAs 2FtJ Afxg 3D 0A
s 41bddde6a056493b77a60e0e4871e0c876898691f249de8f2856d093331c8df3
On Fri Apr 11 2014 at 12 31 PM Lea Ann Easton
LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com wrote
Notice This communication including any attachments may contain privileged or confidential
information intended for a specific individual and purpose and is protected by law If you
are not the intended recipient you should delete this communication and or shred the
materials and any attachments and are hereby notified that any disclosure copying or
distribution of this communication or the taking of any action based on it is strictly
prohibited
Notice 2 To comply with IRS regulations we inform you that any U S federal tax advice
contained in this communication including any attachments is not intended to be used and
cannot be used for the purpose of i avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or
ii promoting marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed
herein
Hi all
Lake and I would like to set up a meeting with counsel on these consolidated cases prior to
the argument on the 23rd to discuss and confer on oral argument We think it makes sense to
try coordinate part of the argument so that we don t repeat arguments as well as brainstorm
questions that J udge McShane is likely to ask such as should his decision be stayed pending
the outcome of Sevick or Smithkline in the 9th Circuit
If folks are interested in meeting would next week on Wednesday April 16 Thursday April 17
Exhibit NN
Page 2 of 3
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 99 of 121
or Monday April 21st work
Thanks
Lea Ann
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e mail may contain information that is privileged confidential or otherwise exempt from
disclosure under applicable law If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context
or otherwise that you have received this e mail in error please advise me immediately by
reply e mail keep the contents confidential and immediately delete the message and any
attachments from your system
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE To ensure compliance with Treasury Department and IRS
regulations we inform you that unless expressly indicated otherwise any federal tax advice
contained in this communication including any attachments is not intended or written by
Perkins Coie LLP to be used and cannot be used by the taxpayer for the purpose of i
avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code or ii
promoting marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed
herein or any attachments
NOTICE This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information If you
have received it in error please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the
message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents Thank you
Exhibit NN
Page 3 of 3
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 100 of 121
From Lake Perriguey
To Mary Williams J oyce Anna
Sent 4 16 2014 7 56 49 PM
Subject Fwd Preparing for Hearing Geiger Rummel
Attachments Geiger Rummell Hearing Topics docx
Hi Mary and Anna
I replied to a group email to send this document yesterday to the group of lawyers planning to meet in advance of the
oral conversation next week and realized that I did not include you both
So here you go and I hope to see you Thursday afternoon
Lake
Begin forwarded message
From Lake Perriguey lake law works com
Subject Preparing for Hearing Geiger Rummel
Date April 15 2014 at 9 41 26 PM PDT
Cc Lea Ann Easton LEaston dorsayindianlawcom J ennifer Middleton
J Middleton justicelawyers com Potter Sheila H sheila potter doj state or us Katharine VON
TERSTEGGE katevts multco us TomJ ohnson TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com Kevin Diaz
kdiaz aclu or org kdiaz aclu or org kdiaz aclu or org Amanda Goad LGBT
agoad aclu org agoad aclu org agoad aclu org Rose Saxe rsaxe aclu org
rsaxe aclu org J oyce Anna anna joyce doj state or us Holm Kristina J Perkins Coie
KJ Holm perkinscoie com Misha Isaak misaak perkinscoie com
Dear Counsel
In preparation for our meeting on Thursday at 2pm at Perkins Coie I drafted a table of some of the legal issues raised
in the briefing which might be helpful for us to begin a conversation about what top ics we each might focus on in the
presentation Of particular interest in talks amongst counsel is the question of whether J udge McShane might
consider issuing a stay even though no one has asked himto do so I included some initial points to consider on this
topic
Lake J ames H Perriguey
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street
Portland Oregon 97205
T 503 227 1928
F 503 334 2340
http www law works com
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
Exhibit OO
Page 1 of 3
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 101 of 121
Possible Oral Conversation Argument Topics
