United States District Court District of Wyoming

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 72 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 20
Peter K. Michael (Wyo. Bar No. 5-2309)

Attorney General of Wyoming
Martin L. Hardsocg (Wyo. Bar No. 6-2919)
Deputy Attorney General
Ryan T. Schelhaas (Wyo. Bar No. 6-3321)
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Michael M. Robinson (Wyo. Bar No. 6-2658)
Jared S. Crecelius (Wyo. Bar No. 6-4118)
Wyoming Attorney Generals Office
123 State Capitol
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-7876
(307) 777-3687 fax
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF WYOMING
Anne Marie Guzzo and Bonnie Robinson;
Ivan Williams and Charles Killion;
Brie Barth and Shelly Montgomery;
Carl Oleson and Rob Johnston; and
Wyoming Equality,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Matthew H. Mead, in his official capacity as
the Governor of Wyoming; Dean Fausset, in
his official capacity as Director of the
Wyoming Department of Administration and
Information; Dave Urquidez, in his official
capacity as Administrator of the State of
Wyoming Human Resources Division; and
Debra K. Lathrop, in her official capacity
as Laramie County Clerk,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 14-CV-200-SWS
STATE DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR

ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS
Defendants, Matthew H. Mead, Governor of the State of Wyoming, Dean Fausset, and
Dave Urquidez, in their official capacities (the State Defendants), through the Office of the
Attorney General, hereby oppose Plaintiffs motion for attorneys fees and costs (Docs. 69, 70,
and 71) for the following reasons:
Argument
On January 29, 2015, this Court entered a final order granting judgment on the pleadings
and permanent injunction in favor of Plaintiffs. (Doc. 65.) Based upon the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals decisions in Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F. 3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2014) and Bishop v. Smith, 760
F.3d 1070 (10th Cir. 2014) this Court held that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage and laws failing
to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages are unconstitutional. Plaintiffs have submitted a
fee petition under 42 U.S.C. 1988. In any fee request under 1988(b), a claimant must prove
two elements: (1) that the claimant was the prevailing party in the proceeding; and (2) that the
claimants fee request is reasonable. Robinson v. City of Edmond, 160 F.3d 1275, 1280 (10th
Cir. 1998). The State Defendants agree that Plaintiffs are the prevailing party and are entitled their
reasonable fees and expenses.
However, the State Defendants have many concerns about
Plaintiffs attorneys billings and oppose their fees and expenses for several reasons:
1) Many of the hours Plaintiffs attorneys billed and submitted to this Court are duplicative
and excessivefive to seven attorneys typically reviewed and/or edited every pleading;
2) Plaintiffs counsel is requesting fees for time spent subpoenaing Governor Mead for the
preliminary injunction hearingan action that this Court stated was unnecessary to the
legal issues of the case;
3) Many hours relate to work on pleadings that were never filed;
4) The time spent on simple tasks such as preparing pro hac vice motions was excessive;
5) Plaintiffs attorneys billed for time spent working on the State case;
Page 2 of 20
6) Plaintiffs attorneys billed for time spent working on pleadings even though they had
already been filed; and
7) Many hours relate to Plaintiffs attorneys preparation and travel time to the preliminary
injunction hearing even though those attorneys did not participate in the hearing.
Plaintiffs attorneys billed hourly rates ranging from $140 to $325, with at least 4 attorneys
billing $300/hour or more.1 The State Defendants are willing to accept these hourly rates, however,
if Plaintiffs attorneys are going to charge these rates based upon their expertise and experience
(See Affidavits in Docs. 70-1, 70-2, 70-3, and 70-4), they should not charge and recover fees for
the duplicative, excessive work and supervision that is pervasive in these billings.
Plaintiffs counsels fee request includes fees from four law firms, nine attorneys, and one
paralegal totaling 371.6 hours and $92,728.07. (Docs. 70-1, 70-2, 70-3, and 70-4.) The fee request
can be summarized as follows:
Name
Thomas
Stoever
James Lyman
Rebecca Golz
(paralegal)
Qusair
Mohamedbhai
Arash
Jahanian
Aaron Belzer
Tracy Zubrod
Shannon
Minter
Christopher
Stoll
Firm
Hourly rate
Arnold & Porter LLP $325
Total hours
35
Total fee
$11,375
Arnold & Porter LLP $262.40

Arnold & Porter LLP $133.25
101.6
23.3
$26,659.84
$3,104.73
Rathod
Mohamedbhai LLC
Rathod
Mohamedbhai LLC
Rathod
Mohamedbhai LLC
Zubrod Law Office,
PC
National Center for
Lesbian Rights
National Center for
Lesbian Rights
$300
21.9
$6,570
$200
70.7
$14,140
$140
13.5
$1,890
$220
38.3
$8,426
$325
19.8
$6,435
$300
42.6
$12,780
The 2013 Wyoming State Bar survey results indicate that only 4.4% of Wyoming attorneys charge more
than $300 an hour. (See Doc. 70-5, pp. 3, 19.)
Page 3 of 20
Amy Whelan
National Center for

Lesbian Rights
$275
Total
4.9
$1,347.50
371.6
$92,728.072
In addition, Plaintiffs attorneys seek to recover costs of $5,125.97. (Docs. 70-1, p. 23; 702, p. 22; and 70-3, p. 24.) Plaintiffs counsel suggests that these fees and costs were reasonably
incurred by each attorney for a case that substantially lasted only two weeksthe complaint was
filed October 7, 2014, the Court granted the preliminary injunction (Doc. 44) on October 17, and
the State Defendants filed their notice that they would not appeal (Doc. 47) on October 21. The
only remaining issue was the form of the final order granting a permanent injunction. After the
parties filed competing motions for judgment on the pleadings (Docs. 54 and 56), the Court granted
a permanent injunction (Doc. 65) on January 29, 2015.
The Court adopted the State Defendants proposed order in all material respects. The Court
rejected the Plaintiffs proposed order requesting the Court force the State Defendants to ensure
that county clerks and other officials within their control fulfill their obligations under the law.
The Court explained that it was not convinced State Defendants have the authority to control
county clerks because county clerks are separately elected officials. The Court finds Plaintiffs
request in this regard is inappropriate and cannot be granted. (Internal citation omitted) (Doc.
65.)
To determine a reasonable attorneys fee, the district court must arrive at a lodestar figure
by multiplying the hours plaintiffs counsel reasonably spent on the litigation by a reasonable
hourly rate. Case v. Unified School Dist. No. 233, Johnson Cnty., Kan., 157 F.3d 1243, 1249
(10th Cir. 1998) (quoting Jane L. v. Bangerter, 61 F.3d 1505, 1509 (10th Cir.1995)). [T]he fee
applicant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate
2
In Plaintiffs fee chart on page 5 of their memorandum (Doc. 70), Plaintiffs counsel indicates that the
total is $92,728.12.
Page 4 of 20
hours expended and hourly rates. Case, 157 F.3d at 1249 (quoting Mares v. Credit Bureau of
Raton, 801 F.2d 1197, 1201 (10th Cir. 1986)); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1933).
Once the district court has adequate time records before it, it must then ensure that the winning
attorneys have exercised billing judgment. Id. at 1250 (quoting Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d
880, 891 (D.C.Cir.1980). Billing judgment consists of winnowing the hours actually expended
down to the hours reasonably expended. Hours that an attorney would not properly bill to his or
her client cannot reasonably be billed to the adverse party, making certain time presumptively
unreasonable. See id. at 1250.
Based upon a review of Plaintiffs counsels billing statements, the State Defendants have
identified several areas that appear to be unreasonable because Plaintiffs attorneys failed to
exercise the appropriate and necessary billing judgment.3 For the convenience of the Court, the
State Defendants have attached and will cite to the Plaintiffs attorneys affidavits and billing
statements. (Docs. 70-1, 70-2, 70-3, and 70-4, attached as Exhibit A.)
I.
Shannon Minters and Christopher Stolls time should be disallowed because it is

duplicative, unnecessary, excessive, and unreasonable.
The district court may reduce the reasonable hours awarded if the number [of
compensable hours] claimed by counsel include[s] hours that were unnecessary, irrelevant and
duplicative. Case, 157 F.3d at 1250 (quoting Carter v. Sedgwick Cnty., Kan., 36 F.3d 952, 956
(10th Cir.1994)).
Upon review of Plaintiffs invoices, all of Minters and Stolls time is
duplicative, unnecessary, excessive, and unreasonable. Stolls and Minters work consisted
entirely of: 1) reviewing, revising, or editing documents drafted by one of the other seven attorneys
The State Defendants have tried to be precise with its calculations in this filing, however, it was a difficult
task because Plaintiffs attorneys commingled multiple tasks on individual billing entries.
Page 5 of 20
on the case; and 2) conferring with co-counsel or each other about the case. In most instances,
Stoll and Minter were the fifth and sixth attorneys to review a particular document.
For instance, the billing records indicate that Lyman drafted the complaint on October 6
and 7, 2014, (Doc. 70-1, p. 16) however, five other attorneys, including Stoll and Minter, billed
for and are requesting payment for reviewing and/or editing the complaint even though the
complaint is nearly identical to the complaint Plaintiffs attorneys filed about seven months earlier
in State district court (Courage v. Wyoming, et al.)(State Complaint attached as Exhibit B). (Docs
70-1, p. 16; 70-2, pp. 18-19; 70-3, p. 17; and 70-4, p. 5.) Similarly, Lyman drafted the motion for
preliminary injunction from October 6-8, 2014, (Doc. 70-1, p. 16) and six other attorneys,
including Stoll and Minter, researched, reviewed, or edited the motion. (Docs 70-1, p. 16; 70-2,
pp. 18-19; 70-3, p. 17; and 70-4, p. 5.) Minters and Stolls time does not appear to be essential
or necessary to the litigation especially considering the expertise and quality of the other attorneys
representing Plaintiffs. (See Affidavits attached to Docs. 70-1, 70-2, 70-3, and 70-4.) In making
the request for payment of their fees, Minter and Stoll failed to winnow the hours actually
expended down to the hours reasonably expended. Case, 157 F.3d at 1250. Minters and Stolls
billing statements do not reflect hours reasonably expended.
Further, many of Minters and Stolls time entries are identical or nearly identical. For
example:
10/6/2014 - Confer with client and co-counsel re Supreme Court certiorari denials,
communications with state officials, and potential federal litigation (Minter - 1.6 hrs)(Doc.
70-2, p. 18);
10/6/2014 - Confer with client and co-counsel re Supreme Court certiorari denials and
potential federal litigation (Stoll - 1.6 hrs)(Doc. 70-2, p. 19);
10/7/2014 - Confer with co-counsel re filing of complaint, pro hac vice motions and case
strategy (Minter - 1.4 hrs)(Doc. 70-2, p. 18);
Page 6 of 20
10/7/2014 - Confer with co-counsel re filing of complaint pro hac vice motions and re case
strategy (Stoll - 1.4 hrs)(Doc. 70-2, p. 19);
10/8/2014 - Confer with client and co-counsel re preliminary injunction and hearing
(Minter - 1.5 hrs)(Doc. 70-2, p. 18);
10/8/2014 - Confer with client and co-counsel re motion for preliminary injunction and
scheduling of hearing (Stoll - 1.5 hrs)(Doc. 70-2, p. 19);
10/9/2014 - Confer with co-counsel re preliminary injunction oral argument (Minter - .7

hrs)(Doc. 70-2, p. 18);
10/9/2014 - Confer with co-counsel re hearing on motion for preliminary injunction (Stoll
- .7 hrs)(Doc. 70-2, p. 19);
10/14/2014 Review proposed order of proof; confer with co-counsel re same (Minter - .6
hrs)(Doc. 70-2, p. 18);
10/14/2014 Review proposed order of proof; confer with co-counsel re same. (Stoll - .8
hrs)(Doc. 70-2, p. 19);
10/14/2014 Confer with co-counsel re oral argument (Minter 1.2 hrs)(Doc. 70-2, p. 18);
10/14/2014 Confer with co-counsel re preparation for hearing (Stoll 1.2 hrs)(Doc. 702, p. 19);
10/15/2014 Confer with co-counsel re preparation for hearing (Minter 1.3 hrs)(Doc.
70-2, p. 18); and
10/15/2014 Confer with co-counsel re preparation for hearing (Stoll 1.3 hrs)(Doc. 702, p. 19).
These types of billing entries are consistent throughout Minters and Stolls billing statements. Not
only did Minter and Stoll duplicate the other attorneys work, they consistently duplicated each
others work.
In addition, Stoll billed 20.1 hours (between October 9 and 16) and $1,606.53 in travel
costs related to his preparation, traveling to, and attending the preliminary injunction hearing.4
Minter also billed 3.5 hours relating to preparation for the hearing which he did not attend. (Doc. 70-2,
p. 18.)
Page 7 of 20
(Doc. 70-2, pp. 19, 22.) However, Stoll did not participate in the hearing, he simply observed.
(See attached Hearing Transcript, Exhibit C.) Again, these fees and costs are unnecessary,
excessive, and unreasonable. If more attorneys are present at a hearing than needed, compensation
for excess time should be denied. See Case, 157 F.3d at 1250. At the preliminary injunction
hearing, although at least six of Plaintiffs attorneys were present, only three participated in the
one-hour hearing. All of Stolls time and expenses associated with the preliminary injunction
hearing is excessive, duplicative, and unnecessary.
The State Defendants request that Minters and Stolls 62.4 hours be disallowed because
they are duplicative, unnecessary, excessive, and unreasonable. Case, 157 F.3d at 1250. Those
hours do not represent appropriate billing judgment.
II.
All the fees and costs associated with the subpoena to Governor Mead are
unnecessary and unreasonable.
Plaintiffs seek recovery for approximately 26 hours of time totaling approximately $5,200
and $180 in service fees in relation to the subpoena for Governor Mead to testify at the preliminary
injunction hearing and responding to the State Defendants motion to quash.5 (Docs. 70-1, p. 16;
70-3, pp. 17-18, 24; and 70-4, p. 6.) In granting the motion to quash, this Court stated that [t]here
is no legitimate evidentiary need for the testimony of Governor Mead for this courts resolution of
the issues before it. Rather, it appears Plaintiffs counsel has engaged in a political stunt, which
simply detracts from the merits of the serious legal issues before this court. (Doc. 25.) In a
footnote the Court explained that: [t]he typical practice in serving subpoenas upon parties
Twenty-six hours is an estimate because on several of the billing entries relating to the subpoena,
Plaintiffs counsel also commingled other tasks. For instance, on October 9, 2014, Mohamedbhai spent 2.8
hours on strategize re subpoena; prepare clients for hearing[] and on the same day, Jahanian spent 3.3
hours on [p]repare subpoena; confer re pro hac vice motions; draft motion for summary judgment. (Doc.
70-3, p. 17.) It is impossible for the State Defendants to know the exact time Plaintiffs counsel spent on
the subpoena. For this reason, the entire 26 hours should be disallowedPlaintiffs counsel have not met
their burden to show that the hours billed and requested are reasonable.
Page 8 of 20
represented by counsel is to advise in advance opposing counsel of the intent to serve his or her
client with a subpoena, and seek to have counsel accept service on behalf of their client to minimize
costs and difficulties in service. That initially was not done in this case. For no good reason. Id.
The time and expenses relating to the subpoena were unnecessary to the legal issues of the
case because there was no legitimate evidentiary need for the testimony of Governor Mead. Id.
(See Case, 157 F.3d at 150, See also Carter, 36 F.3d at 956). Plaintiffs should not be allowed to
recover the 26 hours and $180 in service costs relating to the subpoena.
III.
Time spent on pro hac vice motions was excessive.

Plaintiffs attorneys request approximately 27 hours of time associated with drafting,
reviewing, and discussing pro hac vice motions.6 (Docs. 70-1, pp. 16-17; 70-2, pp. 18-19; 70-3,
pp. 17-19; and 70-4, pp. 5, 7.) Pro hac vice motions are essentially pro forma filings that can be
easily created and duplicated. (See Docs. 8, 12, 29, and 30.) Twenty-seven hours is excessive for
this simple, basic task.
Further, time spent becoming admitted in a specific jurisdiction is not appropriate to be
billed to the client, but is simply a matter of personal qualification for an attorney. While
admission to the bar of the court of appeals is certainly a prerequisite to defending an appeal in
that forum, an attorneys professional licensing and bar admissions are matters of personal
qualification for the attorney himself to pursue, apart from the time expended in defense of a
particular appeal. Parker v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 987 F.Supp.2d 1224, 1232 (D.Utah 2013). The
same logic is applicable here. Clearly, the pro hac vice motions were necessary for the out-of-
As previously noted, not all of the 27 hours is associated solely with the pro hac vice motions because
other tasks were combined in the billing descriptions. However, it is impossible for the State Defendants
to know the exact time Plaintiffs counsel spent on tasks relating solely to the pro hac vice motions. For
this reason, the entire 27 hours should be disallowed.
Page 9 of 20
state attorneys to practice before this Court, but they are personal bar admission matters that are
separate from time expended litigating the case. As such, these hours should be disallowed.
IV.
All work performed drafting, reviewing, or editing documents after service or

filing should be disallowed.
On four separate instances, for a total of 5.5 hours, Plaintiffs attorneys billed fees for time
spent working on pleadings that had already been served or filed. On October 8, 2014, Stoever
billed 3 hours for [r]evisions to federal complaint and preliminary motion[.] (Doc. 70-1, p. 16.)
However, the federal complaint was filed one day earlier on October 7, 2014, and the complaint
was never amended.7 (Doc. 1.) Further, on October 9, 2014, Stoever billed 1 hour for [r]evisions
to preliminary motion. (Doc. 70-1, p. 16.) The preliminary injunction motion was filed one day
earlier on October 8, 2014. (Doc. 7.) On October 10, 2014, Mohamedbhai billed .6 hours to:
[c]ontinue strategizing re subpoena[], however, the subpoena was served the previous day on
October 9, 2014. (Docs. 70-3, p. 18; 18, and 25.) Last, on December 2, 2014, Golz billed .9 hours
to file and serve plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings[,] however, that motion was
filed on November 24, a week earlier. (Docs. 70-1, p. 21; 56.) These 5.5 hours are unreasonable
and unnecessary. See Case, 157 F.3d at 1250. They further call into question the accuracy of
Plaintiffs counsels billing statements.
V.
Work on pleadings that were never filed should be disallowed.

Jahanian seeks recovery for 5.9 hours for researching and drafting a motion for summary
judgment that was never filed. (Doc. 70-3, pp. 17-18.) Belzer also requests recovery for 3 hours
for research on a summary judgment motion. Id. at p. 18. Hours that an attorney would not
properly bill to his or her client cannot reasonably be billed to the adverse party. See Case, 157
Again, Stoevers entry combines multiple tasks and it is impossible to know how much of the 3 hours
was spent on revising the complaint and how much was spent on the motion.
Page 10 of 20
F.3d at 1250. It is not reasonable or proper to bill a client for work on a motion that was never
filed. As such, these 8.9 hours are unreasonable, excessive, and should be disallowed.
VI.
Plaintiffs counsels preparation time, travel time, and attendance at the preliminary
injunction hearing was excessive.
Approximately 130 hours was billed by seven different attorneys in preparation for, travel
to, and attendance at, the preliminary injunction hearing. If more attorneys assist in a matter than
are needed, compensation should be denied for any excess time. Case, 157 F.3d at 1250. Four of
those seven attorneys either observed or did not attend the hearing at all. Specifically, Lyman
spent 46.2 hours preparing for and attending the preliminary injunction hearing. (Doc. 70-1, pp.
16-18.) However, Lyman did not participate in the hearing. (See Transcript, Exhibit C.) None of
Lymans 46.2 hours describe preparing witnesses or any other task that a hearing non-participant
attorney would reasonably be expected to assist with leading up to a hearing.
As part of those 130 billed hours, Minter and Stoll combined to bill approximately 23 hours
in preparation for, travel to, and attendance at, the preliminary injunction hearing without
participating in the hearing or preparing any witness. (Doc. 70-2, pp. 18-19.) Last, Mohamedbhai
billed approximately 7 hours8 for what appears to be his preparation for the hearing. (Doc. 70-3,
pp. 18-19.) For instance, on October 14, he [f]inalized pro hac vice motion; review and revise
reply to State Defendants response to preliminary injunction motion; prepare for hearing[] and
on October 16 he [c]ontinue[d] preparing for hearing; participate in hearing.9 Id. at p. 19.
Mohamedbhais time is hard to calculate as he combines many tasks together on billing entries.
Mohamedbhai also spent an additional 2.6 hours preparing for the hearing but his billing entry also
describes [p]repar[ing] clients for hearing[] which seems reasonable to the State Defendants. (Doc. 70-3,
p. 19.)
Page 11 of 20
However, although Mohamedbhai attended the hearing, he did not participate in the hearing and
this time should be reduced. (See Exhibit C.)
The State Defendants contend that the 76 hours billed by Minter, Stoll, Lyman, and
Mohamedbhai relating to attending or preparing for the hearing were excessive, unnecessary, and
duplicative. The hearing lasted approximately one hour and three different Plaintiffs attorneys
participated in the hearing. (Exhibit C.) Those three participating attorneys (Stoever, Jahanian,
and Zubrod) preparation, travel, and participation time totaled approximately 53 hours and may be
reasonable, although three attorneys participating in the hearing could be excessive. (Doc. 70-1,
pp. 17-18; 70-3, p. 19; and 70-4, pp. 5-8.)
This court should reduce the number of hours expended by Lyman, Stoll, Minter, and
Mohamedbhai, who simply observed the hearing without participation. [T]he fee applicant bears
the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours
expended and hourly rates. Case, 157 F.3d at 1249.
VII.
Time spent on the fee petition is excessive.

The State Defendants do not contest that collecting reasonable fees for drafting a fee
petition is permissible. An award of reasonable attorneys fees may include compensation for
work performed in preparing and presenting the fee application. Mares v. Credit Bureau of Raton,
801 F.2d 1197, 1205 (10th Cir. 1986); and See Glass v. Pfeffer, 849 F.2d 1261, 1266 n. 3 (10th
Cir.1988); Hernandez v. George, 793 F.2d 264, 269 (10th Cir.1986). That being said, Plaintiffs
are requesting about 44 hours of time devoted solely to their fee petition. (Docs. 70-3, pp. 21-22;
70-2, pp. 18-21.) Further, a new attorney, Amy Whelan, who had no involvement in litigating the
case, billed 4.9 hours, all of which were devoted solely to the fee petition. (Doc. 70-2, p. 21.)
Courts have refused to award attorneys fees for conducting research and drafting motions
Page 12 of 20
pertaining to attorney fee recovery because the time submitted for post-trial work was excessive.
See Case, 157 F.3d at 1254. Forty-four hours is excessive.
In comparison, according to the billing statements, Plaintiffs counsel billed approximately
60 hours for the two major court filings, the complaint and the preliminary injunction motion.
(Docs. 70-1, p. 16; 70-2, pp. 18-19; 70-3, p. 17; and 70-4, pp. 5-6.) As such, counsel for Plaintiffs
attorneys billed nearly as much time for the post judgment attorneys fee motion as they did for
the complaint and preliminary injunction motion, which is excessive and unreasonable for such a
simple, non-complex filing. Plaintiffs counsels time should be reduced because 44 hours is
excessive and unreasonable.
The State Defendants believe some of Jahanians time spent drafting and revising the fee
petition in the amount of 19.5 hours is reasonable.10 The other time spent by Jahanian and the
other attorneys is duplicative and excessive. In fact, a substantial portion of the time spent on the
fee petition is limited to confer[ing] re fee petition. Based upon the billing statements, it appears
that Plaintiffs counsel spent at least 5 hours simply conferring on the fee petition. (Doc. 70-3, pp.
21-22.)
VIII. Other duplicative work is unreasonable and excessive.
The duplicative work of Minter and Stoll has already been discussed; however, there are
other examples of duplicative, excessive billing in Plaintiffs counsels fee request. In addition to
Minter and Stoll, Plaintiffs counsel requests attorneys fees for approximately 18 hours of
reviews, revisions, and edits of the complaint and preliminary injunction motion by four different
attorneys in addition to approximately 31 hours Lyman billed to draft the documents. (Doc. 70-1,
p. 16; 70-3, pp. 17; 70-4, p. 5.) Five attorneys working on one document is excessive and
10
This figure includes Jahanians time on December 4, 5, 15, 2014, and February 24, and 25, 2015. (Doc.
70-3, pp. 21-22.)
Page 13 of 20
duplicative and should be reduced. See Case, 157 F.3d at 1250. The State Defendants believe that
billing for reviewing and revising a pleading by one attorney is reasonable at times, given the
nature of the case and the documents being drafted.
Further, four attorneys (not including Minter and Stoll) and a legal assistant billed around
5 hours to review this Courts order granting preliminary injunction. (Docs. 70-1, p. 18; 70-2, pp.
18-19; 70-3, pp. 19-20; and 70-4, p. 5.) It is excessive and unreasonable for four attorneys and a
legal assistant to bill to review the Courts order. We think it is reasonable for the attorney that
performed the majority of the work on the pleadings to bill and recover for his time to review the
Courts order.
Duplicative and excessive billings are pervasive throughout Plaintiffs counsels billings.
It is excess and inappropriate for at least four to five attorneys (not including Stoll and Minter) to
bill for reviewing party filings and orders of the Court. Plaintiffs attorneys have not met their
burden of proving why it is reasonable for every attorney on the case to bill for and seek fees for
reviewing relatively straightforward pleadings and orders. Because there are nine different
attorney billings with entries that contain multiple tasks, State Defendants have had a hard time
parsing out the exact number of hours each attorney dedicated for duplicative work such as
reviewing and revising pleadings and reviewing orders. The State Defendants do not wish to imply
that all time spent reviewing or editing a court filing is duplicative; however, when five
experienced, well trained attorneys and a legal assistant are all reviewing various court filings, a
portion of that time is excessive and duplicative and should be reduced to a reasonable number of
hours.
Page 14 of 20
IX.
Billing for work on the State same sex marriage case is not appropriate.
Plaintiffs attorneys seek 5.2 hours of time spent working on the prior case they filed in
State district court, Courage v. Mead, et al. Those charges are:

10/15/2014
review transcript of state

court case regarding issue
of states request for stay
of case (Doc. 70-4, pp. 67.)
Zubrod
11
0.60
1.80
11/11/2014
[redacted] regarding
states motions in federal
and state cases. (Doc. 701, p. 19.)
Lyman
11/13/2014
Attend to calls with

defendants counsel
regarding upcoming
status conference. Id. at
20.
Lyman
0.60
11/14/2014
Prepare for and attend

status hearing in Courage
v. Wyoming case. Id. at
p. 20.
Lyman
0.50
1/5/2015
Work on filings with

Wyoming District Court.
Id. at p. 21.
Stoever
1.00
1/30/2015
Legal Assistant Services

for T. Stoever: review
state court file regarding
status of case and next
steps before Judge
Campbell. Id. at p. 22.
Golz
0.70
These charges are not in connection with this case and should not be included in Plaintiffs
fee request.
11
Lymans billings indicate he worked on motions in the state case along with motions in the federal case.
It is impossible for the State Defendants to parse out the exact amount of time he spent on the state case.
Page 15 of 20
X.
Plaintiffs reasonable fees and costs should be split between both defendants, Debra
K. Lathrop, Laramie County Clerk and the State Defendants
This case involves a situation where the Plaintiffs were the prevailing party against multiple
defendants. The Attorneys Fees Database treatise discusses this type of situation.
Where a plaintiff prevails against multiple defendants and obtains an award
of attorneys fees, a question may arise as to the allocation of liability for the fee
award among the defendants. Initially, the allocation of a fee award is a matter
committed to the District Courts discretion, and a courts determination will not
be disturbed unless there is an abuse of discretion.
There are a number of possible methods of allocating a fee award. Where
the defendants are joint tortfeasors or are otherwise jointly responsible for actions
that produced an indivisible injury, it may be appropriate to hold each defendant
jointly and severally liable for the entire fee award. An alternative method in a case
involving roughly equal wrongdoers is to divide the fees equally among the
defendants.
Where the claims against the defendants are separate and distinct or where
culpability is significantly unequal, a court may choose among other methods of
allocating the fee award. One approach is to apportion the attorneys fees in accord
with each defendants relative degree of culpability or in the same proportions as
the jury assessed damages. Alternatively, a court may apportion the fees according
to the relative amounts of time spent by the plaintiff in preparing the case against
each defendant. When one defendant is solely or largely responsible for a single
claim within an action, a court may choose to hold that defendant liable for all of
the attorneys fees related to that claim. Finally, a court may decide it is appropriate
to combine two or more of the above approaches in allocating the fee award.
1 Attorneys Fees 10:27 (3d ed.)(internal citations omitted).
The State Defendants assert that the recoverable fees and costs should be equally divided
between the Laramie County Clerk and the State Defendants. Most of the substantive work on the
case was applicable against both the Laramie County Clerk and the State of Wyoming, including
the complaint, preliminary injunction motion and hearing, and the motion for judgment on the
pleadings. Further, Plaintiffs essentially raised two claims in this case. One claim was brought
against the Laramie County Clerk demanding her to issue marriage certificates for same sex
couples and the other claim was brought against the State Defendants demanding that the State
Page 16 of 20
recognize valid same sex marriages entered in other states for the purpose of receiving spousal
benefits.
In addition, a considerable amount of work, around 15 to 17 hours, was performed and
billed by Plaintiffs attorneys directly in response to the county and its filings. (Docs. 70-1, pp.
17, 19; 70-2, pp. 18-19; 70-3, pp. 18, 20; and 70-4, pp. 5-9.) Based on the evenly divided claims
and joint work on this case, the easiest and fairest allocation of fees and expenses is to evenly
divide them between Laramie County and the State of Wyoming.
XI.
The costs incurred by Plaintiffs attorneys are excessive.

