IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Transcription

1 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 383 Filed 09/10/13 Page 1 of 29 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE OF TEXAS, v. Plaintiff, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. in his Official capacity as Attorney General Of the United States, Defendants, ERIC KENNIE, et al., Defendants-Intervenors. Case No. 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW KENNIE DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES, EXPENSES AND COSTS WITH SUPPORTING POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1920, 42 U.S.C. 1973l(e), 42 U.S.C Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d), and this Court s Local Rule, LCvR 54.2(a), Defendant-Intervenors Eric Kennie, et al., 1 (hereafter Kennie Intervenors ) respectfully move this Court for an order granting attorneys fees, expenses, and costs to them, as prevailing parties in this Voting Rights Act case and their successful defense in opposition to the Texas photo ID bill, SB 14, enacted by the Texas Legislature in Pursuant to LCvR 7(m), counsel for the Kennie Intervenors contacted counsel for the Plaintiff State of Texas and was advised that Plaintiff opposes this motion. 1 The movants include Defendant-Intervenors Eric Kennie, Anna Burns, Michael Montez, Penny Pope, Marc Veasey, Jane Hamilton, David de la Fuente, Lorraine Birabil, Daniel Clayton, and Sergio DeLeon.

2 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 383 Filed 09/10/13 Page 2 of 29 The provision in the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 1973l(e)) that is most relevant to this fee requests states: In any action or proceeding to enforce the voting guarantees of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney s fee, reasonable expert fees, and other reasonable litigation expenses as part of the costs. The Kennie Intervenors intervened in this action to protect and enforce their voting rights under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The legislative history of section 1973l(e) makes clear that in suits under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the parties seeking to enforce such rights may be the defendants and/or defendantintervenors. S. Rep. No , at 40 n.42 (1975); see also Donnell v. United States, 682 F.2d 240 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (noting that Defendant Intervenors are entitled to attorney s fees in Section 5 preclearance cases such as this when intervenors proposed different theories and arguments for the court s consideration and... the work performed was of important value to the court ). This motion may be decided by either a single judge of this Court or the entire threejudge court. 2 Based on this motion, the attached supporting materials, and the record in this case, the Kennie Intervenors seek a total sum of $353, in attorneys fees, expenses and costs. BACKGROUND, FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On January 24, 2012, the State of Texas filed a complaint for declaratory judgment that SB 14, the Texas photo ID bill, complied with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973c. One week later, on February 1, 2012, the Kennie Intervenors were the first parties to 2 In either event, any appeal from an order awarding or denying attorneys fees would lie to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. See, e.g., Castro Cnty., Tex. v. Crespin, 101 F.3d 121, (D.C. Cir. 1996); Watkins v. Fordice, 7 F.3d 453, 455 n.2 (5th Cir. 1993); see also Comm rs Court of Medina Cnty., Tex. v. United States, 683 F.2d 435 (D.C. Cir. 1982). 2

3 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 383 Filed 09/10/13 Page 3 of 29 seek intervention, opposing Section 5 preclearance of SB The Kennie Intervenors contended that SB 14 was not entitled to Section 5 preclearance because it was adopted with a racially discriminatory intent and would have a racially discriminatory effect. This Court granted the Kennie Intervenors Motion to Intervene on March 15, After various other groups sought and were granted intervention, this Court on April 13, 2012, issued an order which stated in part: All intervenors shall identify a single attorney to examine a deponent at any deposition. The questioning at trial will likewise be limited. Furthermore, the intervenors shall appoint a single attorney to be the administrative contact point with the Court and all briefing done by the intervenors shall be consolidated. The intervenors are cautioned to avoid duplication of efforts. Should preclearance be denied, the Court will not grant fee requests for duplicative work. Minute Order April 13, THE ROLE OF KENNIE INTERVENORS COUNSEL IN THIS CASE Pursuant to this Order, counsel for the Kennie Intervenors, Mr. Hebert, served as coadministrative counsel with counsel for the Defendant-Intervenors Mexican American Legislative Caucus (MALC), et al., Mr. Ezra Rosenberg, throughout this case. As detailed below and in the attached Declarations and time sheets, the Kennie Intervenors adhered to the Court s admonition to avoid duplication of efforts. During discovery, a number of disputes arose, ranging from discovery of databases maintained by the State of Texas, and various motions for protective orders and to compel discovery relating to databases. In addition, there were discovery disputes involving assertions of legislative privilege by the State of Texas. These disputes often required telephonic conference calls with the Court and, in many instances, orders by the three-judge court were 3 Other parties were subsequently granted intervention by this Court and opposed preclearance of SB 14. 3

4 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 383 Filed 09/10/13 Page 4 of 29 necessary to resolve them. The Kennie Intervenors counsel participated in all those telephonic conference calls. The State also filed motions in limine to exclude expert testimony of various experts, including an expert witness designated by the Kennie Intervenors, Dr. Allan Lichtman. See ECF Docs. 194, 225 and 251. The Kennie Intervenors successfully defeated the State s motion in limine. 4 Trial was held over a one-week period from July 9-13, 2012, with three and a half hours of closing arguments on July 13, During the trial, the Court heard testimony from twenty witnesses, including several witnesses sponsored by the Kennie Intervenors: Texas State Senators Wendy Davis and Rodney Ellis; election lawyer and expert Buck Wood; and expert witness Dr. Allan Lichtman. In addition, [t]he parties... presented thousands of pages of deposition testimony, expert reports, scholarly articles, and other paper evidence. ECF No. 340, at At trial, counsel for the Kennie Intervenors also performed the cross-examination of Keith Ingram, Secretary of State for the State of Texas. Counsel for the Kennie Intervenors also was one of two Intervenors to participate in the closing arguments. This Court issued its unanimous decision on August 30, 2012, denying preclearance to SB 14. The voluminous trial record in this case includes evidence taken in open court, exhibits, expert reports, and post-trial briefing. The Kennie Intervenors were actively involved throughout this entire case, including the discovery proceedings (including resolution of discovery disputes in telephonic conferences with the Court), the conduct of the trial, closing arguments, and posttrial briefing. This active role is not surprising, especially given that counsel for the Kennie Intervenors served as co-administrator for the Defendant-Intervenor parties. That role required Mr. Hebert to communicate regularly with Mr. Rosenberg, the co-administrative counsel, to 4 By order entered July 3, 2012, this Court denied the motion in limine to exclude Dr. Lichtman s testimony. 4

5 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 383 Filed 09/10/13 Page 5 of 29 manage the litigation for Intervenors and avoid duplication of tasks. As the Court will note in Mr. Hebert s Declaration (Exhibit A) and his attached timesheets (Exhibit B), Mr. Hebert spent many, many hours communicating with Mr. Rosenberg and other Intervenors counsel, managing and coordinating the litigation on behalf of all Defendant Intervenors. Mr. Hebert has not sought compensation for any of those hours in this fee motion. See Exhibit B. Also, because the Kennie Intervenors were also represented by Chad W. Dunn from Brazil & Dunn in Houston, Texas, the Kennie Intervenors attended many of the depositions in Texas (and did not incur the time and expense of D.C.-based counsel, Mr. Hebert, travelling to Texas to attend depositions). Mr. Dunn represented several witnesses for deposition including Eric Kennie, Marc Veasey, Senator Wendy Davis, Senator Rodney Ellis and Anna Burns. Mr. Dunn and his law partner, Mr. Brazil, also participated in and defended depositions too numerous to list. In fact, the Kennie Intervenors attended, on behalf of all intervenors, as many or more depositions than any of the other Defendant Intervenors. In sum, the Kennie Intervenors played a significant and important role in achieving the judgment that this Court entered. As we explain in detail below, this Court relied on testimony offered at trial by the Kennie Intervenors in denying preclearance to SB THE EVIDENCE OFFERED BY THE KENNIE INTERVENORS AT TRIAL AND THIS COURT S AUGUST 30, 2012 DECISION DENYING PRECLEARANCE The Kennie Intervenors called four witnesses at trial and each provided important and unique evidence about the adoption of SB 14. Senator Wendy Davis, for example, testified among other things about amendments to SB 14 that she had offered in the 2011 legislative session which would have reduced some of the harmful effects of SB 14 and provided some relief for indigent persons. Sen. Davis s testimony on this point was as follows: 5

6 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 383 Filed 09/10/13 Page 6 of 29 Q. In the first category of amendments that you discussed indigency, why were you concerned about indigent impact for the bill? A. Well, we had had some testimony in both sessions from experts who had looked at the overall impact of voter ID laws. The concern that as much as 10 to 11 percent of persons who currently legally were exercising their right to vote would be impacted by such a bill because of their inability to get a new ID. Q. And in your district in your state have you looked into the types of folks that predominantly make up the indigent citizen rate? A. Yes. Q. What did you, what have you discovered? A. Well, what is the case in the State of Texas as I suppose it is elsewhere is that our indigent population is primarily made up of persons who are minority. Trial Tr. 7/12/2012 (AM) 29: Senator Davis s testimony about the various amendments she had offered to alleviate the burdens that SB 14 would impose on the poor was reflected in this Court s decision on the merits. As this Court observed in its August 30, 2012 opinion denying preclearance to the photo ID bill: Finally, during closing arguments, Texas s counsel complained that they had been shouldered with an impossible burden in this litigation. Trial Tr. 7/13/ :14. This may well be correct, but Texas s lawyers have only their client to blame. The State of Texas enacted a voter ID law that at least to our knowledge is the most stringent in the country. That law will almost certainly have retrogressive effect: it imposes strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor, and racial minorities in Texas are disproportionately likely to live in poverty. And crucially, the Texas legislature defeated several amendments that could have made this a far closer case. Ignoring warnings that SB 14, as written, would disenfranchise minorities and the poor, see, e.g., JA ; 1329, the legislature tabled or defeated amendments that would have: waived all fees for indigent persons who needed the underlying documents to obtain an EIC, Trial Tr. 7/12/2012 (AM) 30:17-31:7, 33:23-24; reimbursed impoverished Texans for EIC-related travel costs, JA ; expanded the range of identifications acceptable under SB 14 by allowing voters to present student or Medicare ID cards at the polls, Trial Tr. 7/12/2012 (AM) 34:21-24; JA ; 6

7 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 383 Filed 09/10/13 Page 7 of 29 required DPS offices to remain open in the evening and on weekends, JA 1337; and allowed indigent persons to cast provisional ballots without photo ID. Trial Tr. 7/12/2012 (AM) 35:3-37:1. Put another way, if counsel faced an impossible burden, it was because of the law Texas enacted nothing more, nothing less. ECF No. 340 (Opinion, Texas v. Holder, Civil Action No. 12-cv-128) at Senator Wendy Davis also offered testimony about how the so-called free ID in Texas 5 was not really free at all; that in order to get a free ID under SB 14, a person had to produce underlying documents, such as a birth certificate, that cost money. Trial Tr. 7/12/2012 (AM) She explained how she offered an amendment to alleviate this burden on would-be voters, but it was rejected. Id. at 32:1-5, 34: This testimony by Senator Davis about the cost of the so-called free ID is also reflected in this Court s decision denying preclearance to SB 14. For example, this Court observed that [a]lthough SB 14 prohibits DPS from collect[ing] a fee for an [EIC], id. 521A.001(b), EICs will not be costless. Not only will prospective voters have to expend time and resources traveling to a DPS office, but once there they will have to verify their identity by providing satisfactory documentation to DPS officials. ECF No. 340, at 3. The Court s decision later observed: In order to obtain an EIC, would-be voters will need to present one of several underlying documents, and as Texas concedes, the least expensive option for most prospective voters who lack supporting identification will be a certified copy of their birth certificate which costs at least $22. Id. at 46. In reaching its decision denying preclearance, this Court also cited the trial testimony of Senator Rodney Ellis. The Court noted that State Senator Rodney Ellis testified that in his 5 The so-called free ID is referred to in SB 14 as an election identification certificate or EIC. 7

8 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 383 Filed 09/10/13 Page 8 of 29 inner city district in Houston, DPS offices are not easily accessible by public transportation. Trial Tr. 7/11/2012 (PM) 34:8-12. ECF No. 340, at 49. This Court then concluded: If DPS offices are inaccessible by public transportation in Houston, Texas s largest city, we seriously doubt their accessibility in rural areas which, presumably, are less likely to have public transportation infrastructure. Unfortunately, we are left to wonder. Texas, which bears the burden of proof, submitted absolutely nothing to counter this testimony or to show whether its DPS offices are reachable via public transportation. Ibid. The Kennie Intervenors also presented the testimony at trial of an expert witness, Dr. Allan Lichtman. See Trial Tr. 07/12/2012 (AM) Dr. Lichtman s testimony responded to claims by State of Texas experts (Dr. Thomas Sager and Dr. Daron R. Shaw) that the proposed Texas voter identification law (SB 14) did not have a disparate impact on the opportunities for minorities to vote in Texas elections. 6 Dr. Lichtman testified that there were serious flaws in Dr. Sager s analysis, including his effort to match registration lists with driver s license records. In particular, Dr. Lichtman testified that Dr. Sager erroneously excluded more than one million unmatched registrants from his analysis. Moreover, both Dr. Sager s initial analysis and his corrected analysis, according to Dr. Lichtman s testimony, showed racial disparities in the list of unmatched voters, indicating that, if implemented, SB 14 would have a retrogressive effect on minority voter opportunities. Dr. Lichtman s testimony also showed that Dr. Shaw s surveys failed to meet elementary reliability or reality checks that were crucial for surveys with only about a two percent response rate, far lower than the standard in the field. The failure to meet these reality checks showed that no reliable conclusions could be drawn from Dr. Sager s study. Trial Tr. 07/11/2012 (AM) Dr. Lichtman examined the reports of both experts and listened to their testimony in Court. He also read the report and listened to the testimony of plaintiffs expert Dr. Stephen Ansolabehere. 8

9 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 383 Filed 09/10/13 Page 9 of 29 Dr. Lichtman also challenged the claim of the State of Texas s other expert, Dr. Shaw, that social science studies fail to show turnout effects and in particular a disproportionate effect on minorities from voter identification laws. Dr. Lichtman cited a study by Alvarez, Bailey, and Katz noting that such laws disproportionately reduce turnout among those of lower socioeconomic standing and given nationwide and particularly in Texas, a very high correlation between being minority and having low socioeconomic standing regardless of the causal relationship, the effect would be to have a disproportionate impact on the turnout of minorities. The State of Texas declined to cross-examine Dr. Lichtman. Dr. Lichtman s testimony was significantly reflected in the opinion of this Court denying preclearance. As Dr. Lichtman testified, the Court found that the State of Texas had failed to meet its burden of showing that SB 14 did not have a discriminatory effect on the ability of minorities to cast ballots in Texas. Consistent with Dr. Lichtman s testimony, the Court also found that SB 14 will likely have retrogressive effects. ECF No. 340 (Opinion, Texas v. Holder, Civil Action No. 12-cv-128) at 1. Specifically in accord with Dr. Lichtman s testimony, the Court rejected the State s claims that social science studies had found that voter ID laws had no negative impact on voter turnout. Id. at The Court s decision was also consistent with Dr. Lichtman s testimony that analyses performed by Texas s experts failed to provide reliable results and conclusions regarding the impact of SB 14 on minority voter opportunities. Id. at 29-32, Further, the Court s opinion also reflected Dr. Lichtman s testimony about the effects of voter ID laws on those of lower socio-economic standing and the correlation between race and socio-economic status. Id. at

10 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 383 Filed 09/10/13 Page 10 of 29 The Kennie Intervenors also presented testimony from their state election law expert, Randall Buck Wood, who provided critical and un-rebutted testimony that the type of in-person voting fraud that SB 14 was claimed to prevent is rare or non-existent in Texas. As we detail below, the Kennie Intervenors were prevailing parties in this case. They obtained a valid judgment from this Court that provided them with substantial benefits (e.g., the voter ID did not go into effect in the 2012 election cycle). See infra pp As we also explain below, that this Court s judgment was vacated (not reversed) by the Supreme Court does not preclude an award of attorneys fees and expenses. Accordingly, the Kennie Intervenors now seek attorneys fees, expenses, and costs for their success in this action. ARGUMENT The enforcement of federal civil rights laws depends upon private litigation as a means of securing compliance with the law. Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc., 390 U.S. 400, (1968). The availability of fee awards for prevailing parties is critical if private parties are to undertake litigation to vindicate the civil rights laws. See id. The purpose of providing for an award of such fees and expenses to prevailing parties is to encourage private attorneys general [to] take it upon themselves to invoke and thereby invigorate federal constitutional and statutory rights... and... to insure that those who violate the Nation s fundamental laws do not proceed with impunity. King v. Illinois State Bd. of Elections, 410 F.3d 404, 412 (7th Cir. 2005) (quoting Charles v. Daley, 846 F.2d 1057, 1063 (7th Cir. 1988)). In any action or proceeding to enforce the voting guarantees of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney s fee, reasonable expert fees, and other reasonable litigation 10

11 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 383 Filed 09/10/13 Page 11 of 29 expenses as part of the costs. 42 U.S.C. 1973l(e). Here, the Kennie Intervenors sought to enforce and protect their Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment rights by opposing the photo ID bill that was discriminatory and would have harmed their right to vote. Ordinarily, in Section 5 declaratory judgment cases such as this one, attorneys fees are to be awarded to a prevailing party, and should only be denied when the court find[s] that special circumstances exist that would render such an award unjust. Comm rs Court of Medina Cnty., Texas v. United States, 683 F.2d 435, 438 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (citing S. Rep. No , at 40 (1975)); see also Newman v. Piggie Park Enterps., 390 U.S. 400 (1968) (noting that the prevailing party should ordinarily recover an attorney s fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust ). This is because Congress depends heavily upon private citizens to enforce the fundamental rights involved. The awards are a necessary means of enabling private citizens to vindicate these Federal rights. S. Rep. No , at 40 (1975). Defendant Intervenors should be awarded attorney s fees as there are no extraordinary circumstances in the instant case that merit their denial. Indeed, to the contrary, the Kennie Intervenors received significant benefits as a result of this Court s judgment in their favor and thus are prevailing parties entitling them to an award of attorneys fees and expenses. I. THE KENNIE INTERVENORS ARE PREVAILING PARTIES ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED ATTORNEYS FEES, EXPENSES AND COSTS. A. The Kennie Intervenors Are Prevailing Parties. There is no question that the Kennie Intervenors are prevailing parties. They secured a judgment that they had sought in this action: a denial of preclearance to SB 14. That preclearance denial not only had a beneficial effect on the Kennie Intervenors, it also changed the legal relationship between the Kennie Intervenors and the State of Texas. 11

12 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 383 Filed 09/10/13 Page 12 of 29 The judgment entered by this Court denying preclearance to SB 14 provided a substantial benefit to the Kennie Intervenors. Having failed to obtain preclearance, the State of Texas was unable to impose the photo ID requirement on them and other Texas voters in the 2012 elections. If imposed in 2012, the photo ID law would have resulted in some of the Kennie Intervenors being denied the right to vote. For example, as Intervenor Kennie explained in his deposition testimony, 7 he lacks a valid photo ID that would permit him to cast a ballot under SB 14. Kennie, who is indigent, cannot obtain a photo ID from any Texas DPS office because, in order to do so, he must present a birth certificate. Kennie testified that he was born in an automobile and there is no record of his birth available. Kennie Dep. 9: Moreover, Kennie testified that even if a birth certificate was available for him, he could not afford to purchase one. Id. at Kennie is unemployed, id. at 11:5-6, receives his food from local churches, id. at 59:16-18, and stays rent-free with friends, id. at 59:8-9; 60:7-13. When asked why he lacks the means to pay money and purchase a photo ID, Mr. Kennie made clear it was his poverty status: Well, I ain t have no money. I ain t got no job[.] Id. at 47: Since he lacks a photo ID, this Court s decision provided Defendant Intervenor Kennie with a substantial benefit: he remained eligible to vote in the 2012 elections. Moreover, this Court conclude[d] that SB 14 is likely to lead to retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise. ECF No. 340 at 55 (quoting Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 141 (1976)). As members of racial or language minority groups, the Kennie Intervenors were benefitted by this Court s decision denying preclearance to SB 14 a decision which prevented the State of Texas from implementing the photo ID law in the 2012 elections. Moreover, all of the Kennie Intervenors 7 See Defendant Intervenors Proposed Findings of Fact, Document No. 240, at 2, 2. 12

13 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 383 Filed 09/10/13 Page 13 of 29 (except one) are plaintiffs in a recently filed federal suit in a challenge to SB 14 in a Corpus Christi federal court. The record and Court findings developed in this case also provide them a benefit and will be useful to them in that litigation. The Supreme Court has determined that civil rights plaintiffs are prevailing parties if they succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing the suit. Tex. State Teachers Ass n v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 789 (1989); Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754, (1980). In other words, the plaintiff must be able to point to a resolution of the dispute which changes the legal relationship between [it] and the defendant. Texas State Teachers Ass n, 489 U.S. at 792; see also Buckhannon Bd. &Care Home, Inc. v W. Va. Dep t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 604 (2001) (recognizing that a party prevails and is entitled to attorney s fees when that party obtains a material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties ). We respectfully submit that the Kennie Intervenors succeeded on a significant issue in this litigation which achieved some of the benefit that the Kennie Intervenors sought when they intervened. Accordingly, they are prevailing parties entitled to an award of attorneys fees. B. The Supreme Court s Order Vacating This Court s Judgment Does Not Affect the Kennie Intervenors Entitlement to Attorneys Fees. The State appealed this Court s December 17, 2012 judgment (ECF No. 365) to the United States Supreme Court. On June 27, 2013, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to this Court in light of the decision in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. (2013). This Court, in turn, recently dismissed this case upon Plaintiff s unopposed motion. ECF No But the fact that this Court s 2012 judgment was vacated in June 2013 did not impact the benefits that the Kennie Intervenors received in 2012 when, as a result of this Court s decision, 13

14 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 383 Filed 09/10/13 Page 14 of 29 the photo ID bill was unable to be enforced. Nor did the Supreme Court s June 27, 2013 Order alter the change in the legal relationship between the Intervenors and the State of Texas that was effectuated by the judgment this Court entered in The Kennie Intervenors obtained a judgment from this Court in their favor. That judgment was not reversed by the Supreme Court on the merits. Thus, this is not a situation where a party obtained a favorable ruling on the merits in the lower court but lost on the merits on appeal. In that circumstance, attorneys fees are not warranted. See Sole v. Wyner, 551 U.S. 74 (2007). Here, the judgment that the Kennie Intervenors obtained was beneficial to them at least through the 2012 elections and thus they obtained some benefit from that judgment benefits which existed at least until the Supreme Court s decision vacating that judgment. 8 A prevailing party is one who confers an actual benefit or relief from a burden. Grano v. Barry, 783 F.2d 1104, (D.C. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). The party seeking fees need not have prevailed on every claim or achieved all of the benefits he might have hoped for in the litigation... the critical question in evaluating the availability of fees is whether fee claimants have received any benefit at all. Id. at 1109 (citation omitted); see also Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754, 758 (1987) (quoting H. R. Rep. No , at 8 (1976)) ( [W]hen a party has prevailed on the merits of at least some of his claims, there has been a determination of the substantial rights of the parties, which Congress determined was a necessary foundation for departing from the usual rule in this country that each party is to bear the expense of his own attorney. ); Rhodes v. Stewart, 488 U.S. 1, 3-4 (1988) (per curiam) ( At the end of the rainbow lies not a judgment, but some action (or cessation of action) by the defendant that the judgment 8 As noted above, the benefits that the Kennie Intervenors obtained as a result of this litigation will continue, as the record developed in the case will be used to help establish that the photo ID bill is unlawful in the pending lawsuit in Corpus Christi. 14

15 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 383 Filed 09/10/13 Page 15 of 29 produces the payment of damages, or some specific performance, or the termination of some conduct. ); Comm rs Court of Medina Cnty., Tex. v. United States, 683 F.2d 435, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (noting the critical question is whether the party has received any benefit at all). When a party has clearly succeeded in obtaining the relief sought in a district court and an intervening event renders the case moot on appeal, she is still a prevailing party and should be awarded attorney s fees. See Nat l Black Police Ass n v. D.C. Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 168 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (affirming the district court s award of attorney s fees where plaintiffs won an injunction that was in place for 52 days before the decision was vacated as moot by new legislation); Thomas v. Bryant, 614 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2010) ( When plaintiffs clearly succeeded in obtaining the relief sought before the district court and an intervening event rendered the case moot on appeal, plaintiffs are still prevailing parties for the purposes of attorney s fees for the district court litigation. ); Diffenderfer v. Gomez-Colon, 587 F.3d 445, 454 (1st Cir. 2009) ( [A] prevailing party is a party who managed to obtain a favorable, material alteration in the legal relationship between the parties prior to the intervening act of mootness. ); UFO Chuting of Haw., Inc. v. Smith, 508 F.3d 1189, 1197 & n.8 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that when a party successfully obtains an injunction before a district court prior to an intervening act of mootness, that party remains the prevailing party ); Dahlem v. Bd. of Educ., 901 F.2d 1508, (10th Cir. 1990) (listing cases and holding that [w]e are in accord with the courts which have held that a party which achieves the objective of its suit by means of an injunction issued by the district court is a prevailing party in that court, notwithstanding the fact that the case becomes moot... while the order is on appeal ) (footnote omitted); Palmer v. City of Chicago, 806 F.2d 1316, 1321 (7th Cir. 1986) (assuming, though not holding, that a party is still a prevailing part[y] if after some relief has been obtained the case becomes moot ). 15

16 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 383 Filed 09/10/13 Page 16 of 29 This rule is consistent with the purpose behind the statute providing for attorneys fees. To hold that mootness of a case pending appeal inherently deprives plaintiffs of their status as prevailing parties would detract from 1988 s purposes. Such a rule could result in disincentives for attorneys to bring civil rights actions when an event outside the parties control might moot the case after the district court rendered a favorable judgment but before the judgment could be affirmed on appeal. Diffenderfer v. Gomez-Colon, 587 F.3d 445, 455 (1st Cir. 2009). Although the decision handed down in Shelby County resulted in this Court s judgment being vacated, this does not make attorney s fees any less appropriate. See Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Marina Pont Dev. Co., 566 F.3d 794, (9th Cir. 2009) (finding that even when the event mooting a judgment is contrary to plaintiff s interests, there is no principled and persuasive reason to deviate from the principle that conferring a real benefit justifies awarding attorney s fees). Several courts have upheld fee awards in similar situations. See, e.g., id. (upholding an attorney s fees award where plaintiffs won a permanent injunction that was vacated before the appeal when a statutory change rendered the case moot); Grano v. Berry, 783 F.2d 1104 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (finding plaintiffs were entitled to attorney s fees for winning an injunction prohibiting the demolition of a tavern, even though ultimately defendants were awarded a demolition permit and demolished the tavern). The Kennie Intervenors were victimized by the State s 2011 photo ID bill and they (along with the Defendants and other Defendant Intervenors) blocked that law from taking effect in the 2012 election cycle. That alone was a significant benefit. Having obtained a judgment from this Court preventing the State of Texas from obstructing or interfering with their right to vote in a national presidential election is no small victory. Because the Kennie Intervenors have 16