Thursday 17 April 2 00 at Perkins Coie
Topic Notes Presenter
Fundamental
Due Process
Recog Outof
State Marriages
BallotMeasure
Animus
Domestic
Partnership
Statute
Equal
Protection
Gay
Equal
Protection
Gender
BRO s Interest
Trans
State s Interest
Protecting
Families
Scrutiny Level
Applies when
analyzing State s
proffered
interest State
harmed byban
Exhibit OO
Page 2 of 3
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 102 of 121
Why no sua Loss of constitutional freedoms for even minimal
sponte stay periods of time unquestionably constitutes
irreparableinjury Elrod v Burns 47 US
347 373 1976
The litigants do not want a stay Stay will subject
plaintiffs their children andall familiesto the
continuing irreparableharmimposed by the
unconstitutional deprivation
No harmto the State Infact State s interestin
protecting familiessupported by an Order
State is ready to begin issuing licenses
No appeal here
No oral argument setin9 Circuit
th
No guarantee that the 9 will rule Parties could
th
dismisscase court could remand to trial court
SC stayedKitchen UT At that time onlyother on
point decision was Ohio Courts limitedas applied
ruling inObergefell At that time not the unbroken
stringof federal cases
In3months since SC Kitchen stay eight 9 fed
courts in5circuits have ruled bans unconstitutional
andfromevery state in6 Circuit
th
Several courts have confronted the extreme
irreparableharmthese bans have onterminally ill
couples
InOH MD Illinois and just inthe last two weeks in
Indiana Federal Courts have granted immediate
ordersallowing terminally ill litigants their
individual marriagerights
Inthe Pedersen case fromCT the trial judge declined
to stayhis decision even after Windsor was pending
at the 2d Cir The 2d Cirdecision inWindsor cited
that Pedersen decision 6 timesinits opinion onthe
merits
Exhibit OO
Page 3 of 3
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 103 of 121
From Lake Perriguey
To Potter Sheila H
Sent 4 18 2014 4 43 12 PM
Subject Re Case 6 13 cv 2256 MC Geiger Rummell v Kitzhaber
Thank you Sheila
Lake J ames H Perriguey
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street
Portland Oregon 97205
T 503 227 1928
F 503 334 2340
http www law works com
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
On Apr 18 2014 at 4 27 PM Potter Sheila H sheila potter doj state or us wrote
Ms Pew
I mwriting on behalf of counsel for all the parties intheGeiger and Rummell cases We met this week to
discuss plans for oral argument and we are wondering whether there are any areas that J udge McShane
would particularly like us to address inargument or questions that the J udge wouldlike us to answer inthe
course of argument We have a lot of lawyers and the brieng was lengthy and we would like to focus
argument on those areas that will be most helpful to the Court We can certainly prepare argument without
the Court s direction but we also all wanted to ask whether the J udge might have some thoughts on how
we might collectively make oral argument as productive and useful for himas we canWe would be pleased
to focus on those subjects orquestions if he would like us to
Thank you
Sheila Poer
Sheila H Potter
Deputy Chief Trial Counsel
Oregon Department of J ustice
1515 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 410
Portland OR 97201
Phone 971 673 1880 FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e mail may contain information that is privileged confidential or otherwise ex empt fromdisclosure under
applicable law If you are not the addressee or it appears fromthe context or otherwise that you have received this
e mail in error please advise me immediatelyby reply e mail keep the contents conf idential and immediatelydelete
the message and any attachments fromyour system
Exhibit PP
Page 1 of 1
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 104 of 121
From Potter Sheila H
To Tom J ohnson Perkins Coie Misha Isaak Perkins Coie
Sent 4 21 2014 4 53 23 PM
Subject Noodling around with intervention jurisdiction ideas
If one of you has a chance to give me a call that d be great Nothing urgent Have been
talking ideas with Anna and Mary would love to bounce one off you and have you tell me why
we re wrong if we are That press release made me want to set stuff on fire but more than
that it made me want to beat them They don t get to win this 971 673 5026
Sheila H Potter
Deputy Chief Trial Counsel
Oregon Department of J ustice
Phone M Th F 971 673 5026 Portland
Phone Tu W 503 947 4688 Salem
Exhibit QQ
Page 1 of 1
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 105 of 121
From Lake Perriguey
To Lea Ann Easton Misha Isaak Tom J ohnson J ennifer Middleton Potter Sheila H Mary Williams
J oyce Anna Katharine VON TER STEGGE
Sent 4 22 2014 8 48 43 AM
Subject Intervention
Having read the brief it seems to me readilydisposable under FRCP 24 a assuming that the application is timely