Plaintiffs counsel requests costs in the total amount of $5,125.97. (Docs. 70-1, p. 23; 70-
2, pp. 21, 22; and 70-3, p. 24.) The costs include: 1) Stolls travel costs ($1,606.53) to travel from
San Francisco to Casper for the preliminary injunction hearing; 2) Mohamedbhais travels costs
from Denver to Casper for the preliminary injunction hearing, processing costs to serve a subpoena
on Governor Mead, and miscellaneous mailing costs totaling $743.72; and 3) Lymans and
Stoevers travel costs to Casper for the preliminary injunction hearing and miscellaneous other
costs (filing fees, copying and Westlaw research) totaling $2,775.72.
As explained earlier, Stoll did not participate in the hearing and his travel costs should not
be allowed. Mohamedbhai also did not participate in the hearing and his travel costs totaling
$480.57 should not be allowed. Further, as described earlier, Mohamedbhais processing fees of
$180 to serve the subpoena on Governor Mead should be disallowed. Lymans travel costs of
$122.7712 should not be allowed because he did not participate in the hearing. Last, Arnold and
Porters $1,100 in filing fees should be reduced. It appears that $700 of the filing fees relate to
12
In Arnold and Porters billing statements, Lymans and Stoevers travel costs are not separated. The
State Defendants took the total cost amounts under the headings hotel and travel meals and reduced
those by one half to account for Lymans travel costs. (Doc. 70-1, p. 23.)
Page 17 of 20
pro hac vice admission which, as described earlier, should not be the responsibility of the
defendants. Based upon these reasonable and necessary reductions, the State Defendants believe
Plaintiffs attorneys are entitled to $2,036.10 in costs.
Conclusion
In sum, in order to identify the appropriate lodestar fee award, the Court must determine
the appropriate number of hours at the appropriate rate. Case, 157 F.3d at 1249. The State
Defendants are willing to accept the hourly rates submitted by Plaintiffs counsel; however, the
State Defendants object to the number of hours billed in this case. For the convenience of the
Court, the chart below reflects the fees that the State Defendants believe are fair and reasonable
and that reflects proper and appropriate billing judgment.
Name
Firm
Thomas
Stoever
James Lyman
Arnold & Porter

LLP
Arnold & Porter
LLP
Arnold & Porter
LLP
Rathod
Mohamedbhai
LLC
Rathod
Mohamedbhai
LLC
Rathod
Mohamedbhai
LLC
Zubrod Law
Office, PC
National Center
for Lesbian Rights
National Center
for Lesbian Rights
National Center
for Lesbian Rights
Rebecca Golz
(paralegal)
Qusair
Mohamedbhai
Arash
Jahanian
Aaron Belzer
Tracy Zubrod
Shannon
Minter
Christopher
Stoll
Amy Whelan
Total
Hourly
rate
$325
Total
hours
billed
35
Recommended
allowed hours
Total fees
billed
Recommended
allowed fees
30
$11,375
$9,750
$262.40
101.6
54.5
$26,659.84
$14,300.80
$133.25
23.3
5.8
$3,104.73
$772.85
$300
21.9
$6,570
$1,200
$200
70.7
45.1
$14,140
$9,020
$140
13.5
1.7
$1,890
$238
$220
38.3
31.9
$8,426
$7,018
$325
19.8
$6,435
$300
42.6
$12,780
$275
4.9
$1,347.50
371.6
173
$92,728.07
$42,299.65
Page 18 of 20
As the chart reveals, the State Defendants believe that Plaintiffs counsel is entitled to a
total of 173 hours of work on the case for a total of $42,299.65. Further, Plaintiffs counsel should
only be entitled to costs in the amount $2,036.10. The State Defendants believe this represents a
fair, reasonable, and appropriate amount of fees and costs. Last, the State Defendants believe that
these amounts should be split evenly between the County and the State Defendants.
Dated this 12th day of March, 2015.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
/s/ Jared S. Crecelius

Peter K. Michael, (Wyo. Bar. No. 5-2309)
Attorney General of Wyoming
Martin L. Hardsocg (Wyo. Bar No. 6-2919)
Deputy Attorney General
Ryan T. Schelhaas (Wyo. Bar No. 6-3321)
Michael M. Robinson (Wyo. Bar. No. 6-2658)
Jared S. Crecelius (Wyo. Bar No. 6-4118)
Attorneys for State Defendants
123 State Capitol
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-7876
(307) 777-3687 fax
pete.michael@wyo.gov
marty.hardsocg@wyo.gov
ryan.schelhaas@wyo.gov
mike.robinson@wyo.gov
jared.crecelius@wyo.gov
Page 19 of 20
I certify that on this 12th day of March, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing with the
CM/ECF system which sent notice to the following:
Tracy L. Zubrod
zubrod@aol.com
Thomas W. Stoever, Jr.

thomas.stoever@aporter.com
Qusair Mohamedbhai
qm@rmlawyers.com
Shannon P. Minter
Christopher F. Stoll
sminter@nclrights.org
Mark T. Voss
mvoss@laramiecounty.com
Bernard P. Haggerty
bernardh@laramiecounty.com
/s/ Jared S. Crecelius

Jared S. Crecelius
Page 20 of 20
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 72-1

70-1 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 1
2 of 85
23

DISTRICT OF WYOMING
)
)
)
Anne Marie Guzzo and Bonnie Robinson;
)
Ivan Williams and Charles Killion;
)
Brie Barth and Shelly Montgomery;
)
Carl Oleson and Rob Johnston; and
)
Wyoming Equality,
)
)
v.
) Case No. 14-cv-00200-SWS
)
Defendants,
)
)
Matthew H. Mead, in his official capacity
)
as the Governor of Wyoming; Dean Fausset, in his official
)
capacity as Director of the Wyoming Department of
)
Administration and Information; Dave Urquidez, in his
)
official capacity as Administrator of the State of Wyoming
)
Human Resources Division; and Debra K. Lathrop, in her
)
official capacity as Laramie County Clerk,
)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiffs,
DECLARATION OF THOMAS W. STOEVER, JR. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES
__________________________________________________________________
I, Thomas W. Stoever, Jr., hereby declare and state as follows:
1.
I am a member in good standing of the Colorado State Bar. I am also a member
in good standing of the State Bars of California and Florida. I am a partner at the international
law firm of Arnold & Porter LLP. I have been asked to make this Declaration in Support of
Plaintiffs Motion for Reasonable Attorneys Fees and Expenses. I have personal knowledge of
the matters stated in this Declaration and could and would confidently testify to these facts.
2.
I attended the Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley,
and graduated in 1990. After graduation from law school, I worked at the law firm of Covington
EXHIBIT A

70-1 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 2
3 of 85
23
& Burling in Washington, D.C. In 1994, I moved from Covington & Burling to Arnold &
Porters office in Denver, Colorado. Arnold & Porter has offices in several locations around the
country and around the world, including, but not limited to, Washington, D.C., New York, San
Francisco, and London. The firms work runs the gamut from corporate and transactional
matters to litigation.
3.
I have extensive experience litigating complex, multi-jurisdictional cases. This
has included environmental matters, antitrust matters, and mass tort cases. My experience has
included all phases of litigation, including motions practice, discovery, trials, and appeals. I
have handled cases in jurisdictions around the country, including, but not limited to, Colorado,
Florida, California, Texas, New York, Arizona, Utah, Montana, and Wyoming. I have argued
numerous appeals including, but not limited to, two en banc arguments before the Federal Circuit
Court of Appeals and an appearance in the United States Supreme Court (See Attachment 1).
4.
In addition to my professional experience, I am an active member of the Colorado
Bar Association, the American Bar Association, and the Faculty of Federal Advocates in the
District of Colorado. Over the years I have made several CLE presentations to peers and
colleagues regarding various aspects of litigation, legal ethics, and trial practice. I have also
served on the Board of Directors of several local, national, and international nonprofit
organizations.
5.
L. James Lyman was an associate at Arnold & Porter. Mr. Lyman received his
law degree from the University of Colorado School of Law in 2007 (Order of the Coif). Mr.
Lyman was editor of the University of Colorado Law Review. After graduation he clerked for
the Honorable Lewis T. Babcock on the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
Mr. Lyman practiced before the state and federal courts of Colorado, the Court of Appeals for

70-1 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 3
4 of 85
23
the Tenth Circuit, the Court of Federal Claims, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Mr. Lymans practice included representing clients in all phases of litigation (See Attachment 2).
In December 2014, Mr. Lyman left Arnold & Porter to become a trial attorney with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
6.
Arnold & Porter was retained in this litigation by the Plaintiffs to challenge
Wyomings laws prohibiting the issuance of marriage licenses to same-gender couples and
prohibiting recognition of valid marriages of same-gender couples entered into in other
jurisdictions. The individual plaintiffs in this action did not have the resources to retain private
legal counsel and could not financially afford paying the attorneys fees and expenses necessary
to proceed with this action. Arnold & Porter is therefore representing Plaintiffs pro bono.
Plaintiffs have agreed that any awarded attorneys fees and costs will belong and be paid to their
counsel.
7.
After the Supreme Court struck down the Federal Defense of Marriage Act in
Windsor v. United States, 570 U.S. 12 (2013), I was approached by representatives from the
National Center for Lesbian Rights about the possibility of representing same-gender couples.
Beginning in early 2014, Mr. Lyman and I began to research and prepare a complaint for
injunctive relief to be filed in the Wyoming state courts. That complaint was filed on March 5,
2014. The Governor and the Laramie County Clerk were named as defendants. In addition to
filing a complaint, we filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Wyomings
constitution prohibited the application of Wyomings statute defining marriage as a union
between one man and one woman. At the Governors request, a hearing on that motion for
summary judgment was delayed so the parties could take discovery.

70-1 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 4
5 of 85
23
8.
While that discovery was ongoing, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Kitchen
v. Herbert. Immediately after the Supreme Courts denial of certiorari, Mr. Lyman and I
prepared and filed a complaint in federal court. That complaint was filed on October 7, 2014.
The next day we filed a motion for preliminary injunction.
9.
I managed the process of researching and drafting the complaint, the motion for
preliminary injunction, and supporting papers. I took the lead at the hearing on the motion for
preliminary injunction. Two days after the hearing, the Court granted our motion and the
Governor chose not to appeal.
10.
I served as lead counsel for Plaintiffs in this litigation. I was ultimately
responsible for making all strategy calls and deploying the teams legal and other resources for
research, drafting, etc. I was also ultimately responsible for responding to the questions and
concerns of our clients and making sure they were fully informed regarding the status of the
litigation.
11.
Plaintiffs counsel litigated this case efficiently and without duplication of effort.
I brought my experience working with multiple law firms representing a single client (i.e., the
virtual firm model) to bear on this litigation.
12.
This complex and groundbreaking litigation was expedited over a very short
period. As noted above, Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction was filed almost
immediately after the filing of the complaint. A hearing was requested and scheduled shortly
thereafter. The time from filing a complaint to issuance of a preliminary injunction was just ten
days.
13.
The Governor of Wyoming increased the workload for Plaintiffs counsel by
insisting on taking this matter to a hearing. As noted in the Courts order issuing a preliminary

70-1 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 5
6 of 85
23
injunction, Kitchen v. Herbert was the law of the Tenth Circuit. The Court was obliged to follow
that law. And, most importantly, the Governor never argued to the contrary or put on any
evidence suggesting that the burden of a preliminary injunction would outweigh the benefit. The
Governor could have significantly reduced the fees and expenses accrued by Plaintiffs counsel
by agreeing to a preliminary injunction.
14.
Moreover, the Governor had no fewer than four lawyers working on his
opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction. In addition, there were four lawyers present
at the preliminary injunction hearing. The Governors staffing decisions in this case are a further
reflection of its significance and complexity. The Court should consider the Governors staffing
when evaluating the reasonableness of the fee petition submitted by Plaintiffs counsel.
15.
Despite the demands and challenges, the efforts of Plaintiffs counsel produced an
excellent result. Plaintiffs prevailed on all claims in their complaint and helped to established
marriage equality in the Equality State. The lives of the Plaintiffs and thousands of other
families and individuals in Wyoming have been forever altered as a result of the Courts decision
in this case, recognizing their fundamental rights to due process and equal protection under the
U.S. Constitution.
16.
Attorneys and legal assistants at Arnold & Porter maintained detailed time
records. Those records are attached. In addition to myself and Mr. Lyman, Rebecca Golz, a
legal assistant at the firm, has billed time to this matter. These billing records reflect only the
time billed since the Supreme Courts denial of certiorari in the Kitchen v. Herbert case. None
of the time spent on research, drafting the complaint filed in state court, preparing the motion for
summary judgment filed in state court, or appearing in that venue are part of Arnold & Porters
fee petition in this case. All of that time provided a foundation for the work done in federal

70-1 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 6
7 of 85
23
court. Put another way, we would have spent more time researching, drafting, and preparing to
argue in federal court, had we not done the work in state court.
17.
Arnold & Porter is requesting to be compensated for 159.90 hours at an aggregate
rate of $257 per hour, which we believe is reasonable within the legal community given the
background, experience, and skill of the lawyers involved. Further, this rate is reasonable given
the exceptionally rare congruence and complexity, risk, and time demands of this case, as well as
the degree of success achieved.
18.
This hourly rate is based upon comparable rates typically billed by Wyoming
firms in commercial cases, and what other attorneys with similar skill, reputation, and experience
charge for similar work. In commercial cases, my usual hourly billable rate is $795.00 an hour,
Mr. Lymans billable rate was $640.00 per hour, and Ms. Golz billable rate is $325.00 per hour.
However, in this case, we have adjusted my hourly billable rate to $325.00, Mr. Lymans billable
rate to $262.40, and Ms. Golz billable rate to $133.25.
19.
Arnold & Porter is seeking a total award in fees of $41,139.62 (See Attachment 3).
Please note this figure does not include the time spent preparing our fee petition. In the event
Defendants dispute Plaintiffs fee petition, Plaintiffs counsel will submit supplemental time
records, at the appropriate time, for any time incurred after February 1, 2015. These are expenses
that we typically charge to fee-paying clients.
20.
In addition to fees, Arnold & Porter seeks to recover $2,775.72 in expenses. This
includes $659.39 for online research; $133.05 for copying; $1,100.00 for filing fees; and,
$628.14 for travel from Denver to Casper for the hearing on the motion for preliminary
injunction.

70-1 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 7
8 of 85
23
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed in Denver, Colorado on this 26th day of February, 2015.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Thomas W. Stoever, Jr.

70-1 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 8
9 of 85
23
ATTACHMENT 1
Case
Case2:14-cv-00200-SWS
2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document
Document70-1
72-1 Filed
Filed02/26/15
03/12/15 Page
Page10
9 of
of85
23

Partner
Tom Stoever is a partner in Arnold & Porter
LLP's Denver office and represents clients in
complex litigation-including environmental
matters, antitrust cases, consumer class
actions, product liability, and commercial
cases.
Environmental
Mr. Stoever has represented individuals and corporations in
environmental litigation in both state and federal courts. He has
defended clients in Superfund and regulatory actions, citizen suits
under the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act cases, National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) litigation, toxic tort cases, and
natural resource damage claims. Mr. Stoever has, in addition,
negotiated on behalf of his clients with federal and state agencies for
a variety of permits for use of public lands. He has also represented
clients in environmental insurance coverage litigation.
Antitrust
Mr. Stoever has represented corporations and standard-setting
bodies in large, multiparty antitrust matters brought under federal
and state competition statutes.
Product Liability and Consumer Class Actions
Mr. Stoever has represented pharmaceutical manufacturers,
consumer product makers, and technology companies in
multijurisdictional product liability and consumer class action
litigation, managing cases from initiation through discovery and trial
in jurisdictions around the country, including several jurisdictions
considered particularly hostile for corporate defendants. He has
represented clients at trial and managed large "virtual law firms"
comprised of attorneys from firms around the country.
Pro Bono
Mr. Stoever's pro bono practice has focused on litigating claims on
behalf of veterans seeking benefits from the US government. He has
represented former service men and women in matters before the
arnoldporter.com
Contact Information
Thomas.Stoever@aporter.com
tel: +1 303.863.2328
fax: +1 303.832.0428
Suite 4400
370 Seventeenth Street
Denver, CO 80202-1370
Areas of Practice
Product Liability Litigation
Environmental
Litigation
Legislative and Public Policy
Nanotechnology
Antitrust/Competition
Information Security, Electronic
Surveillance and Computer
Crime
Consumer Products
Political Law, Government Ethics,
and Lobbying Compliance
Energy
Education
JD, University of California,
Berkeley School of Law (Boalt
Hall), 1990
MA, Johns Hopkins School of
Advanced International Studies,
1984
BA, Johns Hopkins University,
1983
Admissions
California
Colorado
Supreme Court of the United
States
Various Federal Courts
Florida

70-1 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 10
11 of 85
23
US Court of Veterans Appeals and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, including two en
banc arguments before that court. He was recognized for his work on the Henderson v. Shinseki in the
2011 Annual Report for the Veterans Consortiums Pro Bono Program.
Mr. Stoever also represents a class of landowners in southern Colorado in litigation to obtain their
ancestral rights to access large tracts of private land for grazing and timber.
Representative Matters
Representation of the owners of a large power plant in toxic tort litigation brought by neighbors
alleging groundwater contamination by coal combustion by-products.
Representation of a consumer product manufacturer in a citizen suit brought pursuant to the

Endangered Species Act.
Representation of a transportation company in the negotiation of an Incidental Take Permit and

Habitat Conservation Plan under the Endangered Species Act.
Representation of Visa in antitrust litigation brought by American Express, Discover, and a

purported class of merchants.
Representation of a large resort company in permitting for ski areas on National Forest land.
Representation of Wyeth in the diet drug litigation. Responsible for overseeing all aspects of
thousands of cases in 17 states, Mr. Stoever developed and implemented strategies for fact and
expert discovery, the generation of scientific testimony, and the formation and staffing of teams
to prepare and try cases.
Representation of Philip Morris in its litigation with state attorneys general, health insurers, and
consumers in individual and class actions.
Representation of a standard-setting organization in antitrust litigation brought by a

manufacturer.
Representation of clients in large commercial litigation and arbitration.
Representation of investors in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class

action.
Articles
Thomas W. Stoever, Jr. "Caution! Forest Plan Revisions Ahead" Ski Area Management, July 1,
1996
Presentations
Thomas W. Stoever, Jr. "Presentation: Multi-jurisdictional Practice: A Trap for In-house

Counsel," Association of Corporate Counsel, Colorado Chapter, January 2006
Thomas W. Stoever, Jr. "Presentation: Ethical Issues for In-house Counsel in the Wake of
Sarbanes Oxley," Association of Corporate Counsel, Colorado Chapter, December 2004
Advisories

Arnold & Porter LLP 2

70-1 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 11
12 of 85
23
"Reefer Madness - New Treasury Guidance for Banks Providing Financial Services to Marijuana
Sellers" Mar. 2014
Multimedia
Daphne O'Connor, Jessica Mayer, Maurice A. Leiter and Thomas W. Stoever, Jr.. "Setting the
Goals, Building the Team, Managing the Budget" July 19, 2012.

Arnold & Porter LLP 3

70-1 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 12
13 of 85
23
ATTACHMENT 2

70-1 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 13
14 of 85
23
L. James Lyman
Alumni
James Lyman assists clients at all stages of
litigation, including pleading, discovery, trial,
and appeal. James' litigation experience
includes internal investigations and complex
motions practice in matters involving both
state and federal government agencies,
including matters arising under the False Claims Act and AntiKickback Act. James has represented clients in class actions,
arbitrations, and other complex litigation matters involving breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, theft of intellectual property, civil
fraud, and product liability.
James is an Associate of the American Arbitration Association's
International Center for Dispute Resolution Young and International
Group and presents a Continuing Legal Education seminar
addressing forum selection clauses and arbitration clauses entitled:
"Making it Stick: Choosing a Forum and Staying There."
James served as a judicial clerk for the Honorable Lewis T. Babcock
of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado from
2007 though 2009. While in law school, James was an editor of the
University of Colorado Law Review. He is the author of "Coalbed
Methane: Crafting a Right to Sell from an Obligation to Vent." 78 U.
Colo. L. Rev. 613 (2007).
arnoldporter.com
Contact Information
James.Lyman@APORTER.COM
tel: +1 303.863.2381
fax: +1 303.832.0428
Suite 4400
370 Seventeenth Street
Denver, CO 80202-1370
Areas of Practice
Litigation
Education
JD, Order of the Coif, University
of Colorado School of Law, 2007
BA in Communications, summa
cum laude, University of
Colorado, 2004
Admissions
Colorado
US District Court for the District
of Colorado
US Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit
US Court of Federal Claims
US Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit

70-1 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 14
15 of 85
23
ATTACHMENT 3
Arnold & Porter LLP
List of Fee and Disbursement

Entries
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS
Document
70-1 Filed 03/12/15
72-1
02/26/15 Page 15
16 of 85
23
From Transaction Date: 10/6/2014 to Transaction Date: 2/10/2015
0091738
National Center for Lesbian Rights

Base
Control
Group Line
Timekeeper (Category)
00004
32419968
Tran Date
Description
Billed
Hourly
Rate
Time/Unit
Value
Time/Unit
0.00
262.40
10.90
6,976.00
2,860.16
10.90
Prebill Num
Print
Flag
2713661
Amount Bill Num
Wyoming Marriage Equality Action

4261
Lyman, L. James
10/06/14
draft
federal complaint and motion for
preliminary injunction;
32422624
7153
Golz, Rebecca A.
10/07/14
Legal Assistant Services for J. Lyman:

prepare draft summonses, praecipe for
summons and pro hac vice motion for
Guzzo case in federal court.
0.00
133.25
2.50
333.13
812.50
2.50
2713661
32419969
4261
Lyman, L. James
10/07/14
Draft and revise federal complaint and

prepare for filing;
0.00
262.40
11.40
2,991.36
7,296.00
11.40
2713661
draft
motion for preliminary injunction.
34932976
4387
Stoever, Thomas W.
10/08/14
Revisions to federal complaint and

preliminary motion;
0.00
325.00
3.00
975.00
2,385.00
3.00
2713661
32427295
4261
Lyman, L. James
10/08/14
Draft and revise preliminary injunction

motion;
0.00
262.40
8.50
5,440.00
2,230.40
8.50
2713661
32422585
7153
Golz, Rebecca A.
10/08/14
133.25
0.00
2.90
386.43
942.50
2.90
2713661
34932984
4387
Stoever, Thomas W.
10/09/14

circulate affidavits for reference in
draft motion for preliminary injunction;
finalize file and serve pro hac vice
motion and motion for preliminary
injunction.
Revisions to preliminary motion.
0.00
325.00
1.00
325.00
795.00
1.00
2713661
32427297
4261
Lyman, L. James
10/09/14
Prepare
for upcoming
preliminary injunction hearing;
0.00
262.40
6.30
1,653.12
4,032.00
6.30
2713661
32422503
7153
Golz, Rebecca A.
10/09/14

prepare, file and serve pro hac vice
motion for T. Stoever; prepare
subpoena to appear for hearing;
prepare waiver and acceptance of
service of subpoena to appear at
hearing; prepare and submit ECF
registration form.
0.00
133.25
3.70
1,202.50
493.03
3.70
2713661
Page: 1
0091738
Control
Group Line
Arnold & Porter LLP

Entries
Document
70-1 Filed 03/12/15
72-1
02/26/15 Page 16
17 of 85
23

Base
Prebill Num
Print
Flag
2713661
2.00
2713661
2,112.00
865.92
3.30
2713661
3.30
865.92
2,112.00
3.30
2713661
0.00
325.00
4.00
1,300.00
3,180.00
4.00
2713661
0.00
262.40
7.60
1,994.24
4,864.00
7.60
2713661
262.40
0.00
10.50
2,755.20
6,720.00
10.50
2713661
0.00
325.00
5.00
1,625.00
3,975.00
5.00
2713661
Description
prepare draft pro hac vice motions for
co-counsel.
Prepare for hearing next week in
Casper.
0.00
133.25
1.10
146.58
357.50
1.10
0.00
325.00
2.00
650.00
1,590.00
Research and prepare reply to county

response in opposition to preliminary
injunction.
Revise reply to county response to
motion for preliminary injunction;
0.00
262.40
3.30
0.00
262.40
7153
Golz, Rebecca A.
10/10/14
34933062
4387
Stoever, Thomas W.
10/10/14
32427345
4261
Lyman, L. James
10/10/14
32427303
4261
Lyman, L. James
10/12/14
Time/Unit
Value
Time/Unit
Amount Bill Num
34933179
4387
Stoever, Thomas W.
10/13/14
34930515
4261
Lyman, L. James
10/13/14
34934614
Billed
Tran Date
34934578
34938704
Hourly
Rate
Prepare for preliminary hearing on

Thursday in Casper.
prepare for hearing;
research relating to hearing on

preliminary injunction motion.
4261
Lyman, L. James
10/14/14
prepare for
upcoming hearing;
4387
Stoever, Thomas W.
10/14/14
Prepare for preliminary hearing in

Casper on October 16; revisions to
pleadings
Page: 2
0091738
Control
Group Line
34943464
Arnold & Porter LLP

Entries
Document
70-1 Filed 03/12/15
72-1
02/26/15 Page 17
18 of 85
23

Base
7153
Golz, Rebecca A.
Billed
Tran Date
Description
Hourly
Rate
10/15/14
0.00
133.25
5.00
1,625.00
666.25
5.00
Time/Unit
Value
Time/Unit
Prebill Num
Print
Flag
2713661
Amount Bill Num
revised
case files with recent court filings;
prepared package to court clerk
.
34949615
4387
Stoever, Thomas W.
10/15/14
Prepare for hearing on motion for

325.00
0.00
5.00
1,625.00
3,975.00
5.00
2713661
34938705
4261
Lyman, L. James
10/15/14
Revise reply in support of motion for

preliminary injunction and prepare for
filing; travel to Casper for hearing;
0.00
262.40
12.00
7,680.00
3,148.80
12.00
2713661
34949624
4387
Stoever, Thomas W.
10/16/14
0.00
325.00
8.00
2,600.00
6,360.00
8.00
2713661
34943790
7153
Golz, Rebecca A.
10/16/14
0.00
133.25
0.50
162.50
66.63
0.50
2713661
34943401
4261
Lyman, L. James
10/16/14
Prepare for and argue motion for

preliminary injunction in Casper,
Wyoming.
Legal Assistant Services for T.
Stoever: file and serve notice of
attorney appearance.
Prepare for and attend hearing on
motion for preliminary injunction;
return travel for hearing.
0.00
262.40
9.80
6,272.00
2,571.52
9.80
2713661
34943992
4261
Lyman, L. James
10/17/14
262.40
0.00
1.40
367.36
896.00
1.40
2713661
0.00
133.25
0.60
195.00
79.95
0.60
2713661
34943899
7153
Golz, Rebecca A.
10/17/14
regarding order on motion

for preliminary injunction.
review and circulate court order
granting preliminary injunction and
temporary stay of federal case.
Page: 3
0091738
Control
Group Line
Arnold & Porter LLP

Entries
Document
70-1 Filed 03/12/15
72-1
02/26/15 Page 18
19 of 85
23

Base
Hourly
Rate
Billed
Prebill Num
Print
Flag
2713661
1.00
2713661
97.50
39.98
0.30
2713661
1.60
419.84
1,024.00
1.60
2713661
Tran Date
Description
Time/Unit
Value
Time/Unit
Attend to calls with

opposing counsel regarding entry of
injunction; review state provided
marriage forms and communications
with county for compliance with
injunction.
Correspond with AG's office;
correspond with team and clients.
0.00
262.40
2.70
1,728.00
708.48
2.70
0.00
325.00
1.00
325.00
795.00

review and update case files with
recent court filings.
0.00
133.25
0.30
0.00
262.40
Amount Bill Num
34949784
4261
Lyman, L. James
10/20/14
34949340
4387
Stoever, Thomas W.
10/20/14
34955083
7153
Golz, Rebecca A.
10/21/14
34949597
4261
Lyman, L. James
10/21/14
34954769
4261
Lyman, L. James
10/22/14
Discussion with state regarding

stipulation;
.
0.00
262.40
0.40
256.00
104.96
0.40
2713661
34954985
4261
Lyman, L. James
10/23/14
0.00
262.40
1.00
640.00
262.40
1.00
2713661
34960609
4387
Stoever, Thomas W.
10/24/14
0.00
325.00
1.00
325.00
795.00
1.00
2713661
34964967
4261
Lyman, L. James
10/24/14
discussions with
county regarding stipulation for
permanent injunction.
Revisions to joint stipulation for
judgment;
.
Review county answer to complaint in
Guzzo v. Mead; attend to issues
relating to final settlement of Guzzo v.
Mead.
0.00
262.40
2.20
577.28
1,408.00
2.20
2713661
34974698
4261
Lyman, L. James
10/30/14
Prepare for and attend to call with

state regarding stipulation.
0.00
262.40
0.70
183.68
448.00
0.70
2713661
35006526
7153
Golz, Rebecca A.
11/05/14

prepare and circulate
133.25
0.00
1.10
146.58
357.50
1.10
2713661
calls and emails with

county regarding licenses.
draft stipulation for

permanent injunction.
35015463
4387
Stoever, Thomas W.
11/05/14
Work on redrafting the stipulated

judgment.
325.00
0.00
1.00
325.00
795.00
1.00
2713661
35011524
7153
Golz, Rebecca A.
11/10/14

circulate recent filing from state
defendants regarding pending
deadlines in state court; circulate
recent filing from state defendants
regarding request for judgment on
pleadings in federal court.
0.00
133.25
0.20
26.65
65.00
0.20
2713661
35014261
4261
Lyman, L. James
11/11/14
262.40
0.00
1.80
472.32
1,152.00
1.80
2713661
regarding state's motions

in federal and state cases.
Page: 4
0091738
Control
Group Line
Arnold & Porter LLP

