Plaintiff - moritzlaw.osu.edu · One week later, on February 1, 2012, the Kennie Intervenors were...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STATE OF TEXAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. in his

Official capacity as Attorney General

Of the United States,

Defendants,

ERIC KENNIE, et al.,

Defendants-Intervenors.

___________________________________

__

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 1:12-cv-00128

RMC-DST-RLW

KENNIE DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION

FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES AND COSTS

WITH SUPPORTING POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920, 42 U.S.C. § 1973l(e), 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(d), and this Court’s Local Rule, LCvR 54.2(a), Defendant-Intervenors Eric Kennie, et al.,1

(hereafter “Kennie Intervenors”) respectfully move this Court for an order granting attorneys’

fees, expenses, and costs to them, as prevailing parties in this Voting Rights Act case and their

successful defense in opposition to the Texas photo ID bill, SB 14, enacted by the Texas

Legislature in 2011. Pursuant to LCvR 7(m), counsel for the Kennie Intervenors contacted

counsel for the Plaintiff State of Texas and was advised that Plaintiff opposes this motion.

1 The movants include Defendant-Intervenors Eric Kennie, Anna Burns, Michael Montez, Penny

Pope, Marc Veasey, Jane Hamilton, David de la Fuente, Lorraine Birabil, Daniel Clayton, and

Sergio DeLeon.

Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 383 Filed 09/10/13 of 29

2

The provision in the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1973l(e)) that is most relevant to this

fee requests states: “In any action or proceeding to enforce the voting guarantees of the

fourteenth or fifteenth amendment, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party,

other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee, reasonable expert fees, and other

reasonable litigation expenses as part of the costs.”

The Kennie Intervenors intervened in this action to protect and enforce their voting rights

under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The

legislative history of section 1973l(e) makes clear that in suits under Section 5 of the Voting

Rights Act, “the parties seeking to enforce such rights may be the defendants and/or defendant-

intervenors.” S. Rep. No. 94-295, at 40 n.42 (1975); see also Donnell v. United States, 682 F.2d

240 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (noting that Defendant Intervenors are entitled to attorney’s fees in Section

5 preclearance cases such as this when intervenors “proposed different theories and arguments

for the court’s consideration and . . . the work performed was of important value to the court”).

This motion may be decided by either a single judge of this Court or the entire three-

judge court.2 Based on this motion, the attached supporting materials, and the record in this case,

the Kennie Intervenors seek a total sum of $353,150.97 in attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs.

BACKGROUND, FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 24, 2012, the State of Texas filed a complaint for declaratory judgment that

SB 14, the Texas photo ID bill, complied with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.

§ 1973c. One week later, on February 1, 2012, the Kennie Intervenors were the first parties to

2 In either event, any appeal from an order awarding or denying attorneys’ fees would lie to the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. See, e.g., Castro Cnty., Tex. v. Crespin, 101 F.3d

121, 124-26 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Watkins v. Fordice, 7 F.3d 453, 455 n.2 (5th Cir. 1993); see also

Comm’rs Court of Medina Cnty., Tex. v. United States, 683 F.2d 435 (D.C. Cir. 1982).


3

seek intervention, opposing Section 5 preclearance of SB 14.3 The Kennie Intervenors

contended that SB 14 was not entitled to Section 5 preclearance because it was adopted with a

racially discriminatory intent and would have a racially discriminatory effect. This Court

granted the Kennie Intervenors’ Motion to Intervene on March 15, 2012.

After various other groups sought and were granted intervention, this Court on April 13,

2012, issued an order which stated in part:

All intervenors shall identify a single attorney to examine a deponent at any

deposition. The questioning at trial will likewise be limited. Furthermore, the

intervenors shall appoint a single attorney to be the administrative contact point

with the Court and all briefing done by the intervenors shall be consolidated. The

intervenors are cautioned to avoid duplication of efforts. Should preclearance be

denied, the Court will not grant fee requests for duplicative work.

Minute Order April 13, 2012.

1. THE ROLE OF KENNIE INTERVENORS’ COUNSEL IN THIS CASE

Pursuant to this Order, counsel for the Kennie Intervenors, Mr. Hebert, served as co-

administrative counsel with counsel for the Defendant-Intervenors Mexican American

Legislative Caucus (MALC), et al., Mr. Ezra Rosenberg, throughout this case. As detailed

below and in the attached Declarations and time sheets, the Kennie Intervenors adhered to the

Court’s admonition to avoid duplication of efforts.

During discovery, a number of disputes arose, ranging from discovery of databases

maintained by the State of Texas, and various motions for protective orders and to compel

discovery relating to databases. In addition, there were discovery disputes involving assertions

of legislative privilege by the State of Texas. These disputes often required telephonic

conference calls with the Court and, in many instances, orders by the three-judge court were

3 Other parties were subsequently granted intervention by this Court and opposed preclearance of

SB 14.


4

necessary to resolve them. The Kennie Intervenors’ counsel participated in all those telephonic

conference calls. The State also filed motions in limine to exclude expert testimony of various

experts, including an expert witness designated by the Kennie Intervenors, Dr. Allan Lichtman.

See ECF Docs. 194, 225 and 251. The Kennie Intervenors successfully defeated the State’s

motion in limine.4

Trial was held over a one-week period from July 9-13, 2012, with three and a half hours

of closing arguments on July 13, 2012. During the trial, the Court heard testimony from twenty

witnesses, including several witnesses sponsored by the Kennie Intervenors: Texas State

Senators Wendy Davis and Rodney Ellis; election lawyer and expert Buck Wood; and expert

witness Dr. Allan Lichtman. In addition, “[t]he parties . . . presented thousands of pages of

deposition testimony, expert reports, scholarly articles, and other paper evidence.” ECF No. 340,

at 12-13. At trial, counsel for the Kennie Intervenors also performed the cross-examination of

Keith Ingram, Secretary of State for the State of Texas. Counsel for the Kennie Intervenors also

was one of two Intervenors to participate in the closing arguments.

This Court issued its unanimous decision on August 30, 2012, denying preclearance to

SB 14. The voluminous trial record in this case includes evidence taken in open court, exhibits,

expert reports, and post-trial briefing. The Kennie Intervenors were actively involved throughout

this entire case, including the discovery proceedings (including resolution of discovery disputes

in telephonic conferences with the Court), the conduct of the trial, closing arguments, and post-

trial briefing. This active role is not surprising, especially given that counsel for the Kennie

Intervenors served as co-administrator for the Defendant-Intervenor parties. That role required

Mr. Hebert to communicate regularly with Mr. Rosenberg, the co-administrative counsel, to

4 By order entered July 3, 2012, this Court denied the motion in limine to exclude Dr. Lichtman’s

testimony.


5

manage the litigation for Intervenors and avoid duplication of tasks. As the Court will note in

Mr. Hebert’s Declaration (Exhibit A) and his attached timesheets (Exhibit B), Mr. Hebert spent

many, many hours communicating with Mr. Rosenberg and other Intervenors’ counsel,

managing and coordinating the litigation on behalf of all Defendant Intervenors. Mr. Hebert has

not sought compensation for any of those hours in this fee motion. See Exhibit B.

Also, because the Kennie Intervenors were also represented by Chad W. Dunn from

Brazil & Dunn in Houston, Texas, the Kennie Intervenors attended many of the depositions in

Texas (and did not incur the time and expense of D.C.-based counsel, Mr. Hebert, travelling to

Texas to attend depositions). Mr. Dunn represented several witnesses for deposition including

Eric Kennie, Marc Veasey, Senator Wendy Davis, Senator Rodney Ellis and Anna Burns. Mr.

Dunn and his law partner, Mr. Brazil, also participated in and defended depositions too

numerous to list. In fact, the Kennie Intervenors attended, on behalf of all intervenors, as many

or more depositions than any of the other Defendant Intervenors.

