Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 698 Filed 06/19/12 Page 1 of 22

Transcription

1 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 698 Filed 06/19/12 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION SHANNON PEREZ, et al., Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-CA-360 v. OLG-JES-XR (Lead Case) STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Defendants PLAINTIFF MALC S MOTION FOR INTERIM ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1973l(e) and 1988, Plaintiff Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas House of Representatives ( MALC ) moves this Court for an award of attorneys fees and costs. This action was brought pursuant to the Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C et seq., Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (as amended), 42 U.S.C. 1973c (challenging the failure of Defendants to secure the necessary preclearance required by the Act for voting changes), and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff MALC also sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the Defendants to challenge the redistricting plans adopted by the State of Texas for the Texas House of Representatives and the United States House of Representatives. As set forth below, the Court s granting of Plaintiff MALC s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Order, Dkt. #380) and, more significantly, its issuance of Orders on interim plans (Orders, Dkt. #681 and Page 1

2 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 698 Filed 06/19/12 Page 2 of 22 #682) clearly make Plaintiff MALC a prevailing party, entitling it to interim attorneys fees and costs. 1 I. BACKGROUND On or about February 17, 2011, the United States Department of Commerce and the United States Census Bureau released to the State of Texas the population data gathered as a result of the conduct of the 2010 Census. According to the 2010 Census, the State of Texas had a total population of 25,145,561 persons. (Tr. Exhibit P20, p.4) Texas gained 4 congressional seats as a result of its population growth from 2000 to (Kousser Decl., Tr. Exhibit P.19,p. 109). Between 2000 and 2010, the growth rate of the Hispanic population in Texas outpaced that of the Anglo, Black and other populations. (Perez Tr. Pl. Ex. 336). On May 23, 2011, the Texas Legislature passed House Bill 150, containing a new redistricting plan for the Texas House of Representatives based on the 2010 Census, and the Governor signed it on June 17, Plaintiff MALC filed this suit on May 9, 2011 and filed its Second Amended Complaint on July 19, As amended, Plaintiff MALC s Complaint challenged the State s redistricting plans for the Texas House of Representatives and United States House of Representatives (Congressional districts) as well as the at-large system used to elect members of the Texas Railroad Commission. Plaintiff MALC also alleged minority vote dilution violating MALC s rights as protected by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment with regard to the newly adopted plans for the Texas House of Representatives and Congressional districts. Further, Plaintiff MALC alleged a Section 5 violation with regard to the Texas House 1 Plaintiff MALC reserves its right to file additional attorneys fee applications on fees and costs from the date of the filing of this interim fee application. Page 2

3 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 698 Filed 06/19/12 Page 3 of 22 and Congressional plans since no preclearance has been secured. 2 (Plaintiff MALC, thus, included a Section 5 enforcement action in its Second Amended Complaint.) Finally, Plaintiff alleged a Fourteenth Amendment one person, one vote violation with regard to the old Texas House and Congressional districts and as to the newly enacted Texas House plan. On July 6, 2011, the Court issued an expedited Scheduling Order (Dkt. # 24). During an abbreviated discovery period, dozens of depositions were taken, written discovery was exchanged and responded to, experts reports were prepared and filed, discovery and dispositive motions were briefed and ruled upon, and meetings with numerous witness for trial were held. Numerous pretrial issues were raised during the months following the filing of this action. The State for example filed a motion to dismiss and challenged Plaintiff s standing in this case. MALC successfully opposed these efforts. Efforts were also initiated to change the venue of the case, which MALC also successfully opposed. In addition, since no action had been completed with regard to the challenged plans under Section 5, there were disputes about whether the case should proceed with an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the case and the timing of such hearings. Again, MALC s position for an expedited process carried the day with this Court, and trial was scheduled for the first weeks of September. Trial was held in San Antonio from September 6, 2011 through September 16, 2011 for live evidentiary presentation and an additional week for evidentiary proffers through September 23, On July 19, 2011, instead of seeking administrative preclearance of S.B. 4 and H.B. 150, Defendants opted for judicial preclearance, which this Court has noted likely has delayed a final decision on preclearance, possibly causing delays in the 2012 electoral process. (Court s Order, Dkt. #385). Page 3

4 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 698 Filed 06/19/12 Page 4 of 22 On September 27, 2011, after the trial on the merits, Plaintiff MALC 3 filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order ( TRO ) to enjoin the implementation in the upcoming 2012 election cycle of redistricting plans for the Texas House of Representatives, House Bill 150 ( H.B. 150, also identified as plan H283), and the United States House of Representatives, Senate Bill 4 ( S.B. 4, also referenced as plan C185). On September 29, 2011, the Court issued an Order granting Plaintiff s TRO 4 and permanently enjoined the implementation of the unprecleared redistricting plans for the State House and Texas Congressional districts. On November 17, 2011, realizing that the resolution of the Section 5 preclearance issues prior to the upcoming election deadlines was unlikely and agreeing with the merits of Plaintiff s claims in this suit, the Court issued an Order offering H298 5 and H299 6 as the proposed interim plan for the districts used to elect members in 2012 to the Texas House of Representatives. 7 Shortly thereafter, the Court adopted Plan H302 as an interim plan for the Texas House of Representatives (Order, Dkt. #528) and Plan C220 as an interim plan for the United States House of Representatives (Order, Dkt. #544). Defendants appealed from these Orders to the United States Supreme Court (Dkt. #547 and #548). On January 20, 2012, the Supreme Court vacated 3 Plaintiffs Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force, et al., Perez et al., LULAC et al., Quesada et al., Texas Democratic Party, and Cuellar joined in the TRO motion. The Rodriguez Plaintiffs joined in the TRO motion to the extent it seeks injunctive relief; and Plaintiffs Johnson et al., and the Texas Conference of the NAACP Branches et al. did not oppose the TRO. 4 In its Order granting the TRO, the Court turned the TRO into a permanent injunction because the parties [] agreed that the relief granted herein will be effective as a permanent injunction, subject to being lifted by order of the Court as appropriate. 5 Judge Garcia and Judge Rodriguez offered plan H298 as the proposed interim plan for the districts used to elect members in 2012 to the Texas House of Representatives. 6 The Order states that Judge Smith may offer plan H299 as an alternate in dissent. (Dkt. #517). 7 (Dkt. #517). Page 4

5 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 698 Filed 06/19/12 Page 5 of 22 the Court s Orders and remanded these consolidated cases for further proceedings (Order, Dkt. #575). Applying the new standards as directed by the Supreme Court, this Court issued Orders on February 28, 2012, adopting Plan H309 as the interim plan for the Texas House of Representatives (Order, Dkt. # 682) and Plan C235 as the interim plan for the United States House of Representatives (Order, Dkt. #681). The Court announced that each of these interim plans is a result of preliminary determinations regarding the merits of the Section 2 and constitutional claims and application of the not insubstantial standard for the Section 5 claims, as required by the Supreme Court s decision in Perry v. Perez. (Orders, Dkt. # 681 and #682). Many of the Court s modifications to the unprecleared plans incorporated in the new interim plans for Texas House and Texas Congressional districts were as a result of this Court s determination that Plaintiff had shown a likelihood of success on its claims challenging the unprecleared plans. For instance, MALC submitted to the court and during the legislative session putative districts that are compact, contiguous and are over 50% HCVAP that are not contained in the challenged enacted plan for the Texas House of Representatives. (Perez Tr. Exhibit. 1, 2, 5, 6; MALC Interim plan Exh. 8 and 9). MALC HD 144 in plans H205, and H295 is a compact, contiguous and majority HCVAP district in Harris County, Texas. The creation of HD144 did not adversely impact on the viability and continued performance of existing minority opportunity districts in Harris County. Id. This district does not exist in the enacted plan, but is included in this Court s interim remedy plan. Page 5

6 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 698 Filed 06/19/12 Page 6 of 22 MALC HD 72 in plan H205, HD 35 in H295 and HD 144 in plan H201 are compact, contiguous and majority HCVAP districts in Hidalgo and Cameron Counties, Texas. The creation of HD 72 in H205, HD 35 in H295 and HD144 in H201 did not adversely impact on the viability and continued performance of existing minority opportunity districts in Hidalgo and Cameron Counties. Id. Similar districts do not exist in the enacted plan, but such a district is included in this Court s interim remedy plan. Also, as was advocated by Plaintiff MALC, population variances in Hidalgo House districts were more balanced in the interim plan than in the challenged plan. In addition, MALC plans submitted to this Court and during the legislative session increased Latino opportunity districts in El Paso by one and in Bexar County maintained Latino voting strength in HD 117. The enacted plan did not provide for an additional Latino opportunity district in El Paso and reduced the Latino voting strength in HD 117 in Bexar County. This Court s interim remedy plan included the additional El Paso Latino opportunity district and maintained HD 117 s Latino voting strength in Bexar County. Finally, with regard to Texas House seats, Plaintiff MALC argued that population variations in Hidalgo, Bexar, and Harris County under HB 150 were not justified and submitted plans balancing population in those and other counties. This Court s interim remedy plan also better balanced population in those counties. With regard to the Congressional plans, MALC challenged among other aspects of the enacted plan, the reduction of Latino voting strength in CD 23, and this Court s interim remedy plan increased the Latino performance in CD 23 to almost the same level as in the benchmark district. In Dallas and Tarrant County, Plaintiff MALC challenged the manner in which minority Page 6

7 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 698 Filed 06/19/12 Page 7 of 22 populations were fractured, in an obvious racial gerrymander. This Court s interim remedy plan eliminates the gerrymander, resulting in a district in which minority voters will likely elect a candidate of choice that is not included in the enacted plan. II. Authority The Supreme Court has determined that civil rights plaintiffs are prevailing parties if they succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing the suit. Texas State Teachers Assoc. v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 789, 109 S.Ct. 1486, 103 L.Ed.2d 866 (1989); Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754, (1980). In other words, the plaintiff must be able to point to a resolution of the dispute which changes the legal relationship between [it] and the defendant. Texas State Teachers Assoc., 489 U.S. at 792; see also Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v W. Va. Dep t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 604 (2001) (recognizing that a party prevails and is entitled to attorney s fees when that party obtains a material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties ). Also, the Supreme Court has held that such fee awards are available before the litigation is final, and that fees can be awarded on an interim basis. Id. at 791 ( Congress cannot have meant prevailing party status to depend entirely on the time of a request: A prevailing party must be one who has succeeded on any significant claim affording it some of the relief sought, either pendente lite or at the conclusion of the litigation. ); Hutchinson v. Patrick, 636 F.3d 1, 8 (5th Cir. 2011) ( The Supreme Court has made it transparently clear that an award under a federal fee-shifting statute may sometimes be appropriate prior to the entry of a final judgment). Such an award is proper, pendente lite, where a party has established his entitlement to some relief on the merits of his claims. Thus, prevailing party status is not Page 7

8 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 698 Filed 06/19/12 Page 8 of 22 restricted to a party who has secured a favorable final judgment. Hutchinson, 363 F.3d at 8 (internal citations and quotations omitted) (emphasis added). The district court s discretion to order interim attorney s fees serves to further the goal of ensuring effective access to the judicial process for those aggrieved of their civil rights. Allen v. La. State Bd. of Dentistry, 948 F.2d 946, 947 (5th Cir. 1991). In this case, this Court granted Plaintiff s motion to enjoin the implementation of the unprecleared redistricting plans for the State House and Texas Congressional districts, which is precisely the relief requested in Plaintiff MALC s Second Amended Complaint. In addition, and more significantly, the Court issued interim remedial plans effective for the 2012 election cycle. The Court s interim plans remedy most of the legal defects in both the plans enacted by the Texas Legislature and in the former maps that were required to be reapportioned following the Census. The Court s interim plans are the result of preliminary determinations regarding the merits of the [Plaintiffs ] Section 2 and constitutional claims and application of the not insubstantial standard for the Section 5 claims, as required by the Supreme Court s decision in Perry v. Perez. (Orders, Dkt. # 681 and #682). As discussed above, this Court s plans addressed many of MALC s legal objections to the plans. This Court s orders and including the orders on interim plans for the 2012 election cycle, materially alter the legal relationship of the parties and grant Plaintiff significant and substantial relief, even if a final judgment has not been rendered. Plaintiffs thus have prevailed on important issues in this litigation and are entitled to an award of interim attorney s fees. A. Johnson Factors 8 --The Lodestar Analysis 8 The Johnson factors are as follows: (1) the time and labor required, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the question, (3) the skill required to perform the legal service properly, (4) the preclusion of other employment by the Page 8