NOM is not contending that it has the right to intervene Its application is based on the claim that it has members who
are too scared to be litigants themselves Okay if NOM in fact has such litigants they could seek a J ohn Doe
designation to ward against supposed retaliation
Of course that supposed retaliation is entirelyspeculative regardless of J ustice Thomas unsupported grousing And
as to the supposed county clerk retaliation is what we call the electoral process That means that if Michael let
NOM be the intervener he effectively would insert the federal judiciaryinto that el ectoral process
As to whether FRCP 24a otherwise is met with regard to the supposed wedding service planner and members who
voted for 36 how they possibly could have an interest after Hollingsworth eludes me If the claim is that the right is
based on their 1stA interests then that interest is personal to themand if protectable is protectable only with respect
to them individually not as a trump to deny the plaintiffs their constitutionally pr otected interest In other words if a
protectable 1st A interest exists for a private business or individual not to have to serve those same sex partners who
wish to marry that interest is protectable as an exception to the same sex partners own protected interest and can be
addressed as such
Lake J ames H Perriguey
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street
Portland Oregon 97205
T 503 227 1928
F 503 334 2340
http www law works com
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
Exhibit RR
Page 1 of 1
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 106 of 121
From Lake Perriguey
To Potter Sheila H
CC Lea Ann Easton Katharine VON TER STEGGE Tom J ohnson Misha Isaak J ennifer Middleton
J Middleton justicelawyers com J oyce Anna Mary Williams mary h williams msn com
Sent 5 10 2014 7 23 37 PM
Subject CONFERENCE CALL MONDAY AT 3
Assuming everyone is available Monday at 3
Call ininfo
Call innumber 1 862 902 0250
PIN 9166667
Lake J ames H Perriguey
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street
Portland Oregon 97205
T 503 227 1928
F 503 334 2340
http www law works com
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
On May 10 2014 at 10 46 AM Potter Sheila H sheila potter doj state or us wrote
Sure Monday between 3 and 5 would be best for me or I ve got some space on Tuesday but it s spottier
Sheila H Potter
Deputy Chief Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon Department of J ustice
On May 9 2014 at 5 09 PM Lea Ann Easton
LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com wrote
Yes When
Lea Ann
On May 9 2014 at 2 02 PM Katharine VON TER STEGGE katevts multco us mailto katevts multco us
wrote
Should we speak in advance of the Wednesday hearing to discuss our presentations and how to promote efficiency
Kate von Ter Stegge
Exhibit SS
Page 1 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 107 of 121
Senior Assistant County Attorney Multnomah County Attorney
501 SE Hawthorne Suite 500 Portland OR 97214
503 988 3138 503 988 3377 fax
katevts mailto katevts co multnomah or us multco us http multco us
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e mail may contain information that is privileged confidential or otherwise ex empt fromdisclosure under
applicable law If you are not the addressee or it appears fromthe context or otherwise that you have received this
e mail in error please advise me immediatelyby reply e mail keep the contents conf idential and immediatelydelete
the message and any attachments fromyour system
Exhibit SS
Page 2 of 2
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 108 of 121
From Lake Perriguey
To Lea Ann Easton Tom J ohnson Mary Williams J oyce Anna Potter Sheila H
Sent 5 12 2014 3 40 42 PM
Subject Collusion
To be clear the definition of a collusion is to act insecret toward fraudulent or illegal objective It might be helpful to
have the definition handy on Wednesday
http www law works com
Exhibit TT
Page 1 of 1
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 109 of 121
From Lake Perriguey
To Potter Sheila H
Sent 5 15 2014 5 22 40 PM
Subject Re Geiger Rummell CONFIDENTIAL proposed language
I ll think of you
http www law works com
On May 15 2014 at 5 15 PM Potter Sheila H sheila potter doj state or us wrote
In town but unfortunately alreadycommi ed to something that s been on the calendar for a long time
From Lake Perriguey mailto lake law works com
Sent Thursday May 15 2014 5 15 PM
To Potter Sheila H
Subject Re Geiger Rummell CONFIDENTIAL proposed language
Are you in town today and able to come by myparty
Lake J ames H Perriguey
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street
Portland Oregon 97205
T 503 227 1928
F 503 334 2340
http www law works com
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
On May 15 2014 at 5 14 PM Potter Sheila H sheila potter doj state or us wrote
Right I can t get this smile o myface been there since yesterday morning and Impreysure it s going
