3:14-cv-00064 #171

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 171 Filed: 12/12/14 Page 1 of 15
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
VIRGINIA WOLF, et al.,

Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 14-C-00064-BBC
SCOTT WALKER, et al.,

Defendants.
DECLARATION OF JOHN KNIGHT IN SUPPORT OF

PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
I, John Knight, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, declare as follows:

1.
I submit this declaration in support of the motion filed by the Plaintiffs for an
award of attorney fees and costs arising from the work performed by attorneys, paralegals, and
other support staff at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Foundation, the ACLU of
Wisconsin Foundation, and Mayer Brown LLP in preparing, filing, and litigating the abovecaptioned case.
Personal Background
2.
In 1988, I graduated from the University of Chicago Law School, where I
received the Edwin F. Mandel Award for exceptional contributions to the legal aid program, in
both the quality of the work done and the conscientious exercise of legal aid responsibilities. I
received a bachelors degree in history from Stanford University in 1983, where I was a member
of Phi Beta Kappa.
3.
I am licensed as an attorney in the State of Illinois and admitted to practice in the
United States District Courts for the Northern and Central Districts of Illinois, the Western and
1
Eastern Districts of Wisconsin, the Eastern District of Michigan, the Seventh Circuit, and the
United States Supreme Court. I am a member of the trial bar of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois. I have had principal responsibility for litigation of matters
before each of these courts as well as before state courts in Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri and
Alaska. I was, for example, lead counsel for the plaintiffs in Fields v. Smith, 653 F.3d 550 (7th
Cir. 2011), in the Eastern District of Wisconsin and on appeal. I was also co-counsel with Larry
Dupuis in Helgeland v. Wisconsin Dept of Employee Trust Funds, a state constitutional
challenge to the exclusion of the same-sex partners of state employees from access to health
insurance coverage and other state benefits available to the spouses of different-sex couples, see
2008 WI 9, 307 Wis. 2d 1 (affirming denial of intervention), and represented amici in a
challenge to Wisconsins domestic partnership law. See Appling v. Walker, 2014 WI 96, 853
N.W.2d 888. I am currently lead counsel for the plaintiffs in Bassett v. Snyder, 2014 WL
5847607 (Nov. 12, 2014).
4.
Since March 2004, I have served as a Senior Staff Attorney for the the Lesbian
Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) & HIV Project of the American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation, which is the legal and educational arm of the national organization, the American
Civil Liberties Union. I am also the Director of LGBT & HIV Project of the Roger Baldwin
Foundation, the legal and educational arm of the ACLU of Illinois. My responsibilities include
the development and litigation of cases involving discrimination against LGBT persons and
persons with HIV in Illinois and other Midwest states. I provide direct representation and
consultation in these cases. I was employed as a trial attorney by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission from 2000 to 2004. From 1995 until 2000, I was a clinical lecturer at
the Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic of the University of Chicago, where I supervised law
students working on cases for persons who were homeless or at imminent risk of becoming
homeless and co-taught a course on LGBT rights. I worked as an associate at the Chicago law
firm of Rothschild, Barry & Myers from 1990 until 1995. Before that, I worked for two years as
a law clerk for Judge Hubert L. Will of the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.
5.
Since 1995, I have developed litigation specialties in the areas of civil rights and
civil liberties law. Over the past 19 years, I have provided trial and appellate representation in
numerous complex civil actions involving federal and state statutory and constitutional issues
arising in several areas, including employment discrimination, government benefits, housing
discrimination, parental rights, prisoner rights, health insurance and family leave benefits for
lesbian and gay male state employees, marriage for same-sex couples, and the rights of
transgender individuals to identity document consistent with their gender identity.
6.
I have lectured on the civil liberties and civil rights of LGBT persons in seminars
sponsored by educational institutions and legal organizations.

Management of this Litigation
7.
I have served as lead counsel in this case. Laurence J. (Larry) Dupuis from the
ACLU of Wisconsin Foundation also played a significant roles in deciding strategy questions
about the litigation of this case. James Esseks from the national ACLU was also involved in
important strategy questions, as were more senior lawyers from Mayer Brown. As lead counsel, I
worked with the other senior lawyers to decide what research needed to be done, to locate
clients, and to draft pleadings and discovery answers in the district court, on appeal, and before
the U.S. Supreme Court. As described in more detail below, our goal was to litigate the case
quickly, thoroughly and efficiently. I describe below the factual and legal research, the course of
the litigation, and outline and explain the legal work performed.
Pre-filing Work.
8.
Larry Dupuis from the ACLU of Wisconsin Foundation and the national ACLU
Foundations LGBT & HIV Project began the work to put together a freedom-to-marry case in
Wisconsin beginning in mid-November 2013. Marriage litigation was underway in a number of

