Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 1 of 61 PageID #: 13308

Transcription

1 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 1 of 61 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X MARK A. FAVORS et al., v. Plaintiffs, ANDREW M. CUOMO et al., No. 11 Civ (RR) (GEL) (DLI) DECLARATION OF ERIC HECKER Defendants X ERIC HECKER, an attorney duly admitted to practice before this Court, hereby declares the following to be true under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746: 1. I am a partner at Cuti Hecker Wang LLP, counsel for Senate Minority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Senators John Sampson and Senator Martin Malavé Dilan (collectively, the Senate Democrats ) in the above captioned action. I am familiar with the proceedings in this case, and I submit this Declaration in support of the Senate Democrats limited objections to Judge Mann s February 8, 2013 Order. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Senate s resolution electing Senators Klein and Skelos to serve as Senate President Pro Tempore on an alternating basis, specifically enumerating the days on which each will serve throughout 2013 and Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the Senate Democrats and the Intervenors Consolidated Initial Discovery Requests dated My 31, Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the Senate Republicans Objections and Responses thereto dated June 18,

2 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 2 of 61 PageID #: On or about January 14, 2013, the Senate Republicans served their currently operative privilege log. That log lists thousands of documents, is hundreds of pages long, and therefore is too unwieldy to append as an exhibit to this Declaration. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of the page of the Senate Republicans privilege log relating to document number 3093, Bates number SENMAJPRIV This is an October between one of the Senate Plan s apparent architects, David Schaefer, and Senator Skelos s Director of Operations, Thomas Dunham. The subject line in this is blank, and the Senate Republicans describe it only as an regarding discussion of Senate district lines, which tells us nothing about whether it falls within any of the categories Judge Mann held are not subject to legislative privilege. 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of the page of the Senate Republicans privilege log relating to document number 4089, Bates number SENMAJPRIV This is a December 3, from Mr. Schaefer to Mr. Dunham. The subject line is discussing under or overpopulation of districts or regions, and privilege log describes it as an discussing population deviations in proposed Senate Districts 55, 57, and For each document on their log, the Senate Republicans claim one or more of the following privileges: legislative privilege, work product privilege, and/or attorney-client privilege. They claim legislative privilege for every document on their log. They claim work product and/or attorney-client privilege, in addition to legislative privilege, for a subset of the documents on their log. Because the information they provide about each document is spare, it is not always possible to tell whether a given document relates to the Senate size issue. Based on my personal review of their log, it appears that with respect to those documents that relate to the 2

3 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 3 of 61 PageID #: Senate size issue, the Senate Republicans claim both legislative privilege and attorney-client privilege for many if not most such documents. Dated: February 25, 2013 New York, New York By: /s/ Eric Hecker CUTI HECKER WANG LLP 305 Broadway, Suite 607 New York, New York (212) Attorneys for the Senate Democrats 3

4 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 4 of 61 PageID #: EXHIBIT 1

5 - Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 5 of 61 PageID #: STATE OF NEW YORK mite ficgisiahzrz tt $zrt&te tjfl Asernb1t SENATE RESOLUTION providinc for the election of Dean S. Skelos arid Jeffrey D. Klein as alternating Temporary President of the Senate for the years Introduced by tntroduced hi Se The Senators whose names are circled below wish to join me ri Lirtie Marcellinc Marcnione Martins Maziarz Montgomery Nozzo lit CBrien Dl4ara Parker Peralta Perkins Ransen note Ritchie Rivera Robach Sampson Sanders Savino Serrano Seward Skelos Smith Squad ron Stavisky S1eeartCoJsrns [ the sponsorship of this resolulion. sponsorship of this resolution: szs Krueger s35 a032 Cook abc Gunther aflac Markey Valeslo, s24 Lanza s Corwrn a139 Hawley adbc Mayer Young Zeldin o Ic The Members of the Assembly whose names ere circled below wish Ic join me in the s20 Adams s25 a039 Acoate a045 Dvmbrowi;z a018 ooper sic Aodaobo sos a092 Aninanti a034 Denoekker a042 Jacoos 511 Avelie S43 a054 Arroyc aobl Drnow;tz a097 ustlee s40 Ball so? a035 Aubry a147 DiPretro a135 Johns s42 Boriacic s52 I al 20 Barclay Duprey 4113 Jordan soh Boyle s Sresiin s38 Cariucci 55 3 Oecranctseo s32 Diaz sib Diian I aioe Barrett 8004 Englebright a094 Katz 5O adco Barror a05e Esnin& ac74 Kavertagh a052 Baneoet:o atop Pahv a142 Kearris s58 all? Blankenbush a071 Farrell a076 Keliner s2l a062 Borell a126 Finch a040 Kim s13 s Espaillaf a055 Boyland a008 Fitzpatrick a131 Koib 549 c& a026 Braunstein a12 sbi 4 riend 5105 Laior s17 Felder 8044 Brennan a143 Gabryszab a013 Lavirie s02 ianagar al 19 Brind,s a395 Ssiet a050 Lento, s08 Fusohillo e138 Bronson s137 Gantt a125 Litton s-48 s33 s66 s59 Gailivan a046 Brook-Krasny a007 Garbarino a102 Lopez! P. sib 512 Gianaris a093 Buchwaid a077 Gibson a053 LapeL V. 10 s22 Goloer, 8118 Butie s148 Gioic a002 Loscuadro s Griffo abs Qabil a080 Ojona a23 Lunardo sec Sr;sant, s06 Hannon s29 ssl s36 Hassell-Thompson sob s27 Hoylman SN s63 Kenneth a043 Camera a066 Girth acid Lupinacci a086 Castro a023 Goldteder 8121 Magee a145 Ceretto also Goodell a129 Magnareili a033 Clark a075 Gotfried a059 Maise s34 Klein s16 a04? Coitor, adds Graf a054 Malliotakis s39 Larkin 557 ads5 Crespo aobs Heastie 8108 McDonald s37 Latimer sos a122 Crouch a003 Hennessey 8014 MoDonough set uavalie 541 a021 Cu7an a328 -leves aol? McKevii s52 Libous s46 a363 Custck a048 dikind do Mc._aughhn s038 a052 acts else a057 aosq aiss a03 7 a130 a059 aobl ad aobb 8141 n058 aosb a073 aol S ad a006 a134 ao B at 28 aoss a068 a072 ads? a025 Mi a Mill mar Montesenc Moreile Mosley Maya Noiay Natan Oaks O Donnell Ortia Otis Paimesanc Pauiin Peoples-Stokes Perry Pretlow Dua t Re Rabbitt Raia Ramos Rivera Roberts Robinson Rodriguez Ross Rosentha Rosic adds at 11 a029 a ao 87 ad6s ad2t ac36 at 04 ad99 a alto a079 a27 aoli al 12 alol adol adsi a03 a146 n04 1 a020 ad2a ac O a096 Russell Ryan Saiadrno San ta b a r be r a Scarborough Schirnel Selinminge Seoulveda Siivei Simanowits Simatas Skartanos Skouf is Solages Stec Steok Stevenson Stirpe Sweeney Tedisco Ten ney Thieie Thone Titus Walter Weinstein Weisenberg Weorn Wrigt-i Zebrowsid Senate introducer s signature Assemoly introducer s signature To introduce this resolution: INTRODUCTION OF ALL RESOLUTIONS Sign one copy, circle to-sponsors and hand it up at the desk of the house with six other completed and signed copies it the resolution is to be offered In the other house: Sign the remaining copy ant give via: to the sponsoring rnembe o- tne otner rtou together witn six otree campietec anc signet cooles /12

