IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Similar documents
Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 860 Filed 08/19/13 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 935 Filed 11/25/13 Page 1 of 7

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 925 Filed 10/11/13 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 916 Filed 10/02/13 Page 1 of 21

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 1375 Filed 04/24/17 Page 1 of 11

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 614 Filed 02/09/12 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 12/04/14 Page 1 of 21

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 757 Filed 06/05/13 Page 1 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 1003 Filed 05/23/14 Page 1 of 13

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 759 Filed 06/13/13 Page 1 of 16

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 1348 Filed 03/24/17 Page 1 of 12

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 179 Filed 08/10/11 Page 1 of 13

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 1098 Filed 06/13/14 Page 1 of 12

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 905 Filed 09/24/13 Page 1 of 15

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 1143 Filed 07/13/14 Page 1 of 14

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 1005 Filed 05/24/14 Page 1 of 12

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 1084 Filed 06/11/14 Page 1 of 15

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 234 Filed 08/23/11 Page 1 of 12

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 900 Filed 09/18/13 Page 1 of 22

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 536 Filed 11/25/11 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 991 Filed 05/09/14 Page 1 of 15

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 76 Filed 07/27/11 Page 1 of 6

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 251 Filed 08/24/11 Page 1 of 16

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 1241 Filed 08/25/14 Page 1 of 14

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 1338 Filed 01/02/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 981 Filed 04/28/14 Page 1 of 8

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 1319 Filed 10/14/15 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 1157 Filed 07/14/14 Page 1 of 8

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 1323 Filed 10/23/15 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 1090 Filed 06/13/14 Page 1 of 24

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 644 Filed 02/13/12 Page 1 of 22

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 832 Filed 07/26/13 Page 1 of 10

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 07/12/13 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 565 Filed 12/21/11 Page 1 of 13

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 1202 Filed 08/08/14 Page 1 of 10

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 1014 Filed 05/27/14 Page 1 of 16

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 1366 Filed 04/21/17 Page 1 of 12

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 118 Filed 02/06/12 Page 1 of 26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 127 Filed 08/08/11 Page 1 of 15

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 984 Filed 05/01/14 Page 1 of 11

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 41 Filed 10/24/11 Page 1 of 6

Case 1:11-cv RMC-TBG-BAH Document 239 Filed 07/03/13 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 1065 Filed 06/09/14 Page 1 of 23

Case 1:11-cv RMC-TBG-BAH Document 247 Filed 07/25/13 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:11-cv RMC-TBG-BAH Document 214 Filed 03/01/12 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Case 1:11-cv RMC-TBG-BAH Document 224 Filed 07/05/12 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 1344 Filed 03/23/17 Page 1 of 16

Case 1:11-cv RMC-TBG-BAH Document 171 Filed 02/01/12 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:11-cv RMC-TBG-BAH Document 90 Filed 10/31/11 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 4:11-cv RAS Document 48 Filed 06/29/11 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 1036 Filed 06/02/14 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 242 Filed 08/23/11 Page 1 of 30

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

PLAINITFF MALC'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 135 Filed 02/10/12 Page 1 of 10

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 29 Filed 07/12/11 Page 1 of 11

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 95 Filed 08/01/11 Page 1 of 11

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 1193 Filed 07/30/14 Page 1 of 13

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 06/29/13 Page 1 of 11

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 1125 Filed 07/06/14 Page 1 of 9

Case 7:11-cv Document 8 Filed in TXSD on 07/07/11 Page 1 of 5

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 474 Filed 10/28/11 Page 1 of 16

SENATOR KEL SELIGER 5/20/2014

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 870 Filed 08/21/13 Page 1 of 13

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 664 Filed 02/20/12 Page 1 of 6

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/22/13 Page 1 of 17 EXHIBIT 1

Case 5:08-cv FB Document 13 Filed 05/20/2008 Page 1 of 7

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 04/16/14 Page 1 of 18 EXHIBIT 2

FILED SEP42 O1I. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, and ALEXANDER GREEN, MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 890 Filed 09/09/13 Page 1 of 12

In the Supreme Court of the United States

S1ERjT FILED OCT SA-11-CV-0360-OLG-JES-XR (CONSOLIDATED LEAD CASE) RICK PERRY, ET.AL.

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 170 Filed 03/22/13 Page 1 of 8

Case 1:11-cv RMC-TBG-BAH Document 12 Filed 08/17/11 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No MARC VEASEY; et al.,

Case 5:17-cv OLG Document 58 Filed 06/19/17 Page 1 of 6

Case 2:13-cv Document 429 Filed in TXSD on 07/22/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISON

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 227 Filed 08/23/11 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 68 Filed 07/25/11 Page 1 of 17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 1462 Filed 07/04/17 Page 1 of 24

Case 1:06-cv PLF-EGS-DST Document 170 Filed 10/07/2009 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 649 Filed 02/13/12 Page 1 of 9

Case 2:13-cv Document 46 Filed in TXSD on 10/03/13 Page 1 of 5

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 882 Filed 08/29/13 Page 1 of 13

