Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 851 Filed 08/09/13 Page 1 of 3

Transcription

1 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 851 Filed 08/09/13 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION SHANNON PEREZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-CA-360-OLG-JES-XR STATE OF TEXAS, et al., [Lead Case] Defendants. MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS, TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. SA-11-CA-361-OLG-JES-XR [Consolidated Case] STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Defendants. TEXAS LATINO REDISTRICTING TASK FORCE, et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. SA-11-CA-490-OLG-JES-XR [Consolidated Case] RICK PERRY, Defendant. MARGARITA V. QUESADA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-11-CA-592-OLG-JES-XR RICK PERRY, et al., [Consolidated Case] Defendants.

2 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 851 Filed 08/09/13 Page 2 of 3 EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-11-CA-635-OLG-JES-XR RICK PERRY, et al., [Consolidated Case] Defendants. QUESADA PLAINTIFFS OPPOSED MOTION FOR INTERIM AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES Pursuant to this Court s July 1, 2013 Order in the above-captioned consolidated cases, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1920, 42 U.S.C. 1973l(e), 42 U.S.C. 1988, Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d), and Western District of Texas Local Rule CV 7(j), the Quesada Plaintiffs respectfully move this Court for an interim award of attorneys fees and expenses. Pursuant to this Court s local rule CV-7(i), counsel for Quesada Plaintiffs conferred in a good-faith attempt with counsel for the Defendants to resolve the matter by agreement, but no agreement could be reached. Based on this motion, the attached supporting brief and accompanying materials, as well as the record in this case, the Quesada Plaintiffs seek a total sum of $257, in interim fees and expenses. WHEREFORE, the Quesada Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this motion will be granted and the requested fees and expenses will be awarded. Respectfully submitted, GERALD HARRIS GOLDSTEIN DONALD H. FLANARY, III GOLDSTEIN, GOLDSTEIN & HILLEY Tower Life Building 310 S. St. Mary's, 29th Floor San Antonio, TX (210) Fax: (210)

3 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 851 Filed 08/09/13 Page 3 of 3 /s/ J. Gerald Hebert J. GERALD HEBERT 191 Somervelle Street, #405 Alexandria, VA Tel. (703) Admitted pro hac vice PAUL M. SMITH JESSICA RING AMUNSON JENNER & BLOCK LLP 1099 New York Ave., NW Suite 900 Washington, DC Tel (202) Fax (202) JESSE GAINES TX Bar No PO Box Ft Worth, TX (817) Dated: August 9, 2013 Attorneys for Quesada Plaintiffs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 9 th day of August, 2013, I served a copy of the foregoing Quesada Plaintiffs Motion for Interim Fees, Expenses and Costs on counsel who are registered to receive NEFs through the CM/ECF system. All attorneys who have not yet registered to receive NEFs have been served via first-class mail, postage prepaid. /s/ J. Gerald Hebert J. GERALD HEBERT

4 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 1 of 33 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION SHANNON PEREZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-CA-360-OLG-JES-XR STATE OF TEXAS, et al., [Lead Case] Defendants. MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS, TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. SA-11-CA-361-OLG-JES-XR [Consolidated Case] STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Defendants. TEXAS LATINO REDISTRICTING TASK FORCE, et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. SA-11-CA-490-OLG-JES-XR [Consolidated Case] RICK PERRY, Defendant. MARGARITA V. QUESADA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-11-CA-592-OLG-JES-XR RICK PERRY, et al., [Consolidated Case] Defendants.

5 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 2 of 33 EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-11-CA-635-OLG-JES-XR RICK PERRY, et al., [Consolidated Case] Defendants. QUESADA PLAINTIFFS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR INTERIM AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES Pursuant to this Court s July 1, 2013 Order in the above-captioned consolidated cases, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1920, 42 U.S.C. 1973l(e), 42 U.S.C. 1988, Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d), and Western District of Texas Local Rule CV 7(j), the Quesada Plaintiffs have moved this Court for an interim award of attorneys fees and expenses. This brief is respectfully submitted in support of that motion, along with the attached supporting materials. Based on these submissions, as well as the record in this case, the Quesada Plaintiffs seek a total sum of $257, in interim fees and expenses. At the outset, the Quesada Plaintiffs would note that they are aware that there are multiple plaintiffs in this case, represented by qualified and competent legal counsel. Many of the Plaintiffs asserted similar claims challenging the State s 2011 congressional redistricting plan. Like other Plaintiffs, the Quesada Plaintiffs challenged the State s congressional plan in selected regions of the State. 1 However, the Quesada Plaintiffs main focus during this case was on the State s plan in North Texas, specifically the Dallas-Tarrant counties area. 2 The Quesada Plaintiffs alleged, for 1 The Quesada Plaintiffs Complaint was a multi-count complaint that alleged that the State s plan was legally defective in the following regions of the State: North Texas (DFW), District 23, San Antonio, Austin, and Houston. See Amended Complaint at (Dkt. # 84-1). 2 The Quesada Plaintiffs focus on North Texas was due in part to the agreement among plaintiffs counsel that the Quesada Plaintiffs would go last (ninth) among plaintiffs during argument and presentation of evidence, and the 2

6 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 3 of 33 example, that the State of Texas had failed to recognize the dramatic population growth of Latinos and African-Americans in that two county region and the State s corresponding failure to create new congressional districts in the Dallas-Fort Worth area in which Latino and African- American voters could elect their preferred candidates. And the Quesada Plaintiffs Amended Complaint specifically alleged that [a]lternative plans (including the Fair Texas Plan) created a new minority opportunity Congressional District in Dallas-Fort Worth that would provide African- American citizens the opportunity to elect their candidate of choice. Quesada Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 84-1) at 56. The Quesada Plaintiffs, along with LULAC, the NAACP, and the Howard Jefferson- Congresspersons (Reps. E.B. Johnson, Jackson-Lee and A. Green), took the lead in challenging Texas failure to create new districts in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex that would provide both African-American and Latino voters with an effective opportunity to elect a candidate of choice. The interim congressional plan adopted for the 2012 elections resulted in a new African- American congressional district in North Texas, CD 33, and thus the Quesada Plaintiffs are prevailing parties on that claim. Recognizing that some of the other Plaintiffs took the lead challenging congressional districts in other areas of the State outside the DFW metroplex, and that the Quesada Plaintiffs played a major role in securing a new African-American district in North Texas, the Quesada Plaintiffs have limited this interim fee request and their expenses to their work in helping to secure the new African-American ability to elect district (CD 33) in North Texas and to a portion (50%) of the fees incurred by Jenner & Block in researching and writing a pre-litigation strategy memorandum that formed the basis of recognition that the Quesada Plaintiffs should not duplicate presentation of evidence already adduced by other plaintiffs in other regions. Inasmuch as many of the other plaintiffs focused on South Texas issues or other regions of the state (e.g., District 23, the San Antonio-Travis County area, and Nueces County), the Quesada Plaintiffs assumed major responsibility for litigating the rights of African American and Latino voters in North Texas. In addition, six of the ten Quesada Plaintiffs resided in the Dallas-Fort Worth region of North Texas. See Quesada Plaintiffs Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 84-1) at

7 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 4 of 33 the Quesada Plaintiffs claims in this case. For example, Mr. Hebert s total hours in this case totaled 449 hours, but by limiting his fee request to work in North Texas, he has limited the fee request here to 222 hours, a discount of a little more than 50% of his total time. Exhibit A, Declaration of J. Gerald Hebert, and Exhibit C, Hebert Time and Expense Records. Similarly, as noted above, the Jenner attorneys discounted their time in the case by 50%. Exhibit E, Declaration of Paul M. Smith. Moreover, Mr. Hebert has not sought fees for any of the numerous hours he travelled back and forth from Washington, DC to Texas to litigate this case. Furthermore, in the exercise of sound billing judgment and to ensure that their request for fees is a reasonable one, the Quesada Plaintiffs have not sought and hereby waive any interim attorneys fees for and expenses incurred by the following counsel in this case: Gerald H. Goldstein and Donald H. Flanary, III of Goldstein, Goldstein and Hilley; two attorneys with the law firm Jenner & Block in Washington, DC; and attorney Jesse Gaines. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Quesada Plaintiffs brought this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1973, 42 U.S.C. 1973c, 42 U.S.C. 1983, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of Texas 2011 congressional redistricting bill (SB 4). The Quesada Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the benchmark congressional plan (C 100) was malapportioned in violation of Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. Amended Complaint at 45 (Dkt. # 84-1). The complaint also alleged that the State s enacted congressional redistricting plan (C 185) would not receive Section 5 preclearance under the Voting Rights Act because the plan was enacted with a racially 4

8 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 5 of 33 discriminatory purpose, was retrogressive, and diluted minority voting strength of racial and language minority voters in regions throughout the State. Id. at and 67. Prior to filing the complaint, attorneys at Jenner & Block researched and wrote a significant pre-trial strategy memorandum that formed the basis of the legal claims put forth by Plaintiffs. The preparation of this memorandum required intensive analysis of Census data, as well as an analysis of the case law with respect to the Quesada Plaintiffs potential claims. In the North Texas region, the complaint alleged that [n]one of the five [congressional] districts that include all or part of Tarrant County provides an effective electoral opportunity for Hispanics or African-Americans. The under-representation of minority voters in the Dallas-Ft. Worth region is stark given that the area lost 156,742 Anglos between 2000 and 2010, while gaining 600,000 Hispanics and African Americans during that period, according to the 2010 Census. Am. Compl. at 45 (Dkt. # 84-1). More specifically with respect to the State s failure to create a new effective opportunity district for African-American voters in the Dallas Fort Worth region, the complaint alleged: The State s proposed congressional redistricting Plan, in the Dallas-Fort Worth region, contains only one African American district confined to Dallas County only (CD30 Eddie Bernice Johnson), even though the City of Fort Worth in Tarrant contains the third largest concentration of African-American citizens in Texas and Dallas County and Tarrant County combined contain over 781,254 African American residents. Alternative plans (including the Fair Texas Plan) created a new minority opportunity Congressional District in Dallas-Fort Worth that would provide African American citizens the opportunity to elect their candidate of choice. Am. Compl. at 56 (Dkt. # 84-1). Throughout this case, the Quesada Plaintiffs have played an active role. A bench trial was held in September Counsel for the Quesada Plaintiffs actively participated in that trial throughout. We highlight below instances during the trial where the Quesada Plaintiffs focused 5

9 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 6 of 33 their efforts on proving that the State s congressional plan in the North Texas (Dallas-Fort Worth) region of the State was violative of federal law and should not be implemented. Opening Statements In his opening statement, counsel for the Quesada Plaintiffs (Mr. Hebert) focused on how the State failed to create even one new minority opportunity district in the Dallas-Fort Worth ( DFW ) region, despite the dramatic minority growth in that area. For example, counsel told the Court: 89 percent of the growth in Texas came from non-anglos. 89 percent. They gained four seats in Texas on the backs of Latinos and African-Americans, and they get no new districts out of it? The Voting Rights Act speaks, cries out to give them their fair opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. And by the way, Congressman Smith, even though he put that map in the hands of the legislative leaders, no Dallas-Fort Worth district was ever drawn. It never showed up. Trial Tr (Volume 1A) (9/6/11). Again focusing on the State s failure to create any new minority districts in the DFW area, Mr. Hebert s opening statement added that: See Trial Tr (Volume 1A) (9/6/11). 3 You are going to see in the maps that the Quesada plaintiffs present, show, we are going to [shade] the minority population in areas like Tarrant County with blacks and Latinos and then show you the lines over them, so you can see how the minority community there and in other parts of the state is sliced and diced to prevent them from electing a candidate of their choice. The Trial Testimony Elicited by Quesada Plaintiffs At trial, the Quesada Plaintiffs played an active role throughout the congressional redistricting part of the case. 4 For example, Mr. Hebert briefly cross-examined Ryan Downton, 3 Counsel for the Texas Defendants (Mr. Schenck) at one point referred to Mr. Hebert s opening statement in his opening statement. See Trial Tr. 57 (Volume 1A) (9/6/11). 4 Though there were a number of skilled trial attorneys representing the various plaintiffs in this case, Counsel for the Quesada Plaintiffs was among those who played a leadership and coordinating role. The following minor 6

10 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 7 of 33 who drew the congressional districts for the House leadership. (Trial Tr ) (Volume 4B)(9/9/11). Although the cross examination was brief, it was effective: Mr. Hebert got Mr. Downton to admit that although he had been given a map by Congressman Lamar Smith creating a new minority opportunity congressional district in the Dallas-Fort Worth region, Mr. Downton had never made any attempt to draw such a district himself. Id. This testimony was important in that it demonstrated that despite the dramatic minority population explosion in the DFW area, and despite being provided with a map by Congressman Smith that created a new minority opportunity district in that region, one of the main congressional map-drawers for the House leadership had failed to even consider or attempt to draw a new minority opportunity district in that region. At trial, the Quesada Plaintiffs also presented the testimony of expert witness Dr. Allan J. Lichtman. See Trial Tr (Volume 5B)(9/9/11). 5 Mr. Hebert presented Dr. Lichtman s testimony on behalf of both the Quesada Plaintiffs and the Perez Plaintiffs, again in the interest of promoting efficiency. See Trial Tr (Volume 5B)(9/9/11). 6 Dr. Lichtman not only testified about the presence of extreme racially polarized voting patterns throughout the State of Texas, but he also examined alternative congressional redistricting plans to determine whether or not that plan created more effective districts that provided minority voters a reasonable opportunity to elect candidates of their choice to Congress as compared to the state-passed example illustrates this role. At trial, and in the interest of efficiency and effective use of the Court s resources, Quesada Plaintiffs counsel announced to the Court that Plaintiffs counsel had conferred among themselves and would try to limit their witness examinations to one attorney: MR. HEBERT: Your Honor, we have kind of agreed on our side that unless there is an absolute reason for a second plaintiff's counsel to ask questions, we are going to try to defer and go right to the defense. JUDGE GARCIA: All right. Very efficient for the Court. Thank you for that. See Trial Tr. 97 (Volume 1A) (9/6/11). 5 Dr. Lichtman s Expert Report was Quesada Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 1, which was received into evidence. 6 Although Mr. Hebert elicited testimony from Dr. Lichtman on behalf of the Perez Plaintiffs regarding the House redistricting plan and issues related to it, and Mr. Hebert spent several hours reviewing Dr. Lichtman s House plan analysis before examining him on those subjects at trial, Mr. Hebert s attorneys fee application does not seek any time for this work, further demonstrating the reasonableness of the requested fee award. 7

11 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 8 of 33 proposed plan. See Trial Tr (Volume 5B) (9/9/11). Dr. Lichtman s examination of the State s enacted plan (C185) showed that there were three proposed districts which, though containing a majority of minority population, would not be effective districts for minority voters in terms of their ability to elect candidates of their choice: Districts 6, 23 and 27. See Trial Tr (Volume 5B) (9/9/11). Dr. Lichtman also testified how alternative plans, such as Plan C121 (also referred to as the Fair Texas Plan ) had created three additional majority-minority congressional districts in which minority voters could effectively elect a candidate of choice than the State s enacted plan had done (C185). See Trial Tr (Volume 5B) (9/9/11). Plan C121, Dr. Lichtman testified, created two new congressional districts in the Dallas-Fort Worth area (CDs 34 and 35) in which minority voters would have an effective voting majority. Id. 7 Many of the Quesada Plaintiffs exhibits contained evidence about the way in which the State s proposed congressional plan carved up the minority population in the Dallas-Tarrant counties region of the State. For example, Quesada Plaintiffs Exhibits Nos were detailed maps of Dallas-Tarrant counties shading the region by race and ethnicity with an overlay of the State s proposed congressional lines, illustrating how the State s plan fractured the minority population concentration in this region. These exhibits were received into evidence by the threejudge court. An additional exhibit was a deposition taken by Defendants of one of the Quesada Plaintiffs (Marc Veasey), where Mr. Veasey testified: The metroplex [contains] two of the fastest-growing areas in the entire country for African Americans and Latinos. And as a matter of fact, you could easily draw a district, a Hispanic opportunity district and an additional African American district in addition to Eddie Bernice Johnson s... And the state, with the way the map was drawn, absolutely didn t afford minority voters increased opportunities to elect a candidate of their choice. 7 Plan C121 was admitted into evidence as Quesada Exhibit No

12 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 9 of 33 Defendants Exhibit 60 at pp Other exhibits offered by the Quesada Plaintiffs and received into evidence illustrated proposed remedial maps creating new minority opportunity districts in the Dallas-Fort Worth region of the State. See, e.g., Quesada Plaintiffs Exhibits Nos Closing Arguments 8 The transcript of the closing argument by the Quesada Plaintiffs counsel runs some 31 pages (pp ) and more than half of those pages reference Dallas or Tarrant County or the congressional districts in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex. In closing arguments, counsel for the Quesada Plaintiffs focused on the issues of racially discriminatory intent and how the State s proposed congressional map did not meet the requirements of the Voting Rights Act in the DFW region. On the latter point, for example, Quesada Plaintiffs counsel stated: They [State authorities] packed District 30, [Congresswoman] Eddie Bernice Johnson s district, and notwithstanding the growth in Dallas/Fort Worth, they didn t draw a single new minority opportunity district. Not a single one. See Trial Tr (Volume 9C) (9/15/11). Counsel s closing argument also discussed the bizarre shape and discriminatory features of the State s proposed congressional districts in the DFW region, including the finger or lightning bolt that comes down into Tarrant County, the racial and ethnic splitting of the Latino and African American population in Tarrant County, and how the State s purported justification for the fracturing of the minority population in the Tarrant County region was a post hoc justification that was nowhere mentioned in the contemporaneous documents produced when the map was drawn. See Trial Tr (Volume 9C) (9/15/11). 8 In closing arguments, Mr. Hebert went last (ninth) for the plaintiffs counsel and made clear to the Court that to avoid any redundancy, he was going to try to cover topics that haven t been addressed before by people on my side. Trial Tr (Volume 9C) (9/15/11). 9

13 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 10 of 33 In fact, a significant part of the Quesada counsel s closing argument focused on how the minority population in Tarrant County under the State s plan was split among six congressional districts. Counsel detailed how the State s plan snaked into Dallas and Tarrant counties, slicing and dicing the minority population in the two county region. 9 See Trial Tr (Volume 9C) (9/15/11). All of these arguments went to the issue of the State s failure to create a new minority opportunity congressional district in the DFW region, with Quesada s counsel concluding: when you slice and dice the minority community like that... and you start slicing and dicing that many hundreds of thousands of 1.2 million people, the Latino and black people in that area, you re absolutely -- you have to go out of your way not to create another minority opportunity district. See Trial Tr (Volume 9C) (9/15/11). Quesada Plaintiffs counsel, again focusing on the Dallas-Tarrant area of the State s plan, concluded: See Trial Tr (Volume 9C) (9/15/11). [O]ver 1.4 million Latinos reside in Dallas and Tarrant County, but C 185 [the State s plan] cracks them into five districts, denying them the opportunity to be in a district where they could combine with other minority voters and elect their preferred candidate. The Interim Plan Created a New African-American Ability to Elect District in the Dallas Fort Worth Region Following the ten-day trial in September 2011, this three-judge Court undertook to redraw the congressional districts in Texas because the benchmark districts were malapportioned 9 Quesada Exhibit No. 26 was a map showing how the State s proposed congressional map carved up minority population in the Dallas-Tarrant counties region. 10

14 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 11 of 33 in violation of the Constitution, and because the State had failed to obtain timely Section 5 preclearance of its congressional plan. 10 At remedial hearings before this Court on November 3, 2011, the Quesada Plaintiffs presented testimony regarding a proposed remedial plan, Plan C205. Quesada Plaintiffs proposed plan C 205 created two new additional minority opportunity congressional districts in the DFW region: one, a new African-American opportunity district based in Tarrant County, and the other a new Latino opportunity district entirely in Dallas County. The new Tarrant County-based African-American opportunity district in Quesada Plan C 205 was described to the Court this way: This [Tarrant County] region here is one of the most rapidly growing African-American populations in the country, and it is one of the largest minority populations in the country that is, in a concentrated area, that is not allowed the opportunity to elect their candidate of choice for Congress. And so you can take this area, which is encompassed within the current State House district represented by Representative [Marc] Veasey, House District 95, and then add to it African-American growth to the southwest, and then go over into -- moving east in the city of Arlington, where you are also experiencing rapid minority population growth and where there is there are strong ties between this area [Arlington] and this area [southeast Fort Worth]. A lot of the people that have moved over here, they still go to church over in southeast Fort Worth, in the Forest Hill, Everman areas, or up in the Poly areas up to the north. And then, of course, you can then move to the west, into southwest Dallas County. It is the city of Cedar Hill and the city of De Soto, which also have large, active African-American communities and have been part of a congressional district to go into Fort Worth in the past. Trial Tr (Vol. 12B) (November 3, 2011) (Testimony of Matt Angle). This Court issued its remedial order on November 26, In the DFW area, this Court created CD 33, observing that the district was drawn in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex to 10 The State had also failed to obtain Section 5 preclearance of its state senate plan and state house plan. 11

15 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 12 of 33 reflect population growth in that area. Dkt. # 544 at 13. This Court explained that [b]ecause much of the growth that occurred in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex was attributable to minorities, the new district 33 was drawn as a minority coalition opportunity district. Id. The State immediately appealed to the United States and sought a stay, which the Court granted. The Quesada Plaintiffs participated as a party to that appeal, filing a Memorandum in the Supreme Court opposing the State s requested stay, and filing merits briefs in the Court in the expedited appeal. The State Defendants took the position in this Court and the Supreme Court that they should be permitted to implement their enacted plan in toto, despite the fact the plan had yet to be precleared. See, e.g., Brief for Appellants to United States Supreme Court, p. 31, Perry v. Perez, Nos , , ( In light of these exigencies, this Court should vacate the interim orders and remand to the district court with instructions to impose Texas legislatively enacted map as the interim plan while preclearance is pending. )(emphasis added). But this Court and the Supreme Court rejected that position. Instead, the Supreme Court vacated this Court s remedial order and remanded the case to this Court for further proceedings [b]ecause it is unclear whether the District Court for the Western District of Texas followed the appropriate standards in drawing interim maps for the 2012 Texas elections[.] Perry v. Perez, 565 U.S., 132 S. Ct. 934 (2012) (per curiam). On remand, the parties were encouraged by this Court to reach agreement on interim plans, if possible. Eventually, the State Defendants informed the Court that they had reached agreement on a new congressional plan for the 2012 elections with some of the Plaintiffs. In announcing the terms of the agreement between the State and some of the plaintiffs at the hearing before this Court on February 12, 2012, counsel for the State (Mr. Mattax) described how the interim plan created a new district in the Dallas-Fort Worth region (CD 33) this way: 12