17 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 383 Filed 09/10/13 Page 17 of 29 obtain[ed] actual relief on the merits of [their] claim that materially alters the relationship between the parties by modifying the [Plaintiff s] behavior in a way that directly benefits the [Intervenors], Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 111 (1992), they are a prevailing party. See Tex. State Teachers Ass n v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 789 (1989). The Kennie Intervenors prevailed at trial and obtained a judgment from this Court under the law that existed at the time. Though the Supreme Court, many months thereafter, struck down a portion of the Voting Rights Act, the prevailing status of these Intervenors at trial and the benefit they received in the 2012 elections remained unchanged. Indeed, though the Supreme Court from time to time may adjust the applicability of statutes given what it perceives as changed circumstances, it simply cannot be the case that federal law requires parties to bear the burden of fees and expenses in a case they won based upon the clearly constitutional law in place at the time. Indeed, until Shelby County, the Supreme Court had affirmed the constitutionality of the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act on at least three occasions. For these reasons, the Kennie Intervenors are prevailing parties and should be awarded attorneys fees and expenses. C. The Kennie Intervenors Attorneys Fees Are Reasonable. Having prevailed on their claims, the only remaining question is whether the fees sought are reasonable. As explained below, the fees, expenses, and costs that the Kennie Intervenors seek are reasonable for litigation of this type and scope. An award of attorneys fees is calculated using the lodestar method, which is determined by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984); see also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). The lodestar is presumed to be the reasonable fee, Blum, 465 U.S. at 17

18 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 383 Filed 09/10/13 Page 18 of ; accord People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 90 F.3d 1307, 1310 (7th Cir. 1996), and includes most, if not all, of the relevant factors constituting a reasonable attorneys fee, Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizens Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 566 (1986). Two issues are addressed below demonstrating the reasonableness of the Kennie Intervenors requested fees: 1) the reasonable number of hours expended by Intervenors attorneys to litigate this case; and 2) the hourly rates sought by the Intervenors counsel. As explained further below, both the hours incurred and the rates charged were reasonable for a case of this nature. 1. Kennie Intervenors Seek Compensation For A Reasonable Number of Hours. This case involved important and difficult federal statutory claims. Texas s proposed photo ID law was not only a case that drew national attention, it also was the first photo ID law to go to trial in this Court under the Voting Rights Act. In addition, although the Court ultimately did not reach the issue of discriminatory purpose, that issue was necessarily litigated and [t]he task of assessing a jurisdiction s motivation... is not a simple matter; on the contrary, it is an inherently complex endeavor, one requiring the trial court to perform a sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence of intent as may be available. Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 546 (1999) (quoting Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Auth., 429 U.S. 252, 266 (1977)). Indeed, voting rights cases such as this one are among the most complex federal cases, ranking fifth most difficult out of 42 categories of cases (more difficult than antitrust and SEC/securities cases) according to the case weights last issued by the Federal Judicial Center. See Exhibit L. The Kennie Intervenors appropriately hired experienced attorneys who have substantial Voting Rights Act experience, including extensive experience with Texas voting rights lawsuits. 18

19 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 383 Filed 09/10/13 Page 19 of 29 See Exhibit A, Declaration of J. Gerald Hebert ( Hebert Decl. ); Exhibit C, Listing of Voting Rights/Election Law Cases Handled by Hebert; Exhibit D, Declaration of Chad W. Dunn ( Dunn Decl. ); and Exhibit E, Dunn Curriculum Vitae. For example, Kennie Intervenors counsel Mr. Hebert has represented clients in prior Texas voting rights or redistricting lawsuits going back several decades, including several landmark cases that reached the United States Supreme Court (e.g., Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Balderas v. State of Texas, Civ. Action No. 6:01CV158 (E.D. Tex., Nov. 14, 2001) (per curiam), summarily aff d, 536 U.S. 919 (2002), and LULAC v. Perry, 548 U. S. 399 (2006)). Furthermore, Mr. Hebert has served as lead counsel in many redistricting and voting rights cases over the years throughout the United States and at all levels of the federal system, including a number of Section 5 declaratory judgment cases in this Court. As the listing of voting rights cases (Ex. C) shows, he has served as lead counsel for a party or amicus curiae in over one hundred Voting Rights Act cases, and dozens of other election law and campaign finance cases. Moreover, the attached Declarations of experienced voting rights attorneys Spiva, Wright and Pershing (Exhibits H, I, and J, respectively) identify Mr. Hebert as one of our nation s foremost voting rights litigators. The Kennie Intervenors other counsel, Mr. Dunn, also has extensive voting rights litigation experience in Texas, handling numerous voting rights cases in the last decade. See Ex. D; Ex. E. The extensive experience of the Kennie Intervenors counsel, particularly in voting rights cases, made them well-suited to these responsibilities. Ex. A; Ex. D. Given the importance of the issues presented in this case, and the fact that the Kennie Intervenors lawyers had handled numerous Voting Rights Act cases in the past (and thus could perform their duties more efficiently than counsel with less experience in this area of law), the Kennie Intervenors were 19

20 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 383 Filed 09/10/13 Page 20 of 29 quite reasonable in retaining attorneys Hebert and Dunn to advance their interests throughout the course of this litigation. The Kennie Intervenors lawyers also leanly staffed this case, avoiding any duplication of tasks and using only three attorneys with appropriate levels of experience to handle the various litigation tasks. Ex. A, Hebert Decl. 13, 14, 16. That this case was staffed leanly and without duplication of tasks was true not only among the Kennie Intervenors counsel, but also between counsel for the Kennie Intervenors and counsel for the other Defendant-Intervenors. Ex. A, Hebert Decl. 13). 9 That Kennie Intervenors lawyers leanly staffed this case is also demonstrated by the fact Mr. Hebert and Mr. Dunn performed all of the tasks at the trial court level, and the Kennie Intervenors let other counsel for Defendant Intervenors take the lead on other matters (including briefing to the U.S. Supreme Court) to avoid unnecessary or duplicative work or the inefficient use of resources. Ex. A, Hebert Decl. 13. As a result, neither Mr. Hebert nor Mr. Dunn has sought attorneys fees for any of the work they performed on matters that were also handled by other Defendant-Intervenors counsel. This allocation and division of labor was done throughout the litigation to avoid duplication of work and maximize efficiency, and best utilized the expertise of the attorneys involved. 10 The Kennie Intervenors attorneys are seeking compensation for the hours and legal work listed in the time sheets and invoices attached as Exhibit B (Hebert Time and Expense Records) 9 The overall fees and disbursements sought in this case are reasonable and well within the range of what would be expected for this type of complex litigation. That is especially true where, as here, the case implicated the important fundamental right to vote and the right to be free of discrimination with respect to voting. 10 That Mr. Hebert and Mr. Dunn handled the vast majority of litigation tasks at the trial court level stands in sharp contrast to the State of Texas who listed a total of 13 different attorneys on various pleadings they filed in this Court: Mitchell, Frederick, Sweeten, McKenzie, Mortara, Hughes, Spencer, Brissenden, Hodge, Aston, D Andrea, Sullivan and Abbott. 20

21 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 383 Filed 09/10/13 Page 21 of 29 and Exhibit F (Dunn and Brazil Time and Expense Records). As noted above, these fees pertain to work performed by the Kennie Intervenors attorneys throughout the course of this intensive litigation, which included, among other things: preparing and filing a motion to intervene and proposed answer; responding to the State of Texas s multiple motions for protective order, motion to compel, motion in limine to exclude testimony of expert witness for Kennie Intervenors, assertion of legislative privilege issues, and the State s failures to produce data in a timely manner in discovery, including beyond deadlines set by the Court, see, e.g., Minute Order May 9, The Kennie Intervenors counsel also participated actively in factual and expert discovery, including participating in numerous depositions; responding to the factual and expert discovery propounded by the State; and presenting trial testimony of four witnesses at trial, participating in closing arguments, and ultimately obtaining a favorable final judgment. Ex. A, Hebert Decl. 15; Ex. D, Dunn Decl Following entry of judgment by this Court on August 28, 2013, the Kennie Intervenors counsel continued to leanly staff the case, as Mr. Hebert prepared this fee motion in its entirety with minor assistance from other attorneys, so as to minimize the amount of attorney time and fees. Ex. A, Hebert Decl. 18. Based on contemporaneous time records, the Kennie Intervenors attorneys and paralegal and legal support staff spent the following hours working on this case (as verified and substantiated in detail in the attached Declarations of Hebert, Dunn and Brazil): ATTORNEY HOURS J. Gerald Hebert Chad Dunn Scott Brazil

22 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 383 Filed 09/10/13 Page 22 of 29 The Kennie Intervenors attorneys have reviewed the time records summarized above and reprinted them in the attached exhibits (Exhibits B and F). These records show sound and reasonable billing judgment. For example, Kennie Intervenors counsel excluded substantial time to ensure that compensation was not sought for work that might be deemed as properly excluded from a court-ordered fee award. See Ex. A; Ex. B; Ex. D; Ex. F. For example, Kennie Intervenors do not request compensation for activity that, although necessary for client relations, did not directly contribute to the litigation itself. See, e.g., Ex. F. Kennie Intervenors also do not seek any fee enhancement above the lodestar method, despite their considerable expertise and experience in this area. The hours that remain after the attorneys review of the time records were reasonably expended to accomplish the tasks necessary for the successful prosecution of this litigation. See Ex. A, Hebert Decl ; Ex. D, Dunn Decl Kennie Intervenors Seek Reasonable Hourly Rates For Its Attorneys. The hourly rates sought by the Kennie Intervenors attorneys (Hebert, Dunn and Brazil), reflect their years of practice, litigation experience, and expertise. We explain below, for each attorney, the exceptionally high level of experience and expertise justifying their hourly rates. In addition, we have also attached to this motion the declarations of highly qualified attorneys attesting to the reasonableness of the hours and the hourly rates being sought here. A. J. Gerald Hebert s Hourly Rate: Mr. Hebert, who seeks an hourly rate of $650 in this case, is now in his fortieth year of practicing law, having spent all but six years in the field of voting rights and redistricting. He is widely recognized as one of the leading voting rights and redistricting litigators in the United States. See Ex. H (Bruce Spiva Declaration); Ex. I (Brenda Wright Declaration); Ex. J (Stephen Pershing Declaration). 22

23 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 383 Filed 09/10/13 Page 23 of 29 As detailed in his Declaration (Exhibit A) and the Listing of Voting/Election Law cases that Hebert has handled (Exhibit C), Mr. Hebert has handled over one hundred voting rights cases in his forty-year career, with a number of cases ultimately decided in the United States Supreme Court, including Johnson v. DeGrandy, Pressley v. Etowah County, Shaw v. Reno, and LULAC v. Perry. In the vast majority of the voting rights or redistricting cases he has handled, Mr. Hebert has served as the lead trial attorney. See Ex. C. In addition to his vast litigation experience and expertise, Mr. Hebert also has published or co-authored articles on voting rights and redistricting in scholarly journals (e.g., Yale Journal of Law and Policy, George Mason University Law Review, and LaRaza Law Journal at the University of California at Berkeley). He has given lectures or participated in conferences on voting rights issues at Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, and William and Mary Law School, among other law schools across the country. Mr. Hebert has taught voting rights classes at Georgetown University Law Center (from , and 2013) and American University s Washington College of Law, and has co-taught a voting rights course in 1996 with legal scholar Pamela Karlan at the University of Virginia Law School. 11 This semester, Mr. Hebert is coteaching a course on election law at Georgetown University Law Center with Paul M. Smith, of the law firm Jenner and Block. These hourly rates are similar to prevailing market rates charged by attorneys of comparable experience and expertise. Mr. Hebert s hourly rate is also reasonable as indicated by the sworn declarations of two attorneys in the District of Columbia, Bruce Spiva (Exhibit H) and 11 Mr. Hebert also has been quoted or cited in numerous articles or broadcasts as an authority on voting rights, and has appeared frequently as a panelist at conferences of the National Conference of State Legislature, where he has instructed state legislators from across the country on voting rights and redistricting law. See Exhibit A, Hebert Decl. at

24 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 383 Filed 09/10/13 Page 24 of 29 Stephen Pershing (Exhibit J). In addition, as indicated in the Adjusted Laffey Matrix, 12 for attorneys with twenty years or more experience, the hourly rate is currently $753 per hour. In 2012, when this case was litigated, the Laffey Matrix showed that the hourly rate for attorneys with 20 or more years of experience was $734 per hour. Thus, Mr. Hebert s hourly rate is actually lower than the Laffey Matrix rate for an attorney with his years of experience, and that does not take into account his knowledge, forty years of experience, expertise and specialization in handling voting rights and redistricting cases. B. Hourly Rate for Mr. Chad Dunn and Mr. Scott Brazil: Attorneys Chad Dunn and Scott Brazil seek an hourly rate in this case of $375 an hour, which is the rate they charge to other fee paying clients. See Ex. D (Dunn Decl.); Ex. G (Brazil Decl.). The declarations of these two attorneys describe their expertise and experience in all types of litigation, including voting rights cases. Mr. Dunn has also submitted his curriculum vitae (Exhibit E). ATTORNEY RATE J. Gerald Hebert $ Chad Dunn $ Scott Brazil $ The methodology of calculation and benchmarking for the Laffey Matrix has been approved in a number of cases. See, e.g., McDowell v. District of Columbia, Civ. A. No (RCL), LEXSEE 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8114 (D.D.C. June 4, 2001); Salazar v. Dist. of Col., 123 F.Supp.2d 8 (D.D.C. 2000). We attach the Adjusted Laffey Matrix as Exhibit K. See also Exhibit J (Pershing Decl. discussing Laffey Matrix). 24

25 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 383 Filed 09/10/13 Page 25 of 29 II. KENNIE INTERVENORS FEE AWARD SHOULD EQUAL $300, Multiplying the time worked by each attorney by the hourly rates for each year yields the following calculation: ATTORNEYS HRS RATE TOTAL J. Gerald Hebert $ $118, Chad Dunn $ $163, Scott Brazil 47.2 $ $17, ALL FEES SUBTOTAL: $300, III. KENNIE INTERVENORS ARE ENTITLED TO EXPENSES AND COSTS With regard to expenses and costs, the invoices referenced in the Dunn Declaration (Exhibit D) and the time and expense records of Brazil and Dunn (Exhibit F) detail the out-ofpocket expenses incurred. Verification and documentation of these expenses and costs are set forth in Exhibits D and F. These expenses were necessarily incurred and are the type of out-ofpocket expenses normally billed to fee-paying clients. As such, they are recoverable as part of Defendant-Intervenors attorneys fees. See W. Va. Univ. Hosp., Inc. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83, 87 n.3 (1991). These costs are recoverable as defined by 28 U.S.C and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). A. Expenses/Costs It is also appropriate to require the Plaintiff State of Texas to reimburse the Kennie Intervenors for reasonable costs. An award of reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, for example, includes an award of reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the attorney which are normally charged to a fee paying client. Neufeld v. Searle Labs., 884 F.2d 335, 342 (8th Cir. 1989) (citing Laffey v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 746 F.2d 4, 30 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 472 U.S (1985)); see also Rendon v. AT&T Techs., 883 F.2d 388, 399 (5thCir. 25

26 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 383 Filed 09/10/13 Page 26 of ) (timely request for fees and expenses is appropriate). Here, the Kennie Intervenors have included in the supporting affidavits and invoices a detailed accounting requesting compensation for such out-of-pocket expenses as travel, deposition costs, conference calls, messenger fees, and the like. Ex. D. These out-of-pocket expenses totaled $12,038.47, and are the sorts of expenses generally charged to a fee-paying client and should be reimbursed fully. B. Expert Fees The fee shifting provision authorizing an award of attorneys fees in this case specifically authorizes the award of fees for expert costs. 42 U.S.C. 1973l(e) ( In any action or proceeding to enforce the voting guarantees of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney s fee, reasonable expert fees, and other reasonable litigation expenses as part of the costs. ). Here, the Kennie Intervenors hired only two expert witnesses (Dr. Allan Lichtman and Randall Buck Wood) who prepared reports and testified at trial. Dr. Lichtman s report and testimony were important in establishing SB 14 was not entitled to preclearance and that the analysis performed by the State of Texas s expert should be rejected (which it was). 13 Election expert Buck Wood offered testimony that the alleged justification for the photo ID bill, voter impersonation at the polls, was rare. This contention was relevant to the inquiry into whether SB 14 was enacted with discriminatory purpose. This Court did not reach the issue of discriminatory intent, however, because it found that SB 14 would have a racially discriminatory effect The Plaintiff State of Texas cannot be heard to argue that expert witnesses were not needed; after all, the State also employed experts who prepared reports in this case and testified at trial (as did the Defendant Attorney General). 14 Nevertheless, this Court did recognize that other evidence, such as the types of circumstantial evidence discussed in Arlington Heights, could nonetheless suggest that Texas invoked the specter of 26

27 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 383 Filed 09/10/13 Page 27 of 29 The expert witness expenses of the Kennie Intervenors are set forth in the attached invoices of Dr. Allan Lichtman and Buck Wood. Ex. F. They were necessarily incurred in order for the Kennie Intervenors to defend this action. Ex. D at 15. Furthermore, those expenses are both modest and reasonable. Id. Expert Witness Fee for Dr. Lichtman $27, Expert Witness Fee for Attorney Wood $13, Total Expert Witness fees: $41, Thus, Kennie Intervenors seek reimbursement for associated expenses in this case in the amount of $53, (out-of-pocket expenses of $12, plus expert witness fees of $41, equals $53,053.47), an amount that encompasses all costs as defined by 28 U.S.C. 1920, Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). Both the expert witness fees and the out-of pocket expenses have been verified in the attached Declarations of Dunn (Exhibit D) and Hebert (Exhibit A). Adding fees and expenses, Kennie Intervenors request a total compensation of $353, The fees and expenses are substantiated by the declarations of counsel and other documentary exhibits attached to this motion. CONCLUSION The attorneys fees sought here are reasonable and not excessive. They are within the prevailing market rate charged by attorneys of comparable experience and expertise. Likewise, the expenses and costs sought here are due to be recovered as they were necessarily incurred during the course of the lawsuit as out-of-pocket expenses or expert witness fees, and are of the same type as those ordinarily charged to clients by counsel. voter fraud as pretext for racial discrimination. See Bossier Parish I, 520 U.S. at 489. ECF No. 340 at

28 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 383 Filed 09/10/13 Page 28 of 29 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, this Court should award Kennie Intervenors the attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and costs as requested. Respectfully submitted, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE /s/ J. Gerald Hebert J. Gerald Hebert D.C. Bar No Attorney at Law 191 Somerville Street, #405 Alexandria, VA Telephone: Chad W. Dunn D.C. Bar No Texas Bar No BRAZIL & DUNN LLP 4201 Cypress Creek Pkwy., Suite 530 Houston, Texas Telephone: (281) Facsimile: (281) ATTORNEYS FOR KENNIE DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS I hereby certify that on the 10 th day of September, 2013, I served a copy of the foregoing Kennie Intervenors Motion for Attorneys Fees, Expenses and Costs, attached Exhibits A-I on counsel who are registered to receive NEFs through the CM/ECF system. All attorneys who have not yet registered to receive NEFs have been served via first-class mail, postage prepaid. /s/ J. Gerald Hebert J. GERALD HEBERT 28

29 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 383 Filed 09/10/13 Page 29 of 29 EXHIBITS TO KENNIE INTERVENORS MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES EXHIBIT A Declaration of J. GERALD HEBERT EXHIBIT B HEBERT Time and Expense Records EXHIBIT C Listing of Voting/Election Cases Handled by HEBERT EXHIBIT D Declaration of CHAD DUNN EXHIBIT E Curriculum Vitae of CHAD DUNN EXHIBIT F BRAZIL and DUNN Time and Expense Records EXHIBIT G Declaration of SCOTT BRAZIL EXHIBIT H Declaration of BRUCE V. SPIVA EXHIBIT I Declaration of BRENDA WRIGHT EXHIBIT J Declaration of STEPHEN B. PERSHING EXHIBIT K Updated Laffey Matrix on Attorneys Fees EXHIBIT L Federal Judicial Center, Case Weighting Study 29

30 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE OF TEXAS, v. Plaintiff, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. in his Official capacity as Attorney General Of the United States, Defendants. Case No. 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW DECLARATION OF J. GERALD HEBERT Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, I, J. Gerald Hebert, declare that: 1. I am one of the attorneys who represented Defendant-Intervenors Eric Kennie, et al., (hereafter Kennie Intervenors ) in the above-captioned case. The testimony set forth in this Declaration is based on first-hand knowledge, about which I could and would testify competently in open Court if called upon to do so, and on records contemporaneously generated and kept by my Firm in the ordinary course of my solo law practice. I make this Declaration in support of the Kennie Intervenors motion for an award of attorneys fees and expenses. 2. I received a B.A. degree from Stonehill College in 1970 and graduated from Suffolk University School of Law in I am a member of the Virginia, D.C. and Pennsylvania (inactive) bars. I am also a member of the bar of the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Eleventh and D. C. Circuits, the United States District Court for Eastern District of Virginia, and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

31 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 2 of 9 3. Following my graduation from law school, from 1973 until 1994, I served as a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. For the last fifteen years of my service at the Department of Justice ( ), I was assigned to the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division where I worked exclusively on cases involving federally protected voting rights. While employed in the Voting Section from 1979 to 1994, I served in a number of supervisory capacities, including Special Litigation Counsel, Deputy Chief, and Acting Chief of the Voting Section. 4. While at the Department of Justice, I served as the lead trial attorney for the United States in numerous voting rights cases, a number of which ultimately became landmark cases in the field of voting rights. Cases that I handled at the Department of Justice that were the subject of United States Supreme Court decisions included City of Mobile v. Bolden, Rogers v. Lodge, Johnson v. DeGrandy, Presley v. Etowah County, City of Port Arthur, Texas v. U.S., and Shaw v. Reno. A complete listing of cases I handled at the United States Department of Justice is submitted as Exhibit C (Part I). 5. Since leaving the Department of Justice in May 1994, I have been a sole practitioner with an office in Alexandria, Virginia, where I specialize in voting rights cases, especially redistricting cases and cases brought to enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended. A listing of the cases I have handled in my solo practice (from 1994 to the present) is set forth in Exhibit C (Part II). 6. In addition, from , I served part-time as a staff attorney in the Voting Rights Project of the national office of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law in Washington, DC. In that position, I assisted with defense of constitutional challenges to majority-minority congressional districts under the Shaw v. Reno doctrine. 2

32 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 3 of 9 7. In addition to my solo practice, from July 2004 to the present, I have served as Executive Director and Director of Litigation at the Campaign Legal Center, a non-profit, nonpartisan organization in Washington, DC. In that capacity, I have represented a party or amicus curiae in dozens of campaign finance cases throughout the United States, including a number of cases decided by the United States Supreme Court (e.g., Citizens United v. FEC, McComish v. Bennett, Davis v. FEC, and most recently, McCutcheon v. FEC (pending)). Exhibit C (Part III) is a listing of the cases I have worked on in my capacity as Director of Litigation at the Campaign Legal Center. I handled this case, Texas v. Holder, in my solo practice. 8. From January 1995 to 2005, I served as an Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, DC, where I taught Election Law, which included voting rights, campaign finance regulation and election law cases. In 1995, I also served as an Adjunct Professor of Law at American University s Washington College of Law, where I taught a course on the Voting Rights Act and the political process. In 1997, I co-taught a course on the Voting Rights Act at the University of Virginia Law School with nationally renowned Law Professor Pam Karlan. In , I will again be an Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center, where I will co-teach a practicum course on election law with Paul M. Smith, a partner at the law firm of Jenner and Block. 9. I have written a number of publications, books and articles on the Voting Rights Act or redistricting. For example, in 2000, I co-authored a book on redistricting with current United States Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, along with several other attorneys at Jenner and Block (including Paul Smith, Sam Hirsch (currently a senior official at the U.S. Department of Justice), and Heather Gerken, now a law professor at Yale Law School). That book was entitled The Realists Guide to Redistricting, which was published by the American Bar 3

33 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 4 of 9 Association in 2000, and republished 2010 (2 nd edition). I also Have authored or co-authored articles and law journal article on voting rights or redistricting for a number of publications, including: Yale Law and Policy Journal, The Need For State Redistricting Reform To Rein In Partisan Gerrymandering, Vol. 29, Issue 2 (2011); Rutgers Law Journal (co-authored); Redistricting in the Post-2000 Era, George Mason University Law Review, Volume 8, Number 3 (Spring 2000); General Theory of Vote Dilution, La Raza Law Journal, Boalt Hall School of Law; University of California at Berkeley (Vol. 6, No. 1)(1993)(co-authored); Future of Voting Rights Litigation: Elections at the Legislative Level, La Raza Law Journal, Boalt Hall School of Law (Vol. 6, No. 1)(1993); Keeping The Courts Honest: The Role of Historians as Expert Witnesses in Southern Voting Rights Cases Southern University Law Review (Vol. 16, No. 1)(Spring 1989)(co-authored); Civil Rights Law: High Court Decision on Voting Rights Act Helps To Remove Minority Barriers National Law Journal (November 1986); and Discriminatory Electoral Systems and the Political Cohesion Doctrine, National Law Journal (Vol. 10, No. 4)(1987) (co-authored). I also have written several articles about voting rights for publications that are geared to state and local governments, including publications by the Texas Municipal League and the Nation s Cities Weekly. 10. I have lectured before numerous meetings and conventions held by bar and other organizations on voting rights, reapportionment, and civil rights, including the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Association of Southern State Legislatures, the Virginia Association of Local Government Attorneys, and reapportionment authorities in the States of Louisiana, Maryland, New Mexico, Texas, and Virginia, among others. I have also given lectures or participated as a panelist and made presentations on voting rights issues at Yale Law School, Harvard Law School, Washington and Lee University Law School, University of 4

34 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 5 of 9 Richmond Law School, William and Mary Law School, and Rutgers Law School, among others. 11. My private practice is exclusively in the area of voting rights, campaign finance, and constitutional rights focusing on voting. My hourly rate in this case is $650 per hour, given the complexity and novelty of the issues, the high visibility and importance of the case, and my experience handling cases such as this. 12. I have reviewed the summary of hours that I have expended in this case that is Marked as Exhibit B, and that summary is true and accurate. The summary of hours in Exhibit B is based on contemporaneous records of the activities in the case maintained as business records in my law office. The hours expended were necessary in rendering legal services to the Kennie Intervenors in this case. I also have reviewed the listing of expenses included within Exhibit B. Those expenses were out-of-pocket expenses necessarily incurred by me to conduct the litigation in this case, and are of the type normally billed by me (and other law firms) to feepaying clients. 13. As counsel for the Kennie Intervenors, I have exercised reasonable billing judgment in this case. I have excluded from my fee request nearly 90 hours of time for which I could be compensated. I have attempted to limit my time to those hours where it was necessary for me to fulfill my role as co-administrative counsel (with Ezra Rosenberg) to the groups of Defendant-Intervenors who were involved in that case. Thus, I have included my time spent reviewing all court orders (except non-substantive orders that did not impact the issues in the case, such as orders granting pro hac vice status or permitting counsel to withdraw, etc.). In this case, the Court issued an order requiring the Defendant Intervenors to file consolidated briefs so as to avoid duplication of efforts. See Order of April 13, In my role as co- 5