Entries
Document
70-1 Filed 03/12/15
72-1
02/26/15 Page 19
20 of 85
23

Base
Hourly
Rate
Time/Unit
Billed
Value
Prebill Num
Print
Flag
2713661
1.00
2713661
Tran Date
Description
Time/Unit
Attend to calls with defendants'

counsel regarding upcoming status
conference.
Revisions to various pleadings;
262.40
0.00
0.60
157.44
384.00
0.60
0.00
325.00
1.00
325.00
795.00
Amount Bill Num
35027711
4261
Lyman, L. James
11/13/14
35034749
4387
Stoever, Thomas W.
11/14/14
35027715
4261
Lyman, L. James
11/14/14
Prepare for and attend status hearing

in Courage v. Wyoming case.
0.00
262.40
0.50
131.20
320.00
0.50
2713661
35031576
7153
Golz, Rebecca A.
11/17/14

file and serve response to state
defendants' motion for judgment.
0.00
133.25
0.80
260.00
106.60
0.80
2713661
35040033
4261
Lyman, L. James
11/17/14
0.00
262.40
2.20
577.28
1,408.00
2.20
2713661
draft
stipulation; draft response to state
motion for judgment.
35034793
4387
Stoever, Thomas W.
11/19/14
Draft motion for judgment on

pleadings.
0.00
325.00
1.00
325.00
795.00
1.00
2713661
35040232
4261
Lyman, L. James
11/21/14
262.40
0.00
0.90
236.16
576.00
0.90
2713661
35044275
7153
Golz, Rebecca A.
11/24/14
0.00
133.25
1.20
159.90
390.00
1.20
2713661
35060622
4261
Lyman, L. James
11/24/14
Revise motion for judgment on the

pleadings in federal case and draft
proposed order.
Stoever: file and serve plaintiffs'
motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Draft proposed order and finalize
motion for judgment for filing.
0.00
262.40
2.00
1,280.00
524.80
2.00
2713661
Page: 5
0091738
Control
Group Line
Arnold & Porter LLP

Entries
Document
70-1 Filed 03/12/15
72-1
02/26/15 Page 20
21 of 85
23

Base
Tran Date
Description
Hourly
Rate
Time/Unit
Billed
Value
Time/Unit
Amount Bill Num
Prebill Num
Print
Flag
35075048
7153
Golz, Rebecca A.
12/02/14

Stoever: file and serve plaintiffs'
motion for judgment on the pleadings.
0.00
133.25
0.90
292.50
119.93
0.90
2713661
35085129
4387
Stoever, Thomas W.
12/08/14
Review state's opposition to judgment

on pleadings and draft reply regarding
same.
0.00
325.00
1.00
325.00
795.00
1.00
2713661
35134560
7153
Golz, Rebecca A.
12/12/14

Stoever: assemble exhibits, finalize,
file and serve plaintiffs' reply to motion
for judgment on pleadings.
0.00
133.25
1.70
226.53
552.50
1.70
2713661
35151411
4387
Stoever, Thomas W.
01/05/15
Work on filings with Wyoming District

Court.
325.00
0.00
1.00
325.00
835.00
Page: 6
0091738
Control
Group Line
Arnold & Porter LLP

Entries
Document
70-1 Filed 03/12/15
72-1
02/26/15 Page 21
22 of 85
23

Base
Tran Date
Description
Hourly
Rate
Time/Unit
Billed
Value
Time/Unit
Amount Bill Num
Prebill Num
Print
Flag
35201421
7153
Golz, Rebecca A.
01/29/15

Stoever: circulate court order granting
judgment on pleadings and permanent
injunction as to WY state laws.
0.00
133.25
0.10
34.00
13.33
35213797
7153
Golz, Rebecca A.
01/30/15

Stoever: review state court file
regarding status of case and next
steps before Judge Campbell.
133.25
0.00
0.70
93.28
238.00
Fees Base
Page: 7
Fees Billed
Time
Value
159.90
41,139.62
Time
Value
Arnold & Porter LLP

Entries
Document
70-1 Filed 03/12/15
72-1
02/26/15 Page 22
23 of 85
23
Base
Control
Group Line
Tran Date
Hourly
Rate
Description
Time/Unit
Billed
Value
Time/Unit
Amount Bill Num
Prebill Num
Report Total
Disbursement Category
Numberof
of Entries
Entries
Number
Billed Value
147
Westlaw Research
12
579.02
1501
Other Computer Research
80.37
151
Travel Expenses
62.37
1511
Hotel
178.73
152
Travel Meals
76.80
153
Local Transportation
310.24
160
Duplicating
62
129.60
172
Air Delivery Services
59.34
187
Filing Fees
1,100.00
194
Color copies
3.75
202
Depositions & Transcript (original)
195.50
Disb Base
Page:
Page: 10
8
Disb Billed
Unit
Value
Unit
Value
869.00
2,775.72
869.00
2,775.72
Print
Flag
Case
Document72-1
70-2 Filed
Filed03/12/15
02/26/15 Page
Page23
1 of
of30
85
Tracy L. Zubrod
ZUBROD LAW OFFICE, PC
219 East 18th Street
Cheyenne, WY 82001
Telephone: (307) 778-2557
Facsimile: (307) 778-8225
Email: zubrod@aol.com
L. James Lyman*
ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 4400
Denver, Colorado 80202-1370
Telephone: (303) 863-1000
Facsimile: (303) 832-0428
Email: james.lyman@aporter.com
Qusair Mohamedbhai
RATHOD MOHAMEDBHAI LLC
1518 Blake Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone: (303) 578-4400
Facsimile: (303) 578-4401
Email: qm@rmlawyers.com
Shannon P. Minter*
Christopher F. Stoll*
NATIONAL CENTER FOR
LESBIAN RIGHTS
870 Market Street, Suite 370
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 365-1335
Facsimile: (415) 392-8442
Email: sminter@nclrights.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
*Admission Pro Hac Vice
Case
Document72-1
70-2 Filed
Filed03/12/15
02/26/15 Page
Page24
2 of
of30
85

DISTRICT OF WYOMING
Anne Marie Guzzo and Bonnie Robinson; Ivan

Williams and Charles Killion; Brie Barth and Shelly
Montgomery; Carl Oleson and Rob Johnston; and
Wyoming Equality,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
Case Number: 2:14-cv-00200-SWS
Matthew H. Mead, in his official capacity as the

Governor of Wyoming; Dean Fausset, in his official
capacity as Director of the Wyoming Department of
Administration and Information; Dave Urquidez, in his
official capacity as Administrator of the State of
Wyoming Human Resources Division; and Debra K.
Lathrop, in her official capacity as Laramie County
Clerk,
Defendant(s).
DECLARATION OF SHANNON P. MINTER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION
FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES
I, Shannon P. Minter, hereby declare and state as follows:
1.
I am an attorney admitted pro hac vice before this Court and represent the Plaintiffs
in this action. I am a member in good standing of the California State Bar and am admitted to
practice law in California state and federal courts, several U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the Supreme
Court of the United States. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated in this Declaration
and could and would competently testify to these facts.
2.
This Declaration is filed concurrently with Plaintiffs Motion for Reasonable
Attorneys Fees and Expenses.
Case
Document72-1
70-2 Filed
Filed03/12/15
02/26/15 Page
Page25
3 of
of30
85
3.
I am a 1993 graduate of Cornell University School of Law, and have been a licensed
attorney since that year. Since 2000, I have been the Legal Director of the National Center for
Lesbian Rights (NCLR), which is a national legal organization committed to advancing the civil
and human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and their families. In particular,
NCLR is committed to litigating precedent-setting cases at the trial and appellate court levels
throughout the country. A more complete recitation of my experience and background in civil
rights cases is included below and in my curriculum vitae, a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
MY MOST RELEVANT GENERAL BACKGROUND
4.
NCLR maintains a diverse legal practice and I have litigated a variety of complex
cases in state and federal courts during my twenty-one year tenure at the organization. For
instance, I have litigated complex child custody, adoption, youth, immigration, employment
discrimination, and civil rights matters. I have also argued cases before trial and appellate courts,
including state supreme courts and federal circuit courts of appeal.
5.
I am an expert on legal matters involving lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
(LGBT) people and frequently teach or lecture regarding these topics. For example, I have taught
courses on LGBT legal issues at Berkeley, Stanford, Santa Clara, American University
Washington College of Law, and several other laws schools.
6.
I have authored several treatises and publications on legal issues related to the
LGBT community, including in the areas of family law, constitutional rights, employment
discrimination, and immigration / asylum, and frequently lecture around the country and abroad
regarding LGBT civil and human rights. For example, in September of 2013, I traveled to El
Case
Document72-1
70-2 Filed
Filed03/12/15
02/26/15 Page
Page26
4 of
of30
85
Salvador to meet with various governmental agencies about hate violence against LGBT people at
the request of the U.S. Department of State.
7.
I also have extensive experience litigating challenges to state laws that prohibit
marriages by same-sex couples or recognition of valid marriages of same-sex couples performed

in other jurisdictions. NCLR was lead counsel for same-sex couples in In re Marriage Cases, 43
Cal.4th 757, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384 (2008), representing fifteen (15) same-sex couples
in the case that made California the second state in the country to allow same-sex couples to
marry. I argued the case on behalf of the couples before the California Supreme Court, which
ruled in May 2008 that the California Constitutions guarantees of due process and equal protection
prohibited the state from barring same-sex couples from marriage. The decision was also the first
ruling by a state supreme court that laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation are
subject to strict scrutiny under the equal protection guarantee of a state constitution. The decision
followed more than four years of litigation in the California courts, including briefing and
argument by NCLR and its co-counsel in the San Francisco Superior Court and California Court
of Appeal. I was substantially involved in the briefing and strategy for the case throughout the
process, as was Senior Staff Attorney Christopher Stoll, who was then a partner at Heller Ehrman
LLP, one of the law firms that worked with NCLR on the case, and Constitutional Litigation
Director David Codell, who had his own firm at that time.
8.
NCLR was also lead counsel in Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal. 4th 364, 207 P.3d 48
(Cal. 2009). I argued that case before the California Supreme Court, which held that the marriages
of same-sex couples who legally married in California before the enactment of Proposition 8 were
valid.
Case
Document72-1
70-2 Filed
Filed03/12/15
02/26/15 Page
Page27
5 of
of30
85
9.
In 2012, NCLR litigated Port v. Cowan, 426 Md. 435, 44 A.3d 970 (Md. 2012). I
argued that case before the Maryland Court of Appeals, the highest state court in that state, which
held that Maryland must recognize the marriages of same-sex couples who validly married in other
jurisdictions.
10.
In 2011 through 2013, NCLR also successfully litigated Cozen OConnor, P.C. v.
Tobits, et al., No. 110045, 2013 WL 3878688 (E.D. Penn. Jul. 29, 2013) in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania establishing the validity of a marriage of a same-sex couple. In that case, Jennifer
Tobits lost her wife to a four-year battle with cancer. When she sought distribution of her wifes
employee pension plan, the employer refused to distribute the funds based on the federal Defense
of Marriage Act. Relying on the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in United States v. Windsor, the
federal judge ruled that Jennifer was a legal spouse entitled to her wifes pension plan.
11.
NCLR also represented same-sex couples in Griego v. Oliver, a lawsuit challenging
New Mexicos failure to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In that case, we secured a
unanimous decision from the New Mexico Supreme Court ruling that the New Mexico
Constitution requires the state to allow same-sex couples to marry and to recognize the valid
marriages of same-sex couples performed outside the state.
12.
In 2013, NCLR served as amicus counsel for the Leadership Conference on Civil
and Human Rights, the American Association of University Women, the Hispanic National Bar
Association, the Japanese American Citizens League, the League of United Latin American
Citizens, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Southern Poverty Law
Center and other civil rights organizations in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013).
13.
I, along with Christopher Stoll, Amy Whelan, and other NCLR legal staff, also
served or are serving as Plaintiffs counsel in multiple marriage cases around the country, including
Case
Document72-1
70-2 Filed
Filed03/12/15
02/26/15 Page
Page28
6 of
of30
85
in Utah, Idaho, Florida, Tennessee, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Alabama. We prevailed on
dispositive motions and/or motions for preliminary injunctive relief in Utah, Idaho, Florida,
Tennessee, South Dakota, and Alabama and have a summary judgment motion pending in North
Dakota. In addition, on behalf of our Utah and Idaho clients, we prevailed in appeals before the
Ninth and Tenth Circuits, where we had primary responsibility for drafting all briefs. Presently,
we represent the plaintiffs in a challenge to Tennessees refusal to recognize the lawful marriages
of same-sex couples entered into in other jurisdictions, in which the Supreme Court of the United
States has granted a writ of certiorari and requested briefing and argument on the merits. Because
of our extensive experience and expertise litigating these cases, we have also provided legal
assistance and research to numerous other attorneys around the country who are litigating marriage
cases in both state and federal courts.
SUMMARY OF THE LITIGATION AND THE
EXCELLENT RESULTS OBTAINED
14.
NCLR was retained in this litigation, along with co-counsel, on a fully contingent
basis to challenge Wyomings laws prohibiting the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex
couples and prohibiting recognition of valid marriages of same-sex couples entered in other
jurisdictions. The attorneys at Arnold & Porter served as lead counsel, and NCLR, Ms. Zubrod,
Mr. Mohamedbhai, and Mr. Jahanian were actively involved in strategy, drafting of key briefs and
documents, and decision making for the case. All counsel worked hard to divide tasks so that their
effort was not duplicative. Plaintiffs counsel conducted much of their business during telephone
conferences and through email, which served as a cost-effective means to divide tasks between the
attorneys and staff while eliminating the need for expensive travel by NCLR and co-counsel.
15.
Plaintiffs counsel litigated this case efficiently and without unnecessary
duplication of effort. Our co-counsel at Arnold & Porter took primary responsibility for preparing
5
Case
Document72-1
70-2 Filed
Filed03/12/15
02/26/15 Page
Page29
7 of
of30
85
initial drafts of many of the pleadings and briefs, including the briefing regarding the dispositive
motions, which were reviewed and edited by co-counsel. Because of NCLRs long experience
with the important constitutional issues involved in this case, we provided co-counsel with
guidance on all substantive briefs and oral argument and contributed significantly to the overall
strategy in the case.
12.
The majority of the work in this case, including drafting and filing the complaint,
motions, oppositions, replies, and the oral argument, occurred within the month of October 2014.
13.
Plaintiffs counsel litigated this case efficiently by using legal research and briefing
from NCLRs other marriage cases around the country, where it was relevant and applicable. This
reduced the number of required hours significantly, making this motion extremely reasonable.
14.
Based on my extensive litigation experience, the results obtained in this case are
excellent. Plaintiffs prevailed on all of their claims, including that Wyomings laws violate their
rights to due process and equal protection of the laws, and also secured all of the relief requested.
BILLING RATES, RECORDS, REDUCTIONS, AND CHARTS
15.
As a non-profit litigation firm, NCLR does not charge our clients for legal services.
We do, however, seek reasonable attorneys fees and expenses in cases where there are fee-shifting
statutes and our clients are the prevailing parties. NCLR and our co-counsel have incurred all
costs in this matter and Plaintiffs have agreed that any awarded attorneys fees and costs shall
belong to and be paid to Plaintiffs counsel.
16.
Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and accurate transcription of NCLRs time
and expenses in this case from the beginning of the case through February 25, 2015. That time
reflects our work on the following major categories of work: (1) review and editing of the
complaint; (2) preparation of Plaintiffs successful motion for preliminary injunction, including
Case
Document72-1
70-2 Filed
Filed03/12/15
02/26/15 Page
Page30
8 of
of30
85
supporting affidavits and evidence and preparation for the hearing on that motion; and (3)
preparation of the motion for judgment on the pleadings; (4) work moving for reasonable
attorneys fees and costs in this case.
17.
I have been assisted in this case by NCLRs Senior Staff Attorney, Christopher F.
Stoll. Amy Whelan, another Senior Staff Attorney, also worked on the attorneys fees motion.
Mr. Stolls and Ms. Whelans resumes are attached hereto as Exhibit C.
18.
The current billing rates we seek in this case are as follows: $325 per hour for
myself, $300 per hour for Christopher Stoll, who has 20 years of litigation experience in complex
civil and constitutional cases, and $275 per hour for Amy Whelan, who has 14 years of litigation
experience in complex civil and constitutional cases. As the supporting declaration of Bruce T.
Moats shows, these rates are consistent with those charged in the Wyoming market for attorneys
with similar, extensive experience litigating complex constitutional cases. Our requested rates are
also reasonable because we could seek San Francisco billing rates for this case based on our
extensive expertise and experience, as well as Plaintiffs inability to find local counsel that
specialize in constitutional matters. See e.g. Reazin v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc.,
899 F.2d 951, 983 (10th Cir. 1990) (affirming district courts award of higher rates for out-of-state
counsel based on their expertise and experience); Rocky Mountain Christian Church v. Bd. of
County Comrs of Boulder County, No. 06-CV-00554, 2010 WL 3703224, at *5 (D. Colo. Sept.
13, 2010) (awarding higher hourly rates for attorney with specialized knowledge and skills in the
areas of constitutional law.); Swisher v. U.S., 262 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1213-14 (D. Kan. 2003)
(awarding non-local hourly rates where Plaintiff was unable to find local counsel and where legal
issues were not routinely litigated in the court). My rate in the San Francisco market is $675 per
hour, Chris Stolls rate is $650 per hour and Amy Whelans is $500 per hour.
Case
Document72-1
70-2 Filed
Filed03/12/15
02/26/15 Page
Page31
9 of
of30
85
19.
NCLR and our co-counsel performed work efficiently, effectively, with extreme
diligence, and without unnecessary duplication. Based on my experience litigating complex civil
rights cases, I believe the hours recorded by NCLR staff on this case to be extremely conservative.
We have nevertheless made billing judgment reductions for the purpose of eliminating any
possible duplication, overstaffing or overwork. For instance, we did not record significant
amounts of time we spent communicating about strategy and emailing with co-counsel about
various litigation-related issues and strategy. Also, we do not seek fees for the two paralegals in
our office who worked on this case. Finally, we are not requesting any of the time our attorneys
or legal staff spent on the related Courage v. Wyoming litigation in state court.
20.
Following the exercise of the billing judgment reductions described above, NCLRs
total claimed lodestar for merits work and fees-for-fees work through February 25, 2015 is
$20,562.50. We also seek $1,606.53 in travel expenses, for a total request of $22,169.03. See
Exhibit B. Travel expenses are typically charged to fee-paying clients and all of these expenses,
which were incurred by one attorney to attend the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction
/ temporary restraining order, were necessary to the litigation. Chris Stoll was the only NCLR
attorney who traveled to Wyoming for the hearing, which was essential to Plaintiffs success. Mr.
Stoll assisted our co-counsel before and during the hearing by offering his knowledge and insights
concerning legal arguments, presentation of evidence, and overall strategy based on his experience
with dozens of similar hearings and trials in marriage equality cases around the country.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed in Washington, D.C. on this 26th day of February 2015.
Shannon P. Minter (pro hac vice)

Attorney for Plaintiffs
8

70-2 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 32
10 of 85
30
EXHIBIT A

70-2 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 33
11 of 85
30
SHANNON PRICE MINTER

Legal Director
EDUCATION AND BAR ADMISSIONS
Cornell Law School, J.D., 1993
Honors: Magna Cum Laude, Order of the Coif, Graduation Address
Activities: Symposium Editor, CORNELL INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL
Cornell University, Ph.D. program, English & American Literature, 1984-88
Honors: Mellon Fellow, Andrew White Fellow
University of Texas at Austin, B.A., 1983
Honors: Phi Beta Kappa
Bar Admissions: California (1993); admitted to CA state and federal courts, several U.S.
Courts of Appeals, and U.S. Supreme Court
EXPERIENCE
Legal Director, 2000-present; Senior Staff Attorney, 1996-1999
Legal director of national civil rights organization with offices in California and Washington,
D.C. with nationwide impact litigation and policy practice.
Litigation: Serve as lead counsel in state and federal impact cases, including child
custody, adoption, youth, immigration, employment discrimination, and other areas.
Supervise legal team of 13 in-house counsel and manage co-counsel relationships with
other legal organizations and law firms. Coordinate national network of 40 to 45 family
law and estate planning attorneys and legal scholars who develop new legal strategies for
protecting same-sex couples and their children.
Legislation: Draft local, state, and federal anti-discrimination and family recognition bills
and regulations affecting gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people.
Policy advocacy: Develop and implement national and state policy initiatives relating to
LGBT parents, students, youth, immigrants, elders, and prisoners. Examples include:
testimony as expert on gender identity discrimination before House Committee on
Education and Labor (June, 2008); development with Child Welfare League of America
of best practice guidelines for serving LGBT youth in foster care and juvenile justice
settings (2006); development of model safe school policies for San Francisco and Los
Angeles Unified school districts (2004).

70-2 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 34
12 of 85
30
National Association of Public Interest Law Fellow, 1993-1995

Created national legal and public policy advocacy program to address abuse of gay, lesbian,
bisexual and transgender youth in mental health system.
American University Washington College of Law
Visiting Professor, Constitutional Law Summer Program, 2011-present
Whittier Law School
Visiting Professor, Transgender Rights, Summer 2010
Santa Clara Law School
Lecturer, Gender, Sexuality, and the Law, Spring 2004
University of San Francisco School of Law
Adjunct Professor of Law, Sexual Orientation and the Law, Fall 2003
University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall)
Adjunct Professor of Law, Gender, Sexuality and the Law, Spring 2003
Golden Gate School of Law
Adjunct Professor of Law, Sexual Orientation and the Law, Spring 2003
Stanford Law School
Adjunct Professor of Law, Gender, Sexuality, and the Law, Spring 2001
The Schomberg Library African-American Fiction and Periodicals Project
Editorial Assistant to Henry Louis Gates, Jr., 1988-1990
Responsible for identifying and preserving fiction and book reviews published in nineteenth
and early twentieth century African-American owned or edited newspapers in the U.S.
SAMPLE PUBLICATIONS
LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER FAMILY LAW. Coauthored with Courtney G.
Joslin (West Publishing 2012).
TRANSGENDER RIGHTS. Co-edited with Paisley Currah and Richard M. Juang (Minnesota
University Press 2006).
The Great Divorce: The Separation of Equality and Democracy in Contemporary Marriage
Litigation, 19 UNIV. OF SOUTHERN CALIF. REV. OF L. & SOCIAL JUSTICE 89 (2010)
Representing Transsexual Clients, in SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND THE LAW (West Publishing
2012).
Same-Sex Marriage and Its Implications for Employee Benefits, 9 EMPLOYEE RIGHTS AND
EMPLOYMENT POLICY JOURNAL 499 (2005).
Unprincipled Exclusions: The Struggle to Achieve Judicial and Legislative Equality for
Transgender People, (with Paisley Currah) 7 WILLIAM & MARY JOURNAL OF WOMEN AND
2

70-2 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 35
13 of 85
30
THE LAW 37 (2000). Published in Elizabeth

REGULATING SEXUALITY (Routledge 2005).
Bernstein and Laurie Schaeffer, eds.,
Preface, SOCIAL SERVICES WITH TRANSGENDERED YOUTH, Gary Mallon, ed. (2000).
Beyond Second-Parent Adoption: The Uniform Parentage Act and Intended Parents, (with
Kate Kendell) 2 GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF GENDER AND THE LAW 29 (2000).
Do Transsexuals Dream of Gay Rights? Getting Real About Transgender Inclusion in the Gay
Rights Movement, 17 NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS 589 (2000).
TRANSGENDER EQUALITY. Coauthored with Paisley Currah (National Gay & Lesbian Task
Force 2000).
Lesbians and Gay Men as Adoptive Parents: A Child Welfare Perspective, in ADOPTION
FACTBOOK III (National Council for Adoption, 1999).
Diagnosis and Treatment of Gender Identity Disorder in Children, in Matthew Rottnek, ed.,
SISSIES AND TOMBOYS: GENDER NONCONFORMITY AND HOMOSEXUAL CHILDHOOD (NYU
Press 1999).
Lesbians and Political Asylum: Sexual Orientation, Gender, and Lesbian Human Rights, in A
RESOURCE GUIDE FOR ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING LESBIANS AND GAY MEN IN ASYLUM
CASES (International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission 1996).
Lesbian Rights in the United States, in Rachel Rosenbloom, ed., UNSPOKEN RULES: SEXUAL
ORIENTATION AND WOMEN'S HUMAN RIGHTS (Cassell 1996).
Sodomy and Public Morality Offenses Under U.S. Immigration Law: Penalizing Lesbian and
Gay Identity, 26 CORNELL INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL 771 (1993).
SELECTED PRESENTATIONS
Keynote: Realizing the Dream of Equality for All, New Mexico Bar Association, May 1,
2013
Winning Cases, Losing Children: The Human Impact of Litigation in LGBT Impact Cases,
Roundtable Discussion, Law & Society Conference, San Francisco, June 3, 2011.
LGBT Legal Issues in Utah, State Judges Annual Judicial Conference, Homestead, Utah,
May 5, 2011
Plenary, What the LGBT and Disability Rights Movements Can Learn from One Another,
Jacobus tenBroek Disability Law Symposium, Bridging the Gap between the Disability Rights
Movement and Other Civil Rights Movements, April 14, 2011
Panel, How Does it Get Better? New Directions in LGBT Equality, "Gay Rights as Human
Rights" Conference at the Harvard Kennedy School, April 15, 2011
The Relevance of Martin Luther King To LGBT Advocacy, Martin Luther King Memorial,
3

70-2 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 36
14 of 85
30
DePaul University College of Law, January 17, 2011

Keynote, Gay Rights, Democracy, and the United States Supreme Court, Minnesota
Lavender Bar Association, January 29, 2011
Keynote, Do Transsexuals Dream of Gay Rights?, Harvard Kennedy School, Carr Center for
Human Rights Policy, Nicholas Papadopoulos Lecture, April 23, 2010
Keynote, The Heart of Democracy: Marriage Equality for Same-Sex Couples, Conference:
Controlling Sexuality through Violence, Harassment and Intrusion: Implications and Prospects
for Fundamental Human Rights, Tanner Humanities Center, University of Utah, February 26,
2010
Keynote, The Legal and Political Implications of Proposition 8, Til Ballot Initiative Do Us
Part: Marriage Equality, Religion, and Civil Rights, American University Washington
College of Law, March 19, 2009
The Future of Marriage Equality in California, The Global Arc of Justice: Sexual Orientation
Law around the World, UCLA School of Law, March 14, 2009
Keynote, Why Gender Theory Should Not Determine Transgender Advocacy, Trans
Rhetorics Conference, Cornell University, March 7, 2009
The Struggle To Achieve Equality for Same-Sex Couples, Conference: Race, Class,
Ethnicity and Gender, University of North Carolina Law School, February 21, 2009
Keynote, The Concepts of Dignity and Privacy in Transgender Advocacy, Symposium:
Transgender Lives and the Law, Temple Law School, November 8, 2008
The Case Against Proposition 8, Levin Center for Public Service and Public Interest Law
Award, Stanford Law School, November 10, 2008
Relationship Recognition for Same-Sex Couples in California, Symposium: When Change
Comes Home: Legal Repercussions and Comparative Perspectives on Changing Structures of
American Households, Santa Clara Law School, February 15, 2008
Legal & Policy Issues Affecting Transgender Students, Faculty, and Staff, Conference:
Legal Issues in Higher Education, Vermont Law School, October 16, 2007
Gay Marriage in California: Legal and Political Prospects, Debate sponsored by the
Federalist Society, the American Constitution Society, the Pew Forum on Religion & Public
Life, and the USC Annenberg Knight Chair in Media and Religion, Los Angeles, California,
February 28, 2007
Plenary speaker, The Role of Ethics in Public Interest Law, University of Maryland Law
School, October 18, 2006
4

70-2 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 37
15 of 85
30
Do Transsexual Athletes Have A Right To Compete?, Sports Law Symposium, Marquette

Law School, October 6, 2006
The Evolution of Transgender Rights Nationally and Globally, Symposium: Transgender
Civil Rights Issues, Hastings Law School, July 21, 2006
Speaker, Panel on the Marriage Debate, The Charles R. Williams Project on Sexual Orientation
and Public Policy, UCLA School of Law, April 21, 2006
The Struggle to Achieve Marriage Equality for Same-Sex Couples, Cornell Law School,
November 16, 2005
The Salience of Gender-Based Humiliation in Human Rights Abuses Against Transgender
Prisoners in the United States and So-Called Enemy Combatants Abroad, Conference: Race,
Class, Gender, and Ethnicity, University of North Carolina Law School, February 18, 2005
Speaker, Panel on the California Frontier: Litigating Exclusions to Gay and Lesbian Adoption
and Marriage, Conference: Gay and Lesbian Adoption: Past, Present and Future, New York
Law School, September 21, 2005
The Current State of Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Law, Conference: Progress and
Promise in Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law, Pace Law School, April 21, 2003
SELECTED HONORS AND AWARDS
Distinguished Service Award, GayLaw D.C. Bar Association, 2010

One of California Lawyers of the Year, California Lawyer Magazine, 2009
One of Nations Top 8 Lawyers of the Year, Lawyers USA, 2009
One of Californias 100 Top Lawyers, Daily Journal, 2008
National Public Service Award, Stanford Law School, 2008
Exemplary Public Service Award, Cornell Law School, 2008
Award of Excellence, University of San Francisco Public Interest Law Foundation, 2008
Community Service Award, Elections Committee of the County of Orange, 2008
Advocacy Award, Bay Area Municipal Elections Committee, 2008
Dan Bradley Award, National Lesbian and Gay Law Association, 2008
Legal Advocacy Award, San Francisco State University National Sexuality Resource
Center, 2008
Visionary Award, Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, 2008
Community Service Award, Long Beach Lambda Democratic Club, 2008
Award, International Foundation for Gender Education, 2008
Community Advocacy Award, Gender Spectrum, 2007
Unity Award, Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, 2006
Leadership for a Changing World Award, Ford Foundation, 2005
Justice Award, Equality California, 2005
Advocacy Award, San Francisco Bar Association, 2004
Honorary Doctorate, City University of New York Law School, 2004
Anderson Foundation Prize, National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, 2003
5

70-2 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 38
16 of 85
30
National Service Award, Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual Transgender Bar Association of

Washington, D.C., 2002
COMMUNITY AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICE

American Bar Association Commission on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, 20072009
Transgender Law and Policy Institute, Board of Directors, 2000-present
International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, Advisory Board, 2003-present
Council for Global Equality, 2008-present
Faith in America, Board of Directors, 2009-present
Aids Relief Fund for China, 2010-present
Gender Spectrum, 2010-present

70-2 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 39
17 of 85
30
EXHIBIT B

70-2 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 40
18 of 85
30
Guzzo v. Mead - 2:14-cv-00200-SWS
Shannon P. Minter Time
DATE
10/6/2014
DESCRIPTION
HOURS
BILLED
Confer with client and co-counsel re Supreme Court certiorari denials,

communications with state officials, and potential federal litigation
Edit draft complaint
Confer with co-counsel re filing of complaint, pro hac vice motions and case
strategy
Edit motion for preliminary injunction
Confer with client and co-counsel re preliminary injunction and hearing
1.6
0.7
0.2
0.3
1
10/14/2014
10/14/2014
Confer with co-counsel re preliminary injunction oral argument

Review county response to motion for preliminary injunction
Review state's opposition to preliminary injunction motion
Confer with clients and co-counsel re preparation for preliminary injunction
hearing
Review draft reply brief re preliminary injunction; confer with co-counsel re
same
Review proposed order of proof; confer with co-counsel re same
Confer with co-counsel re oral argument
10/15/2014
Confer with co-counsel re preparation for hearing
1.3
10/17/2014
10/20/2014
Review ruling on motion for PI; conferences with co-counsel re same

Conferences with co-counsel re filing of notices of non-appeal and effective
date of preliminary injunction
Review state notice of non-appeal and order lifting temporary stay
Review Prop Stip for Permanent injunction; conferences with co-counsel re
same
Review defendant's changes to stip; confer with co-counsel re same
Confer with co-counsel re draft stip
Review state's motion for judgment on the pleadings
Confer with co-counsel re response to motion for jjdmt on the pleadings
Edited draft motion for judgment on the pleadings
Review state response to motion for jdmt on the pleadings
Edited draft reply re motion for jdmt on the pleadings; confer with co-counsel
re same
Review order granting jdmt on the pleadings and permanent inj.
reviewed draft Minter decl ISO fee motion; revised same
Totals
1.3
1.8
10/7/2014
10/7/2014
10/8/2014
10/8/2014
10/9/2014
10/10/2014
10/13/2014
10/13/2014
10/14/2014
10/21/2014
10/23/2014
11/4/2014
11/5/2014
11/10/2014
11/11/2014
11/21/2014
12/8/2014
12/11/2014
1/29/2015
2/25/2015
0.5
1.4
1.3
1.5
0.3
0.6
1.2
0.2
1
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
19.8

70-2 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 41
19 of 85
30
Christopher F. Stoll Time
DATE
DESCRIPTION
HOURS
BILLED
10/6/2014
Confer with client and co-counsel re Supreme Court certiorari denials and
potential federal litigation.
1.6
10/7/2014
10/7/2014
Review draft complaint.

