Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1143 Filed 07/13/14 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION SHANNON PEREZ et al., Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-CV-00360-OLG-JES-XLR STATE OF TEXAS et al., Defendants. RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF MALC S EXPEDITED MOTION TO FILE REFERENCED DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL AND TO REOPEN DISCOVERY TO DEPOSE A SPECIFIC WITNESS OR WITNESSES BEFORE TRIAL In a motion filed late Friday night on the eve of trial beginning Monday morning, Plaintiff Mexican American Legislative Caucus ( MALC ) moved to reopen discovery to allow a second deposition of non-party Denise Davis and depositions from an unnamed set of individuals. See MALC s Expedited Motion to File Referenced Document Under Seal and to Reopen Discovery to Depose a Specific Witness or Witnesses Before Trial (Doc. 1140) ( Motion to Reopen Discovery ). MALC claims that its 11th-hour request is necessitated by Texas recalcitrance during the discovery process and in light of documents produced by Ms. Davis pursuant to this Court s July 9, 2014 Order on a motion to compel filed by the United States. Motion to Reopen Discovery at 2. MALC s request for a reopening of discovery lacks support in the law and the facts of this case, and it must be denied. In support of its request, MALC first points to an email chain involving Ms. Davis that was sent during the 2011 redistricting session in which legislative procedures governing the Legislature s consideration of the Texas House plan are discussed. Even assuming that it does not require a series of inferences to show the email s relevance to claims of discriminatory intent, MALC has done nothing to show why reopening discovery on the eve of trial is the appropriate course of action to obtain the information from Ms. Davis it now seeks. Ms. Davis has been deposed once in these proceedings 1
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1143 Filed 07/13/14 Page 2 of 14 already. MALC had every opportunity to attend this deposition and question Ms. Davis about her role in the 2011 House redistricting process and the procedures under which the 2011 House plan was adopted. It chose not to do so, and it should be held to that decision. What s more, Ms. Davis has been subpoenaed to testify at the trial on the 2011 House plan that begins tomorrow. If MALC wants to question Ms. Davis about the House s legislative process in 2011 (including email communications regarding this process), it can do so during trial. Reopening discovery at this late stage of the proceedings is unnecessary and would serve only to disrupt the trial schedule and impose significant burdens on the parties and this Court. Additionally, MALC claims that Ms. Davis s production of materials contains an email exchange that suggests potential inappropriate conduct by Defendants counsel in this cause and others in this matter. Motion to Reopen Discovery at 1. 1 MALC seeks to use this email, which they have completely misconstrued, as a springboard to deposing Ms. Davis and perhaps others implicated in the exchange. Id. at 2. But the email reflects core attorney-client strategy discussions in the context of litigation surrounding the 2011 redistricting plans; it does not involve any improper conduct by Defendants counsel. MALC s contentions amount to nothing more than unfounded speculation and they cannot possibly justify the relief MALC seeks. In short, the Court should reject MALC s motion for precisely what it is: a harassing trial preparation tactic that MALC is using in an attempt to delay the long-scheduled trial proceedings and rescue its unconvincing claims of intentional discrimination. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES A. Motions to Reopen Discovery on the Eve of Trial Are Highly Disfavored. As MALC recognizes, courts generally consider a variety of factors in deciding whether to reopen discovery, including whether the trial is imminent, whether the request for additional discovery is opposed, whether the non-moving party will be prejudiced by the requested reopening of discovery, 1 The State has no objection to this document being filed with the Court under seal. 2