35 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 6 of 9 administrator, I worked closely with Mr. Rosenberg to ensure that the Court s order regarding duplication of effort was strictly adhered to. At the outset, Mr. Rosenberg and I agreed that it made sense to divide the Intervenors into teams, such as a discovery team, an expert witness team, a document review team, etc. We asked the Intervenors counsel to volunteer for a team (which they did) and this helped ensure that there was no duplication of effort or waste of litigation resources. Mr. Rosenberg and I also agreed at the outset that we should schedule periodic calls with the Defendant Intervenors counsel to review the tasks assigned and to discuss strategic decisions that needed to be made throughout the case. On most occasions, Mr. Rosenberg s law firm (Dechert LLP) prepared the initial draft of a brief or motion. That enabled me, as a solo practitioner, to avoid duplication of work and to limit my time to making suggested revisions or edits to the draft motion or brief. Throughout this case, in addition to the regularly schedule conference calls among Defendant-Intervenors counsel, I often discussed the status of the case and communicated with individual Defendant-Intervenors attorneys about litigation strategy and issues that arose in the case. That is especially true with respect to my co-administrator Mr. Rosenberg, with whom I communicated repeatedly. I have listed the vast majority of those communications in the attached timesheets, but as the Court will see, I am not including the time I spent communicating with Mr. Rosenberg or other counsel in my fee request. As the attorney for the Kennie Intervenors who was mainly responsible for litigating the case in the district court, I also staffed the case leanly. For example, I took the lead in reviewing all briefs and motions prepared for the Defendant-Intervenors and in reviewing the State s motions and briefs. By agreement, my co-counsel, Mr. Dunn, handled the numerous depositions and other discovery that took place in Texas. Due to the many depositions taken, Mr. Dunn s law partner (Mr. Brazil) handled some depositions, especially when there were 6

36 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 7 of 9 simultaneous depositions being taken. As a result of our efficient use of resources and decisions to avoid duplication of efforts, I did not have to travel to Texas at any time to handle discovery or other matters in this case. 1 Although two other attorneys served as my co-counsel representing the Kennie Intervenors, there are no excessive, redundant, or unnecessary hours included in the time sheets detailed in this request for an award of attorneys fees. To avoid duplication, we also coordinated closely with other Intervenors counsel throughout this case. 14. I also have reviewed the time records (and expense listings) for work performed by my co-counsel at the law firm of Brazil and Dunn. All of the work set forth in the Declarations of my co-counsel were necessary to the litigation of this case and were not duplicative of any of the work I did. I made a conscientious effort to avoid duplication of work by agreeing, in advance, with my co-counsel on a division of labor in those instances where more than one attorney worked on the case simultaneously. As noted above, my co-counsel at Brazil and Dunn handled all discovery and depositions in Texas. I have not billed for any of the work I performed in reading those depositions or being briefed by my co-counsel regarding those depositions. By agreement with co-counsel, I also took responsibility for preparing this fee motion, with minimal assistance from other attorneys, so as to minimize the amount of attorney time and fees involved. My co-counsel and I also carefully monitored expenses to insure that only necessary and reasonable costs were incurred. These expenses were incurred by me as outof-pocket expenses, were expended to successfully prosecute this case, and are the type of outof-pocket expenses normally billed by me and other Firms to fee-paying clients. 1 The Defendant-Intervenors filing in the United States Supreme Court is another example of how this case was leanly staffed and that efforts were made to avoid duplication of work. The Dechert LLP legal team and Lawyers Committee attorneys, with minimal involvement by me, took the lead in drafting our motion to affirm filed in the U.S. Supreme Court. 7

37 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 8 of As one of the Kennie Intervenors counsel, I participated actively throughout this case. I participated in expert discovery (Dr. Lichtman), and my co-counsel handled the vast majority of the factual discovery, such as depositions of fact witnesses in Texas and the report and deposition of one other expert witness (Randall Buck Wood). Kennie Intervenors counsel presented trial testimony of four witnesses at trial, cross examined one of the State s witnesses, participated in closing arguments, and ultimately obtained a favorable final judgment. 16. I am a solo practitioner without litigation support staff in my Firm. To assist me in handling this case, my law firm employed a law student, Renata Strause, to handle paralegal and other litigation support matters. Although Ms. Strause spent hundreds of hours working on this case, I have not billed for her time. 17. To further reduce the number of attorney hours needed to litigate this case, I asked Mr. Dunn to undertake and facilitate communications to the client group. I have excluded from my time records all of my communications with the client group. Ongoing and updated communications with clients in a case of this nature, given the size and geographic diversity of the client group, was necessary and Mr. Dunn s role in keeping our clients informed of developments in the case was the most cost-effective way of fulfilling those requirements. 2 2 Both the Texas Rules of Professional Conduct and the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct require lawyers to keep their clients reasonably informed about the case and to comply promptly with clients requests for information about the status of the case. This obligation includes providing clients with status reports on the lawsuit, as well as communications from other parties that may significantly affect settlement or resolution of the case. See Texas Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 1.03) and Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 1.04). 8

38 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 9 of 9 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: September 10, 2013 /s/ J. Gerald Hebert J. GERALD HEBERT 9

39 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 1 of 19 Date Time Records of Attorney J. Gerald Hebert in State of Texas v. Holder, No (D.D.C.) Legal Services Rendered Actual Time Expended Time Charged (Hours/ Tenths) 1/24/2012 Review Texas' motion to Convene Three-Judge Court /26/2012 Review Order granting Motion to Convene Three-Judge Court /28/2012 Review Texas' Complaint /29/2012 Communication w/co-counsel re: division of labor for drafting intervention papers to avoid duplication 2/1/2012 File MOTION to Intervene for Kennie et al. 0.1 no charge 2/9/2012 Participate in Telephone Conference with parties and Court /15/2012 Review U.S. RESPONSE to MOTION to Intervene of Kennie Intervenors 2/16/2012 Review Texas' Memorandum in opposition to Kennie Intervenors MOTION to Intervene 3/12/2012 Review Notice of Appearance by Maranzano for AG Holder 0.1 no charge 3/12/2012 Review Notice of Appearance by Westfall for AG Holder 0.1 no charge 3/12/2012 Review Motion to Intervene by TX NAACP and Mexican 0.4 no charge American Leg. Caucus 3/12/2012 Review TX's motion to file amended Complaint with exhibits /12/2012 Review AG's Notice of Section 5 Determination of TX photo /14/2012 ID Participate bill in Telephone Conference with Parties and court re: scheduling issues/deadlines 3/14/2012 Review order granting intervention to our clients (and granting TX leave to amend and setting forth deadlines for discovery and briefing schedule) 3/16/2012 Review motion to appear pro hac vice of Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 3/16/2012 Review order granting pro hac vice to Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 3/19/2012 Review Notice of Appearance for Freeman for Holder 0.1 no charge 3/19/2012 Review Motion to Intervene by TX League of Young Voters, 0.3 no charge 3/20/2012 et Review al. notice of appearance by Gear for Defendant AG 0.1 no charge 3/20/2012 Review Notice of Appearance by John Payton 0.1 no charge 3/20/2012 Review AG's filed notice of proposed scheduling order /20/2012 Draft Notice of Appearance for Hebert /21/2012 File Hebert Notice of Appearance in ECF 0.1 no charge 3/21/2012 Review motion to appear Pro Hac Vice for attys Haygood, 0.1 no charge Korgaonkar and Aden 3/21/2012 Review status report filed by Defendant AG /21/2012 Review order setting telephone conference for 4/ /21/2012 Communication with Ezra Rosenberg regarding discovery proposal from State and serving as co-administrator 3/21/2012 Participate in telephone conference with court and parties re: pending issues 3/21/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.3 no charge 3/22/2012 to Chashawn White (US District Court) that Ezra Rosenberg and I will serve as co-aministrators for Defendant 3/22/2012 Review Order granting Intervention to TX League of Young Voters

40 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 2 of 19 3/22/2012 Review notice of Appearance for Frederick for State of TX 0.1 no charge 3/22/2012 Review notice of Appearance for Ashton for State of TX 0.1 no charge 3/22/2012 Review notice of ESI agreement filed by Defendant Holder /22/2012 with Review exhibit motion to intervene by TX Legis. Black Caucus 0.3 no charge 3/22/2012 Review TX's motion for protective order with exhibits /22/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.2 no charge 3/23/2012 Review notice of appearance by Wendy Weiser 0.1 no charge 3/23/2012 Review notice of appearance by Ian Vandewalker 0.1 no charge 3/23/2012 Review notice of appearance by Myrna Perez 0.1 no charge 3/23/2012 Review Notice filed by AG Holder /23/2012 Review Notice of Filing by TX with attached affidavit of TX SOS Ingram 3/23/2012 Review motion to intervene and memo of SW Voter 0.4 no charge Registration Project and Mi Familia Vota Education fund et al. 3/23/2012 Review TX Memorandum in opposition to TX Leg. Black Caucus Motion to Intervene (with exhibits of Kennie 3/23/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 3/26/2012 Prepare, review, and edit agenda for call on March 27 with all 0.4 no charge Defendant Intervenors' counsel 3/26/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.2 no charge 3/27/2012 Review Scheduling order setting trial dates discovery deadlines and pretrial conference 3/27/2012 Review order granting pro hac vice status to Weiser, Perez and 0.1 no charge Vandewalker 3/27/2012 Participate in conference call with court and parties regarding disclosure of data base information and database fields 3/27/2012 Review Order entered on briefing of database issues /27/2012 Review Defendant Holder's motion for Protective Order with /27/2012 exhibits Review Notice of appearances for O'Connor, Abudu and 0.2 no charge 3/27/2012 McDonald Review notice of appearance by Michelle Yeary 0.1 no charge 3/27/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg regarding desigination 1.0 no charge of teams to handle issues: Affirm discovery, document reviews, legal research/writings, defensive fact discovery, 3/28/2012 Review RULE 26a1 Statement by TX League Young Voters 0.1 no charge 3/28/2012 Review notice of death of John Payton 0.1 no charge 3/28/2012 Review reply by TX Legis. Black caucus to TX's oppoistion to 0.2 no charge the motion to intervene 3/28/2012 Make revisions to draft brief on legislative privilege (due 3/29) /28/2012 Review and edit Intervenors' consolidated Memorandum in opposition to Texas' motion for Protective Order 3/28/2012 Telephonic conference call with Court /28/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.5 no charge 3/29/2012 Review TX's notice of Confidential database information /29/2012 Review Answer to Complaint filed by Mexican American Leg 0.2 no charge Caucus to amended Complaint 3/29/2012 Review TX's Memo in Opp. To Holder's mot. for Protective Order with Kennie Intervenor exhibit

41 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 3 of 19 3/29/2012 Review notice of appearance by Bell-Platts on behalf of 0.1 no charge 3/29/2012 Holder Review Holder's Memo in Opp. To State of TX motion for prot. order 03/29/2012) 3/29/2012 Review final draft of Intervenors' Memo in support of Holder's 0.5 no charge Motion for Protective Order, and in Opposition to TX's notice of confidential database information 3/29/2012 Revisie and edit Intervenors' memo in support of U. S. motion for Protective Order 3/29/2012 Review Texas' 20-page memo on protective order 1.1 no charge 3/29/2012 Communication with co-counsel (Dunn) and Mr. Rosenberg 1.0 no charge re: Eric Kennie and filing by State 3/29/2012 Review Defendant Holder's motion to file reply memo /29/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.5 no charge 3/30/2012 Review Order granting protective order to U.S. with confidentiality language 3/30/2012 Review Order setting oral argument during telephone conference for 4/3 on TX's motion for protective order 3/30/2012 Review Orders regarding turning over full social security #s to /30/2012 DOJ Participate in telephone conference with court and parties regarding production of database information 3/30/2012 Review 3/30 protective order /30/2012 Review order granting pro hac to O'Connor and Abudu 0.1 no charge 3/30/2012 Review order on U.S. Motion for Protective Order /30/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.3 no charge 4/1/2012 Review Correspondence to State Attorney (J. Mitchell) 0.2 no charge regarding confidentiality concerns 4/2/2012 Review Correspondence to State Attorney (J. Mitchell) 0.1 no charge regarding confidentiality concerns 4/2/2012 Review TX's reply to Holder's opposition to TX's motion for Protective Order with attachment 4/2/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.7 no charge 4/3/2012 Participate in telephone conf with 3-judge court on data base and discovery issues. 4/3/2012 Review motion for leave to file doc under seal by Texas /3/2012 Review TX filing of redacted document re: one of Kennie /3/2012 Intervenors Review order re: discovery from TX legislators and briefing thereon and vacating earlier orders 4/3/2012 Discuss with Intervenors' counsel and co-counsel (C. Dunn) 1.0 no charge re: meet and confer, and regarding State's objections to Defendant Intervenors' Request for Production and 4/3/2012 Conference Call among Defendant Intervenors to discuss 1.0 no charge experts and privilege hearings and discovery response 4/3/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.4 no charge 4/4/2012 Call with DOJ at 6 P.M. to discuss 4/10 submission /4/2012 Weekly Intervenors' Call to update status 1.0 no charge 4/4/2012 Review errata filed by TX as to Amended Complaint /4/2012 Review amended motion to intervene of TX Legis. Black 0.2 no charge 4/4/2012 caucus Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.3 no charge

42 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 4 of 19 4/5/2012 Review letter to State as follow-up to meet and confer 0.2 no charge 4/5/2012 Review order sealing document attached to US mot for pro /5/2012 order Review order denying motion for leave to file reply 0.1 no charge 4/5/2012 Review notice of Appearance by Dale Ho 0.1 no charge 4/5/2012 Review Gary Bledsoe's motion pro hac vice 0.1 no charge 4/5/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 4/6/2012 Communication and coordination with Ezra Rosenberg to 0.4 no charge present dicovery dispute letters to Judge Collyer and join DOJ's request for conference with Court 4/9/2012 Communication with DOJ Counsel (Westfall) regarding call /9/2012 with Discussions court with co-counsel regarding pending request for call 0.5 no charge with Court to resole direct discovery impasse 4/9/2012 Review Defendant Holder's answer to amended complaint /9/2012 Review order setting telephone conference re: discovery /9/2012 dispute Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.2 no charge 4/10/2012 Review Draft Notice of 30b 6 depositions 0.2 no charge 4/10/2012 Review filing of Memo by Defendant AG Holder with numerous exhibits for discovery dispute 4/10/2012 Participate in telephone conference regarding TX failure to comply and discovery dispute 4/10/2012 Review Ezra draft communication enclosing Defendant 0.2 no charge Intervenors' discovery dispute letters 4/10/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.6 no charge 4/11/2012 Review Notice filed by State of TX re: producing legislative /11/2012 history Review notice of appearance for Debo Adegbile 0.1 no charge 4/11/2012 Review notice of appearance for Jon Greenbaum 0.1 no charge 4/11/2012 Defendant Intervenors' call regarding status of tasks by teams 1.2 no charge 4/12/2012 Review Order requiring TX to produce data base fields /12/2012 Review Advisory filed by Inteervenors' Mi Familia Vota Ed. 0.1 no charge Fund, et al. re: intervention 4/12/2012 Discovery of Full SSN#'s in database mistakenly sent by State 0.4 no charge AG to intervenors and discuss with co-counsel need to promptly inform State AG of their error 4/12/2012 Review correspondence with State re: State's mistake in 0.2 no charge sending data base with full SS#s. 4/12/2012 Communications with Rosenberg regarding status of all 0.5 no charge pending requests 4/12/2012 Further correspondence with State regarding SSN mistake /12/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.5 no charge 4/13/2012 Review Order granting interventions and requiring all /13/2012 Intervenors to avoid duplication and directing appointment of adminsitrative Review answer counsel to complaint as contact filed for by ct. TX Leg. Black Caucus 0.2 no charge 4/13/2012 Review answer to amended complaint filed by TX Leg. Black 0.2 no charge 4/13/2012 Caucus Review corporate disclosures filed by TX Leg. Black Caucus 0.1 no charge 4/13/2012 Review answer to complaint filed by Intervenors' Mi Familia, 0.2 no charge 4/13/2012 et Review al corporate disclosures by Mi Familia et al. 04/13/2012) 0.1 no charge

43 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 5 of 19 4/13/2012 Review State of TX reply /13/2012 Discuss with Intervenors' counsel delays by State in producing 0.5 no charge information and resulting impact on schedule and prejudice to Intervenors 4/13/2012 Call with DOJ attorney regarding schedule delays by State /13/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.9 no charge 4/15/2012 Initial Draft of Defendant Intervenors Consolidated Motion to Postpone Trial or Clarify Trial Date and Schedule 4/15/2012 Draft communication to State AG regarding noncompliance with deadlines 4/15/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 4/16/2012 Communications with Rosenberg and Dunn regarding sending 0.4 no charge a communication to Court regarding State's deficiencies regarding discovery 4/16/2012 Draft Motion to postpone or clarify trial date and send to other Intervenors 4/16/2012 Prepare for conference call with Court set for 4/ /16/2012 Conference call with Court regarding discovery issues /16/2012 Review & revise to Motion to Postpone or Clarify trial date /16/2012 Participate in telephone conf. with court and parties regarding data base and discovery disputes. 4/16/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 1.4 no charge 4/16/2012 Conf Call with Intervenors' counsel re: current status in light of 1.1 no charge discovery disputes and court's comments re: same 4/17/2012 Review order re: pro hac vice 0.1 no charge 4/17/2012 Review Notice of Discovery Disputes by Defendant Holder /17/2012 Review Order directing filings re: possible delay in trial date /17/2012 Participate in telephone Conf. with court and parties regarding data base and discovery disputes. 4/17/2012 Communication with DOJ Counsel (Westfall) regarding call /17/2012 with Communication court with Rosenberg regarding 30b(6) deposition results and DOJ's position on trial date 4/17/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.5 no charge 4/18/2012 Edits to Kennie Intervenors' Answer to TX's Amended /18/2012 Complaint Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.4 no charge 4/19/2012 Review Elsie Boddie's motion pro hac vice 0.1 no charge 4/19/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 4/20/2012 Review TX's Notice regarding subpoena /20/2012 Review order granting pro hac status to Boddie 0.1 no charge 4/20/2012 Review Order denying State of TX's motion for protective /20/2012 order Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.5 no charge 4/21/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 4/22/2012 Review, revise and edit Intervenors' consolidated motion to Clarify Trial Schedule 4/23/2012 Review Douglas Faum's pro hac vice motion 0.1 no charge 4/23/2012 Review motion for Bledsoe's pro hac vice 0.1 no charge 4/23/2012 Review Defendant Holder's motion to clarify schedule with exhibits

44 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 6 of 19 4/23/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.2 no charge 4/24/2012 Review pro hac vice order for Flaum, de Leeuw, Harris, and 0.1 no charge 4/24/2012 Bledsoe Review TX's filing asserting legislative privilege /24/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.4 no charge 4/25/2012 Communication with state AG attys re: data bases and 0.3 no charge 4/25/2012 discovery Review Tx's amended notice of leg. Privilege /25/2012 Review Notice of appearance for Arthur Spitzer 0.1 no charge 4/25/2012 Review Defendant Holder's motion to compel (privilege logs) /25/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.4 no charge 4/26/2012 Review Defendant holder's Notice of Federal Databases /26/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.9 no charge 4/27/2012 Conference call with Intervenors' counsel re: interrogatories 0.8 no charge and requests for production 4/27/2012 Review TX's response in opposition to Intervenors' and DOJ's motion to clarify trial schedule with exhibits 4/27/2012 Review of Appearance by Sweeten for State of TX 0.1 no charge 4/27/2012 Review TX's response to DOJ filing on federal databases /27/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.3 no charge 4/29/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.2 no charge 4/30/2012 Participate in Telephone Conference with court and parties on data base issues (handgun) 4/30/2012 Review order requiring TX to produce data fields for handgun /30/2012 database Review State of TX's response in opp. to motion of Defendant Holder to compel the Production of Documents and Privilege Logs with exhibits. 4/30/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 5/1/2012 Review order setting status conference for 5/ /1/2012 Review motion pro hac vice Amy Pedersen 0.1 no charge 5/1/2012 Conf. Call with Intervenors' counsel to discuss discovery 1.2 no charge disputes/status 5/1/2012 Review State of TX's Advisory on Database Production /1/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.9 no charge 5/2/2012 Conf. Call with DOJ atty and Ezra Rosenberg re: discovery disputes with State of TX 5/2/2012 Prepare for upcoming Status Hearing /2/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.9 no charge 5/3/2012 Review Order requiring TX to produce additional database /3/2012 fields Review Order granting Pedersen pro hac vice motion 0.1 no charge 5/3/2012 Review notice of ppearance by Risa Berkower for AG holder 0.1 no charge 5/3/2012 Review AG Holder's motion & memo for Protective Order /3/2012 Review DOJ's reply to States' opposition to DOJ's motion to compel Production of Privilege Logs 5/3/2012 Participate in Status Conference Hearing with Court (includes one witness) 5/4/2012 Review State of TX notice of database production /4/2012 Review order re: database production and requiring jt report

45 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 7 of 19 5/4/2012 Participate in Conf Call with Intervenors' counsel re: privilege 1.0 no charge issues (10am-11am) 5/4/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 5/5/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 5/7/2012 Review Notice of AG Holder Concerning Federal Databases /7/2012 Review order regarding discovery and pre-trial deadlines /7/2012 Review Notice filed by TX regarding its databse production /7/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.2 no charge 5/8/2012 Call with Intervenors' counsel to advise them of positions to be 1.0 no charge taken at call with ct later that day 5/8/2012 Prepare for conference call with Court set for 3:15 this /8/2012 afternoon Participate in telephone conference with Court and parties /8/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.3 no charge 5/9/2012 Review Order re: incomplete databases produced by State (including failure to provide data bases to Defendant 5/9/2012 Review Notice by TX of filing a document under seal 0.1 no charge 5/9/2012 Review TX's motion for leave to file document under seal /9/2012 Review TX's motion to respond to Court order re: deadlines /9/2012 Review Order granting extension to TX /9/2012 Review filing by TX responding to court's order re: scheduling /9/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.5 no charge 5/10/2012 Review Scott Brazil's motion pro hac vice 0.1 no charge 5/10/2012 Review MALC's motion to file an opposition under seal 0.1 no charge 5/10/2012 Review pro hac vice motion of Rebecca Robertson 0.1 no charge 5/10/2012 Conference call with co-counsel (Dunn) to discuss Kennie 1.0 no charge deposition/trial testimony 5/10/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 5/11/2012 Review motion for pro hac vice status to Karolina Lyznik 0.1 no charge 5/11/2012 Review TX's response to DOJ's motion for protective order /11/2012 Review Order granting Brazil, Roberston and Lyznik pro hac 0.1 no charge 5/11/2012 status Review Defendant Intervenors' filing and declaration of Gary 0.3 no charge 5/11/2012 King Review filing by AG Holder re: status of database discovery /11/2012 Review Notice by AG Holder of Federal Data base /11/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.2 no charge 5/12/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 5/13/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 5/15/2012 Review Additional Notice by AG Holder of Federal Data base /15/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 5/16/2012 Participate in Status Conference with Court and parties re: continuing discovery issues 5/16/2012 Review order on discovery and testimony by TX legislators /16/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.4 no charge 5/17/2012 Review order seeting status conf. for 5/ /17/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.4 no charge 5/18/2012 Review motion of John Hughes for Pro Hac Vice 0.1 no charge 5/18/2012 Review motion of Adam Mortara for Pro Hac Vice 0.1 no charge 5/18/2012 Participate in telephone conference with court and parties

46 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 8 of 19 5/18/2012 Review State of TX response to court order re: discovery /18/2012 requests Review Defendant AG Holder's reply to TX's opposition to motion for Protective Order 5/18/2012 Conf Call with Intervenors' counsel re: witnesses and 1.0 no charge 5/18/2012 discovery Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.2 no charge 5/19/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.5 no charge 5/21/2012 Review Order resolving motion to compel discovery on docs and privilege logs 5/21/2012 Review order granting pro hac vice to Hughes and Mortara 0.1 no charge 5/21/2012 Review DOJ motion to exceed page limits 0.1 no charge 5/21/2012 Review TX motion to compel discovery with supporting /21/2012 exhibits Review TX's advisory to Court re: allegedly defective discovery (Dewhurst deposition) 5/21/2012 Review TX's motion for protective order re: depo /21/2012 Review Defendant Holder's motion for protective order (re: non-party depo) w/exhibits 5/21/2012 Review draft of Intervenors' motion to compel document production and depo testimony 5/21/2012 Final review of Intervenors' motion to clarify and re-set expert report deadlines 5/21/2012 Review DOJ's motion to compel discovery re: depositions, privilege logs, with exhibits 5/21/2012 Review order denying motions to clarify or move trial date /21/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.6 no charge 5/22/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.5 no charge 5/23/2012 Review order denying TX's motion to file Document under /23/2012 Seal Review TX's motion for extension of timere: filing privilege /23/2012 logs Review TX filing re: updates to prov. logs /23/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.5 no charge 5/24/2012 Review DOJ filing re: Rep. Berman Deposition /24/2012 Review Order granting DOJ's motion for protective order /24/2012 Review order denying motion for protective order as to Rep Berman depo (Entered: 05/24/2012) 5/24/2012 Review notice of appearance by Flaum 0.1 no charge 5/24/2012 Review notice of appearance by Harris 0.1 no charge 5/24/2012 Review notice of appearance by Pedersen 0.1 no charge 5/24/2012 Review order granting TX' motion for extension of time (re: 0.1 no charge privilege logs) 5/24/2012 Review AG Holder filing concerning log (relates to DOJ motion to compel) 5/24/2012 Review response by Mi Familia Vota Intervenors to motion to 0.3 no charge compel and i Familia's motion for protective order 5/24/2012 Review AG Holder Memo in opp to TX's motion to compel /24/2012 Review TX's Memo in Opp. To AG Holder's motion to compel /24/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.4 no charge 5/25/2012 Review Order granting AG Holder's motion for protective /25/2012 order. Review Notice of appearance for Michael Birney de Leeuw 0.1 no charge

47 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 9 of 19 5/25/2012 Review Order compelling both TX and U.S. to file listing of disputed privileges (U.S.) and documents under seal (TX) 5/25/2012 Review AG Holder Notice of Compliance with Order of 5/ /25/2012 Review AG Holder's motion to compel with logs attached /25/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 5/26/2012 Review TX's Notice of Complinance with 5/25 order /27/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 5/28/2012 Review Order concerning LT Gov Dewhurst discovery dispute /28/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.4 no charge 5/29/2012 Final review of Intervenors' opposition to TX's motion to 0.3 no charge compel discovery and depositons 5/29/2012 Review DOJ reply to TX opposition to DOJ's motion to /29/2012 compel Review TX response in opp. to DOJ's motion to compel /29/2012 Review TX Response to DOJ's filed privilege log /29/2012 Review TX's reply to DOJ's opp. To TX's motion to compel /29/2012 Review AG Holder motion re: sealed exhibit. 0.1 no charge 5/29/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.5 no charge 5/30/2012 Review notice of appearance by John McKenzie for TX 0.1 no charge 5/30/2012 Review order granting DOJ's motion re: sealed exhibit 0.1 no charge 5/30/2012 Review reply by AG Holder to TX's opp. To DOJ's motion to /30/2012 compel Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.2 no charge 5/31/2012 Review TX's motion to modify scheduling order /31/2012 Discuss with Intervenors' counsel State's motion to modify 0.2 no charge sched. Order and drafting of consolidated opposition 5/31/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.2 no charge 6/1/2012 Final review of Intervenors' consolidated memo opposing State 0.2 no charge of TX's motion to modify scheduling. order 6/1/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.2 no charge 6/4/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 6/5/2012 Review DOJ's motion to compel discovery with exhibits /5/2012 Review Order regarding pending motions to compel discovery /5/2012 Review motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Donita Judge 0.1 no charge 6/5/2012 Review Order requiring TX to submit docs for in camera /5/2012 review Review AG Holder's response to TX's motion to modify scheduling order 6/5/2012 Review motion of AG Holder to modify scheduling order /5/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 6/6/2012 Review order requiring TX to respond to AG Holder's motion to compel 6/6/2012 Review Joint Motion to modify scheduling order by TX /6/2012 Review AG Holder's notice of correction 0.1 no charge 6/6/2012 Review order granting pro hac vice status to Saenz 0.1 no charge 6/6/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.4 no charge 6/7/2012 Final review of Intervenors' motion to modify 5/7 sched. Order 0.2 no charge 6/7/2012 Final review of Joint motion of defendant Intervenors to 0.2 no charge modify scheduling order 6/7/2012 Review Order granting in part motion to compel of AG Holder