16 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 13 of 33 What it is[,] is a correction of an allegation of potential Section 5 issues on how that map was drawn. Tr. at 14 (2/14/2012). The State s counsel added: It [CD 33] is to open the door to correct an allegation that people have made in Section 5 about a racial issue in that area of the state. Tr. at 14 (2/14/2012). The allegations referred to by the State s counsel were made by the Quesada Plaintiffs, and others. The interim plan (Plan C235) used in the 2012 elections created a new majority-minority district (CD 33) in the Dallas-Fort Worth region one that contained many of the minority neighborhoods identified by a witness for the Quesada Plaintiffs at the remedial hearings, including Grand Prairie (Dallas County portion), Cockrell Hill, North Oak Cliff, the East I-35 corridor, Southeast Fort Worth, Forest Hill, Everman, Poly, and East Arlington. See Hearing Transcript of November 3, 2011, Volume 2, at pp Put another way, the African- American and Latino neighborhoods included within District 33 in the interim Plan C 235 were nearly all included in the Dallas-Tarrant minority districts proposed by the Quesada Plaintiffs in Plan C 205. Indeed, CD 33 in interim Plan C 235 contains over 80% of the population from Districts 34 or 35 in the Quesada Proposed Remedial Plan C 205. See Exhibit K hereto, which is a Report (RED340) of the Texas Legislative Council comparing Plan C 235 to Plan C 205 and showing the similarities of the minority districts. Thus, the Quesada Plaintiffs produced evidence at the remedial hearings about the minority population concentrations in the Dallas- Tarrant counties region, and the interim plan encompassed the vast majority of those neighborhoods (over 80%) in what is now Congressional District 33. In the 2012 elections, African-American voters elected their preferred candidate, Marc Veasey, an African-American and one of the Quesada Plaintiffs, to Congress. As a result, CD 33 is now an effective African-American ability to elect district. The creation of such a district 13

17 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 14 of 33 was one of the main goals of the Quesada Plaintiffs in this case. See, e.g., Amended Complaint 56 at page 16 (Dkt. 84-1); Trial Tr (Volume 9C) (9/15/11)(closing argument by Quesada Plaintiffs counsel); Quesada Plaintiffs Joint Brief on Interim Map Issues (Dkt.# 623) at 20-21; 11 and testimony by Quesada Plaintiffs map-drawer (Mr. Angle) at remedial hearings on interim plans, November 3, 2011, Transcript at pp The court-approved interim congressional redistricting plan, which was used in the 2012 elections, provided the Quesada Plaintiffs with important relief they had requested regarding their claims in the North Texas region. They had sought the creation of a new district based in Tarrant County in which African-American voters could enjoy an effective ability to elect their candidate of choice, and they succeeded. Earlier this year, the State of Texas repealed the challenged 2011 plan (C 185) and adopted the interim court-approved congressional plan as a final permanent plan. Accordingly, the Quesada Plaintiffs are prevailing parties on their North Texas claims and now seek attorneys fees, expenses, and costs for their successful prosecution of this action. 12 ARGUMENT The enforcement of federal civil rights laws depends upon private litigation as a means of securing compliance with the law. Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises,, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, (1968). The availability of fee awards for prevailing parties is critical if private parties are to undertake litigation to vindicate the civil rights laws. See id. Congress considered 11 In Quesada Plaintiffs February 10, 2012 Brief on Interim Map Issues, filed jointly with LULAC, the NAACP, the African-American Congresspersons, and the Rodriguez Plaintiffs, we explained that new minority opportunity districts needed to be created in North Texas, stating: the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex where the intentional and intricate racial gerrymander (in CDs 6, 12, 26, and 33), and the racial packing (in CD 30) must be un-raveled to allow one or two more naturally occurring minority opportunity or ability districts. Dkt. #623 at This claim was undoubtedly the one referenced by the State s counsel in explaining new CD 33 in the interim map. See pp , supra. 12 The Quesada Plaintiffs expressly requested an award of attorneys fees, expenses and costs in their Amended Complaint. See Quesada Plaintiffs Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 84-1) at

18 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 15 of 33 vigorous enforcement to vindicate civil rights a high priority and entrusted plaintiffs to effectuate this policy. Dean v. Riser, 240 F.3d 505, 507 (5th Cir. 2001). The purpose of providing for an award of such fees and expenses to prevailing parties is to encourage private attorneys general [to] take it upon themselves to invoke and thereby invigorate federal constitutional and statutory rights... and... to insure that those who violate the Nation s fundamental laws do not proceed with impunity. King v. Illinois State Bd. of Elections, 410 F.3d 404, 412 (7th Cir. 2005) (quoting Charles v. Daley, 846 F.2d 1057, 1063 (7th Cir. 1988)). In any action or proceeding to enforce the voting guarantees of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney s fee, reasonable expert fees, and other reasonable litigation expenses as part of the costs. 42 U.S.C. 1973l(e). Here, Plaintiffs action was brought pursuant to the Voting Rights Act to vindicate important Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment rights, see, e.g., Quesada Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Dkt. #84-1) at 4, 5, 60, and 62. As Judge Rodriguez observed in LULAC v. City of Boerne, No. 5:96-cv XR (Order of February 20, 2013), [a] prevailing plaintiff in a VRA or civil rights case is presumptively entitled to an award of fees, unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust[,] citing Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. at 402. It is also clear that fees may be awarded for pre-litigation work associated with development of the theory of the case. Webb v. Bd. Of Educ. Of Dyer County, Tenn., 471 U.S. 234, 243 (1985). 15

19 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 16 of 33 As explained in more detail below, (see infra pp ), the Quesada Plaintiffs seek to recover interim attorneys fees inasmuch as they prevailed on their claim in creating a new African-American ability to elect district in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex. 13 I. PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO INTERIM ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS. A. The Quesada Plaintiffs Are Prevailing Parties. There is no question that the Quesada Plaintiffs are prevailing parties. They obtained relief in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex in this action that changed the legal relationship between themselves and the State of Texas Defendants in that area. Under the State s enacted plan (C 185), North Texas had only one effective African-American ability to elect district (District 30) and now it has two such districts (CD 30 and 33). Moreover, under the State s 2011 plan (C 185), large concentrations of minority voters in that region including some of the Quesada Plaintiffs were stranded in Anglo-controlled districts. That is no longer the case. Indeed, one of the Quesada Plaintiffs has been elected as the Representative in CD 33. The Quesada Plaintiffs prevailed on each of the following claims: that the congressional plan enacted by Texas in 2011 could not be implemented because it did not receive preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (Quesada Plaintiffs Amended Complaint at p. 18 (Dkt. # 84-1); that a new congressional redistricting plan be implemented in the 2012 elections (id.); and a new district based in the Dallas-Fort Worth region could and should be created that provided African American voters with an effective opportunity to elect their preferred candidate 13 As noted supra, the Quesada Plaintiffs also brought claims in other regions of the State and obtained some relief on those claims as well (e.g., challenging the configuration of CDs 20 and 23). However, because other Plaintiffs took the lead in securing relief in those areas, and the Quesada Plaintiffs were among the leaders in securing relief in North Texas, our fee interim motion is limited to the time spent litigating those North Texas issues and securing relief in that region of the State. 16

20 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 17 of 33 to Congress. Quesada Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 84-1) at As noted above, in the 2012 elections, African American did demonstrate an effective ability to elect their candidate of choice, Marc Veasey (one of the Quesada Plaintiffs), to office. In addition, the State has now repealed the 2011 plan and adopted the interim plan as their final plan. In these circumstances, the Quesada plaintiffs prevailed on a significant issue in the case and secured the creation of a new minority opportunity district based in Tarrant County, and this provided a substantial benefit to them. Thus, the Quesada Plaintiffs have prevailed on a significant claim that they made in this case justifying an interim award of fees. The Supreme Court has determined that civil rights plaintiffs are prevailing parties if they succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing the suit. Texas State Teachers Assoc.v. Garland Indep.Sch.Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 789 (1989); Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754, (1980). In other words, the plaintiff must be able to point to a resolution of the dispute which changes the legal relationship between [it] and the defendant. Texas State Teachers Assoc., 489 U.S. at 792; see also Buckhannon Bd. &Care Home, Inc. v W. Va. Dep t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 604 (2001) (recognizing that a party prevails and is entitled to attorney s fees when that party obtains a material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties ). As a direct result of this lawsuit, the Quesada Plaintiffs changed the legal relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendants in a fundamental way. The State drew its 2011 plan in a 14 The March 19, 2012 Order expressly noted that Plaintiffs assert that the State failed to draw additional required minority opportunity districts in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex ( DFW )[.] Dkt. # 691 at p.3. This Court s March 19, 2012 Order also noted that the United States had made claims in the D.C. Court preclearance case nearly identical to the claims made by the Quesada Plaintiffs (and other Plaintiffs) in this case, stating: Further, the United States argues, Texas chose not to create any new minority ability districts despite the huge Hispanic population growth, and chose to remove hundreds of thousands of minority voters from districts in which they could elect their preferred candidates under the existing plan. The United States argues that this goal was achieved in part by intentionally splitting a number of cohesive minority communities and elsewhere packing minorities into existing ability districts to avoid creating any such new districts. The United States asserts that this occurred in the DFW area. Dkt.# 691 at

21 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 18 of 33 manner that failed to create any new minority districts in North Texas. The Quesada Plaintiffs, who are Latino and African American voters, were directly and negatively impacted by the proposed 2011 plan, which intentionally fractured them in the Tarrant and Dallas counties area. As noted above, see supra p. 12, the State Defendants took the position (in this Court and in the United States Supreme Court on appeal) that they should be permitted to put their 2011 congressional plan into effect without modification, despite the fact the plan had not received preclearance under the Voting Rights Act. Plaintiffs opposed the State s request, and both this Court and the Supreme Court ruled against Texas and did not permit the State to implement the unprecleared 2011 plans without modifications. Perry v. Perez, 565 U.S., 132 S. Ct. 934 (2012) (per curiam). Following the Supreme Court s decision, this Court found that the State s enacted plan could not be implemented in the 2012 elections because it likely would not receive Section 5 preclearance approval. See (Dkt. # 691). 15 On February 28, 2012, this Court ordered the State Defendants to implement a new congressional redistricting plan (C 235) in Dkt. # 681. As this Court explained in its Order of March 19, 2012 (Dkt. # 691): Plaintiffs have argued that this Court should impose an interim remedial map that differs from the plan enacted by the Texas legislature last year. This Court agrees. The Quesada Plaintiffs had sought precisely this relief in their complaint. See Quesada Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 84-1) at p. 19. Moreover, the reasons advanced by this three-judge Court for creating a new district in the DFW region track the same arguments that 15 This Court s February 28, 2012 Order stated that this interim plan is a result of preliminary determinations regarding the merits of the Section 2 and constitutional claims presented in this case, and application of the not insubstantial standard for the Section 5 claims, as required by the Supreme Court s decision in Perry v. Perez. 18

22 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 19 of 33 had been advanced (and evidence produced) by the Quesada Plaintiffs at the remedial hearing. 16 For example, this Court s March 19, 2012 Order noted that Texas s post-trial briefing fails to counter Plaintiffs allegations with regard to CD 6 and CD 33, or the alleged packing of CD 30. Dkt. # 691 at p. 36. The Quesada Plaintiffs made those same allegations. See Quesada Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, Dkt. # 84-1, at The Court s March 19, 2013 Order approving the interim plan also stated that the lightning bolt and other incursions are removed, and that [t]he contours of CD 33 are a result of addressing the not insubstantial Section 5 claims of cracking and packing and the application of neutral redistricting criteria. Dkt. # 691 at 38. Here again, these explanations for how CD 33 as drawn in the interim plan is aimed at curing the not insubstantial Section 5 claims track the allegations and requests for relief that had been made by the Quesada Plaintiffs (among others). See Quesada Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, Dkt. # 84-1, at 46; Quesada Plaintiffs Joint Brief on Interim Map Issues (Dkt. # 623 at 43) ( Referred to as the Broken Heart District, CD 12 in the State s proposed plan loops around the CD26 lightning bolt appendage to combine the large Anglo population in northwest Fort Worth and western Tarrant 16 As noted above, see supra p. 3, LULAC and the NAACP Plaintiffs also made these allegations and with the Quesada Plaintiffs took the lead in presenting evidence about the failure to create an effective African American opportunity district in DFW. 17 The Quesada Plaintiffs Amended Complaint alleged: Under the State s Congressional Plan, some of the Dallas- Fort Worth area s 1.4 million Hispanics are packed into District 30 while the rest of the Hispanic population in that region is fractured among seven different congressional districts. Splits of the Hispanic population occur between Districts 6 and 30 and in addition, other Hispanic neighborhoods are shifted into heavily Anglo Districts 5, 24, 26, 32 and 33; and African-American voters in the Dallas-Fort Worth region are fractured among Districts 3, 12, and 26. To effect this disenfranchisement and dilution of minority voters, the State s Plan twists electoral boundaries into incoherent configurations. Dkt. # 84-1 at 46. See also Quesada Plaintiffs Joint Brief on Interim Map Issues (Dkt. #623) at p. 58 ( In C185, the State packed a combined black and Hispanic population of 81.5% of the voting age population into the district ). 19

23 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 20 of 33 County with the SE Fort Worth, a heavily African-American area that comprises the third largest concentration of African Americans in Texas. ). 18 The Quesada Plaintiffs were victimized by the State s 2011 plan. Not only did they block that plan from ever taking effect, but they also played a significant role in bringing about a new district in the DFW region (CD 33) that functioned in 2012 under the interim plan as a district in which African American voters effectively elected a candidate of their choice. The legal relationship between the Quesada Plaintiffs and the State Defendants was plainly altered by the creation of new district 33 which, as we have noted, is now represented by one of the Quesada Plaintiffs (Congressman Marc Veasey). 19 Because Plaintiffs have obtain[ed] actual relief on the merits of [their] claim that materially alters the relationship between the parties by modifying the defendant s behavior in a way that directly benefits the plaintiff, Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 111 (1992), they are a prevailing party. See Texas State Teachers Assoc.v. Garland Indep.Sch.Dist., 489 U.S. at 789. B. The Quesada Plaintiffs Interim Fees Are Reasonable. Having prevailed on their North Texas claim, the only remaining question is whether the interim fees sought are reasonable. As explained below, the fees, expenses, and costs that the Quesada Plaintiffs seek are reasonable for litigation of this type and scope. An award of attorneys fees is calculated using the lodestar method, which is determined by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984); see also Hensley v. Eckerhart, The Quesada Plaintiffs also submitted evidence from Tarrant County Commissioner Roy Brooks, an African American, that the contorted lightning bolt through Tarrant County reflected the separation of Hispanic voters into CD 26 while placing black voters in CD 12[.] Dkt. #623 at Before this Court approved the interim plan, the Quesada Plaintiffs informed the Court that CD33 in Plan C226 is a clear improvement over the State s enacted Plan C185, which illegally fractures both Latino and African- American communities in violation of Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act and the United States Constitution. Quesada Plaintiffs Supplemental Advisory, Dkt. # 664 at p. 3, note 2. 20

24 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 21 of 33 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). The lodestar is presumed to be the reasonable fee, Blum, 465 U.S. at 888; accord People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 90 F.3d 1307, 1310 (7th Cir. 1996), and includes most, if not all, of the relevant factors constituting a reasonable attorneys fee. Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 566 (1986). Two issues are addressed below demonstrating the reasonableness of the Quesada Plaintiffs requested fees: 1) the reasonable number of hours expended by the Quesada counsel to litigate this case; and 2) the hourly rates sought by Plaintiffs counsel. As explained further below, both the hours incurred and the rates charged were reasonable for a case of this nature. 1. Quesada Plaintiffs Seek Compensation For A Reasonable Number of Hours. As this Court correctly observed in its March 19, 2012 decision, the claims presented in this case involve[d] difficult and unsettled legal issues as well as numerous factual disputes. Dkt. #691 at 1. This case involved important and difficult constitutional and federal statutory claims. Texas proposed congressional plan threatened the voting rights of Latino and African-American voters throughout the State. In the DFW region, the State s enacted plan (C185) intentionally cracked minority voters into several different districts to minimize and dilute their voting power. This Court characterized this case as involving complex issues (id. at 2), and that is most assuredly correct. Voting rights and redistricting cases like this one are among the most complex federal cases, ranking as the fifth most difficult to litigate out of 42 categories of cases (more difficult than antitrust and SEC/securities cases) according to the case weights issued by the Federal Judicial Center. See Exhibit J hereto. Plaintiffs thus appropriately hired experienced attorneys who have substantial redistricting and Voting Rights Act experience, including extensive experience with Texas 21

25 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 22 of 33 redistricting cases. See Declaration of J. Gerald Hebert ( Hebert Decl. ); Declaration of Paul M. Smith ( Smith Decl. ); Declaration of Armand Derfner (attached hereto as Exhibits A, E and H, respectively). For example, plaintiffs lead counsel during the trial of this case (J. Gerald Hebert) has represented clients in prior Texas redistricting and voting rights lawsuits going back several decades, including landmark cases that have reached the United States Supreme Court (e.g., Balderas v. State of Texas, Foreman v. Dallas County, and LULAC v. Perry). Mr. Hebert has served as lead counsel in many redistricting and voting rights cases throughout the United States and at all levels of the federal system. A listing of voting rights and redistricting cases he has handled is set forth in Exhibit B hereto. That listing shows he has served as lead counsel for a party or amicus curiae in over 100 such cases. Indeed, Mr. Hebert is one of our nation s foremost voting rights litigators. See Ex. J (Derfner Decl.); Ex. G (Wright Decl.) and Ex. H (Pershing Decl.). Plaintiffs additional counsel, Paul M. Smith of Jenner & Block, is nationally recognized as an authority on election law and the Voting Rights Act and has litigated numerous redistricting and Voting Rights Act cases, arguing cases such as Vieth v. Jubelirer, LULAC v. Perry, and Crawford v. Marion County Board of Elections in the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Smith was assisted in preparing a pre-litigation strategy memorandum by Associate Caroline Lopez, a member of Jenner & Block s Election Law and Redistricting Practice. Ex. E, Smith Decl. 6. The extensive experience of the Quesada Plaintiffs counsel, particularly in redistricting and voting rights cases, made them well-suited to handle the litigation responsibilities in this particular case. Ex. A, Hebert Decl. 3-6; Exhibit B, Hebert Listing of Cases Handled; Ex. E, Smith Decl. 2-5; Ex. H, Derfner Decl. 12; and Ex. I, Pershing Decl Given the 22

26 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 23 of 33 importance of the issues presented in this case, and the fact that the Quesada Plaintiffs counsel had handled similar cases in the past (and thus could perform their duties more efficiently than counsel with less experience in this area of law), Plaintiffs were quite reasonable in retaining attorney Hebert and Jenner & Block to advance their interests throughout the course of this litigation. Id. Plaintiffs lawyers also leanly staffed this case, totally avoiding any duplication of tasks and using attorneys with appropriate levels of experience to handle the various litigation tasks. Hebert Decl. 14. That this case was staffed leanly and without duplication of tasks was true not only among the Quesada Plaintiffs counsel, but also between counsel for the Quesada plaintiffs and counsel for the other Plaintiffs who were advancing similar claims (e.g., LULAC, NAACP). See Hebert Declaration (Exhibit A at 13). 20 That the Quesada Plaintiffs lawyers leanly staffed this case is also demonstrated by the fact that just one attorney (Mr. Hebert) performed the vast majority of the tasks at the trial court level, even though eight attorneys appeared on the pleadings as counsel for the Quesada Plaintiffs. Mr. Hebert assumed primary responsibility in this Court, with assistance from Jenner & Block in developing a pre-litigation strategy memorandum, which involved considerable research and analysis of Census data, election results, and relevant statutory and case law to determine the potential legal claims that could be made to maintain the existing majorityminority congressional districts and account for the growing minority population in creating new congressional districts. Mr. Hebert took the lead in drafting all pleadings and other filings, and 20 The overall fees and disbursements sought in this case are reasonable and well within the range of what would be expected for this type of complex litigation. See attached Exhibit F, Bruce V. Spiva Declaration, and Exhibit I, Stephen B. Pershing Declaration. That is especially true where, as here, the case implicated the important fundamental right to vote and the right to be free of discrimination in the redistricting process. 23

27 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 24 of 33 in handling the trial, drafting proposed interim remedial plans, and managing certain logistical matters, such as client communications. Hebert Decl. 13 and Quesada Plaintiffs counsel seeks compensation only for the hours and legal work involved in maintaining this action and securing relief in the North Texas area and for a portion of the fees incurred by Jenner & Block in developing a pre-litigation strategy memorandum. Those hours and legal services are described in the time sheets attached hereto as Exhibit C and, for the pre-litigation strategy memorandum, in the Declaration of Paul M. Smith (Exhibit E). As noted above, these fees pertain to work performed by Plaintiffs attorneys throughout the course of this intensive litigation, which included, among other things: drafting a pre-trial strategy memorandum; preparing and filing a complaint and amended complaint; responding to Defendants motions to dismiss and motion for summary judgment; responding to two different motions for a stay filed by Defendant Perry (including one in the U.S. Supreme Court); briefing an expedited appeal to the United States Supreme Court; conducting factual and expert discovery, including numerous depositions; responding to the factual and expert discovery propounded by the State; and presenting trial testimony and oral argument. Ex. A, Hebert Decl. 14; Ex. E, Smith Decl. 6. Quesada Plaintiffs counsel has continued to leanly staff the case, as Mr. Hebert prepared this fee motion, with minimal assistance from other attorneys, so as to minimize the amount of attorney time and fees. Ex. A, Hebert Decl Because Mr. Hebert is a sole practitioner without any legal support staff, he employed legal support staff whose services he has utilized in prior cases, and they who worked directly under his supervision and control. Ex. A, Hebert Decl., at As noted in Exhibit A, page 8 (Hebert Declaration), [t]o further reduce the number of attorney hours needed to litigate this case, [attorney Hebert] requested that the AngleStrategies legal support team serve as a case/client coordinator to undertake all logistics and facilitate communications to the client group. 24

28 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 25 of 33 Based on contemporaneous time records, the Plaintiffs counsel and legal support staff spent the following hours working on this case (as verified and substantiated in detail in the attached Declarations of J. Gerald Hebert): ATTORNEY HOURS J. Gerald Hebert 222.0* *J. Gerald Hebert is seeking fees for slightly less than 50% of the total amount of hours (see Ex. C) Paul M. Smith 1.5** Caroline D. Lopez 83.0** **Jenner & Block is only seeking fees for 50% of the total amount of hours (see Ex. E) NON-ATTORNEY STAFF HOURS AngleStrategies 227.0*** ***AngleStrategies has discounted their time by 50% at the request of counsel (see Ex. L) Quesada Plaintiffs attorney has reviewed the time records summarized above and described in Exhibits A, C, E and L. These records show sound and reasonable billing judgment. For example, Plaintiffs counsel excluded all of the time devoted to this case by five of the eight attorneys who entered appearances as counsel for the Quesada Plaintiffs. 23 Quesada Plaintiffs counsel also took care to exclude any time for work that might be deemed as properly excluded from a court-ordered fee award. Ex. A Hebert Decl. 14, and Ex. C. For example, Plaintiffs do not request compensation for activity that, although necessary for client relations, did not directly contribute to the litigation itself. In addition, Quesada Plaintiffs counsel does not seek fees for any of the time spent traveling to and from San Antonio in this case, which took at least eight hours of travel time for each roundtrip from Washington, DC to San Antonio. Id. Furthermore, Jenner & Block is only seeking 50% of the fees it incurred in preparation of the pre-litigation 23 These five attorneys representing the Quesada Plaintiffs for whom attorneys fees are not requested are: Gerald Goldstein and Donald Flanary III of Goldstein, Goldstein and Hilley; Jessica Ring Amunson and Michael DeSanctis of Jenner and Block; and attorney Jesse Gaines. 25

