In re Vos

Full title: IN RE WISCONSIN STATE ASSEMBLY SPEAKER ROBIN J. VOS, Petitioner.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Date published: May 10, 2019

Document: 00713430352 (7th Cir. May. 10, 2019)

Opinion

Document: 00713430352

05-10-2019

IN RE WISCONSIN STATE ASSEMBLY SPEAKER ROBIN J. VOS, Petitioner.

Kevin St. John BELL GIFTOS ST. JOHN LLC 5325 Wall Street, Ste. 2200 Madison, WI 53718 (608) 216-7990 kstjohn@bellgiftos.com Adam K. Mortara Joshua P. Ackerman Taylor A.R. Meehan BARTLIT BECK LLP Courthouse Place 54 West Hubbard Street, Ste. 300 Chicago, IL 60654 (312) 494-4400 adam.mortara@bartlitbeck.com joshua.ackerman@bartlitbeck.com taylor.meehan@bartlitbeck.com Counsel for Petitioner, Speaker Robin J. Vos

From the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin in Case No . 3:15-cv-00421-JDP

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS BY WISCONSIN STATE ASSEMBLY SPEAKER ROBIN J. VOS

Kevin St. John
BELL GIFTOS ST. JOHN LLC
5325 Wall Street, Ste. 2200
Madison, WI 53718
(608) 216-7990
kstjohn@bellgiftos.com Adam K. Mortara
Joshua P. Ackerman
Taylor A.R. Meehan
BARTLIT BECK LLP
Courthouse Place
54 West Hubbard Street, Ste. 300
Chicago, IL 60654
(312) 494-4400
adam.mortara@bartlitbeck.com
joshua.ackerman@bartlitbeck.com
taylor.meehan@bartlitbeck.com Counsel for Petitioner,
Speaker Robin J. Vos

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .................................................................... i TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................... ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................................. iii JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .................................................................................................. 1 ISSUES PRESENTED ......................................................................................................................... 3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .......................................................................................................... 3 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ................................................................................................ 8 ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................................... 10 I. Speaker Vos has no other adequate means to attain the relief he seeks. .............................. 10 II. Mandamus relief is clearly and indisputably warranted. .......................................................... 12

A. Legislative immunity and privilege preclude Plaintiffs from compelling Speaker Vos to give testimony or produce documents. .................................................................................................................. 12

B. The district court refused to consider whether extraordinary circumstances justified deposing a high-ranking public official. ......................... 18 III. A writ of mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances ............................................... 22 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 24 PROOF OF SERVICE ....................................................................................................................... 26 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .............................................................................................. 28 CIRCUIT RULE 30(D) STATEMENT ........................................................................................... 29 APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... 30

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Abbott v. Perez, 138 S. Ct. 2305 (2018) ................................................................................................................... 1, 2 Abelesz v. OTP Bank, 692 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2012) .......................................................................................................... 11 Allendale Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bull Data Sys., Inc., 32 F.3d 1175 (7th Cir. 1994) ............................................................................................................ 1 Bagley v. Blagojevich, 646 F.3d 378 (7th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................... 14, 17 Baldus v. Brennan, Nos. 11-CV-562, 11-CV-1011, 2011 WL 6122542 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 8, 2011), order clarified, 2011 WL 6385645 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 20, 2011) ......................................................... 4 Baldus v. Members of Wis. Gov't Accountability Bd., 849 F. Supp. 2d 840 (E.D. Wis. 2012) ............................................................................................ 3 Baldus v. Members of Wis. Gov't Accountability Bd., Nos. 11-CV-562, 11-CV-1011, 2013 WL 690496 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 25, 2013) ........................... 4 Biblia Abierta v. Banks, 129 F.3d 899 (7th Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................. passim Bogan v. City of Boston, 489 F.3d 417 (1st Cir. 2007) ........................................................................................................... 19 Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44 (1998) ......................................................................................................... 11, 13, 14, 17 Brown v. Dart, 667 F. App'x 873 (7th Cir. 2016) ..................................................................................................... 2 Burden-Meeks v. Welch, 319 F.3d 897 (7th Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................................... 2, 12 Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367 (2004) ................................................................................................................. passim Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979) ......................................................................................................................... 14 City of Fort Lauderdale v. Scott, No. 10-61122-CIV, 2012 WL 760743 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2012) ................................................ 19 Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, No. CIV-S-90-0520, 2008 WL 4300437 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2008) ......................................... 19 Comm. for a Fair & Balanced Map v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections, No. 11-c-5065, 2011 WL 4837508 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2011) ..................................................... 18 Dellwood Farms, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., 128 F.3d 1122 (7th Cir. 1997) .......................................................................................................... 2 Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82 (1967) ............................................................................................................................ 13 Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973) ......................................................................................................................... 17 Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018) ............................................................................................................. passim Gunn v. Univ. Comm. to End War in Vietnam, 399 U.S. 383 (1970) ........................................................................................................................... 1 In re Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc., 745 F.3d 216 (7th Cir. 2014) .......................................................................................................... 12 In re Dep't of Commerce, 139 S. Ct. 566 (2018) ............................................................................................................. 9, 10, 22 In re Hubbard, 803 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2015) ................................................................................... 11, 12, 14, 22 In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 756 F.3d 754 (D.C. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................... 9, 10 J. H. Cohn & Co. v. Am. Appraisal Assocs., Inc., 628 F.2d 994 (7th Cir. 1980) .......................................................................................................... 11 James v. Sheahan, 137 F.3d 1003 (7th Cir. 1998) ........................................................................................................ 20 JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., 707 F.3d 853 (7th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................................ 2 King v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections, 410 F.3d 404 (7th Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................................ 1 LaPorta v. City of Chicago, No. 14-c-9665, 2016 WL 4429746 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 2016) .................................................... 19 League of Women Voters of Mich. v. Johnson, 902 F.3d 572 (6th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................................ 1 Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 908 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2018) ..................................................................................... 11, 13, 14, 16 Marylanders for Fair Representation, Inc. v. Schaefer, 144 F.R.D. 292 (D.Md. 1992) .................................................................................................. 13, 18 Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009) ....................................................................................................................... 2, 8 Ohio A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Larose, No. 18-4258, 2019 WL 259431 (6th Cir. Jan. 18, 2019) ............................................................... 1 Olivieri v. Rodriguez, 122 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................... 18, 19 Ott v. City of Milwaukee, 682 F.3d 552 (7th Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................................ 2 Reeder v. Madigan, 780 F.3d 799 (7th Cir. 2015) .......................................................................................................... 13 Rodriguez v. Pataki, 280 F. Supp. 2d 89 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) ............................................................................................. 18 Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244 (1992) ........................................................................................................................... 3 Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951) ................................................................................................................. passim Thillens, Inc. v. Cmty. Currency Exchange Ass'n of Ill., Inc., 729 F.2d 1128 (7th Cir. 1984) ........................................................................................................ 15 United Airlines, Inc. v. U.S. Bank N.A., 406 F.3d 918 (7th Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................................ 3 United States v. Gillock, 445 U.S. 360 (1980) ......................................................................................................................... 15 United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) ................................................................................................................... 14, 17 Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004) ................................................................................................................... 16, 17 Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) ......................................................................................................................... 15 Whitford v. Gill, 218 F. Supp. 3d 837 (W.D. Wis. 2016) ................................................................................. 4, 5, 22

Other Authorities

28 U.S.C. § 1253 ..................................................................................................................................... 1 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ..................................................................................................................................... 1 28 U.S.C. § 1651 ..................................................................................................................................... 1 28 U.S.C. § 2284 ..................................................................................................................................... 1 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ..................................................................................................................................... 1 FED. R. CIV. P. 26 ................................................................................................................................. 12 Wis. Const. Art. IV, § 3 ......................................................................................................................... 3

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

In July 2015, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against state officials to challenge the constitutionality of Wisconsin's 2011 redistricting legislation. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A three-judge district court was convened. See 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a). The three-judge district court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 2284(a).

On May 3, 2019, the district court entered an order compelling the Speaker of the Wisconsin State Assembly to submit to a deposition and to produce various categories of documents. See App. 1-18 (Op. & Order, ECF 275). Speaker Vos, who is not a party, petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus to modify, dissolve, or delay that discovery order.

In redistricting cases, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction to review orders granting or denying interlocutory or permanent injunctions (or orders with "the same practical effect"), but that jurisdiction is to be "narrowly construed." 28 U.S.C. § 1253; Abbott v. Perez, 138 S. Ct. 2305, 2319-21 (2018); Gunn v. Univ. Comm. to End War in Vietnam, 399 U.S. 383, 386-88 (1970) (quotation marks omitted). This Court retains jurisdiction to consider all other orders from a three-judge district court. See, e.g., King v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections, 410 F.3d 404, 407 (7th Cir. 2005) (reviewing fee award); League of Women Voters of Mich. v. Johnson, 902 F.3d 572, 576-77 (6th Cir. 2018) (reviewing denial of motion to intervene in redistricting case); Ohio A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Larose, No. 18-4258, 2019 WL 259431, at *4-7 (6th Cir. Jan. 18, 2019) (unpublished) (rejecting petition for writ of mandamus to reverse motion to compel in a redistricting case on the merits).

Applied here, this Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus directing the district court to dissolve, modify, or delay the discovery order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Such discovery orders do not have the practical effect of granting or denying an injunction and are therefore beyond the Supreme Court's section 1253 jurisdiction. See Allendale Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bull Data Sys., Inc., 32 F.3d 1175, 1177 (7th Cir. 1994) (stating discovery orders "are deemed not to be injunctions within the meaning of § 1292(a)(1)"); Abbott, 138 S. Ct. at 2320-21 (adopting section 1292(a)(1)'s "practical effect" standard for section 1253).

This Court's Dellwood Farms decision could provide an alternative basis for jurisdiction, but intervening Supreme Court precedent casts doubt on its continued viability. See Dellwood Farms, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., 128 F.3d 1122 (7th Cir. 1997). Dellwood Farms holds that nonparties like Speaker Vos may immediately appeal a discovery order denying a claim of privilege under the collateral order doctrine. Id. at 1125; see also Burden-Meeks v. Welch, 319 F.3d 897, 900 (7th Cir. 2003) (criticizing Dellwood Farms but applying its "square holding"). But it is not clear that Dellwood Farms survives the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 109-10 (2009), holding that a party may not immediately appeal a discovery order requiring disclosure of privileged material. This Court then applied Mohawk to a nonparty's interlocutory appeal of a discovery order in Ott v. City of Milwaukee, 682 F.3d 552, 554-55 (7th Cir. 2012) (finding "immaterial the fact that this case involves a discovery order directed at nonparties whereas Mohawk Industries involved parties to the case"). But Ott has an alternative holding—rejecting the nonparties' interlocutory appeal on the merits—in the event the Court misread Mohawk "and the [Supreme] Court meant to leave a wider door open for collateral-order appeals brought by nonparties...." Id. at 555-56; compare also Brown v. Dart, 667 F. App'x 873, 873 (7th Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (applying Dellwood Farms to consider an interlocutory appeal of a nonparty), with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., 707 F.3d 853, 869 (7th Cir. 2013) (describing Ott as "declining to extend collateral-order review to the denial of a motion to quash a nonparty subpoena for pretrial discovery").

If this Court decides that Dellwood Farms is still good law, Speaker Vos respectfully requests that this Court treat these papers as a notice of appeal instead of a mandamus petition. See, e.g., United Airlines, Inc. v. U.S. Bank N.A., 406 F.3d 918, 923 (7th Cir. 2005); see Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992).

ISSUES PRESENTED

1. Whether legislative privilege or immunity bars Plaintiffs in a partisan gerrymandering case from deposing the Speaker of the Wisconsin State Assembly and demanding his documents to explore, among other things, individual legislators' motives in drafting, negotiating, and enacting Wisconsin's 2011 redistricting plan.

2. Whether Plaintiffs may depose the Speaker of the Wisconsin State Assembly without establishing that extraordinary circumstances justify taking the deposition of a high-ranking public official.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Wisconsin Constitution tasks the Legislature with redistricting after each census. Wis. Const. Art. IV, § 3. In accordance with that power, the Legislature passed Act 43, reapportioning Wisconsin's 99 State Assembly districts, in July 2011. See Baldus v. Members of Wis. Gov't Accountability Bd., 849 F. Supp. 2d 840, 846 (E.D. Wis. 2012).

That summer, a group of voters filed suit alleging that Wisconsin's redistricting legislation violated state and federal law (the Baldus litigation). The Baldus plaintiffs' claims included partisan gerrymandering claims. See id. at 847-48. Plaintiffs abandoned their Act 43 partisan gerrymandering claim at trial. Id.

There was extensive discovery in Baldus, which Plaintiffs in this case now possess. See Stip. Regarding 30(b)(6) Deps., ECF 96 (stipulating a procedure to authenticate Baldus documents for Whitford litigation). The Baldus discovery included "any and all documents" used "to draw the 2011 redistricting maps," "any documents or testimony relating to how the Legislature reached its decision on the 2011 redistricting maps," including "documents post- dating the passage of Ac[t] 43," and production of "the exact machines used by the Legislature and its counsel to create the redistrict[ing] maps," which were forensically examined and indexed by an expert under plaintiffs' direction. Baldus v. Brennan, Nos. 11-CV-562, 11-CV-1011, 2011 WL 6122542, at *1 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 8, 2011), order clarified, 2011 WL 6385645 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 20, 2011); Baldus v. Members of Wis. Gov't Accountability Bd., Nos. 11-CV-562, 11-CV-1011, 2013 WL 690496, at *1-2 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 25, 2013); see also Am. Lanterman Decl. ¶¶2-5 (Apr. 19, 2016), ECF 97.¹ The Baldus plaintiffs also deposed, re-deposed, and cross-examined legislative aides (Tad Ottman and Adam Foltz) and legislative consultants (Joseph Handrick and Keith Gaddie).² See ECF 107, 109-112, 114-117, 120-121.

1 The Baldus court rejected the Legislature's arguments that legislative privilege foreclosed plaintiffs from subpoenaing legislative aides and consultants. See generally Baldus, 2011 WL 6122542. That decision was not appealed, and it did not address whether plaintiffs could subpoena sitting legislators. Also during Baldus, and discussed further below, one external hard drive used to back up a redistricting computer could not be imaged. See Am. Lanterman Decl. ¶4, ECF 97.

2 Foltz was an aide to then-Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald and Ottman worked for Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald during redistricting. See Trial Tr. 46:11-15, May 24, 2016, ECF 147; Trial Tr. 5:25-6:2, May 25, 2016, ECF 148.

The Plaintiffs in this case waited until July 2015 to file their lawsuit alleging that Act 43 was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. See Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916, 1923-24 (2018). Plaintiffs do not dispute that they have the Baldus discovery. And the Wisconsin State Assembly, Wisconsin's Legislative Technology Services Bureau (LTSB), and the Whitford Defendants have stipulated to the authenticity of all documents and data from the imaged redistricting computers. See Stipulation, ECF 96; see also Am. Lanterman Decl., ECF 97 (describing restoration of Baldus data). Meanwhile, Plaintiffs re-deposed a redistricting consultant, an LTSB representative, and legislative aides. See ECF 105 to 121 (Baldus and Whitford I deposition transcripts); see also Whitford v. Gill (Whitford I), 218 F. Supp. 3d 837, 858 n.116 (W.D. Wis. 2016) (noting another legislative consultant's earlier "depositions were admitted into the record"). The legislative aides also testified live at the Whitford I four-day trial. 218 F. Supp. 3d at 858.

Both Plaintiffs and the district court have relied extensively on the Baldus discovery and trial testimony. In Whitford I, the parties' joint statement of stipulated facts refers to and authenticates numerous Baldus documents and testimony. See Joint Final Pretrial Report ¶¶17-99, ECF 125. And the Whitford I opinion depends on this evidence for its pages of discussion about the Act 43 drafting process and the drafters' intent. 218 F. Supp. 3d at 846-53, 890-98. Not once in Whitford I was it necessary to depose a sitting legislator or demand that he produce documents.

There have been two critical developments since Whitford I. First, in June 2018, the Supreme Court vacated that opinion and remanded for Plaintiffs to establish standing. The Supreme Court stated that Plaintiffs' evidence of intent—including "evidence regarding the mapmakers' deliberations as they drew district lines"—was not pertinent to the question of standing: "[T]he question at this point is whether the plaintiffs have established injury in fact. That turns on effect, not intent, and requires a showing of a burden on the plaintiffs' votes that is actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Gill, 138 S. Ct. at 1932 (emphasis added) (quotation marks omitted). And in no uncertain terms, the Supreme Court stated that the justiciability of Plaintiffs' claims was still "unresolved." Id. at 1934.

Second, in January 2019 the Supreme Court scheduled two more partisan gerrymandering cases for argument. See Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422; Lamone v. Benisek, No. 18-726. Both require the Supreme Court to first decide whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and, if so, to define the standard for testing such claims. The State Assembly immediately moved to stay the Whitford proceedings until the Supreme Court decided Rucho and Lamone. The district court postponed the trial until July but permitted discovery to proceed. See Op. & Order at 4-5, ECF 243.

Plaintiffs have used these additional months of discovery to subpoena Speaker Robin Vos, as well as legislative aides. See Speaker Vos Subpoena, ECF 259-2; Notice, ECF 272. Speaker Vos was not the Speaker of the Wisconsin State Assembly when Act 43 passed; he has not intervened as an individual party in this litigation; and he was never compelled to participate in discovery in either Baldus or Whitford, until now.

In March, Plaintiffs moved to compel. Plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to Speaker Vos's testimony about "the intent behind the drawing of each of the 29 districts challenged as diluting the vote of individual Plaintiffs" and "testimony relating to [Plaintiffs'] associational claims." Br. in Supp. of Pls.' Mot. to Compel at 5, ECF 258; see also id. at 3 (seeking "testimony relating to how the Legislature reached its decision" on district boundaries and "testimony as to the predicted and actual associational effects of Act 43 on the Democratic Party, Democratic voters, the Republican Party, and Republican voters"). Plaintiffs' motion also demanded that Speaker Vos produce related documents. See Speaker Vos Subpoena Ex. A, ECF 259-2.

Speaker Vos opposed Plaintiffs' motion. First, Speaker Vos argued legislative privilege and immunity precluded Plaintiffs' deposing a sitting legislator and demanding his documents. Speaker Vos Opp'n at 14-25, ECF 265. Second, he argued that Plaintiffs failed to establish that extraordinary circumstances justified the deposition of a high-ranking public official. Id. at 26-30. And third, he argued that Plaintiffs' document requests were cumulative of the years of discovery in Wisconsin redistricting litigation, such that the burden of additional discovery from the Speaker far outweighed any benefit. Id. at 30-32.

On May 3, the district court granted Plaintiffs' motion in large part. See App. 1-13.³ In addition to compelling Speaker Vos's deposition, the district court also required Speaker Vos to produce all Act 43-related documents, including but not limited to documents concerning state lawmakers' "analyses" or "objectives and/or motives" in enacting Act 43. App. 9-11. The district court also ordered production of all communications involving the Republican Party of Wisconsin and Assembly candidates "about the impact of Act 43" on Assembly elections from 2010 to present and communications with the Republican National Committee. Id. The only limitations imposed by the court's order are that Plaintiffs cannot demand documents relating to (1) the State Assembly's retention of Bartlit Beck LLP or (2) those relating to certain Republican campaign activities (e.g., recruiting candidates). App. 12-13.

3 On May 9, 2019, Plaintiffs' counsel transmitted a new subpoena to Speaker Vos's counsel. Plaintiffs demanded that he produce the documents compelled by the district court's order by May 22 and appear for a deposition on May 29. Speaker Vos filed this correspondence as an exhibit to the Speaker's motion to stay the discovery order in the district court. ECF 276-278. Should the district court deny the Speaker's stay motion or fail to act, Speaker Vos will move for a stay in this Court.

The district court acknowledged that courts "have consistently construed Tenney [v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951)] and its progeny as more generally restricting the use of civil process against state legislators, including depositions and other discovery." App. 3. Even so, the court rejected Speaker Vos's legislative privilege arguments in light of the unique nature of gerrymandering claims and the "important federal interests" implicated by such claims. App. 5-6. The district court adopted a five-part test used by a handful of district courts in redistricting cases, including in the Maryland litigation currently before the Supreme Court. Id.

The district court also expressly declined to consider Speaker Vos's alternative argument that high-ranking public officials cannot be deposed absent extraordinary circumstances. App. 6 n.1 (stating that argument "implicates the same concern" as legislative privilege).

Judge Griesbach dissented. He stated that "whatever relevance Speaker Vos' testimony may have does not warrant invasion of the legislative privilege." App. 14. He emphasized that the Supreme Court remanded Plaintiffs' case to establish an injury in fact, which "'turns on effect, not intent'" and that "[d]eposing Vos about the legislature's intent in enacting the 2011 plan is neither necessary nor relevant to plaintiffs' burden and would be an intrusion into the legislative process for no real reason." App. 17 (quoting Gill, 138 S. Ct. at 1932). He added that until the Supreme Court decides whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable, "we are simply spinning our wheels." App. 16.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

A writ of mandamus is necessary to correct the district court's serious error compelling discovery from the Speaker of the Wisconsin State Assembly—an order that will distract the Speaker from his public duties during one of the busiest periods of the legislative session. Speaker Vos has no other adequate alternative means of relief, the discovery order is clearly and indisputably wrong, and mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004). While these three requirements for mandamus relief are "demanding," they "are not insuperable." Id. at 381; see also Mohawk, 558 U.S. at 111 (describing mandamus relief as a "useful safety valv[e] for promptly correcting serious errors" (quotation marks omitted)). Speaker Vos clears each of those hurdles here.

First, Speaker Vos has no other adequate means to obtain the relief he seeks. Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380-81. No postjudgment appeal can remedy the time spent preparing for and participating in the deposition. Nor can a postjudgment appeal avoid the inevitable consequence of compelling a sitting legislator to attend a deposition or to produce documents: chilling legislative debate in Wisconsin and elsewhere. Once the deposition and document production occur, the harm is done. See In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 756 F.3d 754, 761 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (Kavanaugh, J.).

Second, Speaker Vos's right to the issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable. Cheney, 542 U.S. at 381. The district court's order defies binding precedent. For example, compelling Speaker Vos to testify and produce documents "detail[ing] the discussions among the legislative leadership or between Vos and the individual Representatives," App. 8, is contrary to this Court's decisions that inquiring into legislators' motives for their actions, regardless of whether those reasons are proper or improper, is not an appropriate consideration for the court. See, e.g., Biblia Abierta v. Banks, 129 F.3d 899, 905 (7th Cir. 1997).

What's more, the district court expressly refused to consider Speaker Vos's separate and independent argument that Plaintiffs failed to establish that "extraordinary circumstances" justify deposing a high-ranking public official. See App. 6 n.1. Little more than six months ago, the Supreme Court intervened to stop the deposition of the United States Commerce Secretary after the government petitioned for mandamus and raised that very argument. See In re Dep't of Commerce, 139 S. Ct. 566 (2018). For substantially similar reasons, this Court should step in here.

And third, a writ of mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances. Cheney, 542 U.S. at 381. Litigants have spent eight years attacking the constitutionality of Act 43. Plaintiffs now possess the resulting volumes of discovery materials, including more than one dozen depositions of legislative consultants and legislative aides involved in redistricting, plus the documents collected in Baldus and the very computers used for redistricting. Not once was Speaker Vos compelled to participate in discovery in those eight years. Until now, on the eve of yet another trial and mere months before the Supreme Court could rule that partisan gerrymandering claims like Plaintiffs' are not justiciable. At the very least, Speaker Vos should not be dragged into discovery until the Supreme Court determines the status of such claims.

ARGUMENT

Since Wisconsin reapportioned its State Assembly districts, there have been thirteen depositions of legislative aides and consultants, production of the computers used to create the redistricting maps, two trials, and one Supreme Court appeal. Only now—after nearly eight years of redistricting-related litigation—the district court has acceded to Plaintiffs' demand that the Speaker of the Wisconsin State Assembly submit to a deposition and produce documents. Mandamus is appropriate to dissolve, modify, or delay the district court's discovery order.

I. Speaker Vos has no other adequate means to attain the relief he seeks.

Unless this court issues a writ of mandamus dissolving, modifying, or delaying the district court's order, Speaker Vos must immediately prepare for and attend a deposition, in addition to searching for and producing privileged documents. The deposition cannot be undone. And the "post-release review of a ruling that documents" and testimony "are unprivileged is often inadequate to vindicate a privilege the very purpose of which is to prevent the release of those confidential documents" and testimony. In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 756 F.3d at 761. Mandamus is Speaker Vos's only adequate means to obtain the requested relief.