48 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 10 of 19 6/7/2012 Review TX's response to DOJ's motion to compel /7/2012 Review order granting joint motion of Intervenors' to modify scheduling order (re: expert rebuttal) 6/7/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.6 no charge 6/8/2012 Review DOJ reply to TX opposition to DOJ's motion to /8/2012 compel Review order re: Rep. Harless deposition /8/2012 Review Order as to pro hac vice for Donita Judge 0.1 no charge 6/8/2012 Review TX's response to DOJ's motion to modify 5/ /8/2012 scheduling Review order order denying TX's motion to compel discovery re: 0.1 no charge from Mi Familia 6/8/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 6/9/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.2 no charge 6/11/2012 Review AG Holder's reply to TX's response to DOJ's motion to modify 5/7 scheduling order 6/11/2012 Review motion to withdraw Brianna Williams as Defendant 0.1 no charge 6/11/2012 Intervenor Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 6/12/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 6/13/2012 Review TX's motion for protective order with exhibits /13/2012 Review order modifying scheduling order /13/2012 Review notice of appearacne for Spencer Fisher for AG Holder 0.1 no charge 6/13/2012 Review DOJ's memorandum in opposition to State's motion to compel discovery w/exhibits 6/13/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.5 no charge 6/14/2012 Order denying DOJ's motion to compel /14/2012 Review TX's reply to opposition to motion for protective order with exhibits 6/14/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.3 no charge 6/15/2012 Review Order granting in part and denying in part TX's motion /15/2012 Review pro hac vice motion of Rebecca M. Couto 0.1 no charge 6/15/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 6/17/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.2 no charge 6/18/2012 Review TX unopposed motion to modify order 0.1 no charge 6/18/2012 Conf. Call with Intervenors' counsel to discuss trial witnesses /18/2012 Review order requiring TX to produce 30(b)(6) deposition /18/2012 witness Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.2 no charge 6/19/2012 Review order granting TX motion to modify 0.1 no charge 6/19/2012 Review order granting Couto pro hac vice status 0.1 no charge 6/20/2012 Review TX motion to extend time to file findings of fact /20/2012 Review State of TX motion in limine (re: excluding testimony based on legislative privilege) 6/20/2012 Review State of TX motion to exclude witness of TX League 0.2 no charge Young Boters 6/20/2012 Review TX's motion and memo in limine to exclude testimony of Kennie Intervenors' expert Dr. Allan J. Lichtman 6/20/2012 Review TX's motion and memo in Limine to Preclude Evidence and Drawing Adverse Inference Based on Legislators' Assertion of Legislative Privilege

49 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 11 of 19 6/20/2012 Review State of TX's Live Witness List /20/2012 Review TX's motion and memo in limine re: Subjective Intent of Legislators 6/20/2012 Final review and edits to Consolidated Intervenors' intended witness list 6/20/2012 Review State of TX Proposed Findings of Fact /20/2012 Review DOJ's listing of trial witnesses /20/2012 Review TX's motion and memo in limine to exclude testimony 0.8 no charge of expert witness Dr. Morgan Kousser 6/20/2012 Review Appendix and attachments to State's Proposed Findings of Fact filed by State of Texas 6/20/2012 Additional Review of Appendix and attachments to State's Proposed Findings of Fact filed by State of Texas 6/20/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.4 no charge 6/21/2012 Legal research and review of cases cited in TX's motion in limine to exclude testimony of Kennie Intervenors' expert 6/21/2012 Review motion by AG Holder to Take Judicial Notice of /21/2012 Census Communications Data with Ezra Rosenberg 0.3 no charge 6/22/2012 Review motion to witndraw defendant intervenor by TX 0.1 no charge League of Young Voters 6/22/2012 Review motion in limine to exclude expert testimony with exhibits filed by AG Holder 6/23/2012 Review Jorge Sanchez's motion to appear Pro Hac Vice 0.1 no charge 6/23/2012 Draft Memo in Opposition to State of TX's motion to exclude testimony of Kennie Intervenors' expert witness Dr. Lichtman 6/23/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 6/24/2012 Additional Drafting of Memo in Opposition to State of TX's motion to exclude testimony of Kennie Intervenors' expert 6/24/2012 Redrafting & editing to memo in opposition to State's motion in limine to preclude adverse inference based on assertion of legislative privilege 6/24/2012 Redrafting & editing to memo in opposition to State's motion in limine to preclude testimony protected by legislative 6/24/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.3 no charge 6/25/2012 Review Proposed Findings of Fact by AG Holder /25/2012 Review Exhibit Index by AG Holder /25/2012 Final Edits to Memorandum in opposition to TX's motion in limine to exclude Testimony of Kennie expert Dr. Allan 6/25/2012 Review minute order re: pretrial conference date /25/2012 Review TX's Memo in Opp. to Motion in limine to exclude 0.3 no charge testimony of Major Mitchell with exhibits 6/25/2012 Review filing of supplemental appendix by State of Texas re: proposed findings of fact 6/25/2012 Review AG Holder's memo in opp. To State's motion in limine re: assertion of legislative privilege 6/25/2012 Review AG Holder's memo in opp. To State's motion in limine re: subjective intent of individual legislators

50 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 12 of 19 6/25/2012 Review memorandum of TX League of Young Voters in 0.4 no charge opposition to TX's motion in limine to Preclude Testimony of Newly Disclosed Witnesses with exhibits 6/25/2012 Review DOJ memo in opposition to State's motion in limine to preclude testimony based on legislative privilege 6/25/2012 Review DOJ Deposition Designations /25/2012 Review Memorandum in opposition to motion in limine to 0.4 no charge Exclude Testimony of J. Morgan Kousser with exhibits 6/25/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.2 no charge 6/26/2012 Review Defendant Intervenors notice of removal of Dorothy 0.1 no charge Tates from witness list 6/26/2012 Review of motion to Take Judicial Notice to be filed by 0.2 no charge defendant intervenors 6/26/2012 Prepare additions to draft of Defendant Intervenors' Proposed Findings of Fact 6/26/2012 Select and designate deposition excerpts for clients (Kennie, Burns), Sen. Ellis, Wood. 6/26/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.9 no charge 6/27/2012 Review order granting motion to withdraw Williams as 0.1 no charge defendant intervenor 6/27/2012 Review agreement between parties re: DOJ's motion in limine 0.2 no charge 6/27/2012 Review Order granting additional time to file motion in limine 0.1 no charge re: Dr. Sager 6/27/2012 Review order withdrawing Johnson as defendant intervenor 0.1 no charge 6/27/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.9 no charge 6/28/2012 Review motion of Asha Spencer to appear Pro Hac Vice 0.1 no charge 6/28/2012 Review order granting Spencer pro hac vice status 0.1 no charge 6/28/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 6/29/2012 Review order directing Holder to file exhibits 0.1 no charge 6/29/2012 Review AG Holder's Erratum re: Findings of fact 0.1 no charge 6/29/2012 Review Stipulation re: motion in Limine to Exclude Expert /29/2012 Testimony Review state's reply to opposition to motion in limine /29/2012 Review state's reply to opposition to motion in limine re: TX 0.3 no charge League of Young Voters' re: newly disclosed witness 6/29/2012 Review State's reply to opposition to motion in limine to preclude adverse inference based on assertion of legisaltive 6/29/2012 Review State's reply to opposition to motion in limine to preclude testimony protected by legisaltive privilege 6/29/2012 Review State's reply to opposition to motion in limine to 0.3 no charge preclude testimony of Dr. Morgan Kousser 6/29/2012 Review State's reply to opposition to motion in limine to preclude testimony of Kennie Intervenors' expert Dr. Allan 6/29/2012 Review motion pro hac vice for Luis Figueroa 0.1 no charge 6/29/2012 Review Doj REPLY TO TX opposition to DOJ's motion in 0.3 no charge limine to exclude documents/testimony of Major Mitchell 6/29/2012 Review State of TX's counter designations and objections to depo designations 6/29/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.5 no charge

51 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 13 of 19 6/30/2012 Review TX's notice of correction 0.1 no charge 6/30/2012 Review Defendant Intervenors' Errata 0.1 no charge 6/30/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.2 no charge 7/1/2012 Review DOJ's Trial Exhibits /1/2012 Review TX's response to Defendant-Intervenors' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 7/1/2012 Review TX's response re; Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 7/1/2012 Review filing of exhibits and attachments by TX 0.3 no charge 7/1/2012 Review order granting Figueroa pro hac vice status 0.1 no charge 7/1/2012 Tele Conf/Meeting of Interevneors' counsel re: trial 2.0 no charge 7/1/2012 preparation Meet with and prepare Dr. Lichtman for Deposition /1/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.7 no charge 7/2/2012 Review DOJ's Trial Exhibits /2/2012 Review DOJ's motion for immediate relief re: State's response to proposed findings of fact 7/2/2012 Review DOJ's advisory re: stricken proposed findings & /2/2012 conclusions Communication with Ezra Rosenberg re: whether to join DOJ filing re: inadequacy of TX's response to findings of fact 7/2/2012 Review exhibit list of State of TX /2/2012 Deposition by TX of Kennie Intervenors' Expert Witness Dr /2/2012 Lichtman Review Notice by TX of Stipulation re: expert testimony /2/2012 Review Advisory filed by DOJ concerning stricken portions of 0.2 no charge proposed findings 7/2/2012 Review Proposed Findings of Fact by Defendant Eric Holder /2/2012 Review Expert Deposition Designations by Defendant Eric /2/2012 Holder Make additions to Defendant Intervenors Trial Exhibits for /2/2012 filing Review DOJ notice of Trial Exhibit List /2/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.5 no charge 7/3/2012 Review State of TX response to DOJ motion for immediate 0.4 no charge 7/3/2012 relief Review errata by State of TX re: proposed findings of fact /3/2012 Review motion of Thomas Saenz for pro hac vice 0.1 no charge 7/3/2012 Review Intervenors' clarification of trial exhibit listing 0.1 no charge 7/3/2012 Review Texas' Filing Supplement to Joint Appendix /3/2012 Review motion re: Camarillo testimony 0.2 no charge 7/3/2012 Review order re: extension of time 0.1 no charge 7/3/2012 Review State's motion to seal document 0.1 no charge 7/3/2012 Review order declaring motion in limine moot 0.1 no charge 7/3/2012 Review order denying Defendant Holder's motion for /3/2012 immediate Review order relief denying TX's motion in limine re: adverse inference based on legislative privilege 7/3/2012 Review order granting TX's motion in limine to preclude 0.1 no charge testimony of RX League of Young Voters' newly disclosed 7/3/2012 Review order granting motion to take judicial notice of census /3/2012 Review order denying TX's motion in limine re: legislative /3/2012 privilege Review Order denying TX's motion in limine to exclude testimony of Kennie Intervenors' expert, Dr. Lichtman

52 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 14 of 19 7/3/2012 Review Order denying TX's motion in limine to exclude testimony of K expert, Dr. Kousser 7/3/2012 Review order denying Defendant Holder's motion in limine to exclude testimony of Major Mitchell 7/3/2012 Review Order denying TX's motion in limine to preclude evidence regarding subjective intent of individual legisaltors 7/3/2012 Review TX's advisory re: deposition designations /3/2012 Review DOJ's motion to take Judicial Notice of Senate Rules /3/2012 Review order re: hyperlinks in proposed findings of fact /3/2012 Review notice of appearance by Richard Dellheim for AG 0.1 no charge 7/3/2012 Holder Communications with Michelle Yeary and Ezra Rosenberg re: preparation of consolidated reply to TX's failure to offer counter designations (for filing on 7/5) 7/3/2012 Communications with Brian Raphael/Ezra Rosenberg re: preparation of hyperlinked findings of fact and Hebert additions to proposed findings of fact re: Lichtman critique of 7/3/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 1.1 no charge 7/4/2012 Review notice of appearance by Bryan Sells for AG Holder 0.1 no charge 7/4/2012 Review DOJ reply re: proposed findings of fact /4/2012 Revisions to reply of Defendant Intervenors proposed findings /4/2012 of Communications fact with Ezra Rosenberg 1.0 no charge 7/5/2012 Review TX's filing supplemental reply appendix /5/2012 Review order re: witness lists of AG Holder and Defendant Intervenors and scheduling issues 7/5/2012 Final revisions and review of Defendant-Intervenors objections and counter designations of deposition testimony 7/5/2012 Review order changing time of telephonic status conference with court and parties (7/6) 7/5/2012 Review AG Holder's Reply regarding deposition designations /5/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.6 no charge 7/6/2012 Edit/revise counter proposed findings of fact/deposition /6/2012 designations Revisions to Defendant-Intervenors witness list and order of /6/2012 witnesses Communications with Ezra Rosenberg to coordinate the order of witnesses at trial for all Defendant-Intervenors and AG 7/6/2012 Review order granting TX motion to file under seal /6/2012 Review order granting motion re: Camarillo testimony /6/2012 Review order granting motion to take judicial notice /6/2012 Conf. Call with Intervenors' counsel re: case prep 1.0 no charge 7/6/2012 Review TX's motion extension of time re: JT. Req. for Judicial 0.1 no charge 7/6/2012 notice Review TX's response to Defendant Intervenors' motion for judicial notice 7/6/2012 Review filing by DOJ Listing order of trial witnesses /6/2012 Participate in telephonic conference call with court and parties re: witnesses and trial 7/6/2012 Review notice of appearance of Matthew Colangelo for AG 0.1 no charge 7/6/2012 Holder Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 1.9 no charge 7/7/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.6 no charge

53 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 15 of 19 7/8/2012 Review Order Overruling TX's objection to live witness and depo designations. 7/8/2012 Trial Preparation. Review witness depositions, exhibits /8/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.3 no charge 7/9/2012 Final review/edits to reply to State of TX's opposition to 0.1 no charge Defendant-Intervenors' motion for judicial notice 7/9/2012 Review Pro Hac Vice motion of Reynolds Brissenden for TX. 0.1 no charge 7/9/2012 Review motion to withdraw by O'Connor 0.1 no charge 7/9/2012 Review order granting pro hac vice to Brissenden 0.1 no charge 7/9/2012 Review order granting O'Connor mot. to withdraw 0.1 no charge 7/9/2012 Review TX's designations of Senator Uresti's Deposition /9/2012 Attend and participate in trial. Witnesses: Ingram, Aliseda, Mitchell, Williams, & Sager 9-5:30 7/9/2012 Trial Preparation. Review notes of trial testimony from that day. Review witness depositions, exhibits, prepare witness 7/9/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 7/10/2012 Review Order granting Defendant Intervenors' motion to take judicial notice of facts 7/10/2012 Attend and participate in trial. Witnesses: Professor Sager (cont.), Martinez Fischer, Anchia, Professor Kousser, and 7/10/2012 Trial Preparation. Review notes of trial testimony from that day (1.3). ReviewWood and Ellis depositions (1.7), exhibits, prepare witness outlines (0.5), prepare Sen. Ellis (2.5) and Buck Wood (2.0) for trial testimony 7/11/2012 Attend and participate in trial. Witnesses: Shaw, Rodriguez, Camarillo, Rev. Jackson, Senator Ellis, Buck Wood, Professor Flores, Dr. Marker, Senator Uresti (video) 7/11/2012 Trial Preparation. Review notes of trial testimony from that day(0.5). Review witness depositions (0.9), exhibits, prepare witness outlines(1.1), prepare Sen. Davis (2.1) and Dr. Lichtman (2.0) for trial testimony 7/12/2012 Review TX's counter expert witness deposition designations /12/2012 Review Amended List of Trial Exhibits and Second 0.1 no charge Supplemental Appendixfor Defendant Intervenors 7/12/2012 Review reply designation for Sen. Uresti by AG Holder /12/2012 Review filing by DOJ of Apache County opinion /12/2012 Review expert witness reply depo designations by AG Holder w/exhibits 7/12/2012 Attend and participate in trial. Trial Witnesses: Senator Carlos Uresti (video), Senator Wendy Davis, Dr. Allan Lichtman, and Professor Ansolabehere. 7/12/2012 Communication and coordination w/e. Rosenberg re: closing /12/2012 argument Prepare outline of closing argument with notes /12/2012 Prepare PowerPoint presentation for use in closing argument /13/2012 Review TX Advisory regarding EIC's (Election Ident. Cert.) /13/2012 w/exhibits Review Mi Familia's advisory clarifying docs needed to obtain 0.2 no charge 7/13/2012 EIC Trial. Closing Arguments /13/2012 Review Defendant-Intervenors' Notice Withdrawing Trial Exhibits 0.1 no charge

54 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 16 of 19 7/14/2012 Review DOJ Objections to State's Trial Exhibits (filed last day /14/2012 of Review trial) DOJ's revised trial exhibit list (filed last trial day) /17/2012 Review DOJ's filing of exhibits no charge 7/17/2012 Review TX's notice regarding DPS data and VRNID data /17/2012 Review TX's filing exhibit under seal 0.1 no charge 7/17/2012 Review TX's objections to Defendant-Intervenors' Trial /17/2012 Exhibits Review TX's objections to AG Holder's Trial Exhibits /17/2012 Review Response Defendant Intervenors' Objection to State of 0.1 no charge Texas's Trial Exhibits 7/18/2012 Review TX'smotion to file exhibit B under seal /18/2012 Review State of TX's revised trial exhibit list /18/2012 Review filing of trial exhibits by Texas /19/2012 Review motion to seal exhibits by Texas /19/2012 Communication from state regarding return to TX of data base /19/2012 disks Review Texas' Notice of filing under seal 0.1 no charge 7/19/2012 Review Defendant Intervenors' response to TX's objections to 0.2 no charge Defendant Intervenors' trial exhibits 7/19/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 7/23/2012 Communications with co-counsel (Ezra Rosenberg) about gathering all data base disks from Defendant-Intervenors and returning them to State of TX counsel (at state's request) 7/23/2012 Review order granting TX's motion for to File exhibits under /26/2012 seal Review response by AG Holder to TX's objections to Defendant's trial exhibits 7/26/2012 Review AG Holder's response re: EICs 0.1 no charge 7/26/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.2 no charge 7/27/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.2 no charge 7/31/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.2 no charge 8/1/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 8/3/2012 Review filing for Defendant Intervenors of recent photo ID 0.1 no charge 8/6/2012 opinion Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 8/20/2012 Review AG's filing of Notice of Determination /28/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.4 no charge 8/30/2012 Read opinion of three judge court /30/2012 Review order denying Texas's request for judicial preclearance of Senate Bill 14 and ordering submission of joint schedule. 8/30/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.3 no charge 9/5/2012 Review AG Holder's filing of Section 5 determination /5/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.2 no charge 9/6/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 9/12/2012 Review AG Holder filing re: proposed briefing schedule for /12/2012 Claim Review II AG Holder's filing of no-determination letter /13/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 9/14/2012 Review order setting briefing schedule on Claim II /14/2012 (constitutionality) Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 9/21/2012 Review DOJ motion for extension of time to file response to 0.1 no charge 9/24/2012 TX Review filingorder granting extension to all defendants (including Interv.)

55 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 17 of 19 10/1/2012 Review State's motion for summary judgment /3/2012 Conf. call among all Defendant Intervenors to discuss drafting 1.2 no charge responsibilities/division of labor & issues raised by TX motion for summary judgment 10/12/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 10/15/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 10/19/2012 Review draft memorandum in opposition to State's Motion for Summary Judgment and offer edits and comments to same /21/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 10/22/2012 Final review Intervenors' cross motion for summary judgment 1.0 no charge 10/22/2012 Review DOJ's motion for summary judgment on Claim II 0.5 no charge 10/22/2012 w/exhibits Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 10/26/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 10/31/2012 Review order granting TX's telephone request to exceed page /31/2012 limits Review State of TX Memorandum in opposition to Cross motions for summary judgment 11/1/2012 Review State of Texas' reply to Defendant and Intervenors' opposition to State's motion for summary judgment 11/1/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 11/8/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 11/11/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 11/12/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 11/13/2012 Review DOJ reply to State's opposition to cross motions for summary judgment 11/13/2012 Review final draft of memorandum in opposition to State's motion for sumamry judgment. Communicate to E. Rosenberg 11/13/2012 Review AG Holder's memorandum in opposition to State's motion for Summary Judgment 11/13/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.3 no charge 11/16/2012 Review order requiring parties to meet and confer on deferring /16/2012 ruling Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 11/26/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 11/28/2012 Review Berkower motion to withdraw as attorney for Holder 0.1 no charge 11/28/2012 Review order granting motion to withdraw (Berkower) 0.1 no charge 11/28/2012 Edits to notice by Intervenors in response to court order about deferring ruling until Shelby County decision 11/28/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.2 no charge 11/29/2012 Review notice by AG Holder /29/2012 Review State of TX's response to court order re: deferring a ruling until Shelby County is decided 11/29/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.2 no charge 11/30/2012 Review motion for entry of judgment by State of TX with supporting memo 11/30/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 12/7/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 12/11/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge

56 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 18 of 19 12/12/2012 Draft and make edits to Defendant-Intervenors' memorandum in opposition totx's motion for Entry of Final Judgment as to 12/13/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 12/14/2012 Review response by AG Holder to TX's motion for Entry of Final judgment 12/14/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 12/17/2012 Review order pursuant to rule 54, FRCP /17/2012 Review TX's notice of appeal to Supreme Court /18/2012 Tele. Conf call with clients re: notice of appeal by TX /18/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.2 no charge 12/20/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 12/21/2012 Review order granting unopposed motion to hold attys fees in /4/2013 abeyance Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 1/18/2013 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 2/8/2013 Review Couto motion to withdraw as counsel for Mi Familia 0.1 no charge 2/8/2013 Review order granting Couto motion to withdraw 0.1 no charge 2/19/2013 Edit Reply to State's Opposition to Kennie Intervenors' Motion to Intervene 2/19/2013 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 2/21/2013 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 2/24/2013 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 3/1/2013 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 4/18/2013 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 4/19/2013 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 4/24/2013 Review Ho's motion to withdraw as counsel 0.1 no charge 4/24/2013 Review order granting Ho's motion to withdraw 0.1 no charge 4/24/2013 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.2 no charge 5/3/2013 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 5/10/2013 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 5/14/2013 Review Boddie's motion to withdraw as counsel 0.1 no charge 5/14/2013 Review order granting Boddie motion to withdraw 0.1 no charge 5/15/2013 Review Adegbile's motion to withdraw as counsel 0.1 no charge 5/16/2013 Review order granting Adegbile's motion to withdraw 0.1 no charge 5/23/2013 Review order granting doj's motion to exceed page limit 0.1 no charge 6/20/2013 Review TX's deposition designations /26/2013 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.3 no charge 6/27/2013 Review judgment/ruling of U.S. Supreme Court /11/2013 Review Flaum's motion to withdraw as counsel 0.1 no charge 7/12/2013 Review State of TX Corrections to Sager Supp. Declaration /12/2013 Review order granting Flaum's motion to withdraw 0.1 no charge 7/25/2013 Review filing by DOJ of Shelby County decision /1/2013 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.2 no charge 8/8/2013 Review Motion to Dismiss filed by State of TX /21/2013 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.3 no charge 8/22/2013 Review DOJ response to State's motion to dismiss /22/2013 Edits to response of intervenors to state's motion to dismiss /22/2013 Review separate filing by Mi Familia intervenors 0.1 no charge

57 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 19 of 19 8/22/2013 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 8/27/2013 Review order granting TX's motion to dismiss /28/2013 Initial Draft outline of motion for attys fees and expenses /30/2013 Legal Research on fees motions in DC court/supreme Court /2/2013 Draft Motion for attorneys' fees and expenses /4/2013 Edits to Fee Motion /4/2013 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 9/5/2013 Draft Hebert Declaration for Fee Motion /7/2013 Review Time Sheets for attaching to fee motion /7/2013 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 9/8/2013 Review Time Sheets for attaching to fee motion /8/2013 Review Lichtman Invoice from 8/2/ no charge 9/8/2013 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge 9/9/2013 Review Dunn Time Sheets 1.0 no charge 9/9/2013 Review Brazil Time Sheets 0.5 no charge TOTAL HOURS

58 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 1 of 19 EXHIBIT C STATE OF TEXAS v. HOLDER, No (D.D.C.) Part I Cases In Which J. Gerald Hebert Has Served As Legal Counsel for the United States Listed below are cases in which I have appeared as legal counsel. I have divided the cases into two categories: 1) those cases where I served as lead attorney for the Government and the Government was a party to the lawsuit; and 2) those cases where I served as lead attorney for the Government and the Government participated as amicus curiae. Cases marked with an asterisk * are cases involving Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, those marked with a double asterisk ** are Section 4 or 5 Voting Rights Act cases, and those marked with a triple asterisk *** are language minority cases under the Voting Rights Act (Section 203 cases). 1. Voting rights cases where I served as lead counsel for the United States in the trial court and the United States was a party to the litigation: Bolden and United States v. City of Mobile, 446 U.S. 55 (1980) Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997 (1994) * County Council of Sumter County, South Carolina v. United States, 555 F. Supp. 694 (D.D.C. 1983) (3-judge court) ** Shaw v. Barr, C.A. No CIV-5-BR (E.D.N.C. 1992)(three-judge court), reversed sub nom. Shaw v. Reno, 113 S. Ct (1993) City of Port Arthur, Texas v. U.S., 459 U.S. 159 (1982) ** Brown and United States v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 706 F.2d 1103 (11th Cir. 1983) United States v. Dallas County Commission, 850 F.2d 1430 (11th Cir. 1988)* United States v. Marengo County Commission, 811 F.2d 619 (11th Cir. 1987) * United States v. State of South Carolina and Horry County, C.A. No (D. So. Car.)(three-judge court) ** State of Mississippi v. United States, No (D.D.C.)(three-judge court) ** United States v. State of Georgia, No. 1:90-CV-1749-RCF (N.D. Ga.) *