federal district courts around the country after the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in United
States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013). However, the first federal court after Windsor to
reach a final decision that it was unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples marriage in a
contested case was a court from the District of Utah in Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1181
(D. Utah 2013). That case was decided on December 20, 2013, after the ACLU had already
begun researching a possible case and speaking to potential plaintiffs. The only marriage cases
filed in a federal court in the Seventh Circuit, Grey v. Orr, 4 F.Supp.3d 984 (N.D. Ill. 2014), and
Lee v. Orr, 2014 WL 683680 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 21, 2014), involved discrete challenges to the impact
of the Illinois marriage ban on same-sex Illinois couples prior to the effective date of the Illinois
marriage equality statute, where neither the defendant nor the intervenor Illinois Attorney
General contested the unconstitutionality of the ban on marriage for same-sex couples.
9.
Larry Dupuis, at the ACLU of Wisconsin Foundation, and I concluded that
assistance from a large firm was important given the complexity of the case and the need to
litigate the case quickly in order to protect our clients interests. As indicated in Larry Dupuis
declaration, two large Wisconsin firms had already declined his request to work on similar cases
involving LGBT rights. After two other large Wisconsin firms declined Larrys request that they
serve as pro bono counsel in this case, we decided to request assistance from a Chicago firm. I
spoke to attorneys at Mayer Brown, a Chicago-based national law firm that had worked on other
LGBT litigation with the ACLU, including marriage litigation in state court in Illinois. Mayer
Brown agreed to be cooperating counsel in the case and assembled a team of partners and
associates, two of whom had worked on the prior marriage litigation. Given the likelihood that
the case would ultimately be appealed to the Supreme Court, the team also included a senior
partner in the firms Supreme Court and Appellate Practice group.
10.
Soon after Mayer Brown agreed to be co-counsel, I shared with Mayer Brown
pleadings and research from other cases. Mayer Brown had already conducted extensive research
regarding the constitutionality of denying marriage to same-sex couples for the Illinois marriage
case. However, that research focused on arguments under the Illinois Constitution. Plaintiffs
counsel necessarily spent time: on legal research pertaining to their challenge of the Wisconsin
ban on marriage for same-sex couples and their federal constitutional claims under Seventh
Circuit law, even as the law was rapidly developing in other districts; and on factual
investigation, including numerous interviews with clients and potential clients; and on drafting
and revising a complaint.
11.
Pre-filing research addressed: questions regarding standing and abstention, and
the proper Wisconsin officials to name as defendants; Wisconsin state law questions regarding
marriage, the marriage evasion statute, marriage comity, the legislative and constitutional history
behind Wisconsins constitutional and statutory marriage bans; questions about Wisconsin law
involving parental rights, such as the presumption of parenthood, second-parent adoption, and
the rights of step-parents; due process and equal protection research focusing on Seventh Circuit
decisions, including sex stereotyping research and research regarding the level of scrutiny
applicable to sexual orientation discrimination; research regarding spousal rights under
Wisconsin law as compared to the rights of domestic partners; and research regarding the
preliminary injunction standard as it applied to access to spousal rights in Wisconsin.
District Court Proceedings.
12.
Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint [Dkt #1] on February 3, 2014, and an
amended complaint [Dkt #26], adding several additional plaintiffs and defendants, on February
27, 2014. The amended complaint was accompanied by a motion for a preliminary injunction
[Dkt #27] and supportive declarations. Plaintiffs 48-page preliminary injunction brief set forth
their principal arguments for relief. [Dkt #29.] A date of March 27, 2014, for a hearing on the
preliminary injunction was initially set by the Court, but on March 4, 2014, the Court issued an
Order [Dkt #53] suggesting that, rather than litigating a preliminary injunction (which the Court
thought would likely have to be stayed), the case should be set for expedited summary judgment
proceedings and (if necessary) trial. Plaintiffs agreed to the Courts proposal on March 11, 2014,
and suggested a summary judgment briefing schedule that would have concluded on April 24,
2014. [Dkt #55.]
Defendants move to stay the case.
13.
On March 14, 2014, state defendants filed a motion seeking Pullman or Burford
abstention and/or a stay of proceedings in the case. [Dkt #57.] Plaintiffs responded to the motion
on March 18, 2014 [Dkt #60]. The Court ultimately denied the motion to abstain and stay on
March 24, 2014. [Dkt #92.] Defendants motion was premised in part on the unusual arguments
that the Wisconsin Supreme Courts decision in Appling v. Walker would impact the courts
analysis in this case and that plaintiffs failure to sue all Wisconsin county clerks would result in
confusion regarding access to marriage. Although plaintiffs believed the arguments had no merit,
both arguments were novel ones and required additional research for plaintiffs to be able to
respond.
Defendants seek discovery.
14.
Also on March 18, the Court held a pretrial scheduling conference. Although the
plaintiffs had stated their belief that discovery was unnecessary, the defendants said they needed
it. The Magistrate Judge expressed doubt about state defendants asserted need for discovery but
established a scheduling order [Dkt #68] allowing time for discovery and establishing a summary
judgment briefing schedule that extended to May 19, 2014, so that defendants would have
discovery responses before having to respond to plaintiffs summary judgment motion.
Defendants move to dismiss.
15.
On March 20, 2014, state defendants filed a motion to dismiss [Dkt #66],
accompanied by a 31-page brief [Dkt #67] arguing that certain defendants should be dismissed,
that plaintiffs claims were insufficiently specific under the Iqbal/Twombly pleading standards,
that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses, and that
the Supreme Courts 1973 summary dismissal in Baker v. Nelson foreclosed plaintiffs claims.
Plaintiffs filed their 32-page response brief on April 10, 2014. [Dkt #95.] On April 30, 2014, the
Court denied the motion to dismiss in part, granted dismissal as to some but not all of the
defendants that the state defendants argued should be dismissed, and reserved judgment on the
arguments in the motion that overlapped the summary judgment briefing. [Dkt #97.] As with
defendants motion to stay, defendants motion to dismiss had little merit. However, its novel
argument that plaintiffs were required to name every one of the several hundred laws addressing
the rights and obligations of spouses required significant time to address.
16.
On March 24, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their motion for summary judgment and
supporting pleadings. [Dkt #70 et seq.] Plaintiffs brief in support [Dkt #71] was 40 pages in
length.
Defendants seek expansive information through discovery.
17.
On or about March 26, 2014, state defendants sent plaintiffs counsel a set of 12
interrogatories, a set of 33 requests to admit, and 9 requests for production of documents and
things. On April 1, 2014, state defendants served another set of five interrogatories, bringing the
total number of interrogatories to 17. Although some of these 59 discrete discovery requests
were directed only to selected plaintiffs, most required responses by all 16 plaintiffs. Defendants
asked plaintiffs to identify all Wisconsin constitutional provisions, statutes, and administrative
rules that comprise the marriage ban and to [i]dentify all harms [Plaintiffs] are alleging as a
result of [their] claims that the marriage ban . . . is unconstitutional. Among other things,
defendants sought plaintiffs applications for domestic partnership and marriage, along with
supporting documentation such as birth certificates, powers of attorney, and adoption and
guardianship documentation.
18.
Another example is this request in defendants second set of interrogatories:
Has any Plaintiff, within the last seven years, ever claimed, requested, or received
any benefit, right or obligation with respect to your partner under either federal,
state or municipal law, including all applicable tax codes (e.g., marital deduction,
health savings accounts tax benefits, social security benefits, adoption tax credit,
etc.)? If so, for each, identify the benefit, right or obligation claimed, requested or
received; when it was claimed, requested or received; from whom it was claimed,
requested or received (e.g., federal, state); and, if quantifiable, its value. If your
claim or request was denied at any time for any reason, please identify the claim
or request, when it was denied, who denied it, and describe in detail all factual
bases for the denial.
19.
Responding to this and the other discovery requests required extensive legal
research, multiple telephone calls, emails and meetings with plaintiffs to obtain information and
responsive documents. Plaintiffs counsel sent 16 sets of answers to defendants first
interrogatories on April 16, 18, 21 and 23. Plaintiffs produced documents for inspection by
defendants counsel on April 17, 2014, scanned identified documents and sent them by federal
express on April 21, 2014, and supplemented production thereafter. Responses to requests to
admit were sent on April 28, 2014, and responses to defendants second interrogatories were sent
on April 28 and 29, 2014.
Defendants extensive response to plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.
20.
On May 9, 2014, state defendants filed their opposition to summary judgment,
including a 62-page brief [Dkt #102] and more than 300 pages of appendices [Dkt #102-1 to
102-3]. Defendants raised a litany of arguments against plaintiffs claims, including the entirely
novel argument that marriage was a positive right that the constitution does not protect. [Dkt
#102 at 18-36.] In 62 pages of briefing, however, Defendants mention only two of Plaintiffs
discovery responses: two of the plaintiffs admission that they subjectively considered
themselves married, despite Wisconsins refusal to recognize their marriage. [Dkt #102 at 40.]
21.
On May 20, 2014, plaintiffs filed their reply brief in support of summary
judgment and their responses to defendants statement of facts. [Dkt #111.] A substantial portion
8
of the brief was devoted to responding to defendants novel positive rights argument, as well
as to a number of other arguments presented in defendants opposition. Plaintiffs were also
required to review the articles and policy statements included in defendants appendices and
conduct research to respond to them. In addition, plaintiffs had to review the arguments and
articles cited by amicus Julaine Appling and respond to them.
Defendants motion to stay.
22.
On May 23, 2014, state defendants filed a contingent motion to stay relief if
the district court grant[ed] Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and enjoin[ed] enforcement
of Wisconsins marriage laws. [Dkt #114 at 2.] Plaintiffs filed their opposition on May 30,
2014. [Dkt #117.]
23.
On June 6, 2014, this Court issued an 88-page opinion and order granting
plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and declaring Wisconsins ban on marriage for samesex couples unconstitutional. [Dkt #118.] The Court found, as plaintiffs argued, that the ban
violated plaintiffs right to marry under the Due Process Clause and their right to equal
protection by discriminating against them based on their sexual orientation. The Court did not
resolve plaintiffs argument that the ban impermissibly discriminated based on sex, delin[ing] to
wade into this jurisprudential thicket. [Dkt #118 at 48.] The Court directed the plaintiffs to
submit a proposed injunction and held defendants request for a conditional stay until an
injunction issued. [Dkt #118 at 87-88.]
24.
When county clerks began issuing marriage licenses later that afternoon,
defendants filed an emergency motion for a stay with this Court. [Dkt #119.] The Court
scheduled a hearing on that motion for the afternoon of June 9, 2014. Prior to the hearing, the
state defendants filed their notice of appeal [Dkt #120] and an emergency motion for a stay in the
Seventh Circuit. After the hearing, this Court declined to stay the June 6 opinion and order. [Dkt
#125.] The Court of Appeals, meanwhile, issued an order directing the parties to file memoranda
addressing the courts jurisdiction over a non-final order. [CoA Dkt #4.]
25.
Plaintiffs filed their proposed permanent injunction later that evening. [Dkt #126.]
On June 11, 2014, Defendants filed a 13-page opposition to the proposed injunction. [Dkt #128.]
Plaintiffs filed their memorandum on appellate jurisdiction with the Seventh Circuit that evening.
[CoA Case No. 14-2266, Dkt #15-1.] On June 12, plaintiffs filed with this Court their reply
submissions in support of a proposed injunction. [Dkt #132.]
26.
On June 13, 2014, this Court held a hearing on the proposed injunction and
defendants request for a stay. Later that afternoon, the Court issued an order granting a
permanent injunction, but staying all relief pending appeal. [Dkt #134.] On June 16, 2014, state
defendants voluntarily dismissed their appeal. [Dkt #135.] This Court entered its judgment on
June 19, 2014. [Dkt #136.] Defendants, however, did not file a notice of appeal promptly.
Accordingly, because plaintiffs were negatively impacted by the delay, plaintiffs moved on July
3 to lift the stay pending defendants filing a new notice of appeal, if any.
27.
As this chronology illustrates, although the case was filed in February 2014 and
resolved by way of summary judgment less than six months later, it involved extensive work by
plaintiffs counsel in that short time, much of it necessitated by the state defendants aggressive
tactics.
Appellate Proceedings
28.
Defendants filed their notice of appeal (this time of a final judgment) on July 10,
2014. The next day, plaintiffs moved to expedite briefing and consolidate the appeal with Baskin
v. Bogan, a case challenging Indianas statutory ban on marriage for same-sex couples. The
Court of Appeals granted the motion.
29.
On July 16, 2014, defendants petitioned for initial hearing of the appeal en banc.
[CoA Case No. 14-2526, Dkt #16.] Plaintiffs filed their opposition to hearing en banc on July 21,
2014. [CoA Dkt #29.] On July 25, 2014, the Court of Appeals denied the petition [CoA Case No.
10
14-2386, Dkt #99] and set oral argument for August 26, 2014. [CoA Case No. 14-2526, Dkt #621.]
30.
On July 23, 2014, defendants filed their 65-page opening brief and appendices.
[CoA Dkt #53.] They reprised nearly all of their arguments below, including their novel
positive rights and federalism arguments, adopted by reference a number of the arguments
from 5 sections (I.A., I.B., II.B., III.B., and III.C.) of the Indiana defendants brief in Baskin, and
added an argument that this Courts injunction and declaratory judgment were improper under
Rule 65.
31.
Plaintiffs filed their brief on August 4, 2014 [Dkt #92], and defendants filed their
32-page reply brief on August 11, 2014 [Dkt #153]. Dozens of amicus briefs were also filed in
the combined Baskin and Wolf appeals. Plaintiffs counsel had two weeks to prepare for oral
argument, which was set for the same day as oral argument in Baskin. Given the stakes in the
litigation, plaintiffs counsel appropriately scheduled multiple moots, including one that included
counsel in Baskin, as part of their preparation. Oral argument in Wolf took place on August 26,
2014, before the same panel as and immediately following the one hour argument in Baskin.
32.
The Court of Appeals issued its decision on September 4, 2014. [CoA Case No.
14-2386, Dkt #212.] The Wisconsin defendants petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari on
September 9, 2014. Plaintiffs responded to the petition later that day.
33.
On October 6, 2014, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Wolf.
34.
Again, this chronology of appellate proceedings reflects a very compressed time-
frame, necessitating an all-hands-on-deck approach to drafting and preparation. The necessary