In sum, the Kennie Intervenors played a significant and important role in achieving the

judgment that this Court entered. As we explain in detail below, this Court relied on testimony

offered at trial by the Kennie Intervenors in denying preclearance to SB 14.

2. THE EVIDENCE OFFERED BY THE KENNIE INTERVENORS AT TRIAL

AND THIS COURT’S AUGUST 30, 2012 DECISION DENYING

PRECLEARANCE

The Kennie Intervenors called four witnesses at trial and each provided important and

unique evidence about the adoption of SB 14. Senator Wendy Davis, for example, testified

among other things about amendments to SB 14 that she had offered in the 2011 legislative

session which would have reduced some of the harmful effects of SB 14 and provided some

relief for indigent persons. Sen. Davis’s testimony on this point was as follows:


6

Q. In the first category of amendments that you discussed

indigency, why were you concerned about indigent impact for the

bill?

A. Well, we had had some testimony in both sessions from experts

who had looked at the overall impact of voter ID laws. The

concern that as much as 10 to 11 percent of persons who currently

legally were exercising their right to vote would be impacted by

such a bill because of their inability to get a new ID.

Q. And in your district in your state have you looked into the types

of folks that predominantly make up the indigent citizen rate?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you, what have you discovered?

A. Well, what is the case in the State of Texas as I suppose it is

elsewhere is that our indigent population is primarily made up of

persons who are minority.

Trial Tr. 7/12/2012 (AM) 29:20-22.

Senator Davis’s testimony about the various amendments she had offered to alleviate the

burdens that SB 14 would impose on the poor was reflected in this Court’s decision on the merits.

As this Court observed in its August 30, 2012 opinion denying preclearance to the photo ID bill:

Finally, during closing arguments, Texas’s counsel complained that they had been

shouldered with an ‘impossible burden’ in this litigation. Trial Tr. 7/13/2012

27:14. This may well be correct, but Texas’s lawyers have only their client to

blame. The State of Texas enacted a voter ID law that—at least to our

knowledge—is the most stringent in the country. That law will almost certainly

have retrogressive effect: it imposes strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor, and

racial minorities in Texas are disproportionately likely to live in poverty. And

crucially, the Texas legislature defeated several amendments that could have

made this a far closer case. Ignoring warnings that SB 14, as written, would

disenfranchise minorities and the poor, see, e.g., JA 1300-03; 1329, the legislature

tabled or defeated amendments that would have:

waived all fees for indigent persons who needed the underlying documents to

obtain an EIC, Trial Tr. 7/12/2012 (AM) 30:17-31:7, 33:23-24;

reimbursed impoverished Texans for EIC-related travel costs, JA 2139-42;

expanded the range of identifications acceptable under SB 14 by allowing

voters to present student or Medicare ID cards at the polls, Trial Tr. 7/12/2012

(AM) 34:21-24; JA 1246-47;


7

required DPS offices to remain open in the evening and on weekends, JA

1337; and

allowed indigent persons to cast provisional ballots without photo ID. Trial

Tr. 7/12/2012 (AM) 35:3-37:1.

Put another way, if counsel faced an “impossible burden,” it was because of the

law Texas enacted—nothing more, nothing less.

ECF No. 340 (Opinion, Texas v. Holder, Civil Action No. 12-cv-128) at 55-56.

Senator Wendy Davis also offered testimony about how the so-called “free ID” in Texas5

was not really free at all; that in order to get a “free ID” under SB 14, a person had to produce

underlying documents, such as a birth certificate, that cost money. Trial Tr. 7/12/2012 (AM) 31-

34. She explained how she offered an amendment to alleviate this burden on would-be voters,

but it was rejected. Id. at 32:1-5, 34:23-24.

This testimony by Senator Davis about the cost of the so-called “free ID” is also reflected

in this Court’s decision denying preclearance to SB 14. For example, this Court observed that

“[a]lthough SB 14 prohibits DPS from ‘collect[ing] a fee for an [EIC],’ id. § 521A.001(b), EICs

will not be costless. Not only will prospective voters have to expend time and resources traveling

to a DPS office, but once there they will have to verify their identity by providing ‘satisfactory’

documentation to DPS officials.” ECF No. 340, at 3. The Court’s decision later observed: “In

order to obtain an EIC, would-be voters will need to present one of several underlying

documents, and as Texas concedes, the least expensive option for most prospective voters who

lack supporting identification will be a certified copy of their birth certificate—which costs at

least $22.” Id. at 46.

In reaching its decision denying preclearance, this Court also cited the trial testimony of

Senator Rodney Ellis. The Court noted that “State Senator Rodney Ellis testified that in his

5 The so-called “free ID” is referred to in SB 14 as an “election identification certificate” or EIC.


8

‘inner city district’ in Houston, DPS offices are not ‘easily accessible by public transportation.’

Trial Tr. 7/11/2012 (PM) 34:8-12.” ECF No. 340, at 49. This Court then concluded: “If DPS

offices are inaccessible by public transportation in Houston, Texas’s largest city, we seriously

doubt their accessibility in rural areas—which, presumably, are less likely to have public

transportation infrastructure. Unfortunately, we are left to wonder. Texas, which bears the

burden of proof, submitted absolutely nothing to counter this testimony or to show whether its

DPS offices are reachable via public transportation.” Ibid.

The Kennie Intervenors also presented the testimony at trial of an expert witness, Dr.

Allan Lichtman. See Trial Tr. 07/12/2012 (AM) 40-81. Dr. Lichtman’s testimony responded to

claims by State of Texas experts (Dr. Thomas Sager and Dr. Daron R. Shaw) that the proposed

Texas voter identification law (SB 14) did not have a disparate impact on the opportunities for

minorities to vote in Texas elections.6 Dr. Lichtman testified that there were serious flaws in Dr.

Sager’s analysis, including his effort to match registration lists with driver’s license records. In

particular, Dr. Lichtman testified that Dr. Sager erroneously excluded more than one million

unmatched registrants from his analysis. Moreover, both Dr. Sager’s initial analysis and his

corrected analysis, according to Dr. Lichtman’s testimony, showed racial disparities in the list of

unmatched voters, indicating that, if implemented, SB 14 would have a retrogressive effect on

minority voter opportunities. Dr. Lichtman’s testimony also showed that Dr. Shaw’s surveys

failed to meet elementary reliability or reality checks that were crucial for surveys with only

about a two percent response rate, far lower than the standard in the field. The failure to meet

these reality checks showed that no reliable conclusions could be drawn from Dr. Sager’s study.

Trial Tr. 07/11/2012 (AM) 55-57.

6 Dr. Lichtman examined the reports of both experts and listened to their testimony in Court. He

also read the report and listened to the testimony of plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Stephen Ansolabehere.


9

Dr. Lichtman also challenged the claim of the State of Texas’s other expert, Dr. Shaw,

that social science studies fail to show turnout effects and in particular a disproportionate effect

on minorities from voter identification laws. Dr. Lichtman cited a study by Alvarez, Bailey, and

Katz noting that such laws disproportionately reduce turnout among those of lower socio-

economic standing and “given nationwide and particularly in Texas, a very high correlation

between being minority and having low socioeconomic standing regardless of the causal

relationship, the effect would be to have a disproportionate impact on the turnout of minorities.”

The State of Texas declined to cross-examine Dr. Lichtman.

Dr. Lichtman’s testimony was significantly reflected in the opinion of this Court denying

preclearance. As Dr. Lichtman testified, the Court found that the State of Texas had failed to

meet its burden of showing that SB 14 did not have a discriminatory effect on the ability of

minorities to cast ballots in Texas. Consistent with Dr. Lichtman’s testimony, the Court also

found that SB 14 “will likely have retrogressive effects.” ECF No. 340 (Opinion, Texas v.