59 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 2 of 19 Georgia v. Reno, C.A. No (D.D.C. 1995)(three-judge court) ** United States v. State of Arizona, CV PHX EHC (D. Ariz.)*** United States v. Socorro County, New Mexico, C.A. No JP (D. N.M.) *** United States v. Brooks County, GA, No Thom (M.D. Ga.)* United States v. State of Wisconsin, No. 92C-0263-S (W.D. Wisc.) United States v. McKinley County, NM, No M (D. N.M.)*** United States v. State of South Carolina, No. 3: (D. SO. CAR.)(three-judge court) ** United States v. Cibola County, NM, No. CIV SC (D. N.M.)*** United States v. Lawrence County, MS,(S.D. Miss. 1983)(three-judge court) ** United States v. City of Demopolis, (S.D. Ala. 1986) * United States v. Laurens County, SC, C.A. No. 6: (D.S.C. 1987) * United States v. City of Spartanburg, SC, (D.S.C. 1987)* United States v. Town of Zebulon, GA, (N.D. Ga.) *, ** United States v. Wilkes County Board of Ed., (S.D. Ga.) United States v. County Council of Sumter County, SC, (D.S.C.)(three-judge court) ** United States v. Town of Indian Head, MD, (D. Md.) * United States v. City of Laurel, MS, (S.D. Miss. 1981) * United States v. County Council of Colleton County, SC, No (D.S.C. 1981)(three-judge court) ** United States v. City of Houston, TX, No (S.D. Tex.)(three-judge court)** United States v. Victoria ISD, TX, C.A. No. V (S.D. Tex. 1986)(three-judge court) ** United States v. City of Barnwell, SC, No. 1: (D.S.C. 1986) ** 2

60 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 3 of 19 Medina County, TX v. United States,(D.D.C.)(three-judge court) ** Gregg County, TX v. United States,(D.D.C.)(three-judge court) ** United States v. Jones, 846 F. Supp. 955 (S.D. Ala. 1994) * United States v. City of Augusta, GA, (S.D. Ga.) * United States v. Wicomico County, MD, No. MJG (D. Md. 1991) * United States v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, LA, C.A. No (M.D. La.) * 2. Cases where J. Gerald Hebert served as lead counsel for the United States in the trial court and the United States appeared as amicus curiae in the litigation: Blanding v. Dubose, 454 U.S. 393 (1982) (I represented the United States as amicus curiae before the three-judge court in this successful lawsuit brought to enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act) ** Lodge v. Buxton, aff'd sub nom. Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S. 613 (1982)(I represented the United States as amicus curiae before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in this successful lawsuit brought under the Voting Rights Act and the United States Constitution) * Martin v. Mabus, 700 F.Supp. 327 (S.D. Miss. 1988)(three-judge court)(remedy)(i represented the United States as amicus curiae before the three-judge court in this successful lawsuit brought to enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act) ** SCLC v. Siegelman, C.A. No. 88-D-462-N (M.D. Ala.)(I represented the United States which filed a brief as amicus curiae in this lawsuit brought by private plaintiffs to enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act) ** Clark v. Roemer, C.A. No (M.D. La.)(three-judge court)(i represented the United States which filed a brief as amicus curiae in this lawsuit brought by private plaintiffs to enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act) ** Lopez v. Monterey County, California, No. C RMW (EAI) (N.D. Cal.)(three-judge court) (I represented the United States which filed a brief as amicus curiae in this lawsuit brought by private plaintiffs to enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act)** 3

61 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 4 of 19 Part II Voting Rights and Election Cases In Which J. Gerald Hebert Has Served As Legal Counsel As a Solo Practitioner (1994 to the Present) Listed below are cases in which I have appeared as legal counsel in my solo law practice, 1994 to the present. Cases marked with an asterisk * are cases involving Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, those marked with a double asterisk ** are Section 4 or 5 Voting Rights Act cases, and those marked with a triple asterisk *** are language minority cases under the Voting Rights Act (Section 203 cases). Cases in bold are cases where I served as lead counsel for the party I represented: 1994 to 2000: CITY OF ANDREWS, TX V. RENO, No. 1:95CV01477 (D.D.C. 1996)(three-judge court) (I represented the City of Andrews, Texas in this lawsuit against the United States Attorney General in which the City obtained a declaratory judgment that changes adopted by the City were entitled to preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act)** DILLARD v. CITY OF FOLEY, AL, No. CV 87-T-1213-N (M.D. Ala.)(I represented private plaintiffs in this successful challenge under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and Constitution to the City of Foley's racially selective annexation policy) * FOREMAN v. COMMISSIONERS COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, TX (N.D. TX) (3- judge court) (I represented private plaintiffs in a suit which established that the changes in the discretionary method of selecting polling officials was a covered change under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act)** PEGRAM and UNITED STATES v. CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS, VA, No. 4: (E.D. Va.) (I represented private plaintiffs in this successful suit challenging the City's at-large method of election under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act) * SIMPSON V. CITY OF HAMPTON, VA, No. 4:95cv83 (E.D. Va.)(I represented private plaintiffs in this suit challenging the City's at-large method of election under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act) * SOUTH CAROLINA CONFERENCE OF BRANCHES OF THE NAACP v. TOWN OF HEMINGWAY, SC, No. 4: (D.S.C.) (I represented plaintiffs in this lawsuit brought 4

62 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 5 of 19 under the Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act challenging Hemingway's racially selective annexation policy) * RICHMOND CRUSADE FOR VOTERS v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, No. 3:95cv531 (E.D. Va.) (I represented plaintiffs who successfully challenged the Commonwealth of Virginia's refusal to implement the provisions of the National Voter Registration Act) MOON v. MEADOWS, 952 F. Supp. 1941(E.D. Va. 1997)(three-judge court)(i represented a group of voters who intervened as defendants in this lawsuit challenging, on racial gerrymandering grounds, congressional redistricting in Virginia) KING v. STATE BD OF ELECTIONS, No. 95-C-827(N.D. Ill. 1995)(three-judge court) (I filed a brief amicus curiae before the three-judge court in 1996 on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in this lawsuit challenging congressional redistricting in Illinois) VERA v. BUSH, 116 S. Ct (1996)(I appeared as counsel for three incumbent members of Congress whose districts were challenged or affected by this lawsuit challenging congressional redistricting in Texas. One of the three members was granted amicus status) ABRAMS v. JOHNSON (I filed a brief amicus curiae in the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of the Georgia Association of Black Elected Officials in this lawsuit challenging congressional redistricting in Georgia) CITY OF FAIRFAX v. RENO, C.A. No JR (D.D.C. 1997)(three-judge court)(i represented the City of Fairfax, Virginia, in this first post-1982 suit brought to obtain a declaratory judgment and bailout from coverage under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The bailout judgment was granted to the City in October 1997).** SHENANDOAH COUNTY v. RENO, C.A. No PLF (D.D.C. 1999)(three-judge court)(i represented Shenandoah County, Virginia, in this suit brought to obtain a declaratory judgment and bailout from coverage under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The bailout judgment was granted to the County in 1999.)** FREDERICK COUNTY v. RENO, C.A. No CKK (D.D.C. 1999)(three-judge court)(i represented Frederick County, Virginia, in this suit brought to obtain a declaratory judgment and bailout from coverage under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The bailout judgment was granted to the County in 1999.)** JENKINS v. CITY OF OZARK, ALABAMA, No. CV97-A-1450-S (M.D. Ala. 1997)(threejudge court)(i represent the plaintiffs in this successful Section 5 enforcement action)** LULAC V. CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, No. A97 CA 908SS(W.D. Tex. 1998)(three-judge 5

63 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 6 of 19 court)(i represented the City of Austin, Texas in this Section 5 enforcement action).** BAKER V. RAINBOW CITY, AL., No. 97-PT-3014 (N.D. Ala. 1997)(three-judge court)(i represented plaintiffs who successfully brought suit to enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act)** WILSON V. CITY OF ATTALLA, AL., No.97-AR-3195 (N.D. Ala. 1997)(three-judge court)(i represented plaintiffs who successfully brought suit to enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act)** HAYS V. LOUISIANA, 839 F. Supp (W.D. La. 1994)(three-judge court)(i represented individual voters and members of the Louisiana Legislature who participated as amicus curiae in this lawsuit challenging congressional redistricting in Louisiana) JOHNSON V. MORTHAM, No. CV (N.D. Fla.)(three-judge court) (I represented Congresswoman Corrine Brown as a defendant-intervenor in this lawsuit brought challenging congressional redistricting in Florida) HUNT V. CROMARTIE, (U.S. Supreme Court) (I represented several members of the Congressional Black Caucus and filed a brief as amicus curiae in this lawsuit challenging congressional districts in North Carolina) BOXX V. STATE OF ALABAMA, M.D. Ala. (3-judge court)(i represented plaintiffs who successfully brought suit to enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act)** WARD V. STATE OF ALABAMA, M.D. Ala. (3-judge court)(i represented plaintiffs who successfully brought suit to enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act)** COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA V. RENO, No. 1:00 CV (D.D.C.)(3-judge court) (I represented defendant intervenors, a group of state legislators, in this lawsuit which challenged, inter alia, the Department of Justice s plan to use statistically-sampled census data to review redistricting plans under the Voting Rights Act).** VOTING INTEGRITY PROJECT v. ARIZONA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, I represented the Arizona Democratic Party in a suit brought under the Voting Rights Act challenging the State Party s use of internet voting in the 2000 Presidential Primary. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction against the Party s use of internet voting, but the district court denied the requested injunction.* 6

64 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 7 of to 2010: BALDERAS V. STATE OF TEXAS, (E.D. TX 2001) (3-judge court)(consolidated), summarily affirmed, 536 U.S. 919 (2002). This suit involved a successful challenge to the failure of the Texas Legislature to redistrict its Texas congressional districts. I represented a group of Congressmen who intervened in the case. * SESSIONS V. STATE OF TEXAS, (E.D. TX 2003)(3-judge court)(consolidated). This suit challenged the 2003 re-redistricting of the Texas congressional districts. The case eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court sub nom. LULAC v. Perry.* JACKSON v. STATE OF TEXAS, (E.D. TX 2003)(3-judge court)(consolidated). This suit challenged the 2003 re-redistricting of the Texas congressional districts. The case eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court sub nom. LULAC v. Perry.* DEL RIO v. STATE OF TEXAS (Travis County District Court & Texas Supreme Court) This suit involved the redistricting of the Texas congressional districts. I represented a group of Congressmen who intervened in the case.* CITY OF HARRISONBURG, VA v. ASHCROFT, No JDB (D.D.C) (I represented the City of Harrisonburg, Virginia, in this suit brought to obtain a declaratory judgment and bailout from coverage under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The bailout judgment was granted to the City in 2002).** CITY OF WINCHESTER, VA v. RENO, No ESH (D.D.C) (I represented the City of Winchester, Virginia, in this suit brought to obtain a declaratory judgment and bailout from coverage under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The bailout judgment was granted to the City in 2001).** WARREN COUNTY, VA v. RENO, No EGS (D.D.C) (I represented Warren County, Virginia, in this suit brought to obtain a declaratory judgment and bailout from coverage under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The bailout judgment was granted to the County in 2002). ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, VA v. ASHCROFT, No ESH (D.D.C) (I represented Rockingham County, Virginia, in this suit brought to obtain a declaratory judgment and bailout from coverage under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The bailout judgment was granted to the County in 2002).** GREENE COUNTY, VA v. ASHCROFT, No HHK (D.D.C.). (I represented Greene County, Virginia, in this successful suit brought to obtain a declaratory judgment and bailout from coverage under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The bailout judgment was granted 7

65 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 8 of 19 to the County in January 2004).** AUGUSTA COUNTY, VA v. GONZALES, No (D.D.C.) (three-judge court). In this action, I represented Augusta County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** NAACP v. ST. LANDRY PARISH, LOUISIANA, I represented the defendants St. Landry Parish Council and School Board in this Voting Rights Act challenge to the 2002 redistricting plans adopted by the Council and School Board. The case was settled in January 2005.* HALL v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, 276 F. Supp. 2d 528 (E.D. Va. 2003), affirmed, 385 F.3d 421 (4 th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, U.S. (2005). I served as co-counsel representing plaintiffs in an unsuccessful Voting Rights Act challenge to the post-2000 congressional redistricting plan adopted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. MAY v. CITY OF MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA, No. 2:07cv738 (M.D.Ala.)(three-judge court). This suit alleged, among other things, that the City had failed to obtain the requisite preclearance of a new election schedule from federal authorities. Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the upcoming elections, citing the alleged lack of preclearance under the Voting Rights Act. I was co-counsel to the City of Montgomery, which contended that preclearance had been obtained. The case was dismissed as moot. ** CITY OF SALEM, VA v. GONZALES, No (DDC) (three-judge court). In this action, I represented the City of Salem in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** BOTETOURT COUNTY, VA v. GONZALES, No (D.D.C) (three-judge court). In this action, I represented Botetourt County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** ESSEX COUNTY, VA v. MUKASEY, (D.D.C) (three-judge court). In this action, I represented Essex County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** AMHERST COUNTY, VA v. MUKASEY, (D.D.C) (three-judge court). In this action, I represented Amherst County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** MIDDLESEX COUNTY, VA v. MUKASEY, (D.D.C) (three-judge court). In this action, I represented Middlesex County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** 8

66 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 9 of 19 PAGE COUNTY, VA v. MUKASEY, (D.D.C) (three-judge court). In this action, I represented Page County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** CITY OF KINGS MOUNTAIN v. HOLDER, 1:10-cv PLF -DST TFH (D.D.C.) (threejudge court). In this action, I represented the City of Kings Mountain in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** WILLIE RAY v. STATE OF TEXAS, 2:06-CV-385(TJW) (E.D. Texas). This case challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Texas Election Code, and the racially selective prosecution of African American and Latino citizens by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott for allegedly violating those provisions. The case was settled. NAMUDNO v. HOLDER, 557 U.S. 193 (2009). This case challenged the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. In the district court, I represented Travis County, Texas, which supported the defendant Holder and argued in favor of the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. In the U.S. Supreme Court, I represented jurisdictions that had bailed out from Section 5 coverage and urged the Court to uphold Section to 2013: PEREZ v. PERRY, No (W.D. TX)(three-judge court)(consolidated cases--including Quesada v. Perry, No OLG-JES-XR) challenging Texas Congressional and State House districts under Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The case remains pending. DAVIS v. PERRY, No (W.D. TX)(three-judge court)(consolidated with LULAC v. Perry), No , challenging under Section 2 and the United States Constitution the state senate redistricting plan insofar as it dismantled Senate District 10 and in doing so discriminated against minority voters in the district. The case remains pending. BEAUMONT INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 1:13- cv rc-bmk-esh (D.D.C.) (three-judge court) (In this Section 5 declaratory judgment case that is currently pending, I represent the Plaintiff Beaumont ISD seeking Voting Rights Act approval of certain voting changes) STATE OF TEXAS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1:11-cv RMC-TBG-BAH (D.D.C.) (three-judge court) (In this lawsuit, the State of Texas sought preclearance to its statewide redistricting plans. I represented a group of Defendant Intervenors who successfully opposed preclearance of the state senate plan and the congressional plan before the three-judge court. I also 9

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

68 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 11 of 19 LINDA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT v. HOLDER, 1:13-cv (D.D.C.). In this action, I represent the Fire Protection District in a pending action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** LINDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT v. HOLDER, 1:13-cv JEB-JWR-JDB). In this action, I represent the Water District a pending action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 1:13-cv BAH-JRB-KBJ). In this action, I represent Hanover County in a pending action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** CITY OF FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 1:13-cv ABJ-DBS-RJL). In this action, I represented the City of Falls Church in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** CITY OF WHEATLAND, CALIFORNIA v. HOLDER, 1:13-cv RMC-DST-RBW). In this action, I represented the City of Wheatland in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE v. HOLDER, 1:12-cv EGS-TBG-RMC). In this action, I represented the State of New Hampshire in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** BROWNS VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT v. HOLDER,1:12-cv RWR-KLH- TFH). In this action, I represented Browns Valley Irrigation District in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** MERCED COUNTY, CALIFORNIA v. HOLDER, 1:12-cv TFH-DST-ABJ). In this action, I represented Merced County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 1:12-cv ESH-TBG-JEB). In this action, I represented Prince William County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** KING GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 1:11-cv BAH-KLH-ESH). In this action, I represented King George County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** 11

69 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 12 of 19 JAMES CITY COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 1:11-cv PLF-DST-TFH). In this action, I represented James City County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 1:11-cv EGS-JR RWR (D.D.C.) (three-judge court). In this action, I represented Williamsburg in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** CULPEPER COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 1: 1:11-cv JEB-JWR-RLW (D.D.C.) (three-judge court). In this action, I represented Culpeper County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** CITY OF BEDFORD, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 11-cv TFH-TBG-RLW (D.D.C.) (threejudge court). In this action, I represented the City of Bedford in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** BEDFORD COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 1:11-cv ESH-KLH-BAH (D.D.C.) (three-judge court). I represented Bedford County in a successful bailout action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. ** RAPPAHANNOCK COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 1:11-cv JEB -KLH RMC (D.D.C.) (three-judge court). I represented Rappahannock County in a successful bailout action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. ** CITY OF MANASSAS PARK, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 1:11-cv CKK-JRB-HHK (D.D.C.) (three-judge court). I represented the City of Manassas Park in a successful bailout action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. ** ALTA IRRIGATION DISTRICT v. HOLDER, 1:11-cv RJL-DAG PLF (D.D.C.) (threejudge court). I represented the Alta Irrigation District in a successful bailout action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. ** JEFFERSON COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 7 v. HOLDER, 1:11-cv RWR- DST-RJL) (D.D.C.) (three-judge court). I represented this Jefferson County Drainage District in a successful bailout action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act.** HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA V. HOLDER (D.D.C.) (three-judge court). In this pending lawsuit, I represent Hanover County an action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. ** 12

70 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 13 of 19 PART III Cases In Which J. Gerald Hebert Has Served As Legal Counsel To A Party or An Amicus Curiae on Behalf of the Campaign Legal Center (2004 to the present) Listed below are cases in which I have appeared as legal counsel for a party or for an amicus curiae in campaign finance cases or other election law cases in my capacity as Director of Litigation at the Campaign Legal Center, a non-profit, non-partisan organization in Washington DC. Federal Litigation CITIZENS UNITED v. FEC (U.S. Supreme Court.) Citizens United filed suit to challenge the federal electioneering communications corporate funding restriction and disclosure requirements as applied to its film entitled Hillary: The Movie and its advertisements promoting the film. On July 18, 2008, a three-judge panel upheld the federal law. On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court struck down the 60-year-old federal restriction on corporate expenditures in candidate elections, and overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and part of McConnell v. FEC (2003). In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed one amici brief with the district court and two amici briefs with the Supreme Court on behalf of campaign finance reform groups. WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE v. FEC, (US Supreme Court) and No (DBS, RWR, RJL)(D.D.C.)(3-judge court). Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) challenged provisions of BCRA which prohibited it from making certain election communications during and prior to the 2004 elections. The three-judge court rejected WRTL s challenge and the Supreme Court reversed and struck down the provisions. I served as legal counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, Senator John McCain, and Representatives Christopher Shays and Martin Meehan in the case as amici curiae supporting the defendant FEC. MCCOMISH v. BENNETT, No (U.S. Supreme Court). This was a constitutional challenge to the matching funds trigger provisions of the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act, which provided participating candidates with additional funds if non-participating opponents or outside groups spend above the statutory threshold. In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amici brief in the Supreme Court on behalf of the Legal Center and seven other public interest groups to defend the Arizona law. In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I also filed an amici brief with the district court in MCCUTCHEON v. FEC (U.S. Supreme Court). This challenge to federal aggregate contribution limits was filed by plaintiffs Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National 13

71 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 14 of 19 Committee (RNC). Plaintiffs in McCutcheon v. FEC challenge both the $70,800 aggregate limit on contributions to non-candidate committees and the $46,200 aggregate limit on contributions to candidate committees in a two-year election cycle. The three-judge district court rejected the challenge, but the U.S. Supreme Court has noted probable jurisdiction. In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amici brief in the district court and the Supreme Court defending the aggregate limits. SHELBY COUNTY v. HOLDER (U.S. Supreme Court). This case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of certain special provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended. In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amici brief in the Supreme Court on behalf jurisdictions that have bailed out from coverage under the Act. DAVIS V. FEC, 554 U.S. 724 (2008) (Supreme Court). This was a federal court challenge to the Millionaire s Amendment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of Under the Millionaire s Amendment, when a wealthy self-financed candidate spent in excess of a specified threshold of personal funds, the Amendment provided for an increase in contribution limits and an elimination of coordinated party spending limits for such candidate s non-wealthy opponent. The Amendment also imposed additional disclosure requirements on the self-financing wealthy candidate. The Supreme Court invalidated all of these provisions. I served as legal counsel to amici supporting these amendments in the U.S. Supreme Court. SHAYS v. FEC, No (D.C.Cir.) (Shays I). This is an appeal from a ruling of this court (Kollar-Kotelly, J.) striking down regulations promulgated by the FEC to implement the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). I served as legal counsel to United Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold who appeared in the case as amici curiae and filed a brief supporting Appellees Shays and Meehan. SHAYS v. FEC (527 Suit), No. 1:04-cv EGS (D.D.C.) (Sullivan, J.) (Shays II). This lawsuit challenge the failure of the FEC to promulgate effective regulations that would apply to 527 groups. I served as legal counsel to United Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold who appeared in the case as amici curiae. NC RIGHT TO LIFE v. LEAKE, No. 5:99-CV-798-BO(3). This case involves a constitutional challenge to several North Carolina campaign finance laws. I represent the Campaign Legal Center in the case, which filed a brief as amicus curiae arguing that North Carolina s limits on contributions to independent expenditure political committees are constitutional. VOTERS EDUCATION COMMITTEE v. WASHINGTON PUBLIC DISCLOSURE COMMISSION, No SEA (King County Superior Court). Suit alleges that certain ads aimed at a state Attorney General candidate are not express advocacy, but rather are issue advocacy and protected political speech. I represent the Campaign Legal Center in the case, which filed a brief as amicus curiae arguing that the state law at issue does not violate the free 14

72 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 15 of 19 speech rights of plaintiff 527 corporations by requiring them to register as a political organization and file reports of their contributions and expenditures. EMILY S LIST v. FEC, No. 1:05cv00049 (D.D.C.). EMILY s List challenged a new rule adopted by the FEC late last summer that requires a federal committee to use at least 50 percent federal funds to pay for generic voter mobilization drives and other activities that affect both federal and nonfederal elections, along with a rule that clarified the definition of the term contribution. I represented Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold, Representatives Christopher Shays and Martin Meehan, and the Campaign Legal Center which appeared as amici curiae in the case and filed a brief opposing EMILY s List s motion for a preliminary injunction. CHRISTIAN CIVIC LEAGUE OF MAINE v. FEC, No. 06- (D.D.C.) (three-judge court) The Christian Civic League of Maine has challenged provisions of BCRA which prohibited it from making certain election communications during and prior to the 2006 elections in Maine. The three-judge court denied the Christian Civic League s motion for preliminary injunction and the case is on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. I served as co-counsel for the defendant intervenors in the case: U.S. Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold, and Representatives Christopher Shays, Martin Meehan, and Tom Allen supporting the defendant FEC. UNITED STATES v. VALDES. No (DC Cir.) I filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on behalf of the Campaign Legal Center supporting the defendant United States in this appeal, which involved an interpretation and application of the federal anti-gratuities statute. CAO (RNC) v. FEC, No (5th Cir.), cert. denied No (U.S. Sup. Ct.) In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amicus brief on April 19, 2010 with the en banc Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to defend the constitutionality of the party coordinated spending limits. GREEN PARTY OF CONNECTICUT V. LENGE, Nos , (2d Cir.), cert. petition No (U.S. Sup. Ct.) In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center,, I served as co-counsel to the defendant-intervenors in the Supreme Court opposing the petition for certiorari, a case that challenged the constitutionality of Connecticut s public financing system and its statutory ban on contributions from lobbyists, state contractors and members of their immediate families and their solicitation of contributions. U.S. V. O DONNELL, No (9th Cir.), cert. petition No (U.S. Sup. Ct.) This case involved whether federal law prohibits straw donor contributions, in which a defendant solicits others to donate to a candidate for federal office in their own names and furnishes the money for the gift either through an advance or a prearranged reimbursement. CLC, with D21, filed an amici brief with the Ninth Circuit, urging the Court to correct the erroneous interpretation given to the federal law provision by the district court. U.S. V. DANIELCZYK, No. 11-cr (E.D. Va.), No (4th Cir.) This criminal case concerned a number of alleged campaign finance violations, including that the defendants illegally directed corporate contributions to Hillary Clinton s 2008 Presidential campaign. In my capacity as 15

73 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 16 of 19 Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amici brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on the side of the United States. KOERBER v. FEC, No. 2:08-cv (E.D.N.C.) In September 2008, the Committee for Truth in Politics challenged the constitutionality of the federal disclosure requirements for electioneering communications, and the FEC s policy for determining federal political committee status. The CLC, with D21, filed amici briefs defending the law on October 14, 2008 with the district court, and on April 24, 2009 with the Fourth Circuit. THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT OBAMA, INC. (RTAO) v. FEC, No. 08-cv (E.D. Va.), No (4th Cir.) RTAO filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to enjoin a number of FEC regulations governing when independent groups must register as federal political committees and comply with the applicable federal restrictions and disclosure requirements. The CLC, with D21, filed an amici brief on October 27, 2011 to defend the FEC rules with the Fourth Circuit following the remand of the case from the Supreme Court. The CLC previously filed amici briefs in this case in the district court and the Fourth Circuit on August 14, 2008, October 28, 2008 and October 17, VAN HOLLEN v. FEC, No. 11-cv (D.D.C.) On April 21, 2011, Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) filed a lawsuit against the FEC to challenge a 2007 FEC regulation that narrowed the scope of federal disclosure requirements connected to electioneering communications. In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center (CLC), I was one of the attorneys representing Rep. Van Hollen as CLC is part of Van Hollen s pro bono legal team. AMERICAN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC. v. BULLOCK, DA (Sup. Ct. Mont.), cert. denied No (U.S. Sup. Ct.) In March 2010, plaintiffs filed suit to challenge Montana s corporate expenditure restriction, M.C.A , on grounds that it was unconstitutional under Citizens United v FEC. In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the nonprofit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amici brief in support of itself and 13 other public interest groups on May 18, 2012, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to deny certiorari, or if it grants certiorari, to grant plenary review. WAGNER v. FEC, No. 11-cv-1841 (D.D.C.) On October 19, 2011, plaintiffs filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to challenge the constitutionality of the federal governmental contractor contribution ban, 2 U.S.C. 441c, as applied to individuals who have personal services contracts with federal agencies. In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amicus brief in the district court supporting the contractor contribution ban. RNC v. FEC, No. 1:08-cv RJL-RMC (D.D.C.) (three-judge court). On November 13, 2008, the RNC filed suit in federal district court to challenge BCRA s soft money restrictions that bar the national parties from raising or spending soft money and prohibit state parties from using soft money for activities that affect federal elections, such as voter registration or GOTV 16