CASE ARGUED APRIL 21, 2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. No

Transcription:

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1061 Filed 06/09/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION SHANNON PEREZ, et al., v. Plaintiffs, STATE OF TEXAS, et al., CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-11-CA-360-OLG-JES-XR [Lead case] Defendants. STATE DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE Defendants the State of Texas, Rick Perry, in his official capacity as Governor, and Nandita Berry, in her official capacity as Secretary of State (collectively, State Defendants ) hereby move to exclude the Memorandum Opinion issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in State of Texas v. United States of America, et al., No. 11-cv- 1303 (D.D.C. Aug. 28, 2012), ECF No. 230; any finding of fact, conclusion of law, or other statement contained therein; and any reference to a finding of fact, conclusion of law, or other statement contained therein. In support of their motion to exclude, the State Defendants would respectfully show as follows: 1. On August 28, 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered a judgment denying preclearance of the State of Texas s 2011 redistricting plans for the Texas House of Representatives (Plan H283) and the United States House of Representatives (Plan C185). See Final Judgment, State of Texas v. United States of America, et 1

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1061 Filed 06/09/14 Page 2 of 11 al., No. 11-cv-1303 (D.D.C. Aug. 28, 2012), ECF No. 231. On the same day, the court issued a Memorandum Opinion explaining the reasons for its judgment. See Memorandum Opinion, State of Texas v. United States of America, et al., No. 11-cv-1303 (D.D.C. Aug. 28, 2012), ECF No. 230. 2. Several Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors quote extensively from the D.C. Court s Memorandum Opinion in their amended complaints in this case. See, e.g., United States Complaint in Intervention (ECF No. 907) 16, 48; Second Amended Complaint of Plaintiff-Intervenors Congresspersons Eddie Bernice Johnson, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Alexander Green (ECF No. 901) 42-46; Third Amended Complaint of Plaintiff- Intervenors Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches, et al. (ECF No. 900) 36-39; Plaintiff MALC s Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 897) 23, 24, 26, 64, 68; Plaintiff- Intervenor Congressman Cuellar s Second Amended Complaint in Intervention (ECF No. 893) 18 & n.1 (asserting that [t]his court can give [the D.C. Court s] findings the appropriate consideration and requesting that judicial notice of these findings be taken into consideration in this case ), 23 (purporting to incorporate specific findings from the D.C. court opinion). 3. The Federal Rules of Evidence prohibit the admission of hearsay, subject only to specifically enumerated exceptions. See Fed. R. Evid. 802 ( Hearsay is not admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise: a federal statute; these rules; or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court. ). The Federal Rules define hearsay as a statement that: (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a 2

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1061 Filed 06/09/14 Page 3 of 11 party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). 4. A court judgment is hearsay to the extent that it is offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted in the judgment. United States v. Sine, 493 F.3d 1021, 1036 (quoting United States v. Boulware, 384 F.3d 794, 806 (9th Cir. 2004)); accord Herrick v. Garvey, 298 F.3d 1184, 1191-92 (10th Cir. 2002) (holding that a court judgment offered to prove ownership of documents was hearsay and could not be considered in response to a motion for summary judgment); Nipper v. Snipes, 7 F.3d 415, 417 (4th Cir. 1993) (reaching the same conclusion and noting that at common law a judgment from another case would not be admitted ). 5. It follows that any factual finding or legal conclusion contained in a court order is inadmissible hearsay. See, e.g., Sine, 493 F.3d at 1036 ( It is even more plain that the introduction of discrete judicial factfindings and analysis underlying the judgment to prove the truth of those findings and that analysis constitutes the use of hearsay. ); accord Herrick, 298 F.3d at 1192 (holding that judicial findings of fact in a prior, unrelated case are inadmissible hearsay); United States v. Jones, 29 F.3d 1549, 1554 (11th Cir. 1994) (holding that findings of fact and references to testimony in a separate district court s order were not admissible evidence and should not have been considered by the district court ); Nipper, 7 F.3d at 417 (holding that judicial findings of fact are inadmissible hearsay). 6. The D.C. court s judgment and opinion do not fall within any exception to the prohibition on hearsay. The Federal Rules create two hearsay exceptions that expressly apply to judgments: the first applies to prior convictions for crimes punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than a year, Fed. R. Evid. 803(22); the second applies to [a] 3