Holder, Civil Action No. 12-cv-128) at 1. Specifically in accord with Dr. Lichtman’s testimony,

the Court rejected the State’s claims that social science studies had found that voter ID laws had

no negative impact on voter turnout. Id. at 24-25. The Court’s decision was also consistent with

Dr. Lichtman’s testimony that analyses performed by Texas’s experts failed to provide reliable

results and conclusions regarding the impact of SB 14 on minority voter opportunities. Id. at 29-

32, 37-42. Further, the Court’s opinion also reflected Dr. Lichtman’s testimony about the effects

of voter ID laws on those of lower socio-economic standing and the correlation between race and

socio-economic status. Id. at 45-50.


10

The Kennie Intervenors also presented testimony from their state election law expert,

Randall Buck Wood, who provided critical and un-rebutted testimony that the type of in-person

voting fraud that SB 14 was claimed to prevent is rare or non-existent in Texas.

As we detail below, the Kennie Intervenors were prevailing parties in this case. They

obtained a valid judgment from this Court that provided them with substantial benefits (e.g., the

voter ID did not go into effect in the 2012 election cycle). See infra pp. 11-15. As we also

explain below, that this Court’s judgment was vacated (not reversed) by the Supreme Court does

not preclude an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. Accordingly, the Kennie Intervenors now

seek attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs for their success in this action.

ARGUMENT

The enforcement of federal civil rights laws depends upon “private litigation as a means

of securing compliance with the law.” Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 401-

02 (1968). The availability of fee awards for prevailing parties is critical if private parties are to

undertake litigation to vindicate the civil rights laws. See id.

The purpose of providing for an award of such fees and expenses to prevailing parties is

to encourage “‘private attorneys general [to] take it upon themselves to invoke and thereby

invigorate federal constitutional and statutory rights . . . and . . . to insure that those who violate

the Nation’s fundamental laws do not proceed with impunity.’” King v. Illinois State Bd. of

Elections, 410 F.3d 404, 412 (7th Cir. 2005) (quoting Charles v. Daley, 846 F.2d 1057, 1063

(7th Cir. 1988)).

“In any action or proceeding to enforce the voting guarantees of the fourteenth or

fifteenth amendment, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the

United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee, reasonable expert fees, and other reasonable litigation


11

expenses as part of the costs.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973l(e). Here, the Kennie Intervenors sought to

enforce and protect their Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment rights by opposing the photo ID

bill that was discriminatory and would have harmed their right to vote.

Ordinarily, in Section 5 declaratory judgment cases such as this one, “attorneys’ fees are

to be awarded to a prevailing party,” and should only be denied when the court “find[s] that

special circumstances exist that would render such an award unjust.” Comm’rs Court of Medina

Cnty., Texas v. United States, 683 F.2d 435, 438 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (citing S. Rep. No. 94-295,

at 40 (1975)); see also Newman v. Piggie Park Enterps., 390 U.S. 400 (1968) (noting that “the

prevailing party should ordinarily recover an attorney’s fee unless special circumstances would

render such an award unjust”). This is because “Congress depends heavily upon private citizens

to enforce the fundamental rights involved. The awards are a necessary means of enabling

private citizens to vindicate these Federal rights.” S. Rep. No. 94-295, at 40 (1975).

Defendant Intervenors should be awarded attorney’s fees as there are no extraordinary

circumstances in the instant case that merit their denial. Indeed, to the contrary, the Kennie

Intervenors received significant benefits as a result of this Court’s judgment in their favor and

thus are prevailing parties entitling them to an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses.

I. THE KENNIE INTERVENORS ARE PREVAILING PARTIES ENTITLED TO

THE REQUESTED ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES AND COSTS.

A. The Kennie Intervenors Are Prevailing Parties.

There is no question that the Kennie Intervenors are prevailing parties. They secured a

judgment that they had sought in this action: a denial of preclearance to SB 14. That

preclearance denial not only had a beneficial effect on the Kennie Intervenors, it also changed

the legal relationship between the Kennie Intervenors and the State of Texas.


12

The judgment entered by this Court denying preclearance to SB 14 provided a substantial

benefit to the Kennie Intervenors. Having failed to obtain preclearance, the State of Texas was

unable to impose the photo ID requirement on them and other Texas voters in the 2012 elections.

If imposed in 2012, the photo ID law would have resulted in some of the Kennie

Intervenors being denied the right to vote. For example, as Intervenor Kennie explained in his

deposition testimony,7 he lacks a valid photo ID that would permit him to cast a ballot under SB

14. Kennie, who is indigent, cannot obtain a photo ID from any Texas DPS office because, in

order to do so, he must present a birth certificate. Kennie testified that he was born in an

automobile and there is no record of his birth available. Kennie Dep. 9: 8-10. Moreover, Kennie

testified that even if a birth certificate was available for him, he could not afford to purchase one.

Id. at 25-26. Kennie is unemployed, id. at 11:5-6, receives his food from local churches, id. at

59:16-18, and stays rent-free with friends, id. at 59:8-9; 60:7-13. When asked why he lacks the

means to pay money and purchase a photo ID, Mr. Kennie made clear it was his poverty status:

“Well, I ain’t have no money. I ain’t got no job[.]” Id. at 47:13-14. Since he lacks a photo ID,

this Court’s decision provided Defendant Intervenor Kennie with a substantial benefit: he

remained eligible to vote in the 2012 elections.

Moreover, this Court “conclude[d] that SB 14 is likely to lead to ‘retrogression in the

position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.’”

ECF No. 340 at 55 (quoting Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 141 (1976)). As members of

racial or language minority groups, the Kennie Intervenors were benefitted by this Court’s

decision denying preclearance to SB 14—a decision which prevented the State of Texas from

implementing the photo ID law in the 2012 elections. Moreover, all of the Kennie Intervenors

7 See Defendant Intervenors’ Proposed Findings of Fact, Document No. 240, at 2, ¶ 2.


13

(except one) are plaintiffs in a recently filed federal suit in a challenge to SB 14 in a Corpus

Christi federal court. The record and Court findings developed in this case also provide them a

benefit and will be useful to them in that litigation.

The Supreme Court has determined that civil rights plaintiffs are prevailing parties “if

they succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties

sought in bringing the suit.” Tex. State Teachers Ass’n v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S.

782, 789 (1989); Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754, 756-58 (1980). In other words, “the

plaintiff must be able to point to a resolution of the dispute which changes the legal relationship

between [it] and the defendant.” Texas State Teachers Ass’n, 489 U.S. at 792; see also

Buckhannon Bd. &Care Home, Inc. v W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 604

(2001) (recognizing that a party prevails and is entitled to attorney’s fees when that party obtains

a “material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties”). We respectfully submit that the

Kennie Intervenors succeeded on a significant issue in this litigation which achieved some of the

benefit that the Kennie Intervenors sought when they intervened. Accordingly, they are

prevailing parties entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees.

B. The Supreme Court’s Order Vacating This Court’s Judgment Does Not

Affect the Kennie Intervenors’ Entitlement to Attorneys’ Fees.

The State appealed this Court’s December 17, 2012 judgment (ECF No. 365) to the

United States Supreme Court. On June 27, 2013, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment and

remanded the case to this Court in light of the decision in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. __

(2013). This Court, in turn, recently dismissed this case upon Plaintiff’s unopposed motion.

ECF No. 387.

But the fact that this Court’s 2012 judgment was vacated in June 2013 did not impact the

benefits that the Kennie Intervenors received in 2012 when, as a result of this Court’s decision,


14

the photo ID bill was unable to be enforced. Nor did the Supreme Court’s June 27, 2013 Order

alter the change in the legal relationship between the Intervenors and the State of Texas that was

effectuated by the judgment this Court entered in 2012.

The Kennie Intervenors obtained a judgment from this Court in their favor. That

judgment was not reversed by the Supreme Court on the merits. Thus, this is not a situation

where a party obtained a favorable ruling on the merits in the lower court but lost on the merits

on appeal. In that circumstance, attorneys’ fees are not warranted. See Sole v. Wyner, 551 U.S.