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1143 Filed 07/13/14 Page 3 of 14 and whether the moving party was diligent in obtaining discovery within the guidelines established by the court. Smith v. United States, 834 F.2d 166, 169 (10th Cir. 1987). The courts also consider whether the discovery will lead to relevant evidence. Id. At the same time, courts have the inherent power to control their dockets by refusing to give... litigants a second chance to develop their case. Higbie v. Kerry, No. 3:11-CV-2636-L, 2013 WL 4525731, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2013) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original) (denying request to reopen discovery). In the context of motions to reopen discovery, timing is critical. Even when limited in scope, requests to reopen discovery on the eve of trial impose substantial burdens on the parties and the Court and creates a serious potential for prejudice: Reopening discovery, even if for a limited purpose, months after it has closed or after dispositive motions have been filed, or worse still, on the eve of trial, can completely disrupt the pretrial schedule, involve significant cost, and burden the court and parties. Goodman v. Praxair Svcs., Inc., 632 F. Supp. 2d 494, 508 (D. Md. 2009). Last-ditch attempts to reopen discovery just before trial are particularly disfavored when the parties have had several years to develop factual support for their claims. Panaderia La Diana, Inc. v. Salt Lake City Corp., 342 F. Supp. 2d 1013, 1031 (D. Utah 2004) ( [R]eopening discovery would come at great monetary costs to the parties who have already spent five years in litigating this case. ); Cricket Commc ns, Inc. v. Hipcricket, Inc., No. C08 00908 MJP, 2009 WL 426618, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 20, 2009) ( Reopening discovery would disrupt the pretrial and trial schedule, increase costs to the parties, and unfairly prejudice [the plaintiff] ). The result is no different merely because the evidence sought could be critical to the moving party s case. See Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp., No. 00 Civ. 5141 GBDJCF, 2007 WL 415145, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2007) ( The cost and delay involved in reopening discovery may constitute prejudice sufficient to warrant even the exclusion of otherwise critical evidence. ). 3
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1143 Filed 07/13/14 Page 4 of 14 B. MALC s Request for Extraordinary Relief is Meritless, and Discovery Should Not Be Reopened. 1. Trial is Less than 24 Hours from Beginning. The timing of the trial is a crucial component to any motion for reopening of discovery. See Smith, 834 F.2d at 169. Trial is not merely imminent; it begins tomorrow morning. Trial preparations are in the final stages. The parties and witnesses have arrived, or are due to arrive soon, in San Antonio. Indeed, just three hours before MALC filed its Motion to Reopen Discovery, its counsel provided the parties with a list of anticipated witnesses for the first day of trial on Monday. Disrupting the trial schedule at this stage of the process in order to conduct a fishing expedition based upon an misapprehension of an email would impose significant costs on the parties, the witnesses, and the Court. MALC attempts to obscure the full impact of its extraordinary request by arguing that the intended depositions likely will be very limited in scope and short in duration. Motion to Reopen Discovery at 2. Yet MALC gives no indication as to the extent of the intended deponents. Id. at 2-3 (seeking depositions of Ms. Davis and perhaps others implicated in the communications at issue). The Court need not determine the outer bounds of any discovery requested by MALC; instead, it should deny the request in its entirety given that the request was filed on the eve of trial. 2. MALC s Motion to Reopen Discovery Was Opposed, and Legitimately So. Another factor in determining whether to grant a motion for reopening discovery is whether the motion is opposed. See Smith, 834 F.2d at 169. MALC makes only a passing reference to this factor, arguing that most motions have been [opposed] in this litigation. Motion to Reopen Discovery at 2. MALC is again trying to disguise the full effect of its request, seemingly suggesting that its motion is similar to many others filed in this case. But the request is anything of the sort. The motion certainly unprecedented in this litigation would delay the start of this trial for an unknown period of time while MALC conducts an unknown set of depositions; however limited those deponents may be, they would still impose significant burdens on the parties and this Court. 4