to be there for a while
From Lake Perriguey mailto lake law works com
Sent Thursday May 15 2014 5 12 PM
To Potter Sheila H
Subject Re Geiger Rummell CONFIDENTIAL proposed language
Thank you Reading this makes myheart do unexpected pulses
Lake J ames H Perriguey
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street
Portland Oregon 97205
Exhibit UU
Page 1 of 3
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 110 of 121
T 503 227 1928
F 503 334 2340
http www law works com
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
On May 15 2014 at 5 03 PM Potter Sheila H sheila potter doj state or us wrote
Proposed language for people to toss around and work from
ORDER
The Court having considered the Plaintis Motions for SummaryJ udgment ECF Nos 23and 42 the
County and Defendants Responses ECF Nos 48 and 64 and the arguments made by allparties in
support of their motions and responses the Court GRANTS the summary judgment motionsled by
Plaintis
The Court nds that there is no legitimate state interestthat would justify the denial of the benets
protections privileges obligations and responsibilities of marriageto same sex couples solely on the basis
that those couples are composed of two men or two women
NOW THEREFORE
The Court GRANTS the Motions for SummaryJ udgment ECF Nos 23 and 42 led by the plaintis ineach
of the two consolidated cases
The Court hereby DECLARES that Article 15 section 5A of the Oregon Constitution violates the Due
Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U S Constitution and that as
such it is void and unenforceable Defendants and their ocers agents and employees are
PERMANENTLY ENJ OINED fromenforcing Article 15 section 5A of the Oregon Constitution
The Court also DECLARES that ORS 106 010 ORS 106 041 1 and ORS 106 150 1 violate the Due Process
and Equal Protection Clauses and are unenforceable only to the extent that they would prohibit a person
frommarryinganother person of the same gender or would deny same sex couples the rights benets
privileges obligations and responsibilities of marriage where the couple would be otherwise qualied to
marryunder Oregon law Defendants and their ocers agents and employees are PERMANENTLY
ENJ OINED fromenforcing orapplying those statutes or any other state or local law regulation or
ordinance as the basis to deny marriage to same sex couples otherwise qualied to marry inOregon or to
deny those couples any of the rights benets privileges obligations and responsibilities that accompany
marriage inOregon
The Court nds that the State Defendants currently recognize same sex marriages legally performed in
other jurisdictions where those marriages are inall other respects valid under Oregon law The Court
DECLARES that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses require that recognition and that no state
or local law regulation orordinance can amount to any valid basis to deny recognition of a same sex
marriage validly performed inanother jurisdiction and ENJ OINS the County Defendantfromdenying that
recognition
Sheila H Potter
Deputy Chief Trial Counsel
Oregon Department of J ustice
1515 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 410 Exhibit UU
Page 2 of 3
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 111 of 121
Portland OR 97201
Phone 971 673 1880 FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e mail may contain information that is privileged confidential or otherwise ex empt fromdisclosure under
applicable law If you are not the addressee or it appears fromthe context or otherwise that you have received this
e mail in error please advise me immediatelyby reply e mail keep the contents conf idential and immediatelydelete
the message and any attachments fromyour system
Exhibit UU
Page 3 of 3
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 112 of 121
From Potter Sheila H
To Lea Ann Easton
Sent 5 19 2014 4 24 54 PM
Subject Re Motion for Emergency Stay Pending Appeal
Will see you a little after 6 30
Sheila H Potter
Deputy Chief Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon Department of J ustice
On May 19 2014 at 3 48 PM Lea Ann Easton
LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com wrote
I left you voice mail at Portland Office
From Potter Sheila H mailto sheila potter doj state or us
Sent Monday May 19 2014 1 08 PM
To Lea Ann Easton
Subject Re Motion for Emergency Stay Pending Appeal
Deal
Sheila H Potter
Deputy Chief Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon Department of J ustice
On May 19 2014 at 1 01 PM Lea Ann Easton
LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com
mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com 3e 3e wrote
Why don t we hang at my house see if Anna or Mary want to come too I am going to see if CP
will come up
Lea Ann
On May 19 2014 at 1 00 PM Potter Sheila H
sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter doj state or us