9 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 698 Filed 06/19/12 Page 9 of 22 The Fifth Circuit has provided the following guidance for district courts to determine an appropriate award of attorneys fees: In Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974), we established twelve factors which district courts must consider in deciding the amount of attorney s fees to award to a prevailing plaintiff. The twelve factors are considered within the framework outlined in Copper Liquor, Inc. v. Adolph Coors, 684 F.2d 1087 (5th Cir. 1982) [Copper Liquor III]. Under Copper Liquor the district court should: (1) ascertain the nature and extent of the services supplied by the attorney; (2) value the services according to the customary fee and quality of the legal work; and (3) adjust the compensation on the basis of the other Johnson factors that may be of significance, 684 F.2d at The product of factors (1) and (2) is called the lodestar. See Nisby v. Commissioners Court, 798 F.2d 134, (5th Cir. 1986). Subsequent to the opinion in Johnson, the Supreme Court held that an award of attorneys fees under section 1988 should normally be based on multiplying a reasonable number of hours worked by a reasonable rate of compensation. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888, 104 S.Ct.1541, 1548, 79 L.Ed.2d 891, 895 (1984); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434, 103 S.Ct. 1933, , 76 L.Ed.2d 40, 50 (1983). The Court noted, however, that the calculation of the lodestar does not end the inquiry and that other considerations may persuade the district court to increase or decrease a fee award. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434, 103 S.Ct. at 1940, 76 L.Ed.2d at 51. In Brantley v. Surles, 804 F.2d 321 (5th Cir. 1986), another panel of the court upheld a fee award where the district court did not evaluate each Johnson factor because the overall award me[t] the Supreme Courts guidelines in Blum and Hensley. Id. at 326. attorney due to acceptance of the case, (5) the customary fee, (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances, (8) the amount involved and the results obtained, (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys, (10) the undesirability of the case, (11) the nature and length of the professional relations with the clients, and (12) awards in similar cases. Johnson, 488 F 2d. at 717. These factors are discussed in the affidavits filed in support of this motion for fees and costs. Page 9

10 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 698 Filed 06/19/12 Page 10 of 22 B. Determination of Amount of Fees In determining the amount of fees, a court should (1) ascertain the nature and extent of the services supplied by the attorney, (2) value the services according to the customary fee and quality of the legal work, and (3) adjust the compensation on the basis of the other Johnson factors that may be of significance in the particular case. Alberti v. Klevenhagen, 927 F.2d 927, 930 (5th Cir. 1990) (quoting Leroy v. City of Houston, 831 F.2d 576, 583 n.11 (5th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S (1988)). First, the Court determines the reasonable number of hours that the attorneys spent on the case by reviewing the attorneys time records. Alberti, 927 F.2d at 930. Attached as Exhibits to this motion are the Declarations and Affidavits Plaintiff s counsels, detailed time records that demonstrate the reasonableness of the hours documented in this case and resumes of the counsel detailing their experience. These hours reflect the difficult legal and factual issues present in the case and the extensive resources required to prosecute this case. In addition, MALC s lead counsel, Jose Garza, often acted as coordinating counsel for the diverse set of plaintiffs in this case and was often called upon by this Court to present the plaintiffs factual and legal claims in an efficient and cogent manner. Plaintiff MALC believes that to some degree, this Court relied on Mr. Garza s expertise to assist with the Court s analysis of the issues raised in the case. The courts have given a broad reading to the types of tasks for which compensation will be allowed. For instance, the courts have determined that, among other things, the following are fully compensable activities: 1) Time spent prior to the filing of the lawsuit on development of the theory of the client s case and on drafting initial pleadings. Webb v. Bd. of Educ. of Dyer County, 471 U.S. 234, (1985); Watkins v. Fordice, 7 F.3d 453, 458 (5th Cir. 1993) (acknowledging that prevailing parties may be compensated for time spent preparing Page 10

11 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 698 Filed 06/19/12 Page 11 of 22 to file suit when that work is useful and necessary to the litigation); Dowdell v. Apopka, Fla., 698 F.2d 1181 (11th Cir. 1983); 2) Travel time. Rose Confections, Inc. v. Ambrosia Chocolate Co., 816 F.2d 381 (8th Cir. 1987); 3) Time spent in conference with other lawyers and on organizing and reorganizing the case file. Blum v. Witco Chem. Corp., 829 F.2d 367 (3d Cir. 1987); 4) Legal research, even by experienced counsel. In re Cont l Ill. Sec. Litig., 962 F.2d 566 (7th Cir. 1992); 5) Appellate time. Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1978); 6) Time spent on compliance matters, even where post judgment. Miller v. Carson, 628 F.2d 346 (5th Cir. 1980); and 7) Time spent preparing a fee application, negotiating fees, and litigating fees. Johnson v. Mississippi, 606 F.2d 635 (5th Cir. 1979). After determining the number of compensable hours, the court selects an appropriate hourly rate based on prevailing community standards for attorneys of similar experience in similar cases. Id. at 938 (quoting Sims v. Jefferson Downs Racing Ass n., 778 F.2d 1068, 1084 (5th Cir. 1985)). In this case, one of the biggest challenges imposed on the attorneys and this Court was the time constraints. In addition, this Court was dealing with the challenge of the interplay between Section 5 and other legal challenges, all with an impending election looming. As this Court recognized, [n]ot only were the merits of the claims challenging, but the time frame in which the claims needed to be resolved was challenging. (Dkt. #385). Several of the attorneys for Plaintiff MALC had to substantially stop all other work and dedicate themselves to this case due to the expedited trial schedule and pending election process. The exigent circumstances were created by the Defendants as they failed to promptly seek Section 5 preclearance, which this Court recognized caused delays in the 2012 electoral process. See id. In addition, time requirements for briefing and argument at the Supreme Court were extremely compressed, requiring substantial time and requiring complete and exclusive focus, to the exclusion of other Page 11

12 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 698 Filed 06/19/12 Page 12 of 22 endeavors. Finally, this case was the critical element of a move in the Supreme Court to modify the scope and reach of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Plaintiff s counsel played a key role in shaping the design of Section 5 enforcement process embodied in the Supreme Court s opinion in this case. In that regard, the State argued in its appeal of this Court s initial interim plan orders, that this Court was a run away court engaged in racial gerrymanders to benefit minority voters. See Emergency Application for Stay to the United States Supreme Court, at 2,5,10, Perry v. Perez, Nos , , The State also argued that its legislatively enacted plans should be used without modification in the impending elections. Brief for Appellants to United States Supreme Court, p. 31, Perry v. Perez, Nos , , ,. ("In light of these exigencies, this Court should vacate the interim orders and remand to the district court with instructions to impose Texas legislatively enacted map as the interim plan while preclearance is pending.")(emphasis added). In contrast, Plaintiffs argued that this Court s orders could not be read to show that the resulting minority opportunity districts were purposefully designed as racial districts, and if the Court had uncertainty on this issue it should remand with instructions. Transcript from Oral Argument, at 52-54, 58, 64, Perry v. Perez, Nos , , Moreover, although the Plaintiffs surely argued that the State s unprecleared plans simply could not be used without Section 5 approval- at the argument, MALC s lead counsel arguing for all the Plaintiffs, asserted that, rather than allow their use without modification, the Court should established standards that the trial court could use to determine likely violations of Sections 2, 5 and other constitutional objections. Id. at 63, and 64. Thus, while the fee requested is substantial, the circumstances Page 12

13 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 698 Filed 06/19/12 Page 13 of 22 involved and importance of the questions at issue required counsel for Plaintiff to devote their time and energy almost exclusively to this case and resulted in a significant achievement. C. Costs It is also appropriate to require Defendants to reimburse Plaintiff s attorneys for reasonable costs. An award of reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, for example, includes an award of reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the attorney which are normally charged to a fee paying client. Neufeld v. Searle Labs., 884 F.2d 335, 342 (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 (5th Cir. 1989) (timely request for fees and expenses is appropriate). Here, Plaintiff has included in the supporting affidavits a detailed accounting requesting compensation for such out of pocket expenses as travel, exhibit preparation, copies, postage, map production, deposition costs, printing costs, and the like. These are the sorts of expenses generally charged to a fee paying client and should be reimbursed fully. D. 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). The history behind the inclusion of the expert fee provision in the fee shifting provision of the Voting Rights Act helps explain how important compensating successful plaintiffs for expert fees is. In 1987, a three-judge panel reversed and remanded to district court in an attorney's fee award in part because it included compensation for expert fees beyond standard per diem and mileage costs. Leroy v. Houston, 831 F.2d 576 (5th Cir. Tex. 1987). While expert fees had long Page 13

14 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 698 Filed 06/19/12 Page 14 of 22 been compensated in previous voting rights cases, the United States Supreme Court held that "when a prevailing party seeks reimbursement for fees paid to its own expert witnesses, a federal court is bound by the limit of 1821(b), absent contract or explicit statutory authority to the contrary." Crawford Fitting Co. v. J. T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 439 (U.S. 1987). Given this Supreme Court precedent, the Leroy panel refused to allow expert's fee recovery without explicit statutory authorization. Leroy v. Houston, 831 F.2d 576, 584 (5th Cir. Tex. 1987)("The Voting Rights Act does not specifically allow recovery of expert witness fees, and we must reverse this portion of the district court's award") In the years following Crawford, expert-centered litigation in which there was no specific statutory allowance for exert fees recovery was severely hampered in jurisdictions without a multiplier. 9 This chilling effect on litigation was investigated by the members of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary in relation to the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. 10 The committee took extensive testimony from civil rights lawyers, experts, and litigants in the autumn of 2005 in preparation for the formulation of the reauthorization. In these eight committee hearings, the failure to recover expert's fees played a prominent role in the testimony of the invited witnesses. Specifically, several witnesses implored the committee to amend the 9 See generally 48 Hastings L.J. 197, ("In cases that are expert-intensive and in which expert witness fees are not recoverable, however, the lack of a multiplier can be devastating. The primary example, cited by numerous attorneys, is voting rights litigation. There, even ascertaining the viability of a claim prior to filing suit can cost between fifteen and twenty-five thousand dollars in expert fees. Without multipliers, even full compensation at lodestar rates cannot possibly cover the costs of litigation. The attorney mentioned earlier, whose practice focuses exclusively on voting rights, expressed doubts that his practice will survive Dague. Indeed, this attorney recently opened a color printing business to try to subsidize his law practice. He stated that the other private practitioners who used to litigate voting rights cases will not take them now and predicted that no new lawyers will enter the market in California.")(emphasis added) 10 "Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, And Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization And Amendments Act Of 2006 (Part I)," before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong., p. 65, (May 4, 2006)(Scott, Bobby opening statement to the committee concerning expert fees) Page 14

15 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 698 Filed 06/19/12 Page 15 of 22 Voting Rights Act to include specific cost recovery for expert's fees because of the financial hardship that the lack of recovery placed on civil rights litigants. 11 In the final committee hearing in the fall of 2005 dealing with the reauthorization of the voting rights act, Congressman Melvin Watt responded to the testimony that had been laid out by experts in the previous seven committee hearings by stating his intention to seek the inclusion of the permissive allowance of expert's fees from litigation stemming from the voting rights act. In his words: "[o]ne final thing I want to deal with--that's--really we haven't had a hearing on yet, but there's been some testimony about over the course of our hearings, and that's we need to make sure that the award of expert fees to prevailing parties in litigation is put into the reauthorization. The fees of experts in these cases are just--have become a real burden for everybody. I understand that prior to the 1982 reauthorization, there was an agreement to put this provision in, and because of the crunch at the last minute, the provision actually just never got put into the law. And I don't think there's really any controversy about it. Prior testimony has already established the incredible expense imposed on bona fide victims of voting rights violations to assemble the necessary evidence to sustain their burden of proof in a private action. By allowing expert fees to prevail in parties, we would bring the Voting Rights Act into conformity with other Civil Rights legislation and promote the continued partnership between individual and Government enforcement that has made the act the success it is today." 12 (emphasis added) Ultimately, Mr. Watt's intention and the subcommittee's findings regarding the expert fee 11 "Voting Rights Act: The Judicial Evolution Of The Retrogression Standard," before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong., p. 69, (November 9, 2005) (Laughlin McDonald, Director, Voting Rights Project, American Civil Liberties Union, answer to Congressman John L. Lewis' questioning) ( "And then I think that the Supreme Court has ruled that in successful voting rights cases plaintiffs are not entitled to recover attorneys' fees. That really makes it almost impossible for minority communities to bring voting rights lawsuits, because they don't have the ability to hire lawyers, they don't have the ability to pay for experts. And in a typical voting rights case, you need probably three experts: a demographer, to draw plans; a statistician, to analyze voting patterns; and a political scientist or historian, to talk about what, you know, the present-day impact of race is in a jurisdiction.") 12 "Voting Rights Act: Sections 6 And 8--The Federal Examiner And Observer Program," before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong., p. 6-7, (November 15, 2005)(Watt, Melvin opening statement to the committee) Page 15