29 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 26 of 33 strategy memorandum. Ex. E, Smith Decl. 12. Plaintiffs also do not seek any fee enhancement above the lodestar method, despite Mr. Hebert s and Jenner & Block s considerable expertise and experience in this area. The hours that remain after the attorneys review of the time records were reasonably expended to accomplish the tasks necessary for the successful prosecution of this litigation and securing relief in the North Texas area. See Ex. A Hebert Decl. 12; Ex. E, Smith Decl. 6. Counsel for Quesada Plaintiffs has personally verified the time sheets of AngleStrategies employees as set forth in Exhibit L. Counsel has also reviewed his own contemporaneous notes of assignments given to AngleStrategies and has verified the entries on Exhibit L reflect assignments given by counsel and the time reported on those time records is correct. 2. The Hourly Rate Sought by Quesada Plaintiffs Counsel Is Reasonable. The hourly rate sought by Plaintiffs attorneys (Mr. Gerald Hebert, Paul M. Smith, and Caroline D. Lopez), as well as their paralegal/legal support staff, reflect their years of practice, litigation experience, and expertise. We explain below the exceptionally high level of experience and expertise justifying the hourly rate in this fee application. In addition, we have also attached to this motion Declarations of highly qualified attorneys attesting to the reasonableness of the hours and the hourly rate being sought here. J. Gerald Hebert s Hourly Rate. 24 Mr. Hebert, who seeks an hourly rate of $650 in this case, is now in his fortieth year of practicing law, having spent all but six years in the field of voting rights and redistricting. He is widely recognized as one of the leading voting rights and redistricting litigators in the United States. See Declaration of Bruce V. Spiva (Exhibit F hereto); Declaration of Brenda Wright 24 The reasonableness of the hourly rates of Paul M. Smith and Caroline D. Lopez are addressed in the attached declaration. See Ex. E, Smith Decl

30 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 27 of 33 (Exhibit G hereto); Declaration of Armand Derfner (Exhibit H hereto); and Declaration of Stephen B. Pershing (Exhibit I hereto). Mr. Hebert works out of his office in the Washington, DC area, and thus his hourly rate reflects the appropriate market rate for the DC area. 25 See Ex. F, Spiva Declaration; see also Ex. I, Stephen B. Pershing Declaration. As detailed in his Declaration (Exhibit A) and the listing of cases in Exhibit B, Mr. Hebert has handled over 100 voting rights cases in his forty-year career, with a number of cases ultimately decided in the United States Supreme Court, including Johnson v. DeGrandy, Pressley v. Etowah County, Shaw v. Reno, and LULAC v. Perry. In the vast majority of the voting rights or redistricting cases he has handled, Mr. Hebert has served as the lead trial attorney. Ex. A, Hebert Decl. at 4-7, and Ex. B. In addition to his vast litigation experience and expertise, Mr. Hebert also has published or co-authored articles on voting rights and redistricting in scholarly journals (e.g., Yale Journal of Law and Policy, George Mason University Law Review, and LaRaza Law Journal at the University of California at Berkeley). Ex. A at 9. He has given lectures or participated in 25 Because attorney Hebert practices in the District of Columbia or the DC area, his hourly rate is properly based on prevailing market rates in D.C. See McClain v. Lufkin Indus., Inc., 649 F.3d 374, 383 (5th Cir. 2011) (holding that district court legally erred in suggesting that local community rates are always required when out-of-district counsel are employed, and remanding to district court to recalculate fees using the firm s California rates as the starting point.). However, even if the prevailing market rates for complex cases in the Western District of Texas were used, the hourly rate of Plaintiffs counsel in this case is well within that range. As MALC has noted in its interim fee motion in this case (Dkt. #698), in a far less significant voting rights case than this one that was brought in the Western District of Texas, litigants submitted affidavits of attorneys supporting their requested attorneys fees stating that the prevailing market rates in the Western District of Texas are as follows: 5 years of experience -$340.00per hour; 6 years of experience -$ per hour; 7 years of experience -$ per hour; 11 years of experience -$ per hour; and 18 years of experience -$ per hour. LULAC V. City of Boerne, Civ. Action # 96-cv-808, Doc and Doc (Affidavits of Reagan Simpson and Scott A. Brister.) Thus, according to the affidavits in LULAC v. Boerne, Mr. Hebert s hourly rate of $650 is below the hourly rate for attorneys with his level of experience in the Western District of Texas. Furthermore, the attached sworn Declarations by attorneys supporting this fee motion establish that the rates requested for Mr. Hebert and his staff are very reasonable and well within the range of or lower than the prevailing market rates in the D.C. area. See Exhibit F (Spiva Declaration) and Exhibit I (Pershing Declaration). 27

31 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 28 of 33 conferences on voting rights issues at Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, William and Mary Law School, among other law schools across the country. Mr. Hebert has taught voting rights classes at Georgetown University Law Center (from , and 2013), American University s Washington College of Law, and co-taught a voting rights course in 1996 with legal scholar Pamela Karlan at the University of Virginia Law School. Id. 26 Mr. Hebert s hourly rate is similar to prevailing market rates charged by attorneys of comparable experience and expertise. As indicated in the Laffey Matrix, 27 for attorneys with twenty years or more experience, the hourly rate is currently $771 per hour in the D.C. metropolitan area. In , when much of this case was litigated, the Laffey Matrix showed that the hourly rate for attorneys with 20 or more years of experience was $734 per hour. Thus, Mr. Hebert s hourly rate is actually lower than the Laffey Matrix rate for an attorney with his years of experience, and is also lower than other experienced attorneys in law firms in the Washington, DC area (Exhibit I, Pershing Declaration) ( Washington lawyers with lengthy, high-level federal litigation experience now charge significantly more, and some bill up to and in excess of $1,000 an hour. ). The hourly rates for the Quesada Plaintiffs and legal support staff are as follows: ATTORNEY RATE J. Gerald Hebert $ Paul M. Smith $ Caroline D. Lopez $ NON-ATTORNEY STAFF RATE AngleStrategies $ Mr. Hebert also has been quoted or cited in numerous articles or broadcasts as an authority on voting rights, and has appeared frequently as a panelist at conferences, including the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), where he has instructed state legislators from across the country on voting rights and redistricting law. Ex. A, Hebert Decl. at The methodology of calculation and benchmarking for the Laffey Matrix has been approved in a number of cases. See, e.g., McDowell v. District of Columbia, Civ. A. No (RCL), LEXSEE 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8114 (D.D.C. June 4, 2001); Salazar v. Dist. of Col., 123 F.Supp.2d 8 (D.D.C. 2000). 28

32 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 29 of 33 II. PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS FEES AWARD SHOULD EQUAL $202, Multiplying the time worked by each attorney and the legal support staff by the hourly rates for each year yields the following calculation: ATTORNEY HRS RATE TOTAL J. Gerald Hebert 222.0* $ $144, * As noted above, Mr. Hebert has sought fees for 50%of the hours he actually expended in this case. Paul M. Smith 0.75** $875 $ Caroline D. Lopez 41.5** $435 $18, ** As noted above, this is only 50% of the hours actually expended by Jenner & Block on the pre-trial strategy memorandum. NON-ATTORNEY STAFF HRS RATE TOTAL AngleStrategies 227*** $ $39, *** includes 50% discount ALL FEES SUBTOTAL: $202, C. Quesada Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Recover Their Out of Pocket Expenses and Costs. With regard to expenses and costs, the time sheets and expenses/invoices attached (Exhibit C) to the Hebert Declaration (Exhibit A) and the AngleStrategies timesheets and expenses (Exhibit L) detail the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the Quesada Plaintiffs. These expenses were necessarily incurred and are the type of out-of-pocket expenses normally billed to fee-paying clients. Ex. A, Hebert Decl. 14. As such, they are recoverable as part of plaintiffs attorneys fees. See West Virginia Univ. Hosp., Inc. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83, 87 n.3 (1991). Additional verification and documentation of these expenses and costs is attached to this motion in Exhibits A, C and L. These costs are recoverable as defined by 28 U.S.C and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d), as well as other disbursements that were billed to and paid by Plaintiffs as a component of attorneys fees. See Hebert Declaration at

33 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 30 of 33 It is also appropriate to require Defendants to reimburse Plaintiff s attorneys for reasonable costs. An award of reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, for example, includes an award of reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the attorney which are normally charged to a fee paying client. Neufeld v. Searle Labs., 884 F.2d 335, 342 (8thCir. 1989) (citing Laffey v. Nw.Airlines, Inc., 746 F.2d 4, 30 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 472 U.S (1985)); see also Rendon v. AT&T Techs., 883 F.2d 388, 399 (5thCir. 1989) (timely request for fees and expenses is appropriate). Here, Plaintiff has included in the supporting Declaration a detailed accounting requesting compensation for such out of pocket expenses as travel, exhibit preparation, copies, map production, deposition costs, and the like. These are the sorts of expenses generally charged to a fee paying client and should be reimbursed fully. Expert Fees The fee shifting provision authorizing an award of attorneys fees in this case specifically authorizes the award of fees for expert costs. 42 U.S.C. 1973l(e) ( In any action or proceeding to enforce the voting guarantees of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney s fee, reasonable expert fees, and other reasonable litigation expenses as part of the costs. ). Here, the Quesada Plaintiffs hired only one expert witness (Dr. Allan Lichtman), who prepared a report and testified at trial. Dr. Lichtman s report and testimony at trial addressed specifically the issue of racially discriminatory purpose and impact of the State s enacted 2011 congressional plan in the Fort Worth region. That report and testimony was important in establishing that the State s plan would not likely receive preclearance, which was one of the bases for this Court s order imposing an interim plan in The out-of pocket expert witness 30

34 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 31 of 33 fees were relatively modest, totaling $22,500. See Exhibits C and L, reflecting these payments. Defendants cannot be heard to argue that an expert witness was not needed or that the amount of expert fees sought here is unreasonable; after all, the State Defendants filed four (4) expert witness reports in this case. See State of Texas Witness, Expert and Exhibit List of August 22, 2011 (Dkt. # 223) In sum, Quesada Plaintiffs also seek reimbursement for associated expenses in this case in the amount of $54,847.67, 28 an amount that encompasses all costs as defined by 28 U.S.C. 1920, Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d), and Local Rule 7(j), as well as other disbursements that were billed to and paid by Quesada Plaintiffs as a component of attorneys fees. See Ex. A, Hebert Decl. at 14, and Exhibit C, Hebert Time and Out of Pocket Expense Records. Adding attorneys fees and expenses, the Quesada Plaintiffs request a total compensation of $257, The fees and expenses are substantiated by the Declarations of counsel and other documentary exhibits attached to this Brief. CONCLUSION The attorneys fees sought here are reasonable and not excessive. They are consistent with those rates normally charged by the Plaintiffs attorneys to their fee-paying clients for the type of work in question, and they are within the prevailing market rate charged by attorneys of comparable experience and expertise. Likewise, the expenses and costs sought here are due to be recovered as they were necessarily incurred during the course of the lawsuit as out-of-pocket expenses, and are of the same type as those ordinarily charged to clients by counsel. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, this Court should award Quesada Plaintiffs their interim attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and costs as requested. 28 This total amount of expenses ($54,847.67) reflects out-of pocket expenses incurred by Plaintiffs counsel to successfully litigate this case. (See Exhibit A (Hebert Declaration), Exhibit C (Out of Pocket Expenses Incurred by J. Gerald Hebert = $37,342.51), and Exhibit L (Out of Pocket Expenses of AngleStrategies = $17,505.16). 31

35 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 32 of 33 Respectfully submitted, GERALD HARRIS GOLDSTEIN DONALD H. FLANARY, III GOLDSTEIN, GOLDSTEIN & HILLEY Tower Life Building 310 S. St. Mary's, 29th Floor San Antonio, TX78205 (210) Fax: (210) /s/ J. Gerald Hebert J.GERALD HEBERT 191SomervelleStreet, #405 Alexandria, VA Tel. (703) Admitted pro hac vice PAUL M. SMITH JESSICA RING AMUNSON JENNER & BLOCK LLP 1099 New York Ave., NW Suite 900 Washington, DC Tel (202) Fax (202) JESSE GAINES TX Bar No PO Box Ft Worth, TX (817) Attorneys for Quesada Plaintiffs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 9 th day of August, 2013, I served a copy of the foregoing Quesada Plaintiffs Motion for Interim Fees, Expenses and Costs, the foregoing Brief in support thereof, and attached Exhibits A-L on counsel who are registered to receive NEFs through the CM/ECF system. All attorneys who have not yet registered to receive NEFs have been served via first-class mail, postage prepaid. /s/ J. Gerald Hebert J. GERALD HEBERT 32

36 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 33 of 33 EXHIBITS TO QUESADA PLAINTIFFS MOTION AND BRIEF FOR INTERIM AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES EXHIBIT A Declaration of J. GERALD HEBERT EXHIBIT B Listing of Voting/Election Cases Handled by Hebert EXHIBIT C Hebert Time and Expense Records (Part 1) EXHIBIT D Updated Laffey Matrix on Attorneys Fees EXHIBIT E Declaration of PAUL M. SMITH with Biographical Information for Attorneys Smith & Lopez EXHIBIT F Declaration of BRUCE V. SPIVA EXHIBIT G Declaration of BRENDA WRIGHT EXHIBIT H Declaration of ARMAND DERFNER EXHIBIT I Declaration of STEPHEN B. PERSHING EXHIBIT J Federal Judicial Center, Case Weighting Study EXHIBIT K TLC REDAPPL Report Comparing Quesada Proposed Remedial Plan C 205 to Interim Plan C 235 (Parts 1 and 2) EXHIBIT L Time and Expenses Records of AngleStrategies 33

37 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION SHANNON PEREZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-CA-360-OLG-JES-XR STATE OF TEXAS, et al., [Lead Case] Defendants. MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS, TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. SA-11-CA-361-OLG-JES-XR [Consolidated Case] STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Defendants. TEXAS LATINO REDISTRICTING TASK FORCE, et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. SA-11-CA-490-OLG-JES-XR [Consolidated Case] RICK PERRY, Defendant. MARGARITA V. QUESADA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-11-CA-592-OLG-JES-XR RICK PERRY, et al., [Consolidated Case] Defendants.

38 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 2 of 10 JOHN T. MORRIS, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-11-CA-615-OLG-JES-XR STATE OF TEXAS, et al., [Consolidated Case] Defendants. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-11-CA-635-OLG-JES-XR RICK PERRY, et al., [Consolidated Case] Defendants. DECLARATION OF J. GERALD HEBERT Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, I, J. Gerald Hebert, declare that: 1. I am one of the attorneys who represented Plaintiffs Margarita Quesada, et al., (hereafter Quesada Plaintiffs ) in the above-captioned case. The testimony set forth in this Declaration is based on first-hand knowledge, about which I could and would testify competently in open Court if called upon to do so, and on records contemporaneously generated and kept by my Firm in the ordinary course of its law practice. I make this Declaration in support of the Quesada Plaintiffs motion for an interim award of attorneys fees and expenses. 2. I received a B.A. degree from Stonehill College in 1970 and graduated from Suffolk University School of Law in I am a member of the Virginia, D.C. and Pennsylvania (inactive) bars. I am also a member of the bar of the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Eleventh and D. C. Circuits, the United States District Court for Eastern District of Virginia, and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 2

39 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 3 of Following my graduation from law school, from 1973 until 1994, I served as a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. For the last fifteen years of my service at the Department of Justice ( ), I was assigned to the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division where I worked exclusively on cases involving federally protected voting rights. While employed in the Voting Section from 1979 to 1994, I served in a number of supervisory capacities, including Special Litigation Counsel, Deputy Chief, and Acting Chief of the Voting Section. 4. While at the Department of Justice, I served as the lead trial attorney for the United States in numerous voting rights cases, a number of which ultimately became landmark cases in the field of voting rights. Cases that I handled at the Department of Justice that were the subject of United States Supreme Court decisions included City of Mobile v. Bolden, Rogers v. Lodge, Johnson v. DeGrandy, Presley v. Etowah County, City of Port Arthur, Texas v. U.S., and Shaw v. Reno. A complete listing of cases I handled at the United States Department of Justice is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit B (Part I). 5. Since leaving the Department of Justice in May 1994, I have been a sole practitioner with an office in Alexandria, Virginia, where I specialize in voting rights cases, especially redistricting cases and cases brought to enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended. A listing of the cases I have handled in my solo practice is also set forth in Exhibit B (Part II). 6. In addition, from , I served part-time as a staff attorney in the Voting Rights Project of the national office of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law in Washington, DC. In that position, I assisted with defense of constitutional challenges to majority-minority congressional districts under the Shaw v. Reno doctrine. 3

40 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 4 of In addition to my solo practice, from July 2004 to the present, I have served as Executive Director and Director of Litigation at the Campaign Legal Center, a non-profit, nonpartisan organization in Washington DC. In that capacity, I have represented a party or amicus curiae in dozens of campaign finance cases throughout the United States, including a number of cases decided by the United States Supreme Court (e.g., Citizens United v. FEC, McComish v. Bennett, Davis v. FEC, and most recently, McCutcheon v. FEC (pending)). Exhibit B (Part III) is a listing of the cases I have worked on in my capacity as Director of Litigation at the Campaign Legal Center. I handled this Texas redistricting lawsuit as part of my solo practice and not as part of my affiliation with the Campaign Legal Center. In fact, I took a leave of absence from the Campaign Legal Center to handle this case during discovery, the trial and remedial hearings. 8. From January 1995 to 2005, I served as an Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, DC, where I taught Election Law, which included voting rights, campaign finance regulation and election law cases. In 1995, I also served as an Adjunct Professor of Law at American University s Washington College of Law, where I taught a course on the Voting Rights Act and the political process. In 1997, I co-taught a course on the Voting Rights Act at the University of Virginia Law School with nationally renowned Law Professor Pam Karlan. In , I will again be an Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center, where I will co-teach a practicum course on election law with Paul M. Smith, a partner at the law firm of Jenner and Block and one of my co-counsel in this case. 9. I have written a number of publications, books and articles on the Voting Rights Act or redistricting. For example, in 2000, I co-authored a book on redistricting with current United 4

41 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 5 of 10 States Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, along with several other attorneys at Jenner and Block (including Paul Smith, Sam Hirsch (currently a senior official at the U.S. Department of Justice), and Heather Gerken, now a law professor at Yale Law School). That book was entitled The Realists Guide to Redistricting, which was published by the American Bar Association in 2000, and republished 2010 (2 nd edition). I also recently co-authored an article on redistricting reform for the Yale Law and Policy Journal, articles on Bailouts under the Voting Rights Act, and law journal articles. Several of these have been co-authored with other counsel, or academic scholars who have served as expert witnesses in voting rights cases, including: Yale Law and Policy Journal, The Need For State Redistricting Reform To Rein In Partisan Gerrymandering, Vol. 29, Issue 2 (2011); Rutgers Law Journal (co-authored); Redistricting in the Post-2000 Era, George Mason University Law Review, Volume 8, Number 3 (Spring 2000); General Theory of Vote Dilution, La Raza Law Journal, Boalt Hall School of Law; University of California at Berkeley (Vol. 6, No. 1)(1993)(co-authored); Future of Voting Rights Litigation: Elections at the Legislative Level, La Raza Law Journal, Boalt Hall School of Law (Vol. 6, No. 1)(1993); Keeping The Courts Honest: The Role of Historians as Expert Witnesses in Southern Voting Rights Cases Southern University Law Review (Vol. 16, No. 1)(Spring 1989)(co-authored); Civil Rights Law: High Court Decision on Voting Rights Act Helps To Remove Minority Barriers National Law Journal (November 1986); and Discriminatory Electoral Systems and the Political Cohesion Doctrine, National Law Journal (Vol. 10, No. 4)(1987) (co-authored). I also have written several articles about voting rights for publications that are geared to state and local governments, including publications by the Texas Municipal League and the Nation s Cities Weekly. 5

42 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 6 of I have lectured before numerous meetings and conventions held by bar and other organizations on voting rights, reapportionment, and civil rights, including the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Association of Southern State Legislatures, the Virginia Association of Local Government Attorneys, and reapportionment authorities in the States of Louisiana, Maryland, New Mexico, Texas, and Virginia, among others. I have also given lectures or participated as a panelist and made presentations on voting rights issues at Yale Law School, Harvard Law School, Washington and Lee University Law School, University of Richmond Law School, William and Mary Law School, and Rutgers Law School, among others. 11. My private practice is exclusively in the area of voting rights, campaign finance, and constitutional rights focusing on voting. My hourly rate in this case is $650 per hour, given the complexity and novelty of the issues, the high visibility and importance of the case, and my experience handling cases such as this. 12. I have reviewed the summary of hours that I have expended in this case that is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit C, and that summary is true and accurate. The summary of hours in Exhibit C is based on contemporaneous records of the activities in the case maintained as business records in my law office. The hours expended were necessary in rendering legal services to the Quesada Plaintiffs in this case. I also have reviewed the listing of expenses included within Exhibit C. Those expenses were out of pocket expenses necessarily incurred by me to conduct the litigation in this case, and are of the type normally billed by me (and other law firms) to fee-paying clients. 13. As counsel for the Quesada Plaintiffs, I have exercised reasonable billing judgment in this case. I have excluded from my fee request hundreds of hours of time for which I could 6

43 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 7 of 10 be compensated. I have attempted to limit my time to those hours I spent litigating issues involving North Texas, an area where the court s interim plan resulted in a new district (CD 33) in which African American voters elected their candidate of choice to Congress (Marc Veasey, one of the Quesada Plaintiffs). I did not include in this fee request the time I spent working on this case that was directed to other areas of the State (e.g., South Texas, District 23 issues, Nueces County, and Travis County), though I did substantial work there. I excluded those hours because I recognized that other plaintiffs counsel took the lead in other geographic parts of the State. By agreement among counsel, the Quesada Plaintiffs that I represented in this case were last among the plaintiff groups to present evidence and make arguments to this Court. Though I focused the Quesada Plaintiffs challenge to the North Texas region, I often discussed the case and communicated with other plaintiffs attorneys in this case about litigation strategy and evidence they would offer concerning other regions of the State. This enabled me to avoid duplication of their efforts and permitted me to focus the Quesada Plaintiffs case on issues involving North Texas. As the attorney who was mainly responsible for litigating the case in the district court, I also staffed the case leanly. For example, I took the lead in drafting all pleadings and other filings, and handling the trial, drafting proposed interim remedial plans, and overseeing and managing certain logistical matters, such as client communications. The Jenner attorneys, with minimal involvement by me, took the lead in responding to Texas motion for a stay filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as briefing an expedited appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Thus, although a number of other attorneys worked on this case as my co-counsel, there are no excessive, redundant, or unnecessary hours included in the time sheets detailed in this request for an award of attorneys fees. Moreover, to avoid duplication, I 7