coordination with Baskin and the defendants unusual request for initial hearing en banc further
complicated the appellate process and required additional time.
Complexity and risks involved in litigation.
35.
At the time plaintiffs filed this case, no federal court of appeals had decided
11
whether the fundamental right to marry extended to same-sex couples and only two federal
circuits had found that sexual orientation classifications were entitled to a heightened level of
constitutional review.
36.
The Seventh Circuit had not addressed the question whether the fundamental right
to marry extended to same-sex couples, and the last time the Seventh Circuit had examined the
level of constitutional review applicable to sexual orientation classifications it adopted rational
basis review standard. The questions whether Wisconsins marriage ban should be reviewed
under a heightened level of review because it is a sexual orientation and sex classification or a
more search rational basis level of review are complicated and important ones. At the time we
filed this case, it was far from certain that we would prevail.
37.
Defendants litigation decisions to file multiple motions in the trial court, conduct
discovery, assert novel arguments, and make multiple motions to prevent marriages from
occurring as a result of the judgment increased the substantive and procedural complexity of
plaintiffs counsels work in the trial court and the Court of Appeals, and thus the time required
to competently prosecute the action. In addition, the developments in other marriage litigation
and in particular the cases moving forward in Indiana made it essential that plaintiffs take steps
to expedite the litigation process in order to protect their clients interests in the prompt and
successful resolution of this case.
38.
I have fulfilled my responsibilities as lead counsel for this case by adopting cost-
efficient approaches to staffing and the assignment of tasks. I shared briefs and other information
from other marriage cases with the Mayer Brown attorneys who were conducting the research for
this case and taking the primary responsibility for writing the first drafts of briefs, discovery and
declarations. Plaintiffs counsel used phone conferences to discuss strategy and assign the
drafting and research tasks to those who were available to do them promptly.
12
Personal Time
39.
I have reviewed my files in this case, including the time records that I
contemporaneously maintained during the course of my involvement in this case. The Schedule
of Services attached as Exhibit A to this fee petition is a true and accurate reflection of
professional services reasonably rendered by me to the Plaintiffs in this litigation, with details
concerning the hours expended and the type of services provided, less the exclusions described
below.
Preparation of this Fee and Cost Claim
40.
I exercised reasonable billing judgment in determining the amount of the attorney
fees that Plaintiffs are requesting for their attorneys services through December 12 to ensure that
the time listed in these fee records for which we are seeking compensation is reasonable in light
of the tasks counsel were required to complete expeditiously. I have reviewed all of the
attorneys contemporaneous time records for the services rendered in this case. After reviewing
those records, I eliminated all non-productive and non-essential time, as well as all duplicative
time. As a result, I wrote off my time spent speaking to the press about the case, drafting press
statements and preparing to speak to reporters, including the press conference held at the time we
filed this case. I also wrote off my time spent on marriage implementation issues. In addition, I
wrote off 10.25 hours of time for the more junior Mayer Brown lawyers who were present for
conference calls. I wrote off 55.25 hours of time for some of the lawyers who participated in and
assisted with moot arguments but were not one of the lawyers who worked on other aspects of
the case or were more junior lawyers on the team. I wrote off 21.25 hours for the time of the
lawyers who attended the argument with the exception of the time for James Esseks, myself and
Larry Dupuis and 2.25 hours of time Mayer Brown lawyers spent on press-related issues. I wrote
off 7.5 additional hours for the time of Mayer Brown attorneys spent on research or other work
not directly related to the litigation of this case. I also wrote off some of the time lawyers spent
13
on the fee petition, including 2.8 hours for James Esseks and 4.00 hours for Frank Dickerson.
Plaintiffs have written off several hours of time for Steven Shapiro, legal director for the ACLU,
Harvey Grossman, legal director of the ACLU of Illinois, for law interns (110.00 hours), and for
Chris Hampton who interviewed potential plaintiffs under the direction of counsel (79.5 hours).
In addition, Larry Dupuis wrote off 22.31 hours of his time, as shown in his time records. See
chart of some of the hours written off at Exhibit B. More than 314.36 hours, or over 11 percent
of the total hours worked on the case have been eliminated from the fee application through the
exercise of billing judgment. Plaintiffs anticipate filing a supplementary application for the
additional hours spent in responding to defendants arguments in their reply brief.
Hourly Rate
41.
I request a rate of $450 per hour for my legal services. This rate was set by
outside general counsel for the ACLU of Illinois and is based on market rates and court awards
for attorneys with similar experience in similar litigation in the Chicago legal market. In 2012,
the court in K.L. v. State of Alaska, Dept. of Admin, Division of Motor Vehicles, Case No. 3AN11-05431 CI (Alas. Super. Ct.), approved a $375 hourly rate for my work on that case. (See
order, attached as Exhibit C). In 2012, I was also awarded fees based on a $375 hourly rate in
Grey v. Hasbrouk, 11 CH 17091 (Circuit Ct. of Cook County).
Litigation expenses
42.
The litigation expenses incurred by the ACLU Foundation are itemized in Exhibit
D and total $2,779.08, of which $417 is included on Plaintiffs Bill of Costs.

Settlement efforts
43.
In an effort to reach an agreement with the defendants regarding the fees and
expenses sought by counsel for plaintiffs, plaintiffs provided itemized billing records to
defendants on October 29 and prepared for and participated in a mediation before Magistrate
Judge Peter Oppeneer on November 24. Unfortunately, counsel were not able to reach
14
agreement.
I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
DATE:
December 12, 2014
/ John A. Knight
John A. Knight
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project
180 North Michigan Ave., Ste. 2300
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 201-9740
jaknight@aclu.org
15
Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc
Document #: 171-1 Filed: 12/12/14 Page 1 of 9
JohnA.Knight(ACL U ofIL )W olfv.W alkerAttorney T im e
EXHIBIT A
A ttorney
Date
M atter
T im e
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
12/23/2013 W olfv.W alker

0.30
1.20
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
12/31/2013
12/31/2013
12/31/2013
1/2/2014
1/2/2014
1/3/2014
1/3/2014
1/3/2014
1/6/2014
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
1.00
1.00
0.70
0.40
0.30
0.50
0.20
0.30
2.50
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
1/6/2014
1/6/2014
1/8/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.40
0.30
1.00
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
1/8/2014
1/8/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.60
0.40
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
1/8/2014
1/9/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.60
2.10
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
1/10/2014
1/11/2014
1/11/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.30
0.30
0.40
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
1/14/2014
1/14/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
1.00
0.80
JohnKnight
1/14/2014
W olfv.W alker
2.00
JohnKnight
1/14/2014
W olfv.W alker
2.30
JohnKnight
1/15/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.70
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
1/17/2014
1/18/2014
1/29/2014
1/30/2014
1/30/2014
1/30/2014
1/30/2014
1/30/2014
1/31/2014
1/31/2014
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
0.20
0.20
0.40
1.00
2.20
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.30
1.40
JohnKnight
1/31/2014
W olfv.W alker
2.20
JohnKnight
2/2/2014
W olfv.W alker
2.20
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
2/3/2014
2/4/2014
2/4/2014
2/4/2014
2/4/2014
2/4/2014
W
W
W
W
W
W
0.10
0.20
0.60
0.40
0.60
0.30
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
No
Charge
Description
w orkoncasem em o
review ed chartofW isconsincouplesand m adenotesrepossible
plaintiffs
Callw ithL arry & CH repltfs,staffing,m essaging& tim ing
Conferencecallw ithL arry,CH,DC & AH
drafte-m ailsum m arizingcallrew aystolocateplaintiffs
e-m ailsw ithCH repossibleplaintiffs
Confcallw ithL arry
researchreproperdefendants,e-m ailL arry,
em ailsw ithL arry recooperatinglaw firm s
e-m ailsw ithCH reeffortstofind plaintiffs
draftm em ooutliningcaseplanningsteps,initialresearchtopics,
possibledefendants
callsrepossiblevolunteerfirm s
confCallw ithL arry & Jam esEsseks
e-m ailsw ithpossibleplaintiffreothercouplessheknow s;research
regardingproperdefendant
e-m aillarry repossibledefendants,researchtopics
em ailsw ithDC repossibleplaintiffs,calltoBW refriendsinW isc
Confcallw ithL arry & CH replaintiffs
Callw ithCH repossibleplaintiffs;e-m ailsw ithCH and L arry re
possiblecouples;additionalresearchregardingproperdefendant
and personholdingtheofficecurrently
e-m ailsand review CH'schartrecouples
e-m ailtoL oriere7C interventionresearch
Draftm em oreinitialresearchtopics,collectm odelbriefsforM ayer
Brow n
P honeconfw ithCH & L arry
preparedraftcooperatingattorney agreem ent& form retainer
P repareform eetingw ithM ayerBrow nreresearchand other
preparationsforfiling.
Conf.w ithL arry,M ark,Hans,Gretchen,B.Kleinand M .Andersonre
research,casestrategy,preparationsforfiling.
review CH'snotesreplaintiffcouples,e-m ailL arry aboutthem and
conflicts
e-m ailsreplaintiff-finding
e-m ailsreplaintiff-finding
Confcallw ithJam es& L arry
Confcallw ithKaty,Judi,L arry and Gretchen
review draftcom plaint,edit
Confcallw ithGretchen& L arry
e-m ailsreretainers
review plaintiffallegationsand suggestedits& com m ents
Confcallw ithL arry retim ing(confinJam es)
Confcallw ithGretchen,L arry,Hans& Chiprerevisionstocom plaint
review com plaint,suggestedits,e-m ailsw ithGretchenand L arry
aboutchanges
review com plaintagainforfinaledits,respond toGretchen's
questionsby e-m ail
review form seekingreassignm ent
Confcallw ithS arah& L arry reedits/corrections
Confcallw ithGretchen& L arry
e-m ailstofam ily law yerreadoptionissues
Callw ithL arry,Kristen& CH
callw ithL arry
P age1
Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc
A ttorney
Date
M atter
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
T im e
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
2/5/2014
2/6/2014
2/6/2014
2/7/2014
2/10/2014
2/11/2014
2/14/2014
2/14/2014
2/18/2014
2/18/2014
2/18/2014
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
0.30
0.50
0.90
0.10
0.30
0.70
0.20
0.10
0.60
0.60
1.20
JohnKnight
2/19/2014
W olfv.W alker
4.80
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
2/19/2014
2/19/2014
2/20/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
1.40
0.80
2.50
JohnKnight
2/21/2014
W olfv.W alker
2.80
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
2/21/2014
2/22/2014
2/23/2014
2/23/2014
2/24/2014
2/24/2014
2/24/2014
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
0.40
0.30
1.10
0.30
0.30
0.40
2.30
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
2/25/2014
2/25/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.50
2.80
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
2/25/2014
2/26/2014
2/26/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.70
1.50
3.20
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
2/26/2014
2/26/2014
2/27/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.40
0.60
1.80
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
2/27/2014
2/28/2014
3/3/2014
3/4/2014
3/5/2014
3/5/2014
W
W
W
W
W
W
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
0.10
1.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
1.00
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
3/6/2014
3/6/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
1.10
1.00
JohnKnight
3/10/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.50
JohnKnight
3/11/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.70
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
No
Charge
Description
calltocouplew earenotusing
Confcallw ithL arry & HeatherHazelw ood
callw ithCH and L arry refindingadditionalplaintiffs
callw ithL arry
review CH'notesreKam i& Karina
Confcallw ithL arry,CH & DC
callCH repossiblenew couple
callw ithL arry replaintiffs/discovery
Confcallw /L arry,CH & DC
Confcallw ithL arry & Gretchen
Callw ithJohannes& Keith,e-m ailinterview notes,e-m ailsw ith
Jam es,L arry
review & editdraftP Ibrief,researchrepresum ptionofparentage
otherparentingissues,e-m ailsre9C heightened scrutiny case
review and editdraftdeclarations
Confcallw ithL arry,Gretchen& HansreP Ibrief
review additionaldeclarations,new draftofbrief,e-m ailsw ith
clientsforapprovalofdeclarations
review new draftofbrief,revised declarations,e-m ailsw ithclients
forapprovalofnew plaintiffsand ofw ordingofdeclarations,e-m ail
readditionalchanges
Confcallw ithCH & L arry
Callw ithL arry & CH reJohannes& Keith
Confcallw ithL arry,GretchenH & S teveS anders
review CH'snotesforBilland Dean
Confcallw ithBill& Dean(and L arry & Gretchen)
review and editsBilland Deanfacts
review revisionsondeclaration,argum entreJohannesand Keith,
edit
callw ithBill
additionalreview ofbriefand revised declarationsfornew plaintiffs
(bill& dean)
Callw ithJohannes& Keithredeclaration
review & editstatem entoffacts
review & editsam ended com plaint,review new versionofbrief
review P am & S alud factsand suggestedits
Conferencecallw ithL arry and GH
review latestversion,review resultsofcitecheck,additionalm inor
edits
e-m ailsrecasereassignm ent
Discussnextstepsw ithGretchenand L arry.
Follow upw ithGretchenrenextsteps.
Callw ithGretchenreCrabb orderonexpedited schedule.
Callw ith3 asstAGs,JD,GH reagreem entnottoprosecute.
P honeconferencew ithF.Dickerson,H.Germ ann,G.Helfrich,M .
Andersonand B.Kleinreprelim inary injunctionand sum m ary
judgm entissues.
Callw ithVirginiaand CarolreP I;drafte-m ailtoclients
Conferencew ithF.Dickerson,G.Helfrichand L .Dupuisreopposition
toam icusbrief.
review proposed stipulation,callw ithAG,e-m ailsw ithco-counselre
scopeofstipulation
calland e-m ailsw ithAG,review and editsupplem entalbrieftoget
ready forfiling
P age2
Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc
A ttorney
Date
M atter
T im e
No
Charge
Description
JohnKnight
3/12/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.80
P lanningcallw ithGH and L D reR ule26 m eetingw ithcounsel,S J