16 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 698 Filed 06/19/12 Page 16 of 22 provisions were codified in every version of the reauthorization bill filed in the spring of During the subcommittee's discussion of H.R. 9, Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, Sub Committee Chairman Chabot highlighted the inclusion of the expert fees provision as necessary to "ensure that Voting Rights Act remain[s] effective". 13 Testifying witnesses before the subcommittee, reiterated the necessity and need for expert's fees. 14 During the floor debate concerning H.R. 9, the inclusion of expert's fees was cited as an improvement bringing "in line with current civil rights laws, which already allow for the recovery of such costs." 152 Cong Rec H The provision was never amended, altered, or removed. In the Senate, it received similar treatment. The addition of the provision faced no opposition and was listed as one of the many reasons to vote for the bill. 15 In the end, in response to vigorous testimony of leading experts, the Congress included this fee-shifting provision in order to ensure that civil rights plaintiffs still had access to the 13 "Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, And Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization And Amendments Act Of 2006 (Part I)," before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong., p. 2, (May 4, 2006)(Chabot, Steve opening statement to the committee citing the need to once again allow federal observers, provide for the recovery of expert costs as part the additions needed to the act) 14 "Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, And Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization And Amendments Act Of 2006 (Part I)," before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong., p. 65, (May 4, 2006)(Hebert,Gerald questioned by Con. Bobby Scott pertaining to the necessity of expert's fees)( "Mr. Scott: If an area has been victimized by an illegal scheme, are there circumstances where they cannot come up with the money to get themselves out of that situation? Mr. Hebert: Bringing vote dilution cases, Congressman Scott, is a very, very costly enterprise. You need expert witnesses, you need skilled lawyers, because the other side is going to lawyer up big time, usually. I would estimate that the cost of a vote dilution case, to bring a vote dilution case through trial and appeal, runs close to a half a million dollars in costs. Mr. Scott: And much of that, under present law, is not reimbursable? Mr. Hebert: That's correct. Mr. Scott: Under the bill, would most of the costs be recoverable? Mr. Hebert: Yes, they would."); 14 "Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, And Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization And Amendments Act Of 2006 (Part II)," before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong., p.40-41, (May 4, 2006)(Narasaki, Karen, President and Executive Director, Asian American Justice Center, questioned by Chairman Chabot) Cong Rec S 7996, (Senator Robert Menendez's remarks during the consideration of H.R. 9) Page 16

17 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 698 Filed 06/19/12 Page 17 of 22 court. This new fee-shifting provision was present in each version of the bill and was featured prominently as a rationale to vote for the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. There can be no dispute or ambiguity about this language. Congress intended that courts may award experts fee to prevailing parties in litigation stemming from the Voting Rights Act. Plaintiff MALC, therefore includes in this fee motion, a request for compensation for its expert fees. In the development of this case MALC, retained and provided expert testimony from Dr. Jorge Chapa and Dr. Morgan Kousser. Their testimony formed the foundation for plaintiff s claims and helped this Court with the evaluation of the evidence with regard to potential Section 2 and Constitutional violations in the challenged plans. Plaintiff MALC is required to present evidence showing the reasonableness of its fee application, including evidence of the prevailing market rate for attorneys of their experience and reputation. As discussed below, Plaintiff has presented the declarations of Jose Garza and Ricardo Cedillo as expert testimony on the relevant issues on attorneys fees and has also included declarations from Joaquin G. Avila, Cynthia Jones and Martin Golando detailing their work on the case. Included in the declarations are detailed and contemporaneous time records detailing the activity in the case. Appropriate Fee Award As discussed above, the starting point in an appropriate fee award is determining the number of reasonable hours that attorneys spent on the case by reviewing the attorneys time records. Here the case was being developed as early as November of 2010 as discussions regarding the issues that would surely give rise to this litigation were being formulated. For example the need to explore population growth in the state and its impact on the apportionment Page 17

18 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 698 Filed 06/19/12 Page 18 of 22 of congressional seats across the country, was critical in developing a legislative and litigation strategy for this case. In addition, as census data was being released, the State of Texas was encouraging litigation by the Teuber plaintiffs that could impact on the MALC goals both in the legislative process and the litigation. MALC S involvement with Teuber was both related to this case but also necessary in order to insure that s MALC s interests would be protected. Moreover, MALC and its counsel s involvement in the legislative process was critical in the development of a record and the evidence necessary to show what the State intent in developing and adopting the final plans challenged in this case. Once plans were adopted, and this case filed, the case included extensive procedural fights on issues dealing with standing, venue and timing. On all these issues MALC s positions prevailed. In addition the case as mentioned before raised serious and difficult issues about the interplay between Plaintiff s claims under the Constitution and Section 2 of the VRA and Section 5 of the VRA. This case played an important role in the evolution of voting rights jurisprudence and the use of interim court order plans. Finally, this case involved these important issues that required resolution before the United State Supreme Court. The fact that the impact of this litigation is far reaching, supports the claim for fees made here by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff MALC has included and attached as exhibits the declarations and time records of Plaintiff s attorneys Jose Garza, Joaquin G. Avila, Ricardo G. Cedillo, Cynthia Jones and Martin Golando. A review of these exhibits shows the following hours devoted to the case by Plaintiff MALC s attorneys: Attorneys Jose Garza - 2, hours Joaquin G. Avila hours 16 Hours claimed represents a 20% billing judgment discount. Page 18

19 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 698 Filed 06/19/12 Page 19 of 22 Martin Golando hours Ricardo G. Cedillo hours Mark W. Kiehne hours Laura Clark hours Cynthia Jones hours Pamela Karlan 50.0 hours Paralegals Daniel Dominguez hours After determining the number of reasonable hours, the court then determines the appropriate hourly rate based on prevailing market rates. Here, Plaintiff has submitted declarations from the lawyers claiming fees setting out their opinion of their market rates and testifying that an appropriate hourly rate for attorneys of the experience and expertise of Plaintiff s counsel, ranges from $250 per hour to $ per hour and specifically testifying that in their opinion the rates requested for the lawyers in this case are appropriate. In addition, recently, in a different and less significant voting rights case, litigants have requested fees and submitted the affidavits of attorneys fees experts that have testified that in cases in the Western District of Texas, the prevailing market rates are as follows: 5 years of experience - $ per hour; 6 years of experience - $ per hour; 7 years of experience - $ per hour; 11 years of experience - $ per hour; and 18 years of experience - $ per hour. LULAC V. City of Boerne, Civ. Action # 96-cv-808, Doc and Doc (Affidavits of Reagan Simpson and Scott A. Brister.) The testimony of these witnesses together with the testimony of the lawyers in this case, shows that the rates requested by Plaintiff here are very reasonable and within the range of the prevailing market rates in the Western District of Texas. 17 Hours claimed represents a 20% billing judgment discount. Page 19

20 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 698 Filed 06/19/12 Page 20 of 22 Based on the evidence presented and the record of this case, Plaintiff seeks an award from this Court as follows: Attorneys Fees requested: Jose Garza 18 2, hrs. x $ = $932, Joaquin G. Avila hrs. x $ = $233, Martin Golando 21 1, hrs. x $ = $252, Ricardo Cedillo hrs. x $ = $87, Mark Kiehne hrs. x $ = $164, Laura Clark hrs. x $ = $79, Cynthia Jones _22.00 hrs. x $ = $5, Pamela Karlan hrs. x $ = $36, Paraleg al Fees Requested: Total Fees Requested $1,791, Daniel Dominquez $ = $16, As discussed above, Plaintiff is also entitled to the costs of litigation, including expert witness costs. In this case, costs included such items as filing fees, deposition costs, and travel expenses. The following are the reasonable costs associated with prosecuting this case: Non-expert Costs: 18 Jose Garza has been licensed in Texas and the Federal Courts for over 33 years. His experience has focused on voting rights litigation. 19 After 20% billing judgment discount. 20 Joaquin G. Avila, a Harvard Law and Yale University graduate, has over 39 years of experience as a licensed attorney. His practice has almost exclusively focused on voting rights litigation. 21 Martin Golando, a University of Texas Law School graduate, has been licensed for 5 years. 22 After 20% billing judgment discount. 23 Ricardo Cedillo, a Harvard Law graduate, has over 33 years of experience as a licensed attorney, with a focus on complex federal and state court actions. 24 Mark Kiehne, a 2001 graduate of St. Mary s University Law School, has been licensed for about 11 years. Mr. Kiehne has been involved in complex federal and state litigation for the firm of Davis Cedillo and Mendoza. 25 Laura Clark, a 2010 graduate of St. Mary s University, has been licensed for over 2 years. 26 Professor Pam Karlan graduated from Yale Law School in 1984 and has been a practicing attorney for over 27 years. Professor Karlan has been the Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law at Stanford University since 1999 and the Co-Director, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic since She has litigated numerous voting rights cases at the district court and at the United States Supreme Court. Page 20

21 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 698 Filed 06/19/12 Page 21 of 22 Conclusion MALC - $76, Joaquin G. Avila - $21, Jose Garza - $2, DCM - $1, Total Out of Pocket expenses $101, Expert Costs MALC - $186, Total Costs - $288, Based on the foregoing and the exhibits and declarations attached to this Motion, Plaintiff MALC respectfully asks this Court for an award of reasonable attorneys fees and costs as follows: Attorneys fees and paralegal fees $1,807, Out of pocket costs - $101, Expert witness cost - $186, Total fees and costs - $2,096, Plaintiff also requests this Court order Defendants to tender to Plaintiff said amount within 30 days of this court s order with interest from the date of entry of the Court s order, at a rate equivalent to the prime rate as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on the date of the Court s order on fees or 5% which ever rate is higher. See Tex. Fin. Code, Section (c) (1). DATED: June 18, 2012 /s/ Jose Garza JOSE GARZA Texas Bar No Law Office of Jose Garza 7414 Robin Rest Dr. San Antonio, Texas (210) Page 21

22 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 698 Filed 06/19/12 Page 22 of 22 JOAQUIN G. AVILA LAW OFFICE P.O. Box Seattle, Washington Texas State Bar # (206) (206) (fax) jgavotingrights@gmail.com Ricardo G. Cedillo State Bar No Mark W. Kiehne State Bar No DAVIS, CEDILLO & MENDOZA, INC. McCombs Plaza, Suite E. Mulberry Avenue San Antonio, Texas Tel.: (210) Fax: (210) rcedillo@lawdcm.com mkiehne@lawdcm.com ATTORNEYS FOR MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS, TEXAS HOUSE OF REP. (MALC) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 19, 2012, I electronically served the foregoing via ECF on all other parties in this litigation. /s/ Jose Garza CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I have conferred with counsel for Defendants, Mr. David Mattox, and have been informed that Defendants oppose this motion. /s/ Jose Garza Page 22