mailto sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter doj state or us 3e 3e wrote
Yes And then can I buy you one
Sheila H Potter
Deputy Chief Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon Department of J ustice
On May 19 2014 at 12 59 PM Lea Ann Easton
LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com
mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com 3e
mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com 3e 3e wrote
Can I buy you glass of wine tonight
Lea Ann
On May 19 2014 at 12 52 PM Potter Sheila H
sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter doj state or us
mailto sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter doj state or us 3e
mailto sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter doj state or us 3e 3e wrote
Exhibit VV
Page 1 of 5
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 113 of 121
The conclusion made me all teary and then I read it from the start and the conclusion made
me all teary all over again It s so good
Sheila H Potter
Deputy Chief Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon Department of J ustice
On May 19 2014 at 12 50 PM Lea Ann Easton
LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com
mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com 3e
mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com 3e
mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com 3e 3e wrote
Wow Did you read opinion
Lea Ann
On May 19 2014 at 11 54 AM J oyce Anna
anna joyce doj state or us mailto anna joyce doj state or us
mailto anna joyce doj state or us mailto anna joyce doj state or us 3e
mailto anna joyce doj state or us mailto anna joyce doj state or us 3e
mailto anna joyce doj state or us mailto anna joyce doj state or us 3e 3e wrote
Seems likely
From Lea Ann Easton mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com
Sent Monday May 19 2014 11 51 AM
To J oyce Anna
Cc Potter Sheila H
Subject Re Motion for Emergency Stay Pending Appeal
Will they file with Supreme Court
Lea Ann
On May 19 2014 at 11 11 AM J oyce Anna
anna joyce doj state or us mailto anna joyce doj state or us
mailto anna joyce doj state or us mailto anna joyce doj state or us 3e
mailto anna joyce doj state or us mailto anna joyce doj state or us 3e
mailto anna joyce doj state or us mailto anna joyce doj state or us 3e 3e wrote
From Lea Ann Easton mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com
Sent Monday May 19 2014 11 10 AM
To J oyce Anna
Cc Potter Sheila H
Subject Re Motion for Emergency Stay Pending Appeal
9th circuit denied it
Lea Ann
On May 19 2014 at 11 00 AM J oyce Anna
anna joyce doj state or us mailto anna joyce doj state or us
mailto anna joyce doj state or us mailto anna joyce doj state or us 3e
mailto anna joyce doj state or us mailto anna joyce doj state or us 3e
mailto anna joyce doj state or us mailto anna joyce doj state or us 3e 3e wrote
Yes indeed I ve got everything crossed that can be and am occasionally forgetting to
breathe
From Lea Ann Easton mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com
Sent Monday May 19 2014 11 00 AM
To J oyce Anna Potter Sheila H
Subject RE Motion for Emergency Stay Pending Appeal
Exhibit VV
Page 2 of 5
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 114 of 121
Fingers crossed
Lea Ann
From J oyce Anna mailto anna joyce doj state or us
Sent Sunday May 18 2014 9 57 AM
To Lea Ann Easton
Subject RE Motion for Emergency Stay Pending Appeal
Yeah that s the same thing I ve done Hoping to be able to file something as soon as possible
after they do to prevent an Idaho like stay from going into effect
Tomorrow is going to be insane
From Lea Ann Easton LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com
mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com 3e
mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com 3e
mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com 3e
Sent Sunday May 18 2014 9 32 AM
To J oyce Anna
Subject Re Motion for Emergency Stay Pending Appeal
No I have not I ve drafted barebones opposition with holes to fill in
I am wondering if they have to wait til McShane issues his order though because appeal of
motion to intervene is interlocutory appeal so it will likely be filed tomorrow at 12 02 pm
Lea Ann
Dorsay Easton LLP
Suite 440 1 SW Columbia
Portland OR 97258
503 790 9060
On May 18 2014 at 8 23 AM J oyce Anna anna joyce doj state or us
mailto anna joyce doj state or us 3e mailto anna joyce doj state or us
mailto anna joyce doj state or us 3e 3e mailto anna joyce doj state or us
mailto anna joyce doj state or us 3e 3e mailto anna joyce doj state or us 3e
mailto anna joyce doj state or us 3e 3e wrote
Have you seen this stay motion yet I have not
From Lea Ann Easton LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com
mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com 3e
mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com 3e
mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com 3e
mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com 3e
mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com 3e mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com 3e 3e
Sent Friday May 16 2014 3 23 PM
To J oyce Anna jmiddleton justicelawyers com mailto jmiddleton justicelawyers com
mailto jmiddleton justicelawyers com mailto jmiddleton justicelawyers com 3e
mailto jmiddleton justicelawyers com mailto jmiddleton justicelawyers com 3e
mailto jmiddleton justicelawyers com mailto jmiddleton justicelawyers com 3e
mailto jmiddleton justicelawyers com mailto jmiddleton justicelawyers com 3e
mailto jmiddleton justicelawyers com 3e mailto jmiddleton justicelawyers com 3e 3e
jenny m madkour multco us mailto jenny m madkour multco us mailto jenny m madkour multco us
mailto jenny m madkour multco us 3e mailto jenny m madkour multco us
mailto jenny m madkour multco us 3e mailto jenny m madkour multco us
mailto jenny m madkour multco us 3e mailto jenny m madkour multco us
mailto jenny m madkour multco us 3e mailto jenny m madkour multco us 3e
mailto jenny m madkour multco us 3e 3e katevts multco us mailto katevts multco us
mailto katevts multco us mailto katevts multco us 3e mailto katevts multco us
mailto katevts multco us 3e mailto katevts multco us mailto katevts multco us 3e
mailto katevts multco us mailto katevts multco us 3e mailto katevts multco us 3e
mailto katevts multco us 3e 3e lake law works com mailto lake law works com
mailto lake law works com mailto lake law works com 3e mailto lake law works com
Exhibit VV
Page 3 of 5
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 115 of 121
mailto lake law works com 3e mailto lake law works com mailto lake law works com 3e
mailto lake law works com mailto lake law works com 3e mailto lake law works com 3e
mailto lake law works com 3e 3e MIsaak perkinscoie com mailto MIsaak perkinscoie com
mailto MIsaak perkinscoie com mailto MIsaak perkinscoie com 3e
mailto MIsaak perkinscoie com mailto MIsaak perkinscoie com 3e
mailto MIsaak perkinscoie com mailto MIsaak perkinscoie com 3e
mailto MIsaak perkinscoie com mailto MIsaak perkinscoie com 3e
mailto MIsaak perkinscoie com 3e mailto MIsaak perkinscoie com 3e 3e Potter Sheila H
TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com mailto TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com mailto TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com
mailto TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com 3e mailto TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com
mailto TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com 3e mailto TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com
mailto TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com 3e mailto TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com
mailto TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com 3e mailto TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com 3e
mailto TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com 3e 3e rsaxe aclu org mailto rsaxe aclu org
mailto rsaxe aclu org mailto rsaxe aclu org 3e mailto rsaxe aclu org
mailto rsaxe aclu org 3e mailto rsaxe aclu org mailto rsaxe aclu org 3e
mailto rsaxe aclu org mailto rsaxe aclu org 3e mailto rsaxe aclu org 3e
mailto rsaxe aclu org 3e 3e sberman stollberne com mailto sberman stollberne com
mailto sberman stollberne com mailto sberman stollberne com 3e
mailto sberman stollberne com mailto sberman stollberne com 3e
mailto sberman stollberne com mailto sberman stollberne com 3e
mailto sberman stollberne com mailto sberman stollberne com 3e
mailto sberman stollberne com 3e mailto sberman stollberne com 3e 3e kdiaz aclu
or org mailto kdiaz aclu or org mailto kdiaz aclu or org mailto kdiaz aclu or org 3e
mailto kdiaz aclu or org mailto kdiaz aclu or org 3e mailto kdiaz aclu or org
mailto kdiaz aclu or org 3e mailto kdiaz aclu or org mailto kdiaz aclu or org 3e
mailto kdiaz aclu or org 3e mailto kdiaz aclu or org 3e 3e
mary h williams msn com mailto mary h williams msn com mailto mary h williams msn com
mailto mary h williams msn com 3e mailto mary h williams msn com
mailto mary h williams msn com 3e mailto mary h williams msn com
mailto mary h williams msn com 3e mailto mary h williams msn com
mailto mary h williams msn com 3e mailto mary h williams msn com 3e
mailto mary h williams msn com 3e 3e
Subject RE Motion for Emergency Stay Pending Appeal
I just spoke with Roger Harris They are working on the emergency stay and anticipate filing
it later today or tomorrow I told him Geiger plaintiffs oppose
From Roger Harris mailto roger hbclawyers com
Sent Friday May 16 2014 3 19 PM
To anna joyce doj state or us mailto anna joyce doj state or us
mailto anna joyce doj state or us mailto anna joyce doj state or us 3e
mailto anna joyce doj state or us mailto anna joyce doj state or us 3e