evidentiary questions,follow upe-m ailsregardingschedulingand
w hotoinclude,discussionofuseofsam edeclarationsforM forS J
JohnKnight
3/12/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.80
callreJ.Crabb'sdenialofM forP Iand any harm adenialcould

present,e-m ailsregardingresearchtasksand review e-m ailresults.
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
3/12/2014
3/12/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
1.00
1.50
JohnKnight
3/13/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.80
JohnKnight
3/13/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.70
Callw ithGretchenand L arry reschedulingconference.

Callw ithF.Dickerson,L .Dupuis,H.Germ ann,G.Helfrich,M .
Andersonand B.Kleinresum m ary judgm entreply.
Conferencecallw ithGH and L D reP T C w ithm agistrate,e-m ailsre
m eeting
R eview draftreport,R ule26,suggestoneedit,e-m ailtoGH and L D.
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
3/14/2014
3/14/2014
3/14/2014
3/14/2014
3/14/2014
3/14/2014
3/14/2014
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.80
0.30
0.80
0.50
JohnKnight
3/14/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.20
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
3/16/2014
3/17/2014
3/17/2014
3/18/2014
3/18/2014
3/19/2014
3/19/2014
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
0.30
0.50
0.40
0.40
0.50
0.90
0.50
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
3/20/2014
3/20/2014
3/21/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.10
1.40
0.90
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
3/21/2014
3/23/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.60
2.90
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
3/23/2014
3/23/2014
3/24/2014
3/24/2014
W
W
W
W
alker
alker
alker
alker
0.20
0.60
0.70
0.30
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
3/25/2014
3/26/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.30
0.40
JohnKnight
3/26/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.30
JohnKnight
3/26/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.90
JohnKnight
3/26/2014
W olfv.W alker
1.30
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
3/26/2014
3/26/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.20
1.10
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
review m agisstatem entrerequired pretrialreport

review D'sM tostay and brief
Callw ithL D,GH,Hansand Chipreabstentionargum ents
Callw ithallpartiesregardingR ule26 reportand scheduling
review GH'srevised draft,callw ithGH and L D refinalizing
review W V opinion,P laintiffs'response,AG'sargum ent
Callw ithHans,Chip,Harvey,L D reprivity,classcertification,how to
respond toabstentionargum ents.
pulltogetherm aterialsfrom othercasesregardingtheseissuesto
send toHans
Initialreview ofdraftresponsetoM tostay
review rule26 report,review responsetoM tostay
editstoresponsetostatedefendants'm tostay
Confcallw ithL arry
Confcallw ithL arry & GretchenHelfrich
R eview ofdraftM forS J
preparationcallw ithL D,GH reschedulingconf;schedulingconf
e-m ailsrerecord citationform at
review and editM forS Jbrief
review abstentionreply,m otiontodism iss,and callw ithL D and GH
renextsteps
review and editstatem entoffacts
review draftoffacts,review and add editsand com m entstoL arrry's
refacts,review DeBoerdecision,add citestoittobrief,add
com m entsand editstobrief,e-m ailsrehow toaddressriskof
prosecution
review GH'sproposed footnoteand suggestedits
review M todism iss,e-m ailsreEx P arteYoungresearch
finalreview ofM forS Jbrief,callw ithGH reM
review otherbriefsand m otionsrebestw ay toform ulaterequest
forreliefinM otion
read m todism iss
com pletereadingM todism issand rulinginHarrisondism issal
e-m ailsreotherbriefsand m em osreEx P arteYoungand Iqbal,reread M todism iss
draftletterreseekingquickerbriefingscheduleforothersto
consider
conferencererespondingtoM todism iss,seekingquickerschedule
onM forS J,initialdisclosures--w ithL D,GH,Hans,Chip,Becca.
quickread ofrogsfrom D
Confcallw ithL arry,Gretchen,Chip,Hans& Becca
P age3
Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc
A ttorney
Date
M atter
T im e
No
Charge
Description
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
3/27/2014
3/27/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.30
1.20
JohnKnight
3/27/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.20
review & editinitialdisclosuredraft

review rogs,researchrecontentionrogs,callw ithL D and GH re
answ ers
e-m ailtojohannesand keithretalkingaboutrogansw erN o.4
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
3/27/2014
3/27/2014
3/28/2014
3/31/2014
3/31/2014
W
W
W
W
W
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
0.50
0.80
0.30
0.20
0.80
reviseresponsetorog11.
Confcallw ithL arry & GretchenH reinterrogatories
callw ithL arry,confKarina(& Kam i)
e-m ailsrestatem entofFsforstateDs.
review docsrem arriagebenefits,callw ithKeithand Johannes
JohnKnight
4/1/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.90
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
4/1/2014
4/1/2014
4/1/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
1.10
0.30
0.50
JohnKnight
4/1/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.30
review R FP s,callw ithGH and L D regettingthem answ ered,

protectiveorder,law recopyingvitalrecords.
review protectiveordercaselaw and form sfrom othercases
review parentingm em oagainand sharew ithL D and GH
callw ithT im ,Clay,Gretchenand L arry rediscovery,private
docum ents,docum entsthatcannotbecopied.
review draftresponsetoR og11,review e-m ailstoclientsredocs
JohnKnight
4/1/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.40
JohnKnight
4/1/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.50
review Ds'R FA and 2d setofrogs,e-m ailsw ithGH and L D regarding

them
e-m ailsto3 couplesw ithrogsand infow eneed them tocollect
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
4/1/2014
4/2/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
1.00
0.20
Confcallw ithL arry & GretchenreR FP s.

e-m ailstolaw internreresearchregardingstatespousalbenefits
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
4/2/2014
4/2/2014
4/2/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.30
0.40
0.50
quickreview oflaw internresearch

e-m ailGH rediscovery,callw ithVirginiaand Carol
review draft1strogansw ers,callw ithM eganreadditionalresearch
JohnKnight
4/3/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.30
Callw ithCarolredocum entsshehaslocated and w hichtocopy.
JohnKnight
4/3/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.80
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
4/3/2014
4/3/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.50
0.20
review law reprotectiveordersagain,draftorderand M forentry of

order
callw ithM arieand Charvonnerediscovery responses
e-m ailsw ithGH and L D redocum entsand protectiveorderdraft
JohnKnight
4/4/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.50
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
4/4/2014
4/7/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.80
0.50
JohnKnight
4/7/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.40
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
4/7/2014
4/7/2014
4/7/2014
4/8/2014
W
W
W
W
alker
alker
alker
alker
0.50
0.30
1.80
1.20
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
4/8/2014
4/8/2014
4/9/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.30
0.90
1.00
e-m ailsw ithGH redocsand rogresponses,review GH'seditsto

confidentiality M and order
read and editdraftresponsetoM todism iss
review L D'seditsand com m entsreprotectiveorder,additionaledits,
e-m ailtoGH and L D renew draft
review new draftofrogansw erslistingspousalbenefitsunderW isc
law .
review draftresponsetoR FAs
e-m ailsw ithCharvonnerediscovery responses
add editstoresponsetoM todism issdraft
callw ithL D and GH reopptoM todism issand em ailsregarding
argum entthatw em ustlistevery statutethatcould banm arriagefor
sam e-sex couples
review sam uelson'seditstoproposed protectiveorder
review draftrogsansw ers
callw ithL D and GH re2d setofrogsand statusofotherdiscovery
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
4/9/2014
4/9/2014
4/9/2014
4/9/2014
W
W
W
W
2.20
0.30
0.20
1.50
finalreview and editsofoppositiontoM todism iss

e-m ailsw ithJK,L arry,and Gretchenrepolprocessargum ent
e-m ailsw ithKeithresigned discovery
2d review ofresponsetofirstsetofrogs,edits
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
alker
alker
alker
alker
P age4
Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc
A ttorney
Date
M atter
T im e
No
Charge
Description
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
4/10/2014
4/10/2014
4/10/2014
4/11/2014
W
W
W
W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
alker
alker
alker
alker
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
review docum entsform Keithand Johannes

e-m ailsw ithKeithrediscovery & call
additionale-m ailsrebrief,review ofdraftbrief
e-m ailtoL D and GH restatusofdiscovery & briefingand nextsteps
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
4/12/2014
4/12/2014
4/14/2014
4/16/2014
4/16/2014
4/16/2014
W
W
W
W
W
W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
0.50
0.10
0.50
0.50
1.00
3.50
JohnKnight
4/17/2014
W olfv.W alker
1.50
callw ithKeithand Johannesrediscovery