Invoking similar arguments, the United States filed a mandamus petition successfully halting the Secretary of Commerce's deposition late last year. See In re Dep't of Commerce, 139 S. Ct. at 566 (construing mandamus petition as petition for writ of certiorari and granting the writ). As the United States argued, a postjudgment appeal "would hardly provide an 'adequate' means of relief for the irreversible burdens of preparing for and being deposed...." See United States Mandamus Pet. at 30-32, In re U.S. Dep't of Commerce, No. 18-557, 2018 WL 5617904, at *31 (Oct. 29, 2018). And there, as here, a postjudgment ruling that deposing a high-ranking government official was improper could require vacatur of any district decision relying on that deposition testimony. Id.; see also J. H. Cohn & Co. v. Am. Appraisal Assocs., Inc., 628 F.2d 994, 997 (7th Cir. 1980) (stating that the writ "is properly used to avoid numerous later appeals by formulating necessary guidelines which will settle a new and important question").

Similarly in Cheney, the Supreme Court ruled that an appellate court erred in deciding it lacked authority to issue a writ of mandamus to review a discovery order targeting the Vice President and senior government officials. 542 U.S. at 381-82, 391. Just as the separation-of-powers concerns in Cheney removed the orders at issue from the category of "ordinary discovery orders," id. at 382, the discovery order here is anything but ordinary. It targets one of Wisconsin's highest-ranking public officials during one of the busiest periods of the legislative session as the biennial budget deadline nears. That order implicates substantial federalism concerns, fit for mandamus relief. Id. at 381 (stating that the "Court has issued the writ to restrain a lower court when its actions would ... result in the intrusion by the federal judiciary on a delicate area of federal-state relations" (quotation marks omitted)). The extraordinary nature of that request and this litigation cannot be ignored. See Abelesz v. OTP Bank, 692 F.3d 638, 652 (7th Cir. 2012).

Deposing and demanding documents from Speaker Vos thwarts the purpose of legislative privilege, as well as the purpose animating the rule that high-ranking public officials cannot be deposed absent extraordinary circumstances. No postjudgment appeal can restore the time spent away from Speaker Vos's public duties. Compare In re Hubbard, 803 F.3d 1298, 1310 (11th Cir. 2015); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 908 F.3d 1175, 1187 (9th Cir. 2018). Nor could it remedy the chilling effect that such discovery is likely to have on legislative debate. See Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 52 (1998); see also Biblia Abierta, 129 F.3d at 903 (legislative privilege ensures legislators may represent their constituents "without fear" (quotation marks omitted)); Tenney, 341 U.S. at 373-74 (similar).

Finally, this Court has stated that "the normal way" to obtain review of a discovery order is to defy the order and be cited with contempt, but this is not the normal case. See Burden-Meeks, 319 F.3d at 899. And there are exceptions. See In re Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc., 745 F.3d 216, 221 (7th Cir. 2014) (Hamilton, J., dissenting) (faulting majority for granting mandamus instead of requiring petitioners to refuse to comply with discovery order and face contempt sanctions). This case, too, presents an exception. Requiring Speaker Vos, an elected official and leader of the Wisconsin State Assembly, to defy the district court's order implicates unique federalism concerns absent in cases involving corporations, such as In re Boehringer, or others not involving high-ranking elected officials. As the Eleventh Circuit recognized in Hubbard, elected officials like Speaker Vos need not wait for contempt proceedings to be brought against them to seek relief from discovery orders. 803 F.3d at 1305.

II. Mandamus relief is clearly and indisputably warranted.

There is no justification to compel the Speaker of the Wisconsin State Assembly to sit for a deposition or produce documents. Doing so transgresses legislative immunity and privilege and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery. See FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). Only extraordinary circumstances justify deposing high-ranking public officials. No such circumstances are present here.

A. Legislative immunity and privilege preclude Plaintiffs from compelling Speaker Vos to give testimony or produce documents.

The district court's decision—requiring discovery from Speaker Vos regarding, among other things, legislators' intentions, motives, predictions, or conversations regarding Act 43—is irreconcilable with this Court's admonition that acts relating to the legislative process or otherwise "necessary and proper to the exercise of legislative authority" are privileged. Biblia Abierta, 129 F.3d at 906; see also Tenney, 341 U.S. at 377-78. Its decision rests on the fiction that there is a redistricting exception to well-established legislative privilege and immunity rules. Look no further than the district court's astonishing statement that the "only contrary authority" in Speaker Vos's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to compel was the Ninth Circuit's redistricting decision in Lee, 908 F.3d at 1187. App. 5. That ignores various controlling Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit decisions (many also involving section 1983 suits raising First and Fourteenth Amendment claims) cited in Speaker Vos's brief. See ECF 265 at 14-22. Only by working backwards from an erroneous "redistricting is different" premise could the district court conclude there was no contrary authority preventing it from forcing Speaker Vos to sit for a deposition. But there is no redistricting exception to Tenney and progeny.

The Supreme Court has stated repeatedly that state lawmakers cannot be hauled into federal court civil rights actions for acts done within "the sphere of legitimate legislative activity." Tenney, 341 U.S. at 376.⁴ In Dombrowski v. Eastland, for example, the Supreme Court stated that legislators "should be protected not only from the consequences of litigation's results but also from the burden of defending themselves." 387 U.S. at 84-85; see also Bogan, 523 U.S. at 48 (stating unanimously that "legislators are absolutely immune").

4 Some courts analyze legislative immunity and legislative privilege as different concepts, while others discuss them interchangeably. Whether called "immunity" or "privilege," legislators are protected from "civil process," which includes nonparty subpoenas, not just civil liability. See Tenney, 341 U.S. at 372; Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82, 85 (1967); Reeder v. Madigan, 780 F.3d 799, 804 (7th Cir. 2015) (warning that strictly construing immunity "would make it nearly impossible for a legislature to function"); see, e.g., Marylanders for Fair Representation, Inc. v. Schaefer, 144 F.R.D. 292, 297 & n.12 (D.Md. 1992) ("Legislative immunity not only protects state legislators from civil liability, it also functions as an evidentiary and testimonial privilege."); Lee, 908 F.3d at 1187 (similar).

As Speaker Vos argued, federal courts routinely afford special protection to state lawmakers in section 1983 suits like this one. Lee—deciding that public officials involved in municipal redistricting could not be deposed in a racial gerrymandering case—is but one example. 908 F.3d at 1187-88. This Court has likewise affirmed that the former Illinois governor could not be deposed in Bagley v. Blagojevich, a section 1983 suit alleging that his use of the line-item veto was First Amendment retaliation. 646 F.3d 378, 396-97 (7th Cir. 2011); see also, e.g., Biblia Abierta, 129 F.3d at 901-02, 906 (ruling that Chicago aldermen had complete immunity in civil suit alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations). And the Eleventh Circuit ordered the district court to quash plaintiffs' subpoenas seeking files of the Speaker of the Alabama House of Representatives and other public officials in a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging First Amendment retaliation. See Hubbard, 803 F.3d at 1301-02, 1312.

The same rules apply here. Plaintiffs' mere filing of a section 1983 suit does not empower Plaintiffs to depose and demand documents from a sitting legislator. Compelling such discovery—especially when the Supreme Court has yet to resolve the justiciability of Plaintiffs claims—frustrates the principles animating legislative immunity and privilege. It takes the legislator away from his public duties. Compare Hubbard, 803 F.3d at 1310; Lee, 908 F.3d at 1187. It puts a single legislator's motives or knowledge under the microscope, even though his motives or knowledge are not shared by or imputed to the body. See United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 383-84 (1968) ("What motivates one legislator to make a speech about a statute is not necessarily what motivates scores of others to enact it."); see, e.g., Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 311 (1979) (individual legislator's understanding of bill language was not controlling as to bill's meaning). And it inhibits "the exercise of legislative discretion" with the threat of "judicial interference" or "fear of personal liability." Bogan, 523 U.S. at 52; see also Biblia Abierta, 129 F.3d at 903; Tenney, 341 U.S. at 373-74.

The district court skipped past these precedents, instead opting for a bespoke redistricting test for legislative privilege adopted by a handful of district courts and never endorsed by this Court or the Supreme Court. Indeed, all the district court could muster for its redistricting-specific test were a few words quoted from United States v. Gillock, 445 U.S. 360 (1980), when in fact Gillock further illuminates the district court's errors. Gillock involved evidence of legislative acts in a federal criminal prosecution for bribery against a state senator.⁵ It held only that legislative privilege and immunity must bend to "the legitimate interest of the Federal Government in enforcing its criminal statutes...." Gillock, 445 U.S. at 362, 373 (emphasis added). States have sovereign immunity against suits by private citizens, but no such immunity against suits by the United States. So too with legislative immunity, to no one's surprise.

5 The district court suggested that Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977), supported its conclusion that Speaker Vos could be compelled to testify. App. 4. To the contrary, Arlington Heights is consistent with Speaker Vos's position. There, the Supreme Court stated that "extraordinary" circumstances might require policy makers—not legislators specifically—to testify about the "purpose of the official action" but that "even then such testimony frequently will be barred by privilege." Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 268 (citing Tenney, 341 U.S. 367).

Neither the Supreme Court nor the Seventh Circuit has ever applied Gillock's "important federal interest" exception in a civil case. See, e.g., Thillens, Inc. v. Cmty. Currency Exchange Ass'n of Ill., Inc., 729 F.2d 1128, 1131 (7th Cir. 1984) (declining to apply Gillock's "important federal interest" exception in a civil bribery suit). Gillock itself distinguished federal civil rights actions (like this one) from federal criminal prosecutions. See Gillock, 445 U.S. at 372-73; see also Cheney, 542 U.S. at 384, 386 (distinguishing "between criminal and civil proceedings is not just a matter of formalism" because "[t]he need for information for use in civil cases, while far from negligible, does not share the urgency or significance of the criminal subpoena requests..."). And even if Gillock could be extended to civil cases, Plaintiffs' allegations are in no way analogous to the federal interest in prosecuting public corruption.

The district court's conclusion that deposing Speaker Vos serves an important federal interest analogous to that in Gillock is plainly wrong. As Judge Griesbach's dissenting opinion observed, the Speaker "is not charged with taking bribes or engaging in criminal conduct for his own personal purposes." App. 16. The Supreme Court has not even resolved whether Plaintiffs' claims are justiciable or whether Plaintiffs have standing. Even assuming Plaintiffs could overcome these obstacles, the alleged federal interest in here is slight. Plaintiffs' claims cannot be equated to (or elevated above) those in racial gerrymandering cases, but the district court did just that. See App. 4-5 (citing a mix of racial gerrymandering cases and partisan gerrymandering cases); see also Lee, 908 F.3d at 1187-88 (applying legislative privilege in racial gerrymandering case). Moreover, the evidence Plaintiffs seek—evidence of a sitting legislators' partisan intent in an endeavor that is "root-and-branch a matter of politics"—is nothing like evidence of verboten race-based motivations, let alone evidence of criminal bribery. Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 285-86 (2004) (plurality). Evidence that a legislator acted consistent with his or her political beliefs would be consistent with what lawmakers have done since before the Founding. See id. at 274-75.

Speaker Vos raised these very arguments in the district court. But the district court (again getting it exactly wrong) stated that Speaker "Vos does not deny that plaintiffs will have to prove the Assembly's intent to prevail on their claims." App. 7-8. Here and elsewhere, the district court's order disregards the record. The essence of Speaker Vos's opposition is that an individual legislator's intent is irrelevant and nondiscoverable for any number of reasons. First, Plaintiffs' principal task on remand is to prove that they have suffered a cognizable injury, requiring evidence of Act 43's "effect, not intent." Gill, 138 S. Ct. at 1932. Second, even if Plaintiffs could establish standing, Speaker Vos has not conceded that evidence of legislators' intent is "necessary" to Plaintiffs' claim. App. 8. No party in this litigation knows whether Plaintiffs' claims are even justiciable, let alone what evidence is "necessary" to prove them. But every party knows that some amount of partisan intent is lawful, and perhaps inevitable, in redistricting. See Vieth, 541 U.S. at 285 (plurality); id. at 307 (Kennedy, J., concurring) ("A determination that a gerrymander violates the law must rest on something more than the conclusion that political classifications were applied."); see also Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735, 752 (1973) (rejecting the argument that "any political consideration taken into account in fashioning a reapportionment plan is sufficient to invalidate it"). And third, compelling discovery on Speaker Vos's intent defies the many decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court that explain "unworthy purpose" or "the motive or intent of an official" does not negate legislative privilege. Tenney, 341 U.S. at 377 ("The privilege would be of little value if they could be subjected to the cost and inconvenience and distractions of a trial upon a conclusion of the pleader, or to the hazard of a judgment against them based upon a jury's speculation as to motives."); see Bogan, 523 U.S. at 54 ("Whether an act is legislative turns on the nature of the act, rather than on the motive or intent of the official performing it."); O'Brien, 391 U.S. at 383-84; Bagley, 646 F.3d at 394 ("Perhaps the Governor harbored secret motives, but motives do not matter in determining whether the action is legislative."); Biblia Abierta, 129 F.3d at 905. The district court made no effort to reconcile its decision with these authorities.

Not even other redistricting courts applying the (flawed) redistricting-specific test for legislative privilege have ventured as far from Tenney as the district court. Repeatedly, the district court said Speaker Vos must be deposed because only he can provide testimony (and documents) revealing discussions with leadership or individual representatives, and only he can provide testimony revealing his "insight into legislative intent" as a sitting legislator. App. 8, 9. That order far exceeds the scope of discovery in the Illinois redistricting case, for example, where the district court refused to compel privileged "information concerning the motives, objectives, plans, reports and/or procedures used by lawmakers" or "the identities of persons who participated in decisions regarding the [challenged] Map." See Comm. for a Fair & Balanced Map v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections, No. 11-c-5065, 2011 WL 4837508, at *10-11 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2011). Similarly in Rodriguez v. Pataki, plaintiffs' motion to compel was denied "to the extent that the plaintiffs seek information concerning the actual deliberations of the Legislature—or individual legislators—which took place outside [the citizen-legislator redistricting committee]." 280 F. Supp. 2d 89, 103 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); see also Marylanders, 144 F.R.D. at 297 n.12 (stating plaintiffs could not "inquire into legislative motive if such an inquiry would necessitate an abrogation of legislative immunity").

At the very least, the district court should have waited for the Supreme Court to decide Rucho and Lamone before concluding that Plaintiffs' partisan gerrymandering claims require the Speaker of the Wisconsin State Assembly to sit for a deposition and turn over documents. But the district court pressed ahead. Its order excoriates Speaker Vos's legislative privilege and immunity, and for what? To gather cumulative evidence of legislative intent in furtherance of a claim that may well be nonjusticiable.

B. The district court refused to consider whether extraordinary circumstances justified deposing a high-ranking public official.

The district court paid no attention to the separate and independent ground for denying Plaintiffs' motion to compel: the absence of any extraordinary circumstances that justify deposing Speaker Vos. See Olivieri v. Rodriguez, 122 F.3d 406, 409-10 (7th Cir. 1997). Faced with this argument, the district court stated only that "legislative privilege implicates the same concern," so it "need not discuss the principle in Oliveri [sic] separately." App. 6 n.1. Compounding that error, the district court remarked that Plaintiffs "narrowly tailored" their discovery requests "to include only Vos," without acknowledging that Speaker Vos is one of Wisconsin's highest-ranking public officials. App. 8.

The district court's praising Plaintiffs for going after the Speaker of the Wisconsin State Assembly is antithetical to the settled rule that high-ranking public officials cannot be deposed absent extraordinary circumstances. Speaker Vos cannot "be taken away from his work to spend hours or days answering lawyers' questions unless there is a real need." Olivieri, 122 F.3d at 409-10; see Bogan v. City of Boston, 489 F.3d 417, 423-24 (1st Cir. 2007); see, e.g., LaPorta v. City of Chicago, No. 14-c-9665, 2016 WL 4429746, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 2016); City of Fort Lauderdale v. Scott, No. 10-61122-CIV, 2012 WL 760743, at *2-3 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2012) (collecting cases).

Even if the district court believed legislative privilege did not apply, Plaintiffs still must show that extraordinary circumstances necessitate Speaker Vos's deposition. Plaintiffs cannot use litigation to harass high-ranking public officials when the information they seek is irrelevant, non-essential, or available from other sources or less intrusive means. See Olivieri, 122 F.3d at 409-10; Bogan, 489 F.3d at 423-24; Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, No. CIV-S-90-0520, 2008 WL 4300437, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2008). Yet Plaintiffs have done just that. They admitted to the district court that Speaker Vos does not uniquely possess the evidence that they seek. They told the district court that he would "merely be providing additional information." Br. in Supp. of Pls.' Mot. to Compel at 17, ECF 258 (emphasis added). They conceded others were present at every redistricting meeting, even those with individual legislators. Id. at 1, 12. Despite these concessions, the district court erroneously stated that Speaker Vos held "one-on-one" meetings with representatives. App. 8.

Worse still, the district court equivocated about whether Speaker Vos's testimony or documents will be admissible, let alone whether such evidence is essential to Plaintiffs' case. See App. 9 ("If plaintiffs attempt to rely on any portion of the testimony later in the proceedings, [Speaker] Vos may seek a ruling on its admissibility or a protective order at that time."). The district court's logic is precisely backwards: if there is any doubt whether Speaker Vos's testimony is necessary and admissible, the Plaintiffs have not shown that his testimony is so essential that he must be deposed.

And worse still, the district court's conclusion that "the availability of other documents or Foltz's testimony" did not render "Vos's testimony unnecessary" rests on egregiously misstated facts. App. 8-9. Citing only Plaintiffs' reply brief, the district court stated, "[I]t is undisputed that there are significant gaps in the records because much electronic discovery was lost as the result of damage to one hard drive that contained information related to the redistricting process and the destruction of others." App. 8.⁶ Speaker Vos absolutely disputes that "there are significant gaps in the records" or that "much electronic discovery was lost." See, e.g., Speaker Vos Opp'n at 2-5, 27-28, 31, ECF 265. Plaintiffs do not dispute that they possess the Baldus discovery, including images of all three redistricting computers and two of the three external hard drives used to back up those computers. Supra, pp. 3-4. With respect to the "damage to one hard drive," a forensic expert in Baldus could not image the third external hard drive used by one of the legislative consultants. See Am. Lanterman Decl. ¶4, ECF 97. The Baldus plaintiffs spent months investigating that alleged discovery deficiency and others, including re-deposing the actual users of the redistricting computers and an LTSB representative. Supra, p. 20 n.6; see also Ylvisaker Dep. (Mar. 11, 2016), ECF 106. It stretches the imagination that Speaker Vos's testimony is necessary to fill any purported "gaps" caused by the inability to image that single external hard drive used by someone else.

6 For the first time in their reply brief, Plaintiffs argued that purported discovery deficiencies in Baldus are grounds for subpoenaing Speaker Vos. ECF 268 at 12-14. Ordinarily arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are deemed waived. See James v. Sheahan, 137 F.3d 1003, 1008 (7th Cir. 1998). More importantly, Plaintiffs' telling of the Baldus discovery dispute is misleading. After Baldus was decided, plaintiffs filed a motion alleging the Legislature's Baldus counsel withheld documents responsive to subpoenas. Attorneys and experts then spent approximately eight months investigating that claim. See Joint Report, Baldus v. Brennan, No. 11-cv-562 (E.D. Wis. May 15, 2013), ECF 315. Attorneys reviewed tens of thousands of documents. Id. at 2-3. Plaintiffs conducted additional depositions of legislative aides, a redistricting consultant, the Legislature's counsel, and an LTSB representative. Id. at 7. The investigation did not reveal any direct or clear and convincing evidence that materials were intentionally withheld or that any previously unproduced materials would have materially affected the outcome of the litigation. Id. Plaintiffs ultimately withdrew their motion. See Letter, Baldus v. Brennan, No. 11-cv-562 (E.D. Wis. May 15, 2013), ECF 316.

With respect to the purported "destruction" of other redistricting computer hard drives, after the Baldus litigation ended and before Plaintiffs got around to filing this lawsuit in 2015, the redistricting computers were decommissioned "in accordance with the LTSB's standard procedures." See Stipulation ¶7, ECF 96. The district court's suggestion that "much electronic discovery" was lost as a result of these standard procedures shows complete disregard of the record. Long before the redistricting computers were decommissioned, an expert imaged those computers as part of Baldus. See id. at ¶6. It is undisputed that the same expert has since provided Plaintiffs with access to all of the data and documents imaged from the redistricting computers, which the parties have stipulated are authentic. See id. at ¶¶8-14.

The district court's decision also rests on its view that legislative aide Adam Foltz's testimony is not a substitute for Speaker Vos's. App. 8-9. According to the district court "some of [Foltz's] testimony was 'unworthy of credence,'" and he "simply does not have the same insight into legislative intent that [Speaker] Vos does." App. 9. Speaker Vos disputes the suggestion that Mr. Foltz was not a credible witness, or that such a suggestion is relevant to whether Plaintiffs can subpoena the Speaker of the Wisconsin State Assembly. Additionally, the district court failed to consider that Mr. Foltz is but one witness. Plaintiffs have deposed, cross-examined, and are currently attempting to re-depose another legislative aide, Tad Ottman, and Plaintiffs have deposed, cross-examined, or used earlier sworn testimony from both redistricting consultants.

Plaintiffs used the Baldus discovery and legislative aides' and consultants' deposition testimony without complaint to make their case about legislative intent in Whitford I, 218 F. Supp. 3d at 846-53; see also id. at 890-98. No extraordinary circumstances compel Speaker Vos's deposition now.

III. A writ of mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances

As various courts have recognized, immediate relief is appropriate when parties subject high-ranking government officials to discovery in civil litigation. See, e.g., In re Dep't of Commerce, 139 S. Ct. at 566; Hubbard, 803 F.3d at 1310-11; see also Cheney, 542 U.S. at 386. At least the following four features of this case make mandamus relief especially appropriate here.

First, Plaintiffs have had eight years to gather evidence about Wisconsin's 2011 redistricting legislation. Only now have Plaintiffs decided to target Wisconsin's State Assembly Speaker. At best, Plaintiffs' discovery tactics are a last gasp—a final attempt to probe legislators' motives weeks before the Supreme Court decides related partisan gerrymandering cases. At worst, Plaintiffs' discovery is meant only to harass a political rival.

Second, the district court made repeated factual errors affecting its decision to compel discovery from Speaker Vos:

• The district court erroneously stated that Speaker "Vos does not deny that plaintiffs will have to prove the Assembly's intent to prevail on their claims," App. 7-8, when in fact the central theme of Speaker Vos's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion was that an individual legislator's intent is irrelevant and nondiscoverable. Supra, pp. 16-17.

• The district court erroneously stated that "the parties do not raise any issues unique" to the requests for all Act 43-related documents, App. 9, when Speaker Vos's opposition plainly stated that Plaintiffs have these documents from Baldus. See Speaker Vos Opp'n at 30-31, ECF 265.

• The district court erroneously stated that Speaker Vos did "not deny the relevance" of redistricting-related RNC communications, App. 11, when in fact Speaker Vos did.⁷

• The district court erroneously stated that it was "undisputed" that there were "significant gaps" in the record because of "destruction" of hard drives. App. 8. That fact is both disputed and belied by this record and Baldus. Supra, pp. 20-21.

• The district court erroneously stated that Speaker "Vos met one-on-one with each Republican Representative about that Representative's district," App. 8, when even Plaintiffs told the district court that at least one legislative aide was present in all meetings. Supra, p. 19.

• The district court erroneously considered only one legislative aide's testimony as an alternative to Speaker Vos's testimony, App. 8, when in fact Plaintiffs have relied on the following: legislative aide Tad Ottman's four depositions (ECF 114-118), legislative consultant Joseph Handrick's three depositions (ECF 119-121), legislative consultant Ronald Gaddie's two depositions (ECF 107-108), LTSB representative Jeff Ylvisaker's two depositions (ECF 105-106), in addition to legislative aide Adam Foltz's

four depositions (ECF 109-113). The district court also failed to mention that Plaintiffs' have subpoenaed legislative aide Ottman for another deposition, in addition to the Plaintiffs' subpoena for Foltz. See Notice, ECF 272.

7 Speaker Vos's opposition brief stated that these communications were "far afield from the Supreme Court's instruction to Plaintiffs to prove a cognizable injury-in-fact" and "nothing more than a fishing expedition for information with little to no relevance to the issues to be tried. This is not a case about 'the fortunes of the political parties.' Gill, 138 S. Ct. at 1933. The judiciary is not responsible for refereeing such disputes." Speaker Vos Opp'n at 13 n.9 & 32, ECF 265.