74 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 17 of 19 drives. On March 9, 2009, the Legal Center filed an amici brief on behalf of former Representatives Shays and Meehan and Senators McCain and Feingold to defend the soft money provisions. On June 29, 2010, the Supreme Court summarily affirmed the decision of a three-judge panel to dismiss the RNC s as-applied challenge to the soft money restrictions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). SPEECHNOW.ORG v. FEC (D.C. Cir.) In February 2008, SpeechNow.org filed suit and requested a preliminary injunction to enjoin the federal contribution limits and disclosure requirements as applied to so-called independent expenditure committees. THE DC Circuit struck down the contribution limits but upheld the disclosure requirements. The Legal Center filed two amici briefs with the D.C. Circuit in 2009 to support the constitutionality of the federal contribution limits as applied to a political committee making only independent expenditures. HISPANIC LEADERSHIP FUND v. FEC, No. I:12cv893 (E.D. VA.). Plaintiffs sought to air television advertisements criticizing President Obama without complying with electioneering communication disclosure requirements, which include donor disclosure. The ads proposed by HLF would not have mentioned President Obama by name and instead would use the terms the White House and the Administration and audio recordings of the President s voice. In an attempt to evade the electioneering communication disclosure requirements, HLF argued that its ads do not refer to a clearly identified candidate, and that the disclosure provisions are unconstitutional. The District Court denied an injunction and rejected the constitutional challenge. In my capacity as Director of Litigation for the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amicus brief in 2012 supporting the FEC and defending the challenged provisions STATE/MUNICIPAL LAW LITIGATION State Disclosure Cases DOE v. REED, No (U.S. Sup. Ct.), on remand No. 3:09-cv (W.D. Wa.), on appeal No (9th Cir.) Plaintiffs filed suit to halt Washington State from making petitions connected to a state ballot measure available in response to requests made under the state Public Records Act. In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amicus brief on March 28, 2012 with the Ninth Circuit, urging the court to reject the plaintiffs as-applied challenge and arguing that the narrow exemption to disclosure for harassment set forth in Buckley v. Valeo was not warranted in this case. PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM v. BOWEN, 2:09-cv (E.D. Calif.), on appeal No (9th Cir.) In January 2009, Plaintiffs brought a challenge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California to a California law requiring ballot measure committees to disclose the names and other information of their contributors of $100 or more. In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amicus brief to support California s ballot measure disclosure law with the Ninth Circuit on April 17,

75 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 18 of 19 HUMAN LIFE OF WASHINGTON, INC. ( HLW ) v. BRUMSICKLE, No (9th Cir.) In April 2008, HLW challenged the constitutionality of several components of the State of Washington s political committee disclosure regime, including the State s definitions of political committee, independent expenditure, and political advertising. On June 4, 2009, and in my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit to defend the disclosure laws. OHIO RIGHT TO LIFE (ORTL) v. OHIO ELECTION COMMISSION, 08-cv (S.D. Ohio). ORTL filed suit in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Ohio to challenge multiple provisions of Ohio s campaign finance law, including its electioneering communications corporate funding prohibition and related disclosure requirements. On July 18, 2008, and in my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center (CLC), I filed an amici brief on behalf of CLC and Ohio Citizen Action, defending the constitutionality of Ohio s electioneering communications disclosure requirements. TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY v. KING STREET PATRIOTS, No. D-1-GN (D.Ct. Travis Co.) The Texas Democratic Party filed an action seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive relief in connection to several violations of state campaign finance law allegedly committed by the King Street Patriots. In response to the suit, the King Street Patriots filed a counterclaim challenging numerous provisions of Texas campaign finance law, including the state corporate contribution restriction, and the disclosure and organizational requirements applicable to political committees and related statutory definitions. In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed in September 2011 an amicus brief to oppose the counterclaim and to defend the constitutionality of Texas campaign finance laws. NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE v. BROWNING, This was a constitutional challenge to certain provisions of Florida law relating to electioneering communications and disclosure, alleging that the provisions were overbroad and vague. In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amicus brief in the Eleventh Circuit defending the Florida laws, which were upheld by the court of appeals. State Contribution Limit Cases COMMITTEE ON JOBS, ET AL. v. HERRERA, 07-cv (N.D. Cal.) In June 2007, two political committees filed a challenge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the constitutionality of San Francisco s limit on contributions to political committees that make only independent expenditures in City elections. On August 27, 2007, the CLC filed an amici brief on behalf of itself and four other nonprofit political reform organizations supporting the constitutionality of the San Francisco contribution limits. MINNESOTA CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR LIFE (MCCL) v. SWANSON, 10-cv-2938 (D. Minn.), on appeal No (8th Cir.) MCCL challenged multiple provisions of Minnesota s campaign finance law pertaining to the regulation of corporations. On December 22, 2010, the CLC, with D21, filed an amici brief to defend Minnesota s disclosure law and its restrictions on corporate contributions. 18

76 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 19 of 19 THALHEIMER v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, No (9th Cir.) In December 2009, plaintiffs filed a constitutional challenge to several provisions of San Diego s campaign finance laws. On April 9, 2010, the CLC filed a brief amici curie with the Ninth Circuit on behalf of itself and two other public interest groups to support the contribution limit. State Public Financing Cases WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE v. BRENNAN, 3:09-cv (W.D. Wis.), No (7th Cir.) and KOSCHNICK v. DOYLE, 3:09-cv (W.D. Wis.). In December 2009, two cases were filed to challenge the trigger provisions of Wisconsin s recently-enacted public financing program, as well as other program components. The CLC filed an amici brief on June 17,

77 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE OF TEXAS, v. Plaintiff, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. in his Official capacity as Attorney General Of the United States, AND Defendant, ERIC KENNIE, et al., Defendant-Intervenors Case No. 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW DECLARATION OF CHAD W. DUNN IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY S FEE Background and Prevailing Party 1. I am counsel for the Kennie Intervenors in the above-styled matter. A true and correct copy of my curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Attachment No. 1. I am presenting this declaration in support of Kennie Intervenors Motion for Attorney s Fees and Costs. The Kennie Intervenors are the prevailing parties in this action and are entitled to attorneys fees and costs.

78 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 2 of 6 Experience and Qualifications 2. My resume is attached hereto and it contains an accurate summary of my education, training and experience. I have handled scores of litigation matters under federal and state law. I have represented Kennie Intervenors and private parties in federal or state voting rights litigation in Texas and Washington, D.C since I have handled or are currently handling redistricting cases throughout Texas relative to commissioner s court, school boards, justices of the peace and constables. I have handled federal cases relative to candidate qualifications. I am currently handling a federal case challenging voter registration restrictions adopted by the State of Texas as well as federal challenges to the state s photo voter I.D. law (SB 14). I have argued numerous cases at the Fifth Circuit, including numerous cases that have resulted in reported opinions. I have been counsel of record for parties to several U.S. Supreme Court cases as well as most Texas courts of appeal, including the Texas Supreme Court. 3. As a result of the foregoing and much more experience than can be listed here, I have extensive training, education and experience handling federal cases and, in particular, those pertaining to civil and voting rights. Time 4. My time in this case is kept contemporaneously with the work performed. I devoted a total of approximately hours representing the Kennie Intervenors in this case for which I chose to bill. I have attached the time records that I maintained in this action but I did not bill more than 100 hours for which I am not seeking a court award. I

79 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 3 of 6 also billed for many hours that I did not seek compensation for in the bill. Those hours eliminated are explained in the attached fee bill. 5. In fact, the reductions I have taken in time far exceed industry norms of billing judgment. I was principally in charge of covering numerous depositions taken in Texas. I handled the Kennie Intervenors discovery responses and presented the Intervenors' depositions. I also defended the depositions of Senators Wendy Davis and Rodney Ellis, both of whom were cited in the Court's final opinion. 6. At trial, I examined as many or more witnesses than any other attorney for an Intervenor group. I conducted the trial cross-examination of Keith Ingram. I also conducted the trial direct examinations of Randall Buck Wood, Senator Wendy Davis and Senator Rodney Ellis. Market Rate 7. I have extensive experience handling civil and some criminal matters in federal court. I have extensive experience with civil and voting rights cases. I believe, based upon the complicated issues and the time involved and the various factors described herein, that a reasonable hourly rate for such services in this locale is at least $375 per hour. I have been retained this year by Beaumont Independent School District at the rate of $375 per hour to represent the school district in multiple federal and state voting and redistricting cases. $375 per hour is well within the reasonable market rate charged for similar services in similar cases.

80 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 4 of 6 Lodestar 8. In determining the Lodestar a court should usually consider the actual hours devoted to the case and the market hourly rate for the lawyer in question. It is my opinion the fees and expenses claimed in the provided statement are reasonable and necessary. Johnson Factors 9. Preclusion of Other Employment. My work in this litigation restricted the time available for pursuit of other litigation during the period of activity in this case. Because of the extensive work required in a time-compressed period of time, I was unable to accept and work on other cases. This case included several hearings that often, due to the nature of the dispute, came with little notice. Scores of deadlines were required to be met in much shorter deadlines than required under normal federal court procedure. 10. Time Limitation Imposed by Circumstances. The time limitations in this case were imposed by pending election schedules and the urgency of these types of disputes. 11. Undesirability of the Case. This case is desirable from a political perspective. However, the case is very undesirable from an economic perspective because the expedited trial schedule and multiple forums (Texas and D.C.) placed unusual time constraints on the development and preparation of the case and because of the specialized nature of the actions. Moreover, the short deadlines, time commitment

81 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 5 of 6 and complicated nature of the claims make other work easier and, often, more financially rewarding. 12. Experience and Expertise. My experience has included participation in federal litigation, extensive advocacy in state and federal cases, and preparation of pleadings, briefs and evidence for cases in both state and federal courts. I am and have been counsel in numerous voting rights cases. I have tried countless matters before a court of a single judge or three judges. I have tried approximately twenty jury trials as first chair. My trial experience includes federal and state criminal matters. My experience is more extensively described in Exhibit E, my Curriculum Vitae. 13. It is my opinion, based on my experience and upon inquiring of other lawyers, that the prevailing market rate for an attorney with my experience, in a difficult and complicated civil and voting rights case is at least $375 per hour. Costs 14. The expenses claimed in this motion are actual expenses that were necessary to properly and successfully represent the Kennie Intervenors in this case. They include expenses for necessary travel and deposition transcript expenses. These expenses are described in more detail in the attached billing statement. Only some deposition transcript expenses are shown because the intervenors divided among themselves paying for these transcriptions. 15. I have also reviewed the invoices submitted by the Kennie Intervenors' experts, Dr. Alan Lichtman and Randall Buck Wood, which I have appended to my time and expense records (Exhibit F). The expert invoices are submitted as Exhibit F, parts 2

82 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 6 of 6 (Lichtman) and part 3 (Wood). Both experts testified at trial. It is my opinion that both invoices are reasonable, and that the testimony of these two witnesses and the time they billed is both reasonable and necessary. In closing, it is my opinion that the fees, expenses, and expert fees I have claimed in this case are both reasonable and necessary and that, given the more than adequate reductions I have made, should be reimbursed by the State of Texas in light of my contributions to the prevailing claims and orders in the case. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Dated: September 9, 2013 /s/ Chad W. Dunn Chad W. Dunn

83 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 1 of 6 LICENSES/CERTIFICATIONS: Chad W. Dunn BRAZIL & DUNN 4201 Cypress Creek Parkway, Suite 530 Houston, Texas Licensed to practice law in all Texas state courts Licensed to practice law in all District of Columbia courts Licensed to practice law in the United States Supreme Court Licensed to practice law in the United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit Licensed to practice law in the United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit Licensed to practice law in the United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Licensed to practice law in the Texas United States District Court Southern Region Licensed to practice law in the Texas United States District Court Northern Region Licensed to practice law in the Texas United States District Court Western Region Licensed to practice law in the Texas United States District Court Eastern Region Licensed to practice law in the United States District Court District of Columbia EDUCATION: May 2002 South Texas College of Law, Houston, Texas Doctor of Jurisprudence 1

84 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 2 of 6 August 1999 University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas Bachelor of Arts in Government PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: 2006-present 2003-present Brazil & Dunn Trial Attorney: Perform all duties required by a civil litigation and appellate practice, participate in or conduct trial and mediation of causes. Prepare appellate briefs and argue same. Texas Democratic Party General Counsel: Attend to legal responsibilities as directed by party needs. Handle election and constitutional cases before all state and federal courts. Handle appeals for state courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and The United States Supreme Court. Assist with fundraising by leveraging litigation successes. Pursue aggressive litigation strategy to protect minority voting rights and fair election procedures Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation Board Member Riddle & Brazil, L.L.P. Trial Attorney: Perform all duties required by a personal injury/civil litigation practice, participate in or conduct trial and mediation of causes O Quinn, Laminack and Pirtle, Houston, Texas Law Clerk/Attorney: Assisted litigation and trial of large damage and multiple party litigation. Conducted research, drafted motions and other pleadings, prepared for and attended hearings and trial State Senator Rodney Ellis, Austin, Texas 77 th Legislature Policy Advisor: Reviewed and prepared summaries and voting suggestion for bills in the Jurisprudence, Health and Human Services, Education, and Natural Resources Committees; developed ideas for legislation; drafted language for bills and speeches; met with constituents, lobbyists, public officials; delivered speeches; prepared press releases and talking points; followed legislation through committees and floor debate. 2

85 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 3 of South Texas College of Law, Houston, Texas Research Assistant, Professor Val Ricks: Conduct research on potential scholarly publications; proofread draft law review submissions; check citation forms and improve footnotation State Representative Dawnna Dukes, Austin, Texas 76 th Legislature Legislative Assistant: Staff member concerning her position on the Environmental Regulation Committee. Developed ideas for legislation; drafted language for bills and speeches; met with constituents, lobbyists, public officials; delivered speeches; prepared press releases and talking points; followed legislation through committees and floor debate Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Washington D.C. Legislative Intern: Coordinated with Legislative Assistants on various policy issues; attended briefings and seminars at various executive departments; discussed policy issues with various constituent groups; drafted correspondence and conducted policy research. SELECT REPORTED CASES: Texas v. U.S., United States District Court, District of Columbia. January 6, F.R.D Suit under the Voting Rights Act concerning the implementation of a new photo identification voter law. Richie v. Dallas County, United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division. December 9, WL Suit under the Voting Rights Act concerning preclearance requirement for new voting equipment. Also handled two appeals to the United States Supreme Court. Davis v. Perry, United States District Court, W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division. November 23, WL Concerning the constitutionality of statewide redistricting plans for State Senate. Rodriguez v. Perry, United States District Court, W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division. November 23, F. Supp2d 209. Concerning the constitutionality of statewide redistricting plans for State House and Congress. Perez v. Perry, United States Supreme Court. January 20, Appeal in the Davis and Rodriguez cases concerning constitutionality of statewide redistricting plans. 3

86 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 4 of 6 Petteway v. Henry, United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division. December 9, WL Concerning the constitutionality of redistricting plans for Galveston County. Rodruguez v. Harris County, United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. Concerning the constitutionality of redistricting plans for Harris County. LULAC v. TDP, States District Court, W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division. August 24, F.Supp.2d 700. Concerning the applicability of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to actions of a political party. Also appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In re Brown, Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio. July 14, WL Suit to determine eligibility of a candidate to seek election to the Court of Appeals. In re Lakewood Forest Fund, Inc., Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.). October 20, WL Suit concerning deed restrictions and a homeowner's right to repair own property. Texas State University-San Marcos v. Bonnin, Supreme Court of Texas. June 25, S.W.3d 912. Suit to recover for the drowning death of a university student trapped in an undertow and hidden caverns on a waterway held by the State. DOE v. DOE, United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division. August 12, WL , 2008 WL and 2009 WL Suit for collection of damages for transmission of sexual disease. Miller v. Gibraltar Sav. Ass'n, United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Galveston Division. July 22, WL Suit concerning the collection of penalties owed homeowners for failing to deliver a timely deed. Kucinich v. Richie, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. March 24, F.3d 161. Suit to determine the extent to which the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protected a political party's requirement to execute an oath to seek the party's nomination. Lulac of Texas v. State of Texas, United States District Court, W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division. August 24, F.Supp.2d 700 and 318 Fed.Appx Suit concerning the scope of the Voting Rights Act. In re Cullar, Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas. August 19, S.W.3d 560. Suit to determine the residency of a candidate who sought election to the Texas Senate. 4

87 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 5 of 6 In re Sharp, Supreme Court of Texas. January 27, S.W.3d 556. Suit to determine eligibility of candidate to seek election as a Court of Appeals Justice in light of alleged errors on ballot application. Sartin v. Serum Products, LLC., United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division. March 25, WL Suit for damages alleged to be owed company salesman. Brimer v. Maxwell, Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas. October 06, S.W.3d 926. Suit to determine eligibility of nominee for election to Texas Senate. In re Wilson, United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. November 27, B.R Suit concerning the ownership and operation of baseball training business. Jackson v. Carlson. Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin. March 12, WL Suit concerning ownership of family ranch. Sachtleben v. Bennett. Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.). August 12, WL Suit concerning eligibility of incumbent Justice of the Pease for election when the candidate's ballot application lacked the requisite number of petition signatures. Texas State University--San Marcos v. Bonnin, Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin. December 18, S.W.3d 58. Suit for wrongful death of a student who drowned on campus. Richie v. Benkiser, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. August 03, F.3d 582. Suit to determine whether a member of Congress was ineligible for reelection and therefore could be replace on the ballot by party leaders. In re Angelini, Supreme Court of Texas. February 24, S.W.3d 558. Suit to determine if an error in a ballot application was fatal to a person's a candidacy. PUBLICATIONS/PAPERS: Courthouse Steps. Monthly general legal information column for the Houston/Heights Tribune. Beginning December 2002 to present. Doing Things Right The First Time. Vol. VII, No. 1 Plumbing Air-Conditioning Mechanical Contractors Association, January

88 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 6 of 6 Playing by the Rules: The Need for Constitutions to Define the Boundaries of the Legislative Game with a One-Subject Rule. 34 UWLA L. Rev., University of West Los Angeles Law Review, Summer 2002 The Sophisticated Doctrine of Consideration. 9 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 99, George Mason Law Review, Fall, 2000 by Professor Val D. Ricks. (Received footnote credit for research assistance.) MEMBERSHIPS: Houston Bar Association Greater Houston Heights Bar Association, Founder, President 2006 Phi Delta Phi Legal Honors Fraternity Texas Bar Association 6

89 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 1 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Brazil & Dunn LLP 4201 Cypress Creek Pkwy, #530 Houston, TX Phone: (281) Fax: (281) Re: [State of Texas v. Holder-Photo ID case] [U.S. District Court for D.C.] FOR LEGAL SERVICES RENDERED Date Description Hour Rate Amount 01/21/12 Conference with Gerry Hebert concerning Photo ID case..50 $ No Charge 01/26/12 Conference with potential clients concerning Photo ID case $ No Charge 01/27/12 Conference with potential client concerning Photo ID case..50 $ No Charge 01/30/12 Received Form Motion To Intervene from Gerry Hebert and begin work on preparing it for Photo ID case; conference with Gerry Hebert concerning same $ $ /30/12 Conference with Eric Kennie concerning the Photo ID case $ No Charge 01/31/12 Review address and voting records for Eric Kennie..40 $ $ /31/12 Continue working on Motion to Intervene; Receive case style from staff and make edits to same; research standard for intervention $ $ /31/12 Conference with clients regarding upcoming Photo ID case $ No Charge 01/31/12 Receive clients addresses and look up the Voting history..40 $ No Charge 02/01/12 Conference with DOJ concerning their position

90 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 2 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No. 2 on Kennie Intervenor s Motion to Intervene..20 $ $ /01/12 Conference with Gerry Hebert concerning Conference with DOJ..20 $ No Charge 02/01/12 Draft and Finalize Motion to Intervene and Associated documents in the Texas Photo ID case; receipt and review of edits from Gerry Hebert concerning same and make His changes to pleadings; file same with The Court $ $ /01/12 Conference with The State of Texas concerning Their position on Motion to Intervene; edit Motion to reflect Texas opposition to the Intervention..30 $ $ /01/12 Correspond with Court Clerk concerning the Filing of Intervention papers outside of the Normal PACER process..20 $ $ /01/12 Respond to multiple media contacts concerning Intervention in Photo ID case..80 $ No Charge 02/02/12 Conference with co-counsel concerning Preparing Discovery to send to The State of Texas.20 $ $ /02/12 Research Discovery issues in the Photo ID Case..40 $ $ /02/12 Review PACER Docket Sheet to see case Activity..10 $ $ /02/12 Conference with client, Sergio DeLeon Concerning the filing of the Photo ID case And contacts he has received from the media..50 $ No Charge 02/04/12 Conference with Senator Ellis concerning Photo ID case and his potential to be a Witness..20 $ $ /08/12 Receipt and review of Court Notice scheduling Hearing for February 9, 2012 at 4:45 p.m. Conference with co-counsel concerning same..30 $ $ /09/12 Prepare for First Hearing in case..50 $ $

91 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 3 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No. 3 02/09/12 Call into Court Telephonic Conference and Participate in Hearing..80 $ $ /15/12 Receipt and review of The United States Response to Kennie Intervenor s Motion to Intervene..20 $ $ /16/12 Receipt and review of The State of Texas Memorandum and Opposition to The Kennie Intervenor s Motion to Intervene; research Authority cited therein; begin draft of Reply Thereto $ $ /21/12 Receipt and review of Initial Draft of sections For Reply to Motion to Intervene from Gerry Hebert; incorporate with sections into The Reply to The State of Texas Memorandum And Opposition..40 $ $ /21/12 Begin Initial Draft of Answer to Complaint; Research other complaints filed in similar Cases $ $ /22/12 Continue working on Intervention Reply Brief; research authorities for same and Coordinate edits with Gerry Hebert $ $ /22/12 Conference with Gerry Hebert concerning Reply Brief and Amended Complaint..20 $ $ /23/12 Make final edits to Reply Brief and Answer To Complaint; prepare and file same with The Court $ $ /06/12 Conference with various clients and others Concerning the pending Photo ID case $ No Charge 03/08/12 Receipt and review of docket entry concerning Summons return executed..10 $ $ /12/12 Receipt and review of docket entry showing Notice of Determination By The Attorney General; review Attorney General s Determination Against Pre-clearance of Photo ID law..50 $ $ /12/12 Conference with clients and co-counsel Concerning DOJ s decision pre-clearance $ No Charge

92 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 4 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No. 4 03/12/12 Receipt and review of multiple Notices Of Appearance for additional attorneys For the Department of Justice..10 $ $ /12/12 Receipt and review of Motion to Intervene By The Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches and MALC; review same..30 $ $ /12/12 Receipt and review of Motion for Leave To File Amended Complaint by The State of Texas with associated exhibits; review Authorities cited in same $ $ /13/12 Receipt and review of Docket Entry from Court Setting A Telephonic Conference for March 14, 2012 at 4:30 p.m.; arrange calendar To attend same..20 $ $ /14/12 Attend Telephone Conference Hearing with Three Judge Court $ $ /14/12 Participate in Conference Call with other Parties to meet and confer concerning pending Motions..40 $ $ /15/12 Receipt and review of proposed Scheduling Order from Adam Aston; review same and Offer edits..10 $ $ /15/12 Receipt and review of Court Order Granting Various Motions to Intervene and allowing Leave to Amend Complaint; also scheduling A Telephonic Conference for March 21, $ $ /15/12 Conference with Gerry Hebert concerning Court rulings..40 $ No Charge 03/15/12 Receipt and review of Answer to Complaint By MALC and The United States..10 $ $ /15/12 Make final edits of Answer to Complaint And file same with the Court on behalf of Kennie Intervenors..50 $ $ /16/12 Conference call with other Intervenors Concerning scheduling matters..50 $ No Charge

93 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 5 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No. 5 03/16/12 Participate in Conference Call with Intervenors And DOJ concerning scheduling matters $ No Charge 03/16/12 Receipt and review of Notice of Appearance For Ezra Rosenberg..10 $ No Charge 03/19/12 Receipt and review of Court Order Granting Motion to Appear for Ezra Rosenberg..10 $ $ /19/12 Receipt and review of Notice of Appearance For Daniel Freeman on behalf of The United States..10 $ $ /19/12 Receipt and review of Motion to Intervene By The Texas League of Young Voters Education Fund..20 $ $ /19/12 Conference call with clients and co-counsel Concerning preparation for Discovery and Trial in the Photo ID case $ No Charge 03/19/12 Exchange correspondence with DOJ and The State of Texas concerning Modifications to The Proposed Scheduling Order..30 $ $ /19/12 Conference call with John Tanner concerning Pending Photo ID case..30 $ No Charge 03/19/12 Receipt and review of letter from Department Of Justice concerning the identities of Texas Legislature members they wish to depose; also Requesting documents; compare same with Draft request for documents the Intervenors Were preparing..30 $ $ /20/12 Receipt and review of Notice of Appearance For Bruce Gear for The United States..10 $ No Charge 03/20/12 Receipt and review of Notice of Appearance For The Texas League of Young Voters..10 $ No Charge 03/20/12 Arrange for and participate in conference call Of Intervenors in The United States concerning Discovery and scheduling matters..40 $ $ /20/12 Draft and edit Initial Rule 26 Disclosures to File in Photo ID case; forward to Gerry Hebert for changes $ $

94 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 6 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No. 6 03/21/12 Conference with Intervenor s counsel Concerning The State s proposal regarding Interrogatories..10 $ $ /21/12 Participate in conference call with Three Judge Court concerning Discovery, scheduling And multiple issues in Photo ID case $ $ /21/12 Receive edits to initial disclosures, finalize Same and serve on all counsel $ $ /21/12 Receipt and review of Joint Proposed Scheduling Orders, suggest same and review final filing Of Proposed Scheduling Order with Court..20 $ $ /21/12 Receipt and review of Notice of Appearance By Gerry Hebert..10 $ No Charge 03/21/12 Receipt and review of Joint Status Report Prepared by DOJ, suggest edits to same..20 $ $ /21/12 Receipt and review of Motion for Leave To Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Multiple NAACP attorneys..10 $ No Charge 03/21/12 Receipt and review of Docket Entry Scheduling Another Telephonic Conference With Court on April 3, $ $ /22/12 Receipt and review of Court Orders concerning Intervention and Pro Hac Vice Motions..10 $ $ /22/12 Receipt and review of Notice of Appearance For Matthew Frederick..10 $ No Charge 03/22/12 Receipt and review of the Answer to Amended Complaint filed by the Texas League of Young Voters..20 $ $ /22/12 Receipt and review of draft electronic Discovery Agreement; suggest changes to same; review Multiple exchange of s concerning the Electronic Discovery Agreement; review Appearance of Final Agreement filed with the Court..50 $ $

95 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 7 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No. 7 03/22/12 Receipt and review of Motion For Protective Order by The State of Texas; review Authorities included in same..10 $ $ /22/12 Exchange multiple correspondence among The Intervenors concerning document requests And discovery requests from the Intervenor Group; suggest edits and additions to same; Participate in multiple telephone conferences Concerning same $ $ /23/12 Receipt and review of final interrogatories Propounded by Intervenors..20 $ $ /23/12 Receipt and review of filings by The United States and by The State of Texas concerning Timing of upcoming election; review Affidavit of Keith Ingram; investigate Keith Ingram s recent appointment to The Secretary of State s office; review authorities recited in both pleadings $ $ /23/12 Conference with co-counsel concerning The State of Texas position concerning the Timing of trial and upcoming election..20 $ No Charge 03/23/12 Receipt and review of Motion to Intervene By the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project..20 $ $ /26/12 Receipt and review of Opposition filed by The State of Texas to Motions to Intervene..20 $ $ /26/12 Conference call with Dan Freeman at the Department of Justice concerning Photo ID Case..20 $ $ /27/12 Participate in conference call with Intervenor s Counsel concerning Discovery, scheduling, Depositions and multiple other issues $ $ /27/12 Receipt and review of Court Scheduling Order setting trial for July 9, 2012 and setting Other Discovery Deadlines; calendar same; Conference call with Gerry Hebert concerning Same..30 $ $