44 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 8 of 10 coordinated closely my presentation of this case with counsel for other Plaintiffs who were advancing similar claims (e.g., LULAC, NAACP). 14. I also have reviewed the time records (and expense listings) for work performed by my co-counsel at the law firm of Jenner and Block (Paul M. Smith and Caroline Lopez). All of the work set forth in the Declaration of my co-counsel were necessary to the litigation of this case and were not duplicative of any of the work I did. I made a conscientious effort to avoid duplication of work by agreeing, in advance, with my co-counsel on a division of labor in those instances where more than one attorney worked on the case simultaneously. For example, my co-counsel at Jenner and Block developed a pre-litigation strategy memorandum, which involved considerable research and analysis of Census data, election results, and relevant statutory and case law to determine the potential legal claims that could be made to maintain the existing majority-minority congressional districts and account for the growing minority population in creating new congressional districts. I have not billed for any of the work I performed (pre-complaint) in preparing the case. I also took responsibility for preparing this fee motion, with minimal assistance from other attorneys, so as to minimize the amount of attorney time and fees involved. I also excluded from this fee motion numerous hours that I spent travelling back and forth from Washington, DC to Texas. I also carefully monitored expenses to insure that only necessary and reasonable costs were incurred. These expenses were incurred by me as out-of-pocket expenses, were expended to successfully prosecute this case, and are the type of out-of-pocket expenses normally billed by me and other Firms to fee-paying clients. 15. Since I am a solo practitioner without litigation support staff in my Firm, I retained AngleStrategies to provide me with litigation support throughout this case. I have employed 8

45 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 9 of 10 AngleStrategies in prior cases to provide me with legal support and mapping services, which are obviously essential in redistricting cases such as this one. To maximize efficiency and reduce the number of attorney hours counsel would work on this case, I delegated to them numerous litigation tasks, including preparation and copying of exhibits and exhibit books, deposition summaries, data gathering, map analysis and preparation, and initial analysis of proposed or alternative redistricting plans. Exhibit L reflects the time sheets produced by AngleStrategies at my request. I have personally reviewed those time sheets, and compared them as well to my own contemporary notes at the time, to verify their accuracy. I have verified that the AngleStrategies time sheets set out in Exhibit L reflect the time that AngleStrategies spent providing legal support and mapping services to the Quesada Plaintiffs, and I can attest to their accuracy and reasonableness. The legal support and mapping services rendered to my law firm by AngleStrategies were absolutely essential to my ability to maintain this action, and all work performed by them was undertaken at my direction and under my constant supervision and control. After AngleStrategies totaled their time spent on this case and provided it to me, I verified the time spent and then requested that AngleStrategies discount their time by 50% to be consistent with the fee discounts provided in this case by counsel for the Quesada Plaintiffs, and they have done so. I also have reviewed and verified the listing of expenses included within Exhibit L. Those expenses were out-of-pocket expenses of AngleStrategies that were necessarily incurred in order to enable me to efficiently and effectively conduct the litigation in this case, and are of the type normally incurred in this type of litigation, and billed by me (and other law firms) to fee-paying clients. 9

46 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 10 of To further reduce the number of attorney hours needed to litigate this case, I requested that the AngleStrategies legal support team serve as a case/client coordinator for me to undertake all logistics and facilitate communications to the client group. I have excluded from my time records all of my communications with the client group, even when those communications involved the North Texas claims in the case. Ongoing and updated communications with clients in a case of this nature, given the impending election deadlines we faced as well as the size and geographic diversity of the client group, were necessary and AngleStrategies role in undertaking that coordination and arranging my timely communication with the clients was the most cost-effective way of fulfilling those requirements. 1 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: August 9, 2013 /s/ J. Gerald Hebert J. GERALD HEBERT 1 Both the Texas Rules of Professional Conduct and the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct require lawyers to keep their clients reasonably informed about the case and to comply promptly with clients requests for information about the status of the case. This obligation includes providing clients with status reports on the lawsuit, as well as communications from other parties that may significantly affect settlement or resolution of the case. See Texas Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 1.03) and Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 1.04). 10

47 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 1 of 19 EXHIBIT B Part I Cases In Which J. Gerald Hebert Has Served As Legal Counsel for the United States Listed below are cases in which I have appeared as legal counsel. I have divided the cases into two categories: 1) those cases where I served as lead attorney for the Government and the Government was a party to the lawsuit; and 2) those cases where I served as lead attorney for the Government and the Government participated as amicus curiae. Cases marked with an asterisk * are cases involving Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, those marked with a double asterisk ** are Section 4 or 5 Voting Rights Act cases, and those marked with a triple asterisk *** are language minority cases under the Voting Rights Act (Section 203 cases). 1. Voting rights cases where I served as lead counsel for the United States in the trial court and the United States was a party to the litigation: Bolden and United States v. City of Mobile, 446 U.S. 55 (1980) Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997 (1994) * County Council of Sumter County, South Carolina v. United States, 555 F. Supp. 694 (D.D.C. 1983) (3-judge court) ** Shaw v. Barr, C.A. No CIV-5-BR (E.D.N.C. 1992)(three-judge court), reversed sub nom. Shaw v. Reno, 113 S. Ct (1993) City of Port Arthur, Texas v. U.S., 459 U.S. 159 (1982) ** Brown and United States v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 706 F.2d 1103 (11th Cir. 1983) United States v. Dallas County Commission, 850 F.2d 1430 (11th Cir. 1988)* United States v. Marengo County Commission, 811 F.2d 619 (11th Cir. 1987) * United States v. State of South Carolina and Horry County, C.A. No (D. So. Car.)(three-judge court) ** State of Mississippi v. United States, No (D.D.C.)(three-judge court) ** United States v. State of Georgia, No. 1:90-CV-1749-RCF (N.D. Ga.) * Georgia v. Reno, C.A. No (D.D.C. 1995)(three-judge court) **

48 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 2 of 19 United States v. State of Arizona, CV PHX EHC (D. Ariz.)*** United States v. Socorro County, New Mexico, C.A. No JP (D. N.M.) *** United States v. Brooks County, GA, No Thom (M.D. Ga.)* United States v. State of Wisconsin, No. 92C-0263-S (W.D. Wisc.) United States v. McKinley County, NM, No M (D. N.M.)*** United States v. State of South Carolina, No. 3: (D. SO. CAR.)(three-judge court) ** United States v. Cibola County, NM, No. CIV SC (D. N.M.)*** United States v. Lawrence County, MS,(S.D. Miss. 1983)(three-judge court) ** United States v. City of Demopolis, (S.D. Ala. 1986) * United States v. Laurens County, SC, C.A. No. 6: (D.S.C. 1987) * United States v. City of Spartanburg, SC, (D.S.C. 1987)* United States v. Town of Zebulon, GA, (N.D. Ga.) *, ** United States v. Wilkes County Board of Ed., (S.D. Ga.) United States v. County Council of Sumter County, SC, (D.S.C.)(three-judge court) ** United States v. Town of Indian Head, MD, (D. Md.) * United States v. City of Laurel, MS, (S.D. Miss. 1981) * United States v. County Council of Colleton County, SC, No (D.S.C. 1981)(three-judge court) ** United States v. City of Houston, TX, No (S.D. Tex.)(three-judge court)** United States v. Victoria ISD, TX, C.A. No. V (S.D. Tex. 1986)(three-judge court) ** United States v. City of Barnwell, SC, No. 1: (D.S.C. 1986) ** Medina County, TX v. United States,(D.D.C.)(three-judge court) ** 2

49 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 3 of 19 Gregg County, TX v. United States,(D.D.C.)(three-judge court) ** United States v. Jones, 846 F. Supp. 955 (S.D. Ala. 1994) * United States v. City of Augusta, GA, (S.D. Ga.) * United States v. Wicomico County, MD, No. MJG (D. Md. 1991) * United States v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, LA, C.A. No (M.D. La.) * 2. Cases where I served as lead counsel for the United States in the trial court and the United States appeared as amicus curiae in the litigation: Blanding v. Dubose, 454 U.S. 393 (1982) (I represented the United States as amicus curiae before the three-judge court in this successful lawsuit brought to enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act) ** Lodge v. Buxton, aff'd sub nom. Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S. 613 (1982)(I represented the United States as amicus curiae before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in this successful lawsuit brought under the Voting Rights Act and the United States Constitution) * Martin v. Mabus, 700 F.Supp. 327 (S.D. Miss. 1988)(three-judge court)(remedy)(i represented the United States as amicus curiae before the three-judge court in this successful lawsuit brought to enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act) ** SCLC v. Siegelman, C.A. No. 88-D-462-N (M.D. Ala.)(I represented the United States which filed a brief as amicus curiae in this lawsuit brought by private plaintiffs to enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act) ** Clark v. Roemer, C.A. No (M.D. La.)(three-judge court)(i represented the United States which filed a brief as amicus curiae in this lawsuit brought by private plaintiffs to enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act) ** Lopez v. Monterey County, California, No. C RMW (EAI) (N.D. Cal.)(three-judge court) (I represented the United States which filed a brief as amicus curiae in this lawsuit brought by private plaintiffs to enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act)** 3

50 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 4 of 19 Part II Voting Rights and Election Cases In Which J. Gerald Hebert Has Served As Legal Counsel As a Solo Practitioner (1994 to the Present) Listed below are cases in which I have appeared as legal counsel in my solo law practice, 1994 to the present. Cases marked with an asterisk * are cases involving Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, those marked with a double asterisk ** are Section 4 or 5 Voting Rights Act cases, and those marked with a triple asterisk *** are language minority cases under the Voting Rights Act (Section 203 cases). Cases in bold are cases where I served as lead counsel for the party I represented: 1994 to 2000: CITY OF ANDREWS, TX V. RENO, No. 1:95CV01477 (D.D.C. 1996)(three-judge court) (I represented the City of Andrews, Texas in this lawsuit against the United States Attorney General in which the City obtained a declaratory judgment that changes adopted by the City were entitled to preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act)** DILLARD v. CITY OF FOLEY, AL, No. CV 87-T-1213-N (M.D. Ala.)(I represented private plaintiffs in this successful challenge under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and Constitution to the City of Foley's racially selective annexation policy) * FOREMAN v. COMMISSIONERS COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, TX (N.D. TX) (3- judge court) (I represented private plaintiffs in a suit which established that the changes in the discretionary method of selecting polling officials was a covered change under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act)** PEGRAM and UNITED STATES v. CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS, VA, No. 4: (E.D. Va.) (I represented private plaintiffs in this successful suit challenging the City's at-large method of election under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act) * SIMPSON V. CITY OF HAMPTON, VA, No. 4:95cv83 (E.D. Va.)(I represented private plaintiffs in this suit challenging the City's at-large method of election under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act) * SOUTH CAROLINA CONFERENCE OF BRANCHES OF THE NAACP v. TOWN OF HEMINGWAY, SC, No. 4: (D.S.C.) (I represented plaintiffs in this lawsuit brought under the Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act challenging Hemingway's racially selective annexation policy) * 4

51 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 5 of 19 RICHMOND CRUSADE FOR VOTERS v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, No. 3:95cv531 (E.D. Va.) (I represented plaintiffs who successfully challenged the Commonwealth of Virginia's refusal to implement the provisions of the National Voter Registration Act) MOON v. MEADOWS, 952 F. Supp. 1941(E.D. Va. 1997)(three-judge court)(i represented a group of voters who intervened as defendants in this lawsuit challenging, on racial gerrymandering grounds, congressional redistricting in Virginia) KING v. STATE BD OF ELECTIONS, No. 95-C-827(N.D. Ill. 1995)(three-judge court) (I filed a brief amicus curiae before the three-judge court in 1996 on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in this lawsuit challenging congressional redistricting in Illinois) VERA v. BUSH, 116 S. Ct (1996)(I appeared as counsel for three incumbent members of Congress whose districts were challenged or affected by this lawsuit challenging congressional redistricting in Texas. One of the three members was granted amicus status) ABRAMS v. JOHNSON (I filed a brief amicus curiae in the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of the Georgia Association of Black Elected Officials in this lawsuit challenging congressional redistricting in Georgia) CITY OF FAIRFAX v. RENO, C.A. No JR (D.D.C. 1997)(three-judge court)(i represented the City of Fairfax, Virginia, in this first post-1982 suit brought to obtain a declaratory judgment and bailout from coverage under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The bailout judgment was granted to the City in October 1997).** SHENANDOAH COUNTY v. RENO, C.A. No PLF (D.D.C. 1999)(three-judge court)(i represented Shenandoah County, Virginia, in this suit brought to obtain a declaratory judgment and bailout from coverage under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The bailout judgment was granted to the County in 1999.)** FREDERICK COUNTY v. RENO, C.A. No CKK (D.D.C. 1999)(three-judge court)(i represented Frederick County, Virginia, in this suit brought to obtain a declaratory judgment and bailout from coverage under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The bailout judgment was granted to the County in 1999.)** JENKINS v. CITY OF OZARK, ALABAMA, No. CV97-A-1450-S (M.D. Ala. 1997)(threejudge court)(i represent the plaintiffs in this successful Section 5 enforcement action)** LULAC V. CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, No. A97 CA 908SS(W.D. Tex. 1998)(three-judge court)(i represented the City of Austin, Texas in this Section 5 enforcement action).** 5

52 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 6 of 19 BAKER V. RAINBOW CITY, AL., No. 97-PT-3014 (N.D. Ala. 1997)(three-judge court)(i represented plaintiffs who successfully brought suit to enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act)** WILSON V. CITY OF ATTALLA, AL., No.97-AR-3195 (N.D. Ala. 1997)(three-judge court)(i represented plaintiffs who successfully brought suit to enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act)** HAYS V. LOUISIANA, 839 F. Supp (W.D. La. 1994)(three-judge court)(i represented individual voters and members of the Louisiana Legislature who participated as amicus curiae in this lawsuit challenging congressional redistricting in Louisiana) JOHNSON V. MORTHAM, No. CV (N.D. Fla.)(three-judge court) (I represented Congresswoman Corrine Brown as a defendant-intervenor in this lawsuit brought challenging congressional redistricting in Florida) HUNT V. CROMARTIE, (U.S. Supreme Court) (I represented several members of the Congressional Black Caucus and filed a brief as amicus curiae in this lawsuit challenging congressional districts in North Carolina) BOXX V. STATE OF ALABAMA, M.D. Ala. (3-judge court)(i represented plaintiffs who successfully brought suit to enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act)** WARD V. STATE OF ALABAMA, M.D. Ala. (3-judge court)(i represented plaintiffs who successfully brought suit to enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act)** COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA V. RENO, No. 1:00 CV (D.D.C.)(3-judge court) (I represented defendant intervenors, a group of state legislators, in this lawsuit which challenged, inter alia, the Department of Justice s plan to use statistically-sampled census data to review redistricting plans under the Voting Rights Act).** VOTING INTEGRITY PROJECT v. ARIZONA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, I represented the Arizona Democratic Party in a suit brought under the Voting Rights Act challenging the State Party s use of internet voting in the 2000 Presidential Primary. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction against the Party s use of internet voting, but the district court denied the requested injunction.* 6

53 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 7 of to 2010: BALDERAS V. STATE OF TEXAS, (E.D. TX 2001) (3-judge court)(consolidated), summarily affirmed, 536 U.S. 919 (2002). This suit involved a successful challenge to the failure of the Texas Legislature to redistrict its Texas congressional districts. I represented a group of Congressmen who intervened in the case. * SESSIONS V. STATE OF TEXAS, (E.D. TX 2003)(3-judge court)(consolidated). This suit challenged the 2003 re-redistricting of the Texas congressional districts. The case eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court sub nom. LULAC v. Perry.* JACKSON v. STATE OF TEXAS, (E.D. TX 2003)(3-judge court)(consolidated). This suit challenged the 2003 re-redistricting of the Texas congressional districts. The case eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court sub nom. LULAC v. Perry.* DEL RIO v. STATE OF TEXAS (Travis County District Court & Texas Supreme Court) This suit involved the redistricting of the Texas congressional districts. I represented a group of Congressmen who intervened in the case.* CITY OF HARRISONBURG, VA v. ASHCROFT, No JDB (D.D.C) (I represented the City of Harrisonburg, Virginia, in this suit brought to obtain a declaratory judgment and bailout from coverage under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The bailout judgment was granted to the City in 2002).** CITY OF WINCHESTER, VA v. RENO, No ESH (D.D.C) (I represented the City of Winchester, Virginia, in this suit brought to obtain a declaratory judgment and bailout from coverage under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The bailout judgment was granted to the City in 2001).** WARREN COUNTY, VA v. RENO, No EGS (D.D.C) (I represented Warren County, Virginia, in this suit brought to obtain a declaratory judgment and bailout from coverage under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The bailout judgment was granted to the County in 2002). ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, VA v. ASHCROFT, No ESH (D.D.C) (I represented Rockingham County, Virginia, in this suit brought to obtain a declaratory judgment and bailout from coverage under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The bailout judgment was granted to the County in 2002).** GREENE COUNTY, VA v. ASHCROFT, No HHK (D.D.C.). (I represented Greene County, Virginia, in this successful suit brought to obtain a declaratory judgment and bailout from coverage under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The bailout judgment was granted to the County in January 2004).** 7

54 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 8 of 19 AUGUSTA COUNTY, VA v. GONZALES, No (D.D.C.) (three-judge court). In this action, I represented Augusta County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** NAACP v. ST. LANDRY PARISH, LOUISIANA, I represented the defendants St. Landry Parish Council and School Board in this Voting Rights Act challenge to the 2002 redistricting plans adopted by the Council and School Board. The case was settled in January 2005.* HALL v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, 276 F. Supp. 2d 528 (E.D. Va. 2003), affirmed, 385 F.3d 421 (4 th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, U.S. (2005). I served as co-counsel representing plaintiffs in an unsuccessful Voting Rights Act challenge to the post-2000 congressional redistricting plan adopted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. MAY v. CITY OF MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA, No. 2:07cv738 (M.D.Ala.)(three-judge court). This suit alleged, among other things, that the City had failed to obtain the requisite preclearance of a new election schedule from federal authorities. Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the upcoming elections, citing the alleged lack of preclearance under the Voting Rights Act. I was co-counsel to the City of Montgomery, which contended that preclearance had been obtained. The case was dismissed as moot. ** CITY OF SALEM, VA v. GONZALES, No (DDC) (three-judge court). In this action, I represented the City of Salem in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** BOTETOURT COUNTY, VA v. GONZALES, No (D.D.C) (three-judge court). In this action, I represented Botetourt County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** ESSEX COUNTY, VA v. MUKASEY, (D.D.C) (three-judge court). In this action, I represented Essex County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** AMHERST COUNTY, VA v. MUKASEY, (D.D.C) (three-judge court). In this action, I represented Amherst County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** MIDDLESEX COUNTY, VA v. MUKASEY, (D.D.C) (three-judge court). In this action, I represented Middlesex County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** 8

55 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 9 of 19 PAGE COUNTY, VA v. MUKASEY, (D.D.C) (three-judge court). In this action, I represented Page County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** CITY OF KINGS MOUNTAIN v. HOLDER, 1:10-cv PLF -DST TFH (D.D.C.) (threejudge court). In this action, I represented the City of Kings Mountain in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** WILLIE RAY v. STATE OF TEXAS, 2:06-CV-385(TJW) (E.D. Texas). This case challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Texas Election Code, and the racially selective prosecution of African American and Latino citizens by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott for allegedly violating those provisions. The case was settled. NAMUDNO v. HOLDER, 557 U.S. 193 (2009). This case challenged the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. In the district court, I represented Travis County, Texas, which supported the defendant Holder and argued in favor of the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. In the U.S. Supreme Court, I represented jurisdictions that had bailed out from Section 5 coverage and urged the Court to uphold Section to 2013: PEREZ v. PERRY, No (W.D. TX)(three-judge court)(consolidated cases--including Quesada v. Perry, No OLG-JES-XR) challenging Texas Congressional and State House districts under Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The case remains pending. DAVIS v. PERRY, No (W.D. TX)(three-judge court)(consolidated with LULAC v. Perry), No , challenging under Section 2 and the United States Constitution the state senate redistricting plan insofar as it dismantled Senate District 10 and in doing so discriminated against minority voters in the district. The case remains pending. BEAUMONT INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 1:13- cv rc-bmk-esh (D.D.C.) (three-judge court) (In this Section 5 declaratory judgment case that is currently pending, I represent the Plaintiff Beaumont ISD seeking Voting Rights Act approval of certain voting changes) STATE OF TEXAS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1:11-cv RMC-TBG-BAH (D.D.C.) (three-judge court) (In this lawsuit, the State of Texas sought preclearance to its statewide redistricting plans. I represented a group of Defendant Intervenors who successfully opposed preclearance of the state senate plan and the congressional plan before the three-judge court. I also 9

56 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 10 of 19 served in the case as co-administrative coordinator for the various Defendant-Intervenor groups in the lawsuit. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case following the decision in Shelby County, Al. v. Holder). STATE OF TEXAS v. HOLDER, 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW (TX Voter ID case). In this lawsuit, the State of Texas sought Section 5 preclearance of its photo ID bill. I represented a group of Defendant Intervenors who opposed preclearance. I also served as co-administrative coordinator for the various Defendant-Intervenor groups. The three-judge court denied preclearance. On appeal, the decision was vacated and the case remanded to the D.C. Court in light of Shelby County, AL v. Holder. LAROQUE et al v. HOLDER, 1:10-cv JDB (D.D.C.) This case challenged the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act and I represented a group of Defendant-Intervenors defending against the challenge. On appeal, the case was declared moot. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 1:12-cv (CKK-BMK-JDB) (D.D.C.) (three-judge court). I served as co-counsel to a group of Defendant- Intervenors in this Section 5 declaratory judgment suit involving the South Carolina voter ID law. The State was granted preclearance after changes were made during the litigation to the photo ID bill.** LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS v. DETZNER, No.: 2012-CA (Leon County, Florida). I am co-counsel to the League of Women Voters which challenges the redistricting of Florida s state senate and congressional redistricting plans, on the grounds that those plans violate the State Constitution s prohibitions on drawing plans to favor one political party over another or to favor an incumbent. The case is pending. BROWN v. STATE OF FLORIDA (S.D. Florida). This case was a challenge to the constitutionality of amendments to the Florida Constitution that regulated statewide redistricting plans. I represented a group of intervenor defendants who supported the provisions. The district court upheld the amendments and the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed. YUBA COUNTY WATER AGENCY v. HOLDER, No. 1:13-cv (D.D.C.) (three-judge court). In this action, I represent the Water Agency in a pending action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** NORTH YUBA WATER DISTRICT v. HOLDER, 1:13-cv (D.D.C.) (three-judge court). In this action, I represent the Water District in a pending action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** 10