23 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 1 of 40 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION SHANNON PEREZ, et al., Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-CA-360 v. OLG-JES-XR (Lead Case) STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Defendants DECLARATION OF JOSE GARZA IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES Background and Prevailing Party 1. I am lead-counsel for Plaintiff, the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, MALC, in the above-styled matter. My resume is attached hereto as Attachment No. 1. I am presenting this declaration in support of Plaintiff Motion for Interim Attorney s Fees and Costs. Plaintiffs are prevailing parties in this action and are entitled to attorney s fees and costs as authorized by the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973l(e) as amended Specifically, Plaintiffs and their attorneys, Jose Garza, Joaquin G. Avila, Cynthia Jones, Martin Golando, the firm of Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza, Inc. ( DCM ) and Professor Pam Karlan, presented pleadings, evidence and argument to this and other Courts, including the United States Supreme Court, challenging the newly enacted redistricting plans by the State of Texas for Texas House of Representative, and Congress under various statutory and constitutional provisions. Ultimately the challenged plans were enjoined and not implemented because of the State s failure to secure preclearance prior to enforcement and implementation of the unprecleared election changes. In addition, as a result of Plaintiff s successful presentation of evidence showing a likelihood of success on claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the United States Constitution, and that MALC s Section 5 1

24 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 2 of 40 claims were not insubstantial, this Court ordered interim plans that modified the challenged plans in ways that remedied many of Plaintiff s legal challenges to the plans. A review of Plaintiffs pleadings, attachments and argument on this cause together with this Court s orders, including orders regarding the 2012 interim redistricting plans Texas House and Texas Congressional districts and related voting procedures and practices demonstrate Plaintiffs position as prevailing party in this action. Time 2. My time in this case is kept contemporaneously with the work performed and usually recorded on a daily basis. For the time period ending April 24, 2012, I devoted a total of 2,588.9 hours to prepare and prosecute this action, including participating before four different United States District Courts (DDC, Eastern District, WD Austin Division and WD San Antonio Division) and the United States Supreme Court. In the exercise of billing judgment, I am discounting 20% of my time to account for any potential duplication of time with my co-counsel and to account for possible development of unrelated or unnecessary legal or factual issues. Therefore, I am requesting compensation for a total of 2, hours spent on the case. I have attached the time records that I maintained in this action, as Attachment No There was no unnecessary duplication of efforts. My co-counsel on this case and I carefully coordinated our efforts so as to avoid unnecessary duplication. We carefully divided tasks and witness and exhibit development in a similar fashion and any overlap was minimal and necessary to avoid errors. Moreover, we consulted with each other in order to better coordinate the development of the case. The amount of time expended in this case was necessary because it presented several difficult questions of fact and law, as well as unsettled issues that were litigated in the United States Supreme Court. Time spent in the months leading to the filing of this action were also necessary to protect MALC s interests by insuring that the State was presented with options that met the State s goals in redistricting that did not disadvantage minority voters. In addition, MALC s participation in a premature legal action in the eastern district, (apparently orchestrated by the State) was important to protect MALC s interests. The time spent on this case represents the 2

25 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 3 of 40 minimum hours necessary for an adequate preparation of pleadings, exhibits, and presentation to the court. Because of my thirty-one years of experience in Voting Rights cases, I did not spend any unnecessary time on issues and evidence developed in this case, and I did not spend time on matters that were not relevant to the prosecution of this action. Some of the time I spent on this case was for participating in the pending court case in Washington D.C. dealing with the Section 5 proceedings on the challenged redistricting plans. The Section 5 preclearance process in this case proceeded on a dual track with the litigation. In fact, this Court clearly understood how intertwined the litigation and the Section 5 process were in its rulings, and in the process it followed. It was thus, imperative for counsel for Plaintiff, to advocate its position to the District Court in Washington D. C. in order to protect its interest in this action. Finally, Plaintiff s objections to the 2012 redistricting plans were to a substantial degree resolved, by the Order entered by this Court. Market Rate 4. I have been a member of the Texas Bar for over 33 years. I am also a member of numerous federal court bars across the country. Throughout my career, my practice has focused on federal voting rights litigation. I have attached my resume as Attachment No. 1 to this declaration. In addition, the State of Texas stipulated that in 2001 the prevailing market rate for my time on voting rights cases was $ per hour. Eleven years later Mr. Rick Gray has testified and in recent fees awards, the Courts have determined that my prevailing market rate was $ per hour, in less complicated and more limited Section 5 enforcement actions. See Vasquez-Lopez v. Medina County, Texas 11-cv-945, W.D. Tex., San Antonio Division, 2012; Petteway et al., v. Galveston County, 11-cv-511, S.D. Tex., Galveston Division, For this case, in light of the role this case has played in the development of Section 5 and voting rights law, and in light of the role I assumed in organizing and developing of Plaintiffs case (with over nine different parties involved on Plaintiffs side) and with my role in the presentation of this case 3

26 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 4 of 40 to this Court and to the United States Supreme Court, I am asking to be compensated at a rate of $ per hour. Based on my knowledge of the prevailing market rates, and my experience with court awards in voting rights cases, I believe that my current rate for a case such as this case is $ This rate is supported by the expert opinion of Mr. Ricardo Cedillo in his declaration filed with this motion. Therefore, Plaintiff requests a rate of $ per hour for Mr. Garza s time in this action. 5. In addition, I have known Ricardo Cedillo for almost twenty years. I have had the opportunity to litigate this case with Mr. Cedillo, as my co-counsel, making me familiar with the high quality of his work. I am also familiar with Mr. Cedillo s reputation in the legal community and know that he is both a skilled and a respected member of the bar. In addition, through this litigation I became familiar with the skills and quality of work of other CDM attorneys Mark Kiehne and Laura Clark. Both of these lawyers are very skilled and produce a high quality of work. Further, I have had the opportunity to work with Joaquin G. Avila for almost 35 years and Martin Golando, for over 2 years making me familiar with the high quality of their work as well. In fact Mr. Avila is nationally recognized as an expert in Voting Rights law and as can be seen from a review of his declaration, teaches at and directs a voting rights project at the University of Seattle Law School. Finally, I am familiar with the national reputation of Professor Pamela Karlan 1, and know that she is highly regarded in the national legal community for her work in voting rights and United States Supreme Court advocacy. In fact it has been widely reported that she has been and continues to be on the President s list of potential candidates for appointment to the U. S. Supreme Court. I have reviewed the time records of the firm of Davis, Cedillo, and Mendoza, Professor Avila, Professor Karlan, Cynthia Jones and Martin Golando, and I find it was reasonable and necessary that DCM, 1 Professor Karlan was retained to assist with the United States Supreme Court portion of the case. 4

27 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 5 of 40 Professor Avila, Professor Karlan, Ms. Jones and Martin Golando spent the hours they devoted to this case and prosecuting this matter. 6. Moreover, having litigated for over thirty years in Texas state and federal courts, I am familiar with the prevailing market rate for attorneys of the experience and skill of Ricardo Cedillo, Mark Kiehne, Laura Clark, Professor Avila, Professor Karlan, Cynthia Jones and Martin Golando. Based on my knowledge and experience of prevailing market rates in the Western District of Texas and in Bexar County, Texas, and based on my knowledge of their skill, expertise, and work product, the following rates are reasonable hourly rates for these individuals: Lodestar Ricardo Cedillo - $750.00/hour Jose Garza $450.00/hour Joaquin G. Avila $725.00/hour Pamela Karlan _ $725.00/hour Martin Golando $ /hour Cynthia Jones - $250.00/hour Mark Kiehne - $350.00/hour Laura Clark - $275.00/hour 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. I have devoted 2,588.9 hours to the successful prosecution of this cause and am requesting compensation for those hours less a 20% billing judgment discount. In addition, Mr. Ricardo Cedillo and Jose Garza have testified that a prevailing market rate of $ per hour for Jose Garza in this case is reasonable. Therefore, the lodestar requested in this case for Jose Garza is $932, $ = $932,004.00) 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 5

28 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 6 of 40 extensive work required in a time-compressed period of time, I was unable to accept and work on other cases. 8. Time Limitation Imposed by Circumstances. The time limitations in this case were imposed by pending election schedules and by the failure of the State Defendants to comply with the provisions of the Voting Rights Act in a timely manner. 9. Undesirability of the Case. This case was filed pursuant to the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973c. Counsel for Plaintiff represents the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, the Texas House of Representatives. This case is very undesirable because the expedited election 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 case required significant time and resources to properly prosecute, and recovery of a fee and expenses was almost entirely contingent on success. 10. Experience and Expertise. My experience has included participation in federal litigation, extensive advocacy in state and federal administrative hearings, and preparation of pleadings, briefs and evidence for cases in both state and federal courts. I am or have been counsel in numerous voting rights cases including the following challenges under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act: Alonzo v. Jones, C (S.D. Tex. 1981)[Lead counsel in a successful action challenging the at-large election system for the City of Corpus Christi, Texas under the newly amended Voting Rights Act.]; Comm. Court of Medina County v. United States, 719 F. 2 nd 1179 (D.C. 1983)[Lead counsel representing minority defendant-interveners opposing Medina County s gerrymander redistricting plan in a preclearance action under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Successfully overturned District Court s failure to award attorneys fees.]; Lockhart v. United States, 102 S. Ct. 988 (1983)[Lead counsel representing minority defendant-interveners opposing City of Lockhart s preclearance proceedings before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and before the United States Supreme Court.]; 6

29 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 7 of 40 Terrazas v. Clements, 537 F. Supp. 514 (N.D. Tex. 1982)[Co-counsel in successful challenge to States redistricting plans for Bexar and El Paso Counties.]; Gomez v. City of Watsonville, 863 F. 2 nd 1407 (9 th Cir. 1988)[Co-counsel in successful challenge to the at-large election system for the City of Watsonville, California.]; Overton and Calderon v. City of Austin, 871 F. 2 nd 529 (5 th Cir. 1989)[Lead counsel for Mexican American plaintiffs in challenge to at-large election system for the City of Austin.]; Sanchez v. Bond, 875 F. 2 nd 1488 (10 th Cir. 1989)[Lead counsel in challenge to the election structure for Saguache County, Colorado Commissioners.]; Mena v. Richards, C F (332 nd Judicial District, Hidalgo County, Texas, 1992)[Co-counsel in successful challenge to the 1991 redistricting plans for the Texas House of Representatives and Texas Senate.]; LULAC v. NEISD, 903 F. Supp (W. D. Tex. 1995)[Co-counsel in successful challenge to election system for Trustees of the North East I.S.D.]; LULAC v. State of Texas, 113 F. 3 rd 53 (5 th Cir. 1998)[Lead counsel in successful challenge of a State election change under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.]; Perez v. Pasadena I.S.D., 165 F. 3 rd 368 (5 th Cir. 1999)[Cocounsel in challenge to the at-large election system for Trustees of the Pasadena I.S.D.]; Valdespino v. Alamo Heights I.S.D., 168 F. 3 rd 848 (5 th Cir. 1999)[Lead counsel in challenge to at-large election system for Trustees of the Alamo Heights I.S.D.] and of course in this case, including argument before the United States Supreme Court in (Perry v. Perez, 132 S.Ct. 934 (2012) [Lead counsel for appellee]) and numerous others. Also, in an article published by Texas Lawyer, a respected professional legal trade magazine, I was named one of twenty-five extraordinary minority lawyers in Texas in Finally, I was named Appellate Lawyer of the week by the National Law Review after my oral argument before the United States Supreme Court in Perry v. Perez. 11. I have provided advice and direction to other private attorneys in at-large election challenges, Section 5 enforcement actions, and gerrymandering election challenges, as well as to various legal agencies in Texas. I have also testified before a Congressional subcommittee on the renewal of the Voting Rights Act. I have also been an adjunct professor at the University of Texas, 7

30 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 8 of 40 School of Law and at St. Mary's University, School of Law where I taught a seminar course on Voting Rights. 12. It is my opinion, based on my experience, on awards made for my services in similar cases several years ago and upon inquiring of other lawyers, that the prevailing market rate for an attorney of over thirty years of experience, trying a case in his/her area of specialization, in a difficult and complicated civil rights case is between $400 and $750 per hour. Moreover, the State of Texas has paid its private lead counsel in this voting rights litigation in the range of over $525 per hour. 13. Results Obtained and other Enhancement Factors. The results obtained in this case were precisely what the Plaintiffs requested as an appropriate remedy, injunctive relief unless and until preclearance was secured, remedies to violations of Section 2 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and to violations of the United States Constitution. 14. Based on the foregoing and a review of the time records of my co-counsel, and having seen our work first hand, it is my opinion that the reasonable and necessary fees for Jose Garza, Professor Joaquin G. Avila, Professor Pam Karlan, Cynthia Jones, the attorneys of the firm of Davis, Cedillo and Mendoza and Martin Golando in prosecuting this matter are as follows: Lawyer Hours Rate Amount Jose Garza 2, x $ = $932, Joaquin G. Avila x $ = $233, Martin Golando 1, x $ = $252, Ricardo Cedillo x $ = $87, Mark Kiehne x $ = $164, Laura Clark x $ = $79, Cynthia Jones x $ = $5, After 20% billing judgment discount. 3 After 20% billing judgment discount. 8