mailto anna joyce doj state or us mailto anna joyce doj state or us 3e
mailto anna joyce doj state or us mailto anna joyce doj state or us 3e
mailto anna joyce doj state or us 3e mailto anna joyce doj state or us 3e 3e
jmiddleton justicelawyers com mailto jmiddleton justicelawyers com
mailto jmiddleton justicelawyers com mailto jmiddleton justicelawyers com 3e
mailto jmiddleton justicelawyers com mailto jmiddleton justicelawyers com 3e
mailto jmiddleton justicelawyers com mailto jmiddleton justicelawyers com 3e
mailto jmiddleton justicelawyers com mailto jmiddleton justicelawyers com 3e
mailto jmiddleton justicelawyers com 3e mailto jmiddleton justicelawyers com 3e 3e
jenny m madkour multco us mailto jenny m madkour multco us mailto jenny m madkour multco us
mailto jenny m madkour multco us 3e mailto jenny m madkour multco us
mailto jenny m madkour multco us 3e mailto jenny m madkour multco us
mailto jenny m madkour multco us 3e mailto jenny m madkour multco us
mailto jenny m madkour multco us 3e mailto jenny m madkour multco us 3e
mailto jenny m madkour multco us 3e 3e katevts multco us mailto katevts multco us
mailto katevts multco us mailto katevts multco us 3e mailto katevts multco us
mailto katevts multco us 3e mailto katevts multco us mailto katevts multco us 3e
mailto katevts multco us mailto katevts multco us 3e mailto katevts multco us 3e
mailto katevts multco us 3e 3e lake law works com mailto lake law works com
mailto lake law works com mailto lake law works com 3e mailto lake law works com
mailto lake law works com 3e mailto lake law works com mailto lake law works com 3e
mailto lake law works com mailto lake law works com 3e mailto lake law works com 3e
mailto lake law works com 3e 3e Lea Ann Easton
MIsaak perkinscoie com mailto MIsaak perkinscoie com mailto MIsaak perkinscoie com
mailto MIsaak perkinscoie com 3e mailto MIsaak perkinscoie com
Exhibit VV
Page 4 of 5
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 116 of 121
mailto MIsaak perkinscoie com 3e mailto MIsaak perkinscoie com
mailto MIsaak perkinscoie com 3e mailto MIsaak perkinscoie com
mailto MIsaak perkinscoie com 3e mailto MIsaak perkinscoie com 3e
mailto MIsaak perkinscoie com 3e 3e
sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter doj state or us
mailto sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter doj state or us 3e
mailto sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter doj state or us 3e
mailto sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter doj state or us 3e
mailto sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter doj state or us 3e
mailto sheila potter doj state or us 3e mailto sheila potter doj state or us 3e 3e
TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com mailto TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com mailto TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com
mailto TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com 3e mailto TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com
mailto TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com 3e mailto TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com
mailto TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com 3e mailto TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com
mailto TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com 3e mailto TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com 3e
mailto TRJ ohnson perkinscoie com 3e 3e rsaxe aclu org mailto rsaxe aclu org
mailto rsaxe aclu org mailto rsaxe aclu org 3e mailto rsaxe aclu org
mailto rsaxe aclu org 3e mailto rsaxe aclu org mailto rsaxe aclu org 3e
mailto rsaxe aclu org mailto rsaxe aclu org 3e mailto rsaxe aclu org 3e
mailto rsaxe aclu org 3e 3e sberman stollberne com mailto sberman stollberne com
mailto sberman stollberne com mailto sberman stollberne com 3e
mailto sberman stollberne com mailto sberman stollberne com 3e
mailto sberman stollberne com mailto sberman stollberne com 3e
mailto sberman stollberne com mailto sberman stollberne com 3e
mailto sberman stollberne com 3e mailto sberman stollberne com 3e 3e kdiaz aclu
or org mailto kdiaz aclu or org mailto kdiaz aclu or org mailto kdiaz aclu or org 3e
mailto kdiaz aclu or org mailto kdiaz aclu or org 3e mailto kdiaz aclu or org
mailto kdiaz aclu or org 3e mailto kdiaz aclu or org mailto kdiaz aclu or org 3e
mailto kdiaz aclu or org 3e mailto kdiaz aclu or org 3e 3e
Subject Motion for Emergency Stay Pending Appeal
Dear Counsel
NOM anticipates filing a Motion for Emergency Stay Pending Appeal of the Order Denying
Intervention We will assume that all parties in the litigation object to or otherwise oppose
such a motion unless you advise me otherwise Please call if you have any questions Thank you
for your professional courtesies and consideration
Roger K Harris P C
HBC Logo Color sig
Attorneys and Counselors