6 - Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 6 of 61 PageID #: LBDC(P) RESOLVED. That Senator Jeffrey D. Klein be. and he hereby is. elected Temporary President of the Senate to serve alternatn; terms commencing January anc ending at me conclusior. of such day, anc continuing for the years ir accordance witn tie scneduie annexed neretc; and be it furthe RESOLVED. That Senator Dean G. Skelos be, and he hereby is elected Temporary President of the Senate tc serve alternating terms commencing on January 1 0, 2013 and ending at the conclusion of such day and continuing for the years in accordance with the schedule annexed hereto; and be it further RESOLVED, That should the Senate be in Session past midnight on any day concluding a term of the Ternoorary President of the Senate, such Temporary President of the Senate on that legislative day shall remain Temporary President of the Senate until the Senate shall adjourn that legislative session day, at no time shall there be more than one Temporary President serving simultaneously; and be it further RESOLVED. That Senator Dean 3. SKelos and Senator Jeffrey D. Kiein nay point 1v promulgate any agreed upon modification to the s&yeduie and They shal noflfv the Secretary of the Senate, in writing. o such modification. RESOSE S:jQRT TTE: rovijes for the eiecton of Dean 6. SKelos and Jeffrey D. Klein as alternating Temporary Presiden: of the Senate fothe 2313 BLURB: legislative session 2014 Temporary President

7 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 7 of 61 PageID #: For the Calendar Year 2013 Senator Dean G. Skelos shall be Temporary President for the term: January 10, , 16, 18, 20; February 1-15; March 1,3,5, 7,9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31; April 1-14, 29, 30; May 1-12, 27-31; June 1,2,4,6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22-30; July 8-21; August 5-18; September 2-15, 30; October 1-13, ; November 1-10, and December 1-8, Senator Jeffrey D. Klein shall be Temporary President for the term: January 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, ; February 16-28; March 2,4,6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22.24,26,28,30; April 15-28; May 13-26: June 3.5.7,9, 11, 13, 15, 17, ; July 1-7, 22-31; August 1-4, 19-31; September 1, 16-29; October 14-27; November 11-24; and December For the Calendar Year 2014 Senator Jeffrey D. Klein shall serve as Temporary President for the term: January 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, , 20-31, February 1, 2, 17-28, March 2,4, 6, 8, , 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30; April 14-17; May 12-15; June 3, 5,7,9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21; July 1-6, 21-31; August 1-3, 18-31; September 15-28; October 13-26; November 10-23; and December Senator Dean G. Skelos shall serve s Temporary President for the term of: January 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19; February 3-16; March 1,3,5,7,9. 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31; April 1-13, 28-30; May 1-11, 26-31; June 1-2,4,6, 8, 10, 12, 14, , 20, 22-30; July 7-20; August 4-17; September 1-14, 29-30; October 1-12, 27-31; November 1-9, 24-30; and December 1-7, qçc /

8 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 8 of 61 PageID #: EXHIBIT 2

9 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 9 of 61 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X MARK A. FAVORS et al., Plaintiffs, No. 11 Civ (RR) (GEL) (DLI) (RLM) v. ANDREW M. CUOMO et al., Defendants X CONSOLIDATED INITIAL DISCOVERY REQUESTS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Senate Minority, the Drayton Intervenors, the Ramos Intervenors, and the Lee Intervenors, by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby demand that Defendants produce for inspection and copying at each of the offices listed in the signature block below, by June 18, 2012 (pursuant to Judge Mann s order), all documents which are responsive to the requests that are contained herein. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the Senate Minority, the Drayton Intervenors, the Ramos Intervenors, and the Lee Intervenors hereby further demand that Defendants answer under oath the following interrogatories by June 18, 2012 (pursuant to Judge Mann s order) and in the manner prescribed by Rule 33 and Local Rule DEFINITIONS The Uniform Definitions set forth in Local Rule 26.3 of the Local Rules of the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York shall be used to interpret these document demands and interrogatories and are hereby incorporated by reference. In addition, as used in these document requests and interrogatories: 1

10 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 10 of 61 PageID #: The Senate Majority refers to the Republican Members of the New York Senate and/or those under the guidance, direction, and control of Temporary Senate President and Majority Leader Dean Skelos, including without limitation officials at the New York State Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment ( LATFOR ) who take direction from Senator Skelos and/or others in the Senate Majority. 2. The 2012 Senate Plan refers to all aspects of Chapter 16 of the Laws of 2012 and Chapter 20 of the Laws of 2012 relating to the redistricting of the New York Senate. 3. Plan Architects refers to the persons or persons, including Senators, staff, consultants, and attorneys, who were primarily responsible for the design of the Senate districts that were proposed on January 26, 2012 and for the design of the Senate districts in the enacted 2012 Senate Plan. 4. The Hudson Valley Region shall have the meaning ascribed to that term in Exhibit D to Todd Geremia s May 4, 2012 Declaration. 5. The Rest of Upstate Region shall have the meaning ascribed to that term in Exhibit D to Todd Geremia s May 4, 2012 Declaration. 6. An overpopulated district shall refer to a district with a total population above the mean district population. 7. An underpopulated district shall refer to a district with a total population below the mean district population. 8. Concerning or relating to mean related to, relating to, consisting of, referring to, pertaining to, concerning, describing, evidencing, substantiating, reflecting, supporting, prepared in connection with, used in preparation for, or being in any way legally or logically connected with the matter discussed. 2

11 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 11 of 61 PageID #: Communication refers to any transfer of information, ideas, opinions, or thoughts by any means, at any time or place, under any circumstances, and is not limited to written or oral transfers between natural persons, but includes all other transfers, including electronic transfers, transfers of information stored on computer disk or in computer memory, and memoranda to file. 10. The term document means, without limitation, any written, recorded, or graphic material, whether prepared by you or any other person, that is in your possession, custody, or control, including memoranda, reports, letters, telegrams, electronic mail, other electronic correspondence, and any other communications or information recorded in any form or medium; notes, minutes, and transcripts of conferences, meetings, and telephone or other communications; transparencies, slides, handouts, and multimedia presentations; contracts and other agreements; statements, ledgers, and other records of financial matters or commercial transactions; notebooks and diaries; plans and specifications; publications; photographs; diagrams, graphs, charts, and other drawings; photocopies, microfilm, and other copies or reproductions; audio and video recordings; tape, disk (including all forms of magnetic, magnetooptical, and optical disks), and other electronic recordings; financial models; statistical models and other data compilations; and computer printouts. The term includes all drafts of a document; the original document (or a copy thereof if the original is not available); and all copies that differ in any way from the original (including as to any notations, underlining, or other markings). The term also includes information stored in, or accessible through, computer or other information retrieval systems, together with instructions and all other materials necessary to use or interpret such data compilations. 3

12 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 12 of 61 PageID #: Identify (with Respect to Persons): When referring to a person, to identify means to give, to the extent known, the person s full name, present or last known address, and when referring to a natural person, additionally, the present or last known place of employment. Once a person has been identified in accordance with this subparagraph, only the name of that person need be listed in response to subsequent discovery requesting the identification of that person. 12. Identify (with Respect to Documents): When referring to documents, to identify means to give, to the extent known, the (i) type of document, (ii) general subject matter, (iii) date of the document, and (iv) author(s), addressee(s) and recipient(s), or, alternatively to produce such document(s) for inspection if not called for in the Document Request. 13. Identify (with Respect to Communications): A request to identify a communication means: (i) to state whether it was written or oral, and if written, to identify each document comprising or evidencing such communication; (ii) to state the date and place of such communication; (iii) to identify each individual participating therein and each individual who was present at the place or places of such communication; (iv) to state what was said by each participant in the course of such communication, or if now known, the substance of such communication. 14. Person: The term person is defined as any natural person or any business, legal or governmental entity, corporation or association. 15. All/Each: The terms all and each shall be construed as all and each. 4