31 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 9 of 40 Pamela S. Karlan x $ = $36, Costs 15. The expenses claimed in this motion are actual expenses made to properly and successfully prosecute this action. They include expenses for necessary travel, filing fees, copying, postage, discovery costs, exhibit preparation, and the like. In addition, Plaintiffs request payment for expert costs associated with this case. The unreimbursed expenses for the Law Office of Jose Garza in this case were $2, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. /s/ Jose Garza Attorney for Plaintiffs MALC. 9

32 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 10 of 40 ATTACHEMT NO. 1 RÉSUMÉ Jose Garza has more than thirty (30) years experience practicing law dealing almost exclusively with federal law. His practice areas focus mainly on governmental entities and federal litigation including 1 st and 14 th Amendment issues; redistricting, federal voting rights, and civil rights. Mr. Garza is currently on leave as the Litigation Director from Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, Inc. Mr. Garza has represented Latino voters in voting rights litigation including state-wide redistricting cases. Mr. Garza has testified as LULAC Voting Rights Counsel before the Congress on the re-enactment of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and has Represented LULAC in various voting rights matters including as co-counsel in LULAC v. Perry, where the U.S. Supreme Court found the Texas Congressional districting plan illegal under the VRA, because it discriminated against Latino voters. Formerly, he was involved in voting rights litigation as Program Director for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF). Mr. Garza has taught voting rights seminars as an adjunct professor at the University of Texas at Austin, School of Law and St. Mary s University, School of Law. In addition, he currently represents the Mexican American Legislative Caucus (MALC) in the 2011 state redistricting litigation. Education: B.S. in Education, Texas A&I ( ); Masters of Education, University of Texas at San Antonio ( ); J.D., St. Mary's University ( ). Relevant Experience: Law Office of Jose Garza ( ; March 2001-present); Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc.( ; present (part-time)); Gray & Becker ( ); Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund ( ); Texas Attorney General (1986); Adjunct Teaching Positions: University of Texas, School of Law ( ) and St. Mary s University, School of Law ( ) Significant Cases: Aguero v. Christopher, 481 F. Supp (S.D. Tex. 1980) - Lead counsel in successful farmworker action brought to enforce provisions of Wagner-Peyser Act and Fair Labor Standards Act. Alonzo v. Jones, C (S.D. Tex. 1981) - Lead counsel in a successful action challenging the at-large election system for the City of Corpus Christi, Texas under the newly amended Voting Rights Act. Comm. Court of Medina County v. United States, 719 F. 2 nd 1179 (D.C. 1983) - Lead counsel representing minority defendant-interveners opposing Medina County=s gerrymander redistricting plan in a preclearance action under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Successfully overturned District Court s failure to award attorneys fees. 10

33 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 11 of 40 Lockhart v. United States, 102 S. Ct. 988 (1983) - Lead counsel representing minority defendant-interveners opposing City of Lockhart s preclearance proceedings before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and before the United States Supreme Court. Terrazas v. Clements, 537 F. Supp. 514 (N.D. Tex. 1982) - Co-counsel in successful challenge to States redistricting plans for Bexar and El Paso Counties. Gomez v. City of Watsonville, 863 F. 2 nd 1407 (9 th Cir. 1988) - Co-counsel in successful challenge to the at-large election system for the City of Watsonville, California. Overton and Calderon v. City of Austin, 871 F. 2 nd 529 (5 th Cir. 1989) - Lead counsel for Mexican American plaintiffs in challenge to at-large election system for the City of Austin. Sanchez v. Bond, 875 F. 2 nd 1488 (10 th Cir. 1989) - Lead counsel in challenge to the election structure for Saguache County, Colorado Commissioners. Mena v. Richards, C F (332 nd Judicial District, Hidalgo County, Texas, 1992) - Cocounsel in successful challenge to the 1991 redistricting plans for the Texas House of Representatives and Texas Senate. LULAC v. NEISD, 903 F. Supp (W. D. Tex. 1995) - Co-counsel in successful challenge to election system for Trustees of the North East I.S.D. LULAC v. State of Texas, 113 F. 3 rd 53 (5 th Cir. 1998) - Lead counsel in successful challenge of a State election change under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Perez v. Pasadena I.S.D., 165 F. 3 rd 368 (5 th Cir. 1999) - Co-counsel in challenge to the atlarge election system for Trustees of the Pasadena I.S.D. Valdespino v. Alamo Heights I.S.D., 168 F. 3 rd 848 (5 th Cir. 1999) - Lead counsel in challenge to at-large election system for Trustees of the Alamo Heights I.S.D. Gomez v. City of Eagle Pass, 91 F. Supp (W. D. Tex. 2000) - Co-counsel in successful action against the City of Eagle Pass for illegal termination of City Manager in violation of Title VII s protection from gender discrimination, and 14 th Amendment s protections from political patronage discrimination. Balderas v. State of Texas, (E.D. Tex. 2001) Co-counsel representing the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, in successful challenge to 2001Texas redistricting plan for the Texas House of Representatives. LULAC v. Perry, 126 S. Ct (2006) Co-Counsel representing the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) in successful challenge to the 2003 Texas Congressional redistricting plan. Perry v. Perez, 132 S.Ct. 934 (2012) Lead counsel for the Mexican American Legislative Caucus in 2011 Texas redistricting litigation. Arguing counsel. Vasquez-Lopez v. Medina County, Texas 11-cv-945, W.D. Tex., San Antonio Division, 2012 Lead counsel in successful Section 5 enforcement action. Petteway et al., v. Galveston County, 11-cv-511, S.D. Tex., Galveston Division, 2012 Lead counsel in successful Section 5 enforcement action. 11

34 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 12 of 40 ATTACHMENT NO Redistricting MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS, Texas House of Representatives TIME RECORS FOR JOSE GARZA DATE ACTIVITY TIME Research one person one vote and census reliability. 2.1 Confer with potential expert. Confer with client staff. Begin draft of strategy memo. (pre-litigation preparation) Confer with 2 nd potential expert, discuss possible research 1.8 assignments and availability. Review some of the work he has done on CVAP analysis. Confer with client on status. Confer with GK Legal research Call and confer with Maldef, discuss possible legislative 4 and litigation strategies. Research issues regarding possible state court action. Review redistricting committee publications Review from Marty, confer with Marty regarding data 3.3 on committee. Confer with Joaquin Avila and Marty regarding formation of litigation team. Begin review of const. requirements Continue research of constitutional requirements. Review pop. 3.8 projections begin to compile analysis for target regions for new latino districts Review Terrazas v. Ramirez, other state redistricting cases. 4.7 Confer with Joaquin Avila on contact information for Kousser Call Chapa Review committee membership for redistricting committee. 5.8 Confer with Luis Figaroa at MALDEF. Confer with Marty. Begin draft of letter to Speaker. Legal research review Del Rio v. Perry line of cases. Confer with counsel for del rio Strategic meeting with Chairman and Marty. Explore possible 4 strategy for dealing with leadership in House on redistricting. Work on letter to Speaker. Examine background of Speaker s redistricting team Continue research on litigation strategy. Monitor election patterns

35 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 13 of 40 for state elections, potential impact on rbv analysis Confer with Marty on significance on election on MALC and 5 position on redistricting. Review membership of committee with Marty. Review impact of hearings to date attendance, scope, notice. Continue work on draft letter to speaker on redistricting. Place calls to Kousser, Chapa Finalize draft of letter. to Chairman and Marty. Respond to 3.5 s. Continue research and strategy on litigation efforts, call potential experts again Confer with Kousser, and Chapa concerning availability. 3.7 Continue research Meeting with Chairman. Confer with Marty. Review population 4 analysis done by Korbel, review legislative council web cite Meeting with Marty. Go over status of preparations Review s, confer with Marty, review Avila agreement. Work 3.9 on expert engagement agreements. Begin outline of possible expert tasks Work on review of historical redistricting efforts, potential issues 6 for this go around. Meeting with possible community supporters on redistricting Continue work on expert agreement drafts, Work on possible 2.2 expert assignments. Place call to doj. Reseach Confer with Marty, work on expert agreement letters, research Review current representation levels, compare to population 4.8 estimates. Confer with Marty, prepare for meeting with Lulac. Confer with and meet with LULAC representatives Confer with Joaquin Avila regarding status of engagement. Review.6 regarding travel schedule. Review information regarding possible voting rights act violations across Texas Confer with Marty on schedule, issues for discussion, and current.3 status Weekly meeting with Marty. Go over assignments, status of.3 preparations. Review Lulac v. Clements (judge cases) 13

36 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 14 of Organize files, review research. Begin memo on potential legal 2.8 strategies Review analysis of population distribution, growth in Texas. 3 Compare to current districts and project possible gains Prepare for meeting with co-counsel, client, etc. review pop. data 4.25 review Lulac v Perry. Meet with Chairman, Marty and Avila. Go over status, possible strategies, assignments Continue preparations for lit/leg. Meet with Avila, discuss 3.5 possible approaches to citizens ship issues. Strategy for developing evidence Confer with Chapa. Discuss commitments, possible solutions.5 possible assignments etc Meeting with SWVRP. Go over their role, position regarding 5 redistricting for Southwest and other civil rights organizations. Confer with Marty on things to be done. Prepare for meeting with Leg. Council, review manual, prepare outline for meeting with co-counsel. Legal Research Meet with George on workings at redapple. Possible early issues 2 regarding data to gather, etc. Read cases, visit leg council web page Confer with L. Vera on Lulac s status in process. Review data 8 on districts, review recent redistricting publications. Travel to Austin and back. Meet with Leg. Council staff. Go through training on redapple Travel expenses 144 $.5 per mile = $72.00; parking - $ review redapple manuel. Continue research Review census data and census announcements. Confer with 4.8 Marty, Chairman and Chapa. Resolve questions. Review growth patterns Work on revisions to Chapa agreement. Confer with Marty. 3 Review pop. data. Begin wk on Kaufman letter Confer with Dallas community leader regarding possible areas.3 for inclusion in Dallas H districts. 14

37 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 15 of Travel to Austin and back. Confer with Mike Morrison, counsel 7.5 Senate. Work on redapple. 146 $.5 per mile = $73.00; parking - $ Legal Research on state law claim Travel to Edinburg and back. Meet with Hidalgo County Judge 5.5 R. Garcia discuss census and cvap issues, & registration Review census material. Legal research Travel to Austin. Work on potential state cause of action. Meet 7 with Speakers Redistricting team (Kauffman etc.). Confer with Marty. Travel to San Antonio. 144 $.5 per mile = $72.00; parking -$ Confer with Marty on schedule. Review ACS data for Hidalgo 2.2 County. Review memos, correspondence, notes and research from Hidalgo County officials Travel to Austin. Confer with Hebert, Korbel, review cases on 8 case and controversy. Confer with Marty; research issues related to ripeness. Travel to San Antonio. 148 $.50 = $ Prepare for meeting with Chairman, review agenda. Research 7 possible DC contacts on redistricting; work on Hidalgo County census count problems, impact on redistricting, review Valdespino, review communications between Census and Hidalgo County officials, review reports on census border strategies Travel to Austin and return (meeting cancelled) Work on House 5 Senate schedule and review rules; confer with Archer on redist. rules. review data on Voter I.D. bill for impact on redistricting. Research. 108 = $ Travel to Austin. Work on memo to Chairman. Confer with 8 Marty, discuss memo and status of meetings in DC. Divide assignments. Confer with Korbel, Chapa, Kousser, and Avila. Travel to San Antonio Place call to DOJ spoke with Berman. Spoke with Camarrillo