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1143 Filed 07/13/14 Page 5 of 14 The State and Ms. Davis have legitimate reasons for opposing the relief sought by MALC, and their opposition cannot be cast aside as simply one of many other similar positions in this case. MALC s motion rests on two documents recently disclosed by Ms. Davis in response to a subpoena issued by the United States. Neither document provides a sufficient basis for granting MALC s requested relief. The first email, an April 27, 2011 exchange involving Ms. Davis, pertains to the legislative procedures utilized in connection with the adoption of the 2011 House plan. MALC contends that the email could reflect a deviation from normal procedure, which may be an important part of discerning discriminatory intent. Motion to Reopen Discovery at 1. As an initial matter, it is not clear that the email is even relevant to MALC s claims of intentional discrimination. But even if the document was relevant to MALC s claims, its recent disclosure does not necessitate the reopening of discovery on the eve of trial. Ms. Davis was deposed previously in these proceedings. That May 21, 2014 deposition was led by counsel for the United States; counsel for the Quesada Plaintiffs also appeared. MALC s counsel did not appear at this deposition. Had MALC attended this deposition, it could have asked Ms. Davis who served as the Parliamentarian to the Texas House before her tenure with the Speaker's office about the legislative procedures under which the 2011 Texas House plan was adopted. This line of questioning was not dependent on whether or not the April 27 email message had been produced at that point. Better yet, if MALC wants to ask Ms. Davis about the April 27 email exchange or more generally about the 2011 House s legislative procedures, it will have an opportunity to do so this week at the trial. Ms. Davis has been subpoenaed by the United States to testify this week, and her testimony is currently anticipated for Wednesday, July 16. There is no reason to delay the start of these longscheduled proceedings and give MALC a second chance to conduct discovery regarding Ms. Davis s knowledge of, and involvement in, the 2011 legislative process. See Higbie, 2013 WL 4525731, at *3. 5
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1143 Filed 07/13/14 Page 6 of 14 Likewise, the second document referenced in MALC s Motion to Reopen Discovery cannot appropriately serve as the basis for reopening discovery to allow MALC to conduct additional depositions. MALC asserts that one of the emails recently disclosed by Ms. Davis suggests potential inappropriate conduct by Defendants counsel in this cause and others in this matter. Motion to Reopen Discovery at 1. MALC further contends that even if the referenced conduct may be simply an in-artfully [sic] crafted exchange, it is still entitled to depose Ms. Davis and perhaps others implicated in the exchange in order to explore the meaning of the correspondence. Id. at 1-2. The email cited by MALC is neither a poorly-worded email nor evidence of improper conduct. The email chain contains a November 25, 2011 message from Thomas Phillips of Baker Botts, as counsel to the Texas House, to Ms. Davis. See Exhibit A, Declaration of Thomas R. Phillips ( Phillips Decl. ). 2 The email was sent in the context of the State s Supreme Court appeal of the interim plans adopted by this Court in November 2011. See id. 4. The email message pertained to the State s litigation strategy in that appeal, particularly whether to request that the Supreme Court order entry of the interim House plan advanced by the dissenting judge of this Court. See id. The message reflects core attorney-client communications regarding this litigation and does not involve, or in any way relate to, any potential inappropriate conduct involving counsel for the State in this matter. See id. 5. The Court should thus deny MALC s request to conduct an additional deposition of Ms. Davis or the deposition of any individuals implicated by this exchange. MALC s baseless suspicion about defense counsel s conduct is unfortunate and unfounded. MALC s irresponsible insinuation of improper conduct by any referenced individual goes far beyond the usual bickering between attorneys and should be rejected resoundingly by every member of this panel. Counsel for the State s understanding of the meaning and context of the email was initially explained to MALC by counsel for the State on the afternoon of Friday, July 11. The State s understanding of the context of the email is confirmed by the declaration of the author of the email 2 A motion for leave to file Justice Phillips s declaration under seal is being filed contemporaneously with this Response. 6