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1061 Filed 06/09/14 Page 4 of 11 judgment that is admitted to prove a matter of personal, family, or general history, or boundaries, Fed. R. Evid. 803(23). Neither exception applies to the D.C. court s opinion or judgment. 7. Nor can the D.C. court s opinion or judgment fit within the hearsay exception for records or statements of a public office. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(8) (creating an exception for [a] record or statement of a public office if (A) it sets out:... in a civil case or against the government in a criminal case, factual findings from a legally authorized investigation; and (B) neither the source of information nor other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness ). In Nipper v. Snipes, the Fourth Circuit rejected this argument, holding that neither the text nor the purpose of Rule 803(8) could justify its extension to judicial findings of fact. The hearsay exception for public records applies to factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law, but [a] judge in a civil trial is not an investigator, rather a judge. Nipper, 7 F.3d at 417. The Fourth Circuit noted further that the advisory committee note to Rule 803 makes plain that the drafters intended this portion of the rule to relate to findings of agencies and offices of the executive branch. Id. (citing Advisory Committee s Note, 56 F.R.D. 183, 311-13); accord Herrick, 298 F.3d at 1192 ( Rule 803(8) was not intended to allow the admission of findings of fact by courts. ); Jones, 29 F.3d at 1554 (adopting the Fourth Circuit s reasoning in Nipper). 8. Because the D.C. court s judgment and opinion in Texas v. United States are hearsay and do not fall within any exception, neither the documents nor any findings or conclusions contained therein may be admitted into evidence. Neither document may be used at trial, including during examination of witnesses, to establish the truth of any findings or 4

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1061 Filed 06/09/14 Page 5 of 11 conclusions in the D.C. court s vacated opinion or judgment. See, e.g., Sine, 493 F.3d at 1035-37 (holding that the government s reference to a court order in cross-examination of a defendant was an impermissible use of hearsay); id. at 1031 (noting that a line of questioning that repeatedly incorporates inadmissible evidence can be just as improper as the direct admission of such evidence ); Nipper, 7 F.3d at 416-17 (holding that reading findings of fact from a different case during direct examination of the plaintiff was improper). 9. Nor do the Federal Rules of Evidence permit the Court to take judicial notice of any finding or conclusion in the D.C. court s judgment and opinion. The Federal Rules provide: The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). The Court may take judicial notice of the D.C. court s judgment only for the limited purpose of taking as true the action of the [D.C.] court in entering judgment. Colonial Leasing Co. v. Logistics Control Group Int l, 762 F.2d 454, 459 (5th Cir. 1985). The Court may not take judicial notice of any factual finding or legal conclusion in the D.C. court s judgment or opinion. See Jones, 29 F.3d at 1553 ( [A] court may take notice of another court s order only for the limited purpose of recognizing the judicial act that the order represents or the subject matter of the litigation. ); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rotches Pork Packers, Inc., 969 F.2d 1384, 1388 (2d Cir. 1992) ( A court may take judicial notice of a document filed in another court not for the truth of the matters asserted in the other litigation, but rather to establish the fact of such litigation and related filings. (quoting Kramer v. Time Warner, Inc., 937 F.2d 767, 774 (2d Cir. 1991))); see also Taylor v. Charter Med. 5

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1061 Filed 06/09/14 Page 6 of 11 Corp., 162 F.3d 827 (5th Cir. 1998) (holding that a previous determination that the defendant s predecessor was a state actor for purposes of 1983 was not subject to judicial notice because it could not clear [Rule 201] s indisputability hurdle ). 10. At most, the D.C. court s judgment could be subject to judicial notice for the fact of its existence and of the underlying judicial act. Even that limited notice would serve no purpose in this case, however, since the judgment has been vacated. See Texas v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2885 (2013) (vacating 887 F. Supp. 2d 133 (D.D.C. 2012)); cf., e.g., Tollett v. City of Kemah, 285 F.3d 357, 366 (5th Cir. 2002) ( It goes without saying that, as a result of the revised sanctions [order] being vacated, the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the district court s post-remand orders,... are vacated as well. ). CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Court should grant the Defendants motion and exclude the Judgment and Memorandum Opinion of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in State of Texas v. United States, et al., including reference to any factual finding or legal conclusion contained therein. 6

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1061 Filed 06/09/14 Page 7 of 11 Dated: June 9, 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 THE STATE OF TEXAS, RICK PERRY, AND NANDITA BERRY CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I hereby certify that I conferred with all counsel of record via e-mail on June 9, 2014, regarding the State Defendants intent to file this motion. This motion is opposed. /s/ Patrick K. Sweeten PATRICK K. SWEETEN 7

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1061 Filed 06/09/14 Page 8 of 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this filing was sent on June 9, 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 512-476-0005 davidr@rrsfirm.com RICHARD E. GRAY, III Gray & Becker, P.C. 900 West Avenue, Suite 300 512-482-0061/512-482-0924 (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 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 8

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1061 Filed 06/09/14 Page 9 of 11 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 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 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 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. 307 512-322-9992/512-322-0840 (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 9

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1061 Filed 06/09/14 Page 10 of 11 MAX RENEA HICKS Law Office of Max Renea Hicks 101 West Sixth Street Suite 504 512-480-8231/512/480-9105 (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 STEPHEN E. MCCONNICO SAM JOHNSON S. ABRAHAM KUCZAJ, III Scott, Douglass & McConnico One American Center 600 Congress Ave., 15th Floor 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 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 512-474-7563/512-474-9489 (facsimile) robert@notzonlaw.com 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 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT STEVE MUNISTERI 10

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1061 Filed 06/09/14 Page 11 of 11 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 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 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 11