96 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 8 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No. 8 03/27/12 Prepare for and attend telephone conference With Court concerning data base disclosure..50 $ $ /27/12 Receipt and review of Court Docket Entry Order setting deadlines and requiring the Parties to take certain action concerning Production of data bases..20 $ $ /27/12 Receipt and review of Court Docket Entry Adjusting Scheduling Order Deadlines..10 $ $ /27/12 Receipt and review of Motion For Protective Order by The Department of Justice; review Authorities cited in same..20 $ $ /27/12 Receipt and review of draft prepared by Mark Posner for Intervenor s Opposition To The State s Brief Asserting Privilege; Provide edits to same..40 $ $ /27/12 Conference call with Senator Ellis office Concerning a Scheduled Interview between The Senator and The Department of Justice On Photo ID..50 $ $ /28/12 Receipt and review of The Texas Legislative Black Caucus Reply and Opposition to Motion to Intervene..50 $ No Charge 03/29/12 Receipt and review of The State of Texas Notice of Confidential Data Information..30 $ No Charge 03/29/12 Receipt and review of The State of Texas Briefing Concerning Motion For Protective Order; review attached evidence concerning Alleged Kennie criminal history; review Public data bases to confirm Kennie had No felony convictions $ $ /29/12 Receipt and review of multiple Oppositions To the Request by The State of Texas to Receive a Protective Order..50 $ $ /29/12 Receipt and review of The United States Motion For Leave To File A Reply Memorandum..10 $ $ 37.50

97 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 9 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No. 9 03/29/12 Receive multiple drafts of the Confidentiality Brief to be filed by Intervenors concerning The State of Texas request for Protective Order; provide edits to multiple versions And correspond with other Intervenor Counsel $ $ /30/12 Receipt and review of multiple Minute Entries from the Court issuing various Rulings on Discovery and data base Exchange..20 $ $ /30/12 Prepare for and attend telephone conference With Judge Colyer concerning data base Issues..80 $ $ /30/12 Receipt and review of Order by Three Judges concerning Protective Order requested By State..40 $ $ /30/12 Receipt and review of The State of Texas Responses to Interrogatories and Request For Production; review same..40 $ $ /31/12 Receipt and review of Encryption Code for Discovery Responses by The United States; Review Discovery Responses by The United States $ $ /02/12 Multiple conferences and s concerning Dividing up document production for consideration By Intervenors counsel $ $ /02/12 Receipt and review of Court Minute Entry Orders granting a number Pro Hac Vice Motions..10 $ $ /02/12 Receipt and review of The State of Texas Reply concerning Protective Order..10 $ $ /03/12 Receipt and review of Minute Entry Order From Court requesting certain actions by The State of Texas..10 $ $ /03/12 Conference call with John Tanner concerning Preparation of evidence for trial..20 $ $ 75.00

98 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 10 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No /03/12 Receive a draft of letter to The State concerning Discovery issues from Ezra Rosenberg; provide Edits to same..20 $ $ /03/12 Receipt and review of The State of Texas Motion to File Documents Under Seal..10 $ $ /03/12 Receipt and review of sealed documents File by The State of Texas concerning Alleged criminal record by Eric Kennie..50 $ $ /03/12 Attend telephone conference between Three Judge Court $ $ /04/12 Receipt and review of Errata Sheet filed The State of Texas concerning its Amended Complaint..10 $ $ /04/12 Receipt and review of Amended Motion to Intervenor by The Texas Legislative Black Caucus..40 $ No Charge 04/04/12 Participate in conference call of Intervenors Counsel concerning multiple issues $ $ /05/812 Provide edits to Discovery letter prepared By Intervenors counsel to send to The State Of Texas..10 $ $ /05/12 Receipt and review of Court Docket Entry Denying As Moot a Motion For Leave to File Reply on the Protective Orders..10 $ $ /05/12 Receipt and review of Appearances from Multiple Counsel for Intervenors..10 $ No Charge 04/05/12 Conference with Gerry Hebert concerning Preparation of declarations for Senators Ellis, Davis and Representative Veasey..20 $ $ /05/12 Exchange multiple s with members of The Legislature and co-counsel concerning Preparation of Sworn Declaration by Legislators $ $ /06/12 Exchange multiple s concerning Scheduling of an additional Court conference Regarding discovery issues..20 $ $ 75.00

99 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 11 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No /06/12 Conference call with John Tanner concerning Witness preparation for upcoming Photo ID Trial..20 $ $ /09/12 Participate in conference call among Intervenors Counsel to divide up deposition attendance Among counsel $ $ /09/12 Exchange documents with John Tanner Concerning declarations for use in elections By persons without ID..20 $ $ /09/12 Receipt and review of The Department of Justice s Answer to the Amended Complaint..10 $ $ /10/12 Prepare for and participate in telephone Conference with Court concerning Discovery Disputes $ $ /10/12 Receipt and review of The Department of Justice s Memorandum concerning Discovery Issues for today s telephone conference with Court..40 $ $ /10/12 Participate in conference call between Intervenors, DOJ, and The State of Texas to Meet and confer on Discovery issues..30 $ $ /11/12 Receipt and review of initial list of deponents Requested by Intervenors from Amy Rudd; Provide edits to same and propose additional Deponents; exchange edited draft to Intervenor Counsel $ $ /11/12 Conference call with Nancy Abudu concerning Preparation of list of people to depose..20 $ $ /12/12 Receipt and review of letter from The Department Of Justice of The State of Texas concerning Its failure to produce a number of s and Other documents requested in Document Production..20 $ $ /12/12 Exchange multiple s concerning data Base issues regarding voter registration and social security numbers..20 $ $ 75.00

100 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 12 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No /12/12 Participate in multiple s between Intervenors and The State of Texas regarding The scheduling of 30(b)(6) deposition over Data base issues..20 $ $ /12/12 Receipt and review of multiple transcripts From Matthew Frederick from The State Of Texas concerning House Committee s On Photo ID bill..20 $ $ /13/12 Participate in conference call of Intervenors Counsel regarding scheduling and Discovery Issues $ $ /13/12 Receipt and review of Court Minute Order Granting multiple motions to intervene and Also directing Intervenors to identify a Single attorney to examine deponents at Depositions..20 $ $ /13/12 Receipt and review of multiple answers to Amended Complaint filed by Intervenors..20 $ $ /13/12 Receipt and review of Reply filed by The State of Texas..10 $ $ /14/12 Receipt and review of the Supplemental Initial Disclosures by The United States..30 $ $ /15/12 Conference with Intervenors counsel Concerning correspondence with The State on Discovery issues..20 $ $ /16/12 Receipt and review of letter from The Department of Justice to The State of Texas concerning additional deficiencies In The State s document production and The State s provided privilege log..30 $ $ /16/12 Participate in conference call with the Court concerning multiple Discovery issues..70 $ $ /16/12 Receipt and review of multiple s from The State of Texas providing legislative Histories..30 $ $

101 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 13 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No /16/12 Conference call with The State of Texas and The United States conferring on multiple Discovery issues..50 $ $ /16/12 Conference call with Gerry Hebert concerning Multiple matters of Photo ID case $ No Charge 04/16/12 Receipt and review of draft of Motion to Postpone the Trial; provide edits to same..20 $ $ /16/12 Conference call with co-intervenors counsel Concerning multiple outstanding Discovery Issues $ No Charge 04/17/112 Receipt and review of Notice of Disputed Discovery issues filed by The Attorney General..20 $ $ /17/12 Receipt and review of Minute Order requesting The United States file by April 23 rd its Motion For Clarification Upon The Trial Date..10 $ $ /17/12 Participate in telephone conference with Court Concerning a number of issues..40 $ $ /18/12 Participate in conference call among Intervenors to divide up Discovery and Deposition issues $ $ /18/12 Begin edits to prepare Answer to Amended Complaint filed by The State of Texas $ $ /18/12 Exchange multiple s regarding Search term to be used The State of Texas in Producing legislative s..50 $ $ /18/12 Participate in conference call of Intervenors Counsel to work through Discovery and Scheduling issues and divide up matters among Intervenor counsel..80 $ $ /18/12 Participate in conference call with other Members of the deponent team for Intervenors To determine who should be deposed and who Would cover certain depositions; exchange s among Intervenors explaining our findings $ $

102 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 14 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No /19/12 Receipt and review from Gerry Hebert Changes to Amended Complaint; incorporate Same; File same with the Court $ $ /19/12 Begin preparation of and edits to a deposition Outline for upcoming legislator depositions $ $ /19/12 Exchange of multiple s with Intervenor Counsel concerning searches to be Performed by The State of Texas on legislative s..50 $ $ /19/12 Research foreign languages available on Registration Cards and The State of Texas Proposed election documents concerning Photo ID..40 $ $ /20/12 Receipt and review of draft concerning postpone- Ment of trial brief and provide edits to same..20 $ $ /20/12 Receipt and review of The State of Texas Supplemental document production and responses To Interrogatories..50 $ $ /20/12 Receipt and review of Court Order Denying a Motion For Protective Order..20 $ $ /20/12 Receipt and review of The State of Texas Notice Regarding subpoena..10 $ $ /23/12 Conference call with Senator Ellis office concerning Photo ID case and his testimony..30 $ $ /23/12 Receipt and review of Motion to Clarify Schedule Filed by The Department of Justice..40 $ $ /23/12 Multiple conference calls and exchange of s With Intervenors counsel concerning depositions That are desired to take and priority in scheduling Such depositions $ $ /24/12 Receipt and review of Brief filed by The State Of Texas concerning legislative privilege Assertion..50 $ $ /24/12 Gather together legislative privilege research Performed in other cases and forward same to Co-counsel for Intervenors..20 $ $ 75.00

103 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 15 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No /25/12 Participate in telephone conference with The State and The United States on a meet and Confer for several discovery issues $ $ /25/12 Receipt and review of multiple Docket Entries By the Court concerning corrected docket entries And resetting deadlines; also receipt and review Of Court Notice concerning transcript availability Of proceedings..10 $ $ /25/12 Receipt and review of Motion to Compel the Production of Documents and Privilege Log filed By The United States against The State of Texas..20 $ $ /26/12 Receipt and review from Gerry Hebert form Objections and answers to Texas Interrogatories Used in a redistricting case; begin edits and changes To those two; provided interrogatory responses to The State on behalf of the Kennie Intervenors $ $ /26/12 Receipt and review of Scheduling Order entered In the South Carolina Photo ID case and review Applicability to Texas case..10 $ $ /27/12 Participate in conference call of Intervenors Counsel coordinating responses to The State of Texas Interrogatories and requests for production Propounded to all the Intervenors $ $ /27/12 Receipt and review of multiple s seeking Additional telephone conference with the Court Regarding discovery issues..10 $ $ /27/12 Research media reports concerning in person Voter fraud in Texas over the last ten (10) years $ $ /27/12 Prepare Verifications to be signed by each Plaintiff in response to their Interrogatories..80 $ $ /27/12 Multiple conferences with clients concerning Their responses to discovery and interrogatories. 1.8 $ $ /27/12 Receipt and review of discovery requests Propounded to Kennie Intervenors by The State Of Texas..40 $ $

104 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 16 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No /27/12 Conference with Gerry Hebert regarding Answering The State of Texas discovery Requests..30 $ No Charge 04/27/12 Receipt and review of The State s response To DOJ s Motion to Clarify The Trial Schedule..20 $ $ /27/12 Receipt and review of The State s Advisory Regarding discovery..20 $ $ /27/12 Receipt and review of letter from The State Of Texas concerning the data base fields and The drivers license data base..20 $ $ /30/12 Continue to work with clients to prepare their Responses to Interrogatories and requests for Production $ $1, /30/12 Receipt and review of The State of Texas Response and Motion to Compel filed by The United States..20 $ $ /30/12 Prepare for and participate in Court telephone Hearing regarding data base issues..40 $ $ /01/12 Receipt and review of Court Order scheduling Status Conference for May 3, $ $ /01/12 Continue working on drafts of Interrogatories And requests for production responses for each Of the Kennie Intervenors $ $1, /01/12 Conference call with Gerry Hebert concerning Responses to discovery..40 $ No Charge 05/01/12 Conference call with and coordinate receiving Signed Verifications from each of the Kennie Intervenors..80 $ $ /02/12 Receipt and review of The State of Texas Advisory concerning data base production..10 $ $ /02/12 Participate and meet and confer conference Call between The State of Texas, Intervenors And The United States..60 $ $

105 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 17 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No /02/12 Continue edits and finalize responses to Interrogatories and requests for production to The State of Texas; continue collecting signed Verifications from Kennie Intervenors to Accompany responses to discovery $ $1, /02/12 Receipt and review of requests for admissions Propounded by The State of Texas..20 $ $ /02/12 Receipt and review of documents pulled from The State s document production concerning Average wait times at DPS Drivers License Offices..20 $ $ /02/12 Conference call with Ezra Rosenberg concerning Various discovery issues and the scheduling of Upcoming depositions..40 $ $ /03/12 Receipt and review of Court Minute Order Requiring The State of Texas to produce certain Fields to the Team data base..10 $ $ /03/12 Receipt and review of Motion for Protective Order from The United States concerning the Social Security data base..20 $ $ /03/12 Receipt and review of The United States responses To Motion to Compel..20 $ $ /03/12 Participate in conference call with the Court of Three Judges including the testimony of Secretary of State employee Keith Ingram $ $ /03/12 Provided drafts of responses to The State of Texas discovery by Kennie Intervenors to other Intervenors counsel to coordinate responses; Receive suggestions and return..50 $ $ /03/12 Receipt and review of responses to discovery Propounded by The State of Texas to other Intervenors..20 $ $ /04/12 Receipt and review of letter from The Department Of Justice to The State of Texas arranging for The scheduling of multiple legislator and other Witness depositions..20 $ $ 75.00

106 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 18 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No /04/12 Receipt and review of Notice of Data Base Production by The State of Texas..20 $ $ /04/12 Receipt and review of Minute Order from Court requiring a report by May 8 th of various Issues related to data base production..20 $ $ /07/12 Receipt and review of multiple advisories Concerning data base production..40 $ $ /07/12 Exchange multiple between counsel Arranging for and scheduling multiple legislator Depositions..40 $ $ /07/12 Participate in conference call with The Department Of Justice concerning upcoming depositions Witnesses in Texas..80 $ $ /07/12 Receipt and review of The Department of Justice s letter to The State of Texas concerning Their assertion of privilege concerning various Documents..20 $ $ /07/12 Receipt and review of letter from The Department of Justice to The State of Texas Regarding production as a Team data base..10 $ $ /07/12 Receipt and review of multiple responses to The State of Texas requests for admissions..20 $ $ /08/12 Participate in telephone conference before Three Judge Court $ $ /08/12 Participate in conference call of Intervenors Counsel regarding deposition and discovery Issues $ $ /08/12 Continue edits to Kennie Intervenors responses To discovery with request to the requests for Admissions propounded The State; conference With each client concerning admissions Responses $ $1, /08/12 Conference call with Gerry Hebert regarding Responses to admissions..40 $ No Charge

107 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 19 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No /08/12 Receipt and review of multiple discovery Responses to The State s requests by other Intervenors..50 $ No Charge 05/08/12 Receipt and review of letter from The State Of Texas concerning alleged deficiencies in The Kennie Intervenors responses to discovery..20 $ $ /08/12 Conference call with Gerry Hebert concerning The State of Texas complaints with Kennie Intervenors responses to discovery..40 $ No Charge 05/09/12 Receipt and review of Court s Minute Order Concerning multiple data base document Production issues..20 $ $ /09/12 Receipt and review of The State of Texas Filings under seal, and Motion to Support Same..10 $ $ /09/12 Conference with The State of Texas regarding Its Motion to Extend The Time To Respond To The Court s Trial Schedule questions..10 $ $ /09/12 Receipt and review of The State of Texas Motion For Extension of Time..10 $ $ /09/12 Receipt and review of Court Order Granting Motion For Extension of Time..10 $ $ /09/12 Exchange s with Intervenor counsel and Images of voter registration cards concerning The conflicting language on the back of the Voter registration card concerning photo id And its inaccuracy based on the law..20 $ $ /09/12 Participate in conference call among Intervenor Counsels regarding depositions and multiple Other discovery issues $ $ /09/12 Participate in conference call among Intervenor Deponent Team concerning additional depositions To request..30 $ $ /09/12 Conference call with Nancy Abudu concerning Scheduling upcoming depositions..20 $ $ 75.00

108 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 20 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No /09/12 Receipt and review of letter from The United States to The State of Texas concerning Protective Order issues..10 $ $ /09/12 Begin preparing form deposition outline for Upcoming legislator depositions $ $ /10/12 Continue working on deposition outline for Legislator depositions to be used by Intervenor Counsel $ $ /10/12 Exchange multiple s regarding The State Of Texas Motion on Protective Order..10 $ $ /10/12 Receipt and review of Intervenors draft Brief In Opposition To Motion For Protective Order And provide edits to same..40 $ $ /10/12 Prepare Motion For Leave To Appear Pro Hac Vice for K. Scott Brazil and Order In Support So that Mr. Brazil can assist with covering of Depositions; file same with the Court..40 $ $ /10/12 Conference call with Ezra Rosenberg regarding Dividing up of upcoming depositions among Counsel..10 $ $ /10/12 Continue conference calls with Intervenor Deponent Team to ensure a comprehensive Lists of Deponents and to discuss each issue We hope to learn from each deponent $ $ /11/12 Finalize draft of Kennie Intervenors Responses To Admissions and send draft to Gerry Hebert for his edits $ $ /11/12 Receipt and review of Gerry Hebert s Changes to Admissions; incorporate same; Finalize and send documents..80 $ $ /11/12 Conference call with The State of Texas Concerning Kennie Intervenors Discovery Responses..10 $ $ /11/12 Receipt and review of multiple Docket Entries and associated documents concerning Data base discovery $ No Charge

109 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 21 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No /12/12 Receipt and review of Deposition Notices From The State of Texas for Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions of MALC and NAACP..20 $ $ /12/12 Make flight and hotel accommodations for Upcoming Photo ID trial $ No Charge 05/13/12 Conference call with Intervenor counsel Concerning upcoming Rule 30(b)(6) depositions Of organizational intervenor defendants..50 $ No Charge 05/13/12 Finalize edits to proposed deposition outline For upcoming depositions and forward same To Intervenor counsel $ $ /14/12 Receipt and review of Deposition Notice From The State of Texas concerning Kennie Intervenors and conference call with The State of Texas regarding more appropriate Dates..30 $ $ /14/12 Conference call with clients to arrange their Availability for deposition..50 $ $ /14/12 Receipt and review of new information Concerning Texas DPS s requirements of Documentation to obtain driver s license Just issued..20 $ $ /14/12 Participate in conference call with Intervenor Counsel to coordinate upcoming depositions..30 $ $ /14/12 Travel to and from Austin, Texas to attend The deposition of Koby Bueck $ No Charge 05/14/12 Participate in the deposition of Koby Bueck $ $2, /15/12 Receipt and review of edits to deposition Outline from Intervenors counsel; incorporate Same..20 $ $ /15/12 Participate in deposition of Senator Troy Fraser $ $2, /15/12 Receipt and review of The United States Request for conference call to the Court Concerning outgoing depositions and Legislative privilege..10 $ $ 37.50

110 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 22 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No /15/12 Conference call with Gerry Hebert concerning Status of ongoing depositions..40 $ No Charge 05/16/12 Participate in conference call with Court regarding Legislative privilege issues as it relates to Depositions..80 $ $ /16/12 Conference call with Gerry Hebert concerning The State of Texas objections to our discovery Responses..30 $ No Charge 05/16/12 Conference call with John Tanner regarding Election Day form for use by poll watchers Concerning Photo ID..20 $ $ /16/12 Participate in conference call with other members Of the Intervenor Deponents Team to discuss Additional depositions to request and the Schedule for already scheduled depositions $ $ /17/12 Travel to and from Austin, Texas to attend Depositions $ No Charge 05/17/12 Participate in deposition of Senator Troy Fraser $ $2, /17/12 Receipt and review of Court Order by Judge Wilkins concerning legislative privilege and Depositions; review same and conference call With other attorneys covering depositions..30 $ $ /17/12 Receipt and review of the model ALEC Voter ID loan compared to SB $ $ /17/12 Coordinate with Nancy Abudu concerning Deposition issues and coordinating those Issues to remaining Intervenor counsel..20 $ $ /17/12 Conference call with Gerry Hebert concerning Several issues..80 $ No Charge 05/17/12 Conference call with Gerry Hebert regarding The State of Texas request to depose State Representative Mark Veasey and the Applicability of legislative privilege to such Deposition..30 $ $

111 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 23 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No /17/12 Conference call with Elizabeth Westfall at Department of Justice concerning depositions..20 $ $ /18/12 Participate in conference call with Three Judge Court $ $ /18/12 Participate in conference call with Intervenors Counsel to divide up work and handle discovery And deposition issues $ $ /18/12 Receipt and review of Docket Entry showing Notice of Appearance for law firm of Bartlit Beck for The State of Texas; investigate named Attorneys..20 $ No Charge 05/18/12 Participate in conference call with Three Judge Court $ $ /18/12 Receipt and review of The State of Texas Response to the Court s Order concerning Discovery requests..20 $ $ /18/12 Receipt and review of The United States Reply and Opposition to Motion For Protective Order..10 $ $ /19/12 Confer with the Intervenor Deponent Team to Discuss past and future depositions and make Recommendations to the Intervenor Group $ $ /19/12 Receipt and review of draft of transcript for Senator Fraser s deposition; review for excerpts To use in Motion to Reschedule Senator Fraser s deposition $ $ /20/12 Receipt and review of draft Brief from Intervenors concerning discovery issues; Provide edits to same and return..40 $ $ /21/12 Multiple s and telephone conferences To arrange Representative Veasey s deposition In Fort Worth $ $ /21/12 Arrange for conference space in Austin, Texas For depositions of Senator Wendy Davis and Intervenor Kennie..20 $ $ 75.00

112 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 24 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No /21/12 Receipt and review of past deposition for Secretary of State employee Anne McGeehan..20 $ $ /21/12 Review the witness folders created on the Intervenor shared network system for documents To use in depositions $ $ /21/12 Receipt and review of Motion To Compel filed By The State of Texas..20 $ $ /21/12 Receipt and review of The State of Texas Objection to the scheduling of the deposition Of Dewhurst..10 $ $ /21/12 Receipt and review of The State of Texas Motion For Protective Order concerning the Dewhurst deposition..20 $ $ /21/12 Receipt and review of Motion to Compel Production of documents and testimony by Intervenors..10 $ $ /21/12 Receipt and review of The United States Motion To Compel The State of Texas to Produce documents and testimony..20 $ $ /21/12 Conference call with Gerry Hebert regarding Multiple issues..50 $ No Charge 05/22/12 Receipt and review of Court Order Denying The Motion to Move The Trial Date..30 $ $ /22/12 Conference call with Gerry Hebert concerning Potential expert witnesses..40 $ $ /22/12 Conference call with multiple individuals Concerning consideration of their giving Expert testimony in the Photo ID case..60 $ $ /22/12 Conference call with Senator Ellis concerning His upcoming deposition and testimony in the Case..30 $ $ /22/12 Conference call with The State of Texas Concerning witnesses Kennie Intervenors intend To call at trial and therefore necessitate Deposition..20 $ $ 75.00

113 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 25 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No /22/12 Conference call with Ezra Rosenberg concerning Deposition issues..10 $ $ /23/12 Exchange multiple s concerning Scheduling a conference with the Department Of Justice to discuss multiple issues and Preparation for trial..20 $ $ /23/12 Conference call with the Brennan Center Attorneys concerning depositions taken of Kennie Intervenors..20 $ $ /23/12 Conference with Gerry Hebert and Alan Lichtman concerning his testimony as an Expert in the upcoming case..10 $ $ /24/12 Coordinate with Senator Ellis staff the Scheduling of his upcoming deposition..20 $ $ /24/12 Receipt and review of Court s Order concerning The State of Texas Motion of Extension of Time to Produce Privilege Logs..10 $ $ /24/12 Receipt and review of the Department of Justice s Notice concerning privilege Log..10 $ $ /24/12 Receipt and review of multiple motions and Responses concerning Motions to Compel..30 $ $ /24/12 Conference call with Intervenor Deponent Team to discuss additional depositions needed Before discovery period ends..50 $ $ /24/12 Conference call with Senator Davis office To schedule her deposition..20 $ $ /25/12 Receipt and review of an Evidence and Proof Chart prepared by Dechert; make changes to Same; review and consider in light of the Depositions taken..50 $ $ /25/12 Receipt and review of letter from The Department Of Justice to The State of Texas regarding its Assertion of legislative privilege over the Governor and Lieutenant Governor..20 $ $ 75.00

114 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 26 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No /25/12 Multiple conferences to schedule Senator Davis Deposition and location..20 $ $ /25/12 Receipt and review of letter from The State Of Texas to the Court regarding privilege Issues..10 $ $ /25/12 Receipt and review of Court providing Instructions of the exchange of documents In light of recent Court Orders..10 $ $ /25/12 Receipt and review of a number Deposition Notices from The State of Texas and schedule Same..10 $ $ /25/12 Receipt and review of Deposition Notices for Senators Ellis and Davis and forward same to Them and their staff..20 $ $ /25/12 Exchange s with The State of Texas Concerning accommodations for deposition And disclosure of additional potential trial Witnesses..10 $ $ /26/12 Receipt and review of Deposition Notice Issues by The United States for a Major Mitchell and calendar same..10 $ $ /26/12 Receipt and review of The State of Texas Notice of Compliance With Court s Orders Filed with the Court..10 $ $ /27/12 Receipt and review of draft Reply by Intervenors on legislative privilege issues; Offer commits and confer with co-counsel..20 $ $ /28/12 Receipt and review of Court Order concerning The Lieutenant Governor privilege discovery Dispute..10 $ $ /29/12 Travel to and from Austin, Texas to attend Deposition $ No Charge 05/29/12 Participate in deposition of Michael Schofield $ $2,325.00

115 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 27 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No /29/12 Exchange s with Intervenors counsel Dividing up upcoming depositions for Coverage; telephone conference call with Ezra Rosenberg..30 $ $ /29/12 Receipt and review of The States of Texas Notice of Depositions for Veasey, Burns and Kennie; forward same for Deponents and confirm deposition Locations are available..50 $ $ /29/12 Conference call with Intervenors counsel Regarding issuing deposition notices for Deniece Davis and Karina Davis..20 $ $ /29/12 Conference call with Gerry Hebert and Eric Kennie regarding his upcoming deposition..30 $ $ /29/12 Receipt and review from The State of Texas A draft Motion To Alter Scheduling Order..10 $ $ /29/12 Conference call with Gerry Hebert concerning The State of Texas proposed Scheduling Order modifications..20 $ No Charge 05/29/12 Receipt and review of multiple reply and Responses concerning Motions to Compel Filed by The State of Texas and The Department of Justice..50 $ $ /30/12 Conference call with Intervenors counsel Regarding Intervenors position on The State of Texas Motion to Modify Scheduling Order..20 $ $ /30/12 Participate in conference call with The State of Texas and Intervenors counsel Concerning position on Scheduling Order..30 $ $ /30/12 Conference call with Senator Davis office To arrange preparation time for her Deposition..10 $ $ /30/12 [Scott Brazil] Travel to and from Austin, Texas to attend Photo ID depositions $ No Charge 05/30/12 [Scott Brazil] Attend the deposition of Brian Birdwell $ $2,325.00