review portionofdraftrogresponse
review draftofresponsesto2d setofrogs
editsrevisionstoansw erstoR toAdm it
callw ithL D,GH rediscovery status
researchand additionaldraftingand re-draftingoftheresponsesto
theR toAdm it,e-m ailstoL D and GH reonesI'm unsureof,e-m ail
clientsretim etotalk
review editstoR toA,review inforeP am and S alud,reviseansw ers,
JohnKnight
4/17/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.50
callw ithL D,GH reR toA answ ersand discovery responsestatus
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
4/18/2014
4/18/2014
4/18/2014
4/18/2014
W
W
W
W
alker
alker
alker
alker
0.20
0.50
0.90
0.50
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
4/18/2014
4/18/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.90
0.40
review e-m ailrediscovery abusesand review caselaw

read Halopka-Ivery petition
review Youngand Kem pdraftresponsesto2d rogs
review docsfrom W allm anand Bordenand theR toA related to
them .
callw ithW allm anand Bordenasw ellasGH redocsand R toA
review and editR toA based oncallw ithW allm anand Borden
JohnKnight
4/21/2014
W olfv.W alker
2.60
review R toA reW allm anand Borden,review and edit2d setofrogs

reW allm annand Borden,DO M A researchresocialsecurity.
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
4/21/2014
4/21/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.30
1.50
review and editKam p2d setofrogresponses

review and editCarlson,W angem ann,P alm errespto2d setofrogs
JohnKnight
4/22/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.70
JohnKnight
4/22/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.70
review and editW olf,S chum acher,T ram pf,W illes,Young,Garcia

respsto2d setofrogs
Callw ithGH and L D refinalizing2d setofrogansw ersand w hether
lifeinsurance,retirem entbeneficiary infoshould beincluded.
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
4/22/2014
4/22/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.40
0.40
review GH'srevisionstorogs,callw ithGH reKam p

review Badger/W angem annrogansw ersand e-m ailtoGH rethem .
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
4/23/2014
4/24/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.20
1.20
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
4/24/2014
4/24/2014
4/28/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.30
0.30
1.00
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
4/28/2014
4/28/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.50
1.30
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
4/28/2014
4/29/2014
5/1/2014
5/1/2014
5/5/2014
W
W
W
W
W
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.10
0.60
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
5/6/2014
5/6/2014
5/11/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.70
0.30
0.90
e-m ailsw ithL D redocproduction

review S chuettedecision,callw ithGH,L D,Chipredecisionand
discovery,review Johannesand Keithrogansw ers.
beginreview ofAG'sreply brief
Confcallw ithL arry,Gretchen& Chip
CallBillrerogsresponses,callw ithL D restatusofdiscovery,review
R toAdm itedits,finalizethose
review reply briefreM todism iss
com pletereview ofreply brief,otherM todism issbriefs,and som e
ofthecasescited
Callw ithL arry
callw ithGH,L D,and Chiprereply toM T D and statusofcase
review J.Crabb'sdecisiononM todism iss
review drafte-m ailtoclients
review am icusbrief,e-m ailsrew hethertoopposeortoaddress
tim ingoffiling
review GH'sdraftbriefream icus,review L D'sedits
Confcallw L arry,Chip& Gretchen
read defendants'opptoP ltfM forS J
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
P age5
Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc
A ttorney
Date
M atter
T im e
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
5/12/2014
5/12/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.50
0.50
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
5/12/2014
5/12/2014
5/13/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.90
3.50
3.20
JohnKnight
5/14/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.30
JohnKnight
5/14/2014
W olfv.W alker
2.40
JohnKnight
5/14/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.7
JohnKnight
5/14/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.3
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
5/15/2014
5/15/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
3.2
0.4
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
5/15/2014
5/16/2014
5/16/2014
5/16/2014
5/16/2014
5/16/2014
5/17/2014
5/18/2014
5/18/2014
5/18/2014
5/19/2014
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
1.00
2.50
0.30
5.20
0.90
0.30
7.50
7.20
1.90
0.70
4.30
JohnKnight
5/23/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.70
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
5/29/2014
6/6/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
2.2
1.2
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
6/6/2014
6/7/2014
6/7/2014
6/8/2014
W
W
W
W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
alker
alker
alker
alker
0.4
0.50
2.50
4.80
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
6/9/2014
6/9/2014
6/9/2014
6/9/2014
6/9/2014
6/9/2014
6/10/2014
6/10/2014
6/10/2014
6/10/2014
6/10/2014
6/10/2014
6/10/2014
6/10/2014
6/11/2014
6/11/2014
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.10
0.40
0.20
0.50
0.10
2.90
0.20
0.10
2.30
0.30
0.70
1.20
1.50
JohnKnight
6/11/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.40
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
No
Charge
Description
continuereadingds'opptopltfm forsj
review P ltfsopeningbriefand Inrem arriagedecisionrepositive
rightsargum ent
callw ithteam redraftingreply
additionalw orkonM S Jreply,read AR and O H cases
locatesocialsciencepaperscited by Dsand review them ,
qualificationsofauthors,draftresponses
e-m ailstoL eslieresocialscienceresearchcited inAG briefand in
am icus
w orkondraftingprocreation& dual-genderparentingsectionforre
reply brief
review am icusbrief,w orkondevelopingresponsesforreply brief
review new exhibitsand askCHtocom paretow hatw aspreviously
filed
additionalw orkondraftingparentingsectionforreply
review relieffootnote,suggestchanges,researchregarding
injunctionrequirem ents
Confcallw /Chip,Gretchen,L arry rereply brief
review new draftofreply brief,beginedits
e-m ailsw ithL esliereDeBoertrialand experts
additionalw orkeditingreply
review draftresponsetoDs'statem entoffacts
e-m ailGiorearticlesreparentingand divorcerates
editstoreply brief
editstoreply brief,includingrevisionsbased onJDE'sedits
read and editresponsestofactstatem ents
review reply briefand factstatem ents,new estdraft,propose
additionalm inoredits
review state'sm otiontostay,e-m ailsrehow torespond and to
collectbriefsfrom othercases
editstooppotom otiontostay,review additionaldrafts
initialreview ofcourt'sruling,e-m ailsreclients,settingtim etotalk
aboutw ordingofinjunction
review state'sm otiontostay declaratory relief
Confcallw ithL arry & Chipreinjunction
review L D'sdraftofproposed injunction
researchreproperdefendantsforinjunction,respecificity required
forinjunctions
review state'sappealto7C and m otionforstay
review new draftofproposed injunction
review 7C orderrequiringjurisdictionalbrief
statusteleconferencew ithJ.Crabb
Confcallw ithL arry & Gretchen
drafte-m ailtoclientsrerulingand nextsteps
callw ithL arry
review casesfrom Katierejurisdiction
review new orderfrom 7C,em ails,setupcallrem eaning
review disclosurestatem entfor7C
review draftjurisdictionalbrief
review Katie'sadditionalresearch
Confcallw ithGretchen,Chip& L arry
review state'soppositiontoP laintiffs'proposed injunction
additionalreview and suggested editstojurisdictionalbriefin7C,em ailsrebriefand resultsofresearch
Confcallw ithGretchen,Katie,L arry
P age6
Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc
A ttorney
Date
M atter
T im e
No
Charge
Description
JohnKnight
6/11/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.60
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
6/11/2014
6/12/2014
6/12/2014
6/12/2014
W
W
W
W
alker
alker
alker
alker
0.90
0.50
0.40
4.20
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
6/12/2014
6/13/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.30
8.20
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
6/13/2014
6/16/2014
6/18/2014
6/26/2014
6/26/2014
W
W
W
W
W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
0.30
0.90
0.20
0.50
0.70
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
6/26/2014
6/27/2014
7/1/2014
7/1/2014
7/2/2014
7/2/2014
W
W
W
W
W
W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
0.20
0.20
0.30
0.80
JohnKnight
7/3/2014
W olfv.W alker
1.40
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
7/7/2014
7/8/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.40
0.30
JohnKnight
7/8/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.30
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
7/8/2014
7/10/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.50
3.60
JohnKnight
7/11/2014
W olfv.W alker
2.80
review editsfrom others,talktoGH and CH recitecheck,contact

Jam esrescheduletosuggest,e-m ailstogetfinalapproval
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
7/11/2014
7/14/2014
7/14/2014
7/14/2014
7/15/2014
W
W
W
W
W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
0.30
0.10
0.40
0.20
0.70
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
7/15/2014
7/15/2014
7/15/2014
7/15/2014
7/16/2014
W
W
W
W
W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
1.00
2.50
2.20
0.90
2.20
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
7/17/2014
7/17/2014
7/17/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.40
0.40
1.40
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
7/17/2014
7/17/2014
7/17/2014
7/18/2014
W
W
W
W
0.30
0.30
2.20
0.40
review IndianaAG'spetitionforinitialhearingenbanc
e-m ailstosetupcallrebriefw riting
callw ithL D rebriefw riting,enbancreview ,argum ent
callw ithL D reretainer
quickreview ofbriefsfrom Bosticand Kitchenand begindraftof
outlineforappellatebrief
callw ithteam reassigningpartsofbrieftodraft
review IndianaAG'sbrief
read IN plaintiffs'S G brief
draftoutlinefor7C brief
review Kitchen10C decision,e-m ailsreoralargum entand research
related toissuesforargum ent
re-read W olfdecisionrebriefonappeal
read W Ipetitionforhearinginbanc
callw ithteam reopptopetforinitialhearingenbanc,research,em ailsrem oreresearch
review draftofIN opptohearingenbanc
callw ithKenFalkreresponsetoM forhearingenbanc
w orkondraftingfailsany levelofreview section
review researchrehearingsenbanc
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
alker
alker
alker
alker
0.70
0.60
review jurisdictionalbrieffiled in7C by state,review briefsfrom