Confer with co-counsel re filing of complaint and pro hac vice motions and
re case strategy.
Review and revise motion for preliminary injunction.
Confer with client and co-counsel re motion for preliminary injunction and
scheduling of hearing.
Confer with co-counsel re hearing on motion for preliminary injunction.
0.8
1.4
10/8/2014
10/8/2014
10/9/2014
2.3
1.5
0.7
10/10/2014 Review county response to motion for preliminary injunction.

10/13/2014 Review state's opposition to preliminary injunction motion.
10/13/2014 Confer with clients and co-counsel re preparation for preliminary
injunction hearing; legal research re same.
10/14/2014 Review draft reply brief in support of motion for preliminary injunction;
confer with co-counsel re same.
10/14/2014 Review proposed order of proof; confer with co-counsel re same.
10/14/2014 Confer with co-counsel re preparation for hearing.
10/14/2014 Travel to Casper, WY, for hearing on motion for preliminary injunction.
0.3
0.4
2.3
10/15/2014 Confer with co-counsel re preparation for hearing.

10/16/2014 Attend hearing on motion for preliminary injunction; confer with cocounsel re preparation for same.
10/16/2014 Travel from Casper to San Francisco.
10/17/2014 Review ruling on motion for preliminary injunction; conferences with cocounsel re effective date of injunction.
10/20/2014 Conferences with co-counsel re filing of notices of non-appeal and effective
date of preliminary injunction; review correspondence from defendants re
same.
10/21/2014 Review state notice of non-appeal and order lifting temporary stay;
conferences re client applications for marriage licenses.
10/23/2014 Review proposed stipulation for permanent injunction; conferences with
co-counsel re same.
11/4/2014 Review defendant's proposed changes to stipulation; confer with cocounsel re same.
11/5/2014 Confer with co-counsel re draft stipulation.
11/10/2014 Review state's motion for judgment on the pleadings; confer with cocounsel re same.
11/11/2014 Confer with co-counsel re response to motion for judgment on the
pleadings.
1.3
3.8
0.5
0.8
1.2
5.3
5.5
1.3
2.2
1.2
1
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.8

70-2 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 42
20 of 85
30
Christopher F. Stoll Time
DATE
DESCRIPTION
HOURS
BILLED
11/21/2014 Review draft motion for judgment on the pleadings.

12/8/2014 Review state response to motion for judgment on the pleadings.
12/11/2014 Review draft reply in support of motion for judgment on the pleadings;
confer with co-counsel re same.
1/29/2015 Review order granting judgment on the pleadings and permanent
injunction.
2/6/2015
Conferences with co-counsel re motion for attorneys' fees and costs;
review time entries.
2/9/2015
Conferences with co-counsel re motion for attorneys' fees and disussions
with state defendants.
2/10/2015 Conference with co-counsel re motion for attorneys' fees.
2/19/2015 Conference with co-counsel re negotiations with state and motion for
attorneys' fees.
2/24/2015 Review and revise declaration in support of motion for attorneys' fees;
conferences with co-counsel re same.
2/25/2015 Review and revise supporting documents for motion for attorneys' fees;
conferences with co-counsel re same.
Totals
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.3
1.2
0.8
42.6

70-2 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 43
21 of 85
30
Amy Whelan Time
DATE
DESCRIPTION
HOURS
BILLED
2/3/2015
2/9/2015
2/9/2015
2/24/2015
2/24/2015
2/25/2015
2/25/2015
2/25/2015
LR re fee motion and bill of costs deadlines; email to team re same

Prep of S. Minter Decl ISO fee motion
emails with CS and SM re draft Minter fees decl
revised Minter decl ISO fee motion
Legal research re awards of out-of-market rates based on experience and
unavailability of local counsel; email to team re same
emails with team re reasonable hourly rates
LR re market rates for Wyoming district; email to CS re same
revised Minter decl ISO fee motion re hourly rates; revised exhibits for same;
email to SM re same
Totals
0.4
1
0.2
0.3
1.5
0.2
0.6
0.7
4.9

70-2 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 44
22 of 85
30

NCLR Expenses- 2014
DATE
DESCRIPTION
Actual
Expenses
10/14/2014
10/14/2014
10/14/2014
10/14/2014
10/17/2014
C. Stoll taxi to SF airport for Hearing on PI / TRO

C. Stoll roundtrip airfare SF to WY for Hearing on PI / TRO
C. Stoll car rental for Hearing on PI / TRO
C. Stoll 2 nights hotel for Hearing on PI / TRO
C. Stoll taxi from SFO for Hearing on PI / TRO
$
62.08
$ 1,070.70
$ 152.00
$ 268.90
$
52.85
Total
$ 1,606.53

70-2 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 45
23 of 85
30
EXHIBIT C

70-2 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 46
24 of 85
30
CHRISTOPHER F. STOLL
Senior Staff Attorney
Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, J.D. magna cum laude, 1994
Harvard Law Review, Supreme Court Editor, 1992-94
DePauw University, Greencastle, Indiana, B.A. summa cum laude, 1991
Political Science/Russian Area Studies
Bar Admissions: California (1995); admitted to CA state and federal courts, several U.S.
Courts of Appeals, and U.S. Supreme Court
LEGAL EXPERIENCE
National Center for Lesbian Rights, San Francisco, California
Senior Staff Attorney, 2008-present
Oversee NCLRs general litigation, policy, and public education work.
Supervise and manage legal team members on complex civil cases around the
country.
Litigate numerous marriage equality cases, including in Florida, Idaho,
Tennessee, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.
Litigate a variety of employment, discrimination, Title IX, First Amendment,
family law, and complex constitutional cases around the country.
Heller Ehrman LLP, San Francisco, California
Shareholder, 2003-2008, Associate, 1995-2002
Broad-based complex civil litigation practice with focus on insurance law,

intellectual property, and consumer class action matters. First and second
chair trial and appellate experience in state and federal courts in California
and nationally. (List of representative litigation matters attached.)
Supervised case teams and personally handled all aspects of civil litigation,
including legal research and writing, discovery, depositions, oral argument,
trial, appeal, alternative dispute resolution and settlement. Prepared case
budgets and advised clients on litigation strategy.
Managed staffing of more than 30 litigation associates and senior counsel as

Staffing Partner for the San Francisco office of large national law firm.
Monitored and balanced attorney workload. Drafted and delivered
performance reviews. Mentored, counseled, and trained junior attorneys.

70-2 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 47
25 of 85
30
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, San Francisco, California
Law Clerk to the Honorable James R. Browning, 1994-95
MEMBERSHIPS & HONORS
State Bar of California, American Bar Association, San Francisco Bar Association, Bay
Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, Northern California SuperLawyers
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Board of Directors, Community United Against Violence, 1999-2006
Board of Directors, Positive Resource Center 1996-1999
REPRESENTATIVE LITIGATION ENGAGEMENTS, 2008-present
Kitchen v. Herbert (United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit). Represent three same-sex
couples in a federal lawsuit challenging Utahs laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying
and refusing to respect the legal marriages of same-sex couples who married in other states.
Tanco v. Haslam (United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit). Represent three legally married
same-sex couples challenging Tennessee laws that prevent the state from respecting their legal
marriages.
Pickup v. Brown (United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit). Participated as amicus curiae
in case defending California state law that prohibits state-licensed therapists from trying to
change the sexual orientation or gender expression of a patient under 18 years old.
King v. Christie (United States District Court, District of New Jersey). Represent intervenor in
case defending New Jersey state law that prohibits state-licensed therapists from trying to change
the sexual orientation or gender expression of a patient under 18 years old.
Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (Supreme Court of the United States). Represented student
organization at Hastings College of the Law as intervener in First Amendment case challenging
Hastings Policy on Nondiscrimination. Prevailed before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Doe v. Anoka-Hennepin School District No. 11 and E.R. (United States District Court, District of
Minnesota). Represented students in lawsuit against the school district and school officials for
failure to stop daily harassment and bullying by their peers because of their actual or perceived
sexual orientation or gender expression. Obtained favorable lawsuit for plaintiff students.
Howe v. Haslam (Court of Appeals for Tennessee, Middle Section). Represent plaintiffs in
constitutional challenge of Tennessee law precluding localities from passing anti-discrimination
ordinances. Currently on appeal.

70-2 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 48
26 of 85
30
REPRESENTATIVE LITIGATION ENGAGEMENTS, 1995-2008

Insurance Recovery
Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. TransUnion LLC (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois).
First chair role representing national consumer credit reporting agency in litigation seeking errors
and omissions insurance coverage for consumer class actions relating to alleged privacy
violations.
Acuity v. Symantec Corporation et al. (Supreme Court of Wisconsin). First chair role
representing Symantec Corporation in suit seeking CGL advertising injury insurance coverage
for trademark and copyright infringement actions brought by Symantec relating to alleged piracy
of Symantecs commercial software products. Obtained favorable summary judgment, Court of
Appeals and Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions resulting in full coverage for claim.
PMI Mortgage Insurance Co. v. American International Specialty Lines Insurance Co. (United
States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit). Represented policyholder in litigation seeking errors
and omissions insurance coverage for settlement of nationwide consumer class action claims.
Drafted successful partial summary judgment motions, obtained judgment at trial for full policy
limits, and wrote successful appeal brief resulting in affirmance of the judgment.
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Factory Mutual Ins. Co. (United States District Court, Southern District
of New York). Represented HP in suit seeking first-party property and business interruption
insurance coverage for property damage arising out of sabotage by a former HP employee.
PG&E v. Lexington Ins. Co. et al. (Superior Court of California, City & County of San
Francisco). Represented PG&E in litigation seeking CGL insurance coverage for environmental
liabilities arising out of historical manufactured gas plant operations.
Scheidt v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Superior Court of California, County of Marin).
Represented policyholder in successful litigation challenging denial of life insurance benefits.
Class Actions and Representative Plaintiff Actions
Philip Morris Incorporated. (Various matters.) Represented Philip Morris Incorporated in
actions brought by governmental entities and private plaintiffs seeking recoupment of medical
costs arising out of tobacco-related illnesses. Drafted successful oppositions to class certification
and successful appeal briefs affirming dismissal of challenges to Master Settlement Agreement
between states and tobacco companies.
Semler v. First Colony Life Ins. Co. et al. (Superior Court of California, City & County of San
Francisco). Represented plaintiff in successful litigation under California Business and
Professions Code challenging life insurers practice of charging premiums for periods of time in
which no insurance is provided. Obtained injunction following court trial against Guardian Life
Insurance Company of America. Argued successful summary judgment motions.

70-2 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 49
27 of 85
30
Intellectual Property Litigation

Chan v. Symantec Corporation (United States District Court, Northern District of California)
Defended Symantec Corporation in patent litigation relating to the LiveUpdate feature and
Internet hyperlinks contained in certain Symantec CD-ROM software products. Drafted
Markman brief and obtained favorable claim construction ruling. Worked with experts and
consultants in preparing opinions relating to claim construction, infringement and invalidity
issues.
ActivCard v. VASCO (United States District Court, District of Delaware). Represented
ActivCard in patent litigation relating to encryption technology.
Pro Bono
In re Marriage Cases (Supreme Court of California). Representation of plaintiffs in one of
several consolidated cases challenging on constitutional grounds Californias statutory exclusion
of same-sex couples from civil marriage.
Smith v. Knoller et al. (Superior Court of California, City and County of San Francisco).
Representation of plaintiff in civil wrongful death action arising from dog attack.

70-2 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 50
28 of 85
30
AMY WHELAN
Senior Staff Attorney
Northeastern University School Of Law, Boston, MA: Juris Doctor, May 2001
Princeton University, Princeton, NJ: Bachelor of Arts, June 1996
Senior Thesis: Gay Marriage: A Social Contract and Utilitarianism Analysis
Princeton Project 55 Fellowship (now Princeton AlumniCorps) at Disability Rights Advocates
Bar Admissions: California (2001); admitted to CA state and federal courts, several U.S. Courts
of Appeals, and U.S. Supreme Court
LEGAL EXPERIENCE
National Center for Lesbian Rights San Francisco, CA
Feb. 2011present
Senior Staff Attorney: Oversee NCLRs general litigation, policy, and public education work.
Supervise and manage legal team members in complex civil cases around the country. Litigate
numerous marriage equality cases, including in Florida, Idaho, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming,
as well as employment, discrimination, Title IX, First Amendment, family law, and complex
constitutional matters around the country.
Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld, LLP San Francisco, CA
2001Jan. 2011
Associate: General and complex civil litigation firm, with an emphasis on civil rights, prisoners
rights, employment, and attorneys fees cases at the trial court and appellate levels. Perform all
litigation-related tasks for diverse cases and hire and manage paralegals and law student interns.
Highlights:
Member of 2008-2009 trial team in Coleman/Plata v. Schwarzenegger before federal
three-judge court and then U.S. Supreme Court, holding that California must reduce
prison overcrowding in order to meet the medical and mental health needs of prisoners.
Litigated post-judgment issues in Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, a class action lawsuit

under the 8th Amendment regarding mental healthcare in Californias state prison
system.
Litigated post-judgment issues and acted as a monitor in Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger,

a class action lawsuit under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act and the 8th Amendment
regarding disability accommodations and access in Californias state prison system.
Represented a federal public defender in her administrative grievance process

regarding the federal governments discriminatory denial of healthcare benefits to her
same-sex partner. Obtained retroactive and ongoing benefits.

70-2 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 51
29 of 85
30
Responsible for all matters of civil discovery including taking and defending
depositions, developing expert testimony, propounding and responding to written
discovery and drafting and arguing motions.
Hired, managed and supervised paralegal staff and law student interns.
Legal Action Center, New York, NY

Fall 2000
Legal Intern: Conducted legal research and provided direct legal services to ex-offenders and
people with HIV experiencing discrimination in employment, housing, and public benefits.
American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, San Francisco, CA
Spring 2000
Legal Intern: Conducted research regarding an array of constitutional and civil rights issues,
including a legal challenge to a Juvenile Crime voter initiative, a public school prohibition of
extracurricular activities on Jewish holidays in violation of the Establishment Clause, and the
Racial Justice Programs Driving While Black/Brown campaign.
San Francisco Human Rights Commission, San Francisco, CA
Fall 1999
Legal Intern: Advised and educated city contractors regarding compliance with San Franciscos
Nondiscrimination in Contracts ordinance.
Investigated and prosecuted complaints of
discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and HIV status.
Disability Rights Advocates, Oakland, CA
August 1996August 1998
Princeton Project 55 Fellow: Assisted attorneys representing persons with disabilities in class
action employment and public accommodations cases. Participated in a United Way Schools
Project to educate superintendents in more than fourteen school districts about the legal
requirements for physical and programmatic access for students with disabilities. Participated on
the trial team for a case of first impression against Macys for failure to provide physical access to
persons with disabilities.
SAMPLE PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONS
Amy Whelan & Gay C. Grunfeld, No Time to Waste-Californias Rules for Claims against Public
Entities, The Recorder, winter 2009 Supplement at 6-7.
Sid Wolinsky & Amy Whelan, Federal Law and the Accommodation of Students with LD: The
Lawyers Look at the BU Decision (Guckenberger v. Boston University), Journal of Learning
Disabilities, Volume 32, Number 4, July/August 1999 at 286-291.
Amy Whelan, Presenter at National Lawyers Guild 2009 Disability Rights Seminar (The Changing
Face of Disability Rights Law), panel on Institutions: Prisons, Adult Homes & Integration of
Children.
Presenter at ACLU of Southern California 2010 Brown Bag Lunch Series, Prisoners Rights:
Mississippis Super-Max and California Prison Overcrowding Litigation.
Presenter at National Lawyers Guild 2010 Far West Regional Conference, panel on Prisoner
Overcrowding in California State Prisons.
Presenter at 6th Annual KBA CLE on LGBT Issues, First Amendment Issues as They Relate to the
Community, October 7, 2011.
2

70-2 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 52
30 of 85
30
David Coon, Heather Gray, and Amy Whelan, Presenters at 14th Annual Updates on Dementia
Conference, LGBT Aging Research and Practice: Updates and Implications for Care Panel, May
6 2012.
Amy Whelan & Julie Nice, Panelists at 2012 Summer Brown Bag Lectures In Public Interest Law,
The Season For Gay Rights? A Discussion of Emerging Constitutional Law, July 24 2012.
Cameo Speaker, Pacific Coast Labor & Employment Conference, April 26 2013.
Case
Document72-1
70-3 Filed
Filed03/12/15
02/26/15 Page
Page53
1 of
of24
85
Case
Document72-1
70-3 Filed
Filed03/12/15
02/26/15 Page
Page54
2 of
of24
85
Case
Document72-1
70-3 Filed
Filed03/12/15
02/26/15 Page
Page55
3 of
of24
85
Case
Document72-1
70-3 Filed
Filed03/12/15
02/26/15 Page
Page56
4 of
of24
85
Case
Document72-1
70-3 Filed
Filed03/12/15
02/26/15 Page
Page57
5 of
of24
85
Case
Document72-1
70-3 Filed
Filed03/12/15
02/26/15 Page
Page58
6 of
of24
85
Case
Document72-1
70-3 Filed
Filed03/12/15
02/26/15 Page
Page59
7 of
of24
85
Case
Document72-1
70-3 Filed
Filed03/12/15
02/26/15 Page
Page60
8 of
of24
85
Case
Document72-1
70-3 Filed
Filed03/12/15
02/26/15 Page
Page61
9 of
of24
85
EXHIBIT 1

70-3 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 62
10 of 85
24
QUSAIR MOHAMEDBHAI
2701 Lawrence Street, Suite 100
wk. (303) 578-4400

fax (303) 578-4401
qm@rmlawyers.com
PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
Qusair is a partner at RATHOD | MOHAMEDBHAI LLC. His practice is
exclusively in the areas of plaintiffs employment discrimination and
constitutional civil rights litigation. He advocates for the rights of employees in
the workplace, and for the civil rights of all individuals against governmental
and institutional abuses of power.
AWARDS
Colorado Trial Lawyers Association Case of the Year (2014); Super Lawyer Plaintiffs Employment Law
(2014-2015); Super Lawyer Rising Star Civil Rights / First Amendment (2011 - 2013); National Lawyers
Guild First Amendment Defender Democratic National Convention (2008).
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND MEMBERSHIPS
University of Denver Sturm College of Law - Adjunct Faculty (2014); Plaintiff Employment Lawyers
Association Board Member (2014); Colorado Trial Lawyers Association Co-Chair Employment Law
Section (2010-present); National Institute for Trial Advocacy Faculty (2012); Civil Rights Education &
Enforcement Center, Litigation Committee (2013-present); General Counsel, Colorado Muslim Society
(2010Present); Servicios de la Raza Board Member (2011-Present); Colorado Bar Association (2004Present); Wyoming Bar Association (2004-Present); Denver Bar Association (2004Present), South Asian
Bar Association (2010-Present); The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (2011Present); Islamic Society of North America, Arbitrator (2011-Present).
EDUCATION & BAR ADMISSIONS
Qusair graduated from the University of Wyoming School Of Law, Laramie, Wyoming in 2003. He received
his undergraduate degree in Biological Sciences from the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta in 2000.
Qusair is admitted to practice law in Colorado, Wyoming, the United States District Court, District of
Colorado, and Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
PUBLICATIONS
The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, Chapter Update, Practitioners Guide to Employment Law, Colorado
Bar Association (January 2015); Municipal Liability: Strategies, Critiques, and a Pathway Toward Effective
Enforcement of Civil Rights (Denver University Law Review, Volume 91, Issue 3); Religious Minorities
Need Not Apply: Legal Implications of Faith-Based Employment Advertising, 43 The Colorado Lawyer 27
(April 2014); Ramadan at Guantanamo Bay, Front Range Muslim Newspaper (October 2011); Colorado
Muslims Support Libyan Students, Front Range Muslim Newspaper (June 2011); Peter T. King and the
Radicalization in the American Muslim Community, Front Range Muslim Newspaper (April 2011); and The
Rights of Muslims in the Workplace, Front Range Muslim Newspaper (December 2010).
ACADEMIC LECTURING
Remedies For Sexual Violence: What All Attorneys Need To Know CLE, CWBA (January 2015); Harassment
and Discrimination in the Workplace CLE, Sterling Education Services, Cheyenne, Wyoming (September
2014); Taking a CCRD Probable Cause Finding to the ALJ CLE, PELA (August 2014); Employment Law
for the Personal Injury and Medical Malpractice Attorney: Issue Spotting and Avoiding Pitfall CLE, CTLA,
(August 2014); Workplace Privacy CLE, Colorado Bar Association (March 2014); Workplace
Discrimination CLE, Program Chair, Colorado Bar Association (January 2014), Nuts and Bolts of the CADA
Remedies Bill CLE, Colorado Trial Lawyers Association (December 2013); Stock Options: Pitfalls and

70-3 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 63
11 of 85
24
Considerations to your Employment Practice CLE, Colorado Bar Association, (October 2013); The EEOCs
Systemic Initiative, Ogletree Deakins Annual Employment Law Seminar (October 2013); Go F*ck Yourself
Defending Your Case with the First Amendment CLE, Colorado Public Defenders Office Annual Conference
(September 2013); Hanging Your Own Shingle CLE, Colorado Bar Association (August 2013 & 2012);
Employment Law Discovery & Evidentiary Issues CLE, Colorado Trial Lawyers Association (August 2013);
Stereotyping in Employment Discrimination CLE, Colorado Bar Association (April 2013); Summer Trial
Institute, Faculty, University of Wyoming School of Law (2011-2013); Employment Issues in Workers
Compensation Cases CLE, Colorado Bar Association (March 2013); 1983 is Not the Introduction to an
Orwell Novel CLE; Colorado Criminal Defense Bar (December 2012); Civil Rights for the Criminal Defense
Attorney -Colorado Public Defenders Adams County Office (September 2012); Colorado Progressive
Coalition: Understanding Civil Rights (September 2012); Building Your Case With the Bill of Rights Federal Practice Series CLE (September 2012); See the Forest and the Trees When Evaluating an
Employment Discrimination Case CLE, Wyoming Bar Association Annual State Bar/Judicial Conference
(September 2012); Successfully Navigating the Criminal Justice System as Plaintiffs Employment Attorneys:
Representing the Victim/Witness of a Crime CLE, Plaintiffs Employment Law Association Annual Retreat
(August 2012); Religious Rights in the Workplace CLE, Colorado Bar Association (May 2012); Civil Rights
for the Criminal Defense Attorney, Colorado Public Defenders Denver Office (May 2012); National Institute
for Trial Advocacy, Faculty: Trial Skills (April 2012);10 Dos and Donts of Starting a law Firm, Colorado
Bar Association CLE (March 2012); Constitutional Litigation - University of Denver Law School (October
2012); Employment Discrimination, Guest Speaker, Denver Islamic Society (June 2011); Muslims and Law
Enforcement, Guest Speaker, Colorado Muslim Society (December 2010); First Amendment in Employment
CLE, Sterling Education Services, Cheyenne, Wyoming (November 2010); Panelist, First Amendment and
Academic Freedom, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming (April 2010).
REPRESENTATIVE CASES
Robert Dienes v. CVNA, 2014cv02132 (Disability Discrimination); Shelli Robins v. Adams 14 School District, 2014cv01794-WYD-KMT (Gender Discrimination)(2014); Wilson v. Pauling Management Co et al.,
2013-cv-035298 (Employment Discrimination); Hart v. VK Investment Group, LLC, 13-cv-02301 (Housing
Discrimination); Blair v. Resort Management Group, 13-cv-01298 (Employment Gender Discrimination);
Carpenter v. CenturyLink, 2013-cv-032401 (Wrongful Discharge); Hunter v. City and County of Denver et
al., 2012-cv-5623 (Prisoner Civil Rights); Morgan et al v. Colorado Department of Corrections et al., 12-cv0936 (Prisoner Civil Rights); Ortega et al. v. City and County of Denver, et al., 11-cv-02394 (Police
Brutality and Governmental Liability); Perry v. Red Peak et al., 11-cv-01900-WYD-CBS (Housing
Discrimination); Blake v. 23 LTD et al., 11-cv-8197 (Employment Gender Discrimination and Retaliation;
Shroff v. City and County of Denver et al., 604 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2010) (False Arrest and Violation of
Bodily Integrity against Denver Police Officer); Martinez et al v. City and County of Denver et al, 11-cv00102-MSK -KLM (Home Invasion and Excessive Force Against Denver Police Officers); Rehberg v. City
of Pueblo et al, 10-cv-00261-LTB-KLM (Excessive Force and Unlawful Entry against Pueblo Police
Officers); Moore v. City and County of Denver et al,10-cv-00651-JLK -MJW (Excessive Force and False
Arrest against Denver Police Officers); Hardy v. Procter & Gamble Company; 10-cv-01867-MSK -MEH
(Disability Discrimination in Employment); Graber v. City & County of Denver et al, 09-cv-01029-JLKMJW (Excessive Force and False Arrest against Denver Police Officers); Duran v. City & County of Denver
et al, No. 10-cv-01569-REB-KMT (Excessive Force against Denver City Jail and Denver Deputy Sheriff);
Alpers v. Town of Erie,10-cv-01105-WDM-CBS (Excessive Force against Erie Police Department and K-9);
Kreck v. City & County of Denver, 10-cv-01474-LTB-MEH (First Amendment Retaliation Against Denver
Police Officer); Ayers v. University of Wyoming; 10-cv-00079-WFD (First Amendment Retaliation); Hall,
Aragon, Jordan, Appleberry, & Arnall v. Adams County, No. 09-cv-02836-WYD-BNB (Sexual Harassment,
Retaliation, and/or First Amendment Retaliation against Adams County Coroners Office); Trujillo v. City of
Lakewood, No. 08-cv-00149-WDM-CBS (Excessive Force against Lakewood Police Officers and K-9;
Chavez et al v. Fitzsimons Community Federal Credit Union, 07-cv-01529 (Race Discrimination in
Employment); McGuire-Mann v. Naked Juice Company, 2008 Arbitration, (Sexual Harassment in
2

70-3 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 64
12 of 85
24
Employment); Echegaray v. Rygiels Obstetrics, 2007cv3693 (Pregnancy Discrimination in Employment);

Churchill v. University of Colorado, 2006CV11473 (First Amendment Retaliation in Employment); and
O'Neil v. West Cheyenne Fire Prot. Dist., 05-cv-02173-RPM (Excessive Force and Unlawful Entry).
Pro Bono: Kahn Family (2013); John Copeland (2013); Occupy Denver Legal Training (2012);
Proposition 8 / Gay Rights Representation of Protestors (2009); Democratic National Convention
Representation of Protestors (2008); Columbus Day Representation of Protestors (2007).