57 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 11 of 19 LINDA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT v. HOLDER, 1:13-cv (D.D.C.). In this action, I represent the Fire Protection District in a pending action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** LINDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT v. HOLDER, 1:13-cv JEB-JWR-JDB). In this action, I represent the Water District a pending action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 1:13-cv BAH-JRB-KBJ). In this action, I represent Hanover County in a pending action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** CITY OF FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 1:13-cv ABJ-DBS-RJL). In this action, I represented the City of Falls Church in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** CITY OF WHEATLAND, CALIFORNIA v. HOLDER, 1:13-cv RMC-DST-RBW). In this action, I represented the City of Wheatland in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE v. HOLDER, 1:12-cv EGS-TBG-RMC). In this action, I represented the State of New Hampshire in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** BROWNS VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT v. HOLDER,1:12-cv RWR-KLH- TFH). In this action, I represented Browns Valley Irrigation District in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** MERCED COUNTY, CALIFORNIA v. HOLDER, 1:12-cv TFH-DST-ABJ). In this action, I represented Merced County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 1:12-cv ESH-TBG-JEB). In this action, I represented Prince William County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** KING GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 1:11-cv BAH-KLH-ESH). In this action, I represented King George County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** 11

58 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 12 of 19 JAMES CITY COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 1:11-cv PLF-DST-TFH). In this action, I represented James City County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 1:11-cv EGS-JR RWR (D.D.C.) (three-judge court). In this action, I represented Williamsburg in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** CULPEPER COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 1: 1:11-cv JEB-JWR-RLW (D.D.C.) (three-judge court). In this action, I represented Culpeper County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** CITY OF BEDFORD, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 11-cv TFH-TBG-RLW (D.D.C.) (threejudge court). In this action, I represented the City of Bedford in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** BEDFORD COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 1:11-cv ESH-KLH-BAH (D.D.C.) (three-judge court). I represented Bedford County in a successful bailout action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. ** RAPPAHANNOCK COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 1:11-cv JEB -KLH RMC (D.D.C.) (three-judge court). I represented Rappahannock County in a successful bailout action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. ** CITY OF MANASSAS PARK, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 1:11-cv CKK-JRB-HHK (D.D.C.) (three-judge court). I represented the City of Manassas Park in a successful bailout action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. ** ALTA IRRIGATION DISTRICT v. HOLDER, 1:11-cv RJL-DAG PLF (D.D.C.) (threejudge court). I represented the Alta Irrigation District in a successful bailout action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. ** JEFFERSON COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 7 v. HOLDER, 1:11-cv RWR- DST-RJL) (D.D.C.) (three-judge court). I represented this Jefferson County Drainage District in a successful bailout action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act.** HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA V. HOLDER (D.D.C.) (three-judge court). In this pending lawsuit, I represent Hanover County an action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** 12

59 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 13 of 19 PART III Cases In Which J. Gerald Hebert Has Served As Legal Counsel To A Party or An Amicus Curiae on Behalf of the Campaign Legal Center (2004 to the present) Listed below are cases in which I have appeared as legal counsel for a party or for an amicus curiae in campaign finance cases or other election law cases in my capacity as Director of Litigation at the Campaign Legal Center, a non-profit, non-partisan organization in Washington DC. Federal Litigation CITIZENS UNITED v. FEC, (U.S. Supreme Court.) Citizens United filed suit to challenge the federal electioneering communications corporate funding restriction and disclosure requirements as applied to its film entitled Hillary: The Movie and its advertisements promoting the film. On July 18, 2008, a three-judge panel upheld the federal law. On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court struck down the 60-year-old federal restriction on corporate expenditures in candidate elections, and overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and part of McConnell v. FEC (2003). In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed one amici brief with the district court and two amici briefs with the Supreme Court on behalf of campaign finance reform groups. WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE v. FEC, (US Supreme Court) and No (DBS, RWR, RJL)(D.D.C.)(3-judge court). Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) challenged provisions of BCRA which prohibited it from making certain election communications during and prior to the 2004 elections. The three-judge court rejected WRTL s challenge and the Supreme Court reversed and struck down the provisions. I served as legal counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, Senator John McCain, and Representatives Christopher Shays and Martin Meehan in the case as amici curiae supporting the defendant FEC. MCCOMISH v. BENNETT, No (U.S. Supreme Court). This was a constitutional challenge to the matching funds trigger provisions of the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act, which provided participating candidates with additional funds if non-participating opponents or outside groups spend above the statutory threshold. In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amici brief in the Supreme Court on behalf of the Legal Center and seven other public interest groups to defend the Arizona law. In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I also filed an amici brief with the district court in MCCUTCHEON v. FEC (U.S. Supreme Court). This challenge to federal aggregate contribution limits was filed by plaintiffs Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National 13

60 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 14 of 19 Committee (RNC). Plaintiffs in McCutcheon v. FEC challenge both the $70,800 aggregate limit on contributions to non-candidate committees and the $46,200 aggregate limit on contributions to candidate committees in a two-year election cycle. The three-judge district court rejected the challenge, but the U.S. Supreme Court has noted probable jurisdiction. In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amici brief in the district court and the Supreme Court defending the aggregate limits. SHELBY COUNTY v. HOLDER (U.S. Supreme Court). This case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of certain special provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended. In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amici brief in the Supreme Court on behalf jurisdictions that have bailed out from coverage under the Act. DAVIS V. FEC, 554 U.S. 724 (2008). This was a federal court challenge to the Millionaire s Amendment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of Under the Millionaire s Amendment, when a wealthy self-financed candidate spent in excess of a specified threshold of personal funds, the Amendment provided for an increase in contribution limits and an elimination of coordinated party spending limits for such candidate s non-wealthy opponent. The Amendment also imposed additional disclosure requirements on the self-financing wealthy candidate. The Supreme Court invalidated all of these provisions. I served as legal counsel to amici supporting these amendments in the U.S. Supreme Court. SHAYS v. FEC, No (D.C.Cir.) (Shays I). This is an appeal from a ruling of this court (Kollar-Kotelly, J.) striking down regulations promulgated by the FEC to implement the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). I served as legal counsel to United Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold who appeared in the case as amici curiae and filed a brief supporting Appellees Shays and Meehan. SHAYS v. FEC (527 Suit), No. 1:04-cv EGS (D.D.C.) (Sullivan, J.) (Shays II). This lawsuit challenge the failure of the FEC to promulgate effective regulations that would apply to 527 groups. I served as legal counsel to United Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold who appeared in the case as amici curiae. NC RIGHT TO LIFE v. LEAKE, No. 5:99-CV-798-BO(3). This case involves a constitutional challenge to several North Carolina campaign finance laws. I represent the Campaign Legal Center in the case, which filed a brief as amicus curiae arguing that North Carolina s limits on contributions to independent expenditure political committees are constitutional. VOTERS EDUCATION COMMITTEE v. WASHINGTON PUBLIC DISCLOSURE COMMISSION, No SEA (King County Superior Court). Suit alleges that certain ads aimed at a state Attorney General candidate are not express advocacy, but rather are issue advocacy and protected political speech. I represent the Campaign Legal Center in the case, which filed a brief as amicus curiae arguing that the state law at issue does not violate the free 14

61 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 15 of 19 speech rights of plaintiff 527 corporations by requiring them to register as a political organization and file reports of their contributions and expenditures. EMILY S LIST v. FEC, No. 1:05cv00049 (D.D.C.). EMILY s List challenged a new rule adopted by the FEC late last summer that requires a federal committee to use at least 50 percent federal funds to pay for generic voter mobilization drives and other activities that affect both federal and nonfederal elections, along with a rule that clarified the definition of the term contribution. I represented Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold, Representatives Christopher Shays and Martin Meehan, and the Campaign Legal Center which appeared as amici curiae in the case and filed a brief opposing EMILY s List s motion for a preliminary injunction. CHRISTIAN CIVIC LEAGUE OF MAINE v. FEC, No. 06- (D.D.C.) (three-judge court) The Christian Civic League of Maine has challenged provisions of BCRA which prohibited it from making certain election communications during and prior to the 2006 elections in Maine. The three-judge court denied the Christian Civic League s motion for preliminary injunction and the case is on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. I served as co-counsel for the defendant intervenors in the case: U.S. Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold, and Representatives Christopher Shays, Martin Meehan, and Tom Allen supporting the defendant FEC. UNITED STATES v. VALDES. No (DC Cir.) I filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on behalf of the Campaign Legal Center supporting the defendant United States in this appeal, which involved an interpretation and application of the federal anti-gratuities statute. CAO (RNC) v. FEC, No (5th Cir.), cert. denied No (U.S. Sup. Ct.) In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amicus brief on April 19, 2010 with the en banc Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to defend the constitutionality of the party coordinated spending limits. GREEN PARTY OF CONNECTICUT V. LENGE, Nos , (2d Cir.), cert. petition No (U.S. Sup. Ct.) In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center,, I served as co-counsel to the defendant-intervenors in the Supreme Court opposing the petition for certiorari, a case that challenged the constitutionality of Connecticut s public financing system and its statutory ban on contributions from lobbyists, state contractors and members of their immediate families and their solicitation of contributions. U.S. V. O DONNELL, No (9th Cir.), cert. petition No (U.S. Sup. Ct.) This case involved whether federal law prohibits straw donor contributions, in which a defendant solicits others to donate to a candidate for federal office in their own names and furnishes the money for the gift either through an advance or a prearranged reimbursement. CLC, with D21, filed an amici brief with the Ninth Circuit, urging the Court to correct the erroneous interpretation given to the federal law provision by the district court. U.S. V. DANIELCZYK, No. 11-cr (E.D. Va.), No (4th Cir.) This criminal case concerned a number of alleged campaign finance violations, including that the defendants illegally directed corporate contributions to Hillary Clinton s 2008 Presidential campaign. In my capacity as 15

62 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 16 of 19 Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amici brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on the side of the United States. KOERBER v. FEC, No. 2:08-cv (E.D.N.C.) In September 2008, the Committee for Truth in Politics challenged the constitutionality of the federal disclosure requirements for electioneering communications, and the FEC s policy for determining federal political committee status. The CLC, with D21, filed amici briefs defending the law on October 14, 2008 with the district court, and on April 24, 2009 with the Fourth Circuit. THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT OBAMA, INC. (RTAO) v. FEC, No. 08-cv (E.D. Va.), No (4th Cir.) RTAO filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to enjoin a number of FEC regulations governing when independent groups must register as federal political committees and comply with the applicable federal restrictions and disclosure requirements. The CLC, with D21, filed an amici brief on October 27, 2011 to defend the FEC rules with the Fourth Circuit following the remand of the case from the Supreme Court. The CLC previously filed amici briefs in this case in the district court and the Fourth Circuit on August 14, 2008, October 28, 2008 and October 17, VAN HOLLEN v. FEC, No. 11-cv (D.D.C.) On April 21, 2011, Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) filed a lawsuit against the FEC to challenge a 2007 FEC regulation that narrowed the scope of federal disclosure requirements connected to electioneering communications. In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center (CLC), I was one of the attorneys representing Rep. Van Hollen as CLC is part of Van Hollen s pro bono legal team. AMERICAN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC. v. BULLOCK, DA (Sup. Ct. Mont.), cert. denied No (U.S. Sup. Ct.) In March 2010, plaintiffs filed suit to challenge Montana s corporate expenditure restriction, M.C.A , on grounds that it was unconstitutional under Citizens United v FEC. In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the nonprofit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amici brief in support of itself and 13 other public interest groups on May 18, 2012, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to deny certiorari, or if it grants certiorari, to grant plenary review. WAGNER v. FEC, No. 11-cv-1841 (D.D.C.) On October 19, 2011, plaintiffs filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to challenge the constitutionality of the federal governmental contractor contribution ban, 2 U.S.C. 441c, as applied to individuals who have personal services contracts with federal agencies. In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amicus brief in the district court supporting the contractor contribution ban. RNC v. FEC, No. 1:08-cv RJL-RMC (D.D.C.) (three-judge court). On November 13, 2008, the RNC filed suit in federal district court to challenge BCRA s soft money restrictions that bar the national parties from raising or spending soft money and prohibit state parties from using soft money for activities that affect federal elections, such as voter registration or GOTV 16

63 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 17 of 19 drives. On March 9, 2009, the Legal Center filed an amici brief on behalf of former Representatives Shays and Meehan and Senators McCain and Feingold to defend the soft money provisions. On June 29, 2010, the Supreme Court summarily affirmed the decision of a three-judge panel to dismiss the RNC s as-applied challenge to the soft money restrictions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). SPEECHNOW.ORG v. FEC (D.C. Cir.) In February 2008, SpeechNow.org filed suit and requested a preliminary injunction to enjoin the federal contribution limits and disclosure requirements as applied to so-called independent expenditure committees. THE DC Circuit struck down the contribution limits but upheld the disclosure requirements. The Legal Center filed two amici briefs with the D.C. Circuit in 2009 to support the constitutionality of the federal contribution limits as applied to a political committee making only independent expenditures. HISPANIC LEADERSHIP FUND v. FEC, No. I:12cv893 (E.D. VA.). Plaintiffs sought to air television advertisements criticizing President Obama without complying with electioneering communication disclosure requirements, which include donor disclosure. The ads proposed by HLF would not have mentioned President Obama by name and instead would use the terms the White House and the Administration and audio recordings of the President s voice. In an attempt to evade the electioneering communication disclosure requirements, HLF argued that its ads do not refer to a clearly identified candidate, and that the disclosure provisions are unconstitutional. The District Court denied an injunction and rejected the constitutional challenge. In my capacity as Director of Litigation for the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amicus brief in 2012 supporting the FEC and defending the challenged provisions STATE/MUNICIPAL LAW LITIGATION State Disclosure Cases DOE v. REED, No (U.S. Sup. Ct.), on remand No. 3:09-cv (W.D. Wa.), on appeal No (9th Cir.) Plaintiffs filed suit to halt Washington State from making petitions connected to a state ballot measure available in response to requests made under the state Public Records Act. In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amicus brief on March 28, 2012 with the Ninth Circuit, urging the court to reject the plaintiffs as-applied challenge and arguing that the narrow exemption to disclosure for harassment set forth in Buckley v. Valeo was not warranted in this case. PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM v. BOWEN, 2:09-cv (E.D. Calif.), on appeal No (9th Cir.) In January 2009, Plaintiffs brought a challenge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California to a California law requiring ballot measure committees to disclose the names and other information of their contributors of $100 or more. In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amicus brief to support California s ballot measure disclosure law with the Ninth Circuit on April 17,

64 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 18 of 19 HUMAN LIFE OF WASHINGTON, INC. ( HLW ) v. BRUMSICKLE, No (9th Cir.) In April 2008, HLW challenged the constitutionality of several components of the State of Washington s political committee disclosure regime, including the State s definitions of political committee, independent expenditure, and political advertising. On June 4, 2009, and in my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit to defend the disclosure laws. OHIO RIGHT TO LIFE (ORTL) v. OHIO ELECTION COMMISSION, 08-cv (S.D. Ohio). ORTL filed suit in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Ohio to challenge multiple provisions of Ohio s campaign finance law, including its electioneering communications corporate funding prohibition and related disclosure requirements. On July 18, 2008, and in my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center (CLC), I filed an amici brief on behalf of CLC and Ohio Citizen Action, defending the constitutionality of Ohio s electioneering communications disclosure requirements. TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY v. KING STREET PATRIOTS, No. D-1-GN (D.Ct. Travis Co.) The Texas Democratic Party filed an action seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive relief in connection to several violations of state campaign finance law allegedly committed by the King Street Patriots. In response to the suit, the King Street Patriots filed a counterclaim challenging numerous provisions of Texas campaign finance law, including the state corporate contribution restriction, and the disclosure and organizational requirements applicable to political committees and related statutory definitions. In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed in September 2011 an amicus brief to oppose the counterclaim and to defend the constitutionality of Texas campaign finance laws. NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE v. BROWNING, This was a constitutional challenge to certain provisions of Florida law relating to electioneering communications and disclosure, alleging that the provisions were overbroad and vague. In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amicus brief in the Eleventh Circuit defending the Florida laws, which were upheld by the court of appeals. State Contribution Limit Cases COMMITTEE ON JOBS, ET AL. v. HERRERA, 07-cv (N.D. Cal.) In June 2007, two political committees filed a challenge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the constitutionality of San Francisco s limit on contributions to political committees that make only independent expenditures in City elections. On August 27, 2007, the CLC filed an amici brief on behalf of itself and four other nonprofit political reform organizations supporting the constitutionality of the San Francisco contribution limits. MINNESOTA CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR LIFE (MCCL) v. SWANSON, 10-cv-2938 (D. Minn.), on appeal No (8th Cir.) MCCL challenged multiple provisions of Minnesota s campaign finance law pertaining to the regulation of corporations. On December 22, 2010, the CLC, with D21, filed an amici brief to defend Minnesota s disclosure law and its restrictions on corporate contributions. 18

65 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 19 of 19 THALHEIMER v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, No (9th Cir.) In December 2009, plaintiffs filed a constitutional challenge to several provisions of San Diego s campaign finance laws. On April 9, 2010, the CLC filed a brief amici curie with the Ninth Circuit on behalf of itself and two other public interest groups to support the contribution limit. State Public Financing Cases WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE v. BRENNAN, 3:09-cv (W.D. Wis.), No (7th Cir.) and KOSCHNICK v. DOYLE, 3:09-cv (W.D. Wis.). In December 2009, two cases were filed to challenge the trigger provisions of Wisconsin s recently-enacted public financing program, as well as other program components. The CLC filed an amici brief on June 17,

66 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 1 of 27 EXHIBIT C - Hebert Time and Expense Records Date Legal Services Rendered Actual Time Expended 5/9/2011 Review Perez COMPLAINT /11/2011 Review ORDER Constituting Three-Judge Court to Judge Orlando L. Garcia, Judge Jerry E. Smith and Judge Xavier Rodriguez. Time Charged (Hours/ Tenths) 0.1 5/31/2011 Review Perez's AMENDED COMPLAINT 0.2 6/7/2011 Review Perez's Second AMENDED COMPLAINT 0.2 6/14/2011 Review State Defendants' MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of 0.5 Jurisdiction, MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted 6/15/2011 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Matthew Hamilton Frederick 0.1 on behalf of State of Texas 6/17/2011 Review MOTION to Amend Complaint by Perez et al /17/2011 Review ADVISORY Signed by Judge Garcia 0.1 6/17/2011 Review ORDER granting Motion to Amend Complaint /22/2011 Review ORDER setting Status Conference for 7/1/ /24/2011 Review AMENDED ORDER setting Status Conference for 7/1/ /24/2011 Review Perez Response to State's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of 0.3 Jurisdiction 6/29/2011 Review Report Summarizing Pending Redistricting Cases 0.5 7/1/2011 Review Texas' motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended 0.8 Complaint 7/6/2011 Review Order denying Motion to Dismiss 0.1 no charge 7/6/2011 Review Order of Consolidation 0.1 no charge 7/6/2011 Review scheduling Order re: Amended Pleadings, Discovery, 0.1 Motions, Bench Trial and Pretrial Conference 0.1 7/8/2011 Review Amended Scheduling Order /11/2011 Review Perez Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 0.2 Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint 7/11/2011 Review order modifying amended scheduling Order /12/2011 Review MALC ressponse to TX's Motion to Dismiss 0.4 7/12/2011 Review Notice of Appearance by Ricardo G. Cedillo 0.1 no charge 7/13/2011 Review order granting TX Dem Party Motion to Intervene 0.1 no charge 7/13/2011 Review Pretrial Disclosures by Texas Democratic Party 0.1 no charge 7/13/2011 Review Perez's Rule 26(a) Disclosures 0.1 no charge 7/13/2011 Review Rule 26(a) initial disclosures by MALC 0.1 no charge 7/13/2011 Review Advisory to Court by all parties 0.1 no charge 7/13/2011 Review Rule 26(a) Disclosures by TX Latino Redistrict.Task Force 0.1 7/13/2011 Review Initial Disclosures by State of Texas 0.2 no charge 7/13/2011 Review Additional Disclosures by State of Texas 0.1 7/14/2011 Review TX's motion to Dismiss 12(b)(1) and 12(b)6 0.4

67 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 2 of 27 7/14/2011 Review Advisory by Parties (Entered: 07/14/2011) 0.1 7/14/2011 Review Task Force motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines 0.1 7/15/2011 Review order granting Congressman Cuellar Intervention 0.1 7/15/2011 Review First Supplemental Rule 26(a) Disclosures by Texas Latino 0.1 Redistricting Task Force 7/15/2011 Review MALC's motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines 0.1 7/15/2011 Review corrected Rule 26 Disclosures by Congressman Cuellar 0.1 7/18/2011 Review notice of Appearance by Ana M. Jordan for TX 0.1 7/18/2011 Review TX's response to motions to Extend Scheduling Order 0.1 Deadlines regarding filing of expert reports 0.1 7/19/2011 Review MALC's Second Amended Compaint 0.3 7/19/2011 Review amended scheduling order /19/2011 Review Perez's motion to File Plaintiffs' Third Amended 0.1 Complaint 7/19/2011 Review Perez AMENDED COMPLAINT 0.2 7/19/2011 Review State's ADVISORY on the Status of Preclearance /19/2011 Review CROSSCLAIM filed by Texas Democratic Party 0.2 7/19/2011 Review MOTION to Intervene by Texas NAACP Branches 0.3 7/19/2011 Review Task Force MOTION to Amend Complaint 0.3 7/19/2011 Review motion to Intervene by Texas Legislative Black Caucus /19/2011 Review MOTION to Intervene by Eddie Bernice Johnson, Sheila 0.3 Jackson-Lee, Alexander Green. 7/21/2011 Review MOTION for Protective Order by State of Texas 0.5 7/21/2011 Review ORDER consolidating this case with SA-11-CA-361, SA CA-490 and SA-11-CA-592 (Quesada Case) 0.1 7/22/2011 Review Amended Motion to Intervene of the Texas NAACP 0.2 7/25/2011 Review Status REPORT re: Rule 26(f) by Texas Latino Redistricting 0.2 Task Force. 7/25/2011 Review Scheduling ORDER /25/2011 Review ORDER DENYING Motion to Dismiss; Motion to Extend 0.2 Scheduling Order Deadlines; etc. 7/25/2011 Review SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT by Texas Latino 0.2 Redistricting Task Force 0.2 7/25/2011 Review TX NAACP AMENDED COMPLAINT /25/2011 Review Intervenor COMPLAINT, filed by Texas Legislative Black 0.2 Caucus 0.2 7/25/2011 Review Intervenor COMPLAINT, filed by Alexander Green, Sheila 0.2 Jackson-Lee, Eddie Bernice Johnson 0.2 7/25/2011 Initial draft of Quesada amended complaint /26/2011 Review CONSOLIDATION AND SCHEDULING ORDER /26/2011 Further edits to Quesada amended complaint /27/2011 Review Amended MOTION to Amend Complaint in Intervention 0.2 by Texas Legislative Black Caucus. 7/27/2011 Review RESPONSE filed by Boyd Richie, Texas Democratic Party, 0.2 re MOTION for Protective Order