Third, any federal court order compelling a State's high-ranking public official to sit for a deposition and produce privileged documents raises substantial federalism concerns. Here, the district court exacerbated those concerns by describing this lawsuit as one raising questions about "the legitimacy of the Wisconsin government" and concluding "ensuring a fair and equal election process" trumps the Speaker's legislative privilege. App. 5.

Finally, the district court's order comes on the eve of the Supreme Court's decisions in related partisan gerrymandering cases, Rucho and Lamone. Both cases will require the Supreme Court to decide whether partisan gerrymandering claims like Plaintiffs' are even justiciable. But the district court makes not one mention of the Supreme Court's continued doubts about the justiciability of partisan gerrymandering claims. At the very least, a writ of mandamus delaying Speaker Vos's deposition until the Supreme Court decides these related cases is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Speaker Vos respectfully requests that this Court grant the petition for writ of mandamus and dissolve the district court's discovery order. In the alternative, Speaker Vos respectfully requests that this Court modify or delay the discovery order until the Supreme Court decides Rucho and Lamone.

Respectfully submitted,

Kevin St. John

BELL GIFTOS ST. JOHN LLC

5325 Wall Street, Ste. 2200

Madison, WI 53718

(608) 216-7990

kstjohn@bellgiftos.com

/s/ Adam K . Mortara

Adam K. Mortara

Joshua P. Ackerman

Taylor A.R. Meehan

BARTLIT BECK LLP

Courthouse Place

54 West Hubbard Street, Ste. 300

Chicago, IL 60654

(312) 494-4400

adam.mortara@bartlitbeck.com

joshua.ackerman@bartlitbeck.com

taylor.meehan@bartlitbeck.com

Counsel for Petitioner,

Speaker Robin J. Vos

MAY 10, 2019

PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 10, 2019, the foregoing Petition for Writ of Mandamus by Wisconsin State Assembly Speaker Robin J. Vos was submitted to the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit via email at USCA7_Clerk@ca7.uscourts.gov. I further certify that the following counsel for all parties to the district court proceedings were served via electronic mail:

Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos

University of Chicago Law School

1111 E 60th St

Chicago, IL 60637

781-248-8145

nsteph@uchicago.edu

Peter Guyon Earle

Law Office of Peter Earle, LLC

839 North Jefferson Street

Suite 300

Milwaukee, WI 53202

414-276-1076

peter@earle-law.com

Douglas Maynard Poland

Rathje & Woodward, LLC

10 East Doty Street, Ste. 507

Madison, WI 53703

608-960-7430

dpoland@rathjewoodward.com

Michele Louise Odorizzi

Mayer Brown LLP

71 S. Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606

312-701-7309

modorizzi@mayerbrown.com

Lester A. Pines

Pines Bach LLP

122 W. Washington Ave., Ste. 900

Madison, WI 53703-9500

608-251-0101

lpines@pinesbach.com

Ruth Merewyn Greenwood

Annabelle Elizabeth Harless

Campaign Legal Center

73 W. Monroe St.

Suite 302

Chicago, IL 60603

202-560-0590

rgreenwood@campaignlegalcenter.org

aharless@campaignlegalcenter.org

J. Gerald Hebert

Danielle Marie Lang

Mark P. Gaber

1411 K Street NW

Suite 1400

Washington, DC 20005

202-736-2200

gherbert@campaignlegalcenter.org

dlang@campaignlegalcenter.org

mgaber@campaignlegal.org

Paul Strauss

Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil

Rights Under Law

100 N. LaSalle St., Suite 600

Chicago, IL 60602

312-202-3649

pstrauss@clccrul.org

Brian P. Keenan

Clayton P. Kawski

Karla Z. Keckhaver

Anthony David Russomanno

Wisconsin Department of Justice

P.O. Box 7857

Madison, WI 53707

608-266-0020

keenanbp@doj.state.wi.us

kawskicp@doj.state.wi.us

keckhaverkz@doj.state.wi.us

russomannoad@doj.state.wi.us

/s/ Adam K . Mortara

Adam K. Mortara

Counsel for Petitioner,

Speaker Robin J. Vos

MAY 10, 2019

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 21(d)(1) because this brief contains 7,728 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(f). 2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Circuit Rule 32(b). This brief has been prepared using Microsoft Word version 2016 using a 12-point, proportionally spaced font (Garamond).

/s/ Adam K . Mortara

Adam K. Mortara

Counsel for Petitioner,

Speaker Robin J. Vos

MAY 10, 2019

CIRCUIT RULE 30(D) STATEMENT

Adam K. Mortara, counsel for Petitioner, hereby certifies that all of the materials required by Circuit Rules 21(a)(2)(C), 30(a), and 30(b) are included in the Appendix.

/s/ Adam K . Mortara

Adam K. Mortara

Counsel for Petitioner,

Speaker Robin J. Vos

MAY 10, 2019

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

Opinion and Order (May 3, 2019), ECF 275 ..................................................................... App. 1-18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN WILLIAM WHITFORD, GRAHAM ADSIT, ROGER ANCLAM, WARREN BRAUN, HANS BREITENMOSER, JUDITH BREY, BRENT BRIGSON, EMILY BUNTING, SANDRA CARLSON-KAYE, GUY COSTELLO, TIMOTHY B. DALEY, MARGARET LESLIE DEMUTH, DANIEL DIETERICH, MARY LYNNE DONOHUE, LEAH DUDLEY, JENNIFER ESTRADA, BARBARA FLOM, HELEN HARRIS, GAIL HOHENSTEIN, WAYNE JENSEN, WENDY SUE JOHNSON, MICHAEL LECKER, ELIZABETH LENTINI, NORAH MCCUE, JANET MITCHELL, DEBORAH PATEL, JANE PEDERSEN, NANCY PETULLA, ROBERT PFUNDHELLER, SARA RAMAKER, ROSALIE SCHNICK, ALLISON SEATON, JAMES SEATON, ANN E, STEVNING-ROE, LINEA SUNDSTROM, MICHAEL SWITZENBAUM, JEROME WALLACE, DONALD WINTER, EDWARD WOHL, and ANN WOLFE, Plaintiffs, v. BEVERLY R. GILL, JULIE M. GLANCEY, ANN S. JACOBS, JODI JENSEN, DEAN KNUDSON, and MARK L. THOMSEN, Defendants, and THE WISCONSIN STATE ASSEMBLY, Intervenor-Defendant. OPINION and ORDER 15-cv-421-jdp

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to compel discovery against Robin Vos, the Wisconsin State Assembly Speaker. Dkt. 257. Plaintiffs contend that Vos has critical information related to their claim that the 2011 Assembly redistricting plan is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, so they ask the court to compel Vos to sit for a deposition and turn over 15 categories of documents. In response, Vos says that any discovery against him is barred by legislative privilege or is otherwise outside the scope of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Dkt. 265. The Assembly adopted Vos's position as its own, Dkt. 266; the remaining defendants took no position on the motion, Dkt. 263.

For the reasons explained below, we conclude that plaintiffs are entitled to depose Vos and to receive responses to some but not all of their requests for production. We acknowledge that a sitting legislator is not subject to civil process in any but the most exceptional circumstances. But this is an exceptional case that raises important federal questions about the constitutionality of Wisconsin's plan for electing members of the Assembly. Vos was a key figure in enacting that plan and be was involved at nearly every stage of the process. Probably no one has a better understanding of the challenged plan than he does. Under these circumstances, the qualified legislative privilege to which Vos is entitled must yield to the important federal interests implicated by plaintiffs' claims.

ANALYSIS

The parties argue the following issues in their briefs: (1) whether Vos waived any legislative privilege he had; (2) if not, whether the privilege is absolute or qualified under the facts of this case; (3) if it is qualified, whether the privilege, other federal common law, or Rule 26 bars the discovery at issue. We will consider each issue in turn.

A. Waiver

Plaintiffs assert that Vos has waived any claim to legislative privilege because the Wisconsin Assembly intervened in this case. But the Assembly's intervention in the litigation did not waive the legislative privilege held by its individual members. That is because the privilege is a "personal one" and may only be "waived or asserted by each individual legislator." Marylanders for Fair Representation, Inc. v. Schaefer, 144 F.R.D. 292, 298 (D. Md. 1992); see also Favors v. Cuomo, 285 F.R.D. 187, 211 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) ("[A] legislator cannot assert or waive the privilege on behalf of another legislator."). Vos did not intervene in this case and thus did not waive the privilege.

B. Scope of the privilege

In arguing that legislative privilege bars plaintiffs' discovery requests, Vos relies on a line of cases that begins with Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951). In that case, the Supreme Court concluded that members of a California state senate committee were immune under federal common law principles from civil liability for allegedly violating the plaintiff's First Amendment rights by calling him before the committee. Id. at 376-77. See also United States v. Gillock, 445 U.S. 360, 372 n.10 (1980) (noting that Tenney "was grounded on its interpretation of federal common law"). The Court's rationale was that granting immunity was necessary to allow legislators to discharge their public duties without concern of adverse consequences outside the ballot box. Tenney, 341 U.S. at 373. Since Tenney, federal courts have uniformly held that state legislators are generally immune from civil lawsuits. E.g., Reeder v. Madigan, 780 F.3d 799, 805 (7th Cir. 2015); Bagley v. Blagojevich, 646 F.3d 378, 396-97 (7th Cir. 2011).

Tenney was not about a privilege against testifying or complying with discovery requests, which is less burdensome and intrusive than being a defendant in a lawsuit. But lower courts have consistently construed Tenney and its progeny as more generally restricting the use of civil process against state legislators, including depositions and other discovery. E.g., In re Hubbard, 803 F.3d 1298, 1307-08 (11th Cir. 2015); Bagley, 646 F.3d at 396-97; EEOC v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Comm'n, 631 F.3d 174, 181 (4th Cir. 2011).

That is not the end of the matter, however, because the Supreme Court has also held that there are exceptions to state legislative immunity. Specifically, immunity must give way "where important federal interests are at stake." United States v. Gillock, 445 U.S. 360, 373 (1980). The interest at stake in Gillock was a federal prosecution for bribery. The Court distinguished Tenney on the ground that Tenney "was a civil action brought by a private plaintiff to vindicate private rights." Id. at 372.

Gillock is the only case cited by the parties in which the Supreme Court concluded that a state legislator was not entitled to immunity for legislative acts. But many courts, including two in the Seventh Circuit, have concluded that gerrymandering claims raise sufficiently important federal interests to overcome legislative privilege, reasoning that such claims involve public rights and that the ballot box may not provide adequate protection of those rights. E.g., Benisek v. Lamone, 241 F. Supp. 3d 566, 572-74 (D. Md. 2017); Lee v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, No. 15-cv-357 (HEH-RCY), 2015 WL 9461505, at *5 (E.D. Va. Dec. 23, 2015); Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, 114 F. Supp. 3d 323, 333 (E.D. Va. 2015); Favors v. Cuomo, 285 F.R.D. 187, 213-14 (E.D.N.Y. 2012); Comm. for a Fair & Balanced Map v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections, No. 11 C 5065, 2011 WL 4837508 (N.D. Ill. 2011); Baldus v. Brennan, Nos. 11-cv-562, 11-cv-1011, 2011 WL 6122542 (E.D. Wis. 2011); United States v. Irvin, 127 F.R.D. 169, 170, 173-74 (C.D. Cal. 1989). These cases are consistent with Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 268 (1977), in which the Supreme Court stated that "extraordinary circumstances" could justify requiring a legislator to testify at trial.

The only contrary authority that Vos cites is Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 908 F.3d 1175, 1187 (9th Cir. 2018), in which the court relied on legislative privilege to deny a motion to compel depositions of city officials in the context of a racial gerrymandering claim. But the court in Lee did not hold that a gerrymandering claim can never overcome legislative privilege, only that "the factual record in [that] case [fell] short of justifying the substantial intrusion into the legislative process." 908 F.3d at 1188 (internal quotations omitted). In any event, the persuasive force of Lee is limited because the court did not acknowledge Gillock's statement that an important federal interest can overcome legislative immunity. And the court did not acknowledge any of the cases from other courts discussing the unique nature of gerrymandering claims.

We are persuaded by the reasoning of the many courts concluding that there is a qualified rather than absolute legislative privilege from complying with discovery requests in the context of a claim regarding unconstitutional gerrymandering. An allegation that a legislative act violated a single individual's rights cannot be compared with a claim that the entire make up of a state legislative body is the result of an unconstitutional redistricting process. The alleged constitutional violations in this case implicate important structural concerns about the legitimacy of the Wisconsin government in a way that impedes plaintiffs' ability to obtain redress through the political process. Under these circumstances, we conclude that an absolute privilege would fail to give due respect to the important federal interest of ensuring a fair and equal election process that complies with the First and Fourteenth Amendments. See Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 50 (1980) (privileges should apply "only to the very limited extent that . . . a public good transcend[s] the normally predominant principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining truth" (internal quotations omitted)).

The next step is to determine the appropriate test for evaluating whether the qualified privilege should apply. The other courts that have applied a qualified privilege to gerrymandering claims have balanced five factors: (1) the relevance of the evidence sought; (2) the availability of other evidence; (3) the seriousness of the litigation; (4) the role of the State, as opposed to individual legislators, in the litigation; and (5) the extent to which the discovery would impede legislative action. E.g., Benisek, 241 F. Supp. 3d at 575.

We will take this approach, though not all of the factors require extended discussion. As for the seriousness of the litigation, we have already concluded that plaintiffs' claim implicates an important federal interest. As for the role of the state versus the individual legislator, that factor relates to whether the lawsuit potentially subjects the legislator to personal liability. Bethune-Hill, 114 F. Supp. 3d at 334-35. In this case, as in any gerrymandering case, the answer is no. As for the potential to impede legislative action, any intrusion into the legislative process has that potential; that is the reason for the privilege in the first place. We have already concluded that gerrymandering claims raise sufficiently important federal interests to override that concern in some circumstances.

This leaves two key questions: (1) how important to plaintiffs' claims is the requested discovery? and (2) do plaintiffs have alternative means for obtaining the information? We will now turn to these questions as well as the more general question whether all of the discovery requests at issue fall within the discovery limits of Rule 26.⁸

8 In addition to asserting legislative privilege, Vos invokes the principle that a public official "should not be taken away from his work to spend hours or days answering lawyers' questions unless there is a real need." Olivieri v. Rodriguez, 122 F.3d 406, 409 (7th Cir. 1997). Because legislative privilege implicates the same concern, we need not discuss the principle in Oliveri separately.

C. Particular discovery requests

1. Deposition testimony

Plaintiffs seek to depose Vos on the following topics:

(1) testimony relating to how the Legislature reached its decision on the boundaries for each district in the 2011 redistricting maps (Act 43), including its motives, objective facts it relied on, and the involvement of others in the process, including the Redistricting Majority Project (REDMAP), the Republican National Committee, or other national Republican Party entities; and

(2) testimony as to the predicted and actual associational effects of Act 43 on the Democratic Party, Democratic voters, the Republican Party, and Republican voters.

Dkt. 258, at 7.

As both sides acknowledge, the proposed deposition relates primarily to the intent of the legislature in enacting the 2011 plan. Although the Supreme Court has yet to articulate a standard for proving partisan gerrymandering, other types of gerrymandering claims recognized by the Court include intent as an element. See Cooper v. Harris, 137 S. Ct. 1455, 1463 (2017) ("A State may not use race as the predominant factor in drawing district lines unless it has a compelling reason."). Intent has also been an element in the tests for partisan gerrymandering applied by district courts—including this one—under both the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. E.g., League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Benson, No. 17-cv-14148, 2019 WL 1856625, at *27-28 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 25, 2019); Ohio A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Householder, No. 18-cv-357, 2019 WL 652980, at *4-6 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 15, 2019); Common Cause v. Rucho, 318 F. Supp. 3d 777, 861, 927 (M.D.N.C. 2018); Benisek v. Lamone, 348 F. Supp. 3d 493, 522 (D. Md. 2018); Whitford v. Gill, 218 F. Supp. 3d 837, 884 (W.D. Wis. 2016). Vos does not deny that plaintiffs will have to prove the Assembly's intent to prevail on their claims. So the type of evidence that plaintiffs seek from Vos is not only relevant but also necessary.

Plaintiffs have narrowly tailored their request to include only Vos rather than a larger group of legislators. Plaintiffs chose Vos because of his deep involvement in the redistricting process. Specifically, Vos was the only Representative who participated in two sets of key meetings. In the first set, Vos and other members of the legislative leadership met to discuss the boundaries of specific districts. Dkt. 258, at 16. In the second set, Vos met one-on-one with each Republican Representative about that Representative's district. Id. So Vos has a unique perspective and potential insight into the intent behind the redistricting plan.

Vos points out that plaintiffs have already obtained numerous documents and electronic discovery related to the redistricting process, as well as the testimony of legislative aide Adam Foltz, who was present with Vos at many of the meetings about the redistricting plan. In a supplemental brief, the Assembly notes that plaintiffs have served a subpoena on Foltz that overlaps substantially with the subpoena served on Vos. See Dkt. 272.

We are not persuaded that the availability of other documents or Foltz's testimony renders Vos's testimony unnecessary. As for the documents already produced, it is undisputed that there are significant gaps in the records because much electronic discovery was lost as the result of damage to one hard drive that contained information related to the redistricting process and the destruction of others. Dkt. 268, at 16. And Vos does not point to any documents that detail the discussions among the legislative leadership or between Vos and the individual Representatives.

As for Foltz's testimony, we do not believe that it is properly viewed as an adequate substitute for testimony from Vos. For one thing, we have already stated that we have "less confidence" in Foltz's testimony than the testimony of some other witnesses and even that some of his testimony was "unworthy of credence." Whitford, 218 F. Supp. 3d at 890 n.177. And even assuming that everything Foltz said was true, the perspective of a legislative aide cannot be compared to that of one of the primary architects of the redistricting plan. Foltz simply does not have the same insight into legislative intent that Vos does.

So we will grant the motion to compel Vos's deposition. But we will also follow the approach in Benisek by reserving a final ruling on the admissibility of deposition testimony. If plaintiffs attempt to rely on any portion of the testimony later in the proceedings, Vos may seek a ruling on its admissibility or a protective order at that time. See Benisek, 241 F. Supp. 3d at 577 ("[E]ach legislator witness will be able, before his or her testimony becomes public, to file a motion for a protective order, should the parties not be able to agree on one." (footnotes omitted)).

2. Requests for production

In addition to Vos's deposition, plaintiffs submitted requests for production of 15 categories of documents. See Dkt. 259-1. Requests for production nos. 1 through 3 and 15 appear to overlap substantially with the topics noticed for deposition.⁹ Because the parties do not raise any issues unique to these requests, we will direct Vos to respond.

9 Requests for production nos. 1-3 seek:

1. All documents, including but not limited to email, concerning any analyses, data, plans, procedures, memos and/or reports used by state legislative staff, state legislators, and/or any consultants or experts in the planning, development, negotiation, drawing, revision, or redrawing of the maps codified in 2011 Wisconsin Act 43 or any other potential state assembly plan that was not adopted.

2. All documents, including but not limited to email, concerning the objectives and/or motives relied on by—or available to—state lawmakers, their staff and/or any consultants or experts in the planning, development, negotiation, drawing, revision, or redrawing of the maps codified in 2011 Wisconsin Act 43 or any other potential state assembly plan that was not adopted.

3. All documents, including but not limited to email, concerning the objective facts that legislative staff and/or any experts or consultants references, used or relied upon—or had available to them—in the planning, development negotiation, drawing, revision, or redrawing of the maps codified in 2011 Wisconsin Act 43 or any other potential state assembly plan that was not adopted.

Request for production no. 15 seeks:

15. Any and all documents reflecting or relating or referring to communications the RPW has had with any current or former Republican Wisconsin State Assembly member or candidate about the impact of Act 43 . . . on Assembly elections across the State of Wisconsin as a whole or in any one or more particular Assembly districts from 2010 to the present.

Requests nos. 4 and 5 relate to the Assembly's retention of a law firm before the original appeal of this case.¹⁰ Because plaintiffs do not explain how that information is relevant to any of the issues that plaintiffs must prove in this case (or could lead to the discovery of relevant information), we will deny the motion to compel as to those requests.

10 Requests nos. 4 and 5 seek:

4. Any and all requests that you, your office, or anyone employed by you or your office received to provide to the requesting person or to release to the public a copy of any engagement letter, contract, agreement, or other document reflecting the Wisconsin State Assembly's retention or engagement of Bartlit Beck LLP to serve as its legal counsel in Whitford v. Gill, case no. 15-cv-421-jdp, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

5. Copies of any and all documents that you, your office, or anyone employed by you or your office provided to the requesting person or released to the public in response to any request identified in Paragraph 4, above.

Requests nos. 6 through 9 relate to information that Vos received from outside organizations such as the Republican National Committee.¹¹ Vos does not deny the relevance of these materials, but he contends that plaintiffs should be required to seek the information from the third parties. But that would be true only if these materials were covered by legislative privilege. Because these documents came from third parties, they are not protected. See Bethune- Hill, 114 F. Supp. 3d at 343 ("[T]he House must produce any documents or communications shared with, or received from, any individual or organization outside the employ of the legislature."); Baldus, 2011 WL 6122542, at *2 ("The Legislature has waived its legislative privilege to the extent that it relied on such outside experts for consulting services."). So the court will direct Vos to respond to these requests as well.

11 Requests for production nos. 6-9 seek:

6. Copies of any and all documents prepared by or transmitted by the Republican National Committee, that relate or refer to legislative redistricting, including but not limited to the document attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

7. Copies of any and all communications, including email, that relate or refer to legislative redistricting, reflecting or referring to any of the following people or email addresses:

a. Tom Hofeller, thofeller@rnchq.org

b. Dale Oldham, doldham@rnchq.org

c. Mike Wild, mwild@rnchq.org

d. John Phillipe, jphillippe@rnchq.org

e. Leslie Rutledge, lrutledge@rnchq.org

8. Any and all materials reflecting or relating or referring to the April 2010 Republican National Committee's GOP Redistricting Conference, including any and all notes, summaries, minutes, agendas, papers, documents, data, computer files, CDs, training materials, or any other written or electronic material prepared for, distributed at, created at, or otherwise related to that conference.

9. Any and all documents reflecting or relating or referring to the Redistricting Majority Project, commonly referred to as "REDMAP."

The. last group of requests is extremely broad. Plaintiffs seek information from 2002 onward related to a wide range of activities of the Republican party.¹² Because plaintiffs do not even attempt to show that that these requests are "proportional to the needs of the case" or that the benefit of providing the information is not outweighed by the burden or expense of the proposed discovery, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), we will not require Vos to produce the responsive material at this time.

12 Requests nos. 10-14 seek:

10. Any and all documents reflecting or relating or referring to meetings, communications, or conversations from 2002 to the present regarding or relating to recruiting Republican candidates for Wisconsin State Assembly.

11. Any and all documents reflecting or relating or referring to communications made by the RPW that solicited campaign contributions to the RPW or to any individual Republican candidate for the Wisconsin State Assembly from 2002 to the present. The categories of communications as used in this request includes but is not limited to emails, mailings, phone solicitations, person-to-person solicitations, and fundraising events.

12. Any and all documents reflecting or relating or referring to volunteer activities in support of Republican campaigns for the Wisconsin State Assembly that were coordinated by, arranged by, carried out by, or funded by the RPW from 2002 to the present.

13. Any and all documents reflecting or relating or referring to voter registration activities that were coordinated, arranged, carried out, or funded by the RPW or Wisconsin Republican Assembly Campaign Committee ("WRACC") from 2002 to the present.

14. Any and all documents reflecting or relating or referring to meetings, communications, or conversations from 2002 to the present regarding or relating to advocating for or implementing legislative policies preferred by the RPW or the Republican Assembly Caucus.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery, Dkt. 257, is GRANTED as to the deposition of Robin Vos and requests for production nos. 1-3, 6-9, and 15. The motion is otherwise DENIED.

Entered May 3, 2019.

BY THE COURT:

/s/_________

KENNETH F. RIPPLE

Circuit Judge

/s/_________

JAMES D. PETERSON

District Judge

GRIESBACH, District Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the majority's conclusion that the legislative privilege does not apply in this case. In my view, intent is no longer an issue in the case, and whatever relevance Speaker Vos' testimony may have does not warrant invasion of the legislative privilege.