70-3 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 65
13 of 85
24
EXHIBIT 2

70-3 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 66
14 of 85
24
ARASH JAHANIAN
wk (303) 578-4400
fax (303) 578-4401
aj@rmlawyers.com
1518 Blake Street

PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
Arash Jahanian is an attorney at Rathod | Mohamedbhai LLC. His practice
includes advocating for the civil rights of employees in the workplace and
individuals suffering governmental and institutional abuses of power. Prior to
joining Rathod Mohamedbhai, Arash was an associate in Crowell & Moring
LLPs Washington, DC office and a judicial clerk for the Honorable Wiley Y.
Daniel, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado.
PRIOR EXPERIENCE
While at Crowell & Moring, Arash worked in the Labor & Employment and Litigation practice groups. His
Labor & Employment practice was focused on litigating employment discrimination claims and wage-and-hour
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). His practice in the Litigation group focused on education
civil rights law and on bringing claims against foreign governments on behalf of victims of state-sponsored
terrorism. Through his pro bono practice, Arash helped victims of an immigration raid gain recourse for
constitutional civil rights violations by federal officers.
From 2003 to 2005, Arash taught in Chicago Public Schools as a Teach For America corps member. Dedicated
to closing the achievement gap in underprivileged schools, Arash taught math, language arts, and Spanish. He
also coached boys softball and led after-school tutoring programs.
EDUCATION
Arash graduated Cum Laude from Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C. in 2008. He served as
Articles Editor for the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law and participated in the Center for Applied
Legal Studies, Georgetowns political asylum clinic. He also helped to found the Georgetown Journal of Law &
Modern Critical Race Perspectives, for which he served as Symposium Chair during the journals inaugural
year. Arash received his undergraduate degree, with Highest Honors, in Psychology and Journalism and Mass
Communication from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 2003.
REPRESENTATIVE CASES
Dienes v. Colorado Visiting Nurse Association, 14-cv-3132 (Disability Discrimination (2014)
Courage, et al. v. State of Wyoming, et al., Civil Action No. 182-262 (Marriage Equality) (2014)
Robins v. Adams County School District 14, 14-cv-01794-WYD-KMT (Gender Discrimination) (2014);
Carpenter v. CenturyLink, Inc. et al., 2013cv32401 (Retaliation in Employment) (2013)
Blair v. Resort Management Group, LLC Hunter v. City and County of Denver et al., 13-cv-01298WJM-CBS (Sexual Harassment) (2013)
Hunter v. City and County of Denver et al., 12-cv-02682-JLK (Prisoner Civil Rights) (2012)
Morgan et al. v. Colorado Department of Corrections et al., 12-cv-00936-RM-KMT (Prisoner Civil
Rights) (2012)
Ortega et al. v. City and County of Denver et al., 11-cv-02394-WJM-CBS (Police Brutality) (2011)
HONORS AND AWARDS
Super Lawyer Rising Star
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND MEMBERSHIPS
Denver GLBT Commission, Commissioner
Colorado GLBT Bar Association, Board Member, Programming Committee Co-Chair

70-3 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 67
15 of 85
24
Arash Jahanian
One Colorado, Strategic Assessment Group

Colorado Bar Association, Civil Rights Committee
Plaintiffs Employment Lawyers Association
Colorado Trial Lawyers Association
Denver Bar Association
South Asian Bar Association
Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Colorado
PUBLICATIONS
Religious Minorities Need Not Apply: Legal Implications of Faith-Based Employment Advertising,
The Colorado Lawyer, Co-Authors: Matthew J. Cron, Arash Jahanian, Qusair Mohamedbhai, and
Siddhartha H. Rathod, 2014
Municipal Liability: Strategies, Critiques, and a Pathway Forward Toward Effective Enforcement of
Civil Rights, University of Denver Law Review, Volume 91, Issue 3, Co- Authors: Matthew J. Cron,
Arash Jahanian, Qusair Mohamedbhai, and Siddhartha H. Rathod, 2014
True Endorsement: A Critical Race Approach to Bans on Same-Sex Marriage, Georgetown Journal of
Gender & the Law, 2008
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act: 2010 Year In Review, Co-Authors and Editors: Laurel Pyke
Malson, Katherine Nesbitt, Aryeh S. Portnoy, Lisa Savitt, Birgit Kurtz, David Bell, Arash Jahanian,
Jonathan Anastasia, Elizabeth Carter, Melanie Natasha Henry, Nicholas Fromherz, Julia Franklin, and
Dalal Hasan, 2011
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act: 2009 Year in Review, Co-Authors and Editors: Laurel Pyke
Malson, Katherine J. Nesbitt, Aryeh S. Portnoy, Birgit Kurtz, John Murino, Joshua Dermott, Beth
Goldman, Arash Jahanian, Marguerite Walter, Howard Yuan, Lisa Savitt, and David Bell, 2010
LANGUAGES
Spanish
Farsi
BAR ADMISSIONS
Colorado
New York
District of Columbia
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

70-3 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 68
16 of 85
24
EXHIBIT 3

70-3 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 69
17 of 85
24
February 26, 2015

Guzzo, et al.
Client Code: 0080
RE:
Rathod Mohamedbhai LLC Time Entry Report for Guzzo, et al. v. Matthew H.
Mead, et al., Civil Action No. 182-262 (D. Wyo.)
Tuesday, October 7, 2014 to Thursday, February 26, 2015
DATE
ATTORNEY /
STAFF
DESCRIPTION
RATE
TIME
TOTAL
(6 min)
Jahanian
Review and revise draft

Complaint; research
affidavit requirements
for preliminary
injunction motion.
200
3.50
$700.00
Belzer
Research affidavit
requirements for
Preliminary Injunction
Motion.
140
$280.00
Jahanian
Continue researching
affidavit requirements
for preliminary
injunction motion; revise
motion.
200
1.00
$200.00
Wednesday, October 08,

2014
Belzer
Research affidavit
requirements for
preliminary injunction
motion.
140
3.00
$420.00
Thursday, October 09,

2014
Strategize re subpoena;
prepare clients for
Mohamedbhai hearing.
300
2.80
$840.00

2014
Prepare subpoena;
confer re pro hac vice
motions; draft motion
for summary judgment.
200
3.30
$660.00
Tuesday, October 07, 2014

2014
Jahanian
2701 LAWRENCE ST., SUITE 100 DENVER, CO 80205 303.578.4400 (t) 303.578.4401 (f) www.RMLawyers.com

70-3 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 70
18 of 85
24
Guzzo, et al.
Client Code: 0080
Page 2 of 6
DATE
ATTORNEY /
STAFF
DESCRIPTION
RATE
TIME
(6
min)
TOTAL

2014
Belzer
Research requirements
for and prepare
subpoena.
140
1.9
$266.00
Friday, October 10, 2014
Continue strategizing re
Mohamedbhai subpoena.
300
0.60
$180.00
Jahanian
Confer with Attorney

General's Office re
subpoena; continue
drafting motion for
summary judgment.
200
2.60
$520.00
Belzer
Conduct research for

summary judgment
motion.
140
3.00
$420.00
Sunday, October 12, 2014
Review draft reply to

Defendant Lathrop's
response to motion for
confer re hearing
Mohamedbhai testimony.
300
1.00
$300.00
Monday, October 13, 2014
Confer re motion to
quash subpoena and
reply to State
Defendants' response to
Mohamedbhai motion.
300
0.70
$210.00
Jahanian
Draft response to
motion to quash
subpoena; draft reply to
State Defendants'
response to preliminary
injunction motion.
200
8.20
$1,640.00
Belzer
Conduct research for

draft response to motion
to quash.
140
1.90
$266.00

70-3 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 71
19 of 85
24
Guzzo, et al.
Client Code: 0080
Page 3 of 6
DATE
ATTORNEY /
STAFF
DESCRIPTION
RATE
TIME
(6
min)
TOTAL
Finalize pro hac vice

motion; review and
revise reply to State
motion; prepare for
300
3.00
$900.00
Finalize pro hac vice

motions; continue
drafting reply to State
motion; prepare for
hearing.
200
6.20
$1,240.00
Conduct legal research

re recent denials of stay
in marriage equality
cases.
140
1.70
$238.00
300
2.60
$780.00
200
6.00
$1,200.00
Jahanian
Tuesday, October 14, 2014 Belzer

2014
Prepare clients for

hearing; continue
Mohamedbhai preparing for hearing.
Prepare clients for
hearing; prepare for
standing argument.

2014
Jahanian

2014
Continue preparing for

hearing; participate in
300
3.00
$900.00

2014
Jahanian
Continue preparing for

hearing; participate in
hearing including
standing argument.
200
3.00
$600.00
Review Court's
Order; confer re next
Mohamedbhai steps.
300
0.50
$150.00

70-3 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 72
20 of 85
24
Guzzo, et al.
Client Code: 0080
Page 4 of 6
DATE
ATTORNEY /
STAFF
DESCRIPTION
RATE
TIME
(6
min)
TOTAL
Jahanian
Review Court's
Order; confer re next
steps.
Jahanian
Confer and strategize re

lifting of stay.

2014
Review and confer re

draft stipulated
Mohamedbhai jungment.
300
0.20
$60.00

2014
Jahanian
Review and confer re

draft stipulated
judgment.
200
0.40
$80.00
Jahanian
Review and revise draft

stipulated judgment;
review Defendant
Lathrop's Answer to
Complaint.
200
0.40
$80.00
Jahanian
Review draft stipulated

judgment.
200
0.20
$40.00
Jahanian
Continue reviewing,
revise draft stipulated
judgment.
200
0.50
$100.00
Friday, November 07,

2014
Jahanian
Review Defendants'
Answer to Complaint.
200
0.20
$40.00
Monday, November 10,

2014
Review, confer re
Defendants' motion for
judgment on the
Mohamedbhai pleadings.
300
0.20
$60.00
Monday, November 10,

2014
Jahanian
Review, confer re
Defendants' Motion for
Judgment on the
Pleadings.
200
0.50
$100.00
Jahanian
Review Preliminary
Injunction Hearing
Transcript.
200
0.40
$80.00

Tuesday, November 04,
2014
Wednesday, November
05, 2014
Tuesday, November 18,

2014
200
0.50
$100.00
200
0.20
$40.00

70-3 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 73
21 of 85
24
Guzzo, et al.
Client Code: 0080
Page 5 of 6
DATE
ATTORNEY /
STAFF
Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Wednesday, January 14,
2015
Wednesday, February 04,
2015
2015
Friday, February 06, 2015
Monday, February 09,
2015
Monday, February 09,
2015
2015

2015
Thursday, February 19,
2015
RATE
TIME
(6
min)
TOTAL
Review and revise Draft

Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings.
200
0.40
$80.00
Prepare Fee Petition.

Revise Fee Petition.
200
200
2.60
0.60
$520.00
$120.00
Confer re and revise

Reply in Support of
Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings.
200
3.40
$680.00
Mohamedbhai Review fee petition.
300
0.20
$60.00
Jahanian
Revise Fee Petition.
200
1.00
$200.00
Jahanian
Draft and file Notice of

Change of Address.
200
0.50
$100.00
Jahanian
Review and revise

motion for oral
argument.
200
0.10
$20.00
Mohamedbhai Confer re fee petition.
300
0.30
$90.00
Jahanian
Confer re fee petition.
Jahanian
200
300
200
0.30
0.40
0.40
$60.00
$120.00
$80.00
Confer with opposing

Mohamedbhai counsel re fees.
300
0.20
$60.00
Jahanian
200
0.20
$40.00
300
0.30
$90.00
200
1.20
$240.00
300
0.10
$30.00
Friday, November 21,

2014
Jahanian
Thursday, December 04,
2014
Jahanian
Friday, December 05, 2014 Jahanian
Thursday, December 11,

2014
Monday, December 15,
2014
Monday, December 15,
2014
DESCRIPTION
Jahanian
Jahanian
Confer with co-counsel

and opposing counsel re
fee petition; draft and
file motion for
extension.

70-3 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 74
22 of 85
24
Guzzo, et al.
Client Code: 0080
Page 6 of 6
DATE
ATTORNEY /
STAFF
DESCRIPTION
RATE
TIME
(6
min)
TOTAL

2015
Jahanian
200
0.40
$80.00


Mohamedbhai counsel re fees.
Jahanian
300
200
0.10
0.20
$30.00
$40.00
Tuesday, February 24,

2015

counsel re fees; confer
Mohamedbhai re appropriate fees.
300
1.20
$360.00
200
7.20
$1,440.00
Tuesday, February 24,

2015
Jahanian

2015
Revise affidavit in
Mohamedbhai support of fee petition.
300
0.50
$150.00

2015
Jahanian
Continue revising Fee

Petition and affidavit in
support.
200
8.10
$1,620.00

2015
Revise fee petition and

Mohamedbhai affidavit in support.
300
4.00
$1,200.00
200
7.00
$1,400.00

2015
Jahanian
Revise Fee Petition; draft

affidavit in support.
Continue revising and

file Fee Petition and
exhibits.
TOTAL FEES
104.10 $22,600.00

70-3 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 75
23 of 85
24
EXHIBIT 4

70-3 Filed 03/12/15
02/26/15 Page 76
24 of 85
24
February 26, 2015

Guzzo, et al.
Client Code: 0080
RE:
DATE
10/9/2014
10/10/2014
10/14/2014
10/14/2014
10/15/2014
10/15/2014
10/15/2014
10/15/2014
10/15/2014
10/16/2014
10/16/2014
10/20/2014
12/17/2014
Rathod Mohamedbhai LLC Cost Report for Guzzo, et al.

October 9, 2014 to December 17, 2014
PAYEE
Process Service of Wyoming, Inc.
Process Service of Wyoming, Inc.
FedEx
FedEx
FedEx
Qusair Mohamedbhai
0404 - MOTEL 6 CASPER
Wendy's
hotels.com (Motel 6)
Qusair Mohamedbhai
Sanfords Grub and Pub Casper
FedEx
RM
TOTAL
AMOUNT
100.00
80.00
5.91
1.60
16.52
155.12
3.14
3.57
142.52
155.12
21.10
16.52
42.60
$743.72
DESCRIPTION
Service of Subpoena
Service of Subpoena
Mailing
Mailing
Mailing
277 miles x $0.56 (Denver-Casper)
Internet
Food before hearing
Lodging for hearing
277 miles x $0.56(Casper-Denver)
Food after hearing
Mailing
Total Printing (284 pages x .15)
2701 LAWRENCE ST., SUITE 100 DENVER, CO 80205 303.578.4400 (t) 303.578.4401 (f) www.RMLawyers.com
Case
Document72-1
70-4 Filed
Filed03/12/15
02/26/15 Page
Page77
1 of 9
85
Case
Document72-1
70-4 Filed
Filed03/12/15
02/26/15 Page
Page78
2 of 9
85
Case
Document72-1
70-4 Filed
Filed03/12/15
02/26/15 Page
Page79
3 of 9
85
Case
Document72-1
70-4 Filed
Filed03/12/15
02/26/15 Page
Page80
4 of 9
85
Case
Document72-1
70-4 Filed
Filed03/12/15
02/26/15 Page
Page81
5 of 9
85
Case
Document72-1
70-4 Filed
Filed03/12/15
02/26/15 Page
Page82
6 of 9
85
Case
Document72-1
70-4 Filed
Filed03/12/15
02/26/15 Page
Page83
7 of 9
85
Case
Document72-1
70-4 Filed
Filed03/12/15
02/26/15 Page
Page84
8 of 9
85
Case
Document72-1
70-4 Filed
Filed03/12/15
02/26/15 Page
Page85
9 of 9
85
Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 72-2 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 21
IN THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

STATE OF WYOMING, COUNTY OF LARAMIE
DOCKET
'
'i5 2.
NUMBER
2 4
<._
Cora Emma-Terese Sacah Courage and Wyoma

Kay Proffit; Carl Oleson and Rob Johnston; Anne
Marie Guzzo and Bonnie Robinson; Ivan Williams
and Charles Killion; and Wyoming Equality,
Plaintiffs,
v.
State of Wyoming; Matthew H. Mead, in his

official capacity as the Governor of Wyoming;
Dean Fausset, in his official capacity as Director of
the Wyoming Department of Administration and
Information; Dave Urquidez, in his official capacity
as Administrator of the State of Wyoming Human
Resources Division; and Debbye Balcaen Lathrop,
in her official capacity as Laramie County Clerk,
FILED
MAR - 5 2014 r)~
SANDY LANDERS
CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT
Defendants.
---------------------------------------
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

INTRODUCTION
1.
Wyoming's state motto is "Equal Rights." Wyoming's reputation as the Equality
State is well-deserved. As often noted by the Wyoming courts, "the Wyoming Constitution
offers more robust protection against legal discrimination than the federal constitution." See
Allhusen v. State By and Through Wyoming Mental Health Professions Licensing Bd., 898 P.2d
878, 884 (Wyo. 1995).
2.
Wyoming has a long history of respecting marriages that were validly entered into
in other jurisdictions and affording those marriages all of the rights and privileges of a Wyoming
marriage. But in 1977, Wyoming singled out the marriages of same-sex couples by excluding
them from recognition.
3.
Plaintiffs bring this action to challenge the constitutionality of Wyoming's statute
that excludes same-sex couples from marriage, and Wyoming's practice- in contravention of its
own law--of refusing to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples lawfully entered into in
other jurisdictions. See Wyo. Stat. 20-1-101; 20-1-111.
EXHIBIT B
4.
Wyoming, like other states, encourages and regulates marriage through hundreds
of laws that provide benefits to and impose obligations upon married couples. In exchange,
Wyoming receives the well-established benefits that marriage brings: stable, supportive families
that create loving homes for children and contribute to both the social and economic well-being
of Wyoming.
5.
Wyoming's refusal to marry same-sex couples and recognize the valid out-of-
state marriages of same-sex couples violates the guarantees of the Wyoming Constitution. This
Court should so declare and issue an injunction requiring defendants to issue marriage licenses to
the unmarried plaintiffs without regard to their status as same-sex couples, and to recognize the
existing marriages of the married plaintiffs.
6.
Plaintiffs are same-sex couples who live in Wyoming, and Wyoming Equality, a
non-profit organization dedicated to securing full equality for Wyoming's lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender ("LGBT") community.
7.
The Plaintiff couples are active and contributing members of society, with diverse
backgrounds and educations. They are distinguished war veterans, counselors, professors, and
sheep ranchers, among other professions. Some are parents; others do not have children. The
situations faced by these couples are similar to those faced by many other same-sex couples in
Wyoming who are denied the basic rights, privileges, and protections of marriage for themselves
and their children.
8.
Plaintiffs Cora Courage and Wyoma "Nonie" Proffit, and Carl Oleson and Rob
Johnston (collectively the "Married Plaintiffs"), are legally married same-sex couples, having
wed in Iowa and Canada respectively. However, in their home state of Wyoming, they are
treated as legal strangers to their spouses.
9.
Although Wyoming law states that "[a]ll marriage contracts which are valid by
the laws ofthe country in which contracted are valid in this state," Wyo. Stat. 20-1-111, and
does not specifically exempt same-sex marriages from that recognition, it has been the practice
of Wyoming officials to refuse to recognize the lawful marriages of same-sex couples who
married in other jurisdictions and to deny those married couples any of the rights and protections
of marriage. By refusing to recognize the lawful marriages of the Married Plaintiffs and denying
them all of the rights and protections given to other legally married couples, Wyoming has
effectively nullified their legal status and their rights and responsibilities as married people.
10.
Plaintiffs Anne Marie Guzzo and Bonnie Robinson, and Ivan Williams and
Charles "Chuck" Killion (collectively the "Unmarried Plaintiffs" ), are unmarried same-sex
couples in committed relationships who desire to marry in Wyoming. The Unmarried Plaintiffs
meet all the requirements Wyoming imposes for the issuance of marriage licenses except that
they are same-sex couples.
11.
The Unmarried Plaintiffs wish to publicly declare their love and commitment
before their family, friends, and community; to join their lives together and enter into a legally
binding commitment to one another; and to share in the protections and security that marriage
provides. The Unmarried Plaintiffs have strong ties to Wyoming and getting married in their
home state of Wyoming is of immense personal importance to them.
12.
Like many other couples with a life-long commitment, the Unmarried Plaintiffs
are spouses in every sense except for their inability to legally marry under Wyoming law, which
provides that "[m]arriage is a civil contract between a male and a female person to which the
consent of the parties capable of contracting is essential." Wyo . Stat. 20-1-101. This provision
forbids the Unmarried Plaintiffs from marrying in Wyoming.
13.
Wyoming' s exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage and refusal to respect
the marriages of legally married same-sex couples adversely impact the Plaintiff couples, and
other Wyoming same-sex who are members of Wyoming Equality, in real and significant ways.
When Wyoming withholds a marriage license from a same-sex couple, or refuses to recognize a
same-sex couple 's valid marriage from another jurisdiction, it circumscribes the affected
individuals' basic life choices, classifies the affected individuals and couples in a manner that
denies them the public recognition and myriad benefits of marriage, prevents the couple from
making a legally binding commitment to one another and from being treated by the government
and by others as a family rather than as umelated individuals, and harms society by burdening
and disrupting committed families and preventing couples from being able to full y protect and
assume responsibility for one another and their children. The Plaintiff couples and their children
are stigmatized and relegated to second-class status.
14.
Wyoming' s exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage and refusal to respect
existing marriages undermines the Plaintiff couples' ability to achieve their life goals and
dreams, disadvantages them financially, and denies them "dignity and status of immense
import." United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2692 (2013). Wyoming' s disparate
treatment of same-sex couples "tells those couples and all the world that their [relationships] are
unworthy" of recognition. !d. at 2694. By singling out same-sex couples and their families and
excluding them from any type of marital protection, Wyoming "humiliates ... children now
being raised by same-sex couples" and "makes it even more difficult for the children to
understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in
their community and in their daily lives." !d.
15.
Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have extended the freedom to marry
to same-sex couples, and the institution of marriage continues to thrive. Marriage contributes to
the happiness, security, and peace of mind of countless couples and their families, and to the
stability and well-being of society.
16.
History has taught that the legitimacy and vitality of marriage do not depend on
upholding discriminatory marriage laws. Accordingly, our courts and society have discarded,
one by one, marriage laws that violated the mandate of equality guaranteed by the Constitution.
17.
In the not so distant past, the majority of states, including Wyoming, had laws
prohibiting marriage between people of different races. 1 The Supreme Court held such
exclusions from marriage to be unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967),
declaring: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights
essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men" and women. This principle is equally
applicable to same-sex couples. Eliminating the remaining unconstitutional barriers to marriage
further enhances the institution and society, while protecting the fundamental rights of
individuals.
18.
Wyoming's exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage, and its refusal to
respect the marriages of same-sex couples validly entered into in other jurisdictions, violate the
Due Process and Equal Protection guarantees in Article 1 of the Wyoming Constitution. Section
2 provides that "[i]n their inherent right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, all members
of the human race are equal." Section 3 provides that "[s]ince equality in the enjoyment of
natural and civil rights is only made sure through political equality, the laws of this state
affecting the political rights and privileges of its citizens shall be without distinction of race,
color, sex, or any circumstance or condition whatsoever other than individual incompetency, or
l Wyoming eliminated all legal barriers to interracial marriage in 1965. See Kim Ibach and
William H. Moore, "The Emerging Civil Rights Movement: The 1957 Wyoming Public
Accommodations Statute as a Case Study," 73 Annals of Wyoming 8 (Winter 2001).
unworthiness duly ascertained by a court of competent jurisdiction." Section 6 provides that

"[n]o person shall be deprived oflife, liberty or property without due process of law."
19.
Wyoming's exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage and its refusal to
respect the marriages of same-sex couples validly entered into in other jurisdictions deprive the
Plaintiffs of their fundamental right to marry and infringe upon their constitutionally protected
interests in liberty, dignity, privacy, autonomy, family integrity, and intimate association.
Wyoming' s refusal to respect their marriages further deprives the Married Plaintiffs of their
constitutionally protected liberty interest in their marital status and their right to have their
marriage accorded the same recognition in Wyoming as it would be accorded in the state in
which it was entered. Wyoming's refusal to recognize valid same-sex marriages entered into in
other jurisdictions also discriminates against the class of legally married persons.
20.
Wyoming's treatment of the Plaintiff couples is subject to heightened scrutiny
because it burdens fundamental constitutional rights and because it discriminates on the basis of
sex and sexual orientation. Wyoming's treatment of the Plaintiff couples and other same-sex
couples cannot survive any level of constitutional scrutiny, however, because it does not
rationally further any legitimate government interest, but serves only to injure and humiliate
same-sex couples and their families.
21.
Plaintiffs bring this suit pursuant to Wyoming Statutes 1-37-103 for declaratory
relief, and Wyoming Statutes 1-28-101 through 104 for injunctive relief. Specifically,
Plaintiffs seek: (a) a declaration that Wyoming' s prohibition of marriage for same-sex couples
violates the Wyoming Constitution; (b) a declaration that Wyoming's refusal to recognize the
marriages of same-sex couples validly entered into in other jurisdictions violates Wyoming law
and the Wyoming Constitution; and (c) a permanent injunction (i) preventing Defendants from
denying the Unmarried Plaintiffs the right to marry, and (ii) directing Defendants to recognize
the marriages of the Married Plaintiffs that were validly entered into in other jurisdictions.
22.
Plaintiffs state the below causes of action against Defendants in their official
capacities for purposes of seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

23.
The declaratory and injunctive relief requested in this action is sought against
each Defendant; against each Defendant's officers, employees, and agents; and against all
persons acting in active concert or participation with any Defendant, or under any Defendant's
supervision, direction, or control.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