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1143 Filed 07/13/14 Page 7 of 14 reflecting the author s intent. See Phillips Decl. 4. Yet MALC insists on impugning the integrity of individuals referenced in the email based on nothing but rank speculation of the lowest order. This panel should make its complete rejection of MALC s unsupported and self-serving accusations very clear at the commencement of trial on Monday. 3. The State and Other Parties Would Be Severely Prejudiced by Granting the Requested Relief; MALC Would Suffer No Prejudice if the Relief is Denied. Motions to reopen discovery, particularly those filed close to the beginning of trial, require an examination of the prejudice to the parties. Here, notwithstanding MALC s unsupported protestations to the contrary, the prejudice to the State and other parties from granting the requested relief cannot be overstated. In the immediate term, reopening discovery would necessarily require a delay in the first segment of trial so that MALC could conduct additional depositions from an unknown number of individuals. More generally, the relief also would impact the remaining segments of trial involving the 2011 congressional plan, the 2013 House plan, and the 2013 congressional plan, the first of which is scheduled for August 11. It has been over three years since this litigation first began. In this time, there have been hundreds of depositions and discovery requests, an initial two-week trial, interim plan proceedings, and myriad trial preparation efforts. Since the Court announced last October that the second round of trial proceedings would begin in July (see Scheduling Order dated October 18, 2013 (Doc. 926)), the parties have propounded additional written discovery, conducted depositions, briefed dispositive motions and other trial-related requests, and attended this month s pre-trial conference. Delaying the start of trial would impose significant burdens on the parties, this Court, and the witnesses who have planned their schedules around trial commencing on July 14. It would also potentially delay a prompt resolution of the claims surrounding the 2011 House plan, something that MALC has consistently sought in this case. See, e.g., Plaintiffs Joint Motion for Bifurcation of Remaining Issues on 2011 Redistricting Plans and New Challenge to 2013 Redistricting Plans, Abatement of the Trial on the 2013 Enactments, and 7
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1143 Filed 07/13/14 Page 8 of 14 Proposed Scheduling Order (Doc. 895) at 2 (calling for an expedited review of the 2011 claims in order to bring to a close a case that was tried more than two years ago ). At the same time, however, MALC would suffer no prejudice if its motion is denied. As stated above, Ms. Davis has been subpoenaed by the United States to testify at the trial. To the extent MALC wishes to cross-examine Ms. Davis about the documents she has produced in the matter, or about her role in the 2011 legislative process, it will have every opportunity to do so during her trial testimony. Reopening discovery to allow MALC to elicit this information through a deposition or other discovery is unnecessary and unduly burdensome. 4. The Requested Relief is Necessitated by MALC s Lack of Diligence in Discovery, Not Any Recalcitrance by the State. In its Motion to Reopen Discovery, MALC contends that it has been diligent in its discovery efforts and that Texas recalcitrance... created the need for this extraordinary relief. Motion to Reopen Discovery at 2-3. MALC s claims fall flat. The State and Ms. Davis have been diligent throughout the discovery proceedings in this case; the timing of the request is attributable to MALC s desire to have a second chance at discovering information from Ms. Davis. The United States issued a subpoena to Ms. Davis on April 15, 2014. Ms. Davis responded to the United States subpoena on May 16, submitting certain objections and producing approximately 250 documents. Ms. Davis sat for her deposition on May 21. On June 18, Ms. Davis provided a privilege log relating to documents she had withheld from production. 3 The United States subsequently moved to compel the production of certain documents on Ms. Davis s privilege log on June 23, and the parties briefed the issue. See United States Motion to Compel the Production of Documents from Denise Davis (Doc. 1107); Response to United States Motion to Compel the Production of Documents from Denise Davis (Doc. 1121). Following the Court s pre-trial conference in which the United States motion to compel was one of several topics at issue, the Court ordered that a portion of Ms. Davis s 3 Although Ms. Davis was not a party to the ESI Agreement entered in this case between the State and other parties, the submission of her privilege log was within the 45-day time period provided for in that agreement. 8