13 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 13 of 61 PageID #: And/Or: The connectives and and or shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of this discovery request all responses that might otherwise be construed to be outside of its scope. and vice versa. 17. Number: The use of the singular form of any words includes the plural INSTRUCTIONS 1. In responding to the following requests (collectively the request ), you shall furnish all information that is available to you, including information or materials in the possession, custody, or control of your attorneys, accountants, investigators, experts, representatives, contractors, employees, or other agents. 2. If any document responsive to the requests has been lost, destroyed, or is otherwise unavailable, describe and identify each such document by stating in writing: (i) the name(s) of the authors(s), the name(s) of the person(s) who received the original and all copies and the date and subject matter, (ii) the last known custodian of the document, (iii) the incident, event, or occurrence during which such document was lost, destroyed, or otherwise became unavailable, (iv) each person having knowledge of the circumstances of it being lost, discarded or destroyed, and (v) your efforts to locate each such document. 5. If a claim of privilege is asserted with respect to any document (including without limitation legislative privilege or attorney-client privilege), or you refuse to disclose any document requested herein on any other ground, state the basis for your claim that such document need not be disclosed with such specificity as will permit the Court to determine the legal sufficiency of your objection or position, and, for each such document, identify: a. whether the document contains a request for legal advice and, if so, identify the person who requested the legal advice; 5

14 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 14 of 61 PageID #: b. whether the document contains advice as to the meaning or application of particular laws or rules in response to such request; c. any further information to explain and support the claim of privilege and to permit the adjudication of the propriety of that claim; d. the nature of the privilege (including work product) that is being claimed and if the privilege is being asserted in connection with a claim or defense governed by state law, indicate the state s privilege rule being invoked; e. the type of document, e.g., letter or memorandum; the general subject matter of the document; and such other information as is sufficient to identify the document for a subpoena duces tecum, including, where appropriate, the author, addressee, and any other recipient of the document, and, where not apparent, the relationship of the author, addressee, and other recipient to each other. 3. If in answering these requests you claim any ambiguity in interpreting either the request or a definition instruction applicable thereto, such claim shall not be utilized by you as a basis for refusing to respond, rather you shall set forth in a part of your response to such a request the language deemed to be ambiguous and the interpretation chosen or used in responding to the request. 4. Respond separately and completely to each document request or subdivision thereof and each interrogatory or subdivision thereof, setting forth the question in full followed by each answer. 5. With respect to the documents requested, this request seeks production of all documents described, in their entirety, along with any attachments, drafts and non-identical copies. 6. Questions regarding the interpretation of this request should be resolved in favor of the broadest possible construction. 6

15 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 15 of 61 PageID #: The documents produced in response to these requests shall be: (i) organized and designated to correspond to the categories in the requests, or (ii) produced in a form that accurately reflects how they are maintained by you in the normal course of business, including, but not limited to the following: a. that all associated file labels, file headings and file folders be produced with the responsive documents from each file and that each file be identified as to its owner(s) or custodian(s); b. that all pages now stapled or fastened together be produced stapled or fastened together; and c. that all documents which cannot legibly be copied be produced in their original form. 8. This request is to be considered as continuing and each Defendant is requested to provide, by way of supplementary responses hereto, such additional information as it or any persons acting on its behalf may hereafter obtain that will augment, clarify, or otherwise modify the responses now given to this request. Such supplementary responses are to be filed and served upon counsel for the Senate Minority as soon as practicable after receipt of such information or documents. DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED 1. All documents relating to or evidencing any instructions or directions that were provided to the Plan Architects and/or to any LATFOR official relating to the 2012 Senate Plan. 2. All documents relating to or evidencing the reasons why the Senate districts contained in the 2012 Senate Plan contain population deviations and the reasons why the districts in the 2012 Senate Plan contain their particular population deviations. 3. All documents relating to or evidencing any effort by the Senate Majority and/or the Plan Architects to pursue or heed allegedly traditional redistricting principles such as 7

16 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 16 of 61 PageID #: maintaining the integrity of county and other political subdivision borders, drawing compact districts, preserving the cores of prior districts, and avoiding the pairing of incumbents. 4. All documents relating to or evidencing any consideration by the Senate Majority and/or the Plan Architects of partisan goals relating to the 2012 Senate Plan. 5. All documents relating to or evidencing any consideration by the Senate Majority and/or the Plan Architects of alternative Senate districts or alternative Senate redistricting plans. 6. All documents relating to or evidencing to the examination and evaluation of any proposed Senate plans that were submitted to LATFOR, including without limitation all documents relating to or evidencing any consideration of whether or not to adopt any of those proposals in whole or in part. 7. All documents relating to the decision to increase the size of the Senate to 63 seats in 2012, including without limitation all documents relating to and/or evidencing the reason or reasons why a 63rd Senate district was added in 2012, and including without limitation all documents relating to and/or evidencing the reason or reasons why a different Senate size was not adopted in All documents relating to or evidencing the decision to add an additional district in the Hudson Valley Region, including without limitation all documents relating to and/or evidencing the reason or reasons why that district was added in All documents relating to or evidencing the decision to underpopulate the districts in the Hudson Valley Region, including without limitation all documents relating to and/or evidencing the reason or reasons why the districts in the Hudson Valley Region were underpopulated. 8

17 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 17 of 61 PageID #: All documents relating to or evidencing the decision to underpopulate the districts in the Rest of Upstate Region, including without limitation all documents relating to and/or evidencing the reason or reasons why the districts in the Rest of Upstate Region were underpopulated. 11. All documents relating to or evidencing the decision to overpopulate the Senate districts in the New York City area and/or on Long Island, including without limitation all documents relating to and/or evidencing the reason or reasons why the such districts were overpopulated. 12. All retainer letters and/or contracts relating to legal services between the Senate Majority, the Plan Architects, and/or any LATFOR official and any attorney or attorneys (including without limitation any attorney at Jones Day or Lewis & Fiore) representing the Senate Majority, the Plan Architects, and/or any LATFOR official in connection with the 2012 Senate Plan. 13. All documents relating to and/or reflecting any communications between or among the Senate Majority, the Plan Architects, and/or any LATFOR official and any attorney or attorneys (including without limitation any attorney at Jones Day or Lewis & Fiore) relating to or concerning the size of the Senate. 14. All attorney time sheets reflecting hours billed by any attorney representing the Senate Majority, the Plan Architects, and/or any LATFOR official (including without limitation any attorney at Jones Day or Lewis & Fiore) relating to the 2012 Senate Plan. 15. All documents that the Senate Majority intends to introduce into the summary judgment records and/or into evidence at the trial in this action. 9

18 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 18 of 61 PageID #: All documents not produced in response to the requests above concerning the allegations in the Senate Minority s cross-claim. 17. Copies of all electronic and hardcopy documents, including all drafts, prepared by, edited by or reviewed by Defendants pertaining to the creation of a post 2010 Census redistricting plan for the New York Senate. This request excludes all public documents including the documents filed with the United States Department of Justice for preclearance of the 2012 Senate redistricting plan. 18. Copies of all electronic and hardcopy documents, including all drafts, prepared by, edited by or reviewed by concerning the location of the new Senate seat in the creation of a post 2010 Census redistricting plan for the New York Senate. This request excludes all public documents including the documents filed with the United States Department of Justice for preclearance of the 2012 Senate redistricting plan. 19. Copies of all electronic and hardcopy documents, documents, including all drafts, prepared by, edited by or reviewed by pertaining to the redistricting of Assembly districts within the City of New York. This request excludes all public documents including the documents filed with the United States Department of Justice for preclearance of the 2012 Senate redistricting plan. 20. Copies of all electronic and hardcopy documents, documents, including all drafts, prepared by, edited by or reviewed by Defendants pertaining to the implementation or nonimplementation of Part XX of Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2010 of New York. 21. Copies of all electronic and hardcopy documents, documents, including all drafts, prepared by, edited by or reviewed by Defendants pertaining to the redistricting of Assembly districts within the County of Nassau. This request excludes all public documents including the 10

