Judge Walker: ‘Despite the court’s direction to do so . . . .’

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker

In a brief, pointed order (pdf), U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker on Wednesday made clear that he did not get what he wanted from the parties’ most recent filing in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger Proposition 8 court challenge.  The order calls on “all parties, including all government defendants” to provide a more detailed case management filing to him by noon Monday.  Judge Walker’s order directs the parties to include:

(1) The specific elements of the claims plaintiffs assert and the defenses, if any, defendants and intervenors contend apply;

(2) Admissions and stipulations that the parties are prepared to enter with respect to the foregoing elements and applicable defenses at issue;

(3) Discovery that the parties seek that may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence with reference to:

(a) Level of scrutiny relevant to plaintiffs’ claims;
(b) The campaign by which Proposition 8 was adopted;
(c) Character of the rights plaintiffs contend are infringed or violated;
(d) Effect of Proposition 8 upon plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals;
(e) Effect of Proposition 8 on opposite-sex couples and others not in same-sex relationships in California; and
(f) Other issues pertinent to the parties’ claims or defenses;

In describing intended discovery, the parties should be as specific as possible; thus, the parties should identify by name and position individuals or entities that may provide evidence by testimony or otherwise, and, if not at this point possible to identify individuals or entities, describe the type of individual or entity from which discovery is sought; and

(4) Subject matter (by discipline or expertise) of the opinion/expert evidence that the parties intend to present.

In other words, Judge Walker means business.  He has given the parties a boatload of work to do in five very short days.

That Judge Walker would seek such specific information from the parties prior to ruling on the motion of the entities seeking to intervene is interesting.  I see two possibilities.  Perhaps he agrees with the Olson/Boies team and has no intention of allowing anyone else into this suit.  Simple enough.  Or, perhaps Judge Walker intends to let the groups and the city into the case, but only after the Olson/Boies team has had a chance to, more or less, direct the focus of the litigation through this filing on Monday — which comes two days before the hearing set for Wednesday (at which the case schedule and the motions to intervene will be discussed).

Popularity: 8% [?]