24.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this equitable action pursuant to
Wyo. Const. Art. 5 10, Wyo. Stat. 1-28-101 et seq., and the Uniform Declaratory
Judgments Act, Wyo. Stat. 1-37-101 et seq.
25.
Venue is proper in this district court pursuant to Wyo. Stat. 1-5-104.
PARTIES
A.
The Plaintiffs
26.
Plaintiffs Cora Courage and Wyoma "Nonie" Proffit have been in a committed
relationship for nine years and reside in Evanston, Wyoming. They were legally married in Iowa
in December 2009. Cora is a decorated veteran of the armed services and a Major in the Army
Reserves. Nonie is a part-time librarian, and a sheep herder on her family 's ranch. Cora is the
Clinical Director of the Wyoming State Hospital. As an employee of the State of Wyoming,
Cora is entitled to enroll her spouse in her health and dental insurance coverage. Wyo. Stat. 93-209. Cora's application to add Nonie as her dependent spouse was denied by the Human
Resources Division of the Department of Administration and Information, under authority of
Defendants Urquidez and Fausset respectively, on September 18,2013, on grounds that Nonie
"does not qualify as a dependent as defined by the State of Wyoming." Had Cora's spouse been
a man, there is no question that Cora's spouse would have "qualified as a dependent as defined
by the State of Wyoming."
27.
Plaintiffs Carl Oleson and Rob Johnston have been in a committed relationship
for 16 years, and reside in Casper, Wyoming. They were legally married in Ontario, Canada, on
July 16,20 10. Carl manages a retail shop, and is very active in the United Church of Christ.
Rob, who has a master 's degree in counseling education, is the program director at Proj ect
ReGain, a life skills program for people recovering from addiction. Rob recently retired from
the Wyoming Department of Health, where he ran the HIV Prevention Program. Rob has a
pension from the State of Wyoming, which lists Carl as his spouse and beneficiary. But, even
though Rob and Carl are legally married, neither can have confidence that the state will
recognize this designation in the event of Rob's death and, based on Wyoming' s current practice
of denying recognition to same-sex spouses, have a strong basis for concern that the state will
not recognize Carl as a surviving spouse. Rob and Carl should not be deprived of the security
that other married couples enjoy and should not have to wait until Rob's death to determine
whether the State of Wyoming will honor this contract because any delay in Carl's receipt of
those benefits will have detrimental consequences. See Wyo. Stat. 1-37-101 et seq.
28.
Plaintiffs Anne Marie Guzzo and Bonnie Robinson have been in a committed
relationship for four years, and reside in Laramie, Wyoming. They meet all of Wyoming 's
qualifications for issuance of a marriage license, except that they are both women. Anne was
born and raised in Wyoming, and both A1me and Bonnie have a special connection to the state
and wish to get married here. Anne is a professor at the University of Wyoming. If Anne and
Bonnie were able to marry, Anne could add Bonnie to her state-offered health insurance plan.
Wyo. Stat. 9-3-209. Because they are unable to marry, however, the couple must purchase
insurance for Bonnie on the private market, at added cost. Like many other same-sex couples in
Wyoming, because they are unable to marry, Anne and Bonnie also must hire an attorney to draft
will and estate documents that would be unnecessary if their marriage was allowed.
29.
Plaintiffs Ivan Williams and Charles "Chuck" Killion have been in a committed
relationship for nearly two years, and reside in Cheyenne, Wyoming. They meet all of
Wyoming' s qualifications for issuance of a marriage license, except that they are both men.
Chuck was born and raised in Wyoming, and both Ivan and Chuck have a special connection to
the state and wish to get married here. Ivan is an employee of the State of Wyoming. Iflvan
and Chuck were able to marry, Ivan could add Chuck to his state-offered health insurance plan
Wyo. Stat. 9-3-209, and designate Chuck as the beneficiary of his pension. Because they are
unable to marry, however, Chuck bought into his employer's health insurance plan, which is
more expensive than Ivan's monthly premiums and provides fewer benefits. Additionally, Ivan
and Chuck hired a lawyer to prepare advanced healthcare directives, durable powers of attorney,
and other trust and estate documents that would be unnecessary if their marriage was allowed.
30.
Plaintiff Wyoming Equality is the state's largest civil rights organization
dedicated to securing full equality for Wyoming's LGBT community. The organization has
many members throughout the state. Since its inception, the organization has represented the
interests of Wyoming's LGBT citizens through public education, coalition-building, advocacy,
and grassroots organizing. Wyoming Equality also coordinates public education campaigns and
events for policymakers, LGBT people, and the public at large on issues affecting the LGBT
community. Wyoming Equality's members include many same-sex couples througho ut
Wyoming, including residents of Laramie County who wish to marry and intend to apply for
marriage licenses if the Wyoming law and practice prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying
are declared unconstitutional as a result of this action. Wyoming Equality's members also
include same-sex couples who lawfully married in other jurisdictions and who wish to have those
marriages recognized by their state. Wyoming Equality brings this action in an associational
capacity on behalf of its members who desire to marry in Wyoming but are prevented from doing
so by enforcement of Wyoming's law and practice excluding same-sex couples from marriage,
or who have married in another state and whose marriages are not recognized by the State of
Wyoming.
B.
The Defendants
31 .
Defendant Matthew "Matt" Mead is Governor of the State of Wyoming. Article
4, section 4 of the Wyoming Constitution states: "[The Governor] shall expedite all such
measures as may be resolved upon by the legislature and shall take care that the laws be
faithfully executed." Defendant Mead is responsible for upholding and ensuring compliance
with the state constitution and statutes prescribed by the legislature, including Wyoming' s Jaw
barring same-sex couples from marriage. Governor Mead also bears the authority and
responsibility for the formulation and implementation of policies of the executive branch.
Governor Mead' s official residence is in Cheyenne, within Laramie County. Governor Mead
was acting under color of state law at all times relevant to this complaint. He is sued in his
official capacity.
32.
Defendant Dean Fausset is the Director of the Wyoming Department of
Administration and Information, which is the agency responsible for oversight of the Human
Resources Division, which is in turn responsible for determining eligibility for benefits for state
employees. Mr. Fausset is responsible for ensuring that state employees are able to add their
spouses as dependents on their health and dental insurance policies. Mr. Fausset's official
residence is in Cheyenne, within Laramie County. Defendant Fausset was acting under color of
state law at all times relevant to this complaint. He is sued in his official capacity.
33.
Defendant Dave Urquidez is the Administrator of the State of Wyoming Human
Resources Division, which is responsible for determining eligibility for benefits for state
employees. Mr. Urquidez is responsible for ensuring that state employees are able to add their
spouses as dependents on their health and dental insurance policies. Mr. Urquidez's official
residence is in Cheyenne, within Laramie County. Defendant Urquidez was acting under color
of state Jaw at all times relevant to this complaint. He is sued in his official capacity.
34.
Defendant Debbye Balcaen Lathrop is the Clerk of Laramie County, Wyoming.
Under Wyoming law, as the Laramie County Clerk, Defendant Lathrop may issue a license to
marry, and must record returned marriage licenses. Wyo. Stat. 20-1-103(b); 20- l -107(b).
Defendant Latluop was acting under color of state law at all times relevant to this complaint.
She is sued in her official capacity.
35.
Defendants, through their respective duties and obligations, are responsible for
enforcing Wyoming's laws barring same-sex couples from marriage and Wyoming's policy of
refusing to recognize the valid marriages of same-sex couples entered into in other jurisdictions.
Each Defendant, and those subject to their supervision and control, have caused the harms
alleged, and will continue to injure Plaintiffs if not enjoined. Accordingly, the relief requested is
sought against all Defendants, as well as all persons under their supervision and control,
including their officers, employees and agents.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
Wyoming's Laws Barring Same-Sex Couples from Marriage and Refusing to Recognize the
Valid Out-of-State Marriages of Same-Sex Couples
36.
Wyoming law defines marriage as "a civil contract between a male and a female
person." Wyo. Stat. 20- 1-101. This definition on its face excludes same-sex couples.
37.
Generally, Wyoming recognizes marriages from other states or countries that are
valid under the other jurisdiction's laws. Wyoming Statute 20-1-111 provides that " [a]ll
marriage contracts which are valid by the laws of the country in which contracted are valid in
this state," and does not specifically exempt same-sex marriages from that recognition. For
example, although Wyoming does not recognize common-law marriages, it will recognize a
common-law marriage established under laws of another jurisdiction, and give such marriage the
same binding effect it would have in the state in which it was consummated. See Compton v.
Davis Oil Co., 607 F. Supp. 1221, 1229 (D. Wyo. 1985); see also Bowers v Wyoming State
Treasurer, ex. Rel. Workman 's Camp Div., 543 P.2d 182 (Wyo. 1979) ("As has been the law of
this state since 1876, marriages outside the state which are valid therein are valid in this state.").
38.
In contravention of its own statute, however, Wyoming does not recognize legal
marriages of same-sex couples performed in other jurisdictions. For example, Plaintiffs Cora
and Nonie were legally married in Iowa. But when Cora, who is a Wyoming state employee,
applied to add Nonie to Cora's health and dental insurance coverage, she was informed that
Nonie "does not qualify as a dependent as defined by the State of Wyoming."
Harms Caused by Wyoming's Laws Barring Same-Sex Couples from Marriage and
Refusing to Recognize Same-Sex Couples' Valid Out-of-State Marriages
39.
The Plaintiff couples are residents of Wyoming who experience the same joys and
challenges of family life as their neighbors, co-workers, and other community members who
may marry freely and whose legal marriages are respected under Wyoming law. The Plaintiff
couples, and other same-sex couples represented in interest by Wyoming Equality, are
productive, contributing citizens who support their families and nurture their children, but must
do so without the same legal shelter, dignity, and respect afforded by Wyoming to other families
through access to the universally celebrated status of marriage.
40.
Wyoming's exclusion of the Plaintiffs from marriage, and Defendants'
enforcement of that exclusion, as well as Wyoming' s refusal to respect the marriages of legally
married same-sex couples from other jurisdictions, subject the Plaintiff couples to an inferior
"second class" status as Wyoming citizens relative to the rest of the community. These laws
deprive the Plaintiff couples and their children of equal dignity, security, and legal protections
afforded to other Wyoming families.
41.
Plaintiffs Cora and Nonie were manied in Iowa in 2009 and would be recognized
as such under Wyoming law but for the fact that they are a same-sex couple. Instead, they are
treated as legal strangers to one another under Wyoming law.
42.
Plaintiffs Carl and Rob were married in Canada on July 16, 2010, and would be
recognized as such under Wyoming law but for the fact that they are a same-sex couple. Instead,
they are treated as legal strangers to one another under Wyoming law.
43.
Plaintiffs Ivan and Chuck went to the Laramie County Clerk's office to apply for
a marriage license on February 27,2014. Defendant Lathrop, directly or through her authorized
agent, informed Ivan and Chuck that they could not apply for a marriage license because they
were a same-sex couple. On March 3, 2014, Defendant Lathrop called Ivan and Chuck to inform
them that they could apply for a marriage license, but that the application would likely be denied
because Ivan and Chuck are a same-sex couple. Ivan and Chuck applied for a license later that
day, but Defendant Lathrop did not issue them a license. Defendant Lathrop has acknowledged
that she has a duty to issue marriage licenses to qualified couples such as Ivan and Chuck, but
10
has not issued a license to Ivan and Chuck because Wyoming statute only allows marriage
between "a male and a female person." Wyo. Stat. 20-1-101.
44.
Plaintiffs Anne and Bonnie went to the Laramie County Clerk's office to apply
for a marriage license on February 27, 2014. Defendant Lathrop, directly or through her
authorized agent, informed Anne and Bonnie that they could not apply for a marriage license
because they were a same-sex couple. On March 3, 2014, Defendant Lathrop, directly or
through her authorized agent, called Anne and Bonnie to inform them that they could apply for a
marriage license, although the application would likely be denied because Anne and Bonnie are a
same-sex couple. Anne and Bonnie applied for a license on March 4, 2014, but Defendant
Lathrop would not issue a license. Defendant Lathrop has acknowledged that she has a duty to
issue marriage licenses to qualified couples such as Anne and Bonnie, but has not issued a
license to Anne and Bonnie because Wyoming statute only allows marriage between "a male and
a female person." Wyo. Stat. 20-1 -101.
45.
In addition to stigmatizing an entire class of Wyoming's population as second-
class citizens, Wyoming's prohibition on marriage by same-sex couples, and its refusal to
recognize valid marriages from other jurisdictions, deprive same-sex couples of critically
important rights and responsibilities that married couples rely upon to secure their marriage
commitment and safeguard their fami lies. By way of example, and without limitation, san1e-sex
partners are denied:
a. The right to spousal insurance coverage and benefits, when spousal benefits are
otherwise available. Wyo. Stat. 9-3-209.
b. The right to be provided for by their spouse during marriage. Wyo. Stat. 20-3101.
c. The right to a court-ordered equitable distribution of property upon the dissolution
of the marriage. Wyo. Stat. 20-2-114.
d. The right to inherit a share of the estate of a spouse who dies without a will.
Wyo. Stat. 2-4-10 1.
e. The right to receive a distribution of the property of a deceased spouse, free from
testamentary disposition. Wyo. Stat. 2-5-101 and 2-7-723.
f.
The right to priority in appointment as the personal representative of the estate of

a spouse who dies without a will. Wyo. Stat. 2-4-201.
11
g. The right to be a presumed parent to a child born to a spouse during marriage.

Wyo. Stat. 20-1-113.
h. The right to file ajoint adoption petition. Wyo. Stat. 1-22-1 04.
1.
The right to have priority when making medical decisions for an ill or
incapacitated spouse without an advance health care directive. Wyo. Stat. 3522-406.
J.
The right to receive certain worker's compensation benefits for a deceased spouse
who died as a result of a work-related accident. Wyo. Stat. 27-14-403.
k. The right of one spouse to be protected from having to testify against the other.
Wyo. Stat. 1-12-104.
1.
The right of spouses of military personnel to be eligible for licensure in Wyoming

based on experience in another state. Wyo. Stat. 33-1-117.
m. The right to rely on a spouse's residency for purposes of obtaining a resident

hunting and fishing license, and to fish on certain property of a spouse without a
fishing license. Wyo. Stat. 23-1-107 and 23-2-208.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

First Claim for Relief:
Wyoming's Ban on Marriage by Same-Sex Couples Deprives the
Unmarried Plaintiffs of Their Rights to Due Process under the Wyoming Constitution
46.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege all of the preceding paragraphs of
this complaint as though fully set forth herein.

4 7.
Wyoming Statute 20-1-101 and all other sources of state law that preclude
marriage for same-sex couples violate the Due Process guarantees of the Wyoming Constitution,
both facially and as applied to the Plaintiff couples. Wyo. Const. art. 1, 6.
48.
The right to marry the unique person of one 's choice and to direct the course of
one's life without undue government restriction is one of the fundamental rights protected by
Due Process. Defendants' actions prohibiting the Plaintiff couples from entering marriage
directly and impermissibly infringe upon the Plaintiff couples' choice of whom to marry,
interfering with a core, life-altering, and intimate personal choice.
49.
Due Process also protects choices central to personal dignity, privacy, and
autonomy, including each individual's fundamental liberty interests in family integrity and
intimate association. Defendants' actions prohibiting the Plaintiff couples from entering
12
marriage directly and impermissibly infringe upon the Plaintiff couples' deeply intimate,
personal, and private decisions regarding family life, and preclude them from obtaining full
liberty, dignity, privacy, and security for themselves, their family, and their parent-child
relationships.
50.
As Wyoming's Governor and chief executive officer, Defendant Mead's duties
and actions to enforce Wyoming's exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage, including those
actions taken pursuant to his responsibility for the policies and actions of the executive branch
relating to, for example and without limitation, health insurance coverage, vital records, tax
obligations, and state employee benefits programs, violate the Unmarried Plaintiffs' fundamental
right to marry and fundamental interests in liberty, dignity, privacy, autonomy, family integrity,
and intimate association. The actions of Defendant Fausset and Defendant Urquidez likewise
violate the Unmarried Plaintiffs' fundamental right to marry and fundamental interests in liberty,
dignity, privacy, autonomy, famil y integrity, and intimate association.
51.
As the clerk of Laramie County, Wyoming, Defendant Lathrop ensures
compliance with Wyoming's exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage by, for example,
refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This violates the Unmarried Plaintiffs'
fundamental right to marry and fundamental interests in liberty, dignity, privacy, autonomy,
family integrity, and intimate association.
52.
Defendants cannot satisfy the requirements of Due Process because Wyoming's
exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is not rationally related to any legitimate
governmental interest and thus cannot survive even rational basis review, much less the
heightened level of scrutiny that applies to deprivation of the fundamental right to marry and
interference with fundamental interests in liberty, dignity, privacy, autonomy, family integrity,
and intimate association.
53.
The Unmarried Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to redress the wrongs
alleged herein, which are of a continuing nature and will cause them ineparable harm, and the
Unmarried Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief on this basis.
Second Claim for Relief:

Wyoming's Failure to Recognize the Marriages of the Married Plaintiffs
Violates Their Rights to Due Process under the Wyoming Constitution
54.
13
55.
Plaintiffs Cora and Nonie are lawfully married w1der laws of the state of Iowa.
56.
Plaintiffs Carl and Rob are lawfully married under the laws of Canada.
57.
When a marriage is legally entered into in another state or country, numerous
rights, responsibilities, benefits, privileges, and protections attach to that status under state and
federal law regardless of where the married couple chooses to live within the United States.
Once a couple enters into a valid marriage, the couple has a libe1ty interest in their marital status
that is protected by Due Process.
58.
The Married Plaintiffs in this case have a protected liberty interest and property
interest in their lawful marital status and in the comprehensive protections and obligations that
marriage provides.
59.
While Wyoming law expressly states that " [a]ll marriage contracts which are
valid by the laws of the country in which contracted are valid in this state," Wyo. Stat. 20-1111 , in practice the legal marriages of the Married Plaintiffs have been treated as non-existent
and without any legal effect or status in Wyoming. This practice effectively strips the Married
Plaintiffs of a valuable and fundamental legal status that was conferred on them when they
entered into a valid marriage in another jurisdiction, and deems them legal strangers to each
other under Wyoming law.
60.
Moreover, Wyoming's refusal to recognize the valid marriages of the Married
Plaintiffs also impermissibly burdens and interferes with their exercise of the fundamental right
to marry in violation of Due Process. Wyo. Canst. art. 1, 6.
61.
Accordingly, Wyoming's refusal to recognize the valid marriages of these
Plaintiffs, and Defendants ' actions effecting this refusal, impermissibly deprive the Married
Plaintiffs oftheir fundamental liberty and property interests in their marriages, and the
comprehensive protections afforded by marriage, in violation of Due Process.
62.
Defendants cannot satisfy the requirements of Due Process because Wyoming's
refusal to recognize legal same-sex marriages entered into in other jurisdictions is not rationally
related to any legitimate governmental interest and thus cannot survive even rational basis
review, much less the heightened level of scrutiny that applies to deprivation of the fundamental
right to marry and interference with fundamental interests in liberty, dignity, privacy, autonomy,
family integrity, and intimate association.
14
63.
The Married Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to redress the wrongs
alleged herein, which are of a continuing nature and will cause them irreparable harm, and the
Married Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief on this basis.
Third Claim for Relief:
Wyoming's Ban on Marriage by Same-Sex Couples Deprives Plaintiffs of Their Rights to
Equal Protection of the Laws under the Wyoming Constitution
64.

65.
Wyoming Statute 20-1 - 101 and all other sources of state law or practice that
preclude marriage by same-sex couples violate the equal protection guarantees of the Wyoming
Constitution both facially and as applied to the Plaintiffs. Wyo. Canst. art. 1, 2, 3.
66.
Wyoming's exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage and Defendants'
actions effecting this exclusion deny same-sex couples equal dignity and respect, and deprive
their families of a critical safety net of rights and responsibilities.
67.
Wyoming brands same-sex couples and their children as second-class citizens
through government-imposed stigma. Wyoming fosters private bias and discrimination by

instructing all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that
their relationships and families are less worthy than others. Wyoming's exclusion of same-sex
couples from marriage and Defendants' actions enforcing this exclusion reflect moral
disapproval and animus toward same-sex couples, and an improper purpose to impose inequality
on same-sex couples and their children.
68.
Same-sex couples such as the Plaintiff couples are similar to opposite-sex couples
in all of the characteristics relevant to marriage. Committed same-sex couples make the same
commitment to one another as other couples. They build their lives together, plan their futures
together, and hope to grow old together, caring for one another physically, emotionally, and
financially. The Unmarried Plaintiffs seek to marry for the same types of reasons, and to provide
the same legal shelter to their families, as opposite-sex spouses.
69.
Same-sex couples such as the Plaintiff couples and their children are equally
worthy of the tangible rights and responsibilities-as well as the respect, dignity, and
legitimacy- that access to marriage confers on opposite-sex couples and their children. For the
many children being raised by same-sex couples, the tangible resources and societal esteem that
marriage confers on families is no less precious than for children of opposite-sex couples.
15
70.
Wyoming's exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage discriminates against
the Plaintiffs with respect to the exercise of the fundamental right to marry the person of one's
choice, and with respect to their liberty interests in personal autonomy, and family integrity,
association, and dignity. Such discrimination is subject to heightened scrutiny. Wyoming's
disparate treatment of same-sex couples cannot survive such scrutiny, and indeed cannot survive
even rational basis review.
71.
Wyoming' s laws barring same-sex couples from marriage also unlawfully
discriminate against Wyoming couples as a class by excluding them from marriage or any other
form of relationship recognition on the basis of sexual orientation and sex.
72.
The Unmarried Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to redress the wrongs
Unmarried Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief on this basis.
A.
Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation
73.
Wyoming's law barring same-sex couples from marriage targets same-sex
Wyoming couples as a class by excluding them from marriage or any other form of relationship
recognition on the basis of sexual orientation.
74.
Lesbians and gay men have suffered a long and painful history of discrimination
in Wyoming and across the United States. Laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation
should be subjected to heightened equal protection scrutiny for numerous reasons.
75.
Lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons are a discrete and insular minority, and strong
ongoing prejudice against them continues to seriously curtail the political processes that might
ordinarily be relied upon to protect them. In Wyoming, lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons lack
any express statutory protection against discrimination in employment, public accommodations,
and housing.
76.
Sexual orientation bears no relation to an individual's ability to perform in or
contribute to society. Sexual orientation is a core, defining trait that is so fundamental to one's
identity and autonomy that a person may not legitimately be required to abandon or change it
(even if that were possible) as a condition of equal treatment under the law.
77.
Wyoming's statute excluding same-sex couples from marriage constitutes
discrimination based upon sexual orientation and is unlawful under the Wyoming Constitution
because it denies same-sex couples equal protection under the laws of Wyoming.
16
78.
The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage based on sexual orientation
cannot survive heightened equal protection scrutiny because the State of Wyoming crumot offer a
persuasive showing that the exclusion or practice is essential to achieving a compelling state
interest.
79.
Moreover, because the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage does not
rationally advance any legitimate government interest at all, the exclusion violates the equal
protection guarantees of the Wyoming Constitution even under rational basis review.
B.
80.
Discrimination Based on Sex
Wyoming's exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage discriminates against
the Plaintiff couples on the basis of sex, barring the Plaintiff couples from marriage solely
because each of the individual Plaintiffs wishes to marry a life partner of the san1e sex. The sexbased restriction is plain on the face of the Wyoming's law, which restricts marriage to "a male
and a female person." Wyo. Stat. 20-1-101.
81.
Because of these sex-based classifications, Anne is precluded from marrying her
devoted life partner Bonnie because Bonnie is a woman; were Bonnie a man, she could marry
Anne. Likewise, Ivan is precluded from marrying his devoted life partner Chuck because Chuck
is a man; were Chuck a woman, he could marry I van.
82.
Wyoming's exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage also serves the
impermissible purpose of enforcing and perpetuating sex stereotypes by excluding the Plaintiff
couples from the benefits of marriage because the individual Plaintiffs do not conform to sexbased stereotypes that women should be attracted to, form intimate relationships with, and marry
men rather than other women, and that men should be attracted to, form intimate relationships
with, and marry women rather thru1 other men. The exclusion of same-sex couples from
marriage also perpetuates and enforces conformity to stereotypes concerning the roles that men
and women, respectively, should play within marriage and family life.
83.
Given that there are no longer significant legal distinctions between the duties of
husbands and wives under Wyoming law, there is no basis for the sex-based eligibility
requirements for marriage.
84.
The exclusion of the Plaintiff couples from marriage based on the individual
Plaintiffs' sex and the enforcement of gender-based stereotypes cannot survive the heightened
17
scrutiny required for sex-based discrimination, nor is it rationally related to any legitimate
governmental purpose.
Fourth Claim for Relief:
Wyoming's Failure to Recognize the Marriages of the Plaintiffs Who Are Lawfully
Married in Other Jurisdictions Violates Their Rights to
Equal Protection of the Laws under the Wyoming Constitution
85.

86.
Wyoming's practice of refusing to recognize legal same-sex marriages entered
into in other jurisdictions is unlawful discrimination and violates the equal protection guarantees
of the Wyoming Constitution. Wyo. Const. ati. 1, 2, 3.
87.
While the states have traditionally had the authority to regulate marriage, that
authority "must respect the constitutional rights of persons," and is "subject to constitutional
guarantees." Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2691.
88.
Like many other couples, same-sex couples are often parents raising children.
Plaintiffs Nonie and Cora have children.

89.
The principal purpose and effect of Wyoming's refusal to recognize same-sex
marriages lawfully performed in other jurisdictions "is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned

marriages and make them unequal." Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2694. These laws "impose a
disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages
made lawful by the unquestioned authority of [other] States." Id. at 2693. Same-sex couples
raising children should not be forced to raise their children under the stigma imposed by
Wyoming's refusal to recognize their marriages. !d.
90.
If Cora and Nonie had devoted life partners who were men, there is no question
that their marriages would be recognized in Wyoming. Likewise, if Carl and Rob had devoted
life partners who were women, there is no question that their marriages would be recognized in
Wyoming. Wyoming's refusal to recognize the lawful marriages of the Married Plaintiffs
discriminates based on sex and sexual orientation.
91.
Wyoming's refusal to recognize the lawful marriages of the Married Plaintiffs
also discriminates against the class of legally married persons and discriminates against the
Married Plaintiffs with respect to the exercise of the fundamental right to marry the person of
one' s choice and fundamental liberty interests in personal autonomy, dignity, privacy, family
integrity, and intimate association.
18
92.
Wyoming's practice of singling out legally married same-sex couples in order to
exclude their marriages from recognition cannot survive heightened scrutiny under the equal
protection provisions of the Wyoming Constitution because the State of Wyoming cannot offer a
persuasive showing that the exclusion or practice is essential to achieving a compelling state
interest.
93.
Moreover, because excluding legally married same-sex couples from recognition
does not serve any legitimate government interest at all, the practice violates the equal protection
guarantees of the Wyoming Constitution even under rational basis review. A purpose to harm a
minority class of persons cannot justify disparate treatment of that group because it is not a
legitimate governmental interest. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 635 (1996) ; Windsor, 133 S.
Ct. at 2693.
94.
Married Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief on this basis.
Fifth Claim for Relief:

Defendants' Failure to Recognize the Marriages of the Married Plaintiffs
Violates Wyoming Statute Section 20-1-111
95.

96.
Generally Wyoming does not question the legitimacy of marriages from other
states that are valid under the other state's laws. Indeed, Wyoming Statute specifically provides
that marriages lawfully entered into in another state or country will be fully recognized in
Wyoming. Wyo. Stat. 20-1-111.
97.
Defendants' refusal to recognize the Married Plaintiffs' marriages-which were
lawfully entered into in Iowa (Cora and Nonie) and Canada (Carl and Rob) and would be treated
in these jurisdictions in a manner identical to opposite-sex marriages- violates Wyo. Stat. 201-111.
98.
alleged herein, which are of a continuing nature and will cause them irreparable harm, and Cora
and Nonie are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief on this basis.
19
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment:
99.
Declaring that the provisions of and enforcement by Defendants of Wyoming's
laws excluding same-sex couples from marriage, including Wyoming Statute 20-1 -101 , and
any other sources of state law that exclude same-sex couples from marrying violate the
Unmarried Plaintiffs' rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the
Wyoming Constitution;
100.
Declaring that the practice, by Defendants and their subordinates, of refusing to
recognize the valid out-of-state marriages of the Married Plaintiffs and other legally married
same-sex couples violates Plaintiffs' rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses
of the Wyoming Constitution;
101.
Declaring that the Married Plaintiffs' marriages are valid in the State of
Wyoming, in accordance with Wyoming Statute 20-1-111;

102.
Permanently enjoining enforcement by Defendants of Wyoming Statute 20-1-
101, and any other sources of state law, policy, or practice that exclude the Unmarried Plaintiffs
from marriage or that refuse recognition of the marriages of the Married Plaintiffs;
103.
Requiring Defendants to permit issuance of marriage licenses to the Unmarried
Plaintiffs, pursuant to the same restrictions and limitations applicable to opposite-sex couples,
and to recognize the marriages validly entered into by the Married Plaintiffs;
104.
Awarding Plaintiffs their costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant
to Wyo. Stat. 1-37-112, and other applicable laws; and

105.
Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
DATED: March 5, 2014.

Respectfully submitted,
Te~~.
BarNo.
ZUBROD LAW OFFICE, PC
1907 House Avenue
Cheyenne, WY 82001
Telephone: (307) 778-2557
Facsimile: (307) 778-8225
Email: zubrod@aol.com
20
6-2796
L. James Lyman*
Katherine Ross
ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 4400
Denver, Colorado 80202-13 70
Telephone: (303) 863 -1000
Facsimile: (303) 832-0428
Email: james.lyman@aporter.com
Qusair Mohamedbhai, Wyo. Bar No. 6-3809

Siddhartha Rathod*
RATHOD MOHAMEDBHAI LLC
1518 Blake Street
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 578-4400
Facsimile: (303) 578-4401
Email: qm@rmlawyers.com
Shannon P. Minter*
Christopher F. Stoll*
NATIONAL CENTER FOR
LESBIAN RIGHTS
870 Market Street, Suite 370
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 365-1335
Facsimile: (415) 392-8442
Email: sminter@nclrights.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

*Admission Pro Hac Vice Pending
21

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING
ANNE MAR I E GUZZO and BONN I E

ROBINSON ; I VAN WI LLIAMS and
CHARLES KILLION; BRIE BARTH and
SHELLY MONTGOMERY ; CARL OLESON
and ROB JOHNSTON ; and WYOMING
EQUALITY ,
Case No .
14 - CV- 200 - S
Casper , Wyoming
October 16 , 2014
10:07 a . m.
Plaintiff s ,
vs.
CERTIFIED COPY
MATTHEW H. MEAD , in his official
capacity as t h e Governor of
Wyoming; DEAN FAUSSET, in hi s
official capacity as Director of
the Wyoming Department of
Administration and Info rmat i on;
DAVE URQUIDEZ, in his offic i al
capacity as Administrator of the
State of Wyoming Human Resources
Division; and DEBRA K. LATHROP,
in h e r official capacity as
Laramie County Clerk,
Defendants .
TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE SCOTT W. SKAVDAHL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
APPEARANCES :
For the Plaintiffs :
~Ann e
MS . TRACY L . ZUBROD
Zubrod Law Office , PC
219 East 18th Street
Cheyenn e , Wyomi ng 82001
Bowline , RMR, CRR ------------------------------- (307) 235-3376
EXHIBIT C
APPEARANCES (Cont .)
MR . L. JAMES LYMAN
MR. THOMAS W. STOEVER , JR.
Arnold & Porter , LLP
370 Seventeenth Street , Suite 4400
Denver , Colorado 80202 - 1370
MR . ARASH JAHANIAN
MR . QUSAIR MOHAMEDBHAI
Rathod Mohamedbhai LLC
1518 Blake Street
Denver , Colorado 80202
MR . CHRISTOPHER F . STOLL
MS. JENNY HALL
National Center For Lesbian Rights
870 Market Street , Suite 370
San Francisco , California 94102
For State Defendants :
MR. MARTI N L . HARDSOCG

Depu ty Attorney General
MR . JARED CRECEL I US
MR . RYAN SC HELHAAS
MR . MICHAEL ROBINSON
Senior Assistant Attorneys General
Wyoming Attorney General ' s Office
123 Capitol Building
Cheyenne , Wyoming 82002
For Defendant Lathrop :
MR . MARK VOSS (v ia telephone)

County Attorney
MR . BERNARD HAGGERTY
Deputy County Attorney
Laramie County Attorney ' s Office
310 West 19th Street
Cheyenne , Wyoming 82001
Court Reporter :
MS. ANNE BOWLINE , RMR , CRR

P.O. Box 1529
Casper , Wyoming 82602
(307) 235 - 3376
Anne Bowline , RMR , CRR-------------------------------(307 ) 235 - 3376
N D E X
OPENI NG STATEMENTS
Mr .
Mr .
Mr .
Mr .
PAGE
Stoever
Creceli u s
Haggerty
Jahan ian
5
13
18
21
PLA I NT IFFS ' WITNESS
PAGE
DEBRA KAY LAT HRO P

Direct Examination by Ms . Zubrod
PLAINTIFFS '
EXHIBITS
DESCRIPTION
29
IDENTI FIED
RECEIVED
Affidavit
28
Affidavit
28
Affidavit
28
Aff i davit
28
Affidavit
28
Canadian marriage cert ificate

for Johnston and Oleson
27
Anne Bowline , RMR, CRR ------------------------------- (307)
235-3376

4
Hearing Proceedings
(Proceedings commenced 10:07 a.m.,
October 16, 2014 . )
THE COURT:
Thank you.
Please be seated.
Court is
in session in the matter of Anne Marie Guzzo, et al., versus
Matthew H. Mead , et al. , Case Number 14 - cv- 200 .
presence of counsel for the parties.
Counsel , if you could go ahead and enter your appearances on
the record , and I would first recognize p l aintiffs ' counsel.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
MR . STOEVER:
MR. LYMAN :
25
Tracy Zubrod on behalf of t h e
plaintiffs .
MR . MOHAMEDBHAI:
Qusa i r Mohamedbhai on behalf of t he
plaintiffs .
MR . JAHANIAN :
Arash Jahanian on behalf of the
plaintiffs .
MR . STOLL :
24
Thomas
James Lyman , Arnold & Porter , on behalf
MS . ZUBROD :
20
23
Good morning , Your Honor .
of the plaintiffs .
MS . HALL :
22
What I would ask is,
Stoever , Arnold & Port er , on behalf of the plaintiffs .
19
21
I note the
Jenny Hall on behalf of the plaintiffs.