19 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 19 of 61 PageID #: documents filed with the United States Department of Justice for preclearance of the 2012 Assembly redistricting plan. This request excludes all public documents including the documents filed with the United States Department of Justice for preclearance of the 2012 Senate redistricting plan. 22. Copies of all documents provided to members of LATFOR by LATFOR staff or consultants during the redistricting process in connection with the redistricting of the Senate and Assembly after the 2010 Census. This request excludes all public documents including the documents filed with the United States Department of Justice for preclearance of the 2012 Senate redistricting plan. 23. Copies of all documents provided to the members of the Senate and Assembly by LATFOR staff or consultants in connection with the redistricting of the Senate and Assembly after the 2010 Census. This request excludes all public documents including the documents filed with the United States Department of Justice for preclearance of the 2012 Senate redistricting plan. 24. Copies of all documents provided to the Governor or his staff by LATFOR, its staff or consultants, and the Senate or Assembly districts within Nassau County, their staff or consultants regarding the redistricting of the Senate and Assembly after the 2010 Census. This request excludes all public documents including the documents filed with the United States Department of Justice for preclearance of the 2012 Senate redistricting plan. 25. Copies of all reports, memoranda, analyses, and data utilized by LATFOR, the Senate or the Assembly in connection with the redistricting of the Senate or Assembly districts within Nassau County or any persons acting on their behalf, including, but not limited to, staff members or consultants. This request excludes all public documents including the documents 11

20 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 20 of 61 PageID #: filed with the United States Department of Justice for preclearance of the 2012 Senate redistricting plan. 26. Copies of all reports generated from demographic data, election data, racial bloc voting data and census data in connection with the redistricting process for the Senate and Assembly districts on Long Island. This request excludes all public documents including the documents filed with the United States Department of Justice for preclearance of the 2012 Senate redistricting plan. 27. Copies of all s, letters or memoranda by and amongst the members of LATFOR, its staff or consultants, the members of the Senate or Assembly districts on Long Island, or their staff or consultants and/or any individual in connection with the redistricting process for the Senate or Assembly. This request excludes all public documents including the documents filed with the United States Department of Justice for preclearance of the 2012 Senate redistricting plan. 28. Copies of any s, correspondence, computer files, notes, and memoranda between LATFOR, its staff, members of the Senate or Assembly districts on Long Island, and their staff, and experts retained by same in connection with the redistricting of the Senate or the Assembly after the 2010 Census, and any other persons within or without of the Legislature regarding the redistricting process as aforementioned. This request excludes all public documents including the documents filed with the United States Department of Justice for preclearance of the 2012 Senate redistricting plan. 29. All documents relating to, or referenced or reviewed to prepare answers to, any of the interrogatories listed below. 12

21 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 21 of 61 PageID #: INTERROGATORIES 1. Identify all persons who were involved in the design of the Senate districts in the 2012 Senate Plan, including without limitation all Senators, Senate staffers, LAFTOR officials, attorneys, experts, and consultants. 2. Identify the Plan Architects. 3. Identify the persons who had ultimate decision-making authority with respect to the design of the Senate districts in the 2012 Senate Plan. 4. Identify the reasons why the Senate districts in the 2012 Senate Plan are not equipopulous. 5. Identify the reasons why a 63rd Senate district was added in Identify the reasons why a different Senate size (i.e., other than 63 Senate districts) was not adopted in Identify any witnesses the Senate Majority intends to rely upon in defense against the allegations in the Senate Minority s cross-claim. 8. Identify the person or persons who conceptualized the goals, design or purposes of the drafts and the enacted 2012 Senate Plan or who drew or assisted in the drawing of the enacted 2012 Senate Plan and where they are or were employed, their relationship to the Defendants, and their roles and responsibilities in drawing, conceptualizing the goals, design or purposes of the drafts and the enacted Senate plan. 9. Identify the person or persons who conceptualized the goals, design or purposes of the drafts and the enacted 2012 Assembly districts on Long Island and in within the County of Queens or who drew or assisted in the drawing of the enacted 2012 Assembly districts on Long Island and in within the County of Queens and where they are or were employed, their 13

22 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 22 of 61 PageID #: relationship to the Defendants, and their roles and responsibilities in drawing, conceptualizing the goals, design or purposes of the drafts and the enacted Assembly districts on Long Island and in within the County of Queens. 10. Identify the names, titles, dates of employment, and contact information of all Defendants staff, advisers, interns, outside consultants (non-government payroll) and volunteers who had provided or who provide assistance, data, comments and information in analyzing or mapping to Defendants for the 2012 State Senate Plan. Also, indicate whether such individuals provided assistance or information during the New York legislative redistricting process. 11. Identify the specific districts where data comparisons, documents, commentary or memoranda were provided to the Defendants regarding past New York and federal elections and precinct analysis relating to the proposed and final district maps of the Senate Plan during the redistricting process. If affirmative, identify all persons, their titles, dates of employment, and contact information that have submitted or communicated in data comparisons, documents, commentary or memoranda to the Defendants regarding the above analysis during the Senate s redistricting process. 12. Identify the specific districts where data comparisons, documents, commentary or memoranda were provided to the Defendants regarding racial bloc voting (rvb) analysis and racial polarization analysis involving any of the proposed and final districts of the Senate Plan during the redistricting process. If affirmative, identify all persons, their titles, dates of employment, and contact information that have submitted or communicated in data comparisons, documents, commentary or memoranda to the Defendants regarding the above analysis during the Senate s redistricting process. 14

23 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 23 of 61 PageID #: Identify the persons, advisers, and entities that have provided analysis, training, instruction, discussion and correspondence with Defendants and LATFOR staff regarding the concepts of voter dilution, the weight of a citizen s vote or the dilution of upstate voting power in New York State redistricting. If these subjects were mentioned or discussed, state the dates and locations of such discussions and meetings, and identify the names of attendees, titles, and contact information. 14. Defendants contend that drawing an additional minority-majority Latino Senate district in New York City for the 63-seat Senate plan did not meet their redistricting criteria, did not satisfy Defendants partisan purposes, or, was not even considered as an option, long after receiving submissions of alternate mapping plans prior to the March 14, 2012 legislative vote on the Senate-Assembly Plans. Is this contention true? Which Defendants, if any, reviewed or discussed the merits of the Unity Plan and the Breitbart Alternate Senate Plan? 15. State whether the voting rights of Latinos, the voting power/electoral capacity of New York s Latino populations, the population growth in the Latino community, and Latino districts and communities of interest, were discussed, cited or considered during the development and implementation of the Defendants redistricting criteria, and, in the drafting and mapping of the Senate Plan. Identify the persons, advisers, and entities that have provided analysis, training, instruction, or discussion about Latino populations, the placement of Latino communities and how district lines were drawn. 15

24 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 24 of 61 PageID #: Dated: May 31, 2012 New York, New York CUTI HECKER WANG LLP By: /s/ Eric Hecker John R. Cuti Julie B. Ehrlich Alexander Goldenberg 305 Broadway, Suite 607 New York, New York (212) Jeffrey M. Wice P.O. Box Washington, D.C (202) Attorneys for the Senate Minority KAYE SCHOLER LLP By: /s/ James D. Herschlein C. Kawezya Burris Noah Peters Grace Yang 425 Park Avenue New York, New York Jerry G. Vattamala Glenn D. Magpantay Kenneth Kimerling ASIAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND 99 Hudson Street, 12th floor New York, New York Attorneys for the Lee Intervenors 16

25 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 25 of 61 PageID #: CENTER FOR LAW AND SOCIAL JUSTICE, MEDGAR EVERS COLLEGE, CUNY By: /s/ Joan P. Gibbs Esmeralda Simmons 1534 Bedford Avenue, 2nd Floor Brooklyn, NY (718) Randolph M. McLaughlin Jeffrey M. Norton Newman Ferrara LLP 1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, New York (212) Frederick K. Brewington Valerie M. Cartwright LAW OFFICES OF FREDERICK K. BREWINGTON 556 Peninsula Boulevard Hempstead, N.Y Attorneys for the Drayton Intervenors LATINO JUSTICE By: /s/ Jackson Chin 99 Hudson Street, 14th Floor New York, NY Attorneys for the Ramos Intervenors 17