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1143 Filed 07/13/14 Page 9 of 14 documents be produced to the parties on July 10. See Order dated July 9, 2014 (Doc. 1130). Ms. Davis did so. These facts all of which go unmentioned in MALC s motion reflect that neither the State nor Ms. Davis have been recalcitrant in their discovery efforts. MALC s claims to the contrary are meritless. If anything, it is MALC s lack of diligence that causes the need for the extraordinary relief it seeks. MALC s counsel did not attend Ms. Davis s May 21 deposition or otherwise seek to obtain discovery from Ms. Davis prior to its extraordinary request filed this past Friday. In fact, following the reopening of discovery in November, MALC did not conduct any additional depositions or serve any discovery requests. Now, on the eve of trial, MALC is seeking a second chance to do what it should have done earlier. The request must be rejected. 9
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1143 Filed 07/13/14 Page 10 of 14 CONCLUSION AND PRAYER For these reasons, the State and Denise Davis respectfully ask the Court to deny MALC s Motion to Reopen Discovery. Dated: July 13, 2014 Respectfully submitted, GREG ABBOTT Attorney General of Texas DANIEL T. HODGE First Assistant Attorney General DAVID C. MATTAX Deputy Attorney General for Defense Litigation J. REED CLAY, JR. Special Assistant and Senior Counsel to the Attorney General /s/ Patrick K. Sweeten PATRICK K. SWEETEN Chief, Special Litigation Division Texas State Bar No. 00798537 P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711-2548 (512) 463-0150 (512) 936-0545 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR NON-PARTY DENISE DAVIS ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS, RICK PERRY, AND NANDITA BERRY 10
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1143 Filed 07/13/14 Page 11 of 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this filing was sent on July 13, 2014, via the Court s electronic notification system and/or email to the following counsel of record: DAVID RICHARDS Richards, Rodriguez & Skeith LLP 816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1200 Austin, TX 78701 512-476-0005 davidr@rrsfirm.com RICHARD E. GRAY, III Gray & Becker, P.C. 900 West Avenue, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78701 512-482-0061/512-482-0924 (facsimile) Rick.gray@graybecker.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS PEREZ, DUTTON, TAMEZ, HALL, ORTIZ, SALINAS, DEBOSE, and RODRIGUEZ JOSE GARZA Law Office of Jose Garza 7414 Robin Rest Dr. San Antonio, Texas 78209 210-392-2856 garzpalm@aol.com MARK W. KIEHNE RICARDO G. CEDILLO Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza McCombs Plaza 755 Mulberry Ave., Ste. 500 San Antonio, TX 78212 210-822-6666/210-822-1151 (facsimile) mkiehne@lawdcm.com rcedillo@lawdcm.com JOAQUIN G. AVILA P.O. Box 33687 Seattle, WA 98133 206-724-3731/206-398-4261 (facsimile) jgavotingrights@gmail.com ATTORNEYS FOR MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS GERALD H. GOLDSTEIN DONALD H. FLANARY, III Goldstein, Goldstein and Hilley 310 S. St. Mary s Street San Antonio, TX 78205-4605 210-226-1463/210-226-8367 (facsimile) ggandh@aol.com donflanary@hotmail.com PAUL M. SMITH, MICHAEL B. DESANCTIS, JESSICA RING AMUNSON Jenner & Block LLP 1099 New York Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20001 202-639-6000 J. GERALD HEBERT 191 Somervelle Street, # 405 Alexandria, VA 22304 703-628-4673 hebert@voterlaw.com JESSE GAINES P.O. Box 50093 Fort Worth, TX 76105 817-714-9988 gainesjesse@ymail.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS QUESADA, MUNOZ, VEASEY, HAMILTON, KING and JENKINS LUIS ROBERTO VERA, JR. Law Offices of Luis Roberto Vera, Jr. 1325 Riverview Towers San Antonio, Texas 78205-2260 210-225-3300 lrvlaw@sbcglobal.net 11