clerks
Confcallw ithGretchen,L arry,Chip,Katie& P ageBecker
review and suggesteditstodraftreply reinjunction
Confcallw ithGretchen,L arry,Katie
researchand additionaleditsforreply brief,proposed injunction,
and preparationsforhearing
Confcallw ithL arry & Gretchenrehearing
finalpreparationsforhearingreinjunction,travel& court
appearance
review injunctiveorder
review casesreexpeditinganappeal
e-m ailsreentry ofjudgm ent
callw ithCharvonneaboutcasestatus
draftstipulationand m otiontodeferrulingonfees,e-m ailsw ithDs
togetconsent
callw ithL arry
Callfrom L arry
Callw ithL arry
research,e-m ailsrew aystoexpeditetheappeal
Confcallw ithHarvey,S elene,Kristen,L arry,Jam es
Confcallw ithL arry,Chip,Hans& KatieDom inareexpeditingappeal
review and editdraftofM tovacatestay pendingfilingofN O A,
additionaleditsand e-m ailsrechanges
Callw ithL arry
callregardingw hethertoseekexpedited briefingonM tovacate
e-m ailsw ithL arry reoptionsand review ofcasesrefilingourow n
NO A
editsand e-m ailsregardingdraftM toexpedite
review and revisedraftofM toexpeditebriefingschedule,re-read
IN sum m ary judgm entdecision,W olfdecision,W olfAG brief,IN AG
brief,tocheckfordifferencesinlaw sand argum entsby state.
P age7
Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc
A ttorney
Date
M atter
T im e
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
7/18/2014
7/20/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
1.20
2.20
JohnKnight
7/20/2014
W olfv.W alker
3.50
JohnKnight
7/21/2014
W olfv.W alker
2.50
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
7/21/2014
7/23/2014
7/23/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.50
2.20
1.00
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
7/23/2014
7/24/2014
7/24/2014
7/24/2014
7/24/2014
7/25/2014
7/25/2014
7/25/2014
7/25/2014
7/26/2014
7/27/2014
7/27/2014
7/28/2014
7/28/2014
7/28/2014
7/28/2014
7/28/2014
7/29/2014
7/29/2014
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
1.20
3.40
1.30
0.40
3.50
1.00
3.50
0.70
1.20
8.50
3.20
7.50
2.40
0.80
0.40
0.20
0.40
0.30
0.40
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
7/29/2014
7/29/2014
7/30/2014
7/30/2014
7/31/2014
7/31/2014
W
W
W
W
W
W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
0.30
1.30
4.90
0.30
1.90
0.40
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
7/31/2014
8/1/2014
8/3/2014
8/3/2014
8/4/2014
8/11/2014
8/18/2014
8/19/2014
8/19/2014
8/20/2014
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
0.30
0.30
0.80
0.70
0.40
1.50
3.00
0.50
2.40
0.80
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
8/20/2014
8/25/2014
8/26/2014
9/4/2014
9/5/2014
9/5/2014
9/5/2014
9/7/2014
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
3.50
3.60
1.00
0.70
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.50
No
Charge
Description
review and editdraftopptom forhearingenbanc
review new IN draftofopptom forrehearing,review W Idraftand
proposerevisions
additionalw orkdraftingfailsany levelreview sectionofbrief
additionalresearchforopptohearingenbanc,review additional
drafts
editstodraftofopptohearingenbanc
review stateofW I's7C brief
conferencecallw ithteam restate'sbrief,tim elinefordraftsof
sections
revisionstofailsany review sectionbased onstate'sbrief
additionalw orkonfailsany review section
review IN draftforplaintiffs
review researchreex parteyoungand defendants
additionalw orkonfailsany levelofreview section
callrecurrentcom bined draftofbrief
review currentdraftofbrief,prepareforcall,e-m ailagenda
review T im Bishop'ssuggested editsand com m ents
review draftinIN plaintiffs'brief
editstocertainsectionsofbrief
revisionstofailsany levelofreview section
revisionsand cutstoentirebrief
review JDE'seditstobrief
callrenextstepstocom pletebrief
draftsum m ary ofargum ent
e-m ailsresex discrim inationargum ent
review Bostic4C decision
review draftw indsorargum ent
review new sex discrim inationlanguage,e-m ailpossiblerevisions
review IN plaintiffs'brief
Confcallw Chip,Gretchen,L inda,L arry,Hans,Katie
review ,editstolatestversionofbrief
e-m ailsrerevised w indsorsection
confcallrelatestrevisionstobrief
review applingdecisionforim pactonW olfbriefand citations
regardinglegislativehistory and voterintent
review m otionreoralargum entinBaskin
review changesinbrief
review draftofbrief,citecheckissues,otherfinalissues
callrefinalissuesinbrieffrom citecheckand proofreading
review briefagain,e-m ailsrefinalissues,deficiency letter
review state'sreply brief
m ootoforalargum ent
em ailsreoralargum ent
reread IN and W Ibriefs,listofsom equestionsand answ ers
w riteupsum m ary ofP osner,S ex and R eason,and otherpossible
questionsand issuesforargum ent
attend m ootand offersuggestionstoim proveargum ent
M oot& debriefw ithteam
oralargum ent
read 7C opinion
e-m ailsreresponsetostay m otion,certpetition
Confcallw ithL arry & T im S am uelson
Callw ithL arry & T im S am uelson
e-m ailsretim ingofcertpetition,review IN draftresponseof
plaintiffs
P age8
Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc
A ttorney
Date
M atter
T im e
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
9/8/2014
9/8/2014
9/8/2014
9/8/2014
9/8/2014
9/8/2014
9/9/2014
9/9/2014
9/11/2014
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
1.10
0.30
0.20
0.50
0.30
0.30
1.50
0.50
0.70
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
9/17/2014
9/18/2014
10/6/2014
10/7/2014
10/16/2014
10/20/2014
10/22/2014
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
0.30
0.40
0.40
0.10
0.40
2.50
2.50
JohnKnight
1.20
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight

0.80
0.50
1.20
JohnKnight
0.3
JohnKnight
4.1
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
11/21/2014
11/24/2014
11/24/2014
12/2/2014
12/3/2014
12/4/2014
W
W
W
W
W
W
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
1.2
7.5
2
1.3
0.3
0.7
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
12/4/2014
12/5/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
4.6
2.7
JohnKnight
12/5/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.2
JohnKnight
12/8/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.4
JohnKnight
12/8/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.5
JohnKnight
12/9/2014
W olfv.W alker
0.7
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
JohnKnight
12/9/2014
12/9/2014
12/9/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.2
0.5
1.9
JohnKnight
0.3
JohnKnight
3.2
T O T AL
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
404.50
No
Charge
Description
callredraftingofresponsetocertpetition
e-m ailtoclerksrew aiverofresponse
contactsam uelsonreserkivichresponse
review W isc'scertpetition
e-m ailsw ithclientsrecertresponse
callthesuprem ecourtclerk
review draftresponsetocertpetition
callw ithco-counselrecertresponse
draftm otion,stip,orderrem tohold feesinabeyance,review L D's
edits
review T im 'sedits,L D'sedits
additionaledits,fix signatures,finalreview forfiling
e-m ailsrecertdenial
review stay order
e-m ailsrecollectionoffeerecords
review ofJAKfeerecords,review ofM B'sand L arry's,
review ofM B recordsagain,e-m ailsreredactionsand corrections,
redactm y tim erecords
review ofnew M B bill,review redactionsand checktotals,e-m ailsre
hourly rates
R eview offeerecordsand editfeeletter.
conferencew ithL D refeenegotiationsw ithstate
researchregardinghourly rates,initialreview forbillingjudgm ent
purposes
e-m ails,quickresearchregardingm ediationand ourargum entfor
fees
review w orkdoneincase,infoaboutM B attorneys,revisem ediation
letter
additionaleditsand revisionstofinalizem ediationletter
T ravelto/from m ediationconference.
M ediation.
e-m ailKadishredeclaration,begindraftingm y declaration
review M ayerBrow nbillrelistofresearchtopics
additionalw orkreview ingfeepetitionlaw and draftingdeclaration
form e
com pletefirstdraftoffeedeclaration
review and suggesteditstofeebrief,revisem y declaration,review
Jam es'draftdeclaration,callw ithL arry reoffertosettlefees
e-m ailChrisrebillofcosts,review recoverablecostm em oand form
forbillofcosts
e-m ails,m eetingw ithChrisrehow tocom pletebillofcosts& re
preparationofchartofexcluded tim eforpetition
callw ithKadishredeclaration,review Esseksvalidatordeclaration,em ailEsseksaboutit.
e-m ailw ithJam esredeclaration,review and suggesteditstoO lson
declaration
e-m ailM arcreinvoicefortranscript
callw ithL arry restepstocom pletepetition
review and editbriefaddingnew inform ation,addingcases
regardingratesinN ew YorkCity,acceptL JD'schangetom y
declarationand checkagain.
e-m ailsw ithL arry rechangestobrief,statusofdeclarations,call
w ithM arcKadish
review O lsondeclaration,Helfrichdeclaration,Kadishdeclaration,
revised briefand m y declaration,chartofexcluded tim e,e-m ails
w ithL arry rerates
0.70
P age9
Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document