26 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 26 of 61 PageID #: EXHIBIT 3

27 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 27 of 61 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X MARK A. FAVORS et al., Plaintiffs, No. 11 Civ (RR) (GEL) (DLI) (RLM) v. ANDREW M. CUOMO et al., Defendants X OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES OF THE SENATE MAJORITY DEFENDANTS TO INTERVENORS CONSOLIDATED DISCOVERY REQUESTS The Senate Majority New York State Senators Dean G. Skelos and Michael F. Nozzolio, and LATFOR member Welquis R. Lopez hereby submit, by and through their undersigned attorneys, the following objections and responses to the Consolidated Initial Discovery Requests served by the Senate Minority Defendants, the Drayton Intervenors, the Ramos Intervenors, and the Lee Intervenors (collectively, Intervenors ). GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. The Senate Majority objects to each and every Request or Interrogatory to the extent it seeks documents covered by legislative privilege. The Senate Majority further objects to each and every Request or Interrogatory to the extent it seeks documents covered by the attorney-client or work product privileges. Any inadvertent production or disclosure of privileged information or documents shall not be deemed a waiver of any applicable privilege and shall be subject to the protections, provisions, and procedures in the Court s May 29, 2012 Order and Stipulation (DE 376). The inadvertent production or disclosure, in these Responses or otherwise, of any privileged information or document shall not constitute or be deemed a waiver 1

28 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 28 of 61 PageID #: of any applicable privilege as to any other information or document. The Senate Majority reserves the right not to disclose or produce privileged information or documents, except as redacted or in accordance with a protective order entered by the Court. 2. The Senate Majority objects to each and every Request or Interrogatory and the Definitions and Instructions to the extent they seek confidential information or documents. Any inadvertent production or disclosure, in these Responses or otherwise, of any confidential information or document shall not constitute or be deemed a waiver of any applicable privilege or objection. The Senate Majority reserves the right not to disclose or produce confidential information or documents, except as redacted or in accordance with a protective order entered by the Court. 3. The Senate Majority objects to each and every Request or Interrogatory and the Definitions and Instructions to the extent they seek to impose a burden greater than, seek more information than provided for, or are otherwise inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, or any order of the Court. 4. The Senate Majority objects to each and every Request or Interrogatory to the extent it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, or vexatious, and to the extent the Request or Interrogatory seeks information or documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 5. The Senate Majority objects to each and every Request or Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information or documents not in the possession, custody, or control of the Senate Majority, or information or documents already available to Intervenors. 6. The Senate Majority responds to the Requests and Interrogatories without conceding the relevancy or admissibility of the information provided or documents produced, 2

29 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 29 of 61 PageID #: and without prejudice to any and all objections to the use of any information or document provided in these Responses. 7. The Senate Majority s Responses shall not be construed as signifying agreement to the Intervenors characterization of any fact, circumstance, or legal obligation. The Senate Majority objects to each and every Request or Interrogatory to the extent it contains any express or implied allegation of fact or conclusion of law. 8. These General Objections are applicable to each of the following responses and objections, and failure to repeat an objection in response to a specific Request or Interrogatory shall not be deemed a waiver of the objection. Further, when the Senate Majority specifically repeats one or more of these General Objections in response to a specific Request or Interrogatory, such specific response is not a waiver of these General Objections. 9. The Senate Majority reserves the right to supplement these Responses as additional information or documents are obtained. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections, the Senate Majority responds as follows to the Requests and Interrogatories: REQUEST NO. 1: All documents relating to or evidencing any instructions or directions that were provided to the Plan Architects and/or to any LATFOR official relating to the 2012 Senate Plan. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Request to the extent the documents it seeks are protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because its reference to any instructions or directions is vague and ambiguous. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because it is overbroad, 3

30 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 30 of 61 PageID #: is unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST NO. 2: All documents relating to or evidencing the reasons why the Senate districts contained in the 2012 Senate Plan contain population deviations and the reasons why the districts in the 2012 Senate Plan contain their particular population deviations. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Request to the extent the documents it seeks are protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because its reference to the reasons why the Senate districts contain population deviations and their particular population deviations is vague and ambiguous. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because it is overbroad, is unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Senate Majority further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents that are publicly available on the LATFOR website and in the public record for this case, many of which relate to and evidence the ways in which the 2012 Senate Plan achieves substantial population equality, complies with the Voting Rights Act and other legal requirements, and serves traditional redistricting principles. Any such responsive documents publicly available on the LATFOR website will not be separately produced in response to this Request. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Senate Majority will produce any non-privileged documents that are reasonably responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 3: All documents relating to or evidencing any effort by the Senate Majority and/or the Plan Architects to pursue or heed allegedly traditional redistricting 4

31 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 31 of 61 PageID #: principles such as maintaining the integrity of county and other political subdivision borders, drawing compact districts, preserving the cores of prior districts, and avoiding the pairing of incumbents. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Request to the extent the documents it seeks are protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because its reference to effort... to pursue or heed allegedly traditional redistricting principles is vague and ambiguous. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because it is overbroad, is unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Senate Majority further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents that are publicly available on the LATFOR website and in the public record for this case, many of which relate to and evidence the ways in which the 2012 Senate Plan serves traditional redistricting principles. Any such responsive documents publicly available on the LATFOR website will not be separately produced in response to this Request. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Senate Majority will produce any non-privileged documents that are reasonably responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 4: All documents relating to or evidencing any consideration by the Senate Majority and/or the Plan Architects of partisan goals relating to the 2012 Senate Plan. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Request to the extent the documents it seeks are protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because its reference to any consideration... of partisan goals relating to the 2012 Senate Plan is vague and ambiguous. The Senate Majority also 5

32 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 32 of 61 PageID #: objects to this Request because it is overbroad, is unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST NO. 5: All documents relating to or evidencing any consideration by the Senate Majority and/or the Plan Architects of alternative Senate districts or alternative Senate redistricting plans. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Request to the extent the documents it seeks are protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because its reference to consideration of alternative Senate districts or plans is vague and ambiguous. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because it is overbroad, is unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Senate Majority further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents that are publicly available on the LATFOR website, many of which relate to potential plans and districts presented to LATFOR. Any such responsive documents publicly available on the LATFOR website will not be separately produced in response to this Request. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Senate Majority will produce any non-privileged documents that are reasonably responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 6: All documents relating to or evidencing the examination and evaluation of any proposed Senate plans that were submitted to LATFOR, including without limitation all documents relating to or evidencing any consideration of whether or not to adopt any of those proposals in whole or in part. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Request to the extent the documents it seeks are protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate 6

33 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 33 of 61 PageID #: Majority also objects to this Request because its references to examination, evaluation, and consideration of proposed Senate plans are vague and ambiguous. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because it is overbroad, is unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Senate Majority further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents that are publicly available on the LATFOR website, many of which relate to potential plans and districts presented to LATFOR. Any such responsive documents publicly available on the LATFOR website will not be separately produced in response to this Request. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Senate Majority will produce any non-privileged documents that are reasonably responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 7: All documents relating to the decision to increase the size of the Senate to 63 seats in 2012, including without limitation all documents relating to and/or evidencing the reason or reasons why a 63rd Senate district was added in 2012, and including without limitation all documents relating to and/or evidencing the reason or reasons why a different Senate size was not adopted in RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Request to the extent the documents it seeks are protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because its reference to the reasons why a 63rd Senate district was added and a different Senate size was not adopted is vague and ambiguous. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Senate Majority further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents that are publicly available on the LATFOR website and in the public record for this case and/or the Cohen case, many of which 7