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1143 Filed 07/13/14 Page 12 of 14 NINA PERALES MARISA BONO Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund 110 Broadway, Suite 300 San Antonio, TX 78205 210-224-5476/210-224-5382 (facsimile) nperales@maldef.org mbono@maldef.org MARK ANTHONY SANCHEZ ROBERT W. WILSON Gale, Wilson & Sanchez, PLLC 115 East Travis Street, Ste. 1900 San Antonio, TX 78205 210-222-8899/210-222-9526 (facsimile) masanchez@gws-law.com rwwilson@gws-law.com ATTORNEYS FOR TEXAS LATINO REDISTRICTING TASK FORCE, CARDENAS, JIMENEZ, MENENDEZ, TOMACITA AND JOSE OLIVARES, ALEJANDRO AND REBECCA ORTIZ JOHN T. MORRIS 5703 Caldicote St. Humble, TX 77346 281-852-6388 johnmorris1939@hotmail.com JOHN T. MORRIS, PRO SE MAX RENEA HICKS Law Office of Max Renea Hicks 101 West Sixth Street Suite 504 Austin, TX 78701 512-480-8231/512/480-9105 (facsimile) ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS CITY OF AUSTIN, TRAVIS COUNTY, ALEX SERNA, BEATRICE SALOMA, BETTY F. LOPEZ, CONSTABLE BRUCE ELFANT, DAVID GONZALEZ, EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, MILTON GERARD WASHINGTON, and SANDRA SERNA GEORGE JOSEPH KORBEL Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid, Inc. 1111 North Main San Antonio, TX 78213 210-212-3600 korbellaw@hotmail.com ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENOR- PLAINTIFF LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS ROLANDO L. RIOS Law Offices of Rolando L. Rios 115 E Travis Street, Suite 1645 San Antonio, TX 78205 210-222-2102 rrios@rolandorioslaw.com ATTORNEY FOR INTERVENOR- PLAINTIFF HENRY CUELLAR GARY L. BLEDSOE Law Office of Gary L. Bledsoe 316 W. 12 th Street, Ste. 307 Austin, TX 78701 512-322-9992/512-322-0840 (facsimile) garybledsoe@sbcglobal.net ATTORNEY FOR INTERVENOR- PLAINTIFFS TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, TEXAS LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS, EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, ALEXANDER GREEN, HOWARD JEFFERSON, BILL LAWSON, and JUANITA WALLACE VICTOR L. GOODE Asst. Gen. Counsel, NAACP 4805 Mt. Hope Drive Baltimore, MD 21215-5120 410-580-5120/410-358-9359 (facsimile) vgoode@naacpnet.org ATTORNEY FOR TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES ROBERT NOTZON 1507 Nueces Street Austin, TX 78701 512-474-7563/512-474-9489 (facsimile) robert@notzonlaw.com 12
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1143 Filed 07/13/14 Page 13 of 14 STEPHEN E. MCCONNICO SAM JOHNSON S. ABRAHAM KUCZAJ, III Scott, Douglass & McConnico One American Center 600 Congress Ave., 15th Floor Austin, TX 78701 512-495-6300/512-474-0731 (facsimile) smcconnico@scottdoug.com sjohnson@scottdoug.com akuczaj@scottdoug.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS CITY OF AUSTIN, TRAVIS COUNTY, ALEX SERNA, BALAKUMAR PANDIAN, BEATRICE SALOMA, BETTY F. LOPEZ, CONSTABLE BRUCE ELFANT, DAVID GONZALEZ, EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, ELIZA ALVARADO, JOSEY MARTINEZ, JUANITA VALDEZ-COX, LIONOR SOROLA-POHLMAN, MILTON GERARD WASHINGTON, NINA JO BAKER, and SANDRA SERNA KAREN M. KENNARD 2803 Clearview Drive Austin, TX 78703 (512) 974-2177/512-974-2894 (facsimile) karen.kennard@ci.austin.tx.us ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF CITY OF AUSTIN DAVID ESCAMILLA Travis County Asst. Attorney P.O. Box 1748 Austin, TX 78767 (512) 854-9416 david.escamilla@co.travis.tx.us ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF TRAVIS COUNTY ALLISON JEAN RIGGS ANITA SUE EARLS Southern Coalition for Social Justice 1415 West Highway 54, Ste. 101 Durham, NC 27707 919-323-3380/919-323-3942 (facsimile) anita@southerncoalition.org ATTORNEYS FOR TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, EARLS, LAWSON, WALLACE, and JEFFERSON DONNA GARCIA DAVIDSON PO Box 12131 Austin, TX 78711 512-775-7625/877-200-6001 (facsimile) donna@dgdlawfirm.com ATTY FOR DEFENDANT STEVE MUNISTERI CHAD W. DUNN K. SCOTT BRAZIL Brazil & Dunn 4201 FM 1960 West, Suite 530 Houston, TX 77068 281-580-6310/281-580-6362 (facsimile) chad@brazilanddunn.com scott@brazilanddunn.com ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENOR- DEFS TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY and BOYD RICHIE 13
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1143 Filed 07/13/14 Page 14 of 14 ROBERT L. PITMAN, JOCELYN SAMUELS, T. CHRISTIAN HERREN, JR., TIMOTHY F. MELLETT, BRYAN SELLS, JAYE ALLISON SITTON DANIEL J. FREEMAN MICHELLE A. MCLEOD U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Voting Rights Room 7254 NWB 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 305-4355; (202) 305-4143 ATTORNEYS FOR THE UNITED STATES /s/ Patrick K. Sweeten PATRICK K. SWEETEN 14