#:al171-2
Filed: 12/12/14 Page 1 of 2
W olfv.W
ker
Excluded T im e
EXHIBIT B
N am e
Ham pton,Chris
Date
M atter
12/17/2013 - W olfv.W alker
2/2/2014
T im e
79.50
R ate
75.00
A m ount
$5,
962.50
Description
Interview sw ith potentialplaintiffs,includingfollow -up calls,w rite-ups,and
onlinevetting(42.5);m eetings,correspondenceand outreach (37).
Dupuis,L aurence
Dupuis,L aurence
Dupuis,L aurence
Dupuis,L aurence
Dupuis,L aurence
Dupuis,L aurence
Dupuis,L aurence
Dupuis,L aurence
Dupuis,L aurence
S ilverm an,Kristin
1/6/2014
1/28/2014
2/3/2014
2/4/2014
2/5/2014
2/5/2014
2/6/2014
2/19/2014
2/28/2014
3/5/2014
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
3.00
0.72
0.13
0.21
0.83
0.47
0.43
0.15
0.25
1.00
450.00
450.00
450.00
450.00
450.00
450.00
450.00
450.00
450.00
565.00
$1,
350.00
$324.00
$58.50
$94.50
$373.50
$211.50
$193.50
$67.50
$112.50
$565.00
Klein,R ebecca
3/5/2014
W olfv.W alker
1.00
415.00
$415.00
Kadish,M arc
Dupuis,L aurence
Klein,R ebecca
3/14/2014
3/17/2014
3/26/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.25
0.18
0.75
535.00
450.00
415.00
$133.75
$81.00
$311.25
Dupuis,L aurence
Dupuis,L aurence
Dupuis,L aurence
Klein,R ebecca
4/4/2014
4/7/2014
5/7/2014
5/12/2014
W
W
W
W
alker
alker
alker
alker
0.67
0.42
0.32
1.00
450.00
450.00
450.00
415.00
$301.50
$189.00
$144.00
$415.00
Dupuis,L aurence
Klein,R ebecca
5/14/2014
5/15/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
1.03
1.00
450.00
415.00
$463.50
$415.00
Dupuis,L aurence
Dom ina,Katie
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.40
10.00
450.00
75.00
$180.00
$750.00
Aggarw al,Varun
Dupuis,L aurence
Dupuis,L aurence
Dupuis,L aurence
Dupuis,L aurence
Dupuis,L aurence
Anderson,M ary
6/9/2014
6/10/2014 6/12/2014
6/12/2014
6/13/2014
6/16/2014
6/17/2014
6/18/2014
6/18/2014
6/20/2014
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
7.00
1.09
0.50
0.65
0.47
0.24
2.00
75.00
450.00
450.00
450.00
450.00
450.00
375.00
$525.00
$490.50
$225.00
$292.50
$211.50
$108.00
$750.00
Dupuis,L aurence
Dom ina,Katie
6/24/2014
6/26/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.11
10.00
450.00
75.00
$49.50
$750.00
Aggarw al,Varun
Aggarw al,Varun
Dupuis,L aurence
Dom ina,Katie
7/1/2014
7/2/2014
7/2/2014
7/3/2014
W
W
W
W
alker
alker
alker
alker
2.75
2.75
0.71
10.00
75.00
75.00
450.00
75.00
$206.25
$206.25
$319.50
$750.00
Aggarw al,Varun
Aggarw al,Varun
Dom ina,Katie
7/3/2014
7/7/2014
7/7/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
3.00
3.00
10.00
75.00
75.00
75.00
$225.00
$225.00
$750.00
Aggarw al,Varun
Aggarw al,Varun
Dupuis,L aurence
Dom ina,Katie
W
W
W
W
2.75
2.75
0.58
10.00
75.00
75.00
450.00
75.00
$206.25
$206.25
$261.00
$750.00
Kadish,M arc
7/8/2014
7/9/2014
7/15/2014
7/17/2014 7/18/2014
7/18/2014
casem em o
Confcallw ith com m unicationsfolks
Filingcaseopeninginform ation
Confcallw ith S arah & John recorrection
R adio debateon Joy Cardin S how
W O R T backporch radio -apublicaffair
w /jh repotentialotherpltfs
Filingproofofservice
T C from P atrickFarabaugh O urL ives
P articipatein callto discussprelim inary injunction and sum m ary judgm ent
strategy.
Attended m eetingand conferencecallw ith team regardingupcom ingresearch
and strategy.
R eview articlew ritten by Gretchen.
Editsto juristarticle
P articipated in conferencecallw ith M ayerBrow n team and ACL U team
regardingstrategy forresponseto defendants'm otion to dism iss.
R eview ingbrief,gatheringdocum entsforw eekend
T C from AS atP enzey's
R eview ingnew bios
P articipated in conferencecallw ith ACL U and M ayerBrow n team regarding
sum m ary judgm entreply brief;researched and drafted section ofsum m ary
judgm entreply briefconcerningdueprocess.
L isteningto oralargum ents
R eview ed draftofsum m ary judgm entreply and participated in conferencecall
resam e.
T elephoneinterview w ith Joy Cardin show
R esearch and cite-checkingrestayingadeclaratory judgm entand som ecases
on R ule65(d)forthespecificity injunctions.
R esearch on ex parteyoung,etc.
rehrgon injuunction and stay
rerecognition casew john knight
callrenew ly m arried couples/potentialcasew /john K & larry
rsch on m arriagevalidity
caseson new m arriages
R esearch regardingthetim efram ein w hich AGsnorm ally fileN oticeofAppeal
in m arriagecasesaround thecountry.
Callw ith GilHalsted
R esearch and cite-checkingrejointand liability ofco-defendantsforfeesunder
sec.1988.
Confcallw ith Harvey,S elene,Kristen,John,Jam es
R esearch and cite-checkingon liftingastay becauseno noticeofappealor
conditioningstay on prom ptnoticeofappeal.
R esearch and cite-checkingon w hetherprevailingparty can appealon issue
thatw ould beallow ableascrossappeal.
T C from S teveVerbergatW S J
R esearch and cite-checkingon initialen banccasesin S eventh Circuit.
W olfv.W alker
1.00
555.00
$555.00
Aggarw al,Varun
S hi,L inda
7/22/2014
7/23/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
3.00
1.00
75.00
480.00
$225.00
$480.00
Aggarw al,Varun
Dom ina,Katie
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
3.00
10.00
75.00
75.00
$225.00
$750.00
Klein,R ebecca
7/24/2014
7/24/2014 7/25/2014
7/25/2014
W olfv.W alker
1.00
480.00
$480.00
P articipated in conferencecallw ith ACL U and M ayerBrow n team regarding

brief;review ed draftbrief;researched m arriageequality cases.
Klein,R ebecca
S hi,L inda
7/28/2014
7/28/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.75
0.75
480.00
480.00
$360.00
$360.00
ConferencecallregardingS eventh Circuitbrief.

Attended calldiscussingeditsto thebrief.
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
P age1
Conferw ith Hannah Chanoine(2 tim es);conferw ith Chip Dickerson.Confer

w ith S teveS anders.
P articipated in conferencecallw ith ACL U to discussthedraftingofthe
appellees'brieffortheS eventh Circuit.R eview ed theappellants'brieffrom the
W isconsin and Indianacases.R eview ed thedistrictcourts'decisionsforthe
W isconsin and Indianacases.
R esearch and cite-checkingon rem edy section ofappellatebrief.
Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document

#:al171-2
Filed: 12/12/14 Page 2 of 2
W olfv.W
ker
Excluded T im e
N am e
S hi,L inda
Date
7/29/2014
M atter
W olfv.W alker
T im e
1.00
R ate
480.00
A m ount
$480.00
Dom ina,Katie
W olfv.W alker
10.00
75.00
$750.00
Kadish,M arc
7/29/2014 7/30/2014
7/30/2014
Description
Attended m eetingdiscussingeditsto theappellatebrief.R esearched federal
districtcourtcasesthatinterpreted W indsorasapplyingrationalbasisreview
forequalprotection.
R eview ingand sum m arizingam icusbriefs.
W olfv.W alker
0.50
555.00
$277.50
W isconsin sam esex -conferw ith Chip.Callto Hannah.M eetw ith BrittP oulos.
S hi,L inda
Klein,R ebecca
S chroeder,Jam es
Dom ina,Katie
S chroeder,Jam es
Germ ann,Hans
S chroeder,Jam es
M uench,John
S chroeder,Jam es
S chroeder,Jam es
M uench,John
Kane,S tephen
Kane,S tephen
Kane,S tephen
8/3/2014
8/3/2014
8/4/2014
8/4/2014
8/11/2014
8/11/2014
8/13/2014
8/13/2014
8/14/2014
8/15/2014
8/15/2014
8/16/2014
8/17/2014
8/18/2014
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
0.50
0.50
0.25
10.00
0.25
0.75
1.25
2.50
5.75
6.00
2.00
4.50
6.00
4.50
480.00
480.00
805.00
75.00
805.00
705.00
805.00
930.00
805.00
805.00
930.00
705.00
705.00
705.00
$240.00
$240.00
$201.25
$750.00
$201.25
$528.75
$1,
006.25
$2,
325.00
$4,
628.75
$4,
830.00
$1,
860.00
$3,
172.50
$4,
230.00
$3,
172.50
S chroeder,Jam es
M uench,John
8/18/2014
8/19/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
2.75
3.75
805.00
930.00
$2,
213.75
$3,
487.50
Klein,R ebecca
S hi,L inda
M uench,John
8/20/2014
8/20/2014
8/20/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
1.00
2.00
4.75
480.00
480.00
930.00
$480.00
$960.00
$4,
417.50
S chroeder,Jam es
S hi,L inda
Klein,R ebecca
S hi,L inda
Klein,R ebecca
S chroeder,Jam es
Kadish,M arc
8/22/2014
8/25/2014
8/25/2014
8/26/2014
8/26/2014
8/26/2014
8/26/2014
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
0.25
3.00
2.50
4.00
4.00
1.75
2.50
805.00
480.00
480.00
480.00
480.00
805.00
555.00
$201.25
$1,
440.00
$1,
200.00
$1,
920.00
$1,
920.00
$1,
408.75
$1,
387.50
Attended telephonem eetingregardingthedraftofthebrief.

ConferencecallregardingS eventh Circuitbrief.
Discussion w ith FrankDickerson rem ootcourt.
M oreresearch on rem edialissuesto prep fororalargum ent.
Em ailsregardingbriefs.
L aw 360 Call.
R eadingm aterialsform ootcourt.
P reparation form ootcourtforS eventh Circuitargum ent.
R eadingm aterialsform ootcourtand draftingpossiblequestions.
R eadingbriefsand opinions;draftingm ootcourtquestions.
P reparation form ootcourtforS eventh Circuitargum ent.
R eview ed briefingand form ulated questionsform ootargum ent.
R eview ed briefingand form ulated questionsform ootargum ent.
R eview ed briefingand form ulated questionsform ootargum ent;participated
in m oot.
P articipatingin m ootcourtforS eventh Circuitargum ent.
W orkon Q &A issuesform ootcourtin preparation forS eventh Circuit
argum ent.
Attended m ootcourt.
P reparation forand m ootcourtjudgingin preparation forS eventh Circuit
argum entin them arriageappeal.
Discussion w ith FrankDickerson reoralargum ent.
P articipated in m ootcourtfortheS eventh Circuitoralargum ents.
P repared forand attended theS eventh Circuitoralargum ents.
Attended S eventh Circuithearing.
L isteningto S eventh Circuitargum ents.
Attended S eventh Circuitoralargum entforW isconsin and Indianacases.
Dupuis,L aurence
Helfrich,Gretchen
Dickerson,Frank
S chroeder,Jam es
Dupuis,L aurence
Dupuis,L aurence
Bishop,T im othy
8/26/2014
8/26/2014
8/26/2014
8/29/2014
9/4/2014
9/5/2014
9/10/2014
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
0.83
4.00
5.00
0.25
1.35
0.15
1.25
450.00
565.00
555.00
805.00
450.00
450.00
980.00
$373.50
$2,
260.00
$2,
775.00
$201.25
$607.50
$67.50
$1,
225.00
Interview s
P repareforand attend oralargum ent.
P repareforand attend oralargum ent.
Discussion w ith FrankDickerson reS eventh Circuitargum ent.
W hat'snextbullets/tim eline
T elinterview w ith W FDL Betw een theL Ines
Attention to press,issuesw ith regard to possiblegrant;com m unicationsw ith
M B N Y/DC team handlingseparategap m arriagecase.
Dickerson,Frank
Dupuis,L aurence
Dupuis,L aurence
9/24/2014
10/6/2014
10/22/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.25
2.58
0.66
555.00
450.00
450.00
$138.75
$1,
161.00
$297.00
S chroeder,Jam es
Dupuis,L aurence
Esseks,Jam es
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.25
3.18
2.80
805.00
450.00
700.00
$201.25
$1,
431.00
$1,
960.00
Dickerson,Frank
Dickerson,Frank
Dickerson,Frank
Dickerson,Frank
Dickerson,Frank
Bishop,T im othy
Bishop,T im othy
10/23/2014
11/19/2014
12/4/2014 12/10/2014
10/7/2014
10/22/2014
10/27/2014
10/28/2014
11/6/2014
11/6/2014
11/7/2014
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
1.00
1.50
0.50
1.00
1.00
2.00
0.75
555.00
555.00
555.00
555.00
555.00
980.00
980.00
$555.00
$832.50
$277.50
$555.00
$555.00
$1,
960.00
$735.00
Dickerson,Frank
Bishop,T im othy
11/7/2014
11/12/2014
W olfv.W alker
W olfv.W alker
0.50
0.50
555.00
980.00
$277.50
$490.00
Correspond w ith H.Chanoinereissuesin case.