34 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 34 of 61 PageID #: relate to and evidence the Legislature s discretion under the New York Constitution to enact a 63-seat Senate Plan in Any such responsive documents publicly available on the LATFOR website will not be separately produced in response to this Request. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Senate Majority will produce any non-privileged documents that are reasonably responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 8: All documents relating to or evidencing the decision to add an additional district in the Hudson Valley Region, including without limitation all documents relating to and/or evidencing the reason or reasons why that district was added in RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Request to the extent the documents it seeks are protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because its references to the decision to add an additional district and the reasons why that district was added are vague and ambiguous. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because it is overbroad, is unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Senate Majority further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents that are publicly available on the LATFOR website and in the public record for this case and/or the Cohen case, many of which relate to and evidence the Legislature s discretion under the New York Constitution to enact a 63-seat Senate Plan in 2012, as well as the ways in which the 2012 Senate Plan achieves substantial population equality, complies with the Voting Rights Act and other legal requirements, and serves traditional redistricting principles. Any such responsive documents publicly available on the LATFOR website will not be separately produced in response to this Request. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Senate 8

35 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 35 of 61 PageID #: Majority will produce any non-privileged documents that are reasonably responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 9: All documents relating to or evidencing the decision to underpopulate the districts in the Hudson Valley Region, including without limitation all documents relating to and/or evidencing the reason or reasons why the districts in the Hudson Valley Region were underpopulated. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Request to the extent the documents it seeks are protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because its references to the decision to underpopulate the districts and the reasons why the districts... were underpopulated are vague and ambiguous. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because it is overbroad, is unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Senate Majority further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents that are publicly available on the LATFOR website and in the public record for this case, many of which relate to and evidence the ways in which the 2012 Senate Plan achieves substantial population equality, complies with the Voting Rights Act and other legal requirements, and serves traditional redistricting principles. Any such responsive documents publicly available on the LATFOR website will not be separately produced in response to this Request. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Senate Majority will produce any non-privileged documents that are reasonably responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 10: All documents relating to or evidencing the decision to underpopulate the districts in the Rest of Upstate Region, including without limitation all 9

36 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 36 of 61 PageID #: documents relating to and/or evidencing the reason or reasons why the districts in the Rest of Upstate Region were underpopulated. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Request to the extent the documents it seeks are protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because its references to the decision to underpopulate the districts and the reasons why the districts... were underpopulated are vague and ambiguous. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because it is overbroad, is unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Senate Majority further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents that are publicly available on the LATFOR website and in the public record for this case, many of which relate to and evidence the ways in which the 2012 Senate Plan achieves substantial population equality, complies with the Voting Rights Act and other legal requirements, and serves traditional redistricting principles. Any such responsive documents publicly available on the LATFOR website will not be separately produced in response to this Request. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Senate Majority will produce any non-privileged documents that are reasonably responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 11: All documents relating to or evidencing the decision to overpopulate the Senate districts in the New York City area and/or on Long Island, including without limitation all documents relating to and/or evidencing the reason or reasons why the such districts were overpopulated. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Request to the extent the documents it seeks are protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because its references to the New York City area and to 10

37 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 37 of 61 PageID #: the decision to overpopulate the Senate districts and the reasons why the such districts... were overpopulated are vague and ambiguous. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because it is overbroad, is unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Senate Majority further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents that are publicly available on the LATFOR website and in the public record for this case, many of which relate to and evidence the ways in which the 2012 Senate Plan achieves substantial population equality, complies with the Voting Rights Act and other legal requirements, and serves traditional redistricting principles. Any such responsive documents publicly available on the LATFOR website will not be separately produced in response to this Request. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Senate Majority will produce any non-privileged documents that are reasonably responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 12: All retainer letters and/or contracts relating to legal services between the Senate Majority, the Plan Architects, and/or any LATFOR official and any attorney or attorneys (including without limitation any attorney at Jones Day or Lewis & Fiore) representing the Senate Majority, the Plan Architects, and/or any LATFOR official in connection with the 2012 Senate Plan. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Request because it is vexatious and seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST NO. 13: All documents relating to and/or reflecting any communications between or among the Senate Majority, the Plan Architects, and/or any 11

38 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 38 of 61 PageID #: LATFOR official and any attorney or attorneys (including without limitation any attorney at Jones Day or Lewis & Fiore) relating to or concerning the size of the Senate. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Request because, except for documents that already are in Intervenors possession, all of the documents it seeks are protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST NO. 14: All attorney time sheets reflecting hours billed by any attorney representing the Senate Majority, the Plan Architects, and/or any LATFOR official (including without limitation any attorney at Jones Day or Lewis & Fiore) relating to the 2012 Senate Plan. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Request to the extent the documents it seeks are protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority further objects to this Request because it is vexatious, is overbroad, and seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST NO. 15: All documents that the Senate Majority intends to introduce into the summary judgment records and/or into evidence at the trial in this action. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Request because it seeks information protected against disclosure by the work product privilege. This Request is also premature. Upon the filing of any motion for summary judgment by the Senate Majority, Intervenors will be made aware of the documents that the Senate Majority submits in support of such a motion. The Senate Majority will also make pretrial disclosures concerning the evidence it intends to 12

39 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 39 of 61 PageID #: introduce at trial in accordance with and by the times required by the rules and orders governing pretrial disclosures. REQUEST NO. 16: All documents not produced in response to the requests above concerning the allegations in the Senate Minority s cross-claim. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Request to the extent the documents it seeks are protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Senate Majority will produce any non-privileged documents that are reasonably responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 17: Copies of all electronic and hardcopy documents, including all drafts, prepared by, edited by or reviewed by Defendants pertaining to the creation of a post 2010 Census redistricting plan for the New York Senate. This request excludes all public documents including the documents filed with the United States Department of Justice for preclearance of the 2012 Senate redistricting plan. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Request to the extent the documents it seeks are protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request to the extent it is duplicative of other Requests made by Intervenors in what the Court expressly ordered to be a consolidated discovery demand. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because it is overbroad, is unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Senate Majority will produce any non-privileged documents that are reasonably responsive to this Request. 13

40 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 40 of 61 PageID #: REQUEST NO. 18: Copies of all electronic and hardcopy documents, including all drafts, prepared by, edited by or reviewed by concerning the location of the new Senate seat in the creation of a post 2010 Census redistricting plan for the New York Senate. This request excludes all public documents including the documents filed with the United States Department of Justice for preclearance of the 2012 Senate redistricting plan. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Request as unintelligible in that it appears to be missing one or more words after prepared by, edited by or reviewed by. Nevertheless, the Senate Majority in good faith will respond to this Request as if the missing word was intended to be Defendants, as in Requests No. 17, 20 and 21. The Senate Majority objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request to the extent it is duplicative of other Requests made by Intervenors in what the Court expressly ordered to be a consolidated discovery demand. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because its reference to the location of the new Senate seat is vague and ambiguous. The Senate Majority also objects to this request because it is overbroad, is unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Senate Majority will produce any non-privileged documents that are reasonably responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 19: Copies of all electronic and hardcopy documents, documents, including all drafts, prepared by, edited by or reviewed by pertaining to the redistricting of Assembly districts within the City of New York. This request excludes all public documents including the documents filed with the United States Department of Justice for preclearance of the 2012 Senate redistricting plan. 14