74 (2007). Here, the judgment that the Kennie Intervenors obtained was beneficial to them at

least through the 2012 elections and thus they obtained some benefit from that judgment—

benefits which existed at least until the Supreme Court’s decision vacating that judgment.8

A prevailing party is one who “confers an actual benefit or relief from a burden.” Grano

v. Barry, 783 F.2d 1104, 1108-09 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). The party seeking fees

need not have “prevailed on every claim or achieved all of the benefits he might have hoped for

in the litigation . . . the critical question in evaluating the availability of fees is whether fee

claimants have received any benefit at all.” Id. at 1109 (citation omitted); see also Hanrahan v.

Hampton, 446 U.S. 754, 758 (1987) (quoting H. R. Rep. No. 94-1558, at 8 (1976)) (“[W]hen a

party has prevailed on the merits of at least some of his claims,” there has “been a determination

of the ‘substantial rights of the parties,’ which Congress determined was a necessary foundation

for departing from the usual rule in this country that each party is to bear the expense of his own

attorney.”); Rhodes v. Stewart, 488 U.S. 1, 3-4 (1988) (per curiam) (“At the end of the rainbow

lies not a judgment, but some action (or cessation of action) by the defendant that the judgment

8 As noted above, the benefits that the Kennie Intervenors obtained as a result of this litigation

will continue, as the record developed in the case will be used to help establish that the photo ID

bill is unlawful in the pending lawsuit in Corpus Christi.


15

produces—the payment of damages, or some specific performance, or the termination of some

conduct.”); Comm’rs Court of Medina Cnty., Tex. v. United States, 683 F.2d 435, 441 (D.C. Cir.

1982) (noting the critical question is whether the party has received any benefit at all).

When a party has clearly succeeded in obtaining the relief sought in a district court and

an intervening event renders the case moot on appeal, she is still a “prevailing party” and should

be awarded attorney’s fees. See Nat’l Black Police Ass’n v. D.C. Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 168

F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (affirming the district court’s award of attorney’s fees where plaintiffs

won an injunction that was in place for 52 days before the decision was vacated as moot by new

legislation); Thomas v. Bryant, 614 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2010) (“When plaintiffs clearly

succeeded in obtaining the relief sought before the district court and an intervening event

rendered the case moot on appeal, plaintiffs are still ‘prevailing parties’ for the purposes of

attorney’s fees for the district court litigation.”); Diffenderfer v. Gomez-Colon, 587 F.3d 445, 454

(1st Cir. 2009) (“[A] ‘prevailing party’ is a party who managed to obtain a favorable, material

alteration in the legal relationship between the parties prior to the intervening act of mootness.”);

UFO Chuting of Haw., Inc. v. Smith, 508 F.3d 1189, 1197 & n.8 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that

when a party successfully obtains an injunction before a district court prior to an intervening act

of mootness, that party remains the “prevailing party”); Dahlem v. Bd. of Educ., 901 F.2d 1508,

1512-13 (10th Cir. 1990) (listing cases and holding that “[w]e are in accord with the courts

which have held that a party which achieves the objective of its suit by means of an injunction

issued by the district court is a prevailing party in that court, notwithstanding the fact that the

case becomes moot . . . while the order is on appeal”) (footnote omitted); Palmer v. City of

Chicago, 806 F.2d 1316, 1321 (7th Cir. 1986) (assuming, though not holding, that a party is still

a prevailing part[y] “if after some relief has been obtained the case becomes moot”).


16

This rule is consistent with the purpose behind the statute providing for attorneys’ fees.

“To hold that mootness of a case pending appeal inherently deprives plaintiffs of their status as

‘prevailing parties’ would detract from § 1988’s purposes. Such a rule could result in

disincentives for attorneys to bring civil rights actions when an event outside the parties’ control

might moot the case after the district court rendered a favorable judgment but before the

judgment could be affirmed on appeal.” Diffenderfer v. Gomez-Colon, 587 F.3d 445, 455 (1st

Cir. 2009).

Although the decision handed down in Shelby County resulted in this Court’s judgment

being vacated, this does not make attorney’s fees any less appropriate. See Ctr. for Biological

Diversity v. Marina Pont Dev. Co., 566 F.3d 794, 798-99 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding that even when

the event mooting a judgment is contrary to plaintiff’s interests, there is no “principled and

persuasive reason to deviate” from the principle that conferring a real benefit justifies awarding

attorney’s fees). Several courts have upheld fee awards in similar situations. See, e.g., id.

(upholding an attorney’s fees award where plaintiffs won a permanent injunction that was

vacated before the appeal when a statutory change rendered the case moot); Grano v. Berry, 783

F.2d 1104 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (finding plaintiffs were entitled to attorney’s fees for winning an

injunction prohibiting the demolition of a tavern, even though ultimately defendants were

awarded a demolition permit and demolished the tavern).

The Kennie Intervenors were victimized by the State’s 2011 photo ID bill and they (along

with the Defendants and other Defendant Intervenors) blocked that law from taking effect in the

2012 election cycle. That alone was a significant benefit. Having obtained a judgment from this

Court preventing the State of Texas from obstructing or interfering with their right to vote in a

national presidential election is no small victory. Because the Kennie Intervenors have


17

“obtain[ed] actual relief on the merits of [their] claim” that “materially alters the relationship

between the parties by modifying the [Plaintiff’s] behavior in a way that directly benefits the

[Intervenors],” Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 111 (1992), they are a “prevailing party.” See

Tex. State Teachers Ass’n v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 789 (1989).

The Kennie Intervenors prevailed at trial and obtained a judgment from this Court under

the law that existed at the time. Though the Supreme Court, many months thereafter, struck

down a portion of the Voting Rights Act, the prevailing status of these Intervenors at trial and the

benefit they received in the 2012 elections remained unchanged. Indeed, though the Supreme

Court from time to time may adjust the applicability of statutes given what it perceives as

changed circumstances, it simply cannot be the case that federal law requires parties to bear the

burden of fees and expenses in a case they won based upon the clearly constitutional law in place

at the time. Indeed, until Shelby County, the Supreme Court had affirmed the constitutionality of

the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act on at least three occasions. For these

reasons, the Kennie Intervenors are prevailing parties and should be awarded attorneys’ fees and

expenses.

C. The Kennie Intervenors’ Attorneys’ Fees Are Reasonable.

Having prevailed on their claims, the only remaining question is whether the fees sought

are reasonable. As explained below, the fees, expenses, and costs that the Kennie Intervenors

seek are reasonable for litigation of this type and scope.

An award of attorneys’ fees is calculated using the lodestar method, which is determined

by multiplying “the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable

hourly rate.” Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984); see also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461

U.S. 424, 433 (1983). The lodestar “is presumed to be the reasonable fee,” Blum, 465 U.S. at


18

888; accord People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 90 F.3d 1307, 1310 (7th Cir. 1996), and

“includes most, if not all, of the relevant factors constituting a reasonable attorneys’ fee,”

Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 566 (1986).

Two issues are addressed below demonstrating the reasonableness of the Kennie

Intervenors’ requested fees: 1) the reasonable number of hours expended by Intervenors’

attorneys to litigate this case; and 2) the hourly rates sought by the Intervenors’ counsel. As

explained further below, both the hours incurred and the rates charged were reasonable for a case

of this nature.

1. Kennie Intervenors Seek Compensation For A Reasonable Number of Hours.

This case involved important and difficult federal statutory claims. Texas’s proposed

photo ID law was not only a case that drew national attention, it also was the first photo ID law

to go to trial in this Court under the Voting Rights Act. In addition, although the Court

ultimately did not reach the issue of discriminatory purpose, that issue was necessarily litigated

and “[t]he task of assessing a jurisdiction’s motivation . . . is not a simple matter; on the contrary,

it is an inherently complex endeavor, one requiring the trial court to perform a ‘sensitive inquiry

into such circumstantial and direct evidence of intent as may be available.’” Hunt v. Cromartie,

526 U.S. 541, 546 (1999) (quoting Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Auth., 429 U.S.

252, 266 (1977)). Indeed, voting rights cases such as this one are among the most complex

federal cases, ranking fifth most difficult out of 42 categories of cases (more difficult than

antitrust and SEC/securities cases) according to the case weights last issued by the Federal

Judicial Center. See Exhibit L.