68 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 3 of 27 7/27/2011 Review State's ANSWER to LULAC Complaint 0.3 no charge 7/27/2011 Review CONSOLIDATION AND SCHEDULING ORDER 0.1 no charge 7/27/2011 Review Task Force's Second Supplemental Rule 26(a) Disclosures 0.1 no charge 7/27/2011 Review AMENDED THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT filed by LULAC. 0.2 no charge 7/27/2013 Final edits to Quesada Plaintiffs' amended complaint /27/2011 Prepare Quesada Plaintiffs' Corrected Rule 26(a) Disclosures /28/2011 Review LULAC Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint 0.2 no charge 7/28/2011 Draft Motion for Leave to amend complaint /28/2011 Review ORDER GRANTING Motion for Leave to Amend Third Party 0.1 Intervenors Complaint by LULAC no charge 7/28/2011 Communications with clients regarding filing of amended 0.3 complaint 0.3 7/29/2011 File MOTION for Leave to Amend Complaint by Margarita 0.1 Quesada no charge 7/29/2011 Review Response of NAACP to Texas' Motion for Protective Order 0.2 no charge 7/29/2011 Review Response of Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force to 0.2 Texas' Motion for Protective Order no charge 8/1/2013 Travel from Alexandria, VA Office to Austin for depositions 6.0 8/1/2011 Review Order granting TLBC's Motion to Amend Complaint 0.1 no charge 8/1/2011 Review TLBC's Amended complaint 0.2 8/1/2011 Review Review Order denying without prejudice to refiling 0.1 Motion for Protective Order 0.1 8/1/2011 Review witness/exhibit lis by LULAC /1/2011 Review Order directing Plaintiffs to file a JT. Adv. w/in 5 days /1/2011 Review Initial Disclosures by State of Texas 0.3 8/1/2011 Review Report of Rule 26(f) Conference by State of Texas 0.1 8/1/2011 Review Perez wtiness/exhibit list 0.1 8/1/2011 Review order granting/denying in part joint motion to extend 0.1 deadlines 0.1 8/1/2011 Review order denying Defendants' Motion for Protective Order 0.2 8/1/2011 Draft motion to appear pro hac vice /2/2011 File motion for Hebert to appear pro hac vice on behalf of 0.1 Quesada Plaintiffs 8/2/2011 Prepare for, attend and participate in Jeff Archer deposition /2/2011 Review Order granting Quesada Motion to file amended 0.1 complaint 0.1 8/2/2011 Review Review Order granting Hebert Motion to Appear Pro Hac 0.1 Vice 0.1 8/2/2011 Review notice of Appearance by David Mattax for State of Texas 0.1 8/2/2011 Review Filing of Initial Disclosures to Quesada Plaintiffs by State 0.3 of TX 0.3 8/2/2011 Review Initial Disclosures to Plaintiff Morris by State of Texas 0.1

69 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 4 of 27 8/2/2011 Review Report of Rule 26(f) Conference Between Parties Morris 0.1 and State of Texas, et al. by State of Texas 8/2/2011 Review answer of State to MALC's complaint 0.3 8/2/2011 Review Voluntary Dismissal by Texas Legislative Black Caucus 0.1 8/3/2011 Review Initial Disclosures by Steve Munisteri 0.2 8/3/2011 Review Pretrial Disclosures by Gonzalez Intervenors 0.2 8/3/2011 Review Pretrial Disclosures by Alexander Green, Sheila Jackson- 0.2 Lee, Eddie Bernice Johnson 8/3/2011 Review Pretrial Disclosures Jointly filed by NAACP 0.2 8/3/2013 Travel from Austin to Alexandria, VA Office 6.0 8/5/2011 Review motion to prevent disclosures of written communications 0.2 by Cong. Lamar Smith, et al /5/2011 Review Motion for leave to File Sealed Document 0.2 8/5/2011 Review Review Order re: Congresspersons motion for protective 0.1 order /5/2011 Initial Draft of Quesada Motion to Stay Case /5/2011 Review Review Order granting motion to File Sealed Document 0.1 8/5/2011 Reviw Quesada Expert Witness report of Dr. Allan Lichtman /5/2011 Review Quesada expert witness report of Michael McDonald 1.1 8/5/2011 Review Supplemental Order re: motion to prevent disclsoure of 0.1 written comm. by Cong. Lamar Smith, et al /6/2011 Further edits to Quesada Motion to Stay case /7/2011 Final edits to Quesada Plaintiffs' motion to stay case /7/2011 Draft Quesada Witness List and Exhibit List for Filing /7/2011 Communications with clients regarding filing of motion for stay 0.6 and communications with other plaintiffs' counsel regarding same /8/2011 Review Amended Motion for leave to File Sealed Document 0.2 8/8/2011 Review NOTICE of Filing Privilege Log by Joe Barton, et al /8/2011 Review 2nd Supplemental Order directing Movants to 0.1 supplement their privilege log 0.1 8/8/2011 Review Pretrial Disclosures by Eddie Rodriguez, et al /8/2011 Review Perez motion for Protective Order 0.2 8/8/2011 Review Perez attach, to prot. Order motion /8/2011 Review Notice to All Counsel from clerl re; service of filings /8/2011 Review Report of Rule 26(f) Conference By NAACP, et al. 0.2 no charge 8/8/2011 File Quesada motion to Stay Case and to Postpone Trial 0.1 no charge 8/8/2011 Review MACL's WITNESS/EXHIBIT/EXPERT LIST 0.2 no charge 8/8/2011 Review NOTICE of Filing Supplemental Privilege Log /8/2011 Review Review Order taking under advisement Motion to Stay 0.1 Case and inviting parties to brief certain issues 0.1 8/8/2011 Review TX Dem. Part's designation of expert witnesses, witness 0.1 list and exhibits. no charge 8/8/2011 Review TX ANSWER to Perez Amended Complaint 0.2 no charge 8/8/2011 Review TX's ANSWER to Latino Task Force's Amended Complaint 0.2 no charge

70 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 5 of 27 8/8/2011 Review ANSWER to Amended Complaint by State of Texas 0.2 no charge 8/8/2011 File WITNESS/EXHIBIT/EXPERT LIST for Quesada Plaintiffs 0.1 8/8/2011 Review TX Latino Task Force Advisory re: courtroom tech /8/2011 Review Perez filing of expert witness reports & attachments 0.1 8/8/2011 Review Green, Jackson-Lee, & EBJ witness/exhibit list /8/2011 Review Task Force exhibit/witness/expert list /8/2011 Review NAACP exhibit/witness/expert list /9/2011 Review Order granting motion for protective order 0.1 8/9/2011 Review MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Benjamin S. DeLeon 0.1 8/9/2011 Review NOTICE of Additional Expert Witness Disclosuresby Latino 0.1 Redistricting Task Force 8/9/2011 Draft/editand review Response in Opposition to Motion To 0.5 Prevent Disclosure of Written Communications filed by Members of Congress o 0.5 8/9/2011 Review Supplemental Motion for leave to File Sealed Document /9/2011 Review Second Supplemental Privilege Log by Joe Barton, et al /9/2011 Review Motion for Reconsideration re Protective Order by State 0.2 of Texas 0.2 8/9/2011 Review NAACP Response in Opposition to MOTION TO PREVENT 0.2 DISCLOSURE OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 8/9/2011 Review MALC RESPONSE to MOTION TO PREVENT DISCLOSURE 0.2 OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 8/9/2011 Review Latino Task Force RESPONSE to MOTION TO PREVENT 0.3 DISCLOSURE OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 8/10/2011 Review LULAC Filing Certificate of Service Expert Report & 0.1 Exhibits 8/10/2011 Review LULAC Response in Opposition to Motion TO PREVENT 0.2 DISCLOSURE OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 8/10/2011 Review ORDER GRANTING Motion for Leave to File Sealed 0.1 Document and to Appear Pro Hac Vice. 8/10/2011 Review ANSWER to Complaint (Cross) of Texas Democractic 0.2 Party by State of TX 8/10/2011 Review Perex Response in Opposition to Motion for Protective 0.1 Order filed by State of Texas 8/10/2011 Review ORDER DENYING Motion for Reconsideration Order 0.1 Quashing Defendants' Deposition Notices 0.1 8/10/2011 Review Munisteri's Response in Opposition to Motion Stay Case 0.1 and to Postpone Trial 0.1 8/10/2011 Prepare supplemental response in Support of Quesada's motion 1.1 to Stay Case and to Postpone Trial 1.1 8/10/2011 Review Perez RESPONSE to Quesada's Motion to Stay Case and to 0.3 Postpone Trial 8/10/2011 Review NAACP RESPONSE in Support ofquesada MOTION to Stay 0.2 Case and to Postpone Trial

71 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 6 of 27 8/10/2011 Review State of TX Response in Opposition to Motion to Stay 0.3 Case and to Postpone Trial 8/10/2011 Review MALC Response in Opposition to Motion to Stay Case and 0.3 to Postpone Trial 8/10/2011 Review LULAC Response in Opposition to Motion to Stay Case and 0.3 to Postpone Trial 8/10/2011 Review TX Latino Redist. Task Force Response to Motion to Stay 0.1 Case and to Postpone Trial 8/10/2011 Review Congressperson's Response to Motion to Prevent 0.1 Disclosure of Written Communications 0.1 8/11/2011 Review TX Dem. Party's Amended CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 0.1 8/11/2011 ORDER DENYING Motion to Stay Case 0.1 8/11/2011 Draft Response with Quesada clients to State Defendants' 2.8 requests for admissions and interrogatories 2.8 8/11/2011 Communications with State AG's office re: scheduling Veasey 0.2 deposition by State 0.2 8/11/2011 ANSWER by Texas to LULAC's Amended Third Party Complaint 0.2 8/11/2011 ORDER DENYING Motion to Prevent Disclosure of Written 0.1 Communications and DENYING Motion for Leave to File Sealed Document 0.1 8/12/2011 Review Certificate of Service, filed by John T Morris 0.1 8/14/2011 Review TX Redistricting Task Force's corrected Report of Dr. 0.2 Henry Flores 8/15/2011 Review ANSWER to Amended Complaint by State of Texas 0.3 8/15/2011 Review TX's Answer to Green, Jackson-Lee, EBJ's Complaint 0.3 8/15/2011 Review TX's Answer to NAACP's Amended Complaint 0.2 no charge 8/15/2011 Prepare motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Caroline D. Lopez 0.2 no charge 8/17/2011 Travel from Alexandria, VA Office to Austin for depositions 6.0 no charge 8/18/2011 Prepare Quesada's Memorandum in Opposition to State's Motion 2.9 to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and, in the Alternative, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 2.9 8/15/2011 Prepare motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Jessica Ring Amunson 0.2 no charge 8/15/2011 Prepare Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Michael Desanctis 0.2 no charge 8/15/2011 Prepare Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Paul Smith 0.2 no charge 8/15/2011 Prepare Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Jesse L. Gaines 0.2 no charge 8/15/2011 Review Task Force's motion to Amend/Correct Order on Motion 0.2 to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines, to Set a Date Certain for Motions Regarding Materials Claimed to Be Subject to the Legislative Privilege no charge 8/16/2011 Review LULAC Response to Request for Admissions 0.3 no charge 8/16/2011 Review ORDER GRANTING Gaines' Motion to Appear 0.1 no charge 8/16/2011 Review ORDER GRANTING Task Force Motion to Amend 0.1 Scheduling Order no charge 8/16/2011 Review ORDER Amunson Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. 0.1 no charge 8/16/2011 Review ORDER DeSanctis Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice /16/2011 Review ORDER Lopez Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. 0.1

72 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 7 of 27 8/16/2011 Review ORDER P. Smith Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice 0.1 8/17/2011 Review State of TX Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and, 0.4 in the Alternative, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 0.4 8/17/2011 Review State of TX MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and 0.6 Supporting Memorandum of Law and research cases 0.6 8/17/2011 Review Appendix to TX's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment- 0.1 Part /17/2011 Review Appendix to TX's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, 0.1 Parts 2a and 2b 0.1 8/17/2011 Review Appendix to TX's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, 0.1 Parts 3a and 3b 0.1 8/17/2011 Review Appendix to TX's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, 0.1 Part /17/2011 Review Appendix to TX's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, 0.1 Parts 5 (a) and Part 5 (b) 0.1 8/17/2011 Review Appendix to TX's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, 0.1 Part 6(a), and Part 6(b)) 0.1 8/18/2011 Review Order directing Plaintiffs to file a reponse to TX's MOTION 0.1 to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and, in the Alternative, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by 8/ /18/2011 Review Perez Filing of Supp. Material Relied on by Ed Martin 0.1 8/18/2011 Review NAACP/Congresspersons'Joint MOTION for Extension of 0.1 Time 8/19/2011 Review Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Bruce D. Cohen 0.1 8/19/2011 Review Order denying NAACP'sMotion for Extension of Time 0.1 8/19/2011 Initial Draft & Legal Research re: Quesada Memorandum in Opp. 1.4 To TX's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 1.4 8/19/2011 Prepare Quesada's Memorandum in Opposition to State's Motion 0.8 to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and, in the Alternative, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 0.8 8/19/2011 Travel from Austin to Alexandria, VA Office 6.0 8/20/2011 Draft & Legal Research re: Quesada Memorandum in Opp. To 3.3 TX's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 3.3 8/20/2011 Edit Quesada's Memorandum in Opposition to State's Motion to 1.3 Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and, in the Alternative, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 1.3 8/21/2011 Edit Quesada's Memorandum in Opposition to State's Motion to 0.6 Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and, in the Alternative, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 0.6 8/21/2011 Draft & Legal Research re: Quesada Memorandum in Opp. To 2.1 TX's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 2.1 8/22/2011 Review Defendant Munisteri witness and exhibit listing 0.1 8/22/2011 Review Cong. Cuellar Complaint 0.2 8/22/2011 Review TX's Expert Witness Reports of Rives, Alford, Giberson and 0.8 Gardner 0.8 8/22/2011 Review Order granting Cohen motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice 0.1

73 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 8 of 27 8/23/2011 Review Rodriguez's Response in Opposition to State of TX Motion 0.4 to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 8/23/2011 Review Perez's Response in Opposition to TX's Motion for Partial 0.3 Summary Judgment and, in the Alternative, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 8/23/2011 Review Rodriguez's Response in Opposition to State of TX Motion 0.4 for Partial Summary Judgment 8/23/2011 Review Cong. Cuellar Response in Opposition to Motion to 0.3 Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim 8/23/2011 Final edits to Quesada's Memorandum in Opposition to State's 1.2 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and, in the Alternative, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 1.2 8/23/2011 Review NAACP Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss for 0.3 Lack of Jurisdiction and, in the Alternative, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 8/23/2011 Draft and final edits to Quesada Memorandum in Opposition to 0.8 State of TX Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 0.8 8/23/2011 Review Task Force's Response to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of 0.5 Jurisdiction and, in the Alternative, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 8/23/2011 Review MALC's Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss for 0.4 Lack of Jurisdiction and, in the Alternative, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 8/23/2011 Review MACL Opposition to State's Motion for Partial Summary 1.0 Judgment 8/23/2011 Review NAACP motion To File Under Seal Response in Opposition 0.2 to Motion 8/23/2011 Review LULAC's Opposition to State's Motions for Partial 0.3 Summary Judgment and to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and, in the Alternative, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 8/23/2011 Review Morris' response to State's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of 0.2 Jurisdiction and, in the Alternative, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings no charge 8/23/2011 Review Corrected Statement of NAACP Expert Burton 0.1 no charge 8/23/2011 Review Task Force Response to State's Motion for Partial 0.5 Summary Judgment no charge 8/24/2011 Review Supplemental Disclosures by Alexander Green, Sheila 0.2 Jackson-Lee, Eddie Bernice Johnson no charge 8/24/2011 Review Marc Elias MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice 0.1 no charge 8/24/2011 Review Green, Jackson Lee and EBJ Correction of Congresswoman 0.1 Sheila Jackson-Lee's Sworn Statement no charge 8/22/2011 Travel from Alexandria, VA Office to Austin for depositions 6.0 no charge 8/24/2011 MOTION Abha Khanna Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice 0.1 no charge 8/24/2011 Review TX's Reply to oppositions to MOTION to Dismiss for Lack 0.3 of Jurisdiction and, in the Alternative, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 0.3 8/24/2011 Review Manuel Escobar Notice of Appearance for LULAC 0.1 no charge

74 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 9 of 27 8/24/2011 Review Reply by State of TX to Oppositions to State's Motion for 0.5 Partial Summary Judgment 0.5 8/25/2013 Travel from Austin to Alexandria, VA Office 6.0 8/25/2011 Review Nicholas Espirit Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice 0.1 no charge 8/25/2011 Review Errata by State of Texas re: Reply to Oppositions to 0.1 State's Motion for Partial Summ. Judg /26/2011 Review MALC's motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply 0.2 8/26/2011 Review Order granting MALC's Motion to File a Sur-Reply 0.1 8/26/2011 Review Supplemental Designation of Proposed Trial Exhibits by 0.2 State of Texas 0.2 8/27/2011 Review Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force Advisory to Court 0.2 8/29/2011 Review MALC's Designation of Rebuttal Experts 0.1 8/29/2011 Review MALC's Surreply Memorandum in Opposition to TX's 0.4 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and, in the Alternative, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (w/ exhibits) 8/29/2011 Review Joint motion to File Electronic Trial Exhibits by State of 0.2 Texas 8/29/2011 Review Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force Designation of 0.1 Rebuttal Experts. 8/29/2011 Review motion of Task Force to Extend Scheduling Order 0.1 Deadlines to Move to Unseal Materials 8/29/2011 Review NAACP Joint MOTION to Unseal Document 0.1 8/29/2011 Review LULAC's Designation of Rebuttal Expert 0.1 8/30/2011 Review LULAC Supplemental Expert Report. With exhibits (Spilt 0.4 Precincts Congressional Plan, County Splits Congressional Plan, Travis County Precincts, and Lamar Smith Proposed Congressional Plan) 8/30/2011 Review Rodriguez's Designation of Rebuttal Expert 0.1 8/30/2011 Review NAACP Filing of Supplemental Expert Report and Errata 0.8 8/30/2011 Review Expedited Agreed Joint Motion of All Parties for Extension 0.1 of Time to File Response/Reply on the Joint Pretrial Order 8/30/2011 Review Order grantingmotion for Extension of Time to File 0.1 Response/Reply 8/30/2011 Review Order granting Elias Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice 0.1 8/30/2011 Review Order granting Khanna Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice 0.1 8/30/2011 Review Order granting Espiritu Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice 0.1 8/30/2011 Review Order granting State's motion to file electronic exhibits 0.1 8/30/2011 Review Order granting Congressperson's motion to file under 0.1 seal. 8/30/2011 Review Order Denying Latino Task Force Motion to Extend 0.1 Scheduling Order Deadlines 8/30/2011 Review Latino Task Force's Third Supplemental Disclosures 0.2 8/30/2011 Review LULAC Proposed Stipulations and Findings of Fact and Law 0.5

75 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 10 of 27 8/31/2011 Review LULAC motion to Withdraw Counsel: George Korbel 0.1 8/31/2011 Review Eddie Rodriguez's Disclsoure of Rebuttal Expert Report 0.3 8/31/2011 Review John Morris' motion to amend complaint 0.1 8/31/2011 Review TRIAL BRIEF on the merits by John T Morris 0.2 8/31/2011 Review ORDER on State's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 0.1 against Quesada Plaintiffs /31/2011 Review ORDER regarding pretrial conference and trial on the 0.1 merits /31/2011 Review Proposed Pretrial Order /31/2011 Review MALC's Supplement to Dr. Chapa's Expert Report 0.2 8/31/2011 Review Second Supplemental Disclosures by Green, Jackson-Lee, 0.1 Eddie Bernice Johnson 9/1/2011 Draft Quesada Motion for Reconsideration of Order Regarding 0.9 Dismissal of Fifteenth Amendment claims 9/1/2011 Review Task Force's Corrected Portion of Expert Report of Dr. 0.1 Susan Gonzalez Baker 9/1/2011 Review Perez's Addendum to Original Report of Dr. Richard 0.1 Murray 9/1/2011 Travel from Alexandria, VA Office to San Antonio for Pretrial 6.0 Conference no charge 9/1/2011 Prepare for, attend and participate in Pretrial Conference /2/2011 Review Texas Latino Task Force's Dr. Engstrom rebuttal report 0.6 9/2/2011 Review Order granting in part and denying in part State's Motion 0.1 to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, and in the alternative, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings /2/2011 Review Order Denying Quesada's Motion for Reconsideration, 0.1 granting LULAC Motion to Withdraw as Attorney; denying Motion to Amend Complaint as moot. no charge 9/3/2011 Prepare and Draft Stipulation of Facts regarding named plaintiffs 2.1 in Quesada Complaint re: standing /4/2011 Review MALC Filing of WITNESS/EXHIBIT LIST 0.1 no charge 9/5/2011 Travel from Alexandria, VA Office to San Antonio for Trial 6.0 no charge 9/6/2011 Review NAACP-Congressperson Joint Trial Brief /6/2011 Review Motion to Intervene by Jon Roland. ) 0.2 no charge 9/6/2011 Review Order denying Roland's Motion to Intervene 0.1 no charge 9/6/2011 Review Answer by Rick Perry, State of Texas 0.2 no charge 9/6/2011 Prepare for, attend and participate in first day of Bench Trial /7/2011 Review Munisteri Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice 0.1 no charge 9/7/2011 Review Latino Task Force Amended Exhibit List 0.2 no charge 9/7/2011 Review Order granting Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Without 0.1 Prejudice Defendant Munisteri, no charge 9/7/2011 Review Rodriguez filing re: additional exhibit 0.1 9/7/2011 Prepare for, Attend and participate in second day of Bench Trial /8/2011 Prepare for,attend and participate in third day of Bench Trial

76 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 11 of 27 9/9/2011 Review Motion of Latino Task Force's to Unfile or Seal 0.2 Erroneously Filed Expert Witness Report 9/9/2011 Review Motion of Latino Task Force to Exclude Expert Testimony 0.2 of Dr. Norfleet W. Rives 9/9/2011 Prepare for, Attend and participate in fourth day of Bench Trial /10/2011 File Stipulation of Facts regarding named plaintiffs in Quesada 0.1 Complaint re: standing. 9/10/2011 Review TX's Opposition to Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of 0.2 Dr. Norfleet W. Rives 9/10/2011 Prepare for, attend and participate in fifth day of Bench Trial /12/2011 Review Joint Stipulation Between and Among the Defendants and 0.1 the Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force Regarding the King Ranch 9/12/2011 Attend and participate in sixth day of Bench Trial /13/2011 Review Unopposed motion to Withdraw Motion to Exclude 0.1 Expert Testimony of Dr. Rives 9/13/2011 Review Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force Corrected Rebuttal 0.2 Report of Expert Witness Dr. Richard Engstrom 9/13/2011 Review Supplemental Report of Dr.Alford by State of Texas /1/2011 Start preparation of closing argument and powerpoint for use in 1.2 closing argument 1.2 9/13/2011 Attend and participate in seventh day of Bench Trial /13/2011 Review Order GRANTING Unopposed Motion to Unfile or Seal 0.1 Erroneously Filed Expert Witness Report 9/14/2011 Attend and participate in eighth day of Bench Trial /14/2011 Review Order granting motion to Withdraw Motion to Exclude 0.1 Expert Testimony of Dr. Rives. 9/14/2011 Prepare Closing Argument and Final edits to Powerpoint slides for 2.1 use in closing argument 2.1 9/14/2011 Review LULAC Affidavit in Support of Proffer 0.2 9/15/2011 Review Declaration of Walter Wilson filed by Eddie Rodriguez, 0.1 9/15/2011 Review Motion to Appear for MALC by Cynthia B. Jones 0.1 9/15/2011 Review Joint Offers Of Proof by Alexander Green, Sheila Jackson- 0.2 Lee, Howard Jefferson, Eddie Bernice Johnson 9/15/2011 Review Joint Filing Of Offers Of Proof by Green, Sheila Jackson- 0.1 Lee, Jefferson, and EB Johnson 9/15/2011 Review Task Force Offer of Proof - Exhibit /15/2011 Prepare for, attend and participate in ninth day of Bench Trial /16/2011 Review Task Force Exhibits /16/2011 Review Task Force Exhibits PL PL /16/2011 Review Task Force Exhibits PL PL /16/2011 Review Task Force Exhibits PL /16/2011 Review MALC Declarations of Carol Alvarado, Rafael Anchia, 0.4 Jessica Farrar, Pete Gallego, Veronica Gonzales, Scott Hochberg 9/16/2011 Review Task Force 's Expert Report of Dr. Flores (Ex. 422) 0.4