41 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 41 of 61 PageID #: RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Request as unintelligible in that it appears to be missing one or more words after prepared by, edited by or reviewed by. Nevertheless, the Senate Majority in good faith will respond to this Request as if the missing word was intended to be Defendants, as in Request No. 17, 20 and 21. The Senate Majority objects to this Request to the extent the documents it seeks are protected by legislative, attorneyclient, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because it is overbroad, is unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Senate Majority will produce any non-privileged documents that are reasonably responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 20: Copies of all electronic and hardcopy documents, documents, including all drafts, prepared by, edited by or reviewed by Defendants pertaining to the implementation or non-implementation of Part XX of Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2010 of New York. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Request to the extent the documents it seeks are protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because it is overbroad, is unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Senate Majority will produce any non-privileged documents that are reasonably responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 21: Copies of all electronic and hardcopy documents, documents, including all drafts, prepared by, edited by or reviewed by Defendants pertaining to the redistricting of Assembly districts within the County of Nassau. This request excludes all 15

42 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 42 of 61 PageID #: public documents including the documents filed with the United States Department of Justice for preclearance of the 2012 Assembly redistricting plan. This request excludes all public documents including the documents filed with the United States Department of Justice for preclearance of the 2012 Senate redistricting plan. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Request to the extent the documents it seeks are protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because it is overbroad, is unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Senate Majority will produce any non-privileged documents that are reasonably responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 22: Copies of all documents provided to members of LATFOR by LATFOR staff or consultants during the redistricting process in connection with the redistricting of the Senate and Assembly after the 2010 Census. This request excludes all public documents including the documents filed with the United States Department of Justice for preclearance of the 2012 Senate redistricting plan. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Request to the extent the documents it seeks are protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because it is overbroad, is unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Senate Majority will produce any non-privileged documents that are reasonably responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 23: Copies of all documents provided to the members of the Senate and Assembly by LATFOR staff or consultants in connection with the redistricting of the 16

43 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 43 of 61 PageID #: Senate and Assembly after the 2010 Census. This request excludes all public documents including the documents filed with the United States Department of Justice for preclearance of the 2012 Senate redistricting plan. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Request to the extent the documents it seeks are protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because it is overbroad, is unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Senate Majority will produce any non-privileged documents that are reasonably responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 24: Copies of all documents provided to the Governor or his staff by LATFOR, its staff or consultants, and the Senate or Assembly districts within Nassau County, their staff or consultants regarding the redistricting of the Senate and Assembly after the 2010 Census. This request excludes all public documents including the documents filed with the United States Department of Justice for preclearance of the 2012 Senate redistricting plan. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Request as unintelligible, but the Senate Majority will respond in good faith to the best of its ability. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request to the extent the documents it seeks are protected by legislative, executive, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because it is overbroad, is unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Senate Majority will produce any non-privileged documents that are reasonably responsive to this Request. 17

44 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 44 of 61 PageID #: REQUEST NO. 25: Copies of all reports, memoranda, analyses, and data utilized by LATFOR, the Senate or the Assembly in connection with the redistricting of the Senate or Assembly districts within Nassau County or any persons acting on their behalf, including, but not limited to, staff members or consultants. This request excludes all public documents including the documents filed with the United States Department of Justice for preclearance of the 2012 Senate redistricting plan. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Request to the extent the documents it seeks are protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request to the extent its reference to documents utilized is vague and ambiguous. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because it is overbroad, is unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Senate Majority will produce any non-privileged documents that are reasonably responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 26: Copies of all reports generated from demographic data, election data, racial bloc voting data and census data in connection with the redistricting process for the Senate and Assembly districts on Long Island. This request excludes all public documents including the documents filed with the United States Department of Justice for preclearance of the 2012 Senate redistricting plan. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Request to the extent the documents it seeks are protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because it is overbroad, is unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible 18

45 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 45 of 61 PageID #: evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Senate Majority will produce any non-privileged documents that are reasonably responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 27: Copies of all s, letters or memoranda by and amongst the members of LATFOR, its staff or consultants, the members of the Senate or Assembly districts on Long Island, or their staff or consultants and/or any individual in connection with the redistricting process for the Senate or Assembly. This request excludes all public documents including the documents filed with the United States Department of Justice for preclearance of the 2012 Senate redistricting plan. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Request to the extent the documents it seeks are protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because it is overbroad, is unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Senate Majority will produce any non-privileged documents that are reasonably responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 28: Copies of any s, correspondence, computer files, notes, and memoranda between LATFOR, its staff, members of the Senate or Assembly districts on Long Island, and their staff, and experts retained by same in connection with the redistricting of the Senate or the Assembly after the 2010 Census, and any other persons within or without of the Legislature regarding the redistricting process as aforementioned. This request excludes all public documents including the documents filed with the United States Department of Justice for preclearance of the 2012 Senate redistricting plan. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Request to the extent the documents it seeks are protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate 19

46 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 46 of 61 PageID #: Majority also objects to this Request because it is overbroad, is unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Senate Majority will produce any non-privileged documents that are reasonably responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 29: All documents relating to, or referenced or reviewed to prepare answers to, any of the interrogatories listed below. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Request to the extent the documents it seeks are protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Request because it is overbroad, is unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Senate Majority will produce any non-privileged documents that are reasonably responsive to this Request. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify all persons who were involved in the design of the Senate districts in the 2012 Senate Plan, including without limitation all Senators, Senate staffers, LAFTOR officials, attorneys, experts, and consultants. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Interrogatory to the extent the information it seeks is protected by the legislative privilege. The Senate Majority also objects to this Interrogatory because its reference to involved in the design of the Senate districts is vague and ambiguous. The Senate Majority also objects to this Interrogatory because it is overbroad, is unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Senate Majority further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is publicly available on the LATFOR 20

47 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 47 of 61 PageID #: website and reflects the identity of members of the public and others who provided input regarding Senate redistricting. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify the Plan Architects. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Interrogatory because the information it seeks is protected by the legislative privilege. The Senate Majority also objects to this Interrogatory because the reference to primarily responsible for the design of the Senate districts in the definition of Plan Architects is vague and ambiguous. The Senate Majority also objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Senate Majority states that it has disclosed the identity of the person or persons who drew the 2012 Senate Plan to the Court in camera pursuant to the Court s Order of April 20, (DE 338). INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Identify the persons who had ultimate decisionmaking authority with respect to the design of the Senate districts in the 2012 Senate Plan. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Interrogatory to the extent the information it seeks is protected by the legislative privilege. The Senate Majority also objects to this Interrogatory because its reference to ultimate decision-making authority with respect to the design of the Senate districts is vague and ambiguous. The Senate Majority also objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Senate Majority states that the 2012 Senate Plan was enacted through the votes of the Senate and Assembly and the signature of the Governor. 21

48 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 48 of 61 PageID #: INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify the reasons why the Senate districts in the 2012 Senate Plan are not equipopulous. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Interrogatory to the extent the information it seeks is protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Interrogatory because its reference to the reasons why the Senate districts are not equipopulous is vague and ambiguous. The Senate Majority also objects to this Interrogatory because it is overbroad, is unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Senate Majority further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information publicly available on the LATFOR website and in the public record for this case, which evidences the ways in which the 2012 Senate Plan achieves substantial population equality, complies with the Voting Rights Act and other legal requirements, and serves traditional redistricting principles. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify the reasons why a 63rd Senate district was added in RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Interrogatory to the extent the information it seeks is protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Interrogatory because its reference to the reasons why a 63rd Senate districts was added is vague and ambiguous. The Senate Majority also objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Senate Majority further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information publicly available on the LATFOR website and in the public record for this case and/or the Cohen case, including the decision by the Supreme 22

49 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 49 of 61 PageID #: Court, New York County, and the Court of Appeals in the Cohen case, which demonstrate that the Legislature had discretion under the New York Constitution to enact a 63-seat Senate Plan in INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Identify the reasons why a different Senate size (i.e., other than 63 Senate districts) was not adopted in RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Interrogatory to the extent the information it seeks is protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Interrogatory because its reference to the reasons why a Senate size other than 63 districts was not adopted is vague and ambiguous. The Senate Majority also objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Senate Majority further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information publicly available on the LATFOR website and in the public record for this case and/or the Cohen case, including the decision by the Supreme Court, New York County, and the Court of Appeals in the Cohen case, which discuss the application of the New York Constitution to determine the size of the Senate. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Identify any witnesses the Senate Majority intends to rely upon in defense against the allegations in the Senate Minority s cross-claim. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information protected against disclosure by the work product privilege. The Senate Majority further objects to this Interrogatory because it is premature. The Senate Majority is not required to disclose such information until, respectively, the filing of any summary judgment motion and the time for pretrial disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3)(B). 23