The Kennie Intervenors appropriately hired experienced attorneys who have substantial

Voting Rights Act experience, including extensive experience with Texas voting rights lawsuits.


19

See Exhibit A, Declaration of J. Gerald Hebert (“Hebert Decl.”); Exhibit C, Listing of Voting

Rights/Election Law Cases Handled by Hebert; Exhibit D, Declaration of Chad W. Dunn (“Dunn

Decl.”); and Exhibit E, Dunn Curriculum Vitae. For example, Kennie Intervenors’ counsel Mr.

Hebert has represented clients in prior Texas voting rights or redistricting lawsuits going back

several decades, including several landmark cases that reached the United States Supreme Court

(e.g., Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Balderas v. State of Texas, Civ. Action No. 6:01CV158

(E.D. Tex., Nov. 14, 2001) (per curiam), summarily aff’d, 536 U.S. 919 (2002), and LULAC v.

Perry, 548 U. S. 399 (2006)). Furthermore, Mr. Hebert has served as lead counsel in many

redistricting and voting rights cases over the years throughout the United States and at all levels

of the federal system, including a number of Section 5 declaratory judgment cases in this Court.

As the listing of voting rights cases (Ex. C) shows, he has served as lead counsel for a party or

amicus curiae in over one hundred Voting Rights Act cases, and dozens of other election law

and campaign finance cases. Moreover, the attached Declarations of experienced voting rights

attorneys Spiva, Wright and Pershing (Exhibits H, I, and J, respectively) identify Mr. Hebert as

one of our nation’s foremost voting rights litigators. The Kennie Intervenors’ other counsel, Mr.

Dunn, also has extensive voting rights litigation experience in Texas, handling numerous voting

rights cases in the last decade. See Ex. D; Ex. E.

The extensive experience of the Kennie Intervenors’ counsel, particularly in voting rights

cases, made them well-suited to these responsibilities. Ex. A; Ex. D. Given the importance of

the issues presented in this case, and the fact that the Kennie Intervenors’ lawyers had handled

numerous Voting Rights Act cases in the past (and thus could perform their duties more

efficiently than counsel with less experience in this area of law), the Kennie Intervenors were


20

quite reasonable in retaining attorneys Hebert and Dunn to advance their interests throughout the

course of this litigation.

The Kennie Intervenors’ lawyers also leanly staffed this case, avoiding any duplication of

tasks and using only three attorneys with appropriate levels of experience to handle the various

litigation tasks. Ex. A, Hebert Decl. ¶¶ 13, 14, 16. That this case was staffed leanly and without

duplication of tasks was true not only among the Kennie Intervenors’ counsel, but also between

counsel for the Kennie Intervenors and counsel for the other Defendant-Intervenors. Ex. A,

Hebert Decl. ¶ 13).9

That Kennie Intervenors’ lawyers leanly staffed this case is also demonstrated by the fact

Mr. Hebert and Mr. Dunn performed all of the tasks at the trial court level, and the Kennie

Intervenors let other counsel for Defendant Intervenors take the lead on other matters (including

briefing to the U.S. Supreme Court) to avoid unnecessary or duplicative work or the inefficient

use of resources. Ex. A, Hebert Decl. ¶ 13. As a result, neither Mr. Hebert nor Mr. Dunn has

sought attorneys’ fees for any of the work they performed on matters that were also handled by

other Defendant-Intervenors counsel. This allocation and division of labor was done throughout

the litigation to avoid duplication of work and maximize efficiency, and best utilized the

expertise of the attorneys involved. 10

The Kennie Intervenors’ attorneys are seeking compensation for the hours and legal work

listed in the time sheets and invoices attached as Exhibit B (Hebert Time and Expense Records)

9 The overall fees and disbursements sought in this case are reasonable and well within the range

of what would be expected for this type of complex litigation. That is especially true where, as

here, the case implicated the important fundamental right to vote and the right to be free of

discrimination with respect to voting. 10

That Mr. Hebert and Mr. Dunn handled the vast majority of litigation tasks at the trial court

level stands in sharp contrast to the State of Texas who listed a total of 13 different attorneys on

various pleadings they filed in this Court: Mitchell, Frederick, Sweeten, McKenzie, Mortara,

Hughes, Spencer, Brissenden, Hodge, Aston, D’Andrea, Sullivan and Abbott.


21

and Exhibit F (Dunn and Brazil Time and Expense Records). As noted above, these fees pertain

to work performed by the Kennie Intervenors’ attorneys throughout the course of this intensive

litigation, which included, among other things: preparing and filing a motion to intervene and

proposed answer; responding to the State of Texas’s multiple motions for protective order,

motion to compel, motion in limine to exclude testimony of expert witness for Kennie

Intervenors, assertion of legislative privilege issues, and the State’s failures to produce data in a

timely manner in discovery, including beyond deadlines set by the Court, see, e.g., Minute Order

May 9, 2012. The Kennie Intervenors’ counsel also participated actively in factual and expert

discovery, including participating in numerous depositions; responding to the factual and expert

discovery propounded by the State; and presenting trial testimony of four witnesses at trial,

participating in closing arguments, and ultimately obtaining a favorable final judgment. Ex. A,

Hebert Decl. ¶ 15; Ex. D, Dunn Decl. ¶¶ 5-6.

Following entry of judgment by this Court on August 28, 2013, the Kennie Intervenors’

counsel continued to leanly staff the case, as Mr. Hebert prepared this fee motion in its entirety

with minor assistance from other attorneys, so as to minimize the amount of attorney time and

fees. Ex. A, Hebert Decl. ¶ 18.

Based on contemporaneous time records, the Kennie Intervenors’ attorneys and paralegal

and legal support staff spent the following hours working on this case (as verified and

substantiated in detail in the attached Declarations of Hebert, Dunn and Brazil):

ATTORNEY HOURS

J. Gerald Hebert 182.4

Chad Dunn 436.9

Scott Brazil 47.2


22

The Kennie Intervenors’ attorneys have reviewed the time records summarized above and

reprinted them in the attached exhibits (Exhibits B and F). These records show sound and

reasonable billing judgment. For example, Kennie Intervenors’ counsel excluded substantial

time to ensure that compensation was not sought for work that might be deemed as properly

excluded from a court-ordered fee award. See Ex. A; Ex. B; Ex. D; Ex. F. For example, Kennie

Intervenors do not request compensation for activity that, although necessary for client relations,

did not directly contribute to the litigation itself. See, e.g., Ex. F. Kennie Intervenors also do not

seek any fee enhancement above the lodestar method, despite their considerable expertise and

experience in this area. The hours that remain after the attorneys’ review of the time records

were reasonably expended to accomplish the tasks necessary for the successful prosecution of

this litigation. See Ex. A, Hebert Decl. ¶¶ 12-13; Ex. D, Dunn Decl. ¶¶ 4-6.

2. Kennie Intervenors Seek Reasonable Hourly Rates For Its Attorneys.

The hourly rates sought by the Kennie Intervenors’ attorneys (Hebert, Dunn and Brazil),

reflect their years of practice, litigation experience, and expertise. We explain below, for each

attorney, the exceptionally high level of experience and expertise justifying their hourly rates. In

addition, we have also attached to this motion the declarations of highly qualified attorneys

attesting to the reasonableness of the hours and the hourly rates being sought here.