"The legislative privilege is important. It has deep roots in federal common law." In re Hubbard, 803 F.3d 1298, 1307 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 372 (1951)). Legislative privilege is a corollary to legislative immunity, which provides a legislator with immunity from civil liability for their actions. See Benisek v. Lamone, 263 F. Supp. 3d 551, 554 (D. Md. 2017) (citation omitted). The doctrine of legislative immunity is premised on the notion that "a private civil action . . . creates a distraction and forces [legislators] to divert their time, energy, and attention from their legislative tasks to defend the litigation." Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 503 (1975). It also recognizes that the threat of civil liability strips legislators of the courage necessary to legislate for the public good. See Tenney, 341 U.S. at 377. "The doctrine is a bulwark in upholding the separation of powers" and insulates legislators "from judicial scrutiny into their deliberative processes." Schaefer, 144 F.R.D. at 304; see also Supreme Court of Va. v. Consumers Union of the United States, 446 U.S. 719, 731-32 (1980) (noting the purpose of legislative immunity is to ensure that "the legislative function may be performed independently without fear of outside interference"); All. for Global Justice v. District of Columbia, 437 F. Supp. 2d 32, 35 (D.D.C. 2006) ("The primary purposes of . . . legislative immunity is to insure the independent performance of the legislative function and to preserve the separation of powers." (citation omitted)).

Legislative privilege exists to "safeguard . . . legislative immunity and to further encourage the republican values it promotes." EEOC v. Wash. Suburban Sanitary Comm'n, 631 F.3d 174, 181 (4th Cir. 2011). The privilege "protects against inquiry into acts that occur in the regular course of the legislative process and into the motivation for those acts." United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 525 (1972). Like legislative immunity, the legislative privilege ensures that "lawmakers are allowed to 'focus on their public duties'" rather than on defending lawsuits. In re Hubbard, 803 F.3d at 1310 (quoting Wash. Suburban, 631 F.3d at 181). More importantly, however, the purpose of the legislative privilege is to minimize politics masquerading as litigation by shielding legislators from "political wars of attrition in which their opponents try to defeat them through litigation rather than at the ballot box." Wash. Suburban, 631 F.3d at 181. The legislative privilege, which functions as a testimonial and evidentiary privilege, is therefore not to be cast aside lightly. See Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 268 (1977).

In actions brought in federal courts, the constitutional and policy reasons underlying the legislative privilege have been found less compelling for state legislators than for federal legislators. See United States v. Gillock, 445 U.S. 360, 370-71 (1980) (noting that "federal interference in the state legislative process is not on the same constitutional footing with the interference of one branch of the Federal Government in the affairs of a coequal branch"). But principles of comity still warrant recognition of such a privilege and "command careful consideration." Id. at 373. In Gillock, the Court held that "where important federal interests are at stake, as in the enforcement of federal criminal statutes, comity yields." Id. Gillock, however, involved a federal prosecution of a state legislator for bribery. The issue before the Court there was whether a legislative privilege barred the introduction of evidence of the legislative acts of a state legislator charged with taking bribes or otherwise obtaining money unlawfully through the exploitation of his official position. Id. at 362.

Speaker Vos, in contrast, is not charged with taking bribes or engaging in criminal conduct for his own personal purposes. Instead, he and the other legislative members of his party are alleged to have used the legislative process to enact a redistricting plan intended to increase the chances of their party obtaining a majority in the assembly, in other words, partisan gerrymandering, a practice that is older than the Republic. Moreover, at the time Speaker Vos is alleged to have so acted, and even at this late date, the Court has yet to hold such intent unlawful. Indeed, the Court has consistently recognized that partisan intent is part and parcel of a system that entrusts redistricting to politicians. See, e.g., Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 285 (2004) (plurality opinion) ("The Constitution clearly contemplates districting by political entities, see Article I, § 4, and unsurprisingly that turns out to be root-and-branch a matter of politics."); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 914 (1995) ("[R]edistricting in most cases will implicate a political calculus in which various interests compete for recognition . . . ."). This is a far cry from the conduct at issue in Gillock .

The majority notes that "many courts, including two in the Seventh Circuit, have concluded that gerrymandering claims raise sufficiently important federal interests to overcome legislative privilege, reasoning that such claims involve public rights and that the ballot box may not provide adequate protection of those rights." Majority opinion at 3-4 (collecting cases). But this just begs the question of whether such claims are justiciable in the first place. Absent a judicially manageable standard, which the Supreme Court has so far been unable to discern, no judicial remedy is available and we are simply spinning our wheels.

Even if I were to accept the majority's view that the importance of the issue, by itself, is sufficient to overcome the legislative privilege, I would nevertheless hold that under the circumstances of this case, Speaker Vos' testimony is not required. This is because partisan intent has already been established. This court found that such intent existed in the first trial. After a detailed eight-page discussion of the evidence bearing on the issue of intent, the majority concluded: "These facts, in tandem with the overwhelming number of reports and memoranda addressing the partisan outcomes of the various maps, lead us to conclude that, although Act 43 complied with traditional redistricting principles, it nevertheless had as one of its objectives entrenching the Republicans' control of the Assembly." Whitford v. Gill, 218 F. Supp. 3d 837, 898 (W.D. Wis. 2016). The majority then went on to find: "It is clear that the drafters got what they intended to get. There is no question that Act 43 was designed to make it more difficult for Democrats, compared to Republicans, to translate their votes into seats." Id. Not even the dissent disputed this finding, and the Supreme Court did not disturb it.

Instead, the Court vacated this court's judgment upon a finding that standing had not been established and remanded the case to allow voters "an opportunity to prove concrete and particularized injuries using evidence—unlike the bulk of the evidence presented thus far—that would tend to demonstrate a burden on their individual votes." Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1932, 1934 (2018). The Court expressly stated whether plaintiffs have established an injury in fact "turns on effect, not intent, and requires a showing of a burden on the plaintiffs' votes that is 'actual or imminent, not "conjectural" or "hypothetical."'" Id. at 1932 (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)). Deposing Vos about the legislature's intent in enacting the 2011 plan is neither necessary nor relevant to plaintiffs' burden and would be an intrusion into the legislative process for no real reason. Given these circumstances, plaintiffs have not made the showing necessary to overcome the legislative privilege.

Because the legislative privilege applies, I would deny plaintiffs' motion to compel. I therefore dissent.

/s/_________

WILLIAM C. GRIESBACH

District Judge

U.S. District Court

Western District of Wisconsin (Madison)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:15-cv-00421-jdp