38 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 16 of 40 about summit meeting with Latino interest groups. Call Lulac Travel to Austin and back. Confer with Chairman and Marty. 5.3 Attend and participate in briefing with members of Tx. House Speak with counsel for some members of Congressional del Travel to and from Austin. Confer with the Chairman, work on 5.5 agenda for meetings in Washington, legal research on issue of adjustment, review s from Jorge work on outlines for meetings Work with Chapa on analysis of HCVAP census special tab. 8.2 Work on possible state court action, review Ramirez lit.travel To Baltimore, travel to Washington D.C. Modify request to Kousser. Review vra for tvra proposal. Confer w Marty, and Chairman. Legal Research: review Valle v. Clements Continue working on outlines topics and agenda for meetings Prepare for meeting with Census. Travel to census office Meet with Census officials, discuss formation of cvap data. Travel to DOJ, meet with doj officials, discuss standards, use of cvap data, standards for retrogression, intent, amendments. Travel to Rayburn Bldg. meet with and confer with members of Texas cong. delegation Travel to Texas, review Teuber litigation, research issues raised 6.2 by east texas legal action Review law issues raised by Teuber, review intervention require- 1.1 Ments Continue to work on researching issues. Work on intervention 3.3 Pleadings. Research issues of ripeness and standing Confer with co-counsel, Avila, confer with chairman and with 3 Marty. Confer with Korbel. Work on outline of legislative issues and strategy Work on motion to intervene and motion to dismiss. Confer with 6.2 Nina P. revise pleadings and modify and edit motions and exhibits Work on cite checks, modify motion to intervene, modify motion 4 to dismiss. Review Mayfield orders, work on pro hac vice motion Travel to Austin and back. Attend and participate in Redistricting 8 16

39 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 17 of 40 Summit w/ Latino Task Force advocacy groups. Review edits From Joaquin. Research cases. 172 $.50 = $ Begin research on 12(b)(6) portion of brief. Review Garza, Chen 5 Review Irving pleadings on same, continue with pleading revisions Research legal issues. Review cases and shep Finalize research Confer with Marty, revise pleadings, edits revisions, confer with 3.4 D. Richards Confer with Hull. Finalize motions and briefs and file Continue legal research on potential redistricting causes of action. 7.5 Travel to Austin and back. Organize file, review state law on matters dealing with redistricting. Review district populations. Meet with clients. 156 $.50 = $ Travel to and from Austin. Meet with Representatives. Work on 5 review of districts, review Solomons letter $.5 = $ Identify potential witness on redistricting hearings, confer with 4.1 Hidalgo County potential witnesses. Work on letters to DOJ and to speaker Straus on behalf of MALC Travel to Austin and back. Continue with interviews with valley 8 potential witness, Alvarez, Polinard, etc. Confer with Marty on committee staff, schedules, resources available to draw maps etc Travel to McAllen and Edinburg. Meet with Alvarez, Perez, Judge 8.5 Garcia, etc. Travel to San Antonio Work on service of pleadings issues. Confer with staff and make 3 assignments Travel to Austin and back. Work on draft plans for state house 8 Dallas and Bexar. 159 $.50 = $ Work on south Texas house districts. 4 17

40 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 18 of Work on North Texas house districts Work on North and east Texas districts. Confer with RT and DR 5 Review population analysis. Modify districts Travel to Austin and back. Meeting with caucus review status of 9 Litigation; meeting with Alonzo and Anchia; meeting with Alvarado; meeting with David Richards Work on Bexar County portion of map; work on state-wide plan. 5 Confer with Marty, divide up work assignments Work on modifications to state house plan. Confer with Marty Travel to Hidalgo County, interview county staff and city potential 8 Witnesses Work on revisions to south texas portions of map. Research whole 4 County line rule Travel to Austin and back. Attend Dallas delegation meeting; work 7 on Harris County portion, modify districts $.50 = $ Continue working on state wide map, try to modify deviations 4 between districts within counties Meet with and plan strategic goals with civil rights advocacy 5.25 Groups, share and work on modifications to plans Work on state-wide map. Modify Harris County with 25 and districts Work on draft pleadings using different scenarios. Work on house 6.3 plan modificaitons Work on draft pleadings, research texas constitution. Review plan 6.8 Instruct paralegal on changes to make Travel to San Antonio and back. Prepare testimony for committee 10.1 Review population data on draft districts, confer with Marty and staff; continue to work on pleadings. Review plans from other parties $.50 = $

41 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 19 of Travel to and from Austin. Finalize and present testimony. Work 8.2 on modifications to plan. Review data and adjust districts Continue with new variation of state house plan Review court orders, confer with clients, travel to Austin 7 and back. Work with Marty on factual circumstances on work of committee, review file, review correspondence Confer with executive committee of MALC, discuss lit. options 10 Review committee plans, work with committee staff. Work on congressional outline. Work with staff on comparison tables Research Section 5 issues, Section 5 judicial preclearance time- 4 lines and standards. Review regulations and case law Travel to Austin and back work on new plan for Harris County 7 In state house MALC plan $.50 = $ Travel to Austin and back, work on pleadings and work on 7 Variations on the plans $.50 = $ Work on plaintiff s original petition. Modify and make edits. 3.8 Confer with client Travel to Edinburg and back. Confer with local officials; confer 7 With MALC staff. File original petition Travel to Austin and back. Modify plan for harris county again. 8 Work on factual development for Complaint. Meet with staff and Review work and assign tasks for potential legislative proceedings $.50 = $ Travel to Austin and back. Modify plan in Harris county, confer 10 with Rep. Alvarado and Frarar. Confer with chairman. Review Alternative plans developed by MALDEF and Korbel $.50 = $ Work on plaintiff s original complaint; legal research on whole 7.3 County rule. Review constitutional language and Valles etc. Similar rules in other states review Strickland Travel to Austin and back. Continue working on complaint. Wk 10 on house plans and alternatives for use in legislative debates. 19

42 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 20 of 40 Review census data, work with staff and review their work on alternatives $.50 = $ Travel to Austin and back. Work on floor amendments with staff. 9.1 Review pleadings, modify and edit. Review Teuber litigation activity and pleadings. Work on response to TDP s motion to dismiss $.50 = $ Travel to Austin and back. Work on house and congressional plan 12 with staff. Confer with staff on exhibit development, review Solomon s plan. Meet with affected Reps. Get input on response and potential amendments $.50 = $ Travel to Austin and back. Review legislative proposal made by 7 Solomon work on exhibits. Work on complaint. Add legislative process facts etc $.50 = $ Confer with and schedule phone conference. Interview Jim Well.8 County potential witness Travel to Hidalgo County. Work with county officials to have 7 service processed. Work with local officials and community leaders on impact of Solomon s plan in the valley. Confer with community on need for additional legislative and congressional representation. Discuss growth in local communities Travel to Austin and back. Work on plans for compliance with 13 One person, one vote. Meeting with congressional rep to discuss Impact on different regions, discuss legal requirements; work on Presentation to MALC members. Work with MALC members on strategy for and presentation of floor debate. Review legal obligaitons in redistricting with caucus members. Review and discuss particular aspects of different MALC maps and districts. Go over comparison charts and other exhibits. Confer with expert on status of rbv analysis and intent evidence that needs to be developed during floor debates. Review new DOJ regulations $.50 = $ Travel to Austin and back. Research whole county line rule, apply 10 To plans developed by house committee and MALC plans. Revise and modify plans. Confer with Marty and Daniel (malc staff) go over status of modifications on plans. Work on response to Teuber motion 20

43 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 21 of 40 for extension of time $.50 = $ Continue to work on modifications to plans with Marty and Daniel. 8 Work on Teuber pleadings. Travel to Austin and back $.50 = $ Work on legal memo analyzing legal issues with HB Travel to Austin and back. Work on exhibits and evaluation of 7.5 Plans. Confer with Chairman and staff of MALC in preparation For floor debates. Supervise review development of packets. 162 $.50 = $ Travel to Austin and back. Finalize legal memo analyzing H.B Meet with Caucus membership, review floor debate strategy; review legal analysis of HB150 with members. Review alternative plans to be presented focus on salient features vis a vis minority and Latino VRA issues Confer with staff on progression of floor debate on house floor. 4 Confer with members of caucus as needed Confer with Marty on impact of floor debate analysis of votes Travel to Austin and back. Confer with staff on exhibit 8 development. Wk on plan analysis, role of experts, review pleadings revise all pleadings based on new legislative record and facts. Confer with David Richards $.50 = $ Confer with expert, Jorge Chapa review work on cvap Travel to Austin and back. Work on pleadings for fed. complaint. 6 Work on modifications to congressional plan. Confer with MALC staff $.50 = $ Confer with potential expert on whole county line rule. Work 1.1 with experts on cvap data and legislative record matters Travel to Austin and back. Continue work on complaint. Research 5 issues of intent. Confer with staff on congressional plans. Review maps Work on complaint, modify, expand, confer with co-counsel. 6 21

44 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 22 of Finalize complaint. Review edits from JGA and MG. incorporate Make final changes to complaint, prepare filing papers and file 4.4 with clerk Review committee plans, review impact on minority voters. 4.8 Review reports, election analysis. Confer with members and staff. Develop comparison charts Continue review of plans, compare minority districts in current 5 plan and HB150, and MALC and Task force plans. Work with staff on congressional plan alternatives and charts on texas house plans Travel to and from Austin. Confer with client. Work with staff on 7.8 Making modifications to congressional plans. Review status of record of legislative process. 158 $.50 = $ Confer with co-counsel and experts on Section 2 strategy. Discuss 3.4 development of evidence and exhibits. Assign tasks. Legal research Review removal of state action. Legal research on remand Review Terrazas, and Ramirez. Review State constitutional requirements on redistricting. Travel to Austin and back. Confer with staff. Work with staff on election and map data review Work on remand pleadings and legal memos Travel to Austin and back. Work with staff on congressional plans 15 and state plans. Compare plans with plans being reviewed in Senate Help develop floor strategy. Review law review articles on scope of state const.protections. Review process for remand motion $.50 = $ Travel to Austin and back. Help develop floor debate strategy. 8 Leg. Research. Review Terrazas v. Ramirez, Perry v. Del Rio etc Work on remand pleadings. Legal research review Sessions, 3.8 Balderas, Del Rio. Etc. Review law review articles Work on report to court and research possible summary judg. 4 Issues in Teuber. Work on remand pleadings. 22

45 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 23 of Work on legal memo on remand motion. Review Del Rio Session 5.5 Growe, etc. finish first draft, review def s notice Review possible exhibits for sum. Judgment motion, review issues 5.1 Dealing with timeliness of filing, review del rio again Finalize pleadings on remand motion, exhibits, declarations etc. 3.2 Finalize sj exhibits Work on amended complaint in SA litigation. Confer with 3.5 Client; co-counsel. Research review SB 1 and HB Finalize amended complaint finalize motion to amend, proposed order etc Travel to Austin and back. Work on review of congressional 8.4 Plan. Wk with staff on comparison models. Prepare assignment For Chapa and discuss with him. Review new legal actions filed Review Rodriguez pleadings. Work on prel. Injunction issues. 7 confer with Marty on legislative schedule. Confer with other counsel on status of claims Work on summons review pleadings, confer with other counsel.3 on stratageis Travel to Austin and back. Work on plans with staff. Meet with 9.2 counsel for Perez plaintiffs $.50 = $ Travel to Austin and back. Finalize congressional plans $.50 = $ Travel to Austin and back. Monitor redistricting committee 8 hearing. Confer with staff and review congressional plans, strategy for house floor debate, possible amendments $.50 = $ Travel to Austin and back. Confer with staff. Finalize Congress 8.7 Plan. Meeting with counsel for Rodriguez plaintiffs discuss and negotiate on venue issues, potential common ground Prepare for and confer with co-counsel and experts. Outline tasks 5 and discuss components of case. Legal research on venue, ripeness. 23