A. J. Gerald Hebert’s Hourly Rate:

Mr. Hebert, who seeks an hourly rate of $650 in this case, is now in his fortieth year of

practicing law, having spent all but six years in the field of voting rights and redistricting. He is

widely recognized as one of the leading voting rights and redistricting litigators in the United

States. See Ex. H (Bruce Spiva Declaration); Ex. I (Brenda Wright Declaration); Ex. J (Stephen

Pershing Declaration).


23

As detailed in his Declaration (Exhibit A) and the Listing of Voting/Election Law cases

that Hebert has handled (Exhibit C), Mr. Hebert has handled over one hundred voting rights

cases in his forty-year career, with a number of cases ultimately decided in the United States

Supreme Court, including Johnson v. DeGrandy, Pressley v. Etowah County, Shaw v. Reno, and

LULAC v. Perry. In the vast majority of the voting rights or redistricting cases he has handled,

Mr. Hebert has served as the lead trial attorney. See Ex. C.

In addition to his vast litigation experience and expertise, Mr. Hebert also has published

or co-authored articles on voting rights and redistricting in scholarly journals (e.g., Yale Journal

of Law and Policy, George Mason University Law Review, and LaRaza Law Journal at the

University of California at Berkeley). He has given lectures or participated in conferences on

voting rights issues at Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, and William and Mary Law

School, among other law schools across the country. Mr. Hebert has taught voting rights classes

at Georgetown University Law Center (from 1994-2006, and 2013) and American University’s

Washington College of Law, and has co-taught a voting rights course in 1996 with legal scholar

Pamela Karlan at the University of Virginia Law School.11

This semester, Mr. Hebert is co-

teaching a course on election law at Georgetown University Law Center with Paul M. Smith, of

the law firm Jenner and Block.

These hourly rates are similar to prevailing market rates charged by attorneys of

comparable experience and expertise. Mr. Hebert’s hourly rate is also reasonable as indicated by

the sworn declarations of two attorneys in the District of Columbia, Bruce Spiva (Exhibit H) and

11

Mr. Hebert also has been quoted or cited in numerous articles or broadcasts as an authority on

voting rights, and has appeared frequently as a panelist at conferences of the National

Conference of State Legislature, where he has instructed state legislators from across the country

on voting rights and redistricting law. See Exhibit A, Hebert Decl. at ¶10.


24

Stephen Pershing (Exhibit J). In addition, as indicated in the Adjusted Laffey Matrix,12

for

attorneys with twenty years or more experience, the hourly rate is currently $753 per hour. In

2012, when this case was litigated, the Laffey Matrix showed that the hourly rate for attorneys

with 20 or more years of experience was $734 per hour. Thus, Mr. Hebert’s hourly rate is

actually lower than the Laffey Matrix rate for an attorney with his years of experience, and that

does not take into account his knowledge, forty years of experience, expertise and specialization

in handling voting rights and redistricting cases.

B. Hourly Rate for Mr. Chad Dunn and Mr. Scott Brazil:

Attorneys Chad Dunn and Scott Brazil seek an hourly rate in this case of $375 an hour,

which is the rate they charge to other fee paying clients. See Ex. D (Dunn Decl.); Ex. G (Brazil

Decl.). The declarations of these two attorneys describe their expertise and experience in all

types of litigation, including voting rights cases. Mr. Dunn has also submitted his curriculum

vitae (Exhibit E).

ATTORNEY RATE

J. Gerald Hebert $650.00

Chad Dunn $375.00

Scott Brazil $375.00

12

The methodology of calculation and benchmarking for the Laffey Matrix has been approved in

a number of cases. See, e.g., McDowell v. District of Columbia, Civ. A. No. 00-594 (RCL),

LEXSEE 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8114 (D.D.C. June 4, 2001); Salazar v. Dist. of Col., 123

F.Supp.2d 8 (D.D.C. 2000). We attach the Adjusted Laffey Matrix as Exhibit K. See also

Exhibit J (Pershing Decl. discussing Laffey Matrix).


25

II. KENNIE INTERVENORS’ FEE AWARD SHOULD EQUAL $300,097.50.

Multiplying the time worked by each attorney by the hourly rates for each year yields the

following calculation:

ATTORNEYS HRS RATE TOTAL

J. Gerald Hebert 182.4 $650.00 $118,560.00

Chad Dunn 436.9 $375.00 $163,837.50

Scott Brazil 47.2 $375.00 $17,700.00

ALL FEES SUBTOTAL: $300,097.50

III. KENNIE INTERVENORS ARE ENTITLED TO EXPENSES AND COSTS

With regard to expenses and costs, the invoices referenced in the Dunn Declaration

(Exhibit D) and the time and expense records of Brazil and Dunn (Exhibit F) detail the out-of-

pocket expenses incurred. Verification and documentation of these expenses and costs are set

forth in Exhibits D and F. These expenses were necessarily incurred and are the type of out-of-

pocket expenses normally billed to fee-paying clients. As such, they are recoverable as part of

Defendant-Intervenors attorneys’ fees. See W. Va. Univ. Hosp., Inc. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83, 87

n.3 (1991). These “costs” are recoverable as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(d).

A. Expenses/Costs

It is also appropriate to require the Plaintiff State of Texas to reimburse the Kennie

Intervenors for reasonable costs. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1988, for example, includes an award of “reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the

attorney which are normally charged to a fee paying client.” Neufeld v. Searle Labs., 884 F.2d

335, 342 (8th Cir. 1989) (citing Laffey v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 746 F.2d 4, 30 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert.

denied, 472 U.S. 1021 (1985)); see also Rendon v. AT&T Techs., 883 F.2d 388, 399 (5thCir.


26

1989) (timely request for fees and expenses is appropriate). Here, the Kennie Intervenors have

included in the supporting affidavits and invoices a detailed accounting requesting compensation

for such out-of-pocket expenses as travel, deposition costs, conference calls, messenger fees, and

the like. Ex. D. These out-of-pocket expenses totaled $12,038.47, and are the sorts of expenses

generally charged to a fee-paying client and should be reimbursed fully.

B. Expert Fees

The fee shifting provision authorizing an award of attorneys’ fees in this case specifically

authorizes the award of fees for expert costs. 42 U.S.C. § 1973l(e) (“In any action or proceeding

to enforce the voting guarantees of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment, the court, in its

discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s

fee, reasonable expert fees, and other reasonable litigation expenses as part of the costs.”).

Here, the Kennie Intervenors hired only two expert witnesses (Dr. Allan Lichtman and

Randall Buck Wood) who prepared reports and testified at trial. Dr. Lichtman’s report and

testimony were important in establishing SB 14 was not entitled to preclearance and that the

analysis performed by the State of Texas’s expert should be rejected (which it was).13

Election

expert Buck Wood offered testimony that the alleged justification for the photo ID bill, voter

impersonation at the polls, was rare. This contention was relevant to the inquiry into whether SB

14 was enacted with discriminatory purpose. This Court did not reach the issue of

discriminatory intent, however, because it found that SB 14 would have a racially discriminatory

effect.14

13

The Plaintiff State of Texas cannot be heard to argue that expert witnesses were not needed;

after all, the State also employed experts who prepared reports in this case and testified at trial

(as did the Defendant Attorney General).

14

Nevertheless, this Court did recognize that “other evidence, such as the types of circumstantial

evidence discussed in Arlington Heights, could nonetheless suggest that Texas invoked the specter of


27

The expert witness expenses of the Kennie Intervenors are set forth in the attached

invoices of Dr. Allan Lichtman and Buck Wood. Ex. F. They were necessarily incurred in order

for the Kennie Intervenors to defend this action. Ex. D at ¶ 15. Furthermore, those expenses are

both modest and reasonable. Id.

Expert Witness Fee for Dr. Lichtman $27,500.00

Expert Witness Fee for Attorney Wood $13,815.00

Total Expert Witness fees: $41,015.00

Thus, Kennie Intervenors seek reimbursement for associated expenses in this case in the

amount of $53,053.47 (out-of-pocket expenses of $12,038.47 plus expert witness fees of

$41,015.00 equals $53,053.47), an amount that encompasses all “costs” as defined by 28 U.S.C.