77 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 12 of 27 9/16/2011 Review LATINO TASK FORCE PLAINTIFFS' MULTIMEDIA EXHIBIT 0.1 Notice of Filing DVD 9/16/2011 Prepare for, attend and participate in final day of Bench Trial /17/2011 Prepare Powerpoint for closing arguments /18/2011 Travel from San Antonio to Alexandria Office 6.0 9/19/2011 Review MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief by Babb /19/2011 Review Offer of Proof by Green, Jackson-Lee, EB Johnson 0.2 9/20/2011 Review Order granting Cynthia B. Jones Pro Hac Vice /20/2011 Review MALC Advisory to Court regarding section 5 procedings 0.2 9/20/2011 Review Latino Task Force Plaintiffs' PowerPoint Presentation 0.2 9/21/2011 Review State of Texas Power Point Presentation 0.3 no charge 9/21/2011 STATEMENT OF ISSUES Corrected deficiencies by John T Morris. 0.1 (Morris, John) (Entered: 09/21/2011) no charge 9/21/2011 File Quesada Plaintiffs' PowerPoint Presentation 0.1 no charge 9/23/2011 Review State of Texas JOINT EXHIBIT LIST ( J-21 TO J-42) 0.2 no charge 9/23/2011 Review TX Filing of amended and electronic exhibits 0.2 no charge 9/23/2011 Review TX Filing of attachment to Jt. Ex no charge 9/23/2011 Review TX Filing of attachments to Jt. Ex no charge 9/23/2011 Review Advisory re: Discovery Schedule in Section 5 proceeding. 0.2 no charge 9/23/2011 Review State's Motion For Admission of Exhibits D-67 through D and Defendants' Notice of Filing of Counter-Offers of Proof no charge 9/23/2011 Review State's Second Amended Exhibit List and Electronic 0.1 Exhibits 9/23/2011 Review TX Latino Task Force motion to Admit Exhibits /23/2011 Review Order directing parties to confer & submit an agreed 0.1 advisory. 9/26/2011 Review TX Latino Task Force response to state's motion to to 0.1 Admit Exhibits 421 through 425 9/27/2011 Review MALC motion for Temporary Restraining Order /27/2011 Review Task Force's reply memo to State's response to MOTION 0.2 to Admit Exhibits 421 through 425 9/27/2011 Review Order Denying Babb leave to file amicus brief 0.1 9/27/2011 Review Perez Objections to State's Motion to Admit Exhibits D through D-72 9/28/2011 Review TX Response to MALC's Motion for Temporary Restraining 0.1 Order 0.1 9/29/2011 Review Order granting TRO and enjoining unprecleared voting 0.1 changes /29/2011 Review TX's response to Perez Plaintiffs' Objections to State 0.2 Defendants' Counter-Offers of Proof 9/29/2011 Review MALC's Advisory to Court 0.2

78 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 13 of 27 9/30/2011 Review TDP's motion for Reconsideration of Order on Motion to 0.2 Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, Order on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 9/30/2011 Review Order re: schedule and implementation of plan /3/2011 Review Morris Motion for Reconsideration /3/2011 Review Order taking under advisement TDP's motion for 0.1 reconsideration 10/3/2011 Review State's motion to Strike Proffer Testimony /4/2011 Review MALC;s motion to withdraw Anchia declaration /4/2011 Review amended order regarding scheduling and goal of 0.1 implementing interim plan /4/2011 Review State's Supplemental Motion for Admission of Exhibits /5/2011 Prepare/draft post-trial Brief for Quesada Plaintiffs /4/2011 Review ORDER on page limit re: parties' post trial briefs /5/2011 Review State's motion to Exceed Page Limit of Post-Trial Brief /6/2011 Review Order granting State's Motion Exceed Page Limit /6/2011 Communications to and with Plaintiffs' Counsel (Perales, Garza, 0.4 Vera, Hicks, Richards, Riggs, Bledsoe) re: filing joint brief on legal standards for drawing remedial plans & remedy issues, and Hebert offer to draft brief for all plaintiffs /7/2011 Legal Research and drafting Brief on remedy Issues on behalf of 5.5 Quesada Plaintiffs, LULAC, MALC, Eddie Rodriguez, Perez, and Task Force Plaintiffs /6/2011 Review motion Participate as Amicus Curiae by A. J. Pate /6/2011 Review Pate Advisory to court /7/2011 Review Perez post-trial brief /7/2011 Review Order granting LULAC Leave to File /7/2011 Final Edits to Brief on remedy Issues on behalf of Quesada 1.2 Plaintiffs, LULAC, MALC, Eddie Rodriguez, Perez, and Task Force Plaintiffs /7/2011 Review State's Advisory to Court regarding interim plans /7/2011 Review NAACP and Congresspersons Joint Trial Brief /7/2011 Review Congresspersons Green, Jackson-Lee, and Johnson Joint 0.3 Advisory 10/7/2011 Review Proposed Findings of Fact by Congresspersons and NAACP /7/2011 Prepare final edits and file post-trial Brief for Quesada Plaintiffs /7/2011 Review Post-Trial Brief of Rodriguez Plaintiffs /7/2011 Review Post Trial Brief by State of Texas /7/2011 Review MALC's post trial brief /7/2011 Review State of Texas Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions 0.3 of Law /8/2011 Legal Research and drafting Brief on remedy Issues on behalf of 2.6 Quesada Plaintiffs, LULAC, MALC, Eddie Rodriguez, Perez, and Task Force Plaintiffs /8/2011 Review post-trial brief of Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force 1.5

79 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 14 of 27 10/9/2011 Legal Research and drafting Brief on remedy Issues on behalf of 1.7 Quesada Plaintiffs, LULAC, MALC, Eddie Rodriguez, Perez, and Task Force Plaintiffs /10/2011 Legal Research and drafting Brief on remedy Issues on behalf of 0.9 Quesada Plaintiffs, LULAC, MALC, Eddie Rodriguez, Perez, and Task Force Plaintiffs /11/2011 Review LULAC post-trial brief /11/2011 Review Order regarding appointment of technical advisors to the 0.1 Court /11/2011 Review two (2) orders granting motion to admit exhibits /11/2011 Review exhibits filed by State of TX /11/2011 Review Order granting motion to withdraw Declaration of Rafael 0.1 Anchia no charge 10/11/2011 Review exhibits filed by State of Texas. 0.8 no charge 10/11/2011 Review Brief Filed by Eddie Rodriguez, et al /12/2011 Review TX Latino Task Force's motion to File Post Trial Brief /12/2011 Review TX Latino Task Force's motion to admit documents /12/2011 Response of NAACP to State's Motion to Strike Proffered 0.1 Testimony 10/13/2011 Review TX Latino Task Force's Two Advisories to Court /13/2011 Review Order granting Motion to Admit Exhibits /13/2011 Review Order denying Pate's Motion to particiate amicus curiae /13/2011 Review Order granting Task force's Motion to file post-trial brief /14/2011 Review State's reply to NAACP response regarding MOTION to 0.2 Strike Proffer Testimony 10/14/2011 Review Rodriquez's Response in Opposition to State's Motion to 0.2 Strike Proffer Testimony 10/15/2011 Prepare Quesada Proposed Remedial Congressional Redistricting 2.1 Plan /16/2011 Prepare Quesada Proposed Remedial Congressional Redistricting 1.4 Plan /17/2011 Review Pate's motion of Order denying Amicus Curiae status /17/2011 Review Texas' advisory regarding interim map /17/2011 Review Cong. Cuellar response regarding Proposed Interim Plan /17/2011 Review Rodriguez Plaintiffs' Submission on Interim Court-Ordered 0.3 Plan Issues 10/17/2011 Final edits and submission of Quesada Proposed Remedial 0.4 Congressional Redistricting Plan /17/2011 Review MALC proposed interim court plans /17/2011 Review NAACP Advisory regarding Section 5 issues /17/2011 Review Latino Redist. Task Force Response in Opposition to 0.2 State's Motion to Strike Proffer Testimony 10/17/2011 Review Canseco motion to File Proposed Interim Plans /17/2011 Review TX Latino Task Force Advisory on interim plans

80 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 15 of 27 10/17/2011 Review order granting TLRTF's motion to admit exhibits /18/2011 Review Order granting Canseco motion to file plan /18/2011 Review Canseco amicus brief /18/2011 Review Perez Advisory on interim plans /18/2011 Review TX Latino Task Force Advisory w/attachments /19/2011 Review Perez supplementary advisory re: exhibits /21/2011 Review Perez Reply Brief /21/2011 Review Reply Brief of NAACP and Congresspersons /21/2011 Review State of TX response to Plaintiffs' Post-Trial Briefs /21/2011 Review MALC's Reply to State's Post Trial Brief /22/2011 Draft Response/Advisory of Quesada Plaintiffs to State of Texas' 0.4 Proposed Interim Plan /22/2011 Review TX Latino Task Force Response to Trial Brief /23/2011 Review TX Latino Task Force Filing Report of Dr. Engstrom /24/2011 Review Cong. Cuellar's Objections to Proposed Interim Plans /24/2011 Review TX Latino Task Force Response to Proposed Interim 0.3 Remedial Redistricting Plans 10/24/2011 Review NAACP & Congresspersons response to Interim Plans /24/2011 Final Edits and file Response/Advisory of Quesada Plaintiffs to 0.4 State of Texas' Proposed Interim Plan /24/2011 Review State of TX's Objections to Proposed Interim Plans /26/2011 Review supplemental response of Rodriguez re: exhibits /28/2011 Review Perez Plaintiffs' Notice of Filing of Interim Proposal /28/2011 Review TLRTF's motion to correct proposed Findings of Fact /28/2011 Review MALC's joint advisory of the parties /28/2011 Review USA's Advisory to Court and Statement of Interest /30/2011 Review Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force Advisory /30/2011 Review Ceullar-Canseco's Supplemental Proposed Interim Plan /31/2011 Review Pro Hac Vice Motion by Michael Hilgers 0.1 no charge 11/1/2011 Oreview order directing submission of proposed orders regarding 0.1 election deadlines /2/2011 Review Order Hilgers Pro Hac Vice motion /2/2011 Review Order granting Task Force's Motion to File Corrected 0.1 Findings of Fact. 11/2/2013 Travel from Alexandria, VA Office to San Antonio for remedial 6.0 hearing 11/3/2011 Review TDP's Proposed Order Concerning Election Deadlines /3/2011 Prepare for/attend/participate in remedial hearings before judge ct. (Includes presentation of witness and exhibits /4/2011 Proposed Pretrial Order Concerning Election Deadlines by Boyd 0.1 Richie. 11/4/2011 Review Order re; residences and other election schedule 0.1 deadlines 11/4/2011 Review Supplemental Letters of Support of Interim Redistricting 0.1 Plan C216 by Canseco and Cuellar 11/4/2011 Review Task Force Third Amended List 0.1

81 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 16 of 27 11/4/2011 Review Notice of Exhibit List - QUESADA Plaintiffs /7/2011 Review amended order correcting date /7/2011 Review USA's Advisory regarding Section 2 A /8/2011 Review MALC's Advisory Regarding DC Order Denying State's MSJ /9/2011 Draft Quesada Plaintiffs' Advisory to Court Regarding Filings by 0.3 the State Defendants and the United States /8/2011 Review Order Setting Status Conference for 11/14/2011 re: 0.1 interim plans 11/10/2011 Review Order cancelling status conference /10/2011 Review State of TX Advisory on population equality/deviations 0.3 interim plans. 11/14/2011 Review Perez Advisory to the Court /15/2011 Review TX's Response to USA Brief on Interim Maps /15/2011 Final Edits and file Quesada Plaintiffs' Advisory to Court Regarding 0.6 Filings by the State Defendants and the United States /16/2011 Review USA Advisory to Court /17/2011 Review LULAC And NAACP Statewide Alternative Congressional 0.3 Plan C /17/2011 Review order requiring parties to review plans /18/2011 Review Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force Response /18/2011 Review MALC Advisory to Court on proposed plans /18/2011 Review Congresspersons' Green, Jackson-Lee, Eddie Bernice 0.1 Johnson Advisory to Court on interim plans /18/2011 Review corrected advisory of NAACP and Jefferson /18/2011 Review Advisory By Green, Jackson-Lee, EB Johnson /20/2011 Review NAACP Advosry on precinct swaps w/exhibits /21/2011 Review Latino Task Force Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to 0.1 Redistricting Plan C /23/2011 Review order regarding filing deadlines for comments or 0.1 objections to proposed plans 11/23/2011 Review MOTION to Intervene by Sarah M Davis /23/2011 Review Order denying motion by Sara Davis re: recusal /23/2011 Review Court's proposed congressional plan and initial draft 1.7 Advisory to Court for Quesada Plaintiffs regarding court's proposed congressional plan /23/2011 Review State of TX's Motion to Stay /25/2011 Review Congressman Cuellar Advisory on Proposed Interim 0.2 Congressional Plan. 11/25/2011 Review NAACP Advisory on Plans /25/2011 Review MALC Advisory on Plans /25/2011 Review Rodriguez's Advisory on Plans /25/2011 Review State of TX Objections to the Court's Proposed Interim 0.3 Congressional Plans /25/2011 Review Canseco Advisory on Plans 0.1

82 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 17 of 27 11/25/2011 Draft and make fin al edits and and File Advisory to Court for 1.3 Quesada Plaintiffs regarding court's proposed congressional plan /25/2011 Review 2 Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force advisories on Plan 0.2 C220 11/25/2011 Review State's Amended Exhibit A to State's objections to court's 0.1 proposed interim congressional maps 11/25/2011 Review LULAC ADVISORY TO THE COURT /25/2011 Review 2 TX Redist. Task Force Advisories to Court /25/2011 Review Order denying State's stay motion /26/2011 Review Order adopting Plan C220 as interim congressional 0.2 redistricitng plan /27/2011 Review State's motion to stay interim congresional plan /27/2011 Review Order denying State's second stay motion /2/2011 Review Court's Supplemental Opinion re: interim plans /11/2011 Review Order setting status conference for 12/ /11/2011 Review LULAC motion re: conduct of single primary elections /12/2011 Review State's motion to stay candidate filing deadlines /12/2011 Travel from Alexandria Office to San Antonio for Status 6.0 Conference 12/13/2011 Review motion to Dismiss Dutton as Plaintiff 0.1 Review Notice of Filing of Letter in Support of Unified Primary 0.1 Election by Canseco and Cuellar 12/13/2011 Prepare for/participate/attend Status Conference /12/2011 Travel to Alexandria Office from San Antonio /14/2011 Review TDP's Proposed Order Concerning Election Deadlines /14/2011 Review 3-judge ct's order modifying residence requirements /14/2011 Review order dismissing Dutton /16/2011 Review proposed TDP's Order Concerning Election Deadlines /9/2011 Letter & order from Supreme Court of the United States /16/2011 Review order with schedule and setting deadline of 2/1/ /19/2011 ORDER regarding typographical error /21/2011 Review County Judges and Commissioners Association Advisory /22/2011 ORDER directing parties to file advisories to the Court by /28/11. 12/22/2011 Review Texas Municipal League submission to court /28/2011 Edits to Quesada (and other plaintiffs) Response to Court's 0.4 December 22, 2011 Order 12/29/2011 Review County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas 0.1 Supplemental Advisory 1/3/2012 Review Order cancelling 1/12 status conference 0.1 1/19/2012 Review Perez Advisory to Court 0.1 1/20/2012 Review Decision of US Supreme Court in Perry v. Perez and 0.5 communicate decision to clients 0.5 1/20/2012 Review State of TX Response to Perez Plaintifffs' Advisory to the 0.3 Court

83 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 18 of 27 1/20/2012 Review State's motion for Reconsideration 0.3 1/22/2012 Review Order taking under advisedment state's motion for 0.1 reconsideration 1/23/2012 Draft and prepare Quesada's Jointly Filed Memorandum in 0.3 Opposition to State's Motion for Reconsideration (along with LULAC, MALC, NAACP, Perez and Rodriguez Plaintiffs, Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force, and Texas Legislative Black Caucus) and review MALC edits to same 0.3 1/23/2012 Review TDP's advisory to court 0.1 1/23/2012 Review State's Reply to Quesada et al. Response to State's 0.2 Motion for Reconsideration 0.2 1/23/2012 Review Order vacating order and setting status conference 0.1 1/24/2012 Review advisory and corrected advisory by Bexar Co. TX through 0.1 Jacque Callanen 1/24/2012 Review motion to Intervene by Joe Barton /24/2012 Review Order Barton Motion to Intervene 0.1 1/25/2012 Review Marisa Bon's motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice 0.1 1/25/2012 Review Cong. Cuellar's Advisory on Supreme Court Decision 0.2 1/25/2012 Review Order Bon's Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice 0.1 1/25/2012 Review Canseco's motion to Intervene 0.2 1/25/2012 Review Order granting Canseco Motion to Intervene 0.1 1/26/2012 Review Karolina Lyznik Notice of Appearance 0.1 1/27/2012 Review USA's Advisory to Court Re: Redrawing of Interim Maps 0.2 on the Basis of Probable Violations of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act 0.2 1/26/2012 Travel to San Antonio from Alexandria,VA Office for hearing 6.0 1/27/2012 Review USA's Advisory to Court Re: the Uniformed and Overseas 0.1 Citizens Absentee Voting Act. 1/27/2012 Prepared for, attended and participated in Status Conference /28/2012 Travel from San Antonio to Alexandria, VA Office 6.0 1/28/2012 Review Order setting deadline for agreeemnt on interim maps /31/2012 ORDER Lyznik's Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice 0.1 2/1/2012 Review TDP's advisory to court 0.1 2/2/2012 Prepare Quesada Plaintiffs' Advisory to Court enclosing trial 0.2 transcripts from Texas v. U.S. (D.D.C.) /2/2012 Review Order requiring briefs and proposed findings of fact on 0.1 interim plans, and setting hearing date for oral argument 0.1 2/2/2012 Prepare Quesada Plaintiffs' Supplemental Advisory to Court 0.2 enclosing trial transcript from Texas v. U.S. (D.D.C.) 2/2/2012 Review motion to intervene by Rod Ponton 0.1 2/2/2012 Review Order denying Ponton's Motion to Intervene 0.1 2/3/2012 Review Perez Advisory Regarding Interim Plans 0.2 2/3/2012 Review Complaint in Intervention filed by Cong. Barton /6/2012 Edits to joint filing by Quesada Plaintiffs, LULAC, NAACP and Eddie 0.2 Rodriguez and Congresspersons Green, Jackson-Lee and EB Johnson re: interim plans Max) (Entered: 02/06/2012) 0.2 2/6/2012 Review order re: negotiations and deadlines in place 0.2

84 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 19 of 27 2/6/2012 Review State's Advisory Regarding Interim Redistricting Plans /6/2012 Review Advisory by Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force 0.1 Regarding New Proposed Plans 0.1 2/6/2012 Review MALC Advisory on status of interim plan /7/2012 Review Cong. Barton Advisories (corrected) to Court /7/2012 Review Cong. Cuellar Advisory on Congressional Plan C /8/2012 Review State of Texas Advisory Correcting Previous Advisory 0.1 Regarding Interim Redistricting Plans 0.1 2/8/2012 Review order resetting status conf /9/2012 Review Congressman Cuellar Supplement Advisory on Interim 0.1 Plan 2/9/2012 Review Perez advisory Regarding Purported Settlement /9/2012 Review USA's Filing Exhibit List from Texas v. US 0.1 2/10/2012 Review order setting hearing 0.1 2/10/2012 Review Perez Proposed Findings of Fact 0.2 2/10/2012 Proposed Perez Proposed Conclusions of Law 0.2 2/10/2012 Review Perez Trial Brief Regarding Interim Plans /10/2012 Review MALC's Proposed Findings of Fact 0.3 2/10/2012 Review Brief Cong. Barton on Interim Congressional Plan /10/2012 Review MALC Trial Brief on interim plan issues /10/2012 Edits to Quesada Jointly Filed Brief on Interim Plan issues 0.6 (w/naacp, LULAC, Congresspersons, Rodriguez) 0.6 2/10/2012 Review Proposed Findings of Fact LULAC, and Eddie Rodriguez /10/2012 Review brief on Interim Maps by NAACP /10/2012 Review Proposed Findings of Fact by State of Texas /10/2012 Review Corrections to brief on interim congressional plan 0.1 by Canseco. 2/10/2012 Review USA's Statement of Interest encls. docs /10/2012 Review Brief by State of Texas on Issues Relating to Interim 0.2 Redistricting Plans 0.2 2/10/2012 Review USA's motion to File Amicus Brief 0.2 2/10/2012 Review Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force's Proposed Findings 0.1 of Fact by and Conclusions of Law 0.1 2/10/2012 Review NAACP and Congresspersons Proposed Findings of Fact /10/2012 Review Advisory of NAACP and Congresspersons and encloising 0.2 proposed congressional interim maps 0.2 2/10/2012 Review of Jointly Filed Proposed Findings of Fact on behalf of 0.3 Quesada Plaintiffs (with Perez, MALC, Rodriguez, Task Force, et al.) 0.3 2/10/2012 Review Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force Brief with exhibits /10/2012 Review Motion to Extend Time by Texas Latino Redistricting Task 0.1 Force 2/11/2012 Review Order granting Task force Motion for Extension of Time 0.1 2/11/2012 Review Order granting USA' s Motion File Amicus Brief 0.1