Christopher Stol l on behalf of the
plaintiffs.
THE COURT:
Good morning.
I would now recognize
counsel for defense for their entry of appearance .

MR. CRECELIUS :
Jared Crecelius on behal f of the
State defendants.
Anne Bowline , RMR , CRR -------------------------------- ( 3 07) 23 5-3376

Hearing Proceedings
1
2
MR . SCHELHAAS :
MR . HARDSOCG :
Martin Hardsocg on behalf of the State
defendants .
5
6
Ryan Schelhaas on behal f of the State
defendants.
3
4
MR. ROBINSON:
Mi chael Robinson on behalf of t he
St ate defendants.
MR . HAGGERTY:
Bernard Haggerty , t h e deputy county
a tt orney on beh alf of the State defendant c l e rk.
And if it ' s
conveni ent for t he Court , Mr . Voss , the county attorn ey , is
10
present in Cheyen ne with the clerk on behalf of the clerk as
11
we l l .
12
THE COURT:
All right .
Thank you.
The matter is
13
before the Court on a motion for entry of TRO and preliminary
14
in junction in this matter pursuant to Rule 65.
15
by acknowledging that I appreciate the legal issues before
16
this Court relate to very stron g emotional issues , but I want
17
to emphasize t o all that t hi s is a court of law, not a court
18
of e mo ti on , and I wil l make legal rulings in this matter , and
19
I will expect all to understand that this is a legal process .
20
So at this time I would r ecognize the movant for any
Let me b e gin
21
opening remar ks , and then I would recognize the defendant in
22
response , and then we will proceed to presentation of
23
evidence .
24
Mr . Stoever .
25
MR. STOEVER:
Thank you , Your Hono r .
Good morn ing .
Anne Bowline , RMR, CRR------------------------------- (307) 235-3376
Opening Stateme nt by Stoever
THE COURT :
MR . STOEVER :
Good morning .
My name is Tom Stoever , and I ' m here on
behalf of plaintiffs Anne Marie Guzzo , Bonnie Robinson , Ivan
Williams , Charles Killian , Brie Barth, Shelly Montgomery ,
Charles Oleson , Rob Johnst on , and Wyoming Equality.
I believe that the Court has obviously reviewed the
materials , and so I want to make my remarks very brief .
We
are asking this Court , as you ' ve acknowledged , to enter an
injunction , a temporary restraining order and preliminary
10
injunction enjoining the enforcement of Wyoming Statute
11
20 - 1 - 101, which defines marriage as a union between one man
12
and one woman.
13
Specifically, my clients have applied for and been
14
denied marriage licenses because they are same - gender couples
15
or they are same-gender couples who have been married outside
16
of the state of Wyoming and have not had their val id marriages
17
recognized by the State or state institutions .
18
I ' m sure the Court is familiar with the criteria for
19
a preliminary injunction .
I will go over them briefly .
As we
20
pointed out in our papers, first we believe that we are likely
21
to succeed on the merits of this case .
22
undoubtedly aware of the holding in Kitchen v . Herbert in the
23
Tenth Circuit when the United States Supreme Court decided to
24
deny the petition of certiorari filed on behalf of the State
25
of Utah on October 6 .
The Court is
It essentjally allowed same-sex
Anne Bowline, RMR, CRR-------------------------------(307) 235-3376

Opening Statement by Stoever
marriages to proceed in 14 states across the nation; all
circuit courts of appeal to consider same - sex marriage have
invalidated statutes that would prohibit it.
We believe t hat Kitchen is now the law of the Tenth
Circuit .
State has indeed acknowledged and conceded in their papers
that we are likely to succeed on the merits of this case .
It ' s directly on point and controlling, and the
The holdings i n Kitchen are simple:

marriage is a fundamental right.
First , t hat
Under the United States
10
Constitution, it is guaranteed and protected by the Equal
11
Protection Cl ause and Due Process Clause of the 14th
12
Amendment .
13
marriage license or r efuse to recognize same-sex marriages
14
from outside the state based solely on the gender of the
15
persons in the marriage u n ion.
16
Second , that states may not deny issuance of a
The United States Supreme Court was inv ited to review
17
both of those h o ld ings , was invi t ed to review t h e
18
classification of marriage as a fundamental right , and the
19
application of the Equa l Protection Clause and Due Process
20
Clauses , and decided not to do so .
21
with the knowl edge that there are other cases coming up
22
through other circuit courts of appeal that may be presented
23
to it at some date in the future.
24
THE COURT:
25
MR. STOEVER :
The Supreme Court did that
Is that si le nce affirmance?

Your Honor , t hat sil e nce is not
l Ann e Bowline , RMR, CRR ------------------------------- (307 ) 235 - 3376

affirmance, but it does mean that Kitchen is the law of the
Tenth Circuit .
And this Court is bound by the holdings of the
Tenth Circuit.
So it is the jurisprudence of this
jurisdi ction, and it s h ould be followed .

It is important - - since Your Honor asked , it is
5
6
important to note, though , that if the Supreme Court was
concerned either about a split among the circuits or about the
need to at some future time rule on the questions raised by
the appeal in Kitchen -- by the petition for certiorari in
10
Kitchen - - pardon me -- they could have decided not to act and
11
simply hold it while these other cases come up through these
12
various courts of appeal .
13
moment ago , they denied certiorari, and in doing so , they made
14
same - gender marriage legal in 14 states .
15
They didn ' t do that .
As I said a
The second prong of the analysis for a preliminary
16
injunction is irreparable injury .
17
Honor, this is an issue of law .
18
the United States Supreme Court in the Elrond case and from
19
the Tenth Circuit in the Awad case which says clearly that
20
anytime a person is denied a constitutional right, that is
21
irreparable harm on its face .
We don ' t think that the Court
22
needs to look at any evidence .
We have , however , presented
23
evidence for the Court to consider if that ' s what it chooses
24
to do .
25
And here we think, Your

There is good precedence from
The evidence that we ' ve presented is basically in the

Anne Bowline , RMR , CRR-------------------------------(307) 235-3376

Openi ng Stateme nt by Stoever
form of the affidavits that have been attached to our moving
papers .
it ' s i mportant to note for the record that our clients do not
have t he lega l protections t hat married people in the state of
Wyoming take for gra n ted .
I wo n ' t go over those in total now .
But I do think
Our clients go to bed at n i ght worried that they
6
7
might be not able to visit thei r p artner in the hospital if
they become ill .
might not be involved in the dist r ibution of their partner ' s
They go to bed at night worried that they
10
estate if there ' s an accident or a death.
11
bed at nigh t worried about t he i r p art ner ' s right to i n herit if
12
they d i e i ntestate .
13
right to take off work if they n eed to take care of a sick
14
partner or spouse.
15
right to be involved in health care decisions for their
16
spouse.
17
Our clients go to
Th ey go to b ed at night worried about the
They go to bed at night worried about the
They worry about issues such as coverage on a
18
spouse ' s health insurance pol i cy .
19
such as pens i on benefits in the event of a dea t h or
20
disab i l i ty .
21
about issues related to the custody of children .
22
other words , at the mercy of people outside their relationship
23
to make decisions that profoundly affect those relationships .
24
We think that that constitutes irreparable harm , and
25
They worry about issues
They cannot file joint tax returns .
They worry
They are , in
we submit that in the first instan ce - - as I said , in the

Anne Bowline , RMR, CRR-------------------------------(307)
235-3376
10
first instance we submit that irreparable harm is established
as a matter of law .
that and consider the evidence in the affidavits , we think
that those clearly estab l ish irreparable injury .
But if the Court wants to look beyond
And those injuries are further compounded by the
5
6
dignitary harms that our clients face every day as they walk
on the streets in their towns as they go to work .
constantly confronted by the fact that the State of Wyoming
does not give their loving , stable , committed relationship the
10
same dignity that it gives to a relationship between a man and
11
a woman .
12
They are
The third issue -- pardon me - - the third criteria
13
that we have to satisfy in order to get a preliminary
14
injunction and a temporary restraining order is the balancing
15
inquiry .
16
clients and balances that against any injury that the state or
17
the County might suffer.
18
Honor .
19
of affidavits or otherwise , and we are told they are not going
20
to present any evidence here today that would suggest that the
21
State suffers any kind of harm .
It looks at the irreparable injury suffered by our
We think we carry the day here , Your
The State has not submitted any evidence in the form
22
Indeed , the Governor in his affidavit in support of
23
the motion to quash indicated that he ' s not in the marriage
24
business.
25
State cannot show and certainly has not shown that they would
And if that is the case, then we t hink that t he
Anne Bowline, RMR, CRR ------------------------------- (307) 235 - 3376

suffer any injury.

Moreover, with respect to the County, the county
clerk has made it very clear that by entering an injunction
and temporary restraining order today, Your Honor, you wou l d
make her job easier because she would no longer -- I 'm sorry.
I didn't mean to interrupt.
8
9
11
THE COURT :
Does that then erode the case in
controversy before this Court as far as the clerk?

MR . STOEVER:
Does it erode the case in controversy?
10
I don ' t think so because what the clerk is looking for is some
11
guidance from the Court.
12
that she feels at this point in time that s h e needs the
13
Cou rt' s guidance as to what the law is in order to fulfill her
14
obligations and duties .
15
opportuni ty to hear from Ms. Lathrop , the clerk in Laramie
16
County, later this morning.
17
The clerk has made it very clear
And, of course, we will have the
But to go back to the balance s inquiry , at the end of
18
the day, Your Honor, that irreparab l e injury established as a
19
matter of law and by the facts set out in the affidavi t very
20
clearly ou tweigh any harm t h at the Sta t e might suffer ,
21
particularly in light of the fact that the State has presented
22
no evidence of any harm.
23
The fourth and final prong of the inquiry, Your
24
Honor, is whether guaranteeing these constitutional rights,
25
the right to ma rriage, through a pre limina r y injunction or a

Anne Bowline , RMR, CRR ------------------------------- ( 30 7) 235 - 3376

12
temporary restraining order wil l b e contrary to public policy .
Your Honor , Wyoming is known as The Equality State .
The Wyoming Supreme Court has made it clear that the Wyoming
cons t i t ution provide s rights and l iberties tha t are broader
and more profound than the federal constitution.
cannot imagine any way in which t r eating people equally in the
state of Wyoming , whether they love a man or a woman , whether
they wa n t
that policy , that policy of equality , that strong tradition of
10
We simply
to be marri ed to a ma n or a woman , would violate
equality .
11
And , indeed , once again , the State has not provided
12
any evi de n ce of a publ i c policy that would be contrary to the
13
equal treatment of these couples alongside opposite sex
14
couples .
15
For those reasons and fo r the reasons that we set out
16
in our pleadings and papers, Your Honor , we believe that we
17
have satisfied the criteria that are -- that we are required
18
to show by Tenth Circuit precedent to receive the temporary
19
restra ini ng order a nd preliminary injunction .
20
mentioned that you want to take up evidentiary matters after
21
the opening presentations .
22
issues that we ' ll deal with at that time .
23
Court has any questions, those are our opening remarks .
24
THE COURT :
25
MR. STOEVER :
Your Honor has
We do have a couple of evidentiary

But unless the
Very well .
Thank you , Your Honor .
Anne Bowline, RMR, CRR ------------------------------ (307) 235 -337 6

Opening Statement by Crecelius
THE COURT:
I would recognize defendants.
MR. CRECELIUS:
13
Thank you , Counsel .
May it please
the Court.
THE COURT :
Counsel .
MR. CRECELIUS:
Counsel .
My name ' s Jared Crecelius ,
and I ' m here on behalf of t he St ate defendants in this case :
Defendants Mead, Fausset , and Urquidez .
we are here to discuss plaintiffs ' motion for temporary
10
11
And as counsel noted ,
restraining order and preliminary injunct i on.

And as counsel noted , there ' s a four - prong test to
12
determine a preliminary injunction .
13
so I ' m not going to resuscitate those .
14
would like to discuss prior to discussing getting to the guts
15
of the four prongs is I believe there ' s some standing issues
16
that the State raised in their briefs , at least for the State
17
defendants for several o f the plaintiffs .
18
He l aid out the elements ,

But one item that I
If you look at the complaint alleg i ng harm by the
19
p l aintiffs , it states that for two of the plaintiffs - -
20
there ' s basically two categories of plaintiffs :
21
of plaintiffs and an unmarried set of plaintiffs.
22
to the married set of plaintiffs , the alleged harm against
23
them was that they ' re not confident that the State will
24
recognize a pension that they added their same - sex spouse as a
25
beneficiary on , but they acknowledge they were able to put
a married set
In regard
Anne Bowline , RMR, CRR-------------------------------(307) 23 5 - 3376

Opening Statemen t by Crecelius
their name down on the form .
THE COURT:
MR . CRECELIUS:
A test case .
Correct , correc t .
That ' s the
I f you l ook at the affidavit we
testimony i n the affidavit .
submitted from a member from the retirement system, they say
that spouse was , in fact, added as a beneficiary, and that
will be recognized as such.
some serious questions as fa r as the standing goes for the
married plaintiffs , Mr . Johnston and Mr . Oleson.
10
14
So , therefore , I think the r e ' s
As far as the remaining named plaintiffs, their
11
claims of relief as unmarr ied people do not re l ate to the
12
State of Wyoming defendants.
13
county clerks are responsible for issuing marriage licenses,
14
not defendant Mead, not defendant Fausset , and n ot defendant
15
Urquidez .
16
would suggest that preliminary injunction cannot be forced
17
against them from the St a t e ' s perspective because they ' re just
18
not a part of issuing marriage licenses .
19
The statute ' s very clear that
And from tha t perspec tive , the State defe ndants
That still leaves the overlying question of the
20
c hallenge to the constitutionali t y of the statute , t h e
21
definition of marriage statute .
22
State is that while those p arties should not have been named
23
def e ndants, they wou l d have -- the State of Wyoming would have
24
the opportunity to defend its statute when chal lenged
25
const itutionally , which kind of leads into t h e f ou r-p rong
Now , the position of t h e
Anne Bowline , RMR, CRR--------------------------------(3 07) 2 35-3376

15
test.
Now , we have to ac knowledge t hat t here ' s some serious
c hallenges t ha t were set forth when the Kitchen and the Bishop
cases were set fort h .
Circui t, and Kitchen and Bishop were Tenth Circuit decisions ,
so obviously the meri t s of the likelihood of success on the
merits is obviously a big c hal l enge t o the State here.
ou r main goal would be to preserve ou r right to appeal , to go
t o t he Tenth Circuit , p ossib l y for a f u ll panel.
This Court is b ound by the Tent h
And
It was a
10
two - to - one dec i sion; and , fra n kly , we fee l that t h e two - to- one
11
dec i sion exceeded its auth ority in ca l ling same - sex marriage a
12
fu ndamenta l right.
13
We fe e l that the Supreme Court has not called it a
14
fundame nta l right , and in the Baker case, that case actually
15
suggests that it ' s not a fundame ntal right .
16
acknow l edgi ng t he d i fficulties , the State ' s position is that
17
we would like t o preserve our right to app eal this issue up to
18
a higher court , possibly t h e full panel of the Tenth Circuit
19
to make those arguments .
20
THE COURT :
Does my rul ing contrary to your position
21
prec l ude you from appea l ing it?
22
MR. CRECELIUS:
23
THE COURT :
24
25
So wh ile
I ' m sorry?
If I rule contrary to your position, you
have the right to appeal , correct?

MR. CRE CELIUS :
Yes .
Tha t ' s co r r e ct .
Ann e Bowlin e , RMR , CRR ------------------------------- (307)
2 35- 3376

16
As far as irreparable harm goes , again , t he Ten th
This
Circuit has stated that it ' s a fundame n ta l right.
Court ' s bound by that decision , a nd t here ' s plenty of case l aw
out the r e li ke counsel suggests t h at , as a matter of law ,
denial of a f undament al right is consid ered ir r eparab l e ha rm.
So, a ga i n , t he c hall enge ex ist s for t he Sta te h e r e on t hat.
Again , o ur position is that Tenth Circuit decision
was incorrec t in ca lling t hat a f undamental right , and we
would like to preserve that right t o c h allenge t hat down the
10
road .
11
I th in k our case bo i ls down to the balancing facto r s .
12
The relie f asked f or , requested f or by plaintiffs is an
13
extraordinary re q uest .
14
suggests that there ' s t hree types of disfavo r ed preliminary
15
injunct i ons , a nd th i s request actua l ly hits all three of them .
16
The request
17
in their
18
a merits determination can be made.
19
There ' s case law out there that
the overal l p urpose of preliminary injunct ions

at t h eir inception is to keep the status quo until
But this request r equests -- as ks for relief that
20
changes the status quo , requests for b i g changes on h ow the
21
State of Wyoming and cou n ty clerks and a l l sort s of programs
22
deal with same - sex marr i ages .
23
Along those same l ines , the second type of disfavored
24
preliminary injunction is a mandatory injunction which
25
mandates ce rt a in actio n be taken .
Again,
li ke I ju s t said ,
Anne Bowli ne , RMR , CRR -------------------------------- (307 ) 235-3376

17
the request -- the relief that ' s requested here is to mandate
certain actions be taken .
type of injunction is when they ' re asking for all the relief
granted -- all the re l ief requested at the end of the trial be
granted immediately.
And, fi nally, the last disfavored
Now , when any one of those three types of injunctions
are present ed , it heightens the burden for a preliminary
injunction.
the prongs , the likelihood of success on the merits and for
It heightens that burden for the -- for two of
10
the balancing- of-factors test.
11
Court can look at the State 's pos i tion and see that t h e
12
plaintiffs will not be able to meet their burden there.
13
And that ' s where I think this
We acknowledge that this is a -- according to the
14
Tenth Ci r cuit, it ' s a fundamental right , a n d denial of that is
15
cons i dered harm.
16
imme d iately before t h e State ' s even had the opportunity to
17
answer the petition , it ' s --why don ' t we just ask for the
18
oppor t unity to have the same option set forth that Utah had in
19
their case , that Oklahoma had in their case , to defend their
20
case on the merits and have the opportunity to de f end the case
21
and have it be ruled on on the merits before we take these
22
extraordinary steps and start mandating things to be done .
23
But to a l low all of this relief granted
Because once these marriage licenses start to be
24
granted, as counsel noted, there ' s lots of ramifications
25
including child cus tody, including property is s u e s and tax

Anne Bowline , RMR, CRR -------------------------------- ( 3 07 ) 2 35- 3 3 76

Opening Statement by Haggerty
issues.
the Tenth Circuit go t
undone , and it could create some problems if there was
adoptions and things like that .
And if down the line , we happen to be correct that

it wrong, some of these things can't be
So basically our position is to b a lan ce the factors,
to allow for some time to brief t he issues, and give the
opportunity for the State of Wyoming to defend its statute
before we take the hasty decision of starting t o mandate all
of these actions.
10
18
And along those lines , the fourth prong, the publi c
11
interest, our argument there is whe n things are -- when
12
something i s -- the gravity i s so high on this - - this issue ,
13
we would ask the Court to give us some time , don ' t be hasty in
14
granting a l l the relief grant ed immediate ly, and allow the
15
State to defend its statute.
16
Thank you very much.
17
THE COURT :
18
Mr . Haggerty.
19
MR. HAGGERTY:
Thank you , Counsel .
Your Honor , again ,
I ' m Bernard
20
Haggerty , the deputy county attorney on behalf of the
21
defendant clerk .
22
The c l erk does n ot oppose the entry of either a
23
temporary restrain ing order or a preliminary injunction as
24
requested by the motion .
25
the licen s ing,
It appears that on the question of
that motion is u ncontes ted.
We don ' t
Anne Bowline , RMR , CRR ------------------------------- (307) 235 - 3376

Opening Statement by Haggerty
antic i pate presenting any evidence other than perhaps
cross - examining the cl e rk when she testif i es .
19
I can briefly answer you r question about case of
3
4
co n trov ersy i f you ' d like .
The clerk defini te l y sees this as
a case of controve r sy.
l icen s e s , say ,
con trove r sy q uest i on , a n d t here would b e a ser i ous s t a n ding
q u estion on beh a lf of these plaintif f s .
wou ldn ' t solve the problem for t he other cou n t y clerks or
If t h e c l erk was t o i ssue the
thi s mo rn ing , you wo u ld h ave a se ri ous case of
Of course , that
10
possibly o ther couples in t he s t a t e .
11
seriou s negative consequences fo r eith er issuing or not
12
i ssuing t h e licenses.
13
THE COURT :
The clerk can suffer
Is there a penalty or a criminal
14
misde meanor c h arge t hat arises from t h e issuance of a marriage
15
li cense to same - sex couple?
16
MR. HAGGERTY:
Yes , Judge.
And if I could refer you
17
to Exhib i t 3 of our response , on page 8 ,
18
Court ' s
19
clerk ' s respo n se t o summary judgment in the state cou r t
20
p roceedings summarizes those consequences .
21
excuse me - - no t page 8 .
just for the
It ' s page 2 of the
What she ' s doing now -- n o matter what she does ,
22
rea ll y , g r a n ting , issuing , or delaying i s a vio l ation of her
23
oath o f office .
24
loss of the abil i ty to hold public office for the rest of her
25
life .
That can subject her to criminal prosecutio n,
It ' s an act of perjury , et ce tera .
The re are s eve r a l
Anne Bowli ne , RMR, CRR ------------------------------- (307)
235-3376

20
Opening Statement by Jahanian
So those -- that ' s of
potential consequences listed there.
immediate concern to the clerk, of course.
responsible public official , and she wants to carry out the
duties o f her office in comp l ian ce with her oath in every
respect.
She ' s a
And so we recognize that we don ' t have a r equest for
relief pending before t he Court , but we don't oppose the
relief requested by the plaintiffs because i t would in effect
deliver the cle rk from the controve rsy that faces her.
10
I want to say something about not just the plaintiffs
11
who are before this Court , but the clerk considers herself the
12
stakeholder of the rights for two additiona l couples who have
13
applied for licenses , and whose licenses are being in effect
14
delayed until a decis i on of some court .
15
that ' s revealed in one of the cler k' s aff i davits or not .
16
think it probably is .
17
I don ' t
know if
I
So that ' s an answer to your case of co ntr oversy
18
quest i on .
We believe t hat the Court has no reason to deny the
19
motion so long as whatever prima facie requ i rements f or
20
preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order are met .
21
So we ' d ask you to issue a n order immediately , and I would
22
like to emphasize that de l ay is a l so a violation of the
23
c l erk ' s duties .
24
THE COURT :
All right .
Thank you, Mr . Haggerty .
25
I would recognize plaintiffs for presentation of

Anne Bowline , RMR, CRR------------------------------- (307) 23 5- 3376

1
2
evidence in this matter .

MR. STOEVER:
Your Honor , if we may, may we take just
a few minutes to respond to a couple of the arguments that
were made by State ' s counsel at this time?
THE COURT:
MR. STOEVER :
You may.
Thank you.
And to do that I ' d like to
ask Mr. Jahania n to address the stand ing issues that were
raised by counse l
9
10
11
21
for the State .
THE COURT:
All right .
MR . JAHANIAN:
Good morning , again, Your Honor.
Arash Jahanian on behalf of the plaintiffs.
12
THE COURT:
13
MR. JAHANIAN:
Good morning.
As has been acknowledged with respect
14
to the unmarried plaintiffs fo r which counsel says the
15
government has no interest in issuing marriage l icenses , ha s
16
no control over it, if the Court accepts that posit i on, then
17
t h e posi ti on of the cle rk, who the government represents is
18
the only one with the authority to do so and , therefore , the
19
only one withstanding to be sued as a defendant , the position
20
of the clerk is that the Court should issue the injuncti on and
21
t h at marriage l icenses s hou l d go forward.
22
With respect to the marr i ed plaintiffs , Your Honor,
23
t h e counsel for the government did not address the issue of
24
insurance being denied just a f e w days ago for the married
25
pl a intiffs, Messrs . Johnston a nd Oleson .
Plaintiff Johnston
Anne Bowline, RMR , CRR------------------------------- (30 7) 235 - 3376
22
attempted again to add at his current job Mr. Oleson to his
insurance and was told because the State does not recognize
gay marriage , the provider is not required to extend coverage
to spouses in those relationships.
once gay marriage is recognized in Wyoming , the provider will
be required to extend coverage immediately .
And it was confirmed tha t
So that issue was not addressed , and there is a live
issue , a live harm being suffered by the married plaintiffs
and ,
in fact , caused by the State defendants .
10
And , Your Honor ,
I can proceed with just providing
11
some of the bases for each of the individual defendants which
12
I believe is provided pretty closely by Kitchen and Bishop , i f
13
you would like .
14
15
THE COURT :
will allow you to utilize your time
however you wish .
16
MR . JAHANIAN:
Thank you, Your Honor .
So one thing
17
the Court just acknowl edged is that there ' s a -- actually ,
18
will proceed with a different point here .
19
The Governor is a proper defendant with respect to
20
the married plaintiffs .
21
Wyoming .
22
formulating and administering policies, exercising general
23
supervision, direction , and control over executive officers
24
and the executive branch .
25
He ' s the chief executive officer of
His statutory and constitutional duties include
THE COURT :
Sounds like Utah.
Anne Bowline, RMR , CRR ------------------------------- (307)
235 - 3376

Hearing Proceedings
MR. JAHANIAN:
23
You beat me to the point, Your Honor.
So that was very much acknowledged by the Tenth Ci rcuit in
Kitchen as suff i c i ent
for standing.
In addition , the government -- the Governor -- excuse
me -- we represent has been, in fact , issuing policies of
non-recognition.
has been making public statements , d i recting the attorney
gen eral t o continue defending this position, to continue
enforcing the policy that the State of Wyoming does not
The Governor ' s responsible, and the Governor
10
recognize same - sex marr i ages from other jurisdictions.
11
this i s aga in addressed by Kitchen in terms of the wil l ingness
12
to exercise thos e duties .
13
And
In terms o f defendants Urquidez and Fausset , they are
14
both responsible for the denial of benefits , defendant
15
Urquidez being the director in essence of human resources , and
16
defendant Fauss et being above h i m responsible for those
17
polic i es with respect to benefits .
18
And Messrs. , again , Oleson a n d Johnston recently were
19
d e ni ed addit ional benefits , and we believe that defendants
20
Urquidez and Fausset are directly responsible for those .
21
Thank you , Your Honor.
22
THE COURT :
23
MR . STOEVER :
All right.
Thank you , Couns e l.
Your Honor,
I have just a couple more
24
preliminary reports -- pardo n me -- preliminary points to make
25
in response to the $ t a te ' s opening argument .

Anne Bowl ine , RMR , CRR ------------------------------- (307) 235 - 3376

24
Hearing Proceedings
First, I would note that, again, the State has
conceded the issues of likelihood of success on the merits and
irreparable harm.
has told you today through argument that an injunction or
restraining order , shou l d they issue , would have profound
impacts on regulations , policies, and practices of the State .
They have provided no evidence of that.
to a single statute, regulation , policy , or practice that
would be changed.
10
The State has asked -- or rather the State
They have not cited
Indeed , plaintiffs submit that there would be no
11
changes necessary.
12
who wish to be married would be allowed to be married, and
13
they would be treated with the same dignity and respect as any
14
other married couple in the state of Wyoming , and that would
15
not require any s ignifi ca n t cha nges.
16
All that wou l d happen is t hat my clie nts
THE COURT:
But , Mr. Stoever , you ' re t alki ng
17
dignity and respect is something that ' s beyond the
18
jurisdiction of this court .
19
recognition and l ega l powers tha t
20
your clients ' rights .
21
You ' re talking about l ega l

flow with the recognition of
In this case , is it not a fa ct t h at if the Wyoming
22
statute were found to be unconstitution al , that t h e re would be
23
ce rtain benefits that wou ld flow to them , such as pension
24
rights , such as health in su rance rights?
25
MR. STOEVER :
Is that fair to s ay?
Yes , Your Honor , that ' s very fair to
Anne Bowline , RMR , CRR ------------------------------- ( 307)
235-3376

Hearing Proceedings
25
say.
THE COURT :
And is it also a fact that pensions are
calculated based upon benefits anticipated to be paid out?
Would that be affected?
MR. STOEVER :
It may be, but there ' s no evidence
before the Court that it would be.
And the State certainly
hasn ' t come forward with any evidence like that.
tell you that in other states where this very same issue has
bee n litiga ted-- and I ' m thinking most notably of Colorado
And I can
10
because that was a state where Judge Moore issued an
11
injunction and a t empora ry restraining order allowing same - sex
12
marriages to go fo r ward in light of the holding in Kitchen --
13
thos e issues were discussed , and it was determined that the
14
irreparable harms , the denial of those benefits , outweighed
15
any poss ibility that a pension might not have been calcul ated
16
appropria t ely.
17
And again , Your Honor , I would say that no evidence
18
of any ki nd of problem like that has been prese nted.
19
Counsel ' s mentioned filing of tax r e turns .
20
change in the policy wi th respect to fi l ing tax returns .
21
only difference would be that my clients could file a joint
22
retu rn .
THE COURT:
23
There would b e no
The
Do they have standi ng to obj e ct to the
24
filing of tax returns given that we don ' t have a state income
25
t ax?
Anne Bowline , RMR , CRR-------------------------------( 307 ) 235 - 3376
Hearing Proceedings
MR . STOEVER :
26
They cannot file a joint federal
return , Your Honor , because under the Windsor decision, unless
Wyoming recognizes their marriage or allows them to marry ,
they do not get the benefits of being a married couple under
federal law .
THE COURT :
MR . STOEVER :
Okay .
So I would say that with respect to the
balancing factors , the appropriate showing hasn ' t been made .
And , f i nally , you know , t h e State has asked for time .
They
10
said , " Give us time to respond .
Give us time to think about
11
these things ."
12
These same plaintiffs -- or many of these same plaintiffs
13
brought an action in state court months ago and briefed
14
Kitchen in a motion for summary j udgment in that state court
15
action back in June , and the State asked for a stay in those
16
proceedings until the Supreme Cou r t decided what to do with
17
the petition for certiorari in Kitchen .
18
disingenuous for the State to come before you today and say
19
they haven ' t had time to think about these issues .
The Kitchen decision was issued months ago .
So it ' s a little
20
There are a number of other states -- I mentioned
21
Colorado , Texas , and I think that there are several others
22
that have in the wake of decisions in various circuit courts
23
gone ahead and issued preliminary injunctions and temporary
24
restraining orders to enjoin the enforcement of statutes
25
similar to the one here in Wyoming.