46 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 24 of Travel to Austin and back. Work with staff on floor strategy. Wk 10 on amendments; meet with caucus members, black caucus staff. Confer with counsel for black caucus. Monitor legislative Proceedings Review Larios, review data on different scales for measuring 10 use of population for partisan and racial advantage. Review plans for potential Section 5 issues. Review amendments to Section 5, review legislative history, doj regulations Work on pleadings, confer with client, discuss strategy impact 10 of Larios. Review legal standards, review Strickland, new cases. Review cases on census adjustments for Teuber case isssues Work on second amended complaint. Confer with Marty and work 9 on expert aff d drafts Work on amended complaint. Work on issues of standing, timing 7 and venue Prepare for hearing. Review pleadings, cases, outline arguments Travel to Plano and back. Review pleadings, cases on ripeness, 8.4 dominant jurisdiction, census issues, undocumented or noncitizen population in census counts, etc. Meet with Marty and review status of assignments from experts. Court hearing Work on report to the court. Research legal issues, review Del 9.4 Rio, Mayfield, 1404a, draft report, confer with Richards, Tx. Atty Gen. and with Dunn. Check on declarations, review s Confer with Korbel Work on report to court, research and draft report circulate to 10 Co-counsel review pleadings filed by other parties. Confer with Counsel in related cases. Review s, update file Finalize report to court. Review edits and modify. Direct 10 evidence development for challenge to adopted plan. Confer with staff, review experts s, prepare for conference call Review and begin to prepare response to motion to dismiss. Pull 8 cases, review and shep Prepare for hearing. Confer with Marty and Joaquin. Attend and 8.3 participate in hearing. Meet with client and discuss status and hearing results. Work with staff on trial preparation, review list 24

47 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 25 of 40 of potential exhibits, review redistricting plans partial map exhibits, individual district exhibits, charts etc Continue with trial prep. Review file, pleadings, review motion 10 to dismiss outline claims, review and pull new cases, review First amended complaint Review file. Check pacer for status of related cases. Trial prep: 8 review redistricting maps, charts, detail differences between different maps and district make-up Review court s orders, review file, work on review of Def s 9.7 filings, review material sent to experts, review chapa draft, send to chapa on what still needs to be done. Review scheduling order. Confer with co-counsel Work on response to Def s motion to dismiss. Read cases 13.5 cited. Review Lopez and shep. Trial prep: review ct s orders experts with additional instructions, outline issues in Def s motion Legal research on motion to dismiss continued. Begin to draft 13.7 Of response distinguish cases cited by Defs. Review 1983 Issues and cases. Review standing cases, review LULAC case On judges and voters standing in Section 2 case. Review standard For organizational standing, e.g. Hunt. Review and update files. Meeting with potential co-counsel firm Work on response to motion to dismiss. Review cases pulled 12 By Marty on scope of authority, review jga s section on section 5, review files, monitor deadlines. Review Court s orders Work on response to motion to dismiss, modify draft, edits 8 sections, cite check and update Trial Preparation. Work on pleadings file. Review rules. Review 16 pleadings filed in Rodriguez litigation, determine possible impact on our case. Monitor Tueber, Perez, Latino Task force filings, Confer with Marty. Modify response to motion to dismiss Trial preparation, work with Marty on status of expert reports, 13.5 Identify potential witnesses. Confer with Avila, Kiehne and Clark. Confer with Marty. Review pleadings, review research, make final edits to pleadings and responses. File Trial preparation. Work on amended complaint. Work on 14 25

48 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 26 of 40 Disclosures and other pleadings. Review pleadings filed by other parties. Review Georgia v. Ashcroft. Work on research on whole county line rule. Confer with Richards, Perales and Korbel Trial preparation. Draft exhibit list; prepare for p s litigation 15 Strategy meeting; review and finalize motion for extension of time on expert report. Work on identifying potential depo witnesses, meet with co-counsel and review work assignments Trial preparation. Staff meeting with MG. Go over C plans, Chapa 12.1 analysis, work on disclosures supp. Work on amended complaint, review exhibit list, modify and add more exhibits, review Gingles districts, review finalize motion to dismiss Prepare for hearing on venue. Review cases and develop argue- 5 ments for SA venue Trial Preparation. Work on amended complaint and finalize. 12 Work on discovery review experts analysis. Legal research. Travel to Austin and back: 177 $.50 = $ Trial preparation. File amended complaint. Review pleadings 10 Recently filed. Confer with counsel Trial preparation. Work on discovery outline, review file. 8 Work on venue issues Trial preparation. Review expert reports, work with experts 10.5 on modifications. Review list of potential witnesses, review plans needed to establish Gingles I, confer with co-counsel; work on discover. Work on reports to court Review filed reports, review pleadings by intervenors pleadings 9 Confer with co-counsel. Finalize disclosures, and reports to the court Travel to Austin and back. Review requests for production of 10.5 documents. Review documents prepared in response. Work on files. Confer with Frederick concerning discovery issues. Trial preparation Review court s order. Review s. Confer with opp. counsel 8.3 on status of depositions schedule. Review and organize files. Review rules. Review pending motions. 26

49 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 27 of 40 Copies of exhibits and Alford deposition transcripts. $ Review pleadings, organize files, confer with co-counsel, prepare 16 For depositions. Review plans for House, and Congress. Review disclosures. Review latest complaints. Review s, meet and confer with Rep. TMF, and VR. Confer with staff, review documents in response; review and modify written response to request for production; work with Marty to finalize and organize document response Trial preparation. Review and modify response to production req. 12 Review documents. Confer with Rep. VG. re deposition. Confer with Mattox and Perales. Respond to motion to modify schedule. Begin prep for depositions. Confer with staff on status of logistics for depositions. Confer with experts on reports. Confer with all counsel on case on status Work on deposition logistics. Confer with Anchia, Alonzo and 10.3 Avila on schedule for depo and prep. Prepare list of possible depo exhibits. Prepare further for depositions. Review recent filings on motions etc Continue depo preparation. Confer with staff on securing docs 8 needed for depositions. Review house journal, maps and data Depo prep. Review documents and house debate and plans Work on designation of witnesses and exhibits. Review expert 12 report drafts. Confer with J Chapa and go over possible errors and possible modifications. Review Kousser report. Final prep. for tomorrows depositions Travel to Austin and back for depositions. Depositions of Archer 16.5 Interianno and Davis. Travel to McAllen for hearing. Prepare for court hearing. 174 $.50 = $ Prepare for and attend hearing. Confer with and interview 13 potential witnesses from valley. Travel to San Antonio. Review expert reports; confer with co-counsel on motions responses, and depositions $.50 = $ Hotel in McAllen - $.29 27

50 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 28 of 40 Trip meals - $ Review files. Review expert reports, confer with co-counsel and 12 experts. Legal research, finalize pleadings. Work on discovery review correspondence to defendants attys. Review answers to interrogatories Trial preparation. Review trial outline legal research and 7 modify outline and proof requirements Review expert reports and confer with Chapa. Review exhibit 11.3 and witness list and modify to match changes to trial outline. Confer with co-counsel. Review pleadings and deposition notices Trial preparation. Review deposition transcripts, exhibits 13.2 produced by defendants. Prepare for deposition of Davis. Finalize designation of exhibits, witnesses and expert reports and file. Interview Jessica Farrar on house debate. Review plans and house Debate transcript with Rep. F Trial preparation. Travel to Austin and back. Prepare for depos. 12 Deposition of Interiano, Deposition of Davis. 173 $.50 = $ Work on reply to motion to stay. Research and review questions 8.2 questions put forth by court. Draft response, finalize and file. Deposition of Tijerina. Meeting with legal team go over depos of Farrar, Gallego and Alonzo Legal team meeting, go over and divide assignments. Review 11 Court s order, review Engstrom s report. Begin working on prop. Findings of fact and conclusions of law. Work on intervention papers Review expert reports. Review filings. Confer with co-counsel. 12 Deposition of Downton, of Engstrom Trial preparation. Review expert reports, confer with Marty, 7.5 Review pleadings, work on pre-trial order Trial preparation. Meet with and prepare experts for depositions Continue to work on pretrial order. Review filings and review expert reports filed by parties. Meeting with Kousser and Chapa Depo. Preparation. Depositions of Kousser and Chapa. Meet with

51 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 29 of 40 legal team. Review intervention papers and confer with DOJ attorney Review scheduling order, confer with Marty. Continue to work 7.6 pretrial order. Confer with co-counsel. Review court filings Review pleadings. Confer with Perales, attend Flores deposition Review State s motion for summary judgment, and motion to dismiss. Review cases cited, research issues raised Work on response to motions. Confer with co-counsel. Review 14.1 discovery material. Prepare for jt. Plaintiffs meeting. Prepare outline of case that can be shared with other plaintiffs counsel. Prepare proposal for witness and exhibit list and order of presentation Joint meeting of all plaintiffs counsel. Lead discussion of 8 Presentation of case, issues, witness order, strategy. Post meeting conference with legal team on same issues Trial preparation. Work on response to motion to dismiss and 8.7 and psj, continue review of cases, circulate draft. Review pleadings. Organize file. Work on gingles district plans Trial preparation. Finalize and file response to State s motion. 10 Revise witness list, witness order, and outlines. Review expert reports. Work on outline of experts testimony Trial Preparation. Work on pre-trial order, work on witness 12.9 Interviews, review documents, review pleadings filed in case. Confer with co-counsels, develop different strategies for pot. outcomes. Confer with DOJ Work on pretrial order. Work on developing issues in dispute; 12 Stipulation possibilities. Confer with JGA and MG. Go over assignments, review depo testimony and expert reports, review exhibits Travel to Austin and back. Interiano deposition. Interview witness 13 Confer with Perez counsel Trial Preparation. Interview witnesses. Work on surreply. 7.3 Review record and interrogatories and production. Research Trial preparation. Review depo testimony. Work on surreply 8.5 Work on pretrial order; review State s reply to response. Research. 29

52 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 30 of Trial preparation. Witness interviews, confer with MALC staff 11.9 Regarding schedules. Meet with Marty on depo prep. Confer with Avila on prep and chapa status. Finalize and file surreply Trial preparation. Witness preparation. Ass t with doj interviews. 9.3 Finalize pretrial order sections and send to doj Work on pretrial order. Review and modify. Review Chapa 14 exhibit. Travel to Austin and back. Solomon deposition. Work on prep. For pretrial hearing. Review standing issues; trial schedule Prepare for and attend pretrial hearing, Selinger depo. review 11 Exhibits and witness list; prepare for alford deposition; confer With litigation team and go over assignments etc Prepare for and attend Alford deposition; travel to Austin and 9.2 back. Trial preparation, meet with team Trial preparation, review exhibits, depositions, confer with co counsel, confer with P s attys. Review exhibit list, work with team on exhibits, work on witness outlines, review pleadings. Confer with co-counsel on status of reply briefs and other pleadings Work on witness outlines and declarations. Confer with counsel 12 for plaintiffs. Work with expert. Work on opening statement Trial preparation, review exhibits, prepare outlines for witnesses, 14 Confer with witnesses, do run through on exhibits and trial max. Review court s orders and confer with co-counsel. Finalize trial Preparations, notebook, etc Trial preparation. Trial Trial preparation. Trial. Work on offer of proof declaration Trial preparation. Trial. Work on depos. review Trial preparation. Trial. Work on preparation for x of def. 8 witnesses. Confer with co-counsel Trial. Trial preparation. Continue review of State s witness depo 8 wk with other p s attys. On division of labor, confer with cocounsel on trial strategy. 30

53 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 31 of Trial preparation. Trial. Review exhibits and witness outlines Trial preparation. Trial. Work on cross outline Trial preparation. Trial. Work on closing arguments. Research Trial preparation. Trial Trial preparation. Trial. Post trial meeting, debrief and make 7.25 assignments and tasks that need to be done Conference call on status and strategy. Meet with litigation team Review doj drafts, review doj regulations. Begin work on advisory 7.8 to court Work on post trial review of record. Work on profers, review 8.9 State s pleadings and filings. Review transcripts from trial Work on post trial brief. Work on review of testimony and 4.75 exhibits Work on post trial brief. Research rbv, review filings, review 8 Trial transcript work on post trial brief. Review exhibits. Review transcript. 8.5 Confer with co-counsel. Review Ct s advisory. Confer with co-counsel regarding tro motion Research and work on draft of tro motion Work on tro motion. Confer with other P s counsel on status. 7.5 Confer with Def s counsel, review election code; work on aff ds. From Webb and Cameron counties. Review doj statements. Confer with Marty and staff go over maps, and Options for possible interim plan Finalize injunction motion. Make modifications. Research. 8.4 Confer with Ct s clerk on logistics. Continue work on post trial brief. Review record, review State s profers Review doj/state correspondence. Review State s response to 5.1 Tro motion. Confer with JGA and MG Work on reply to State s filings. Review election deadlines. 10 Confer with MALC staff. Make apt. to see Bexar elections 31