85 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 20 of 27 2/12/2012 Draft, edit and file Quesada Joint Advisory with Rodriguez 0.3 Plaintiffs 0.3 2/13/2012 ORDER re invitation to DOJ to participate at 2/14 hearing 0.1 2/13/2012 Review Cong. Cuellar Second Advisory on Interim Plan /13/2012 Review Brief by Perez Plaintiffs 0.2 2/13/2012 Edits to brief filed jointly by Quesada Plaintiffs, LULAC, NAACP 0.5 and Rodriguez Plaintiffs) 0.5 2/13/2012 Revie TX's Brief on Issues Relating to Interim Redistricting Plans /13/2012 Review State of Texas Advisory Regarding Interim Maps /13/2012 Review NAACP and Congresspersons' Advisory regarding Plan 0.1 c /13/2012 Review Motion to File Amicus Brief Jose A. Botello, et al /13/2012 Review brief by San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce 0.1 2/13/2012 Review NAACP and Congresspersons Grren, et al. report on 0.2 intentional discrimination and retrogression in C185 2/13/2012 Travel to San Antonio from Alexandria, VA Office for hearing 6.0 2/14/2012 Review Ponton Motion for Reconsideration 0.1 2/14/2012 Prepare for attend, participate in hearing before three-judge 4.0 court 4.0 2/15/2012 Prepare for attend, participate in hearing before three-judge 4.0 court 4.0 2/15/2012 Travel from San Antonio to Alexandria, VA Office 6.0 2/16/2012 Review Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force Filing PowerPoint 0.1 Presentation from remedial hearing 2/16/2012 Review brief of Cong. Barton on Creation of CD 33 in Plan C /16/2012 Review Perez Post Hearing Brief 0.2 2/16/2012 Edit Jointly Filed Advisory by Quesada Plaintiffs, LULAC, NAACP, 0.3 Texas Legislative Black Caucus, and Rodriguez Plaintiffs) 0.3 2/16/2012 Review Joint Advisory Regarding Interim Congressional 0.2 Districtsfiled by State of TX 0.2 2/17/2012 Review LULAC Exhibit List 0.1 2/17/2012 Review LULAC filing on Precinct Splits and District Race Lines 0.2 CD33 Plan /20/2012 Prepare and file Quesada Plaintiffs' Advisory to Court Regarding 0.6 Quesada Plan C234 with attached maps and reports /20/2012 Review MALC post hearing brief /21/2012 Review Order directing Plaintiffs to submit brief on CD23 in Plan 0.1 C /21/2012 Review Perez response to February 17, 2012 Order 0.1 2/22/2012 Review MALC Advisory on CD 23 in Plan C /22/2012 Edits to Jointly Filed Advisory on congressional plan by Quesada, 0.3 LULAC, NAACP, Congresspersons Green, Jackson-Lee, and EB Johnson, nad Rodriguez plaintiffs 0.3

86 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 21 of 27 2/22/2012 Review LULAC advisory on CD 23 in Plan C /22/2012 Review Green, Jackson-Lee,, and Johnson advisory 0.2 2/22/2012 Review State of Texas Advisory regarding CD 23 in Plan /22/2012 Review Canseco advisory on CD23 and Plan C /22/2012 Review Latino Task Force and Cong. Cuellar Advisory regarding 0.2 CD23 in C226 2/23/2012 Review MALC, Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force, and Cuellar 0.2 advisory regarding Quesada Plan C /28/2012 Review Order adopting Plan C235 as the interim plan for 0.2 tcongresisonal districts 0.2 2/28/2012 Review Order granting additional relief regarding implemenation 0.1 of interim plans 3/1/2012 Review County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas 0.2 Joint Advisory 3/1/2012 Review Order regarding changes to election schedule and 0.1 election code 3/1/2012 Review Ponton Objection to Order Approving Redistricting Plans 0.1 3/6/2012 Draft and File Joint advisory of Quesada Plaintiffs, LULAC and 1.5 Rodriguez plaintiffs regarding Plan C226 and C /14/2012 Review McClure Motion to Intervene 0.1 3/14/2012 Review Order denying McClure Motion to Intervene 0.1 3/19/2012 Review Amedned Order regarding deadlines 0.1 3/19/2012 Review opinion and order regarding Plan C235 as interim 0.3 congressional redistricting plan 0.3 5/2/2012 Review motion to proceed in forma pauperis by Idrogo 0.1 5/2/2012 Review Indogo Motion to File Cross-Complaint, etc /4/2012 Review order denying Indrogo's motion 0.1 5/15/2012 Review Indrogo's motion to set aside order 0.1 5/21/2012 Review order denying Indrogo's motion 0.1 6/7/2012 Review Order denying certain pending motions as moot 0.1 6/19/2012 Review MALC's Interim motion for Attorney Fees 1.1 6/22/2012 Review TX's Motion to Abate Response to MALC's Motion for 0.2 Interim Attorney's Fees 6/25/2012 Review Cong. Cuellar's Motion for Interim Fees 0.3 6/25/2012 Review Order on attys fees /25/2012 Review Joint motion for Relief from TDP and TX Rep. Party 0.1 6/26/2012 Review Order on Joint mot. of political parties 0.1 6/26/2012 Review order on various pending motions 0.1 7/5/2012 Review Morris advisory to court A 0.1 7/5/2012 Review State of Texas Filing Regarding Objections and Motion to 0.2 Strike Proffer 7/6/2012 Review TDP's advisory to court 0.1 8/29/2012 Review LULAC motion to expedite 0.1 8/30/2012 Review Order granting motion to expedite and scheduling hearing 0.1

87 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 22 of 27 8/30/2012 Edits to Joint motion to Allow Telephonic Participation in 0.1 8/31/2012 Status Conference 8/30/2012 Review Order granting Joint Motion of Certain Plaintiffs to Allow 0.1 Telephonic Participation in Status Hearing 8/31/2012 Review LULAC Advisory Relating to Status Conference 0.1 8/31/2012 Participate telephonically in hearing on LULAC request 1.0 8/31/2012 Review DeLeon motion to intervene and 9/4 amended mot /4/2012 Review Orders Denying DeLeon Amended Motion to Intervene 0.1 9/5/2012 Review LULAC motion to stay implementation of interim 0.2 congressional Plan C235 9/7/2012 Review order denying LULAC Motion to Stay Plan C /7/2012 Review order regarding interim plans issued by the Court 0.1 9/19/2012 Review order administratively staying case 0.1 9/21/2012 Review order extending to 12/2 deadline for filing written 0.1 advisories 9/19/2011 Review Supreme Court order denying LULAC stay application /14/2012 Review order regarding content of written advisories /3/2012 Review Eddie Rodriguez Advisory to Court /3/2012 Review MALC Advisory to Court /3/2012 Review Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force Advisory /3/2012 Review State of TX Advisory /6/2012 Review State of Texas' errat to advisory 0.1 2/8/2013 Motion of Rebecca Couto to Withdraw 0.1 2/11/2013 Review Order that parties file written advisories 0.1 2/12/2013 Order granting Motion to Withdraw as Attorney 0.1 3/14/2013 Review Motion of Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force for 0.1 Extension of Time 3/14/2013 Review Order granting Task Force's Motion for Extension of Time 0.1 3/22/2013 Review MALC Advisory to Court 0.2 3/22/2013 Review TDP Advisory to Court concerning timing of election 0.1 3/22/2013 Review State of Texas Advisory to the Court 0.3 3/22/2013 Review Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force Advisory 0.3 3/22/2013 Edit Joint Advisory for Quesada Plaintiffs, LULAC, NAACP, 0.9 Congresspersons Green, Jackson-Lee and ED Johnson, and Eddie Rodriguez 3/23/2013 Review Cong. Cuellar Advisory to Court 0.3 3/24/2013 Review Morris' Advisory to Court and motion for extension 0.1 3/25/2013 Review Order Morris' Motion for Extension of Time 0.1 3/28/2013 Review MLAC Advisory to Court 0.4 4/5/2013 Edits to Joint Response by Quesada Plaintiffs, LULAC, NAACP, and 0.6 Congresspersons Green, Jackson-Lee, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Eddie Rodriguez, and Texas Legislative Black Caucus 4/5/2013 Review State of Texas Response to various advisories 0.8 5/20/2013 Review ORDER setting hearing on 5/29/ /28/2013 Travel to San Antonio from Philadelphia, PA 6.0

88 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 23 of 27 5/29/2013 Prepare for, attend and participate in hearing before three-judge 3.0 court 3.0 5/31/2013 Travel from San Antonio from Philadelphia 6.0 5/29/2013 Review Order of three judge court re: further proceedings 0.1 5/30/2013 Review advisory by Eddie Rodriguez 0.2 5/31/2013 Review Motion to Re-urge Interim Attorneys Fees by Cong Cuellar 0.1 5/31/2013 Motion MALC Motion to Re-urge Interim Attorneys Fees 0.1 6/3/2013 Review Notice of Appearance by Patrick K. Sweeten 0.1 6/3/2013 Review Notice of Appearance by Jennifer Settle Jackson 0.1 6/3/2013 Review Order re: ORDER discharging Hanna and Dyer as technical 0.1 advisors to the Court. 6/3/2013 Review order that parties withhold further motions for attorneys 0.1 fees 6/5/2013 Review Brief by Mexican American Legislative Caucus 0.2 6/5/2013 Review TX's Brief regarding Order 0.2 6/10/2013 Review Cong. Gallego Motion to Intervene 0.3 6/13/2013 Review TX's Opposition to Gallego Motion to Intervene 0.2 no charge 6/18/2013 Review Cong. Gallego's reply State's Response re Intervention 0.1 no charge 6/26/2013 Review Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force motion for 0.3 Modification of Injunction 6/26/2013 Review State's advisory to court 0.4 6/27/2013 Review State of TX's advisory to court 0.2 6/27/2013 Review Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force Advisory to Court 0.3 6/27/2013 Review order setting status conference for 7/1/ /28/2013 Review Order granting Cong.Gallego's Motion to Intervene 0.1 6/28/2013 Review Perez Advisory to Court 0.2 6/28/2013 Review State's Motion to Dismiss 0.4 6/29/2013 Review Errata by Rick Perry, et al /30/2013 Travel to San Antonio from Alexandria, VA Office for hearing 6.0 7/1/2013 Prepare for, Attend and Participate in Proceedings before the 3.0 Three Judge Court 3.0 7/1/2013 Review Order denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 0.1 7/2/2013 Travel to Alexandria, VA Office from San Antonio 6.0 7/1/2013 Review Order establishing deadlines for amendments to 0.1 pleadings, briefs on 3c, supplementing record, attys fees etc. 7/3/2013 Review Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force's Motion for 0.1 Extension of Time to File Interim Attorneys Fees Application 7/3/2013 Review Order granting Task Force Motion for Extension of Time 0.1 7/10/2013 Review Cong. Cuellar Motion to Amend Complaint 0.2 7/12/2013 Review Perez Motion to Amend Complaint 0.2 7/12/2013 Edits to Motion to amend complaint by Quesada Plaintiffs, LULAC, 1.5 NAACP, Congresspersons and Eddie Rodriguez, and amended complaint 7/12/2013 Review Motion of TDP to file First Amended Cross-Claim 0.3 7/12/2013 Review MALC's motion to Amend Complaint 0.4

89 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 24 of 27 7/12/2013 Review Taks Force's Motion to Supplement Pleadings and Brief in 0.5 Support 7/12/2013 Review Advisory of Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force 0.2 7/15/2013 Review Morris' Motion for Extension of Time 0.1 7/15/2013 Review Morris' Motionsto Amend Complaint 0.1 7/18/2013 State of TX Motion for Extension of Time to File Responses 0.1 7/18/2013 Review Order granting TX's Motion for Extension of Time 0.1 7/18/2013 Draft explanation of DC Court exhibits' relevance for 3C relief 0.5 7/18/2013 Communications with co-counsel and clients regarding advisory 0.3 on exhibits 7/19/2013 Review State of TX's Responses in Opposition to Motionto 1.4 supplement Pleadings and Brief in Support; Motion fo Leave to File First Amended Cross-Claim filed by Cross Claimant Texas Democratic Party; Perez Motion to Amend Complaint; Motion to Amend Complaint filed by Morris; Motion by Quesada Plaintiffs, LULAC, NAACP, Rodriguez, to Amend Complaint; Motion to Amend Complaint filed by Congressman Cuellar, and MALC motion to Amend Complaint 7/21/2013 Initial draft of motion for Attorneys' Fees /22/2013 Review MALC brief regarding Order on Motion to Re-urge, 0.2 Interim Award of Fees 7/22/2013 Edits to Joint Advisory by Quesada Plaintiffs, LULAC, NAACP, 0.4 Conhgresspersons and Rodriguez 7/22/2013 Review Joint Motion to Reopen the Record to Provide 0.3 Supplemental Evidence by various Plaintiffs, including Quesada Plaintiffs 7/22/2013 Review Task Force Motion to File Joint Motion of Plaintiffs for 0.3 Leave to Reopen the Record to Provide Supplemental Evidence 7/22/2013 Review Morris Advisory to Court 0.1 7/22/2013 Review Brief filed by Defendants Rick Perry, State of Texas 0.5 7/22/2013 Draft Hebert Declaration for Attorneys' Fee Filing /25/2013 Review USA Advisory on Section 3c 0.4 7/26/2013 Review motion to dismiss by Cong. Barton 0.2 7/26/2013 Review notice of appearance by Jonathan F. Mitchell 0.1 7/26/2013 Review State of TX's motion for Extension of Time to File 0.1 Response/Reply 7/26/2013 Review Joint motion for Extension of Time to File for all Plaintiffs 0.1 7/26/2013 Edit Joint Reply to State's Response opposing motion to amend 1.1 complaint filed by Quesada Plaintiffs, LULAC, NAACP, Congresspersons Green Jackson Lee, EB Johnson and Rodriguez 7/27/2013 Review Order granting TX's Motion for Extension of Time to 0.1 Respond to Section 3(c) Briefs

90 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 25 of 27 7/27/2013 Review Order granting MALC's Motion for Extension of Time to 0.1 file responses to State's motion to dismiss, and to reply to state's opp to motion to amend complaints 7/29/2013 Review Order granting Cong. Barton's motion to dismiss 0.1 intervention 8/2/2013 Review Task Force Motion forreconsideration of Portion of Order 0.5 on Supplementation of Record with exhibits 8/5/2013 Review MALC's reply to State's response in opposition to motion 0.4 to amend complaint 8/8/2013 Edits to Attorneys' Fees Motion Declaration and Time Sheet 3.0 verification 3.0 8/9/2013 File Attorneys' Fees Motion with exhibits 0.2 TOTAL Hours: Summary of Out-of-Pocket Litigation Expenses of Quesada Plaintiffs* Airfare: (16 airfare tickets for Counsel $10, Taxi Fares and Parking Fees: $ Hotel (Includes all Meals): $ $2, Depositions and Trial/Hearing Transcripts: $1, Expenses of Legal Support Staff: Angle Strategies (See Ex. L) $17, Expert Witness Fees: $22, Total out of pocket expenses of Quesada Plaintiffs: $54, * Receipts for these out-of pocket expenses are being filed by the Quesada Plaintiffs as a separate exhibit (Exhibit C - Parts 2-4) Listing of Out-of-Pocket Expenses Item Date Amount Airfare 7/26/11 $ Airfare 8/1/11 $ Airfare 8/18/11 $ Airfare 8/21/11 $ Airfare 8/22/11 $ Airfare 8/25/11 $ Airfare 9/18/11 $200.40

91 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 26 of 27 Airfare 10/16/11 $ Airfare 10/28/11 $ Airfare 11/1/11 $ Airfare 11/2/11 $ Airfare 11/15/11 $ Airfare 12/14/11 $ Airfare 2/6/12 $ Airfare 5/28/13 $ Airfare 6/30/13 $ Total: $10, Hotel 8/18/11 $44.96 Hotel 8/22/11 $ Hotel 9/7/11 $ Hotel 10/28/11 $ Hotel 2/6/12 $ Hotel 2/13/12 $ Hotel 5/28/13 $ Hotel 6/30/13 $ Total: $2, Item Date Amount Taxi 02/11/11 $28.00 Taxi 08/18/11 $32.00 Taxi 08/21/11 $30.00 Gas 09/02/11 $19.20 Taxi 09/08/11 $10.00 Taxi 09/08/11 $8.00 Taxi 09/09/11 $8.00 Taxi 09/14/11 $32.00 Taxi 09/18/11 $30.00 Taxi 10/27/11 $28.00 Taxi 10/28/11 $27.00 Taxi 10/28/11 $8.70 Taxi 10/28/11 $9.00 Parking 11/02/11 $44.00 Taxi 12/14/11 $30.00 Taxi 01/05/12 $32.00 Taxi 02/06/12 $28.00 Taxi 02/12/12 $30.00 Taxi 02/16/12 $31.00 Total: $464.90

92 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 27 of 27 Company Item Date Amount Esquire Veasey-Deposition 8/19/2011 $ Esquire Lichtman--Deposition 8/23/2011 $ Esquire HearingTranscript 5/29/2013 $ Myers Hearing Transcript 11/9/2011 $ Myers Hearing Transcript 7/1/2013 $92.40 Expert Witness Allan Lichtman 8/12/2011 $10, Expert Witness Allan Lichtman 6/3/2013 $2, Expert Witness Allan Lichtman 10/5/2011 $10, Total: $23,947.52

93 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT D Year Adjustmt Factor** Years Out of Law School * Paralegal/ Law Clerk /01/13-5/31/ $175 $320 $393 $567 $640 $771 6/01/12-5/31/ $170 $312 $383 $554 $625 $753 6/01/11-5/31/ $166 $305 $374 $540 $609 $734 6/01/10-5/31/ $161 $294 $361 $522 $589 $709 6/01/09-5/31/ $155 $285 $349 $505 $569 $686 6/01/08-5/31/ $152 $279 $342 $494 $557 $671 6/01/07-5/31/ $146 $268 $329 $475 $536 $645 6/01/06-5/31/ $139 $255 $313 $452 $509 $614 6/1/05-5/31/ $136 $249 $305 $441 $497 $598 6/1/04-5/31/ $130 $239 $293 $423 $476 $574 6/1/03-6/1/ $124 $228 $280 $405 $456 $549 6/1/02-5/31/ $118 $217 $267 $385 $434 $522 6/1/01-5/31/ $110 $203 $249 $359 $404 $487 6/1/00-5/31/ $106 $195 $239 $345 $388 $468 6/1/99-5/31/ $101 $185 $227 $328 $369 $444 6/1/98-5/31/ $96 $176 $216 $312 $352 $424 6/1/97-5/31/ $92 $169 $207 $299 $337 $406 6/1/96-5/31/ $88 $162 $198 $287 $323 $389 6/1/95-5/31/ $85 $155 $191 $276 $311 $375 6/1/94-5/31/ $82 $151 $185 $267 $301 $363

94 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 2 of 2 The methodology of calculation and benchmarking for this Updated Laffey Matrix has been approved in a number of cases. See, e.g., McDowell v. District of Columbia, Civ. A. No (RCL), LEXSEE 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8114 (D.D.C. June 4, 2001); Salazar v. Dist. of Col., 123 F.Supp.2d 8 (D.D.C. 2000). * Years Out of Law School is calculated from June 1 of each year, when most law students graduate. 1-3" includes an attorney in his 1st, 2nd and 3rd years of practice, measured from date of graduation (June 1). 4-7" applies to attorneys in their 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th years of practice. An attorney who graduated in May 1996 would be in tier 1-3" from June 1, 1996 until May 31, 1999, would move into tier 4-7" on June 1, 1999, and tier 8-10" on June 1, ** The Adjustment Factor refers to the nation-wide Legal Services Component of the Consumer Price Index produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor.

95 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 1 of 7

96 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 2 of 7

97 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 3 of 7

98 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 4 of 7

99 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 5 of 7

100 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 6 of 7 EXHIBIT A Brief Biographies of Jenner & Block Attorneys Involved in Quesada Strategy Memo Paul M. Smith Paul M. Smith is a partner in the Firm s Litigation Department. He is a member of the Firm s Policy Committee. He is Chair of the Appellate and Supreme Court Practice and a Co-Chair of the Creative Content, Media and First Amendment, and Election Law and Redistricting Practices. Mr. Smith is AV Peer Review Rated, Martindale-Hubbell s highest peer recognition for ethical standards and legal ability. Mr. Smith has had an active Supreme Court practice for two decades, including oral arguments in fourteen Supreme Court cases. These arguments have included Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008), the Indiana Voter ID case; LULAC v. Perry (2006), and Vieth v. Jubelirer (2003), two congressional redistricting cases; Lawrence v. Texas (2003), involving the constitutionality of the Texas sodomy statute; United States v. American Library Ass n (2003), involving a First Amendment challenge to the Children s Internet Protection Act; and Mathias v. WorldCom (2001), dealing with the Eleventh Amendment immunity of state commissions. His first argument was in Celotex Crop. v. Catrett in Mr. Smith also worked extensively on several other First Amendment cases in the Supreme Court, involving issues ranging from commercial speech to defamation to adult speech on the Internet. Mr. Smith also represents various clients in trial and appellate cases involving commercial and telecommunications issues, the First Amendment, intellectual property, antitrust, and redistricting and voting rights, among other areas. His recent trial work has included several cases involving congressional redistricting as well as challenges to state video game restrictions under the First Amendment. Mr. Smith graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Amherst College in 1976 and received a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1979, where he served as Editor-in-Chief of the Yale Law Journal. The following year, Mr. Smith was a law clerk to Judge James L. Oakes of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. From , Mr. Smith was a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. Mr. Smith was a member of the Board of Governors of the District of Columbia Bar from He is a former board member and former Chair of the National Board of Directors of The American Constitution Society, Co-Chair of the Board of Directors of Lambda Legal, and a member of the Board of Directors of the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. Since 2003, Chambers USA has named him one of the country s leading lawyers in the areas of Appellate Litigation and Media & Entertainment Law. In 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, Chambers USA also named him one of the country s leading lawyers in the area of First Amendment Litigation. Mr. Smith was recognized in the 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 Editions of Washington DC Super Lawyers for Appellate Law and as one of the Top 100 Lawyers in DC. 1

101 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 7 of 7 In 2010, Mr. Smith was named one of the Top 10 Lawyers in Washington, DC by Washington DC Super Lawyers and one of Washington s Top Lawyers by Washingtonian magazine. Mr. Smith was also named one of the Decade s Most Influential Lawyers by The National Law Journal in The Firm was also selected as 2010 Copyright Firm of the Year by Managing Intellectual Property magazine. In 2010, Mr. Smith was awarded the Thurgood Marshall Award from the American Bar Association Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities. Mr. Smith is admitted to practice in Maryland, New York, and the District of Columbia. Caroline D. Lopez Caroline D. Lopez is a former Associate in the Firm s Litigation Department. She was a member of the Firm s Diversity Committee and a member of the Election Law and Redistricting Practice. She graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Yale University in 2005, and from Yale Law School in 2008, where she was Comments Editor for the Yale Journal of Law and Feminism. In law school, Ms. Lopez published a Note in the Asian Pacific American Law Journal entitled Beyond the Old Paradigms: The Continuum Theory of Asian, Black, and Latino Voting Coalitions. While at Yale Law School, Ms. Lopez was a teaching assistant for Professor William Eskridge s Constitutional Law class. From 2009 to 2010, Ms. Lopez clerked for Judge Judith W. Rogers of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. She is admitted to practice in Virginia and the District of Columbia. In 2013, Ms. Lopez accepted a position at the United States Department of Justice. 2

102 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 1 of 4

103 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 2 of 4

104 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 3 of 4

105 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 4 of 4

106 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 1 of 4

107 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 2 of 4

108 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 3 of 4