T 503 968 1475 F 503 968 2003 D 503 596 2910 hbclawyers com http hbclawyers com
http hbclawyers com http hbclawyers com http hbclawyers com http
www hbclawyers com http www hbclawyers com 3e http www hbclawyers com 3e http
www hbclawyers com 3e 3e Bio http www hbclawyers com professionals roger k harris
http www hbclawyers com professionals roger k harris 3e http www hbclawyers com
professionals roger k harris 3e http www hbclawyers com professionals roger k harris
3e 3e vCard http www hbclawyers com vcard Harris Roger K VCFC Users Roger 20Harris
Documents Add in 20Express http www hbclawyers com vcard Harris Roger K VCFC Users
Roger 20Harris Documents Add in 20Express 3e http www hbclawyers com vcard Harris Roger
K VCFC Users Roger 20Harris Documents Add in 20Express 3e http www hbclawyers com vcard
Harris Roger K VCFC Users Roger 20Harris Documents Add in 20Express 3e 3e
5000 SW Meadows Road Suite 400 Lake Oswego OR 97035
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e mail may contain information that is privileged confidential or otherwise exempt
from disclosure under applicable law If you are not the addressee or it appears from the
context or otherwise that you have received this e mail in error please advise me immediately
by reply e mail keep the contents confidential and immediately delete the message and any
attachments from your system
Exhibit VV
Page 5 of 5
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 117 of 121
From Lake Perriguey
To Lea Ann Easton Potter Sheila H J ennifer Middleton J Middleton justicelawyers com
CC Misha Isaak Kevin Diaz kdiaz aclu or org J oyce Anna Mary Williams
mary h williams msn com Tom J ohnson Amanda Goad agoad aclu org
Sent 5 20 2014 8 53 44 AM
Subject GENDER ORDER
Attachments Order pdf
McShane chose to refer to same gender throughout his opinion and the Order
It is a more inclusive order because of this choice
Huge gratitude to everyone who advanced this case and especially today I appreciate the
vision and work and intelligence of the incredible women who looked to the US Constitution in
defending the State s position Sheila Mary Anna and our AG Ellen Thank you
Exhibit WW
Page 1 of 1
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 118 of 121
From Lake Perriguey
To Mary Williams mary h williams msn com
Sent 5 28 2014 9 53 59 AM
Subject NOM SCOTUS
Hi Mary
We are working on a response to the new motion for stay
Kennedy penned the dissent in Perry He reasoned that the question of who can challenge an initiative is based on
state law and if state law allows proponent of initiative to defend it that should be sufficient to confer Article III
standing to appeal
I do not know of any prior situation where the State has not defended a law but excellently defended its position
and where a voter tried to intervene in some way but maybe there were times when a v oter or petitioner wanted a
seat at the table anyway
Do you know if Oregon election law suggests that a voter who voted for an initiative in the past has standing under
state law to defend initiative
Lake J ames H Perriguey
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street
Portland Oregon 97205
T 503 227 1928
F 503 334 2340
http www law works com
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
Exhibit XX
Page 1 of 1
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 119 of 121
From Potter Sheila H
To Lake Perriguey
Sent 7 11 2014 9 57 05 AM
Subject RE Fees
Will do thanks
From Lake Perriguey mailto lake law works com
Sent Thursday J uly 10 2014 10 45 PM
To Potter Sheila H
Subject Fees
Sheila
When and if you articulate any rationale for our agreement to reduce my fees in addition to
any bases you may want to articulate I would like you to include as part of my willingness to
agree to the the reduced amount
In recognition of the Oregon tax payers who did not vote for Measure 36
Thank you
Lake J ames H Perriguey
Law Works LLC
1906 SW Madison Street
Portland Oregon 97205
T 503 227 1928
F 503 334 2340
http www law works com http www law works com
skype lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil J ustice
Exhibit YY
Page 1 of 1
Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 120 of 121
DECLARATION OF ROGER K. HARRIS
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Page 24

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 25, 2014, I electronically filed
Appellants DECLARATION OF ROGER K. HARRIS IN SUPPORT OF
PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC together with Exhibits A through YY
referenced therein with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. All
participants in this case are registered CM/ECF users and will be served by the
appellate CM/ECF system.

September 25, 2014


/s/ Roger K. Harris
Roger K. Harris
HARRIS BERNE CHRISTENSEN LLP

Attorney for Appellant
National Organization for Marriage, Inc.

Case: 14-35427 09/25/2014 ID: 9254741 DktEntry: 45 Page: 121 of 121