§ 1920, Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). Both the expert witness fees and the out-of pocket expenses have

been verified in the attached Declarations of Dunn (Exhibit D) and Hebert (Exhibit A).

Adding fees and expenses, Kennie Intervenors request a total compensation of

$353,150.97. The fees and expenses are substantiated by the declarations of counsel and other

documentary exhibits attached to this motion.

CONCLUSION

The attorneys’ fees sought here are reasonable and not excessive. They are within the

prevailing market rate charged by attorneys of comparable experience and expertise. Likewise,

the expenses and costs sought here are due to be recovered as they were necessarily incurred

during the course of the lawsuit as out-of-pocket expenses or expert witness fees, and are of the

same type as those ordinarily charged to clients by counsel.

voter fraud as pretext for racial discrimination. See Bossier Parish I, 520 U.S. at 489.” ECF No. 340

at 21.


28

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, this Court should award Kennie Intervenors

the attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and costs as requested.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ J. Gerald Hebert

J. Gerald Hebert

D.C. Bar No. 447676

Attorney at Law

191 Somerville Street, #405

Alexandria, VA 22304

Telephone: 703-628-4673

[email protected]

Chad W. Dunn

D.C. Bar No. 987454

Texas Bar No. 24036507

BRAZIL & DUNN LLP

4201 Cypress Creek Pkwy., Suite 530

Houston, Texas 77068

Telephone: (281) 580-6310

Facsimile: (281) 580-6362

[email protected]

ATTORNEYS FOR KENNIE

DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 10th

day of September, 2013, I served a copy of the foregoing

Kennie Intervenors’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses and Costs, attached Exhibits A-I on

counsel who are registered to receive NEFs through the CM/ECF system. All attorneys who have

not yet registered to receive NEFs have been served via first-class mail, postage prepaid.


J. GERALD HEBERT


mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

29

EXHIBITS TO KENNIE INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR AWARD OF

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES

EXHIBIT A—Declaration of J. GERALD HEBERT

EXHIBIT B—HEBERT Time and Expense Records

EXHIBIT C—Listing of Voting/Election Cases Handled by HEBERT

EXHIBIT D—Declaration of CHAD DUNN

EXHIBIT E—Curriculum Vitae of CHAD DUNN

EXHIBIT F—BRAZIL and DUNN Time and Expense Records

EXHIBIT G—Declaration of SCOTT BRAZIL

EXHIBIT H—Declaration of BRUCE V. SPIVA

EXHIBIT I—Declaration of BRENDA WRIGHT

EXHIBIT J—Declaration of STEPHEN B. PERSHING

EXHIBIT K—Updated Laffey Matrix on Attorneys’ Fees

EXHIBIT L—Federal Judicial Center, Case Weighting Study




STATE OF TEXAS,

Plaintiff,

v.




Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 1:12-cv-00128

RMC-DST-RLW

DECLARATION OF J. GERALD HEBERT

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746, I, J. Gerald Hebert, declare that:

1. I am one of the attorneys who represented Defendant-Intervenors Eric Kennie, et al.,

(hereafter “Kennie Intervenors”) in the above-captioned case. The testimony set forth in this

Declaration is based on first-hand knowledge, about which I could and would testify

competently in open Court if called upon to do so, and on records contemporaneously generated

and kept by my Firm in the ordinary course of my solo law practice. I make this Declaration in

support of the Kennie Intervenors’ motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses.

2. I received a B.A. degree from Stonehill College in 1970 and graduated from Suffolk

University School of Law in 1973. I am a member of the Virginia, D.C. and Pennsylvania

(inactive) bars. I am also a member of the bar of the United States Supreme Court, the United

States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Eleventh and D. C. Circuits, the

United States District Court for Eastern District of Virginia, and the United States District

Court for the District of Columbia.

Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 383-1 Filed 09/10/13 Page 1 of 9

2

3. Following my graduation from law school, from 1973 until 1994, I served as a trial

attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice in Washington,

D.C. For the last fifteen years of my service at the Department of Justice (1979-1994), I was

assigned to the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division where I worked exclusively on

cases involving federally protected voting rights. While employed in the Voting Section from

1979 to 1994, I served in a number of supervisory capacities, including Special Litigation

Counsel, Deputy Chief, and Acting Chief of the Voting Section.

4. While at the Department of Justice, I served as the lead trial attorney for the United

States in numerous voting rights cases, a number of which ultimately became landmark cases in

the field of voting rights. Cases that I handled at the Department of Justice that were the

subject of United States Supreme Court decisions included City of Mobile v. Bolden, Rogers v.

Lodge, Johnson v. DeGrandy, Presley v. Etowah County, City of Port Arthur, Texas v. U.S., and

Shaw v. Reno. A complete listing of cases I handled at the United States Department of Justice

is submitted as Exhibit C (Part I).

5. Since leaving the Department of Justice in May 1994, I have been a sole practitioner

with an office in Alexandria, Virginia, where I specialize in voting rights cases, especially

redistricting cases and cases brought to enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended. A

listing of the cases I have handled in my solo practice (from 1994 to the present) is set forth in

Exhibit C (Part II).

6. In addition, from 1994-1996, I served part-time as a staff attorney in the Voting

Rights Project of the national office of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law in

Washington, DC. In that position, I assisted with defense of constitutional challenges to

majority-minority congressional districts under the Shaw v. Reno doctrine.


3

7. In addition to my solo practice, from July 2004 to the present, I have served as

Executive Director and Director of Litigation at the Campaign Legal Center, a non-profit, non-

partisan organization in Washington, DC. In that capacity, I have represented a party or amicus

curiae in dozens of campaign finance cases throughout the United States, including a number of

cases decided by the United States Supreme Court (e.g., Citizens United v. FEC, McComish v.

Bennett, Davis v. FEC, and most recently, McCutcheon v. FEC (pending)). Exhibit C (Part III)

is a listing of the cases I have worked on in my capacity as Director of Litigation at the

Campaign Legal Center. I handled this case, Texas v. Holder, in my solo practice.

8. From January 1995 to 2005, I served as an Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown

University Law Center in Washington, DC, where I taught Election Law, which included

voting rights, campaign finance regulation and election law cases. In 1995, I also served as an

Adjunct Professor of Law at American University’s Washington College of Law, where I

taught a course on the Voting Rights Act and the political process. In 1997, I co-taught a course

on the Voting Rights Act at the University of Virginia Law School with nationally renowned

Law Professor Pam Karlan. In 2013-2014, I will again be an Adjunct Professor of Law at

Georgetown University Law Center, where I will co-teach a practicum course on election law

with Paul M. Smith, a partner at the law firm of Jenner and Block.

9. I have written a number of publications, books and articles on the Voting Rights Act

or redistricting. For example, in 2000, I co-authored a book on redistricting with current United

States Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, along with several other attorneys at Jenner and

Block (including Paul Smith, Sam Hirsch (currently a senior official at the U.S. Department of

Justice), and Heather Gerken, now a law professor at Yale Law School). That book was

entitled “The Realists’ Guide to Redistricting”, which was published by the American Bar


4

Association in 2000, and republished 2010 (2nd

edition). I also Have authored or co-authored

articles and law journal article on voting rights or redistricting for a number of publications,

including: Yale Law and Policy Journal, “The Need For State Redistricting Reform To Rein In

Partisan Gerrymandering”, Vol. 29, Issue 2 (2011); Rutgers Law Journal (co-authored);

“Redistricting in the Post-2000 Era”, George Mason University Law Review, Volume 8,

Number 3 (Spring 2000); “General Theory of Vote Dilution”, La Raza Law Journal, Boalt Hall

School of Law; University of California at Berkeley (Vol. 6, No. 1)(1993)(co-authored); Future

of Voting Rights Litigation: Elections at the Legislative Level, La Raza Law Journal, Boalt

Hall School of Law (Vol. 6, No. 1)(1993); Keeping The Courts Honest: The Role of Historians

as Expert Witnesses in Southern Voting Rights Cases Southern University Law Review (Vol.