Whitford, William et al v. Nichol, Gerald et al Assigned to: District Judge James D. Peterson Referred to: Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Date Filed: 07/08/2015 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 400 State Reapportionment Jurisdiction: Federal Question Plaintiff William Whitford represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos University of Chicago Law School 1111 E 60th St Chicago, IL 60637 781-248-8145 Email: nsteph@uchicago.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle Law Office of Peter Earle, LLC 839 North Jefferson Street Suite 300 Milwaukee, WI 53202 414-276-1076 Email: peter@earle-law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood Campaign Legal Center 73 W MONROE ST Suite 302 Chicago, IL 60603 202-560-0590 Email: rgreenwood@campaignlegalcenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless Campaign Legal Center 73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 302 Chicago, IL 60603 Email: aharless@campaignlegalcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 55 Danielle Marie Lang 1411 K Street NW Suite 1400 Washington, DC 20005 202-736-2200 x211 Fax: 202-736-2222 Email: dlang@campaignlegalcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland Rathje & Woodward, LLC 10 East Doty Street, Ste. 507 Madison, WI 53703 608-960-7430 Fax: (608) 441-5707 Email: dpoland@rathjewoodward.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON, DC 20035-6128 (202) 514-6153 Email: ghebert@campaignlegalcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines Pines Bach LLP 122 W. Washington Avenue, Ste. 900 Madison, WI 53703-9500 608-251-0101 Fax: 608-251-2883 Email: lpines@pinesbach.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber Campaign Legal Center 1411 K Street NW Suite 1400 Washington, DC 20005 202-736-2200 Fax: 202-736-2222 Email: mgaber@campaignlegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi Mayer Brown LLP 71 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 312-701-7309 Fax: 312-706-8508 56 Email: modorizzi@mayerbrown.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 100 N. LaSalle St., Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60602 312-202-3649 Fax: 312-630-1127 Email: pstrauss@clccrul.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Roger Anclam represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber 57 (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Emily Bunting represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 58 Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Mary Lynne Donohue represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi 59 (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Helen Harris represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 60 Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Wayne Jensen represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss 61 (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Wendy Sue Johnson represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 62 Plaintiff Janet Mitchell represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff 63 Allison Seaton represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff James Seaton represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) 64 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Jerome Wallace represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 65 Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Donald Winter represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle 66 (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Graham Adsit represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY 67 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Warren Braun represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 68 Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Hans Breitenmoser represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) 69 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Judith Brey represented by Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff 70 Brent Brigson represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Sandra Carlson-Kaye represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) 71 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Guy Costello represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 72 Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Timothy B. Daley represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle 73 (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Margaret Leslie DeMuth represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY 74 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Daniel Dieterich represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 75 Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Leah Dudley represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) 76 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Jennifer Estrada represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 77 Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Barbara Flom represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang 78 (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Gail Hohenstein represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 79 Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Michael Lecker represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland 80 (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Elizabeth Lentini represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 81 J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Norah McCue represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert 82 (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Deborah Patel represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 83 Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Jane Pedersen represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines 84 (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Nancy Petulla represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 85 Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Robert Pfundheller represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber 86 (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Sara Ramaker represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 87 Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Rosalie Schnick represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi 88 (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Ann E. Stevning-Roe represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 89 Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Linea Sundstrom represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss 90 (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Michael Switzenbaum represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 91 Plaintiff Edward Wohl represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff 92 Ann Wolfe represented by Nicholas Odysseas Stephanopoulos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Peter Guyon Earle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Ruth Merewyn Greenwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Annabelle Elizabeth Harless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Danielle Marie Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas Maynard Poland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. Gerald Hebert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lester A. Pines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mark P. Gaber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michele Louise Odorizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul Strauss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED V. Defendant 93 Gerald C. Nichol TERMINATED: 01/27/2017 represented by Brian P. Keenan Wisconsin Department of Justice P.O. Box 7857 Madison, WI 53707 608-266-0020 Fax: 608-267-2223 Email: keenanbp@doj.state.wi.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Anthony David Russomanno Wisconsin Department of Justice 17 W Main ST, PO Box 7857 Madison, WI 53707 608-267-2238 Fax: 608-267-8906 Email: russomannoad@doj.state.wi.us TERMINATED: 04/30/2019 Defendant Thomas Barland TERMINATED: 01/27/2017 represented by Brian P. Keenan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Anthony David Russomanno (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/30/2019 Defendant John Franke TERMINATED: 01/27/2017 represented by Brian P. Keenan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Anthony David Russomanno (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/30/2019 Defendant Harold V. Froehlich TERMINATED: 01/27/2017 represented by Brian P. Keenan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Anthony David Russomanno (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/30/2019 Defendant 94 Kevin J. Kennedy TERMINATED: 01/27/2017 represented by Brian P. Keenan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Anthony David Russomanno (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/30/2019 Defendant Elsa Lamelas TERMINATED: 01/27/2017 represented by Brian P. Keenan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Anthony David Russomanno (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/30/2019 Defendant Timothy Vocke TERMINATED: 01/27/2017 represented by Brian P. Keenan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Anthony David Russomanno (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/30/2019 Defendant Beverly R. Gill represented by Brian P. Keenan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Anthony David Russomanno (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/30/2019 Clayton P. Kawski Wisconsin Department of Justice 17 W. Main Street P.O. Box 7857 Madison, WI 53707-7857 (608) 266-7477 Fax: (608) 267-2223 Email: kawskicp@doj.state.wi.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Karla Z. Keckhaver 95 Wisconsin Department of Justice 17 W. Main Street P.O. Box 7857 Madison, WI 53707-7857 608-264-6365 Fax: 608-267-8906 Email: keckhaverkz@doj.state.wi.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Defendant Julie M. Glancey represented by Brian P. Keenan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Anthony David Russomanno (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/30/2019 Clayton P. Kawski (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Karla Z. Keckhaver (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Defendant Ann S. Jacobs represented by Brian P. Keenan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Anthony David Russomanno (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/30/2019 Clayton P. Kawski (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Karla Z. Keckhaver (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Defendant Steve King TERMINATED: 01/23/2019 represented by Brian P. Keenan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 96 Anthony David Russomanno (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/30/2019 Karla Z. Keckhaver (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Defendant Don Millis TERMINATED: 01/23/2019 represented by Brian P. Keenan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Anthony David Russomanno (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/30/2019 Karla Z. Keckhaver (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Defendant Mark L. Thomsen represented by Brian P. Keenan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Anthony David Russomanno (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/30/2019 Clayton P. Kawski (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Karla Z. Keckhaver (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Defendant Jodi Jensen represented by Brian P. Keenan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Clayton P. Kawski (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 97 Defendant Dean Knudson represented by Brian P. Keenan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Clayton P. Kawski (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED V. Intervenor Defendant Wisconsin State Assembly represented by Kevin Michael St. John Bell Giftos St. John LLC 5325 Wall Street Suite 2200 Madison, WI 53718 608-216-7995 Fax: 608-216-7999 Email: kstjohn@BellGiftos.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Adam Mortara Bartlit Beck LLP 54 W. Hubbard Street Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60654 312-494-4400 Fax: 312-494-4440 Email: adam.mortara@bartlit-beck.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Joshua Ackerman Barlit Beck LLP 54 W. Hubbard St. Chicago, IL 60654 312-494-4400 Fax: 312-494-4440 Email: joshua.ackerman@bartlit-beck.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Taylor A. R. Meehan Bartlit Beck LLP 54 W. Hubbard Street Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60654 312-494-4400 98 Fax: 312-494-4440 Email: taylor.meehan@bartlitbeck.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Third Party Defendant Robin J. Vos Speaker represented by Adam Mortara (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Amicus Jowei Chen represented by Theodore Reed Boehm Hoover Hull Turner, LLP 111 Monument Circle Suite 4400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 317-822-4400 x104 Fax: 317-822-0234 Email: tboehm@hooverhullturner.com TERMINATED: 11/16/2018 Amicus The League of Women Voters of Wisconsin represented by Diane Mary Welsh Pines Bach LLP 122 West Washington Avenue Ste. 900 Madison, WI 53703 608-251-0101 Fax: 608-251-2883 Email: dwelsh@pinesbach.com TERMINATED: 09/18/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Susan M. Crawford Cullen Weston Pines & Bach LLP 122 W. Washington Ave Suite 900 Madison, WI 53703 Email: scrawford@pinesbach.com TERMINATED: 10/11/2018 Amicus Stephen J. Schulhofer represented by Stephen J. Schulhofer NYU Law School Stephen J. Schulhofer NYU Law School 40 Washington Square South New York, NY 10012 212-998-6260 Email: stephen.schulhofer@nyu.edu ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 99 Date Filed # Docket Text 07/08/2015 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants. Service to be completed by Waiver of Service of Summons. ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0758-1588911.), filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Illustrative Maps, # 2 Exhibit 2 - K Mayer Report, # 3 Exhibit 3 - S Jackman Report, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Secrecy Agreements) (Earle, Peter) Modified on 7/8/2015. (lak) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/8/2015: # 5 JS-44 Civil Cover Sheet) (lak). (Entered: 07/08/2015) 07/08/2015 Case randomly assigned to District Judge Barbara B. Crabb and Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. (voc) (Entered: 07/08/2015) 07/08/2015 Standard attachments for Judge Barbara B. Crabb required to be served on all parties with summons or waiver of service: NORTC, Corporate Disclosure Statement, Order on Dispositive Motions. (voc) (Entered: 07/08/2015) 07/09/2015 2 Motion to Admit Ruth Merewyn Greenwood Pro Hac Vice. ( Pro Hac Vice fee $ 50 receipt number 0758-1590066.) by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. (Greenwood, Ruth) (Entered: 07/09/2015) 07/09/2015 3 Disregard. See 5 . Modified on 7/10/2015. (lak) (Entered: 07/09/2015) 07/10/2015 4 ** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** ORDER granting 2 Motion to Admit Ruth Merewyn Greenwood Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter A. Oppeneer on 7/10/2015. (lak) (Entered: 07/10/2015) 07/10/2015 5 Motion to Admit Paul Strauss Pro Hac Vice. ( Pro Hac Vice fee $ 50 receipt number 0758-1590354.) by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. (Strauss, Paul) (Entered: 07/10/2015) 07/10/2015 6 Request for Issuance of Summons by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter, (Attachments: # 1 Request for Summons to Barland, # 2 Request for Summons to Franke, # 3 Request for Summons to Froehlich, # 4 Request for Summons to Kennedy, # 5 Request for Summons to Lamelas, # 6 Request for Summons to Vocke) (Greenwood, Ruth) Modified on 7/13/2015. (lak) (Entered: 07/10/2015) 07/10/2015 7 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. 100 (Greenwood, Ruth) (Entered: 07/10/2015) 07/10/2015 8 ** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** ORDER granting 5 Motion to Admit Paul Strauss Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter A. Oppeneer on 7/10/2015. (kwf) (Entered: 07/10/2015) 07/10/2015 9 Summons Issued as to Gerald C. Nichol, (Attachments: # 1 Summons Issued as to Thomas Barland, # 2 Summons Issued as to John Franke, # 3 Summons Issued as to Harold V. Froehlich, # 4 Summons Issued as to Kevin J. Kennedy, # 5 Summons Issued as to Elsa Lamelas, # 6 Summons Issued as to Timothy Vocke) (kwf) (Entered: 07/10/2015) 07/10/2015 10 Letter from the Court to USCA Chief Judge Wood regarding three-judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284. (kwf) (Additional attachment added on 7/13/2015: # 1 Copy of the Complaint) (kwf) (Entered: 07/10/2015) 07/16/2015 11 Letter from USCA Chief Judge Diane P. Wood to District Judge Barbara B. Crabb regarding three-judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284. (voc) (Entered: 07/16/2015) 07/20/2015 12 Affidavit of Service by Plaintiff. Elsa Lamelas served on 7/14/2015, answer due 8/4/2015. (Strauss, Paul) (Entered: 07/20/2015) 07/20/2015 13 Affidavit of Service by Plaintiff. Gerald C. Nichol served on 7/14/2015, answer due 8/4/2015. (Strauss, Paul) (Entered: 07/20/2015) 07/20/2015 14 Affidavit of Service by Plaintiff. Harold V. Froehlich served on 7/14/2015, answer due 8/4/2015. (Strauss, Paul) (Entered: 07/20/2015) 07/20/2015 15 Affidavit of Service by Plaintiff. John Franke served on 7/14/2015, answer due 8/4/2015. (Strauss, Paul) (Entered: 07/20/2015) 07/20/2015 16 Affidavit of Service by Plaintiff. Kevin J. Kennedy served on 7/14/2015, answer due 8/4/2015. (Strauss, Paul) (Entered: 07/20/2015) 07/20/2015 17 Affidavit of Service by Plaintiff. Thomas Barland served on 7/14/2015, answer due 8/4/2015. (Strauss, Paul) (Entered: 07/20/2015) 07/20/2015 18 Affidavit of Service by Plaintiff. Timothy Vocke served on 7/14/2015, answer due 8/4/2015. (Strauss, Paul) (Entered: 07/20/2015) 07/22/2015 19 Notice of Appearance filed by Michele Louise Odorizzi for Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. (Odorizzi, Michele) (Entered: 07/22/2015) 07/24/2015 20 Notice of Appearance filed by Anthony David Russomanno for Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke. (Russomanno, Anthony) (Entered: 07/24/2015) 07/24/2015 21 Notice of Appearance filed by Brian P. Keenan for Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke. (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 07/24/2015) 08/03/2015 22 Stipulation for Extension of Time to respond to complaint by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald 101 C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 08/03/2015) 08/05/2015 23 ORDER granting 22 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Defendants answer due 8/18/2015. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 8/5/2015. (voc) (Entered: 08/05/2015) 08/18/2015 24 Notice of Motion and MOTION TO DISMISS by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke. (Keenan, Brian) Modified on 8/18/2015. (kwf) (Entered: 08/18/2015) 08/18/2015 25 Brief in Support of 24 Motion to Dismiss by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke. (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 08/18/2015) 08/19/2015 Set Briefing Deadlines as to 24 Motion to Dismiss. Brief in Opposition due 9/8/2015. Brief in Reply due 9/18/2015. (kwf) (Entered: 08/19/2015) 08/19/2015 Set Telephone Pretrial Conference: Telephone Pretrial Conference set for 9/11/2015 at 02:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. Counsel for Plaintiff responsible for setting up the call to chambers at (608) 264-5153. [Standing Order Governing Preliminary Pretrial Conference attached] (voc) (Entered: 08/19/2015) 08/19/2015 26 Stipulated Motion to Amend Briefing Schedule on Motion to Dismiss 24 by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Earle, Peter) (Entered: 08/19/2015) 08/21/2015 27 ** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** ORDER granting 26 Motion to Amend Briefing Schedule. The parties should not expect additional extensions of these briefing deadlines. Brief in Opposition due 9/29/2015. Brief in Reply due 10/9/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 8/21/2015. (voc) (Entered: 08/21/2015) 09/08/2015 28 Joint Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 09/08/2015) 09/11/2015 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker: Telephone Preliminary Pretrial Conference held on 9/11/2015 [:15] (skv) (Entered: 09/11/2015) 09/11/2015 29 ** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** At a September 11, 2015 telephonic preliminary pretrial conference, the court advised the parties that it will not set a firm schedule until the three judge panel has been named. The court did, however, provide preliminary indications of the dates and deadlines it has in mind. The court will schedule a follow-up telephonic conference as soon as it is in a position to set a firm schedule. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 9/11/15. (jat) (Entered: 09/11/2015) 09/29/2015 30 ORDER appointing Circuit Judge Kenneth F. Ripple and Chief District Judge William C. Griesbach, of the Eastern District of Wisconsin, as additional members of the three- judge court. Signed by District Judge Diane P. Wood, Chief Judge USCA for the seventh circuit on 9/23/2015. (voc) (Entered: 09/29/2015) 102 09/29/2015 Set Telephone Hearing: Telephone Scheduling Conference set for 10/20/2015 at 02:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. Counsel for Plaintiff responsible for setting up the call to chambers at (608) 264-5153. (voc) (Entered: 09/29/2015) 09/29/2015 31 Brief in Opposition by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter re: 24 Motion to Dismiss filed by Gerald C. Nichol, Harold V. Froehlich, Timothy Vocke, John Franke, Elsa Lamelas, Kevin J. Kennedy, Thomas Barland. (Odorizzi, Michele) (Entered: 09/29/2015) 10/06/2015 Telephone Scheduling Conference rescheduled from 10/20/2015 to 10/13/2015 at 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. Counsel for Plaintiff responsible for setting up the call to chambers at (608) 264-5153. (voc) (Entered: 10/06/2015) 10/06/2015 Set/Reset Trial Deadlines/Hearings: Court Trial set for 5/23/2016 at 9:00 AM. (voc) Modified on 10/6/2015. (arw) (Entered: 10/06/2015) 10/09/2015 32 Brief in Reply by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke in Support of 24 Motion to Dismiss. (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 10/09/2015) 10/15/2015 33 Pretrial Conference Order - Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss 24 set for 11/4/2015 at 01:30 PM before the Three Judge Panel. Dispositive Motions due 1/4/2016. Final Pretrial Submissions due 4/25/2016. Joint Pretrial Statement and Each Party's Statement of Facts with Proposed Special Verdict Form due 5/9/2016. Trial Brief and Five Complete sets of Pre-marked Trial Exhibits due 5/16/2016. Court Trial set for 5/23/2016 at 09:00 AM before the Three Judge Panel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 10/15/15. (jat) (Entered: 10/15/2015) 10/20/2015 34 Motion to Admit Annabelle Elizabeth Harless Pro Hac Vice. ( Pro Hac Vice fee $ 50 receipt number 0758-1667806.) by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. (Harless, Annabelle) (Entered: 10/20/2015) 10/20/2015 35 ** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** ORDER granting 34 Motion to Admit Annabelle Elizabeth Harless Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter A. Oppeneer on 10/20/2015. (lak) (Entered: 10/20/2015) 11/04/2015 36 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Barbara B. Crabb, Circuit Judge Kenneth F. Ripple and Chief District Judge William C. Griesbach: Oral Argument Hearing held on 11/4/2015 re 24 MOTION TO DISMISS filed by defendants Gerald C. Nichol, Harold V. Froehlich, Timothy Vocke, John Franke, Elsa Lamelas, Kevin J. Kennedy, Thomas Barland [1:02] (Court Reporter LS.) (voc) (Entered: 11/04/2015) 11/13/2015 37 Transcript of Motion Hearing, held 11/4/2015 before Judge Kenneth Ripple, Judge Barbara B. Crabb and Judge William Griesbach. Court Reporter: LS. Please review the court policy regarding electronic transcripts: see Electronic Transcript Instructions and Notice of Intent to Request Redaction. (voc) (Entered: 103 11/13/2015) 11/17/2015 38 ORDER: Parties may have until November 23, 2015, to file supplemental, simultaneous briefs on the question of standing. They may have until November 30, 2015, to file responses to the other side's brief. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb, District Judge William C. Griesbach, and Circuit Judge Kenneth F. Ripple on 11/17/15. (jat) (Entered: 11/17/2015) 11/23/2015 39 Defendant's Supplement to 24 Motion to Dismiss filed by Gerald C. Nichol, Harold V. Froehlich, Timothy Vocke, John Franke, Elsa Lamelas, Kevin J. Kennedy, Thomas Barland. (Russomanno, Anthony) Modified on 11/23/2015. (lak) (Entered: 11/23/2015) 11/23/2015 40 Plaintiff's Supplement to 24 Motion to Dismiss filed by Gerald C. Nichol, Harold V. Froehlich, Timothy Vocke, John Franke, Elsa Lamelas, Kevin J. Kennedy, Thomas Barland. (Odorizzi, Michele) Modified on 11/24/2015. (lak) (Entered: 11/23/2015) 11/30/2015 41 Reply by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter re: 24 Motion to Dismiss. (Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Supplemental Brief on Standing.) (Odorizzi, Michele) Modified on 12/1/2015. (lak) (Entered: 11/30/2015) 11/30/2015 42 Reply by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke re: 24 Motion to Dismiss. (Response Brief on Standing.) (Keenan, Brian) Modified on 12/1/2015. (lak) (Entered: 11/30/2015) 12/17/2015 43 ORDER denying 24 Motion to Dismiss by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 12/17/2015. (voc) (Entered: 12/17/2015) 12/30/2015 44 ANSWER by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke. (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 12/30/2015) 01/04/2016 45 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke. Brief in Opposition due 1/25/2016. Brief in Reply due 2/4/2016. (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 01/04/2016) 01/04/2016 46 Brief in Support of 45 Motion for Summary Judgment, by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke. (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 01/04/2016) 01/04/2016 47 Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke re: 45 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 01/04/2016) 01/04/2016 48 Disregard. See 55 . Modified on 1/5/2016. (lak) (Entered: 01/04/2016) 01/04/2016 49 Declaration of Brian Keenan filed by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke re: 45 Motion for Summary Judgment, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 100 - Mayer Deposition Transcript (Also see 52 .), 104 # 2 Exhibit 101 - Jackman Deposition Transcript (Also see 53 .), # 3 Exhibit 102 - GAB 2012 Fall General Election Results, # 4 Exhibit 103 - Mayer Deposition Exhibit 5, # 5 Exhibit 104 - Mayer Deposition Exhibit 7, # 6 Exhibit 105 - Mayer Deposition Exhibit 8, # 7 Exhibit 106 - GAB 2014 Fall General Election Results, # 8 Exhibit 107 - Mayer Deposition Exhibit 10, # 9 Exhibit 108 - GAB 2008 Fall General Election Results, # 10 Exhibit 109 - GAB 2010 Fall General Election Results, # 11 Exhibit 110 - GAB 2012 Recall Election Results, # 12 Exhibit 111 - Expert Report of K. Mayer (Also see 54 .), # 13 Exhibit 112 - Chen and Rodden article, # 14 Exhibit 113 - Page 203 from Michael J. Dubin book) (Keenan, Brian) Modified on 1/5/2016. (lak) (Entered: 01/04/2016) 01/04/2016 50 Declaration of Nicholas Goedert filed by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke re: 45 Motion for Summary Judgment, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit - Goedert Expert Report & CV (Also see 51 . (Keenan, Brian) Modified on 1/5/2016. (lak) (Entered: 01/04/2016) 01/05/2016 51 Expert Report of Nicholas Goedert by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit - Goedert CV) (Keenan, Brian) Modified on 1/5/2016. (lak) (Entered: 01/05/2016) 01/05/2016 52 Deposition of Kenneth Mayer taken on 11/9/15. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 5 of Mayer Deposition, # 2 Exhibit 7 of Mayer Deposition, # 3 Exhibit 8 of Mayer Deposition, # 4 Exhibit 10 of Mayer Deposition) (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 01/05/2016) 01/05/2016 53 Deposition of Simon Jackman taken on 11/20/15. (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 01/05/2016) 01/05/2016 54 Expert Report of Kenneth Mayer by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke. (Keenan, Brian) Modified on 1/5/2016: Exhibits/Annex are not attached separately. (lak) (Entered: 01/05/2016) 01/05/2016 55 Declaration of Sean Trende filed by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke re: 45 Motion for Summary Judgment, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - CV, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Sources, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Alabama 1952, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Los Angeles 1958, # 5 Exhibit 5 - Georgia 1992, # 6 Exhibit 6 - Illinois 1946, # 7 Exhibit 7 - North Carolina 1790, # 8 Exhibit 8 - North Carolina 1992, # 9 Exhibit 9 - Dallas 1992, 105 # 10 Exhibit 10 - Wisconsin 1854, # 11 Exhibit 11 - Wisconsin 1900, # 12 Exhibit 12 - Wisconsin 2002) (Keenan, Brian) Modified on 1/5/2016. (lak) (Entered: 01/05/2016) 01/15/2016 56 AMENDED ANSWER by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke. (Keenan, Brian) Modified on 1/18/2016. (lak) (Entered: 01/15/2016) 01/22/2016 57 Declaration of Peter Guyon Earle filed by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter re: 45 Motion for Summary Judgment, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Stephanopoulos Electoral Exceptionalism, # 2 Exhibit B - Katz Documenting Discrimination in Voting- Judicial Findings Under Sec (Part 1 of 2), # 3 Exhibit B - Katz Documenting Discrimination in Voting- Judicial Findings Under Sec (Part 2 of 2), # 4 Exhibit C - GOP redistricting maps make dramatic changes, # 5 Exhibit D - Issacharoff Political Cartels, # 6 Exhibit E - Pildes Political Competition, # 7 Exhibit F - Stein and Marley book, # 8 Exhibit G - Trende dataset2 csv) (Odorizzi, Michele) Modified on 1/25/2016: Clarified exhibit descriptions. (lak) (Entered: 01/22/2016) 01/22/2016 58 Declaration of Simon David Jackman filed by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter re: 45 Motion for Summary Judgment, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - S. Jackman Report July 7 2015 (Also see 62 .), # 2 Exhibit B - Jackman Vita, # 3 Exhibit C - Jackman Rebuttal Report (Also see 63 .), # 4 Exhibit D - Sensitivity Testing Reliance Material, # 5 Exhibit E - Excerpted Klarner Data, # 6 Exhibit F - Party Control Data, # 7 Exhibit G - McGhee Measuring Partisan Bias, # 8 Exhibit H - Fifield Automated Redistricting, # 9 Exhibit I - Gelman and King Estimating the Consequences, # 10 Exhibit J - Cox and Katz Salamander, # 11 Exhibit K - Cain Assessing Partisan Bias) (Odorizzi, Michele) Modified on 1/25/2016: Clarified exhibit descriptions. (lak) (Entered: 01/22/2016) 01/22/2016 59 Declaration of Kenneth Mayer filed by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter re: 45 Motion for Summary Judgment, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Mayer CV, # 2 Exhibit B - Mayer Rebuttal Report (Also see 64 .), # 3 Exhibit C - Glaeser Myths and Realities, # 4 Exhibit D - Glaeser and Vigdor Segregated Century, # 5 Exhibit E - Chung Racial Ethnic Sorting) (Odorizzi, Michele) Modified on 1/25/2016: Clarified exhibit descriptions. (lak) (Entered: 01/22/2016) 106 01/22/2016 60 Disregard. See 65 for condensed version. Modified on 1/26/2016. (lak) (Entered: 01/22/2016) 01/22/2016 61 Disregard. See 66 for condensed version. Modified on 1/26/2016. (lak) (Entered: 01/22/2016) 01/25/2016 62 Expert Report of Simon David Jackman by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. (Odorizzi, Michele) (Entered: 01/25/2016) 01/25/2016 63 Expert Report of Simon David Jackman (Rebuttal) by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. (Odorizzi, Michele) (Entered: 01/25/2016) 01/25/2016 64 Expert Report of Kenneth Mayer (Rebuttal) by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. (Odorizzi, Michele) (Entered: 01/25/2016) 01/25/2016 65 Deposition of Nicholas Goedert taken on 12/15/15, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit - Fryer & Holden Measuring Compactness, article attached, # 2 Exhibit - Goedert, Gerrymandering or Geography, # 3 Exhibit - Goedert, Case of Disappearing Bias, # 4 Exhibit - Keith Gaddie April 17, 2011 Memo) (Odorizzi, Michele) (Entered: 01/25/2016) 01/25/2016 66 Deposition of Sean P. Trende taken on 12/14/15. (Odorizzi, Michele) (Entered: 01/25/2016) 01/25/2016 67 Response to Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter re: 45 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Odorizzi, Michele) Modified on 1/26/2016. (lak) (Entered: 01/25/2016) 01/25/2016 68 Brief in Opposition by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter re: 45 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Gerald C. Nichol, Harold V. Froehlich, Timothy Vocke, John Franke, Elsa Lamelas, Kevin J. Kennedy, Thomas Barland. (Odorizzi, Michele) (Entered: 01/25/2016) 01/25/2016 69 Additional Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter re: 45 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Odorizzi, Michele) Modified on 1/26/2016. (lak) (Entered: 01/25/2016) 01/26/2016 70 Motion in Limine to Exclude The Testimony of Sean P. Trende by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. (Odorizzi, Michele) (Entered: 01/26/2016) 107 01/26/2016 71 Brief in Support of 70 Motion in Limine to Exclude The Testimony of Sean P. Trende by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. (Odorizzi, Michele) (Entered: 01/26/2016) 01/26/2016 72 Declaration of Annabelle Elizabeth Harless filed by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter re: 70 Motion in Limine, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - D.M. Smith & W.N. Venables, Introduction to R, # 2 Exhibit B - Trende "Wisconsin_clustering_computation.R" file, # 3 Exhibit C - Gelman & King, Unified Method, # 4 Exhibit D - Friedman & Holden, Optimal Gerrymandering, # 5 Exhibit E - Anselin, Local Indicators of Spatial Association, # 6 Exhibit F - Tam Cho, Contagion Effects, # 7 Exhibit G - Reardon & O'Sullivan, Measures of Spatial Segregation, # 8 Exhibit H - Denton & Massey, Hypersegregation) (Odorizzi, Michele) (Entered: 01/26/2016) 02/03/2016 Set Briefing Deadline as to 70 Motion in Limine to Exclude The Testimony of Sean P. Trende. Brief in Opposition due 2/16/2016. Brief in Reply due 2/22/2016. (voc) (Entered: 02/03/2016) 02/04/2016 73 Brief in Reply by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke in Support of 45 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 02/04/2016) 02/04/2016 74 Reply in Support of Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke re: 45 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 02/04/2016) 02/04/2016 75 Disregard. See 76 . Modified on 2/5/2016. (lak) (Entered: 02/04/2016) 02/04/2016 76 Response to Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke re: 45 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Keenan, Brian) Modified on 2/5/2016. (lak) (Entered: 02/04/2016) 02/05/2016 Set Oral Argument: Oral Argument on 45 Motion for Summary Judgment and 70 Motion in Limine to Exclude The Testimony of Sean P. Trende set for 3/23/2016 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 250 before the Three Judge Panel. (kwf) (Entered: 02/05/2016) 02/10/2016 77 Notice of Appearance filed by Douglas Maynard Poland for Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. (Poland, Douglas) (Entered: 02/10/2016) 02/16/2016 78 Brief in Opposition by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke re: 70 Motion in Limine, filed by Jerome Wallace, Allison Seaton, Helen Harris, Donald Winter, James Seaton, Emily Bunting, Wayne Jensen, William Whitford, Janet Mitchell, Wendy Sue Johnson, Mary Lynn Donohue, Roger Anclam (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 02/16/2016) 108 02/16/2016 79 Reply in Support of Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter re: 45 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Reply to Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Additional Proposed Findings of Fact in Opposition to Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment, Document #76.) (Odorizzi, Michele) Modified on 2/17/2016. (lak) (Entered: 02/16/2016) 02/22/2016 80 Brief in Reply by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter in Support of 70 Motion in Limine. (Odorizzi, Michele) (Entered: 02/22/2016) 03/17/2016 81 Motion to Admit Theodore Reed Boehm Pro Hac Vice. ( Pro Hac Vice fee $ 50 receipt number 0758-1769797.) by Amicus Jowei Chen. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. (Boehm, Theodore) (Entered: 03/17/2016) 03/17/2016 82 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief by Amicus Jowei Chen, (Attachments: # 1 Jowei Chen Proposed Amicus Brief (See 84 for Amended Brief.), # 2 Exhibit A - Jowei Chen Analysis) (Boehm, Theodore) Modified on 3/17/2016. (lak) (Entered: 03/17/2016) 03/17/2016 83 ** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** ORDER granting 81 Motion to Admit Theodore Reed Boehm Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter A. Oppeneer on 3/17/2016. (lak) (Entered: 03/17/2016) 03/17/2016 84 Exhibit (Amended Proposed Amicus Brief) to 82 Motion for Leave to File filed by Jowei Chen. (Boehm, Theodore) Modified on 3/17/2016. (lak) (Entered: 03/17/2016) 03/17/2016 85 ORDER denying 82 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief by Amicus Jowei Chen. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 3/17/2016. (voc) (Entered: 03/17/2016) 03/23/2016 86 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Barbara B. Crabb, Circuit Judge Kenneth F. Ripple and Chief District Judge William C. Griesbach: Oral Argument Hearing held on 3/23/2016 re 45 Motion for Summary Judgement by defendants. [2:12] (Court Reporter LS.) (voc) (Entered: 03/23/2016) 03/24/2016 87 Notice of Change of Address by Annabelle Elizabeth Harless. (Harless, Annabelle) (Entered: 03/24/2016) 03/25/2016 88 Notice of Change of Address by Ruth Merewyn Greenwood. (Greenwood, Ruth) (Entered: 03/25/2016) 03/25/2016 89 Transcript of Motion Hearing, held 3/23/2016 before Judge Kenneth Ripple, Judge Barbara B. Crabb and Judge William Griesbach. Court Reporter: LS. Please review the court policy regarding electronic transcripts: see Electronic Transcript Instructions and Notice of Intent to Request Redaction. (voc) (Entered: 03/25/2016) 03/28/2016 90 Motion to Admit Danielle Marie Lang Pro Hac Vice. ( Pro Hac Vice fee $ 50 receipt number 0758-1777935.) by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. (Lang, Danielle) (Entered: 03/28/2016) 109 03/29/2016 91 ** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** ORDER granting 90 Motion to Admit Danielle Marie Lang Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter A. Oppeneer on 3/29/2016. (lak) (Entered: 03/29/2016) 03/29/2016 92 Motion to Admit J. Gerald Hebert Pro Hac Vice. ( Pro Hac Vice fee $ 50 receipt number 0758-1779009.) by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. (Hebert, J. Gerald) (Entered: 03/29/2016) 03/30/2016 93 ** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** ORDER granting 92 Motion to Admit J. Gerald Hebert Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter A. Oppeneer on 3/30/2016. (lak) (Entered: 03/30/2016) 04/07/2016 94 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that The motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Gerald C. Nichol, Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Elsa Lamelas, Timothy Vocke and Kevin J. Kennedy, dkt. # 45 , is DENIED. The motion filed by plaintiffs William Whitford, Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting,Mary Lynne Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, James Seaton, Allison Seaton, Jerome Wallace and Don Winter to exclude the opinions of Sean Trende, dkt. # 70 , is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to plaintiffs' refiling it at the conclusion of trial. Trial will begin on Tuesday, May, 24, 2016 and should be completed by Friday, May 27, 2016. If the parties believe that is not a sufficient amount of time, they should explain their concerns in writing no later than April 18, 2016. Signed by Circuit Judge Kenneth F. Ripple, District Judge Barbara B. Crabb and District Judge William C. Griesbach on 4/7/2016. (voc) (Entered: 04/07/2016) 04/18/2016 95 Amended Expert Report of Kenneth Mayer (Rebuttal), Updated March 31, 2016, by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. (Greenwood, Ruth) (Entered: 04/18/2016) 04/19/2016 96 Stipulation Regarding Authenticity of Documents Recovered from Three Legislative Redistricting Computers by Mark Lanterman of CFS as Part of Stipulation Regarding 30(b)(6) Depositions of the Legislative Technology Services Bureau, Wisconsin State Senate, and Wisconsin State Assembly by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. (Harless, Annabelle) Modified on 4/20/2016: Clarified docket text, etc. (lak) (Entered: 04/19/2016) 04/19/2016 97 Declaration of Mark Lanterman filed by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter re: 96 Stipulation, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - CV for Mark Lanterman, # 2 Exhibit B and Exhibit C - DVD of files referenced by Mark Lanterman. Hard copy will be hand-delivered to the clerk.) (Greenwood, Ruth) Modified on 4/20/2016. (lak) (Entered: 04/19/2016) 110 04/19/2016 98 Second Deposition of Simon Jackman taken on 3/16/16. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit - Jackman Rebuttal Report (Also see 63 .), # 2 Exhibit - Dataset email from Mr. Stephanopolous, # 3 Exhibit - Datasets, # 4 Exhibit - Fifield et al Article, # 5 Exhibit - Fryer and Holden Article, # 6 Exhibit - Email from Mr. Stephanopolous, # 7 Exhibit - Uniform Swing, # 8 Exhibit - Invoice) (Keenan, Brian) Modified on 4/20/2016: Attachment 4 replaced on 4/20/2016 so that pages 24 and 26 were right side up. (lak) (Entered: 04/19/2016) 04/19/2016 99 Second Deposition of Kenneth Mayer taken on 3/30/16. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit - Professor Mayer Rebuttal Report (Also see 64 .), # 2 Exhibit - Email from Mr. Stephanopolous, # 3 Exhibit - Myths and Realities of American Political Geography, # 4 Exhibit - Chart Labeled Act 43, # 5 Exhibit - Chart Labeled Inc Calcs My Plan, # 6 Exhibit - Chart Labeled EG act 43 With Inc, # 7 Exhibit - Chart Labeled EG With Inc, # 8 Exhibit - Chart Labeled Incumbents, # 9 Exhibit - Invoices) (Keenan, Brian) Modified on 4/20/2016. (lak) (Entered: 04/19/2016) 04/25/2016 100 Rule 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke. (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 04/25/2016) 04/25/2016 101 Rule 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Deposition Designations, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Exhibit List (To be refiled on the court's form.), # 3 Exhibit 3 - Exhibit List) (Harless, Annabelle) Modified on 4/26/2016. (lak) (Entered: 04/25/2016) 04/26/2016 102 Exhibit List by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. (Harless, Annabelle) (Entered: 04/26/2016) 04/28/2016 103 Exhibit List by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke. (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 04/28/2016) 05/02/2016 104 Motion to Allow Witness Trial Testimony in Open Court by Contemporaneous Transmission from a Different Location by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. (Poland, Douglas) (Entered: 05/02/2016) 05/02/2016 105 Deposition of Jeffrey Ylvisaker taken on April 29, 2013. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Subpoena for Wisconsin State Senate, 111 # 2 Exhibit 2 - Computer chart created by the witness, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Subpoena for the Wisconsin State Assembly, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Subpoena for the Legislative Technology Services Bureau, # 5 Exhibit 5A - Documents brought by the witness (1 of 3), # 6 Exhibit 5B - Documents brought by the witness (2 of 3), # 7 Exhibit 5C - Documents brought by the witness (3 of 3), # 8 Exhibit 6 - Declaration of Jeffrey Ylvisaker, # 9 Exhibit 7 - Email from Peter Earle to Eric McLeod, Daniel Kelly) (Harless, Annabelle) (Entered: 05/02/2016) 05/02/2016 106 Deposition of Jeffrey Ylvisaker taken on March 11, 2016. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 46 - Subpoena, # 2 Exhibit 49 - Email dated 4/10/12, # 3 Exhibit 50 - Chart created by the witness, # 4 Exhibit 50 - LTSB configuration item (Page 12 is upside down.), # 5 Exhibit 51 - Privilege log, # 6 Exhibit 53 - WRK32586 Responsive spreadsheets file detail report, # 7 Exhibit 54 - WRK32586 External HD Responsive spreadsheets file detail report, # 8 Exhibit 55A - WRK32587 Responsive spreadsheets file detail report (1 of 3), # 9 Exhibit 55B - WRK32587 Responsive spreadsheets file detail report (2 of 3), # 10 Exhibit 55C - WRK32587 Responsive spreadsheets file detail report (3 of 3)) (Harless, Annabelle) Modified on 5/3/2016: Corrected typo, etc. (lak) (Entered: 05/02/2016) 05/02/2016 107 Deposition of Ronald Keith Gaddie taken on January 20, 2012. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 56 - Subpoena, # 2 Exhibit 57 - Flash drive produced by Professor Gaddie, # 3 Exhibit 58 - Rebuttal report of Professor Gaddie, 1/13/12, # 4 Exhibit 59 - Defendants Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint in Baldus, # 5 Exhibit 60 - Rule 26 expert rebuttal report of Professor Ken Mayer, # 6 Exhibit 61 - Sealed documents printed from original flash drive produced at deposition by Professor Gaddie, # 7 Exhibit 62 - Email chain between Professor Gaddie and Jim Troupis re: Gaddie this week and next, # 8 Exhibit 63 - Professor Gaddie's notes, # 9 Exhibit 64 - Email chain between Joe Handrick and Jim Troupis re: Memo, # 10 Exhibit 65 - Email chain between Professor Gaddie and Jim Troupis re: Current address, # 11 Exhibit 66 - Letter/consulting services agreement from Eric McLeod to Professor Gaddie, # 12 Exhibit 67 - Email chain between Professor Gaddie and Joe Handrick re: Milwaukee County elections, # 13 Exhibit 68 - Email from Professor Gaddie to Eric McLeod with invoice 5/8/11, # 14 Exhibit 69 - Email from Professor Gaddie to Eric McLeod 5/9/11, # 15 Exhibit 70 - Email from Professor Gaddie to Eric McLeod with invoice 6/3/11, # 16 Exhibit 71 - Emails between Adam Foltz, Professor Gaddie, Jim Troupis, Eric McLeod, Tad Ottman, Joe Handrick, # 17 Exhibit 72 - Chart labeled "Milwaukee_Gaddie_4_16_11_V1_B", # 18 Exhibit 73 - Email chain between Adam Foltz, Tad Ottman, Eric McLeod, Jim Troupis, Raymond Taffora re: Wisconsin Hispanic Districts, # 19 Exhibit 74 - Email chain between Professor Gaddie and Jim Troupis re: Must talk 112 today if possible, # 20 Exhibit 75 - Emails between Professor Gaddie and Jim Troupis and Professor Gaddie and Tad Ottman re: revised timing, # 21 Exhibit 76 - Emails between Professor Gaddie and Jim Troupis, Tad Ottman re: revised timing with attached documents, # 22 Exhibit 77 - Email chain between Professor Gaddie and Jim Troupis re: revised timing, # 23 Exhibit 78 - Email from Professor Gaddie to Eric McLeod with invoice 7/29/11, # 24 Exhibit 79 - 11/10/11 Memo - Census blocks conflicting with municipal boundaries, # 25 Exhibit 80 - 1/13/12 Memo - Redistricting anomalies, # 26 Exhibit 81 - Facebook exchanges between Professor Gaddie and Joe Handrick) (Harless, Annabelle) Modified on 5/3/2016. (lak) (Entered: 05/02/2016) 05/02/2016 108 Deposition of Ronald Keith Gaddie taken on March 9, 2016. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 30 - Notice of deposition, # 2 Exhibit 31 - Flash drive produced by Professor Gaddie, # 3 Exhibit 35 - Gaddie retention letter 4/11/11, # 4 Exhibit 36 - Memo written by Professor Gaddie, # 5 Exhibit 38 - Photos of three legislative computer hard drives, # 6 Exhibit 39 - Plan comparisons spreadsheets, # 7 Exhibit 40 - MILWAUKEE_GADDIE_4_16_11_V1_B, # 8 Exhibit 41 - MILWAUKEE_GADDIE_4_16_11_V1_B, # 9 Exhibit 42 - Email chain between Professor Gaddie and Joe Handrick, forwarded to Adam Foltz and Tad Ottman, # 10 Exhibit 43 - Team map spreadsheet) (Harless, Annabelle) Modified on 5/3/2016. (lak) (Entered: 05/02/2016) 05/02/2016 109 Deposition of Adam Foltz taken on December 21, 2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 23 - Subpoena, # 2 Exhibit 24 - Documents produced by Adam Foltz in response to subpoena, # 3 Exhibit 25 - Document produced by Adam Foltz, # 4 Exhibit 26 - DVD produced by Adam Foltz with documents responsive to subpoena, # 5 Exhibit 27 - DVD identified by Adam Foltz as statewide database, # 6 Exhibit 28 - Order dated December 8, 2011, # 7 Exhibit 29 - Order dated December 20, 2011, # 8 Exhibit 30 - 12/13/11 expert report of Professor Gaddie, # 9 Exhibit 31 - Expert report of John Diez/Magellan Strategies, 12/14/11) (Harless, Annabelle) (Entered: 05/02/2016) 05/02/2016 110 Deposition of Adam Foltz taken on February 1, 2012. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 100 - Memo to Representative Gary Bies, # 2 Exhibit 101 - Breakdown of regions, # 3 Exhibit 102 - Email from Andy Speth 6/14/11, # 4 Exhibit 103 - Email from Andy Speth 6/15/11, # 5 Exhibit 104 - Email from Andy Speth 6/21/11, # 6 Exhibit 105 - Foltz 001043 - 001044, # 7 Exhibit 106 - Email from Andrew Welhouse, # 8 Exhibit 107 - Foltz 001046 - 001047, # 9 Exhibit 110 - Packet of emails, # 10 Exhibit 111 - Comparison of Assembly districts, 113 # 11 Exhibit 112 - Census data and partisan information, # 12 Exhibit 113 - General talking points, # 13 Exhibit 114 - Metadata document) (Harless, Annabelle) (Entered: 05/02/2016) 05/02/2016 111 Deposition of Adam Foltz taken on April 30, 2013(30(b)(6) deposition). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 29 - Third declaration of Mark Lanterman) (Harless, Annabelle) (Entered: 05/02/2016) 05/02/2016 112 Deposition of Adam Foltz taken on April 30, 2013. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Subpoena, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Declaration of Adam Foltz, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Supplemental Declaration) (Harless, Annabelle) Modified on 5/3/2016. (lak) (Entered: 05/02/2016) 05/02/2016 113 Deposition of Adam Foltz taken on March 31, 2016. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 73 - Subpoena, # 2 Exhibit 74 - Flash drive produced by Adam Foltz, # 3 Exhibit 78 - Defendants Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures, # 4 Exhibit 79 - Baldus opinion 3/22/12, # 5 Exhibit 80 - Transcript of 3/26/16 motion hearing, # 6 Exhibit 81 - Memo prepared by Professor Gaddie, # 7 Exhibit 82 - Email chain between Professor Gaddie and Joe Handrick, forwarded to Tad Ottman and Adam Foltz 4/20/11, # 8 Exhibit 83 - Lanterman amended declaration and DVD) (Harless, Annabelle) (Entered: 05/02/2016) 05/02/2016 114 Deposition of Tad Ottman taken on December 22, 2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 33 - Documents produced in response to subpoena/privilege log, # 2 Exhibit 33A - Documents produced by the witness, # 3 Exhibit 34 - DVD identified by Tad Ottman as responsive to subpoena, # 4 Exhibit 35 - Letter dated 12/13/11 from Douglas Poland to Tad Ottman with enclosures, # 5 Exhibit 36 - Email from Tad Ottman to Ray Taffora, Adam Foltz, Eric McLeod) (Harless, Annabelle) (Entered: 05/02/2016) 05/02/2016 115 Deposition of Tad Ottman taken on February 2, 2012. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 117 - Ottman 000095 - 000096, # 2 Exhibit 118 - Ottman 000117 - 000120, # 3 Exhibit 119 - Email from Leah Vukmir, # 4 Exhibit 120 - Ottman 000144, # 5 Exhibit 121- Talking points memo, # 6 Exhibit 122 - Ottman 000145 - 000161, # 7 Exhibit 123 - Confidentiality Agreement with Republican State Senators, # 8 Exhibit 124 - Confidentiality agreement with Republican Assembly members, # 9 Exhibit 128 - Outline for Tad Ottman testimony) (Harless, Annabelle) (Entered: 05/02/2016) 05/02/2016 116 Deposition of Tad Ottman taken on April 29 and 30, 2013. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 8 - List of paid staff of Senator Fitzgerald, # 2 Exhibit 9 - June 6 and 7, 2011 emails, # 3 Exhibit 10 - Confidentiality and nondisclosure document, # 4 Exhibit 11A - Emails produced 10/16/12 (1 of 4), # 5 Exhibit 11B - Emails produced 10/16/12 (2 of 4), 114 # 6 Exhibit 11C - Emails produced 10/16/12 (3 of 4), # 7 Exhibit 11D - Emails produced 10/16/12 (4 of 4), # 8 Exhibit 12A - Documents related to SB 150 (1 of 3), # 9 Exhibit 12B - Documents related to SB 150 (2 of 3), # 10 Exhibit 12C - Documents related to SB 150 (3 of 3), # 11 Exhibit 13 - January 10, 2012 letter with attachments, # 12 Exhibit 14 - January 11, 2012 letter, # 13 Exhibit 15 - June 30, 2011 emails, # 14 Exhibit 16 - July 5, 2011 email with attachment, # 15 Exhibit 17 - July 8, 2011 emails, # 16 Exhibit 20 - October 7 and 10, 2011 emails, # 17 Exhibit 21 - March 1, 2012 letter with attachment, # 18 Exhibit 22 - March 5, 2012 letter with attachment, # 19 Exhibit 23 - March 8, 2012 letter, # 20 Exhibit 24 - March 13, 2012 letter with attachment, # 21 Exhibit 25 - March 15, 2012 letter, # 22 Exhibit 26 - March 16 and 17, 2012 emails, # 23 Exhibit 27 - June 13, 2012 letter, # 24 Exhibit 28 - July 27, 2010 letter) (Harless, Annabelle) (Entered: 05/02/2016) 05/02/2016 117 Deposition of Tad Ottman taken on April 30, 2013. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Subpoena, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Declaration of Tad Ottman) (Harless, Annabelle) (Entered: 05/02/2016) 05/02/2016 118 Deposition of Tad Ottman taken on March 31, 2016. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 84 - Subpoena, # 2 Exhibit 85 - Flash drive and DVD produced by Tad Ottman, # 3 Exhibit 89 - GOP Seats Senate.docx) (Harless, Annabelle) (Entered: 05/02/2016) 05/02/2016 119 Deposition of Joseph Handrick taken on December 20, 2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - 12/13/11 letter to Joseph Hanadrick from Doug Poland with subpoena, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Packet of documents produced by Joseph Handrick, # 3 Exhibit 2A - Population totals, # 4 Exhibit 3 - DVD labeled "Joe Handrick Draft Maps - Block Assignments", # 5 Exhibit 4 - 2/15/11 letter to Don M. Millis anad Joseph Handrick from Eric McLeod, # 6 Exhibit 5 - 2/17/11 letter to Eric McLeod from Don Millis, # 7 Exhibit 6 - 2/18/11 letter to Eric McLeod from Don Millis, # 8 Exhibit 7 - Bio of Joseph Handrick, # 9 Exhibit 8 - Joe Handrick lobbyist license, # 10 Exhibit 9 - Excerpts from the book Born to Run by Keith Gaddie, # 11 Exhibit 10 - Defendants Amended Initial Rule 26(a)(1) dislcosures, # 12 Exhibit 14 - Chapter 801.17, Commencement of action and venue, # 13 Exhibit 15 - Chapter 751, Supreme Court, # 14 Exhibit 18 - Letter to Kathleen Madden from Joseph Louis Olson with attached summons and complaint, # 15 Exhibit 19 - Transcript of joint public hearing on redidstricting 7/13/11) (Harless, Annabelle) (Entered: 05/02/2016) 05/02/2016 120 Deposition of Joseph Handrick taken on February 1, 2012. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 88 - Letter dated 1/10/12, # 2 Exhibit 89 - Letter dated 1/11/12, 115 # 3 Exhibit 90 - Summary core constituency report, # 4 Exhibit 91 - Series of emails between Joseph Handrick and Jim Troupis, # 5 Exhibit 92 - Series of emails between Jim Troupis and Joseph Handrick, # 6 Exhibit 93 - Series of emails between Joseph Handrick and Tad Ottman, # 7 Exhibit 94 - Emails between Joe Handrick and Jim Troupis re: retention, # 8 Exhibit 95 - Emails between Joseph Handrick and Tad Ottman re: contract, # 9 Exhibit 98 - Printout of a menu disk, # 10 Exhibit 99 - Email series re: In case you missed this) (Harless, Annabelle) (Entered: 05/02/2016) 05/02/2016 121 Deposition of Joseph Handrick taken on April 30, 2013. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Subpoena) (Harless, Annabelle) (Entered: 05/02/2016) 05/09/2016 122 ** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** Plaintiffs' 104 motion to allow its witness to provide trial testimony by live video at the trial in this matter is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' counsel should consult with the clerk of court about the technical arrangements. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 5/9/2016. (voc) (Entered: 05/09/2016) 05/09/2016 123 Proposed Special Verdict - Liability by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke. (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 05/09/2016) 05/09/2016 124 Proposed Findings of Fact by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke. (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 05/09/2016) 05/09/2016 125 Joint Final Pretrial Conference Report by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. (Greenwood, Ruth) Modified on 5/10/2016: Requested exhibit lists and deposition designations be filed as separate docket entries. Exhibit lists also filed at 102 and 103 . (lak) (Entered: 05/09/2016) 05/09/2016 126 Proposed Special Verdict - Liability by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. (Greenwood, Ruth) (Entered: 05/09/2016) 05/09/2016 127 Proposed Findings of Fact by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. (Greenwood, Ruth) (Entered: 05/09/2016) 05/10/2016 128 Exhibit List by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. (Greenwood, Ruth) Modified on 5/17/2016: See 132 for Amended Exhibit List. (lak) (Entered: 05/10/2016) 05/10/2016 129 Deposition Designations by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. (Greenwood, Ruth) (Entered: 05/10/2016) 116 05/10/2016 130 Exhibit List by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke. (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 05/10/2016) 05/10/2016 131 Deposition Designations by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke. (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 05/10/2016) 05/13/2016 Notice to Counsel: The court requests that the parties submit copies of pre-marked trial exhibits on CD-ROM or flash drive, not paper, as originally directed. Please provide the court with three complete sets by Monday, 5/16/2016. Trial briefs may be filed electronically. (arw) (Entered: 05/13/2016) 05/16/2016 132 Amended Exhibit List by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. (Greenwood, Ruth) (Entered: 05/16/2016) 05/16/2016 133 Trial Brief by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke. (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 05/16/2016) 05/16/2016 134 Trial Brief by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. (Greenwood, Ruth) (Entered: 05/16/2016) 05/19/2016 135 Supplement to 127 Proposed Findings of Fact, filed by Jerome Wallace, Allison Seaton, Helen Harris, Donald Winter, James Seaton, Emily Bunting, Wayne Jensen, William Whitford, Janet Mitchell, Wendy Sue Johnson, Mary Lynn Donohue, Roger Anclam. (Greenwood, Ruth) (Entered: 05/19/2016) 05/19/2016 136 Disregard. See 137 for signed version. Modified on 5/20/2016. (lak) (Entered: 05/19/2016) 05/20/2016 137 Amended Document by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. Amendment to 127 Proposed Findings of Fact to Include Trial Exhibit Numbers. (Greenwood, Ruth) Modified on 5/20/2016. (lak) (Entered: 05/20/2016) 05/23/2016 138 Stipulation to the admissibility of Exhibit 225 and withdrawal of Mark Lanterman as a testifying witness for plaintiffs by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. (Harless, Annabelle) (Entered: 05/23/2016) 05/23/2016 139 Amended Exhibit List Number 2 by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter, (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter Describing Changes to Exhibits) (Poland, Douglas) Modified on 5/24/2016: Removed duplicate text; See 140 for an Amended Cover Letter. (lak) (Entered: 05/23/2016) 117 05/23/2016 140 Amended Document by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. Amendment to 139 Exhibit List. Amended Cover Letter. (Poland, Douglas) Modified on 5/24/2016. (lak) (Entered: 05/23/2016) 05/24/2016 Set/Reset Trial Date: Second Day of Court Trial set for 5/25/2016 at 9:00 AM. (arw) (Entered: 05/24/2016) 05/25/2016 141 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Circuit Judge Kenneth F. Ripple, District Judge Barbara B. Crabb and District Judge William C. Griesbach: First Day of Court Trial held on 5/24/2016. Evidence entered, trial continues. [6:45] (Court Reporter LS) (arw) (Entered: 05/25/2016) 05/25/2016 Set/Reset Trial Date: Third Day of Court Trial set for 5/26/2016 at 9:00 AM. (arw) (Entered: 05/25/2016) 05/26/2016 142 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Circuit Judge Kenneth F. Ripple, District Judge Barbara B. Crabb and District Judge William C. Griesbach: Second Day of Court Trial held on 5/25/2016. Evidence entered, trial continues. [6:57] (Court Reporter LS) (arw) (Entered: 05/26/2016) 05/26/2016 Set/Reset Trial Date: Fourth Day of Court Trial set for 5/27/2016 at 8:30 AM. (arw) (Entered: 05/26/2016) 05/26/2016 143 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Circuit Judge Kenneth F. Ripple, District Judge Barbara B. Crabb and District Judge William C. Griesbach: Third Day of Court Trial held on 5/26/2016. Evidence entered, trial continues. [7:08] (Court Reporter LS) (Entered: 05/26/2016) 05/27/2016 144 Stipulation Regarding Descriptions of the Legislative Technology Services Bureau and the Government Accountability Board by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. (Greenwood, Ruth) Modified on 5/30/2016. (lak) (Entered: 05/27/2016) 05/27/2016 145 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Circuit Judge Kenneth F. Ripple, District Judge Barbara B. Crabb and District Judge William C. Griesbach: Fourth Day of Court Trial held on 5/27/2016. Trial completed, briefing set: Post-trial briefs due 6/10/2016, Replies due 6/20/2016. [6:35] (Court Reporter LS) (arw) (Entered: 05/27/2016) 05/27/2016 146 Court Trial Exhibit List. (arw) (Entered: 05/27/2016) 05/27/2016 Post-trial briefs due 6/10/2016, replies due 6/20/2016. (arw) (Entered: 05/27/2016) 05/31/2016 Notice to Counsel: Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibits 485, 488, 493 and 497 maintained in Clerk's Office Exhibit Room. (arw) (Entered: 05/31/2016) 06/08/2016 147 Transcript of First Day of Court Trial, held 5/24/2016 before Judge Barbara B. Crabb. Court Reporter: LS. Please review the court policy regarding electronic transcripts: see Electronic Transcript Instructions and Notice of Intent to Request Redaction. (voc) (Entered: 06/08/2016) 06/08/2016 148 Transcript of Second Day of Jury Trial, held 5/25/2016 before Judge Barbara B. Crabb. Court Reporter: LS. 118 Please review the court policy regarding electronic transcripts: see Electronic Transcript Instructions and Notice of Intent to Request Redaction. (voc) (Entered: 06/08/2016) 06/08/2016 149 Transcript of Third Day of Jury Trial, held 5/26/2016 before Judge Barbara B. Crabb. Court Reporter: LS. Please review the court policy regarding electronic transcripts: see Electronic Transcript Instructions and Notice of Intent to Request Redaction. (voc) (Entered: 06/08/2016) 06/10/2016 150 Transcript of Fourth Day of Court Trial, held 5/27/16 before Judge Barbara B. Crabb, Judge Kenneth Ripple, and Judge William Griesbach. Court Reporter: LS. Please review the court policy regarding electronic transcripts: see Electronic Transcript Instructions and Notice of Intent to Request Redaction. (jat) (Entered: 06/10/2016) 06/10/2016 151 Motion to Admit Certain Trial Exhibits and Statements from Learned Treatises Into Evidence by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. Response due 6/17/2016. (Lang, Danielle) Modified on 6/13/2016. (lak) (Entered: 06/10/2016) 06/10/2016 152 Unopposed Stipulation Regarding 2008 and 2012 Presidential Vote Totals by Ward by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit - 2008 Election Data by Ward, # 2 Exhibit - LTSB 2012 Election Data, # 3 Exhibit - 2008 Fall Election President Ward by Ward, # 4 Exhibit - Ward by Ward Canvass Results for President with Congressional, State Senate, and Assembly Districts) (Harless, Annabelle) Modified on 6/13/2016. (lak) (Entered: 06/10/2016) 06/10/2016 153 Post Trial Brief by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke. (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 06/10/2016) 06/10/2016 154 Motion for Leave to File Second Declaration of Dr. Kenneth Mayer by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter, (Attachments: # 1 Second Declaration of Dr. Kenneth Mayer) (Harless, Annabelle) (Entered: 06/10/2016) 06/10/2016 155 Post Trial Brief by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. (Greenwood, Ruth) (Entered: 06/10/2016) 06/13/2016 Briefing Deadlines set as to 151 Motion to Admit Certain Trial Exhibits and Statements from Learned Treatises Into Evidence by Plaintiffs and 154 Motion for Leave to File Second Declaration of Dr. Kenneth Mayer by Plaintiffs. Brief in Opposition due 6/23/2016. Brief in Reply due 6/30/2016. (voc/sv) (Entered: 06/13/2016) 119 06/20/2016 156 Post Trial Brief by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke. (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 06/20/2016) 06/20/2016 157 Post Trial Brief (Reply) by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. (Harless, Annabelle) (Entered: 06/20/2016) 06/23/2016 158 Stipulated Motion to Substitute Party by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit - 2015 Wisconsin Act 118 Proposed Implementation Plan) (Harless, Annabelle) (Entered: 06/23/2016) 06/23/2016 159 Brief in Opposition by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke re: 151 Motion to Admit Certain Trial Exhibits and Statements from Learned Treatises Into Evidence, filed by Jerome Wallace, Allison Seaton, Helen Harris, Donald Winter, James Seaton, Emily Bunting, Wayne Jensen, William Whitford, Janet Mitchell, Wendy Sue Johnson, Mary Lynn Donohue, Roger Anclam. (Keenan, Brian) Modified on 6/23/2016. (lak) (Entered: 06/23/2016) 06/23/2016 160 Brief in Opposition by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke re: 154 Motion for Leave to File, filed by Jerome Wallace, Allison Seaton, Helen Harris, Donald Winter, James Seaton, Emily Bunting, Wayne Jensen, William Whitford, Janet Mitchell, Wendy Sue Johnson, Mary Lynn Donohue, Roger Anclam. (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 06/23/2016) 06/30/2016 161 Brief in Reply by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter in Support of 151 Motion to Admit Certain Trial Exhibits and Statements from Learned Treatises Into Evidence. (Harless, Annabelle) Modified on 7/1/2016. (lak) (Entered: 06/30/2016) 06/30/2016 162 Brief in Reply by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter in Support of 154 Motion for Leave to File the Second Declaration of Dr. Kenneth Mayer. (Harless, Annabelle) (Entered: 06/30/2016) 08/01/2016 163 Notice of Supplemental Authority by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit - One Wisconsin Institute v. Mark L. Thomsen, et al.) (Lang, Danielle) Modified on 8/1/2016. (lak) (Entered: 08/01/2016) 11/14/2016 164 Motion to Supplement the Record by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. (Poland, Douglas) Modified on 11/14/2016. (lak) (Entered: 11/14/2016) 120 11/17/2016 165 ** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** ORDER denying 164 Motion to Supplement the Record by plaintiffs. Signed by Judges Kenneth F. Ripple, Barbara B. Crabb and William C. Griesbach on 11/17/2016. (voc) (Entered: 11/17/2016) 11/21/2016 166 OPINION and ORDER. Signed by Judges Kenneth F. Ripple, Barbara B. Crabb and William C. Griesbach. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 11/21/2016. (voc) (Entered: 11/21/2016) 11/21/2016 Briefing set re: 1- Act 43, 2- Redistricting Plan, 3- Preparation and Consent of the nomination or election of members of the State Assembly. Brief in Support due 12/21/2016. Brief in Opposition due 1/5/2017. (voc) (Entered: 11/21/2016) 12/09/2016 167 Motion for Clarification re: 166 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Stipulation, Order on Motion for Leave to File, Order on Motion to Substitute Party by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. Response due 12/16/2016. (Harless, Annabelle) (Entered: 12/09/2016) 12/16/2016 168 Brief in Opposition by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke re: 167 Motion for Clarification, filed by Jerome Wallace, Allison Seaton, Helen Harris, Donald Winter, James Seaton, Emily Bunting, Wayne Jensen, William Whitford, Janet Mitchell, Wendy Sue Johnson, Mary Lynn Donohue, Roger Anclam. (Keenan, Brian) Modified on 12/16/2016. (lak) (Entered: 12/16/2016) 12/21/2016 169 Response re: 166 OPINION and ORDER. Brief on Remedy by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke. (Keenan, Brian) Modified on 12/22/2016. (lak) (Entered: 12/21/2016) 12/21/2016 170 Response re: 166 OPINION and ORDER. Brief on Remedies by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Brief from Baldus, # 2 Exhibit B - Transcript Vol III from Baldus) (Greenwood, Ruth) Modified on 12/22/2016. (lak) (Entered: 12/21/2016) 01/04/2017 171 Letter from David Nir. (voc/ck) (Entered: 01/04/2017) 01/04/2017 172 ORDER Re: 167 Motion for Clarification. Signed by Signed by Judges Kenneth F. Ripple, Barbara B. Crabb and William C. Griesbach on 1/4/2017. (voc) (Entered: 01/04/2017) 01/05/2017 173 Response re: 166 OPINION and ORDER. Response Brief on Remedies by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke. (Keenan, Brian) Modified on 1/5/2017. (lak) (Entered: 01/05/2017) 01/05/2017 174 Response re: 166 OPINION and ORDER. Response Brief on Remedies by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. (Harless, Annabelle) Modified on 1/6/2017. (lak) 121 (Entered: 01/05/2017) 01/05/2017 175 Motion for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae by Amicus The League of Women Voters of Wisconsin. (Attachments: # 1 Brief of Amicus Curiae) (Crawford, Susan) (Entered: 01/05/2017) 01/05/2017 176 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Amicus The League of Women Voters of Wisconsin. (Crawford, Susan) (Entered: 01/05/2017) 01/07/2017 177 Motion to Admit Stephen J. Schulhofer Pro Hac Vice. ( Pro Hac Vice fee $ 100 receipt number 0758-1947603.) by Amicus Stephen J. Schulhofer. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. (Schulhofer, Stephen) (Entered: 01/07/2017) 01/09/2017 178 ** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** ORDER granting 177 Motion to Admit Stephen J. Schulhofer Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter A. Oppeneer on 1/9/2017. (lak) (Entered: 01/09/2017) 01/12/2017 179 Notice of Supplemental Authority by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke re: 173 Response to Order, 174 Response to Order, (Attachments: # 1 Order issued in Covington v. North Carolina) (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 01/12/2017) 01/26/2017 180 ORDER granting 175 Motion for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae by Amicus The League of Women Voters of Wisconsin. Signed by Judges Kenneth F. Ripple, Barbara B. Crabb and William C. Griesbach 1/26/2017. (voc) (Entered: 01/26/2017) 01/26/2017 181 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Move for Attorney's Fees and Costs by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. (Poland, Douglas) Modified on 1/27/2017. (lak) (Entered: 01/26/2017) 01/27/2017 182 OPINION and ORDER. Signed by Judges Kenneth F. Ripple, Barbara B. Crabb and William C. Griesbach on 1/27/2017. (voc) (Entered: 01/27/2017) 01/27/2017 183 JUDGMENT entered in favor of Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter dismissing the case. (voc) (Entered: 01/27/2017) 01/27/2017 184 ** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** Plaintiffs' unopposed motion (dkt. 181 ) to extend their time in which to move for attorneys fees and costs is GRANTED. The new deadline is 30 days after any Supreme Court resolution of this case, or, if neither side files a notice of appeal, 30 days after the date on which such a notice is due. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 1/27/2017. (voc) (Entered: 01/27/2017) 02/06/2017 185 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment to Retain Jurisdiction Regarding Remedy by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Poland, Douglas) (Entered: 02/06/2017) 02/08/2017 186 Letter from the Court. (voc) (Entered: 02/08/2017) 122 02/14/2017 187 Brief in Opposition by Defendants Beverly R. Gill, Julie M. Glancey, Ann S. Jacobs, Steve King, Don Millis, Mark L. Thomsen re: 185 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, filed by Jerome Wallace, Allison Seaton, Helen Harris, Donald Winter, James Seaton, Emily Bunting, Wayne Jensen, William Whitford, Janet Mitchell, Wendy Sue Johnson, Mary Lynn Donohue, Roger Anclam. (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 02/14/2017) 02/16/2017 188 Brief in Reply by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter in Support of 185 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. (Harless, Annabelle) (Entered: 02/16/2017) 02/22/2017 189 ORDER granting 185 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment to Retain Jurisdiction Regarding Remedy. Signed by Judges Kenneth F. Ripple, Barbara B. Crabb and William C. Griesbach on 2/22/2016. (voc) (Entered: 02/22/2017) 02/22/2017 190 AMENDED JUDGMENT entered in favor of Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynne Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter dismissing the case. (voc) (Entered: 02/22/2017) 02/24/2017 191 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Defendants Beverly R. Gill, Julie M. Glancey, Ann S. Jacobs, Steve King, Don Millis, Mark L. Thomsen as to 182 Order, 190 Judgment. Filing fee of $ 505, receipt number 0758-1977883 paid. No Docketing Statement filed. (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 02/24/2017) 03/15/2017 192 Judgment Corrected Pursuant to Rule 60(a) to correct the inadvertent omission of court approval of form as required by Rule 58(b)(2) (BBC /PAO). (voc) (Entered: 03/15/2017) 03/20/2017 193 AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL by Defendants Beverly R. Gill, Julie M. Glancey, Ann S. Jacobs, Steve King, Don Millis, Mark L. Thomsen as to 190 Judgment, 192 Judgment, 183 Judgment. Filing fee of $ 505, receipt number 0758-1977883 paid. No Docketing Statement filed. (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 03/20/2017) 08/03/2017 194 Certified and Transmitted Record on Appeal to United States Supreme Court, (Attachments: # 1 Certification, # 2 Supreme Court Letter Requesting Record) (lak) (Entered: 08/03/2017) 07/25/2018 195 Notice: Certified Copy of Judgment from Supreme Court of the United States. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter) (voc) (Entered: 07/25/2018) 07/31/2018 196 ORDER: Now that the United States Supreme Court has certified the judgment in this case, the court will provide the parties an opportunity to submit memoranda stating their position on further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Court. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties may have until August 17, 2018 in which to file and serve such memoranda. They may have until August 31, 2018 in which to file and serve reply memoranda. Signed by Judges Kenneth F. Ripple, Barbara B. Crabb and William C. Griesbach on 7/31/2018. (voc) (Entered: 07/31/2018) 123 08/01/2018 Briefing set re: Memoranda stating their position on further proceedings. Brief in Support due 8/17/2018. Brief in Opposition due 8/31/2018. (voc) Modified on 9/26/2018 (voc). (Entered: 08/01/2018) 08/02/2018 197 ORDER of Withdrawal. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb withdrawn. Case randomly reassigned to District Judge James D. Peterson for all further proceedings. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 8/2/2018. (voc) Modified on 8/2/2018. (arw) (Entered: 08/02/2018) 08/15/2018 198 Status Report (Joint Memorandum Stating the Parties' Positions on Further Proceedings) by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. (Poland, Douglas) Modified on 8/16/2018 (voc). (Entered: 08/15/2018) 08/16/2018 199 ORDER accepting in part 198 Status Report (Joint Memorandum Stating the Parties' Positions on Further Proceedings). It is Ordered that: 1. The August 17 and 27 memoranda deadlines are struck. 2. Plaintiffs have until September 14, 2018, to file an amended complaint. 3. The parties will update their initial disclosures by September 28. 4. Plaintiffs must serve any new expert reports by October 15. 5. The parties must submit a joint preliminary pretrial report by October 5, 2018. Signed by Judges Kenneth F. Ripple, William C. Griesbach and James D. Peterson on 8/16/2018. (voc) (Entered: 08/16/2018) 08/20/2018 Set Telephone Pretrial Conference: Telephone Pretrial Conference set for 10/16/2018 at 01:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. Counsel for Plaintiff responsible for setting up the call to chambers at (608) 264-5153. [Standing Order Governing Preliminary Pretrial Conference attached] (voc) (Entered: 08/20/2018) 08/27/2018 200 Notice of Appearance filed by Karla Z. Keckhaver for Defendants Beverly R. Gill, Julie M. Glancey, Ann S. Jacobs, Steve King, Don Millis, Mark L. Thomsen. (Keckhaver, Karla) (Entered: 08/27/2018) 09/07/2018 Appeal Record Returned. (voc) (Entered: 09/07/2018) 09/14/2018 201 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by All Plaintiffs. (Poland, Douglas) (Entered: 09/14/2018) 09/14/2018 202 Notice by Amicus The League of Women Voters of Wisconsin of Substitution of Counsel. (Welsh, Diane) Modified on 9/19/2018. (lak) (Entered: 09/14/2018) 09/17/2018 203 Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel by Diane Mary Welsh re: Amicus The League of Women Voters of Wisconsin (Welsh, Diane) (Entered: 09/17/2018) 09/18/2018 204 Motion to Consolidate Cases by Plaintiffs Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynn Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter. (Pines, Lester) (jls) (Entered: 09/18/2018) 09/18/2018 205 ** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** The Wisconsin Assembly Democratic Campaign Committee has filed a new lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Wisconsin State Assembly district plan. No. 18-cv-763-jdp. The Committee seeks to consolidate its case with No. 15-cv-421-jdp. Defendants in No. 18-cv-763-jdp and any party in No. 15-cv-421-jdp who wishes to be heard may have until October 1, 2018, to respond to the motion. The Committee may 124 have until October 9, 2018, to file a reply. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 9/18/2018. (jls) (Entered: 09/18/2018) 09/26/2018 206 Response Stating No Opposition by Defendants Beverly R. Gill, Julie M. Glancey, Ann S. Jacobs, Jodi Jensen, Steve King, Dean Knudson, Don Millis, Mark L. Thomsen re: 204 Motion to Consolidate Cases, filed by Jerome Wallace, Allison Seaton, Helen Harris, Donald Winter, James Seaton, Emily Bunting, Wayne Jensen, Mary Lynne Donohue, William Whitford, Janet Mitchell, Wendy Sue Johnson, Roger Anclam. (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 09/26/2018) 09/28/2018 207 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Defendants Beverly R. Gill, Julie M. Glancey, Ann S. Jacobs, Jodi Jensen, Dean Knudson, Mark L. Thomsen. (Keenan, Brian) Modified on 10/1/2018: Per Answer, added Dean Knudson and Jodi Jensen to docket text, removed Steve King and Don Millis from docket text. (lak) (Entered: 09/28/2018) 10/04/2018 208 Notice of Appearance filed by Kevin Michael St. John for Intervenor Defendant Wisconsin State Assembly. (St. John, Kevin) (Entered: 10/04/2018) 10/04/2018 209 Motion to Intervene by Intervenor Defendant Wisconsin State Assembly. Response due 10/11/2018. (St. John, Kevin) Modified on 10/5/2018: If this motion is granted, they request that the Court file their attachments. (lak) (Entered: 10/04/2018) 10/04/2018 210 Brief in Support of 209 Motion to Intervene by Intervenor Defendant Wisconsin State Assembly, (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1 - Proposed Motion to Dismiss, # 2 Attachment 2 - Proposed Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss, # 3 Attachment 3 - Proposed Answer to Amended Complaint, # 4 Attachment 4 - LMV of Michigan v. Johnson, # 5 Attachment 5 - Baumgart v. Wendelberger) (St. John, Kevin) Modified on 10/5/2018. (lak) (Entered: 10/04/2018) 10/04/2018 211 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Intervenor Defendant Wisconsin State Assembly. (St. John, Kevin) (Entered: 10/04/2018) 10/05/2018 212 ORDER that the motion filed by the Wisconsin Assembly Democratic Campaign Committee to consolidate No. 18-cv-763-jdp with No. 15-cv-421-jdp is GRANTED for the limited purpose of scheduling. After the October 16, 2018 preliminary pretrial conference, the court will revisit the issue of consolidation if it becomes apparent that individual issues predominate or if consolidation is otherwise impractical. The committee may have until to October 10, 2018, to file any objections to the joint preliminary pretrial report submitted by the parties in No. 15-cv-421-jdp. Signed by Judges Kenneth F. Ripple, William C. Griesbach and James D. Peterson on 10/5/2018. (voc) (Entered: 10/05/2018) 10/05/2018 Set Briefing Deadlines as to 209 Motion to Intervene . Brief in Opposition due 10/19/2018. Brief in Reply due 10/26/2018. (voc/sv) (Entered: 10/05/2018) 10/05/2018 213 Joint Preliminary Pretrial Conference Report by Plaintiffs Graham Adsit, Roger Anclam, Warren Braun, Hans Breitenmoser, Judith Brey, Brent Brigson, Emily Bunting, Sandra Carlson-Kaye, Guy Costello, Timothy B. Daley, Margaret Leslie DeMuth, Daniel Dieterich, Mary Lynne Donohue, Leah Dudley, Jennifer Estrada, Barbara Flom, Helen Harris, Gail Hohenstein, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Michael Lecker, Elizabeth Lentini, Norah McCue, Janet Mitchell, Deborah Patel, Jane 125 Pedersen, Nancy Petulla, Robert Pfundheller, Sara Ramaker, Rosalie Schnick, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Ann E. Stevning-Roe, Linea Sundstrom, Michael Switzenbaum, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter, Edward Wohl, Ann Wolfe. (Poland, Douglas) Modified on 10/8/2018: This is captioned for case 18-cv-763 but was not filed in that case. (lak) Modified on 10/9/2018: Cases are consolidated for the limited purpose of scheduling. No other consolidation has been made. Text/events are not spreading. (lak) (Entered: 10/05/2018) 10/11/2018 Set/Reset Telephone Pretrial Conference: Telephone Pretrial Conference set for 10/16/2018 at 01:00 PM before Judge James D. Peterson. Counsel for Plaintiff responsible for setting up the call to chambers at (608) 264-5504. (voc/jdp/sv) (Entered: 10/11/2018) 10/15/2018 Notice to Counsel: The Preliminary Pretrial Conference on 10/16/2018 will take place via teleconference. Please dial (888) 557-8511 to join the conference call. Please enter access code 2955378 when prompted. (arw/skv) (Entered: 10/15/2018) 10/17/2018 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge James D. Peterson: Preliminary Pretrial Conference held on 10/16/2018. [:38] (Court Reporter JD) (arw) (Entered: 10/17/2018) 10/17/2018 214 Pretrial Conference Order - Preliminary Pretrial Packet in cases assigned to District Judge James D. Peterson attached. Rule 26(a)(3) disclosures due 3/1/2019. Motions in Limine and objections to Rule 26(a)(3) disclosures due 3/15/2019. Responses to Motions in limine due 3/29/2019. Statement of stipulated facts and trial briefs due 4/12/2019. Court Trial set for 4/23/2019 at 09:00 AM. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 10/17/2018. (jls) (Entered: 10/17/2018) 10/18/2018 215 Transcript of Preliminary Pretrial Conference, held 10/16/2018 before Judge James D. Peterson. Court Reporter: JD. Please review the court's new policy regarding electronic transcripts of court proceedings: see Electronic Transcript Instructions. (voc) (Entered: 10/18/2018) 10/19/2018 216 Response Stating No Opposition by Defendants Beverly R. Gill, Julie M. Glancey, Ann S. Jacobs, Jodi Jensen, Steve King, Dean Knudson, Don Millis, Mark L. Thomsen re: 209 Motion to Intervene filed by Wisconsin State Assembly. (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 10/19/2018) 10/19/2018 217 Brief in Opposition by Plaintiffs Graham Adsit, Roger Anclam, Warren Braun, Hans Breitenmoser, Judith Brey, Brent Brigson, Emily Bunting, Sandra Carlson-Kaye, Guy Costello, Timothy B. Daley, Margaret Leslie DeMuth, Daniel Dieterich, Mary Lynne Donohue, Leah Dudley, Jennifer Estrada, Barbara Flom, Helen Harris, Gail Hohenstein, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Michael Lecker, Elizabeth Lentini, Norah McCue, Janet Mitchell, Deborah Patel, Jane Pedersen, Nancy Petulla, Robert Pfundheller, Sara Ramaker, Rosalie Schnick, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Ann E. Stevning-Roe, Linea Sundstrom, Michael Switzenbaum, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter, Edward Wohl, Ann Wolfe re: 209 Motion to Intervene filed by Wisconsin State Assembly. (Harless, Annabelle) (Entered: 10/19/2018) 10/25/2018 218 Notice of Appearance filed by Adam Mortara for Intervenor Defendant Wisconsin State Assembly. (Mortara, Adam) (Entered: 10/25/2018) 10/25/2018 219 Notice of Appearance filed by Joshua Ackerman for Intervenor Defendant Wisconsin State Assembly. (Ackerman, Joshua) (Entered: 10/25/2018) 126 10/26/2018 220 Brief in Reply by Intervenor Defendant Wisconsin State Assembly in Support of 209 Motion to Intervene, (Attachments: # 1 Expert Report of Jowei Chen, Ph.D. (See 221 .), # 2 Expert Report of Kenneth R. Mayer, Ph.D. (See 222 .)) (Mortara, Adam) Modified on 10/26/2018: Expert reports to be filed separately. (lak) (Entered: 10/26/2018) 10/26/2018 221 Expert Report of Jowei Chen, Ph.D. by Intervenor Defendant Wisconsin State Assembly (Attachments: # 1 Table 1 - Comparison of Chen Composite Measure to Exhibit 172 Partisan Measure, # 2 Table 2 - Comparison of Act 43 Map and Computer-Simulated 43995 Map, # 3 Table 3 - District-Level Characteristics of the Act 43 Enacted Assembly Map, # 4 Table 4 - District-Level Characteristics of Computer-Simulated Map 43995, # 5 Table 5 - List of 67 Municipalities Split into Multiple District in Enacted Act 43 Plan, # 6 Table 6 - List of 58 Counties Split into Multiple Districts in Enacted Act 43 Plan, # 7 Table 7 - List of 53 Municipalities Split into Multiple Districts in Simulated Plan 43995, # 8 Table 8 - List of 43 Counties Split into Multiple Districts in Simulated Plan 43995, # 9 Table 9 - Incumbent Representatives as of November 2012, # 10 Table 10 - Act 43 Districts and Simulated Plan 43995 Districts in which 31 Plaintiffs Reside, # 11 Figure 1 - Comparison of Chen Composite Measure, # 12 Figure 2a - Act 43 Assembly District-Level Republican Vote Share, # 13 Figure 2b - Act 43 Map District-Level Republican Vote Share, # 14 Figure 3a - Simulated Plan 43995 District-Level Republican Vote Share, # 15 Figure 3b - Simulated Plan 43995 District-Level Republican Vote Share, # 16 Figure 4a - Ward-Level Republican Vote Share, # 17 Figure 4b - Ward-Level Republican Vote Share And Act 43 District Boundaries, # 18 Figure 5a - Ward-Level Republican Vote Share, # 19 Figure 5b - Ward-Level Republican Vote Share And Simulated Plan 43995 District Boundaries, # 20 Figure 6 - Efficiency Gap of Simulated Plan 34995 with Different Uniform Swings, # 21 Exhibit - Plaintiffs' Maps) (Mortara, Adam) Modified on 10/29/2018: Added exhibit descriptions. (lak) (Entered: 10/26/2018) 10/26/2018 222 Expert Report of Kenneth R. Mayer, Ph.D. (With Sources Attached) by Intervenor Defendant Wisconsin State Assembly. (Mortara, Adam) Modified on 10/29/2018. (lak) (Entered: 10/26/2018) 11/13/2018 223 ORDER granting Wisconsin State Assembly's 209 Motion to Intervene; setting deadlines on the Assembly's motions to dismiss. Signed by Judges Kenneth F. Ripple, William C. Griesbach and James D. Peterson on 11/13/2018. (jls) (Entered: 11/13/2018) 11/13/2018 224 MOTION TO DISMISS by Intervenor Defendant Wisconsin State Assembly. Brief in Opposition due 12/21/2018. Brief in Reply due 1/11/2019. (jls) (Entered: 11/13/2018) 11/13/2018 225 Brief in Support of 224 Motion to Dismiss by Intervenor Defendant Wisconsin State Assembly. (jls) (Entered: 11/13/2018) 127 11/15/2018 226 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney by Amicus Jowei Chen. Response due 11/23/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Boehm, Theodore) (Entered: 11/15/2018) 11/16/2018 227 ** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** ORDER granting 226 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Theodore Reed Boehm withdrawn from the case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 11/16/2018. (voc) (Entered: 11/16/2018) 12/21/2018 228 Declaration of Ruth Merewyn Greenwood filed by Plaintiffs Graham Adsit, Roger Anclam, Warren Braun, Hans Breitenmoser, Judith Brey, Brent Brigson, Emily Bunting, Sandra Carlson-Kaye, Guy Costello, Timothy B. Daley, Margaret Leslie DeMuth, Daniel Dieterich, Mary Lynne Donohue, Leah Dudley, Jennifer Estrada, Barbara Flom, Helen Harris, Gail Hohenstein, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Michael Lecker, Elizabeth Lentini, Norah McCue, Janet Mitchell, Deborah Patel, Jane Pedersen, Nancy Petulla, Robert Pfundheller, Sara Ramaker, Rosalie Schnick, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Ann E. Stevning-Roe, Linea Sundstrom, Michael Switzenbaum, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter, Edward Wohl, Ann Wolfe re: 224 Motion to Dismiss, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Complaints Redline) (Greenwood, Ruth) (Entered: 12/21/2018) 12/21/2018 229 Brief in Opposition by Plaintiffs Graham Adsit, Roger Anclam, Warren Braun, Hans Breitenmoser, Judith Brey, Brent Brigson, Emily Bunting, Sandra Carlson-Kaye, Guy Costello, Timothy B. Daley, Margaret Leslie DeMuth, Daniel Dieterich, Mary Lynne Donohue, Leah Dudley, Jennifer Estrada, Barbara Flom, Helen Harris, Gail Hohenstein, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Michael Lecker, Elizabeth Lentini, Norah McCue, Janet Mitchell, Deborah Patel, Jane Pedersen, Nancy Petulla, Robert Pfundheller, Sara Ramaker, Rosalie Schnick, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Ann E. Stevning-Roe, Linea Sundstrom, Michael Switzenbaum, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter, Edward Wohl, Ann Wolfe re: 224 Motion to Dismiss filed by Wisconsin State Assembly. (Stephanopoulos, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/21/2018) 01/07/2019 230 Emergency Motion to Stay by Intervenor Defendant Wisconsin State Assembly. Response due 1/14/2019. (Mortara, Adam) (Entered: 01/07/2019) 01/07/2019 231 Brief in Support of 230 Motion to Stay by Intervenor Defendant Wisconsin State Assembly, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Supreme Court Order List, # 2 Exhibit B - Jurisdictional Statement in Rucho v Common Cause, # 3 Exhibit C - Jurisdiction Statement in Lamone v Benisek) (Mortara, Adam) Modified on 1/8/2019. (lak) (Entered: 01/07/2019) 01/07/2019 232 Declaration of Joshua P. Ackerman filed by Intervenor Defendant Wisconsin State Assembly in Support re: 230 Motion to Stay. (Mortara, Adam) (Entered: 01/07/2019) 01/07/2019 233 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to file its Reply Brief in Support of The Assembly's Motion to Dismiss by Intervenor Defendant Wisconsin State Assembly. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. (Mortara, Adam) (Entered: 01/07/2019) 01/07/2019 234 Declaration of Joshua P. Ackerman filed by Intervenor Defendant Wisconsin State Assembly re: 233 MOTION for Extension of Time. (Mortara, Adam) (Entered: 01/07/2019) 128 01/07/2019 Set/Reset Deadlines as to 230 Emergency Motion to Stay . Brief in Opposition due 1/14/2019. Brief in Reply due 1/17/2019. (voc) (Entered: 01/07/2019) 01/07/2019 235 ** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** ORDER granting 233 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 1/7/2019. (voc) (Entered: 01/07/2019) 01/08/2019 236 Motion to Admit Taylor A. R. Meehan Pro Hac Vice. ( Pro Hac Vice fee $ 100 receipt number 0758-2388577.) by Intervenor Defendant Wisconsin State Assembly. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. (Meehan, Taylor) (Entered: 01/08/2019) 01/09/2019 237 ** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** ORDER granting 236 Motion to Admit Taylor A. R. Meehan Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter A. Oppeneer on 1/9/2019. (lak) (Entered: 01/09/2019) 01/09/2019 238 ** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** Because the court has provisionally consolidated these cases, all further docketing for both cases will appear in Case No. 15-cv-421-jdp until further order of the court. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 1/9/2019. (voc) (Entered: 01/09/2019) 01/14/2019 239 Brief in Opposition by Plaintiffs Graham Adsit, Roger Anclam, Warren Braun, Hans Breitenmoser, Judith Brey, Brent Brigson, Emily Bunting, Sandra Carlson-Kaye, Guy Costello, Timothy B. Daley, Margaret Leslie DeMuth, Daniel Dieterich, Mary Lynne Donohue, Leah Dudley, Jennifer Estrada, Barbara Flom, Helen Harris, Gail Hohenstein, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Michael Lecker, Elizabeth Lentini, Norah McCue, Janet Mitchell, Deborah Patel, Jane Pedersen, Nancy Petulla, Robert Pfundheller, Sara Ramaker, Rosalie Schnick, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Ann E. Stevning-Roe, Linea Sundstrom, Michael Switzenbaum, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter, Edward Wohl, Ann Wolfe re: 230 Motion to Stay filed by Wisconsin State Assembly. (Harless, Annabelle) (Entered: 01/14/2019) 01/14/2019 240 Response Stating No Opposition by Defendants Beverly R. Gill, Julie M. Glancey, Ann S. Jacobs, Jodi Jensen, Steve King, Dean Knudson, Don Millis, Mark L. Thomsen re: 230 Motion to Stay filed by Wisconsin State Assembly. (Russomanno, Anthony) (Entered: 01/14/2019) 01/16/2019 241 Disregard. See 242 . Modified on 1/18/2019. (lak) (Entered: 01/16/2019) 01/17/2019 242 Corrected Brief in Reply by Intervenor Defendant Wisconsin State Assembly in Support of 230 Motion to Stay. (Ackerman, Joshua) (Entered: 01/17/2019) 01/23/2019 243 ORDER denying without prejudice 224 Motion to Dismiss and 27 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 230 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judges William C. Griesbach, James D. Peterson and Kenneth F. Ripple on 1/23/2019. Associated Cases: 3:15-cv-00421-jdp, 3:18-cv-00763-jdp. (voc) (Entered: 01/23/2019) 01/23/2019 Set Telephone Hearing: Telephone Scheduling Conference set for 2/1/2019 at 09:00 AM before Judge James D. Peterson. Counsel for Plaintiff responsible for setting up the call to chambers at (608) 264-5504. Associated Cases: 3:15-cv-00421-jdp, 3:18- cv-00763-jdp (voc/sv/jdp) (Entered: 01/23/2019) 01/24/2019 Notice to Counsel: The Telephone Scheduling Conference on 2/1/2019 will take place via teleconference. Please dial (888) 557-8511 to join the conference call. Please enter access code 2955378 when prompted. AssociatedCases: 3:15- 129 cv-00421-jdp, 3:18-cv-00763-jdp (voc) (Entered: 01/24/2019) 01/25/2019 244 Unopposed Motion to Dismiss the Complaint of The Wisconsin Assembly Democratic Campaign Committee, filed by plaintiff The Wisconsin Assembly Democratic Campaign Committee. Associated Cases: 3:18-cv-00763-jdp, 3:15-cv-00421-jdp. (Pines, Lester) (Entered: 01/25/2019) 01/29/2019 245 Status Report Letter from Plaintiffs' Counsel Regarding Counsel's Availability for July 22, 2019 Trial Date by Plaintiffs Graham Adsit, Roger Anclam, Warren Braun, Hans Breitenmoser, Judith Brey, Brent Brigson, Emily Bunting, Sandra Carlson-Kaye, Guy Costello, Timothy B. Daley, Margaret Leslie DeMuth, Daniel Dieterich, Mary Lynne Donohue, Leah Dudley, Jennifer Estrada, Barbara Flom, Helen Harris, Gail Hohenstein, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Michael Lecker, Elizabeth Lentini, Norah McCue, Janet Mitchell, Deborah Patel, Jane Pedersen, Nancy Petulla, Robert Pfundheller, Sara Ramaker, Rosalie Schnick, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Ann E. Stevning-Roe, Linea Sundstrom, Michael Switzenbaum, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter, Edward Wohl, Ann Wolfe. Associated Cases: 3:15- cv-00421-jdp, 3:18-cv-00763-jdp. (Poland, Douglas) (Entered: 01/29/2019) 01/29/2019 246 ** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** ORDER granting (244) Stipulation of Dismissal in case 3:15-cv-00421-jdp; Granting (43) Motion to Dismiss in case 3:18-cv-00763-jdp. Signed by Judges William C. Griesbach, Kenneth F. Ripple and James D. Peterson on 1/29/2019. Associated Cases: 3:15-cv-00421-jdp, 3:18-cv-00763-jdp (voc) (Entered: 01/29/2019) 02/01/2019 247 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge James D. Peterson: Scheduling Conference held on 2/1/2019. [:41] (Court Reporter CS.) (jls) (Entered: 02/01/2019) 02/01/2019 248 Scheduling Order: Court Trial set for 7/15/2019 - 7/18/2019 at 09:00 AM. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 2/1/2019. (voc) (Entered: 02/01/2019) 02/04/2019 249 Expert Report, Sources and CV of James Gimpel by Intervenor Defendant Wisconsin State Assembly, (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A - Act 43 Core Retention Report, # 2 Appendix B - Chen 43995 Core Retention Report, # 3 Appendix C - Chen 43995 Incumbent Pairing Report, # 4 Appendix D - Act 43 Composite Election Percentages, # 5 Appendix E - Plan 43995 Composite Election Percentages, # 6 Appendix F - 2016 President and US Senate Election Performance on Chen 43995, # 7 Appendix G - 2018 Election Results) (Mortara, Adam) Modified on 2/4/2019: Signature, etc. (lak) (Entered: 02/04/2019) 02/04/2019 250 Expert Report, Data Sources and Other References of Brian J. Gaines by Intervenor Defendant Wisconsin State Assembly. (Mortara, Adam) Modified on 2/4/2019: Signature, etc. (lak) (Entered: 02/04/2019) 02/12/2019 251 Motion to Admit Mark P. Gaber Pro Hac Vice. ( Pro Hac Vice fee $ 100 receipt number 0758-2407850.) by Plaintiffs Graham Adsit, Roger Anclam, Warren Braun, Hans Breitenmoser, Judith Brey, Brent Brigson, Emily Bunting, Sandra Carlson-Kaye, Guy Costello, Timothy B. Daley, Margaret Leslie DeMuth, Daniel Dieterich, Mary Lynne Donohue, Leah Dudley, Jennifer Estrada, Barbara Flom, Helen Harris, Gail Hohenstein, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Michael Lecker, Elizabeth Lentini, Norah McCue, Janet Mitchell, Deborah Patel, Jane Pedersen, Nancy Petulla, Robert 130 Pfundheller, Sara Ramaker, Rosalie Schnick, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Ann E. Stevning-Roe, Linea Sundstrom, Michael Switzenbaum, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter, Edward Wohl, Ann Wolfe. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. (Gaber, Mark) (Entered: 02/12/2019) 02/12/2019 252 ** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** ORDER granting 251 Motion to Admit Mark P. Gaber Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter A. Oppeneer on 2/12/2019. (lak) (Entered: 02/12/2019) 03/15/2019 253 Motion for Protective Order by Plaintiffs Graham Adsit, Roger Anclam, Warren Braun, Hans Breitenmoser, Judith Brey, Brent Brigson, Emily Bunting, Sandra Carlson-Kaye, Guy Costello, Timothy B. Daley, Margaret Leslie DeMuth, Daniel Dieterich, Mary Lynne Donohue, Leah Dudley, Jennifer Estrada, Barbara Flom, Helen Harris, Gail Hohenstein, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Michael Lecker, Elizabeth Lentini, Norah McCue, Janet Mitchell, Deborah Patel, Jane Pedersen, Nancy Petulla, Robert Pfundheller, Sara Ramaker, Rosalie Schnick, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Ann E. Stevning-Roe, Linea Sundstrom, Michael Switzenbaum, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter, Edward Wohl, Ann Wolfe. (Poland, Douglas) (Entered: 03/15/2019) 03/15/2019 254 Declaration of Annabelle E. Harless filed by Plaintiffs Graham Adsit, Roger Anclam, Warren Braun, Hans Breitenmoser, Judith Brey, Brent Brigson, Emily Bunting, Sandra Carlson-Kaye, Guy Costello, Timothy B. Daley, Margaret Leslie DeMuth, Daniel Dieterich, Mary Lynne Donohue, Leah Dudley, Jennifer Estrada, Barbara Flom, Helen Harris, Gail Hohenstein, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Michael Lecker, Elizabeth Lentini, Norah McCue, Janet Mitchell, Deborah Patel, Jane Pedersen, Nancy Petulla, Robert Pfundheller, Sara Ramaker, Rosalie Schnick, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Ann E. Stevning-Roe, Linea Sundstrom, Michael Switzenbaum, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter, Edward Wohl, Ann Wolfe re: 253 Motion for Protective Order, (Sealed Document) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Proposed Protective Order, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Lentini Deposition Transcript, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Patel Deposition Transcript, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Seaton Deposition Transcript) (Poland, Douglas) Modified on 3/15/2019. (lak) (Entered: 03/15/2019) 03/15/2019 255 Redaction to 254 Declaration of Annabelle E. Harless, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Proposed Protective Order, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Lentini Deposition Transcript, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Patel Deposition Transcript, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Seaton Deposition Transcript) (Poland, Douglas) Modified on 3/15/2019. (lak) (Entered: 03/15/2019) 03/15/2019 256 Motion to Seal Document 254 Declaration, by Plaintiffs Graham Adsit, Roger Anclam, Warren Braun, Hans Breitenmoser, Judith Brey, Brent Brigson, Emily Bunting, Sandra Carlson-Kaye, Guy Costello, Timothy B. Daley, Margaret Leslie DeMuth, Daniel Dieterich, Mary Lynne Donohue, Leah Dudley, Jennifer Estrada, Barbara Flom, Helen Harris, Gail Hohenstein, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Michael Lecker, Elizabeth Lentini, Norah McCue, Janet Mitchell, Deborah Patel, Jane Pedersen, Nancy Petulla, Robert Pfundheller, Sara Ramaker, Rosalie Schnick, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Ann E. Stevning-Roe, Linea Sundstrom, Michael Switzenbaum, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter, Edward Wohl, Ann Wolfe. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. (Poland, Douglas) (Entered: 131 03/15/2019) 03/15/2019 Set Deadlines as to 253 Motion for Protective Order. Response due 3/25/2019. No Reply. (jat) (Entered: 03/15/2019) 03/19/2019 257 Motion to Compel Deposition and Production of Documents by Robin J. Vos by Plaintiffs Graham Adsit, Roger Anclam, Warren Braun, Hans Breitenmoser, Judith Brey, Brent Brigson, Emily Bunting, Sandra Carlson-Kaye, Guy Costello, Timothy B. Daley, Margaret Leslie DeMuth, Daniel Dieterich, Mary Lynne Donohue, Leah Dudley, Jennifer Estrada, Barbara Flom, Helen Harris, Gail Hohenstein, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Michael Lecker, Elizabeth Lentini, Norah McCue, Janet Mitchell, Deborah Patel, Jane Pedersen, Nancy Petulla, Robert Pfundheller, Sara Ramaker, Rosalie Schnick, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Ann E. Stevning-Roe, Linea Sundstrom, Michael Switzenbaum, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter, Edward Wohl, Ann Wolfe. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. Response due 3/26/2019. (Greenwood, Ruth) (Entered: 03/19/2019) 03/19/2019 258 Brief in Support of 257 Motion to Compel Deposition and Production of Documents by Robin J. Vos by Plaintiffs Graham Adsit, Roger Anclam, Warren Braun, Hans Breitenmoser, Judith Brey, Brent Brigson, Emily Bunting, Sandra Carlson-Kaye, Guy Costello, Timothy B. Daley, Margaret Leslie DeMuth, Daniel Dieterich, Mary Lynne Donohue, Leah Dudley, Jennifer Estrada, Barbara Flom, Helen Harris, Gail Hohenstein, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Michael Lecker, Elizabeth Lentini, Norah McCue, Janet Mitchell, Deborah Patel, Jane Pedersen, Nancy Petulla, Robert Pfundheller, Sara Ramaker, Rosalie Schnick, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Ann E. Stevning-Roe, Linea Sundstrom, Michael Switzenbaum, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter, Edward Wohl, Ann Wolfe. (Greenwood, Ruth) (Entered: 03/19/2019) 03/19/2019 259 Declaration of Ruth Merewyn Greenwood filed by Plaintiffs Graham Adsit, Roger Anclam, Warren Braun, Hans Breitenmoser, Judith Brey, Brent Brigson, Emily Bunting, Sandra Carlson-Kaye, Guy Costello, Timothy B. Daley, Margaret Leslie DeMuth, Daniel Dieterich, Mary Lynne Donohue, Leah Dudley, Jennifer Estrada, Barbara Flom, Helen Harris, Gail Hohenstein, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Michael Lecker, Elizabeth Lentini, Norah McCue, Janet Mitchell, Deborah Patel, Jane Pedersen, Nancy Petulla, Robert Pfundheller, Sara Ramaker, Rosalie Schnick, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Ann E. Stevning-Roe, Linea Sundstrom, Michael Switzenbaum, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter, Edward Wohl, Ann Wolfe re: 257 Motion to Compel, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Letter dated February 13, 2019 with Attachments, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Notice of Subpoena, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Letter dated February 20, 2019, # 5 Exhibit 5 - Letter dated February 27, 2019, # 6 Exhibit 6 - Letter dated March 5, 2019, # 7 Exhibit 7 - Letter dated February 13, 2019 with Attachments, # 8 Exhibit 8 - Response to Requests for Production, # 9 Exhibit 9 - E-mail dated January 21, 2013, # 10 Exhibit 10 - See 260 ., # 11 Exhibit 11 - Proof of Service) (Greenwood, Ruth) Modified on 3/20/2019: Removed duplicate text. Added exhibit descriptions. E-mail sent to counsel. (lak) (Entered: 03/19/2019) 132 03/20/2019 Set/Reset Briefing Deadlines as to 257 Motion to Compel Deposition and Production of Documents by Robin J. Vos. Brief in Opposition due 4/3/2019. Brief in Reply due 4/10/2019. (voc/slc) (Entered: 03/20/2019) 03/20/2019 260 Exhibit to 259 Declaration, filed by Helen Harris, Leah Dudley, Margaret Leslie DeMuth, Emily Bunting, Wayne Jensen, Sandra Carlson-Kaye, Allison Seaton, Norah McCue, Michael Switzenbaum, Donald Winter, Judith Brey, Ann E. Stevning-Roe, Nancy Petulla, Graham Adsit, Warren Braun, William Whitford, Guy Costello, Jerome Wallace, Timothy B. Daley, Deborah Patel, Robert Pfundheller, Michael Lecker, Jennifer Estrada, Daniel Dieterich, Janet Mitchell, Rosalie Schnick, Barbara Flom, Roger Anclam, Elizabeth Lentini, Sara Ramaker, James Seaton, Gail Hohenstein, Edward Wohl, Ann Wolfe, Linea Sundstrom, Jane Pedersen, Mary Lynne Donohue, Hans Breitenmoser, Wendy Sue Johnson, Brent Brigson. Corrected Exhibit 10 - Letter dated March 18, 2019 and Attachments. (Greenwood, Ruth) Modified on 3/20/2019: Linked to the pending motion. (lak) (Entered: 03/20/2019) 03/25/2019 261 Notice of Withdrawal of Motion re: 253 Motion for Protective Order by Plaintiffs Graham Adsit, Roger Anclam, Warren Braun, Hans Breitenmoser, Judith Brey, Brent Brigson, Emily Bunting, Sandra Carlson-Kaye, Guy Costello, Timothy B. Daley, Margaret Leslie DeMuth, Daniel Dieterich, Mary Lynne Donohue, Leah Dudley, Jennifer Estrada, Barbara Flom, Helen Harris, Gail Hohenstein, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Michael Lecker, Elizabeth Lentini, Norah McCue, Janet Mitchell, Deborah Patel, Jane Pedersen, Nancy Petulla, Robert Pfundheller, Sara Ramaker, Rosalie Schnick, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Ann E. Stevning-Roe, Linea Sundstrom, Michael Switzenbaum, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter, Edward Wohl, Ann Wolfe. (Poland, Douglas) Modified on 3/26/2019. (lak) (Entered: 03/25/2019) 03/29/2019 262 Stipulated Motion for Protective Order by Plaintiffs Graham Adsit, Roger Anclam, Warren Braun, Hans Breitenmoser, Judith Brey, Brent Brigson, Emily Bunting, Sandra Carlson-Kaye, Guy Costello, Timothy B. Daley, Margaret Leslie DeMuth, Daniel Dieterich, Mary Lynne Donohue, Leah Dudley, Jennifer Estrada, Barbara Flom, Helen Harris, Gail Hohenstein, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Michael Lecker, Elizabeth Lentini, Norah McCue, Janet Mitchell, Deborah Patel, Jane Pedersen, Nancy Petulla, Robert Pfundheller, Sara Ramaker, Rosalie Schnick, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Ann E. Stevning-Roe, Linea Sundstrom, Michael Switzenbaum, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter, Edward Wohl, Ann Wolfe, (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Poland, Douglas) Modified on 4/1/2019. (lak) (Entered: 03/29/2019) 04/03/2019 263 Brief in Opposition by Defendants Beverly R. Gill, Julie M. Glancey, Ann S. Jacobs, Jodi Jensen, Dean Knudson, Mark L. Thomsen re: 257 Motion to Compel, filed by Helen Harris, Leah Dudley, Margaret Leslie DeMuth, Emily Bunting, Wayne Jensen, Sandra Carlson-Kaye, Allison Seaton, Norah McCue, Michael Switzenbaum, Donald Winter, Judith Brey, Ann E. Stevning-Roe, Nancy Petulla, Graham Adsit, Warren Braun, William Whitford, Guy Costello, Jerome Wallace, Timothy B. Daley, Deborah Patel, Robert Pfundheller, Michael Lecker, Jennifer Estrada, Daniel Dieterich, Janet Mitchell, Rosalie Schnick, Barbara Flom, Roger Anclam, Elizabeth Lentini, Sara Ramaker, James Seaton, Gail Hohenstein, Edward Wohl, Ann Wolfe, Linea Sundstrom, Jane Pedersen, Mary Lynne Donohue, Hans Breitenmoser, Wendy Sue Johnson, Brent Brigson. (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 04/03/2019) 133 04/03/2019 264 ** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** The parties' proposed protective order, Dkt. 262 , is APPROVED. For clarity, documents that meet the definition of "confidential" in the protective order may be filed under seal without a further motion, in accordance with Administrative Order No. 337. As always, any filing under seal is subject to review of the court. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 4/3/2019. (voc) (Entered: 04/03/2019) 04/03/2019 265 Brief in Opposition by Third Party Defendant Robin J. Vos re: 257 Motion to Compel, filed by Helen Harris, Leah Dudley, Margaret Leslie DeMuth, Emily Bunting, Wayne Jensen, Sandra Carlson-Kaye, Allison Seaton, Norah McCue, Michael Switzenbaum, Donald Winter, Judith Brey, Ann E. Stevning-Roe, Nancy Petulla, Graham Adsit, Warren Braun, William Whitford, Guy Costello, Jerome Wallace, Timothy B. Daley, Deborah Patel, Robert Pfundheller, Michael Lecker, Jennifer Estrada, Daniel Dieterich, Janet Mitchell, Rosalie Schnick, Barbara Flom, Roger Anclam, Elizabeth Lentini, Sara Ramaker, James Seaton, Gail Hohenstein, Edward Wohl, Ann Wolfe, Linea Sundstrom, Jane Pedersen, Mary Lynne Donohue, Hans Breitenmoser, Wendy Sue Johnson, Brent Brigson. (Mortara, Adam) (Entered: 04/03/2019) 04/03/2019 266 Brief in Opposition by Intervenor Defendant Wisconsin State Assembly re: 257 Motion to Compel, filed by Helen Harris, Leah Dudley, Margaret Leslie DeMuth, Emily Bunting, Wayne Jensen, Sandra Carlson-Kaye, Allison Seaton, Norah McCue, Michael Switzenbaum, Donald Winter, Judith Brey, Ann E. Stevning-Roe, Nancy Petulla, Graham Adsit, Warren Braun, William Whitford, Guy Costello, Jerome Wallace, Timothy B. Daley, Deborah Patel, Robert Pfundheller, Michael Lecker, Jennifer Estrada, Daniel Dieterich, Janet Mitchell, Rosalie Schnick, Barbara Flom, Roger Anclam, Elizabeth Lentini, Sara Ramaker, James Seaton, Gail Hohenstein, Edward Wohl, Ann Wolfe, Linea Sundstrom, Jane Pedersen, Mary Lynne Donohue, Hans Breitenmoser, Wendy Sue Johnson, Brent Brigson. (Mortara, Adam) (Entered: 04/03/2019) 04/10/2019 267 Deposition of Patrick E. Fuller taken on March 29, 2019. (Greenwood, Ruth) (Entered: 04/10/2019) 04/10/2019 268 Brief in Reply by Plaintiffs Graham Adsit, Roger Anclam, Warren Braun, Hans Breitenmoser, Judith Brey, Brent Brigson, Emily Bunting, Sandra Carlson-Kaye, Guy Costello, Timothy B. Daley, Margaret Leslie DeMuth, Daniel Dieterich, Mary Lynne Donohue, Leah Dudley, Jennifer Estrada, Barbara Flom, Helen Harris, Gail Hohenstein, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Michael Lecker, Elizabeth Lentini, Norah McCue, Janet Mitchell, Deborah Patel, Jane Pedersen, Nancy Petulla, Robert Pfundheller, Sara Ramaker, Rosalie Schnick, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Ann E. Stevning-Roe, Linea Sundstrom, Michael Switzenbaum, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter, Edward Wohl, Ann Wolfe in Support of 257 Motion to Compel. (Greenwood, Ruth) (Entered: 04/10/2019) 04/10/2019 269 Second Declaration of Ruth M. Greenwood filed by Plaintiffs Graham Adsit, Roger Anclam, Warren Braun, Hans Breitenmoser, Judith Brey, Brent Brigson, Emily Bunting, Sandra Carlson-Kaye, Guy Costello, Timothy B. Daley, Margaret Leslie DeMuth, Daniel Dieterich, Mary Lynne Donohue, Leah Dudley, Jennifer Estrada, Barbara Flom, Helen Harris, Gail Hohenstein, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Michael Lecker, Elizabeth Lentini, Norah McCue, Janet Mitchell, Deborah Patel, Jane Pedersen, Nancy Petulla, Robert Pfundheller, Sara Ramaker, Rosalie Schnick, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Ann E. Stevning-Roe, Linea Sundstrom, Michael Switzenbaum, 134 Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter, Edward Wohl, Ann Wolfe re: 257 Motion to Compel, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Order from Benisek v. Lamone, Mar. 16, 2017, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Order from LWVMI v Johnson, May 23, 2018, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Order from Benisek v. Lamone, Jan. 31, 2017) (Greenwood, Ruth) Modified on 4/11/2019. (lak) (Entered: 04/10/2019) 04/24/2019 270 Transcript of Scheduling Conference, held 2/1/2019 before Judge James D. Peterson. Court Reporter: CS. Please review the court's new policy regarding electronic transcripts of court proceedings: see Electronic Transcript Instructions. (voc) (Entered: 04/24/2019) 04/26/2019 271 Notice of Appearance and Notice of Substitution filed by Clayton P. Kawski for Defendants Beverly R. Gill, Julie M. Glancey, Ann S. Jacobs, Jodi Jensen, Dean Knudson, Mark L. Thomsen. (Kawski, Clayton) (Entered: 04/26/2019) 04/26/2019 272 Notice by Intervenor Defendant Wisconsin State Assembly re: 257 Motion to Compel, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Foltz Subpoena, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Ottman Subpoena) (Mortara, Adam) Modified on 4/29/2019: Linked to the pending motion instead of the brief. (lak) (Entered: 04/26/2019) 04/30/2019 273 Supplemental Brief in Reply by Plaintiffs Graham Adsit, Roger Anclam, Warren Braun, Hans Breitenmoser, Judith Brey, Brent Brigson, Emily Bunting, Sandra Carlson-Kaye, Guy Costello, Timothy B. Daley, Margaret Leslie DeMuth, Daniel Dieterich, Mary Lynne Donohue, Leah Dudley, Jennifer Estrada, Barbara Flom, Helen Harris, Gail Hohenstein, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Michael Lecker, Elizabeth Lentini, Norah McCue, Janet Mitchell, Deborah Patel, Jane Pedersen, Nancy Petulla, Robert Pfundheller, Sara Ramaker, Rosalie Schnick, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Ann E. Stevning-Roe, Linea Sundstrom, Michael Switzenbaum, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter, Edward Wohl, Ann Wolfe in Support of 257 Motion to Compel. (Greenwood, Ruth) (Entered: 04/30/2019) 04/30/2019 274 Third Declaration of Ruth Merewyn Greenwood filed by Plaintiffs Graham Adsit, Roger Anclam, Warren Braun, Hans Breitenmoser, Judith Brey, Brent Brigson, Emily Bunting, Sandra Carlson-Kaye, Guy Costello, Timothy B. Daley, Margaret Leslie DeMuth, Daniel Dieterich, Mary Lynne Donohue, Leah Dudley, Jennifer Estrada, Barbara Flom, Helen Harris, Gail Hohenstein, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Michael Lecker, Elizabeth Lentini, Norah McCue, Janet Mitchell, Deborah Patel, Jane Pedersen, Nancy Petulla, Robert Pfundheller, Sara Ramaker, Rosalie Schnick, Allison Seaton, James Seaton, Ann E. Stevning-Roe, Linea Sundstrom, Michael Switzenbaum, Jerome Wallace, William Whitford, Donald Winter, Edward Wohl, Ann Wolfe re: 257 Motion to Compel, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Assembly's Initial Disclosures dated 12.13.2018) (Greenwood, Ruth) Modified on 5/1/2019. (lak) (Entered: 04/30/2019) 05/03/2019 275 ORDER: It is ordered that plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery, Dkt. 257 , is granted as to the deposition of Robin Vos and requests for production nos. 1-3, 6-9, and 15. The motion is otherwise denied. Signed by Judges Kenneth F. Ripple, William C. Griesbach and James D. Peterson on 5/3/2019. (voc) (Entered: 05/03/2019) 05/10/2019 276 Emergency Motion to Stay Enforcement of this Court's May 3, 2019 Order by Third Party Defendant Robin J. Vos. Response due 5/17/2019. (Mortara, Adam) (Entered: 135 05/10/2019) 05/10/2019 277 Brief in Support of 276 Motion to Stay Enforcement of this Court's May 3, 2019 Order by Third Party Defendant Robin J. Vos (Mortara, Adam) (Entered: 05/10/2019) 05/10/2019 278 Declaration of Joshua P. Ackerman filed by Third Party Defendant Robin J. Vos re: 276 Motion to Stay (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Letter from Ruth Greenwood, # 2 Exhibit B - Vos Subpoena) (Mortara, Adam) (Entered: 05/10/2019) 05/10/2019 279 Notice by Third Party Defendant Robin J. Vos of Filing Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Petition for Writ of Mandamus) (Mortara, Adam) (Entered: 05/10/2019) PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt 05/10/2019 15:40:38 PACER Login: us4852us:5699723:0 Client Code: Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 3:15-cv-00421- jdp Billable Pages: 30 Cost: 3.00