M ediainterview s,pressconf,etc
R esearchingcasesinvolvingpresum ption ofparenthood;Q &A rem arriage
rights
Em ailsregardingfeepetition.
W orkingon m ediation letter
P reparingdeclaration related to hourly rateand hours,seekingand review ing
declarationsto addressfeerate.
Attention to feepetition issues.
Attention to billingissues.
Attention to issuesrebilling.
Attention to issuesrefeepetition.
Attention to S ixth Circuitbrief.
S tudy CA6 opinion and dissentand consideram icustactics.
Conferencew ith Chip Dickerson ream icustacticsin CA6 casesin S uprem e
Courtand reconflictcheck.
Attention to issuesrepotentialam icusbrief.
Conferencew ith Dickerson and em ailsto counselrepotentialam icusbriefin
CA6 cases.
T O T AL
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
olfv.W
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
alker
314.36
$92,
920.75
P age2
Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 171-3 Filed: 12/12/14 Page 1 of 8
EXHIBIT C
ACL U Foundation
L GBT AIDS P roject
Staff
J. Knight
EXHIBIT D

W olfv.W alker
CaseCosts
Vendor/Location Trans. Date
Type
Description
12/11/2014
Expenses
Chicago Taxi
01/14/14
Travel - Cab to Mayer Brown
re: Wolf v. Walker - Initial meeting
$16.00
J. Knight
Madison Concourse
02/03/14
Food - Lunch
re: Wolf v. Walker - Complaint filing
$12.29
J. Knight
Enterprise Rent-A-Car
02/03/14
Travel - Car Rental
$34.89
J. Knight
Exxon Mobil
02/03/14
Travel - Fuel
$12.32
J. Knight
Marathon Petroleum
02/03/14
Travel - Fuel
$24.09
J. Knight
ULI Parking
02/03/14
Travel - Parking fees
$5.00
J. Knight
Play Google.com
05/16/14
Printing of cited material
re: Wolf v. Walker
JEsseks
Delta Airlines
08/12/14
Travel - JFK/ORD/JFK
re: Wolf / Oral Argument 7th Circ
$408.20
JEsseks
Amex Interactive
08/12/14
Booking fees
$9.00
JEsseks
Travres axdirect htl
08/14/14
Lodging - Hotel stay
$202.28
JEsseks
Amex Interactive
08/14/14
Booking fees
$9.00
JEsseks
American Airlines
08/15/14
Travel - LGA to ORD
re: Wolf / Moot Argument
$315.82
JEsseks
Delta Airlines
08/15/14
Travel - ORD to LGA
$270.04
JEsseks
Healthy Gourmet
08/18/14
Food - Breakfast
$4.86
JEsseks
Chicago Taxi
08/18/14
Travel - Cab to ORD
$31.24
JEsseks
NYC Taxi
08/18/14
Travel - Cab to LGA
$24.37
JEsseks
Howells & Hood
08/18/14
Food - Dinner
$18.75
JEsseks
Hyatt Hotels Chicago
08/19/14
Food - Breakfast
$5.72
JEsseks
Naf Naf Grill
08/19/14
Food - Lunch
$6.61
JEsseks
Delta Airlines
08/21/14
Travel - Change fee
$37.50
JEsseks
Ventra Vending
08/20/14
Travel - Public Transit
$7.50
JEsseks
Naf Naf Grill
08/20/14
Food - Lunch
$7.84
JEsseks
Chicago BlackH
08/20/14
Food - Dinner
$8.19
JEsseks
Taxi Credit
08/20/14
Travel - Cab home
$26.25
JEsseks
08/20/14
Food - Breakfast
$7.58
JEsseks
08/21/14
Lodging - Hotel stay
$421.12
JEsseks
MTA NYC
08/25/14
Travel - Public Transit
$7.50
JEsseks
Curb VA
08/25/14
Travel - Cab
$44.91
JEsseks
Palmer House Hilton
08/27/14
Lodging - WiFi
$12.95
JEsseks
OTG MGMT
08/26/14
Food - Breakfast
$5.99
JEsseks
Chicago BlackH
08/26/14
Food - Dinner
$16.26
JEsseks
Plymouth Restaurant
08/26/14
Food - Lunch w legal team
$61.61
JEsseks
RMT MGMT
08/27/14
Travel - Cab home
$60.50
J. Knight
Capitol Square South
11/24/14
Travel - Parking fees
re: Wolf Settlement Conference
$7.00
J. Knight
Illinois State Toll Hwy
11/24/14
Travel - Toll Fees
$15.80
11/24/14
Travel - Mileage (294 miles x $0.56)
$164.64
11/24/14
Food - Lunch
$11.83
J. Knight
J. Knight
Fair Trade Coffeehouse
Total Expenditures
$8.63
$2,
344.08
Process
Date
Invoice
Date
Invoice #
Payment
Type
Vendor /
Organization
Service Description / Reason
3-Feb-14
n/a 25E7CR08 Amex
Pay.gov
J. Esseks / PHV / WI Court
3-Feb-14
3-Feb-14 25E791M7 Amex
Pay.gov
J.Knight / App Adm / WI Court
9-Jun-14
9-Jun-14
PV
Lynette Swenson Prof Svcs (court reporter & transcript)
2-Jul-14
2-Jul-14
Check
7th Cir. Court
J. Esseks / App Adm / 7th Cir.
Total Case Costs:
c3 Amount
Notes
$50.00 Wolf v. Walker

$435.00

3:14-cv-00064 #171

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

3:14-cv-00064 #171

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 171 Filed: 12/12/14 Page 1 of 15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

VIRGINIA WOLF, et al.,

Case No. 14-C-00064-BBC

SCOTT WALKER, et al.,

DECLARATION OF JOHN KNIGHT IN SUPPORT OF

I, John Knight, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, declare as follows:

In 1988, I graduated from the University of Chicago Law School, where I

I am licensed as an attorney in the State of Illinois and admitted to practice in the

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 171 Filed: 12/12/14 Page 2 of 15

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 171 Filed: 12/12/14 Page 3 of 15

sponsored by educational institutions and legal organizations.

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 171 Filed: 12/12/14 Page 4 of 15

Wisconsin beginning in mid-November 2013. Marriage litigation was underway in a number of

Larry Dupuis, at the ACLU of Wisconsin Foundation, and I concluded that

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 171 Filed: 12/12/14 Page 5 of 15

Pre-filing research addressed: questions regarding standing and abstention, and

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 171 Filed: 12/12/14 Page 6 of 15

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 171 Filed: 12/12/14 Page 7 of 15

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 171 Filed: 12/12/14 Page 8 of 15

Another example is this request in defendants second set of interrogatories:

On May 9, 2014, state defendants filed their opposition to summary judgment,

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 171 Filed: 12/12/14 Page 9 of 15

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 171 Filed: 12/12/14 Page 10 of 15

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 171 Filed: 12/12/14 Page 11 of 15

On October 6, 2014, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Wolf.

Again, this chronology of appellate proceedings reflects a very compressed time-

frame, necessitating an all-hands-on-deck approach to drafting and preparation. The necessary

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 171 Filed: 12/12/14 Page 12 of 15

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 171 Filed: 12/12/14 Page 13 of 15

I exercised reasonable billing judgment in determining the amount of the attorney

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 171 Filed: 12/12/14 Page 14 of 15

D and total $2,779.08, of which $417 is included on Plaintiffs Bill of Costs.

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 171 Filed: 12/12/14 Page 15 of 15

December 12, 2014

12/23/2013 W olfv.W alker

P lanningcallw ithGH and L D reR ule26 m eetingw ithcounsel,S J

callreJ.Crabb'sdenialofM forP Iand any harm adenialcould

Callw ithGretchenand L arry reschedulingconference.

review m agisstatem entrerequired pretrialreport

review & editinitialdisclosuredraft

review R FP s,callw ithGH and L D regettingthem answ ered,

review Ds'R FA and 2d setofrogs,e-m ailsw ithGH and L D regarding

Confcallw ithL arry & GretchenreR FP s.

quickreview oflaw internresearch

Callw ithCarolredocum entsshehaslocated and w hichtocopy.

review law reprotectiveordersagain,draftorderand M forentry of

e-m ailsw ithGH redocsand rogresponses,review GH'seditsto

finalreview and editsofoppositiontoM todism iss

review docum entsform Keithand Johannes

callw ithKeithand Johannesrediscovery

callw ithL D,GH reR toA answ ersand discovery responsestatus

review e-m ailrediscovery abusesand review caselaw

review R toA reW allm anand Borden,review and edit2d setofrogs

review and editKam p2d setofrogresponses

review and editW olf,S chum acher,T ram pf,W illes,Young,Garcia

review GH'srevisionstorogs,callw ithGH reKam p

e-m ailsw ithL D redocproduction

review editsfrom others,talktoGH and CH recitecheck,contact

review jurisdictionalbrieffiled in7C by state,review briefsfrom

10/22/2014 W olfv.W alker

10/28/2014 W olfv.W alker

11/18/2014 W olfv.W alker

11/20/2014 W olfv.W alker