116 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 28 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No /30/12 Travel to and from Austin, Texas to attend Depositions $ No Charge 05/30/12 Participate in deposition of Senator Dan Patrick $ $2, /30/12 [Scott Brazil] Attend the deposition of Brian Birdwell $ $2, /31/12 [Scott Brazil]Participate in deposition of Representative Gonzales $ $2, /31/12 Conference call with The State of Texas Regarding their request to move Senator Davis deposition..20 $ $ /31/12 Conference call with Gerry Hebert regarding Reviewing depositions and creating Designations..50 $ $ /31/12 Receipt and review of The State of Texas Amended Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice Of League of Women Voters..10 $ $ /01/12 Receipt and review of draft Memorandum In Opposition to the Motion To Modify Scheduling Order; receipt and review of Final filed with the Court..10 $ $ /01/12 Receipt and review and exchange Correspondence regarding procedure to Follow to exchange or file expert disclosures..10 $ $ /01/12 Conference call with Intervenors counsel Regarding Senators Van De Putte and Zaffirini as well as election officials from Various counties to be called as witnesses At trial..30 $ $ /01/12 Conference call with Representative Dukes Concerning her testimony as a witness in The Photo ID case..50 $ $ /01/12 Receipt and review of The State of Texas Designation of Experts; review expert Reports and consider experts to hire in Response; contact with several potential

117 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 29 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No. 29 Experts $ $1, /01/12 Conference call with Gerry Hebert regarding The State of Texas expert designation..50 $ No Charge 06/02/12 Receipt and review of The United States Designation of Experts; consider in light of Experts contacted to be used on behalf of Kennie Intervenors $ $ /02/12 Exchange s with Intervenors counsel Dividing up upcoming depositions for Coverage..20 $ $ /03/12 Exchange s with The State of Texas Regarding retaining the schedule of deposition For Senator Davis and Kennie; also discuss Scheduling other depositions of potential Trial witnesses..20 $ $ /04/12 Conference call with Gerry Hebert and Dr. Lichtman concerning preparation of his Report.20 $ $ /04/12 Conference call with co-counsel concerning Deposition summaries..10 $ $ /04/12 Conference call with Dallas County election Officials concerning affects of Photo ID on Election administration in preparation of a Declaration concerning same $ $ /05/12 Conference call with Intervenors counsel To divide up additional deposition scheduled..20 $ $ /05/12 Receipt and review of additional Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notices issued by The State of Texas..10 $ $ /05/12 Prepare, edit and provide The State of Texas Amended Responses to Disclosures..40 $ $ /05/12 Conference call with Intervenors counsel Concerning issuing Third Party subpoenas For trial..10 $ $ /05/12 Receipt and review of Motion to Compel by The United States..10 $ $ 37.50

118 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 30 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No /05/12 Receipt and review of Order by Court Concerning Motion to Compel..20 $ $ /05/12 Receipt and review of Court Order regarding Specific documents that must be turned over By The State of Texas..10 $ $ /05/12 Receipt and review of The Unite States response Concerning Modifying the Scheduling Order..10 $ $ /06/12 Travel to and from Austin, Texas to attend Depositions $ No Charge 06/06/12 Conference with Senator Wendy Davis to Prepare for deposition $ $ /06/12 Present and prepare Senator Wendy Davis for deposition Taken by The State of Texas $ $ 1, /06/12 Present and prepare Eric Kennie for deposition Taken by The State of Texas $ /06/12 Receipt and review of Court Order requiring Responses to Motion to Compel by June 7 th..10 $ $ /06/12 Conference call with Intervenors counsel about Obtaining an Extension To Produce Expert Reports..10 $ $ /06/12 Receipt and review of rough draft of Senator Davis deposition transcript; review of same For errors; forward same to Senator Davis Office for review..50 $ $ /06/12 Conference call with The State of Texas Regarding Reconvening Representative Harless deposition..20 $ $ /06/12 Conference call with Intervenors counsel Regarding using Buck Wood as an expert..20 $ $ /07/12 Prepare Intervenors Veasey and Burns for Their depositions $ $ /07/12 Present Intervenors Veasey and Burns for Depositions taken by The State of Texas $ $2,437.50

119 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 31 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No /07/12 Travel to and from Fort Worth, Texas $ No Charge 06/07/12 [Scott Brazil] Travel and from Austin, Texas to attend depositions $ No Charge 06/07/12 [Scott Brazil] Attend deposition of Senator Robert Duncan $ $2, /07/12 Conference call with Department of Justice Regarding logistics for Representative Veasey deposition..10 $ $ /07/12 Multiple conferences with Buck Wood; prepare Initial draft of Wood Expert Report; go over Report with Buck Wood and make changes To same and forward first final draft of Wood Report to other Intervenors counsel for Suggestions $ $2, /07/12 Conference call with Anne Burns concerning Her deposition and the case..20 $ $ /07/12 Receipt and review of additional briefing on Adjustments to the Scheduling Order..10 $ $ /07/12 Receipt and review of Order from Judge Tatel concerning the Motion to Compel..10 $ $ /07/12 Receipt and review of Court Minute Orders Altering the Scheduling Order..10 $ $ /07/12 Exchange s with The State of Texas And the Court Clerk regarding the Kennie Intervenors Seeking to Reconvene the Deposition of Harless..20 $ $ /08/12 [Scott Brazil] Travel to and from Austin, Texas to attend depositions $ No Charge 06/08/12 [Scott Brazil] Attend deposition of Carlos Uresti $ $2, /08/12 Receipt and review of Court Order Reopening The Representative Harless Deposition at Kennie Intervenors request..10 $ $ /08/12 Incorporate edits to the Buck Wood Expert Report and finalize same $ $1,012.50

120 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 32 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No /08/12 Conference call with The Department of Justice s office concerning the cancellation Of the Montez and Pope deposition in light Of the fact The State of Texas never issued A deposition notice..20 $ $ /08/12 Receipt and review of numerous deposition Transcripts and review a few to determine Case issues..70 $ $ /08/12 Exchange correspondence with The State of Texas concerning the deposition of Ms. Burns and other discovery issues..20 $ $ /08/12 Conference call with Gerry Hebert concerning Response to The State of Texas complaints About discovery and Ms. Burns deposition And document production..40 $ No Charge 06/08/12 Receipt and review of expert report of Dr. Engstrom and Dr. Florez..20 $ $ /09/12 Receipt and review of Deposition Notice For the Reconvening of Senator Fraser s Deposition..10 $ $ /11/12 Conference call with co-counsel concerning Preparation of deposition summaries..10 $ $ /11/12 Receipt and review of multiple deposition Notices for various parties and witnesses..20 $ $ /11/12 Receipt and review of letter from The State Of Texas to The Department of Justice Concerning the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition Notice of Texas issued..20 $ $ /12/12 Receipt and review of multiple deposition Notices..10 $ $ /12/12 Receipt and review of letter from Dan Freeman To The State of Texas concerning discovery Document production issues..10 $ $ /13/12 Travel to and from Austin, Texas for Senator Fraser s second deposition $ No Charge

121 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 33 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No /13/12 Prepare for and attend second volume of Senator Fraser s deposition. 3.5 $ $1, /13/12 Attend the second volume of Patricia Harless deposition $ $ /13/12 Exchange multiple s with all counsel Regarding the scheduling of the Representative Harless Deposition..20 $ $ /13/12 Receipt and review of Court Docket Entry Adjusting Pre-trial Deadlines..10 $ $ /13/12 Conference call with Ezra Rosenberg concerning The additional time given on pre-trial deadlines..10 $ No Charge 06/14/12 Conference call with Gerry Hebert regarding His work with Dr. Lichtman to prepare a Report. 1.0 $ No Charge 06/14/12 Conference call with The State of Texas And Gerry Hebert regarding the scheduling Of Dr. Lichtman s deposition..20 $ $ /14/12 Receipt and review of The State of Texas Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice..10 $ $ /15/12 Receipt and review of multiple deposition Notices for experts and calendar same..20 $ $ /18/12 Participate in conference call with Intervenors Counsel to divide up trial witnesses and trial Duties. 2.1 $ $ /18/12 Conference regarding updating of deposition Summaries for Senator Fraser and Representative Harless..10 $ $ /18/12 Conference call with The State of Texas and The Department of Justice regarding Secretary Of State s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition..20 $ $ /19/12 [Scott Brazil] Prepare deposition questions and Thoughts on Sager s Report and strategy for Handling his deposition and forward same To Ezra Rosenberg to cover deposition $ $ /19/12 Receipt and review of Court Order Modifying

122 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 34 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No. 34 Deadline for The State of Texas to Produce A Rule 30(b)(6) witness..10 $ $ /19/12 Conference call with The State of Texas and Other counsel regarding setting up deposition June 29 for Buck Wood..40 $ $ /20/12 Receipt and review of Motion For Extension Of Time to File Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law by The State of Texas..10 $ $ /20/12 Receipt and review of multiple Motions in Limine to Preclude Expert Testimony Including Testimony offered by Experts presented by Kennie Intervenors..70 $ $ /20/12 Receipt and review of The State of Texas Live Witness List..40 $ $ /20/12 Receipt and review of proposed findings of Fact by The State of Texas with multiple Attachments; review and preparation for Trial $ $1, /20/12 Receipt and review of The State of Texas Deposition designations and review for Witnesses I am assigned..70 $ $ /21/22 Receipt and review of deposition notice for Buck Wood; forward same for his office and Coordinate deposition..30 $ $ /21/12 Conference call with Gerry Hebert regarding Logistics for upcoming trial and travel Arrangements..50 $ No Charge 06/21/12 Conference call with The Department of Justice regarding upcoming Senator Ellis Deposition and arrange for The Department Of Justice participation by telephone..20 $ $ /22/12 Prepare for Senator Ellis for his deposition $ $ /22/12 Present Senator Ellis for first installment of His deposition $ $1, /22/12 Work on deposition designations for witnesses I am assigned to provide to the Intervenors

123 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 35 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No. 35 Counsel Group $ $ /23/12 Receipt and review of deposition transcript For Senator Ellis; review same for errors and Forward same to Senator s office for his Review; also forward to other Intervenors Counsel $ $ 06/23/12 Present Senator Ellis for second installment Of his deposition $ $1, /24/12 Conference call with Intervenors counsel Regarding Opposition to Motions in Limine Of Experts..30 $ $ /24/12 Receipt and review of draft by Gerry Hebert On the Motion To Exclude Dr. Lichtman; Provide edits to same and return..40 $ $ /25/12 Review proposed findings of facts and Conclusions of law by Intervenors; offer Additions $ $ /25/12 Collect deposition of Major Mitchell and Other documents to provide Buck Wood in Advance of his upcoming deposition $ $ /25/12 Exchange s with the Court Clerk Concerning delays and designating certain Depositions since transcripts are not yet Available..10 $ $ /25/12 Provide Ezra Rosenberg additional deposition Designations to include in findings of fact and Conclusions of law $ $ /25/12 Receipt and review of multiple Briefs filed With the Court regarding efforts to exclude Various expert witnesses..40 $ $ /25/12 Receipt and review of deposition designations By The Department of Justice and review to Consider adding additional designations on Witnesses I am assigned $ $ /26/12 Make additional edits to draft Findings of Fact And conclusions of law to be filed by Intervenors $ $

124 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 36 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No /27/12 Draft and prepare several witness declarations; Coordinate with the witnesses; obtain signatures; Produce for use in the Photo ID trial $ $1, /27/12 Make changes to provide Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law regarding standing of Kennie Intervenors as proven up by declarations Prepared this day $ $ /28/12 Continue obtaining declarations concerning Standing of various Kennie Intervenors..80 $ $ /28/12 Arrange for delivery of disks received from The Department of Justice to The U.S. Attorney s Office in Houston due to Inadvertent Production Of sensitive information..50 $ $ /28/12 Conference call with Senator Ellis regarding The trial schedule and the expected day he Would take the stand..50 $ $ /29/12 Receipt and review of Stipulation concerning Excluding certain expert testimony by The United States..20 $ $ /29/12 Conference with Kennie Intervenor, expert Buck Wood to prepare for depositions $ $ /29/12 Travel to and from Austin, Texas to attend Depositions $ No Charge 06/29/12 Present Expert Buck Wood for depositions Taken by The State of Texas $ /29/12 Receipt and review of Counter Designations Of witnesses by The State of Texas..10 $ $ /30/12 Receipt and review of Exhibits filed by The United States for Trial $ $2, /01/12 Conference call with Intervenors counsel To prepare for trial and divide up witnesses $ $1, /01/12 Receipt and review of The State of Texas Response to Findings of Fact and Conclusions Of Law..20 $ $ 75.00

125 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 37 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No /01/12 Coordinate with Intervenors counsel for Offering additional Trial Exhibits..40 $ $ /02/12 Receipt and review of The State of Texas Exhibit List $ $ /02/12 Receipt and review of The State of Texas Entry of Stipulation..10 $ $ /02/12 Receipt and review of Final Exhibit List by All parties $ $ /03/12 Receipt and review of multiple Court Minute Orders regarding various Trial and Evidence Issues $ $ /03/12 Receipt and review of Court s Order refusing To Exclude Dr. Lichtman; conference call With Gerry Hebert concerning same..50 $ No Charge 07/03/12 Review additional deposition designations Filed by The State of Texas..20 $ $ /03/12 Receipt and review of The Department of Justice s Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Senate Rules..10 $ $ /05/12 Receipt and review of Court Order Scheduling Telephone Hearing for July 6 th..10 $ $ /05/12 Provide edits to Plaintiffs counter designations And forward to Ezra Rosenberg for filing with The Court..20 $ $ /06/12 Conference call with Gerry Hebert concerning Outcome of Court Telephone Hearing..50 $ No Charge 07/06/12 Prepare examination outline for Senator Ellis For trial testimony $ $1, /08/12 Receipt and review of Court Docket Entry Regarding the handling of witnesses with Deposition designations..10 $ $ /08/12 Meeting with Intervenors trial counsel to Discuss strategy for first day of trial, divide Up witnesses and prepare for trial $ $

126 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 38 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No /07/12 Review past depositions of Keith Ingram to Prepare for cross-examination for him at Trial; review previous testimony in this Case of Keith Ingram; begin preparing Outline for cross-examination $ $ /07/12 Prepare examination outline for Buck Wood $ $ /08/12 Continue preparing cross-examination of Keith Ingram and prepare outline for same; Review testimony of Keith Ingram in recent Texas election cases $ $1, /08/12 Conference call with Gerry Hebert regarding Trial preparations $ No Charge 07/09/12 Attend trial, perform cross-examinations of Keith Ingram on behalf of Intervenors. 8.2 $ $3, /09/12 Meet with co-intervenor counsel to prepare Attorneys handling witness examinations for The next day $ $ /10/12 Attend trial on second day $ $3, /10/12 Confer with Buck Wood regarding his Testimony before the Court the following Day $ $ /10/12 Confer with Senator Ellis regarding his Testimony on the following day..50 $ $ /10/12 Prepare examination outline for Senator Wendy Davis $ $ /11/12 Attend trial on third day; examine expert Witness Buck Wood and examine Senator Ellis $ $3, /11/12 Meet with Senator Davis to prepare for her Trial testimony the following day; finalize Examination outline with Senator Davis $ $1, /11/12 Conference call with Dr. Lichtman and Gerry Hebert to assist in preparing Dr. Lichtman for his examination by Mr. Hebert at trial..70 $ No Charge

127 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 39 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No /12/12 Attend trial on fourth day; examine Senator Wendy Davis $ $3, /12/12 Conference call with Gerry Hebert to Prepare him for his portion of the closing Argument..50 $ $ /13/12 Attend final day of trial and closing Arguments $ $1, /17/12 Receipt and review of multiple filings Concerning withdrawn and additional Trial exhibits. 1.0 $ $ /18/12 Receipt of multiple filings regarding Amended Exhibit List..40 $ $ /12/12 Receipt and review of multiple Docket Entries Regarding preparation of transcript of the Trial proceedings..10 $ $ /30/12 Receipt and review of Court Opinion (2.0); Conference with clients concerning same $ $1, /30/12 Conference call with Gerry Hebert concerning Three Judge Court Opinion..50 $ No Charge 12/17/12 Receipt and review of Court Final Judgment Granting injunction against SB14 and staying Case pending ruling by The Supreme Court In Shelby County v. Holder..20 $ $ /19/12 Receipt and review of The State of Texas Notice of Appeal to The Supreme Court..10 $ $ /29/13 Begin editing of billing records for filing With the Court for Fee Motion $ $ /04/13 Continue working on billing records to file With Fee Application $ $ /05/13 Continue working on billing records to file With Fee Application $ $1, /05/13 Conference call with Gerry Hebert regarding Attorney fee motion. 1.0 $ No Charge 09/06/13 Draft Affidavit to Support billing time for

128 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 40 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No. 40 Attorneys fees request $ $ /09/13 Review and edit Motion For Attorneys Fees Prepared by Gerry Hebert and return same..50 $ $ /09/13 Conference call with Gerry Hebert regarding Fee motion..50 $ No Charge 09/10/13 Finalize billing affidavits and billing records And provide same to Gerry Hebert for Filing with the Court $ $ Recapitulation Timekeeper Hours Rate Total K. Scott Brazil 47.2 $ $17, Chad W. Dunn $ $163, Total Fees for Brazil & Dunn: $181, EXPENSES Date Description Amount 05/08/12 Long distance telephone charges: Conference Call $ /12/12 Travel expense: Airfare $ /17/12 Travel expense: Hotel $ /17/12 Travel expense: Gas $ /18/12 Travel expense: Hotel $ /20/12 Travel expense: Parking $ /21/12 Travel expense: Gas $ /28/12 Travel expense: Gas $ /01/12 Travel expense: Gas $ /02/12 Travel expense: Hotel $ /02/12 Travel expense: Hotel $ /04/12 [KSB] Travel expense: Gas $ /07/12 Travel expense Gas $ /08/12 Travel expense: Hotel $ /14/12 [KSB] Travel expense: Parking $ /14/12 [CWD] Travel expense: Parking $ /19/12 Travel expense: Gas $ /30/12 Travel expense: Hotel $ /30/1 Travel expense: Gas $ /02/12 Travel expense: Gas $ /03/12 Deposition Fee: Esquire Deposition Solutions Fee for Depositions of Larry Gonzales, Robert Duncan and Michael Schofield $2, /06/12 Travel expense: Hotel $ /08/12 Travel expense: Airfare $ 60.00

129 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 41 of 41 Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013 Page No /12/12 Travel expense: Hotel $2, /13/12 Travel expense: Airfare $ /14/12 Travel expense: Hotel $ /17/12 Delivery Fee: Hour Messenger $ /17/12 Deposition Fee: Depositions of Wendy Davis And Rodney Ellis $ /31/12 Deposition Fee: Esquire Deposition Solutions Fee for Randall Wood $ /2/12 Deposition Fee: Esquire Deposition Solutions Fee for Dr. Allan Lichtman $ Subtotal expenses: $12, EXPERT WITNESS FEES: 9/9/13 Invoice of Ray and Wood (Buck Wood) $13, /2/12 Invoice of Dr. Allan J. Lichtman $27, Subtotal expert fees: $41, TOTAL EXPENSES: $53, TOTAL ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES FOR BRAZIL AND DUNN $234,590.97

130 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 1 of 1 Allan J. Lichtman ( ) 9219 Villa Drive, Bethesda, MD (301) TO: J. Gerald Hebert Invoice # 08/02/2012 August 2, 2012 RE: Texas Voter ID Litigation, TX v. Holder DC court 1. Study of expert reports: 7.5 hours 2. Study of expert depositions: 3.5 hours 3. Documentary research: 14.5 hours 4. Preparation of written report: 8.5 hours 5. Preparation for deposition: 5.0 hours. 6. Deposition: 7.0 hours 7. Attendance at trial: 15 hours 8. Study of trial transcripts: 2.0 hours 9. Preparation for trial testimony: 4.0 hours 10. Trial testimony. 1.0 hours 68 hours at $400 per hour. Total Bill: $27,200

131 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 1 of 2 Ray & Wood 2700 BEE CAVES ROAD P.O. BOX AUSTIN, TEXAS (512) September 9, 2013 Invoice# RBW Kennie Intervenors Our file# c/o Brazil & Dunn LLP Billing through 09/30/ Cypress Creek Parkway #530 Attn: Chad Dunn Houston, TX =============== Kennie Intervenors =============== Accounts receivable balance carried forward $0.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 06/06/2012 RBW Conference wtih Chad Dunn regarding photo 0.50 hrs ID case expert testimony. 06/06/2012 RBW Finalize and edit final expert report hrs /07/2012 RBW Several conference calls with Dunn regarding 2.50 hrs. 1, opinions, analysis and report; begin draft of expert report. 06/08/2012 RBW Continue work on expert report. Calls with 3.20 hrs. 1, dunn 06/25/2012 RBW Receive and review documents from Dunn in 2.50 hrs. 1, preparation for deposition; review deposition of Lt. Mitchell 06/29/2012 RBW Conference with Dunn to prepare for 1.50 hrs deposition 06/29/2012 RBW Attend my deposition 4.40 hrs. 1, /10/2012 RBW Conference with Dunn and Hebert to prepare 1.20 hrs for trial testimony. 07/10/2012 RBW Travel to DC hrs. 2, /11/2012 RBW Wait at courthouse for testimony, testify 8.60 hrs. 3, before court, travel home $13,815.00

132 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 2 of Kennie Intervenors Invoice# Page 2 Billing Summary Total professional services $13, Total of new charges for this invoice $13, Total balance now due $13,815.00

133 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE OF TEXAS, v. Plaintiff, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. in his Official capacity as Attorney General Of the United States, AND Defendant, ERIC KENNIE, et al., Defendant-Intervenors Case No. 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW DECLARATION OF SCOTT BRAZIL IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY S FEES and COSTS Background and Prevailing Party 1. I am co-counsel for the Kennie Intervenors in the above-styled matter. I am presenting this declaration in support of the Kennie Intervenors Motion for Attorney s Fees and Costs. The Kennie Intervenors are the prevailing parties in this action and are entitled to attorneys fees and costs. Experience and Qualifications 2. I am Board Certified in Civil Trial Law and Personal Injury Trial Law and have been since I graduated from South Texas College of Law in 1984 and served

134 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 2 of 5 a one-year period as briefing attorney for Justice Bill Cannon on the 14 th Court of Appeals in Houston. I am admitted to practice before all federal district courts in Texas, the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court. I have filed briefs in the state appellate and Texas Supreme Court, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court. I have tried a wide variety of cases, including automobile, trucking, products liability, medical malpractice, premise, commercial, contract, probate, bad faith insurance, election law and federal white collar crime. I have taken over 1,000 depositions in cases ranging in trucking and automobile litigation, probate, copyright infringement, bankruptcy, oil and gas, voting rights, divorce and others. I have lectured on topics before various bar associations, including such topics as trial in federal court and taking depositions. I have handled numerous litigation matters under federal and state law. I have represented Plaintiffs and private parties in federal voting rights litigation in Texas, both federal and state. I have handled or am currently handling redistricting cases throughout the state relative to commissioner s court, school boards, justices of the peace and constables. I have handled federal cases relative to candidate qualifications. 3. As a result of the foregoing and much more experience than can be listed here, I have extensive training, education and experience handling federal cases and, in particular, those pertaining to civil and voting rights. Time 4. My time in this case is kept contemporaneously with the work performed. I devoted a total of approximately hours representing the Kennie Intervenors in this

135 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 3 of 5 case for which I have chosen to bill. I have attached the time records (Exhibit F) that I maintained in this action but I eliminated the many hours for which I am not seeking a court award. I eliminated even some of the time that was billed since it was duplicative of Mr. Dunn or Mr. Hebert's work. I primarily participated in covering, for all the intervenor groups, some of the many depositions taken in Texas in this case. At all except the most critical depositions, the Kennie Intervenors would coordinate with all the other intervenors to select one person to attend depositions. The vast majority of the time I have billed was for covering depositions that I attended on behalf of all intervenors. Market Rate 5. I have extensive experience handling civil and some criminal matters in federal court. I have extensive experience with civil and voting rights cases. I believe, based upon the complicated issues and the time involved and the various factors described herein, that a reasonable hourly rate for such services in this locale is at least $375 per hour. I have been retained this year by Beaumont Independent School District at the rate of $375 per hour to represent the school district in multiple federal and state voting and redistricting cases. $375 per hour is well within the reasonable market rate charged for similar services in similar cases. Lodestar 6. In determining the Lodestar a court should usually consider the actual hours devoted to the case and the market hourly rate for the lawyer in question. It is my opinion the fees and expenses claimed in the provided statement are reasonable and necessary.

136 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 4 of 5 Johnson Factors 7. Preclusion of Other Employment. My work in this litigation restricted the time available for pursuit of other litigation during the period of activity in this case. Because of the extensive work required in a time-compressed period of time, I was unable to accept and work on other cases. This case included several trials and numerous hearings and status conferences that often, due to the nature of the dispute, came with little notice. Scores of deadlines were required to be met in much shorter deadlines than required under normal federal court procedure. In particular, the Court would often require me to draft orders concerning election deadlines with only days or hours to complete the task. I also was required to consult numerous attorneys, parties and agencies to discern the proper and workable election schedules that could be imposed. 8. Time Limitation Imposed by Circumstances. The time limitations in this case were imposed by pending election schedules and the urgency of these types of disputes. 9. Undesirability of the Case. This case is desirable from a political perspective. However, the case is very undesirable from an economic perspective because the expedited trial schedule and multiple forums placed unusual time constraints on the development and preparation of the case and because of the specialized nature of the actions. Moreover, the short deadlines, time commitment and complicated nature of the claims make other work easier and, often, more financially rewarding. 10. Experience and Expertise. My experience has included participation in federal litigation, extensive advocacy in state and federal cases, and preparation of

137 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 5 of 5 pleadings, briefs and evidence for cases in both state and federal courts. I am and have been counsel in numerous voting rights cases. I have tried dozens of jury trials as first chair. My trial experience includes federal and state civil matters and federal criminal matters. It is my opinion, based on my experience and upon inquiring of other lawyers, that the prevailing market rate for an attorney with my experience, in a difficult and complicated civil and voting rights case is at least $375 per hour. Costs 11. The expenses claimed in the Kennie Intervenors motion (and documented in Exhibit F) are actual expenses that were necessary to properly and successfully represent the Kennie Intervenors in this case. They include expenses for necessary travel and necessary expert fees. Each of these charges is reasonable. These expenses are described in more detail in the attached billing statement (Exhibit F). In closing, it is my opinion that the fees and expenses I have claimed in this case are both reasonable and necessary and that, given the more than adequate reductions I have made, should be reimbursed by the State of Texas in light of the prevailing claims and orders in the case. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Dated: September 9, 2013 /s/ K. Scott Brazil K. Scott Brazil

138 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 1 of 3

139 Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document Filed 09/10/13 Page 2 of 3