50 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 50 of 61 PageID #: INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Identify the person or persons who conceptualized the goals, design or purposes of the drafts and the enacted 2012 Senate Plan or who drew or assisted in the drawing of the enacted 2012 Senate Plan and where they are or were employed, their relationship to the Defendants, and their roles and responsibilities in drawing, conceptualizing the goals, design or purposes of the drafts and the enacted Senate plan. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is duplicative of other interrogatories made by Intervenors in what the Court expressly ordered to be a consolidated discovery demand. The Senate Majority also objects to this Interrogatory because its references to conceptualized the goals, design or purposes and assisted in the drawing are vague and ambiguous. The Senate Majority also objects to this Interrogatory because it is overbroad, is unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Senate Majority further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is publicly available on the LATFOR website and reflects the identity of members of the public and others who provided input regarding Senate redistricting. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Senate Majority states that it has disclosed the identity of the person or persons who drew the 2012 Senate Plan to the Court in camera pursuant to the Court s Order of April 20, (DE 338). INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Identify the person or persons who conceptualized the goals, design or purposes of the drafts and the enacted 2012 Assembly districts on Long Island and in within the County of Queens or who drew or assisted in the drawing of the 24

51 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 51 of 61 PageID #: enacted 2012 Assembly districts on Long Island and in within the County of Queens and where they are or were employed, their relationship to the Defendants, and their roles and responsibilities in drawing, conceptualizing the goals, design or purposes of the drafts and the enacted Assembly districts on Long Island and in within the County of Queens. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Interrogatory because its references to conceptualized the goals, design or purposes and assisted in the drawing are vague and ambiguous. The Senate Majority also objects to this Interrogatory because it is overbroad, is unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Senate Majority further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is publicly available on the LATFOR website which reflects the identity of members of the public and others who provided input regarding Senate redistricting. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify the names, titles, dates of employment, and contact information of all Defendants staff, advisers, interns, outside consultants (nongovernment payroll) and volunteers who had provided or who provide assistance, data, comments and information in analyzing or mapping to Defendants for the 2012 State Senate Plan. Also, indicate whether such individuals provided assistance or information during the New York legislative redistricting process. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is duplicative of other interrogatories made by Intervenors in what the Court expressly ordered to be a consolidated discovery 25

52 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 52 of 61 PageID #: demand. The Senate Majority also objects to this Interrogatory because its reference to analyzing or mapping... for the 2012 State Senate Plan is vague and ambiguous. The Senate Majority also objects to this Interrogatory because it is overbroad, is unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Senate Majority further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is publicly available on the LATFOR website which reflects the identity of members of the public and others who provided input regarding Senate redistricting. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Identify the specific districts where data comparisons, documents, commentary or memoranda were provided to the Defendants regarding past New York and federal elections and precinct analysis relating to the proposed and final district maps of the Senate Plan during the redistricting process. If affirmative, identify all persons, their titles, dates of employment, and contact information that have submitted or communicated in data comparisons, documents, commentary or memoranda to the Defendants regarding the above analysis during the Senate s redistricting process. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Interrogatory because its reference to New York and federal elections and precinct analysis is vague and ambiguous. The Senate Majority also objects to this Interrogatory because it is overbroad, is unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Senate Majority further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is 26

53 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 53 of 61 PageID #: publicly available on the LATFOR website which reflects input received from members of the public and others. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Identify the specific districts where data comparisons, documents, commentary or memoranda were provided to the Defendants regarding racial bloc voting (rvb) analysis and racial polarization analysis involving any of the proposed and final districts of the Senate Plan during the redistricting process. If affirmative, identify all persons, their titles, dates of employment, and contact information that have submitted or communicated in data comparisons, documents, commentary or memoranda to the Defendants regarding the above analysis during the Senate s redistricting process. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Interrogatory because it is overbroad, is unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Senate Majority further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is publicly available on the LATFOR website which reflects input received from members of the public and others. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify the persons, advisers, and entities that have provided analysis, training, instruction, discussion and correspondence with Defendants and LATFOR staff regarding the concepts of voter dilution, the weight of a citizen s vote or the dilution of upstate voting power in New York State redistricting. If these subjects were mentioned or discussed, state the dates and locations of such discussions and meetings, and identify the names of attendees, titles, and contact information. 27

54 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 54 of 61 PageID #: RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous in its use of terms in quotation marks that are undefined. The Senate Majority also objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Senate Majority further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is publicly available on the LATFOR website which reflects input received from members of the public and others. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Defendants contend that drawing an additional minority-majority Latino Senate district in New York City for the 63-seat Senate plan did not meet their redistricting criteria, did not satisfy Defendants partisan purposes, or, was not even considered as an option, long after receiving submissions of alternate mapping plans prior to the March 14, 2012 legislative vote on the Senate-Assembly Plans. Is this contention true? Which Defendants, if any, reviewed or discussed the merits of the Unity Plan and the Breitbart Alternate Senate Plan? RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Interrogatory as compound and, with respect to the first sentence and following question, unintelligible. The Senate Majority also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that the information it seeks is protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Interrogatory because it s reference to reviewed or discussed the merits is vague and ambiguous. The Senate Majority also objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Senate Majority further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion 28

55 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 55 of 61 PageID #: and prematurely seeks the contentions of opposing parties. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Senate Majority states that its pleadings, memoranda of law, and briefs on the public docket speak for themselves and that all contentions contained therein are true. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: State whether the voting rights of Latinos, the voting power/electoral capacity of New York s Latino populations, the population growth in the Latino community, and Latino districts and communities of interest, were discussed, cited or considered during the development and implementation of the Defendants redistricting criteria, and, in the drafting and mapping of the Senate Plan. Identify the persons, advisers, and entities that have provided analysis, training, instruction, or discussion about Latino populations, the placement of Latino communities and how district lines were drawn. RESPONSE: The Senate Majority objects to this Interrogatory to the extent the information it seeks is protected by legislative, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The Senate Majority also objects to this Interrogatory because its references to voting rights, voting power/electoral capacity, Latino districts, and the placement of Latino communities are vague and ambiguous. The Senate also objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous as to whether it includes actions by and communications among, for example, members of the public. The Senate Majority also objects to this Interrogatory because it is overbroad, is unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Senate Majority further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is publicly available on the LATFOR website which reflects input received from members of the public and others. 29

56 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 56 of 61 PageID #: Dated: June 18, 2012 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Michael A. Carvin Michael A. Carvin (MC 9266) JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Avenue, NW Washington, DC / Todd R. Geremia (TG 4454) JONES DAY 222 East 41 st Street New York, NY / David Lewis (DL 0037) LEWIS & FIORE 225 Broadway, Suite 3300 New York, NY / Attorneys For Defendants Dean G. Skelos, Michael F. Nozzolio, and Welquis R. Lopez 30

57 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 57 of 61 PageID #: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on June 18, 2012, the foregoing was served on counsel for the parties in this action by pursuant to, and to the addresses provided in, the parties Stipulation Regarding Discovery Submissions. /s/ Todd R. Geremia Todd R. Geremia 31

58 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 58 of 61 PageID #: EXHIBIT 4

59 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 59 of 61 PageID #: 13366

60 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 60 of 61 PageID #: EXHIBIT 5

61 Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 564 Filed 02/25/13 Page 61 of 61 PageID #: 13368