Anne Bowline, RMR, CRR-------------------------------(307) 235 -3376

Hearing Proceedings
There ' s no reason to wait , in short, Your Honor, and
indeed there ' s every reason to allow these people to enjoy
this fundamental right , this fundamental liberty of being
married and having their marriage recognized by the State .
5
6
I ' m happy to move into the evidentiary is sues, Your

Honor, if that ' s what you ' d like to do .
THE COURT:
MR. STOEVER:
That would be fine.

A couple of things , and it would be
great to get the Court ' s guidance.
We have one document that
10
we ' d like to move into evidence .
11
from the province of Ontario in Canada for Robert Hayes
12
Johnston and Carl Irvin Oleson .
13
for the State, and they have n o objection to our moving it
14
into evidence.
15
hand it to the clerk for th e Court to consider in its ruling.
16
17
THE COURT:
19
THE COURT:
And wi l l
admitted.
All right .
Plaintiffs ' Exhibit 1 will be
I ' d ask the State to verify they have no object i on .

MR . CRECELI US:
22
THE COURT:
25
that be identified as
Yes , Your Honor .
21
24
I ' ve shared this with counsel
Plaintiffs' Exhib it 1?
MR. STOEVER :
23
It is a marriage certificate
So with the Court ' s permission, I'd like to
18
20
27
No objection, Your Honor .
Very wel l .
It will be admit ted.
(Plaintiffs ' Exhibit 1 admitted . )

MR. STOEVER:
With respect to te s timo ny , Your Honor ,
we will take the test imony of the clerk in La r a mi e County .

Anne Bowl i ne , RMR , CRR-------------------------------- ( 307 ) 235 - 3376

Hearing Proceedings
28
And - - but before we do that , I wanted to ask , we have
submitted a number of affidavits with our moving papers .
clients are here and present , ready t o testify t oday .
frankly , their testimony would be largely duplicative of the
information that ' s contained in their affidavit s .
proffer those affidavits , and if the Court is willing , we
would have those moved into the record as evidence that the
Court could consider in making its ruling today.
I have not checked with the State .
10
the State has any objection to that.
11
proffer , Your Honor.
12
THE COURT :
All right .
But ,
We would
I don ' t know if
But we would make that
Counsel for the State have
13
any o bj ection to the admission of those affidavits and the
14
substantive conte nt contained therein?
15
MR . CRECELIUS :
16
THE COURT :
17
18
19
20
Our
No objec tio n , Your Honor.
All right.
Then I would find that those
affida vits -- I believe they ' re Exhibits A through E .

MR. STOEVER :
I believe that ' s right Your Honor .
I ' ll confirm that when I get back to my tab l e .

THE COURT :
All right .
I ' ll consider those admitted
21
as to the evide n ce in this case and consider the substantive
22
content of those affidavits in passing upon the legal issues
23
before the Court .
24
(Plaintiffs ' Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E
25
admitted . )
Anne Bowline , RMR , CRR ------------------------------- (307) 235 - 3376

Lathrop - Direct Examination
MR . STOEVER:
29
With that I
would l ike to turn the podium over to my colleague ,
Ms . Zubrod , to take the tes t imon y of the clerk.
THE COURT:
MS. ZUBROD:
All r i ght.
Ms . Zub r od.
come for wa r d i n Cheyenn e a n d be placed und er oath .
(De f endan t La t hrop was sworn . )
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY :
10
Ms . Lathrop will
For t he record , please state
and spel l your full n ame , your ci t y of residence , and your

occu pation , please.
11
THE WI TNESS:
An d you may have a seat.

My name ' s Debra Kay Lathrop, D- E- B- R- A,
12
midd l e name Kay , K- A- Y; Lathrop , L-A- T-H-R-0-P .
13
Laramie County Clerk .
14
City of residence , Cheyenne .
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY :
15
Occupation,
Thank you .
DIRECT EXAMINAT I ON
16
BY MS . ZUBROD :
17
Q.
Ms . Lathrop , ca n you hear me o kay?
18
A.
Ye s ,
19
Q.
All r i ght .
20
many years have you held the position as the Laramie County
21
Clerk?
22
A.
Jus t shy of 20 ye a rs .
23
Q.
And do you take an oath of office when you begin each
24
t e rm?
25
A.
Yes ,
I can .
You stated your name a n d your occupation.
How
I do .
Anne Bowlin e , RMR, CRR ------------------------------- ( 307 ) 235 - 3376

30
Lathrop - Direct Examination
Q.
And do you have a copy of tha t oat h in fro n t
A.
Yes , I do.
Q.
Cou l d you read that fo r me .
A.
" I do solemnly swear tha t
the con stitution of the United States and the constitution of
the State of Wyoming , that I have not know i ngly violated any
law related to my e l ection or appointme n t
d o ne by others.
10
or caused it to be
Ms . Lathrop , co uld I have you slow down
just a litt l e bit , please.

THE WITNESS :
11
12
I wi l l support , obey , and defe nd
I have "
THE COURT :
of you?
Yes, sir.
Wou l d you like me to start
over?
THE COURT :
13
No .
If you could just sta r t about a
" I have not "
14
sentence back .
15
A.
16
electio n or appointment or cau sed i t
17
th at I will discharge the duties of my office with fi del i t y. "
18
Q.
19
is one of the duties the process ing of marriage applications?
20
A.
Yes .
21
Q.
Plaintiffs Guzzo , Robinson , Williams , Killian , Bart h, and
22
Montgomery submi tted application s for marriage licenses at t h e
23
Laramie Coun t y Clerk ' s Of fice .
24
A.
That ' s corre ct.
25
Q.
Did you t h en iss u e the mar r iage lice n ses t o t h em ?
" That I have n o t
(BY MS. ZUBROD)
knowingly vio l ated a ny law related t o my
Thank you .
to be done by others and
As t h e Laramie County Clerk ,
Isn ' t
that c orr ect?
Anne Bowli ne , RMR, CRR ------------------------------- ( 307) 235 - 337 6

Hearing Proceedings
31
A.
No.
Q.
And can you explain to the Cour t why you did not .
A.
Because t he curren t Wyomi ng sta t e statute states that t he
clerk i s responsible t o determine if there ' s an imp edimen t to
the marriage , and one of the impedimen ts would be that the
appl i cants would violate the definition of marriage as being a
civi l contract between a male and a female .
Q.
state law, would these plaintiffs otherwise meet the criteria
Other than the male - and- female requirements of Wyoming
10
a n d p rerequisites to receive a marriage license?
11
A.
Yes , they did .
12
Q.
Besides these p l aintiffs that I ' ve mentioned , have there
13
been other same - sex coup les that have requested a marriage
14
license?
15
A.
Yes .
16
Q.
An d how did you process those applications?
17
A.
The same as with the others:
18
b u t d i d not issue the l icense .
19
Q.
20
ha ve to inquire as to the gender o f those applying for
21
marriage licenses?
22
A.
No .
23
Q.
Would it simp l ify the processing of those marriage
24
app lic ations if you did not have to inquire as to ge n der?
25
A.
We accepted the application ,
Would i t cause your office any disruption if you did not
Ye s .
Anne Bowl i n e , RMR, CRR ------------------------------- ( 3 0 7 ) 235 - 3376

32
Hearing Proceedings
1
2
MS . ZUBROD :
That ' s all the questions I have for you .
The State may have some questions , Ms . Lathrop .
THE COURT :
MR. CRECELIUS :
Counsel .
Your Honor .
THE COURT :
MR . HAGGERTY :
9
10
I have no questi ons at this time ,
All right.
Mr . Haggerty.
No , we have no questions eithe r, Your
Honor.
THE COURT :
All right .
Thank you , Ms . Lathrop .
You
may be excused.
11
THE WITNE SS :
12
THE COURT :
13
MR . STOEVER :
Thank you .
Mr . Stoever.
Your Honor , I want to make one
14
correc tion .
When I got back to my table ,
15
fact , the federal government will accept joint tax return
16
filings even i f the State does not recognize the marriage .
17
And I want ed to make sure that that was correct in the record ,
18
and I apologize for my mi sstatement .
19
THE COURT :
20
MR . STOEVER :
I was corrected .
In
All right .
I also wanted to clarify , Your Honor ,
21
with respect to the affidavits that are being proffe red , those
22
are Exhibits 2 through 8 to the motion for preliminary
23
injunction .
24
THE COURT :
25
MR. STOEVER :
All right .
Your Honor , at this time we have no
Anne Bowline , RMR , CRR------------------------------(307 ) 235-33 7 6

Hearing Proceedings
33
further evidence other than what has already been proffered
and in evidence.
3
4
THE COURT :
All right.
At this time does the State
have a ny evidence it wishes to offer at this time?
MR . CRECELIUS:
THE COURT :
Not at this time , Your Honor .
All right.
Let us then turn -- I will
consider the evidence closed, and I would turn to the legal
arguments as to the parties .
at this time.
10
MR . STOEVER :
11
place where I began.
12
legal issue.
13
of the Tenth Circui t.
14
And I would recognize the movant
Your Honor, I would go back to the

This motion presents the Court with a
It is solely a legal issue.
Kitchen is the law
It i s on point, and it is binding .
As the Court has already pointed out , the standing
15
issues in this case are comparable to the standing issues in
16
the Kitchen case insofar as t h e State defenda nt s have the
17
responsibility and the right to enforce thi s law and enforce
18
the actions of the court c l erk.
19
parties to this litigation, just as the Governor and attorney
20
general were proper parties to the action in Kitchen .
21
They are indeed proper
The i ssue of likelihood of success on the merits has
22
been conceded by the State .
The issue of ir r eparable harm has
23
been conceded by the State .
The State has asked you to wait,
24
to stay your hand while it formulates its arguments and
25
considers how i t needs to change the regulations, policies,

Anne Bowline , RMR , CRR --------------------------------(307 ) 235 -3376

Hearing Proceedings
and practices of the State of Wyoming .
evidence to support the argument that anything would need to
be changed .
34
They ' ve presented no
And on the basis of that , and given the prima facie
showing of irreparable harm by virtue of this violation of my
clients ' fundamental liberty interests , we think that the
balanc i ng interest definitely weighs in favor of the issuance
of a preliminary inj u nction and a temporary restraining order .
Your Honor , lastly , the State has said that pub l ic
10
policy would requi r e you to wait ; but , again , they ' ve not
11
point ed to a single p olicy .
12
the Equality State , and if equality means anything , it means
13
that people are treated the same regardless of their gender ,
14
regardless of their sexual orientation or the color of their
15
skin or the language that they speak .
We a r e reminded that Wyoming is
16
If that saying " Equality State " means anything , it
17
means that the public policy of the State of Wyoming has to
18
recognize that these people who are either married or who wish
19
to be married should be allowed to engage in that fundamental
20
right , that fundamental liberty that other citizens of this
21
state have .
22
It ' s interesting , Your Honor, that the State has told
23
you that they really just want to take this issue up to the
24
Tenth Circuit and that they are hopeful that they might be
25
able to get full panel review at the Te nth Circ uit .

Anne Bowline , RMR, CRR-------------------------------(307) 235 - 3376

Hearing Proceedings
1
2
THE COURT :
MR . STOEVER:
No , Your Honor, not by the Tenth
Circuit , no.
THE COURT:
Has there been full panel review of any
of the decisions issued by the -- in Kitchen or Bishop?
35
Was there a petition fi l ed for en bane
review?
MR. STOEVER:
No , Your Honor .
Both states , Oklahoma
and Utah , went straight to the Supreme Court in both
instances .
10
And so , Your Honor, if that is indeed what the State
11
wants to do , then we would move the Court to immediately issue
12
a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction
13
enjoining the enforcement of the statute that defines marriage
14
as a union between one man and one woman , to allow our clients
15
and others similarly situated around the state of Wyoming to
16
obtain marriage licenses , to enter into marriages , or to have
17
their marriages entered into in other states recognized by the
18
State of Wyoming.
19
And we wil l stipulate today , Your Honor, that we will
20
agree to an expedited hearing at the Tenth Circuit if that ' s
21
what the State wants to do in order to move this process
22
along .
23
and it is incumbent upon this Court to go ahead and issue a
24
preliminary injunct i on or temporary restraining order .
25
But we think that the time has come , the law is clear ,
THE COURT :
Let me ask you this :
In terms of Tenth
Anne Bowline, RMR , CRR-------------------------------(307) 235 - 3376
Hearing Proceedings
36
Circuit precedent , Bishop, Kitchen , the Tenth Circuit ' s
decision in both Bishop and Kitchen found that the prior
holding in Baker versus Nelson -- well , not holding I
shouldn' t say
not binding .
would I be bound by the Supreme Court if I found that that was
still good law , or would I be held by the Tenth Circuit?
8
9
the finding of lack of federal question was

To the extent I we r e to disagree with that ,
MR. STOEVER :
Your Honor , I think that the denial of
the petition for certiorari gives good guidance to the Court
10
on that question .
11
was a summary denial where the Court found no federal
12
quest i on .
13
reviewed all of the law and the policy around that decision
14
and around how its determination that marriage was a
15
fundamental right was squared with that case in Baker .
16
Baker versus Donaldson , as you acknowledge ,
The -- pardon me .
The Tenth Circuit reviewed that ,
When the Tenth Circuit ruled and the State of Utah
17
submitted its petition for certiorari , that issue was briefed,
18
and the Supreme Court certainly had the opportunity to take
19
that question and resolve it if it thought that the Tenth
20
Circuit got it wrong .
21
As I mentioned, there are other cases perc o lating up
22
through other circuit courts .
They may or may not agree with
23
what the Tenth Circuit has done , but the Supreme Court is
24
certainly aware of the fact that there are these other cases
25
percolating up and that there may be a circuit split .
The
Anne Bowline, RMR, CRR------------------------------- (307)
235 - 3376

Hearing Proceedings
Supreme Court didn ' t wait in Kitchen.
for wr i t of ce rt iorari .
does not
deference, that denial of certiorari makes it clear that the
Supreme Court at least was n ot troub l ed by the way in which
the Tenth Circuit hand l ed Baker versus Donaldson.
It denied the petition
So I think that that denial, while it
jurisprudent i ally it does not constitute a
THE COURT:
lS
state law.
10
37
One of the primary focuses in this matter
that by the stroke of a pen , you ' re asking me to eradicate

Is that contemplated under our system of
government?
11
MR. STOEVER:
12
slightly differently, if I may .
13
asking you to enforce the constitutional rights , the rights
14
guaranteed to these men and women by the Equal Protection
15
Cla u se and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the
16
United States Constitution.
17
Your Honor , I would phrase that

By the stroke of a pen, we ' re
Now , by e nf orcing th ose rights , i t is true that you
18
may invalidate a state statute.
19
sys t em?
20
addressed in Kitchen .
21
preference of the j ud i ciary that states be allowed to define
22
marriage .
23
muster .
24
t he Loving decision .
25
Is that contempla t ed by our
I think that that quest i on again was raised and

I think it is clear that i t is the
But that definition has to pass constitutional

That goes to -- that ' s true going a l l the way back to
And cour ts lik e this one - - federal courts like th i s ,

lAnne Bowline, RMR, CRR-------------------------------( 307) 235 - 3376

38
Hearing Proceedings
like the Tenth Circuit , like the United States Supreme Court,
have routinely said that where the defin i tion of marriage
violates the Equal Protection Clause, violates the Due Process
Clause, i t cannot stand .
THE COURT:
MR. STOEVER:
What is left of Section 2 of DOMA?

That ' s a good question , You r Honor .
I ' m going to have to think about that, honestly .
to answer that as I stand here right now .

THE COURT:
10
I'm not able
I ' ll give you some rebuttal time .
MR . STOEVER:
Yeah , thank you .
Let me give some
11
thought t o that .
I apologize that it' s not at the top of my
12
head, but it ' s not , and I don ' t want to misstate it.
13
THE COURT :
Fair enough .
Anything else?
14
MR . STOEVER :
15
THE COURT :
16
Recognize the State at this time.
17
MR . CRECELIUS:
No , Your Honor.
Thank you , Counse l.
Thank you , Your Honor.
I t h ink the
18
Court raised a good question when he asked counsel about wi th
19
the stroke of a pe n does our judicial system anticipate
20
invalidating state l aw in something l i ke this .
21
kind o f the State ' s p o sition .
22
a nd early in this litiga tion that was just filed ten days ago
23
t o jump t o the point where we are i nvalidating s ta te law that
24
ha s d e fin e d marriage b e tween a man and a woman f or ba c k to the
25
1800s .
And that ' s
It ' s -- it s eems a litt l e hasty
Ove r 100 years tha t ' s bee n t h e posi ti on of th e Sta t e
Anne Bowl ine , RMR, CRR------------------------------- (307 ) 235 - 3376
.'

Hearing Proceedings
39
of Wyoming .
This wasn ' t a knee - jerk rea ction and a
constitutional amendment to change its laws .
is the long- standing and deep- rooted law of the State of
Wyoming.
This is
this
But counsel is correct that Kitchen and Bishop are
However , we believe that Baker is
controlling authorities .
also a controlling authority .
United States Supreme Court said that same- sex marriage is not
a fundamental right , and because of that , the review by the
Baker , through that case , the
10
Tenth Circuit was incorrect.
11
basis review rather than a strict scrutiny review .
12
It should have been a rational
And the State of Wyoming would l ike the opportunity
13
to defend its statute until the merits of its case can be
14
determined by this Court and also preserve the right to have
15
the Tenth Circuit en bane panel potentially hear it.
16
as counsel suggested , the Tenth Circuit full panel ha s not
17
even been requested to look at the decision in Kitchen , to
18
look at the decision in Bishop , and to see if other -- if the
19
majority of that panel or that circuit would agree with the
20
dissenti ng op inion there , Your Honor.
21
Because
And for those reasons , we would ask that this
22
extraordinary relief that's being sought by plaintiffs be
23
denied , allow the State to defend its statute , and move on the
24
merits of the case , and then see what happens from here , Your
25
Ho nor .
Anne Bowline , RMR, CRR-------------------------------(307)
235-3376
' .
40
Hearing Proceedings
THE COURT:
Let me ask you this:
What distinction is
there between -- or is there any distinction between the law
at issue in Utah and the law at issue in Oklahoma versus the
law at issue here?
MR. CRECELIUS :
At this point in time, Your Honor,
due to the broad language in those holdings, we have been
unab l e to find a distinction.
days into this litigation, and we would like the opportunity
to at least research that and potentially brief the Court on
10
11
However, again, we are only ten
what distinctions there may be.

THE COURT :
Well, in June the Tenth Circuit decided
12
the case in Kitchen, and certa inly before that, t he district
13
courts had it before in Ut ah .
14
uncover in terms of law or facts?
15
MR . CRECELIUS:
What is there left for you to
I ca n ' t answer that .
I don ' t know
16
what, if anything , there i s l eft to uncover.
17
position where we exhaust all of our poss ible avenues to look
18
into this and say , " You know what?
19
the State no longer objects to this. "
20
There may be a
Kitchen decides it, a nd
But we ' re too early in the process to be able to
21
definitively state that we ' re there , and we would just like
22
the opportunity to defend our statute the same way Utah had
23
the opportunity to defend its const i tutional amendment and the
24
same as Oklahoma .
25
THE COURT :
That ' s what we ' re really as ki ng for .

I was looking o n t h e a ppe n d ix, wh jch is
Ann e Bowl i ne, RMR, CRR ------------------------------- (3 0 7 ) 23 5- 3 3 76

Hearin g Proceedings
41
almost as l ong as t h e opinion, i n Kitchen and Bishop .
State of Wyoming submi t an ami cus brief i n e ither of those
matters?
Did the
MR. CRECELIUS :
One other small issue in response to t he standing
We did not , Your Honor, n o .
argument by counsel heard previously :
He mentioned that the
married plaintif fs were denied some health care benefits , and
there was actually an e - mai l attached to the reply brief
showing such.
However, that denial was not by t he State of
10
Wyoming.
11
Health.
12
the State of Wyoming had no bear i ng o n that decision.
13
It was by a private insurance company, Assurant

They ' re not a defendant in t hi s action , and really
THE COURT :
But if I recall the e - mail, did that
14
e - mail n ot indicate that if the definition of marriage wa s
15
changed i n the state of Wyoming , that he or she -- he would be
16
e ligible for coverage?
17
MR . CRECELIUS:
Yes , that ' s what the e - mail
18
indi cated .
19
benef i ts however they see fit , and that was not a decision
20
made by any of the defendant s ' agenc i es tha t they ove rsee .
21
But , again , a private corporat i on h as
THE COURT:
can issue
Does t h e State of Wyoming officer , the
22
d efendant in this matter provide benefits to same - sex ,
23
same - gender couples?
24
MR . CRECELIUS :
25
THE COURT :
I ' m sorry.
Coul d you r e peat that?
One of th e issues in this case deals with
Anne Bowline , RMR , CRR ------------------------------- (307)
235 -33 76
42
He aring Proceedings
health benefits available to the employees of the State of
Wyoming.
MR. CRECE LIUS :
THE COURT :
Correct .
Does t h e State of Wyoming distinguish in
providing health benefits to same - sex couples versus
different - sex coupl es?

MR . CRECELIUS:
It was discovered throu gh the state
case that , yes , same - sex co up les who have been married in
oth er jurisdict ions are not eligible for enrollment i n the
10
gro up health state plan.

THE COURT:
11
All right.
Can a ny ele c ted s tat e
12
officia l who has taken an oath ignore a state l aw that has n ot
13
been fou n d to be unconstituti ona l?
14
MR . CRECELIUS :
15
THE COURT :
I don ' t believe so , Your Honor.
So t he clerk , a nyone e l se who ' s t aken an
16
oath of office , i s bound to adhere to t he law of the St ate of
17
Wyomi ng unless found uncons ti tutional?

MR . CRECE LI US :
18
Well , the oath also includes
19
upholding the United States Constitution , so when there i sn ' t
20
a decision on the -- on the Wyomi ng law , the r e could b e a
21
conflicting responsib i l i ty there .
22
THE COURT :
23
MR . CRECE LIUS :
24
25
Than k you.
Anything further?
Nothing further , Yo u r Honor.
Thank
you .
MR. STOEVER :
Go ah ead .
Anne Bowli ne , RMR , CRR -------------------------------(307) 235 - 3376

Hearing Proceedings
MR. HAGGE RTY :
Your Honor , I ' ll be brief .
43
The clerk
supports the p l a inti f fs ' mot i o n, does not oppose the entry of
a temporary res tr a in ing orde r or preliminary injunction
requi ring her to process applicat i ons and issue marriage
licens es without regard to gender .
Seems like the u n disp u t ed evidence mee t s the
requ i rement s for either p reliminary injunct ion or a t e mporary
rest r aini n g order .
t h in k t he s h orter answer to that question is that th i s Cou rt
With regard to Baker versus Nelson , I
10
is bou nd by t h e Tenth Circuit ' s dispensation o f the Baker
11
versus Nelson argument.
12
With regard to eradicating state law , the Kitchen
13
case refers to Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments
14
wh ich seems to cover the statute we ' re ta l king about here in
15
Wyomi ng .
16
Fina l ly , the clerk agrees with the plaintiffs that
17
t h ere is no reason to wait .
18
with this .
19
de l ay and continued delay by the c l erk is j ust as illega l as
20
t h e denia l of t he licenses.
The clerk wholeheartedly agrees
We ask you to render a decision immediate l y .
Any
Thank you .
21
THE COURT :
All right .
Th ank you .
22
Movant , you get t he last word .
23
MR. STOEVER :
Your Honor , the last word will be the
24
answer to your question.
25
about th is .
And thank you for th e time to t hink
Anne Bowline , RMR, CRR -------------------------------( 30 7 ) 2 3 5- 3 3 76

44
Hearing Proceedi n gs
Upon reflection -- your question was is there
anything left of DOMA Section 2, and upon reflect i on , I think
the answer is in the wake of Kitchen , which everybody now
agrees is bindi ng , o n-point authori t y here, the answer i s no .
There is nothing left o f Section 2 of DOMA.
out -- and while that may be strong , I would point out t h at
7.
eve n if DOMA Section 2 were re l evant h ere , Congre ss has no
powe r to authorize states to v i o l ate the 14th Ame ndmen t of t he
Cons t itu tion .
10
And I would point
So even if DOMA Section 2 st i l l had any weight o r
11
author i ty , it would have to be conside r ed with in the con fines
12
of the decision in Kitchen , because Congress can ' t aut h orize
13
the State to violate the equ al protection rig hts of c it izens .

THE COURT:
14
In Kitchen , the ma j ority notes in a
15
footnote that the State of Utah didn ' t ade q uately rais e
16
Sect i on 2 in its -- in its brief and in the plead ings below .
17
But then the Tenth Circuit goes on to find it unco nstitutional
18
in any event .
19
Is that dicta , or is that bin d i ng?
MR . STOEVER :
We l l , Your Honor , I would say that ' s
20
binding .
The only -- the only court that can tell you whether
21
or not that ' s a dicta i s the Tenth Circuit .
22
binding on this Court as a district court within the circuit .
23
THE COURT :
24
MR . STOEVER :
25
THE COURT :
I think that ' s
Thank you .
All right .
I will - - any further
Anne Bowline, RMR , CRR -------------------------------- (307) 235-337 6
45
evidence or argument sought to be presented by plaintiffs in
this matter?
MR. STOEVER :
THE COURT:
MR. CRECELIUS :
THE COURT :
No , Your Honor .
By defendants in th is matter?
No , Your Honor.
I will consider the matter submitted .
wi ll -- I want to review a coup le more thi ngs in terms of
standing issues , and I will have a written order issued by no
later than 5:00 p . m. on Monday .
10
The issues here are extremely important and
11
s i gnificant to everyone involved.
I under s tand tha t.
They
12
are l egal i ss ues , though , and the impact of this Court ' s
13
rul ing if incorrect cou l d h ave grave consequences , so I want
14
to carefu l ly cons i der t h e mat t e rs .
15
br i ef i ng a nd s ubmis sions by the parties and, frankly ,
16
to - t he-p o int focus .
17
under submission.
I appreciate the e xcellent
And with that, I will take the matter

Thank you.
18
(Proceeding s concluded at 11 :11 a.m. ,
19
October 16 , 2014 . )
20
21
22
23
24
25
An ne Bowline , RMR, CRR------------------------------- (3 0 7 ) 235-3376

46
C E R T I F I C A T E
1
2
3
I, ANNE BOWLINE , Court Reporter in the state of
Wyoming, a Registered Merit Reporter and Certified Realtime
Reporter , do hereby certify that I reported by machine
shorthand the proceedings contained herein on the
aforementioned subject on the date herein set forth,
the foregoing 45 pages constitute a full , true and correct
transcript .
10
and that
Dated this 16th day of November , 2014.
11
12
13
14
Is/ Anne Bowline
15
ANNE BOWLINE
Registered Merit Reporter
Certified Realtime Reporter
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Anne Bowline , RMR, CRR ------------------------------ (3 07)
235 - 337 6

United States District Court District of Wyoming

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

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

United States District Court District of Wyoming

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 72 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 20

Peter K. Michael (Wyo. Bar No. 5-2309)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Civil No. 14-CV-200-SWS

STATE DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 72 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 20

However, the State Defendants have many concerns about

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 72 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 20

Arnold & Porter LLP $262.40

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 72 Filed 03/12/15 Page 4 of 20

National Center for

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 72 Filed 03/12/15 Page 5 of 20

Shannon Minters and Christopher Stolls time should be disallowed because it is

Upon review of Plaintiffs invoices, all of Minters and Stolls time is

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 72 Filed 03/12/15 Page 6 of 20

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 72 Filed 03/12/15 Page 7 of 20

10/9/2014 - Confer with co-counsel re preliminary injunction oral argument (Minter - .7

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 72 Filed 03/12/15 Page 8 of 20

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 72 Filed 03/12/15 Page 9 of 20

Time spent on pro hac vice motions was excessive.

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 72 Filed 03/12/15 Page 10 of 20

All work performed drafting, reviewing, or editing documents after service or

Work on pleadings that were never filed should be disallowed.

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 72 Filed 03/12/15 Page 11 of 20

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 72 Filed 03/12/15 Page 12 of 20

Time spent on the fee petition is excessive.

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 72 Filed 03/12/15 Page 13 of 20

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 72 Filed 03/12/15 Page 14 of 20

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 72 Filed 03/12/15 Page 15 of 20

State district court, Courage v. Mead, et al. Those charges are:

review transcript of state

Attend to calls with

Prepare for and attend

Work on filings with

Legal Assistant Services

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 72 Filed 03/12/15 Page 16 of 20

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 72 Filed 03/12/15 Page 17 of 20

The costs incurred by Plaintiffs attorneys are excessive.

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 72 Filed 03/12/15 Page 18 of 20

Arnold & Porter

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 72 Filed 03/12/15 Page 19 of 20

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

/s/ Jared S. Crecelius

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 72 Filed 03/12/15 Page 20 of 20

Thomas W. Stoever, Jr.

/s/ Jared S. Crecelius

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 72-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DECLARATION OF THOMAS W. STOEVER, JR. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

I am a member in good standing of the Colorado State Bar. I am also a member

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 72-1

I have extensive experience litigating complex, multi-jurisdictional cases. This

In addition to my professional experience, I am an active member of the Colorado

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 72-1

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 72-1

I served as lead counsel for Plaintiffs in this litigation. I was ultimately

The Governor of Wyoming increased the workload for Plaintiffs counsel by

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 72-1

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 72-1

Arnold & Porter is requesting to be compensated for 159.90 hours at an aggregate

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 72-1

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 72-1

Thomas W. Stoever, Jr.