54 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 32 of 40 administrator. Confer with DR regarding Dallas elections admin. Confer with Perales. Review trial transcript Work on post trial brief. Review transcript, confer with Bexar 8.25 elections administrator. Review court s order on interim plan schedule. Monitor court hearing in DC Work on post trial brief Work on post trial brief. Review court s order on interim plan 9.4 and scheduling order Work on post trial brief. Research review court transcript and 7.6 exhibits Work on post trial brief. Meet with and brief the caucus members Continue working on post trial brief, research Review filings and work on plan for submission as possible 6.5 interim plan Review filings. Confer with staff at MALC on possible maps Travel to Austin and back. Work on possible interim plan Confer with co-counsel Continue to work on possible plan for submission for interim 6.3 court ordered plan Continue working on plan, review possible plan presentation Finalize plan. Review plan reports. Review alford report. Work on summary judgment motion review motion, review exhibits to same, work on response Organize files. Review recent pleadings, and correspondence. 7 Review cases and articles on rbv Review new reports. Work with Kousser on revised analysis. 8 Review plan proposals from other parties Work on response pleadings. Work with Kousser. Work on 7.9 plan proposals Work on response to plan proposals, work with Perales on same Prepare for new hearings. 8 32

55 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 33 of Work on jt. advisory. Confer with attys and staff Work on jt. advisory. Review filings on plans, work on exhibits Review exhibits; work w/marty on exhibits; draft advisory; confer 8 with State Work on jt. advisory. Interview witness for Monday s hearing 9 Research. Work on exhibits Work on exhibits, prepare for oral argument, review Upham, 8.2 Abrams, review doj filing, work on wintess preparation Remedy hearing prep. and remedy hearing Travel to DC prepare for hearing Prepare for hearing. Hearing. Travel to San Antonio Hearing on interim plan Review order on schedule. Confer with court staff. Monitor 2 Senate staff Review exhibits from interim remedy hearings, review exhibit 4.1 Lists, organize file. Review State letter brief; review draft reponse. Confer with co-counsel; review s w/doj Review draft of reponse to State s letter brief review doj reponse; 2.6 review court order. Review doj filings on Section 2 issues, review and modify court advisory file same Review court s order; confer w/clients; review costs invoice. Work 5.25 on files Review state s new advisory by Texas Confer with Rick Gray Review files; confer with co-counsel; respond to courts request 2.3 on exhibit, travel to mtg with MALC members, brief on status of case Review file, confer with RG and Marty, review plans, respond to 1.75 court s inquiry. 33

56 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 34 of Review doj s filings, map proposed by doj, begin review of maj. 4 op. plan. and Smith s plan Review filings; draft and submit advisory; client mtg. discuss 3.2 status; continue assessment of court ordered plan, review Smith plan Review pleadings, review file. Research issue of stay and require- 2 ments Review proposed congressional plan. confer with co-counsel, 4 Research issues raised by order. Review ct s order and dissent on state house plan Review State s request for stay and confer with client Review court s plan, prepare comment and advisory, continue to 4 Review State s motion for stay; research issues of stay; review dist. Ct s order denying motion Work on opp. To stay application. Review cases, confer with co- 5.4 Counsel, review sup. Ct s rules and practices Review State s request for stay congressional ct. plan. review ct s 4.6 Order denying motion for stay; review def s notice of appeal. Confer with client. Legal research Review State s application for stay of texas house plan with sup. 4.1 Ct. Confer with clerk of sup. Ct. research cases cited. Confer with Client Begin work on response. Review cases, review trial record, review 9.9 Court s orders. Start draft Continue work on response brief; review DC orders, confer with 8.5 client. Confer with co-counsel Revise, edit, modify and finalize response brief. File Review congressional stay application, review filings on House 3.4 Plan stay application Review filings with Sup. Ct. and State s response brief. Review 8.4 file, review state s trial brief. Legal research. 34

57 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 35 of Review response and replys to Application for stay. Confer with 6.6 clients, review status. Review trial exhibits for non-malc parties. Confer with co-counsel Work on pleadings on stay, research, draft pleadings. Confer 6 with client Review sup. Ct. rules. Review Section 5 cases on injunctive 6 relief Begin preparation for oral argument. Confer with NP on merits 9 Brief, confer with Rodriguez lawyers continue to review file record, trial transcripts and hearing transcripts Oral argument preparation. Review cases. Outline issues Prepare for oral argument. Review transcripts of hearing. Maps 7 produced, supporting exhibits etc Oral argument preparation. Review trial record, Smith s dissent 6.5 Review state s trial brief. Legal research Oral argument preparation. Review trial record. Review exhibits Oral argument preparation. Review trial record. Review hearing 8.5 transcripts Oral argument preparation. Review trial record. Review pleadings 8 Cases, such as Bartlett, Branch, Chapman etc Oral argument preparation. Review trial record. Review State 8.5 filings on issue of interim plan Oral argument preparation. Review trial record. Review exhibits 5 on interim plans Oral argument preparation. Review trial record. Review 7 filings, research on cases where stays denied. Review district court s opinions Oral argument preparation. Review trial record. Review file Review pleadings, exhibits and transcripts of trial and hearings Oral argument preparation. Review trial record. Review expert 8 reports. Confer with Martin Golando. 35

58 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 36 of Oral argument preparation. Review drafts of merits brief. Review 10 Gonzales-Baker report, Kousser and Martin testimony Review filings of other parties. Oral argument preparation. 11 Review trial record. Review State s brief. Pull cases and organize Continue oral argument preparation. Review time lines. Outline 8 Issues. Confer with MG Work on reply brief with NP, and PK. Review Nina s outline 5 Pam s notes. Tel. conf. with NP and PK. Work on preparation for oral argument. Review DC court s order. Review merits brief from amicus Oral argument preparation. Review trial record, research legal 7 issues. Review Branch. Confer with Martin on logistics. Review preclearance judicial v. admin. Review all ct. orders on interim plans Organize file. Oral argument preparation. Prepare outline for 8 Argument. Review argument transcripts from other cases on vra Oral argument preparation. Review trial record. Pull cases and 8.1 Highlight. Modify outline, review doj s brief. Confer with co- Counsel Oral argument preparation. Review trial record Oral argument preparation. Review trial record Oral argument preparation. Review election schedules. Study 11 Primary dates; review application and response briefs; review Court s orders on argument Oral argument preparation. Organize file. Review State s reply 12 Brief, Rodriguez brief, work on outline of importanat issues. Travel to DC Oral argument preparation. Work on record. Amicus briefs, key 10 cases. Confer with MALC staff and co-counsel MG Oral argument preparation. Prepare for moot court. Modify 10.2 Outline, and opening. Georgetown Moot Oral argument preparation. Prepare for 2 nd moot court. Work on 14.9 Opening; modify outline, review supplemental opinion. Memorize 36

59 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 37 of 40 and focus on procedures followed by district court. Plaintiffs counsel moot court. Follow-up, review standards, citation to record review. Review Abrams and McDaniel Mulvaney/Harvard PK moot court. Work on refining issues, 11 Answers, tighten up argument. Work with NP on argument prep. review. Note cards with questions answers Review question flash cards, go over answers with Marty and 9 Nina. Review Branch and Upham. Go over JA and Addendums Oral argument preparation. Review and finalize podium binder. 14 Review flash card questions with Martin and Nina. ORAL ARGUMENT. Meet with and debrief with client and co-counsel. Travel to Texas Review s, confer with co-counsel. Review documents. Work 7.4 On response to daubert challenge Deposition of David Hanna, travel to Austin and back. Trial Prep Review filings Travel to Washington DC organize files, prepare for DC trial Trial preparation DC trial. And prepare for next day DC trial. Prepare for next day, review trial transcript. Review depositions DC trial DC Trial Trial preparation Trial preparation, review Alford deposition. Witness prep DC trial, trial preparation DC trial, trial preparation DC trial, trial preparation, travel to Texas Hearing preparation, review order, confer with client. Confer

60 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 38 of 40 With Gen. Abbott on possible points of agreement. Confer with Other counsel for plaintiffs Hearing preparation, Hearing on remand and election schedule Confer with Mattox and Perales Travel to Austin and back. Prepare for settlement meeting. Meet 6.9 with Mattox. Confer with Gray. 154 $.50 = $ Meeting with LULAC counsel on settlement discussions. Confer 10 with Marty and evaluate modifications proposed. Prepare closing for DC trial. Confer with client and Mattox Continue preparation for DC closing. Confer with Marty on power 10.3 and scope of discussions with State. Confer with Mattox again. Travel of DC Closing arguments in DC. Travel to Texas Work on proposed findings of fact. Confer with Tanner Work on maps for settlement discussions with State. Work on Proposed findings of fact etc Review proposals, work with Marty on a possible compromise Meet with Chairman and Marty. Work on post trial brief and proposed findings Travel to Austin and back. Meeting with State AG. Finalize plan. 9.4 Work on post trial brief. 171 $.50 = $ Work on post trial brief, review record, and exhibits Work on post trial brief. Work on summary of expert reports Work on advisory to court on interim plans Work on findings and brief. Review file, organize pleadings, and 9.75 exhibits and transcripts. Confer with co-counsel and Rick Gray on status of discussions with State Work on proposed findings. Work on trial brief. Review exhibits 11.5 Transcripts, and DC record. Confer with client and co-counsel. 38

61 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 39 of Work on proposed findings, and trial brief. Work on proposed 10 changes to maps. Confer with Gray and Korbel Work on proposed findings, interim plan trial brief, confer with 10.1 Mattox and Perales on status of discussions. Work with Marty on proposed changes to compromise Prepare for hearing. Work on reply and post trial brief Interim plan hearing II. Prepare for hearing. Discuss status of 12.1 negotiations with State s counsel. Work on post hearing brief Interim plan hearing. Confer with Client and State s counsel on 6.1 possible settlement Confer with client and co-counsel on status of negotiations and 8.1 status of case. Work on pleadings. Confer with Frederick, review draft. Confer with Perales. Work on post hearing brief Work on post hearing brief Work on advisory to Court on CD 23, review analysis on 8.5 performance Work on and finalize advisory on CD 23, confer with client 10.3 Review time lines, confer with client, review pleadings filed By other parties Confer with co-counsel. Finalize review of new pleadings. 5 Confer with counsel for other parties Confer with Marty, Nina and George on new plans. Analyze 2 same Review interim plans and election schedule. Confer with LULAC 3.2 Confer with client and co counsel. Prepare summary analysis Review schedule. Confer with Client. Confer with co-counsel. 1.9 Review new map and plan. Analyze impact on Minority comm Unity Confer with Marty and review file Begin work on possible interim fees motion. Confer with co- 2 counsel Kiehne and Karlan and Golando and Avila. Review files. Organize argument for. 39

62 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 40 of Review court s opinions on C and H. work on fees issues Work on fees motion, time lines, review prior orders, review 1.2 file Work with co-counsel on fees motion and research. Confer 3 Perales on potential market rates evidence, confer with Cedillo, Kiehne and Golando on status and strategy, possible experts Work on fees motion and associated documents. Review draft 2.4 Motion and declarations, update records, research interim fees Review time records, adjust for possible duplication, review 1.1 Co-counsel affidavits, suggest modifications, modify, declar. Check with Avila and Karlan on status of declarations. Total hours through : hours Total fee due: $ = $1,165, Billing judgment discount: $ (20%) Total fee requested: $932, Unreimbursed Out of pocket expenses: $2, Total fee and costs due Jose Garza: $934,

63 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 1 of 10

64 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 2 of 10

65 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 3 of 10

66 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 4 of 10

67 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 5 of 10 EXHIBIT A

68 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 6 of 10

69 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 7 of 10

70 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 8 of 10

71 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 9 of 10

72 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/19/12 Page 10 of 10