16, No. 1)(Spring 1989)(co-authored); Civil Rights Law: High Court Decision on Voting

Rights Act Helps To Remove Minority Barriers National Law Journal (November 1986); and

Discriminatory Electoral Systems and the Political Cohesion Doctrine, National Law Journal

(Vol. 10, No. 4)(1987) (co-authored). I also have written several articles about voting rights for

publications that are geared to state and local governments, including publications by the Texas

Municipal League and the Nation’s Cities Weekly.

10. I have lectured before numerous meetings and conventions held by bar and other

organizations on voting rights, reapportionment, and civil rights, including the National

Conference of State Legislatures, the Association of Southern State Legislatures, the Virginia

Association of Local Government Attorneys, and reapportionment authorities in the States of

Louisiana, Maryland, New Mexico, Texas, and Virginia, among others. I have also given

lectures or participated as a panelist and made presentations on voting rights issues at Yale Law

School, Harvard Law School, Washington and Lee University Law School, University of


5

Richmond Law School, William and Mary Law School, and Rutgers Law School, among

others.

11. My private practice is exclusively in the area of voting rights, campaign finance, and

constitutional rights focusing on voting. My hourly rate in this case is $650 per hour, given the

complexity and novelty of the issues, the high visibility and importance of the case, and my

experience handling cases such as this.

12. I have reviewed the summary of hours that I have expended in this case that is

Marked as Exhibit B, and that summary is true and accurate. The summary of hours in Exhibit

B is based on contemporaneous records of the activities in the case maintained as business

records in my law office. The hours expended were necessary in rendering legal services to the

Kennie Intervenors in this case. I also have reviewed the listing of expenses included within

Exhibit B. Those expenses were out-of-pocket expenses necessarily incurred by me to conduct

the litigation in this case, and are of the type normally billed by me (and other law firms) to fee-

paying clients.

13. As counsel for the Kennie Intervenors, I have exercised reasonable billing judgment

in this case. I have excluded from my fee request nearly 90 hours of time for which I could be

compensated. I have attempted to limit my time to those hours where it was necessary for me

to fulfill my role as co-administrative counsel (with Ezra Rosenberg) to the groups of

Defendant-Intervenors who were involved in that case. Thus, I have included my time spent

reviewing all court orders (except non-substantive orders that did not impact the issues in the

case, such as orders granting pro hac vice status or permitting counsel to withdraw, etc.). In

this case, the Court issued an order requiring the Defendant Intervenors to file consolidated

briefs so as to avoid duplication of efforts. See Order of April 13, 2012. In my role as co-


6

administrator, I worked closely with Mr. Rosenberg to ensure that the Court’s order regarding

duplication of effort was strictly adhered to. At the outset, Mr. Rosenberg and I agreed that it

made sense to divide the Intervenors into teams, such as a discovery team, an expert witness

team, a document review team, etc. We asked the Intervenors’ counsel to volunteer for a team

(which they did) and this helped ensure that there was no duplication of effort or waste of

litigation resources. Mr. Rosenberg and I also agreed at the outset that we should schedule

periodic calls with the Defendant Intervenors’ counsel to review the tasks assigned and to

discuss strategic decisions that needed to be made throughout the case. On most occasions, Mr.

Rosenberg’s law firm (Dechert LLP) prepared the initial draft of a brief or motion. That

enabled me, as a solo practitioner, to avoid duplication of work and to limit my time to making

suggested revisions or edits to the draft motion or brief. Throughout this case, in addition to the

regularly schedule conference calls among Defendant-Intervenors’ counsel, I often discussed

the status of the case and communicated with individual Defendant-Intervenors’ attorneys about

litigation strategy and issues that arose in the case. That is especially true with respect to my

co-administrator Mr. Rosenberg, with whom I communicated repeatedly. I have listed the vast

majority of those communications in the attached timesheets, but as the Court will see, I am not

including the time I spent communicating with Mr. Rosenberg or other counsel in my fee

request. As the attorney for the Kennie Intervenors who was mainly responsible for litigating

the case in the district court, I also staffed the case leanly. For example, I took the lead in

reviewing all briefs and motions prepared for the Defendant-Intervenors and in reviewing the

State’s motions and briefs. By agreement, my co-counsel, Mr. Dunn, handled the numerous

depositions and other discovery that took place in Texas. Due to the many depositions taken,

Mr. Dunn’s law partner (Mr. Brazil) handled some depositions, especially when there were


7

simultaneous depositions being taken. As a result of our efficient use of resources and

decisions to avoid duplication of efforts, I did not have to travel to Texas at any time to handle

discovery or other matters in this case.1 Although two other attorneys served as my co-counsel

representing the Kennie Intervenors, there are no excessive, redundant, or unnecessary hours

included in the time sheets detailed in this request for an award of attorneys’ fees. To avoid

duplication, we also coordinated closely with other Intervenors’ counsel throughout this case.

14. I also have reviewed the time records (and expense listings) for work performed by

my co-counsel at the law firm of Brazil and Dunn. All of the work set forth in the Declarations

of my co-counsel were necessary to the litigation of this case and were not duplicative of any of

the work I did. I made a conscientious effort to avoid duplication of work by agreeing, in

advance, with my co-counsel on a division of labor in those instances where more than one

attorney worked on the case simultaneously. As noted above, my co-counsel at Brazil and

Dunn handled all discovery and depositions in Texas. I have not billed for any of the work I

performed in reading those depositions or being briefed by my co-counsel regarding those

depositions. By agreement with co-counsel, I also took responsibility for preparing this fee

motion, with minimal assistance from other attorneys, so as to minimize the amount of attorney

time and fees involved. My co-counsel and I also carefully monitored expenses to insure that

only necessary and reasonable costs were incurred. These expenses were incurred by me as out-

of-pocket expenses, were expended to successfully prosecute this case, and are the type of out-

of-pocket expenses normally billed by me and other Firms to fee-paying clients.

1 The Defendant-Intervenors’ filing in the United States Supreme Court is another example of

how this case was leanly staffed and that efforts were made to avoid duplication of work. The

Dechert LLP legal team and Lawyers’ Committee attorneys, with minimal involvement by me,

took the lead in drafting our motion to affirm filed in the U.S. Supreme Court.


8

15. As one of the Kennie Intervenors’ counsel, I participated actively throughout this

case. I participated in expert discovery (Dr. Lichtman), and my co-counsel handled the vast

majority of the factual discovery, such as depositions of fact witnesses in Texas and the report

and deposition of one other expert witness (Randall Buck Wood). Kennie Intervenors’ counsel

presented trial testimony of four witnesses at trial, cross examined one of the State’s witnesses,

participated in closing arguments, and ultimately obtained a favorable final judgment.

16. I am a solo practitioner without litigation support staff in my Firm. To assist me in

handling this case, my law firm employed a law student, Renata Strause, to handle paralegal

and other litigation support matters. Although Ms. Strause spent hundreds of hours working on

this case, I have not billed for her time.

17. To further reduce the number of attorney hours needed to litigate this case, I asked

Mr. Dunn to undertake and facilitate communications to the client group. I have excluded from

my time records all of my communications with the client group. Ongoing and updated

communications with clients in a case of this nature, given the size and geographic diversity of

the client group, was necessary and Mr. Dunn’s role in keeping our clients informed of

developments in the case was the most cost-effective way of fulfilling those requirements.2

2 Both the Texas Rules of Professional Conduct and the Virginia Rules of Professional

Conduct require lawyers to keep their clients reasonably informed about the case and to

comply promptly with clients’ requests for information about the status of the case. This

obligation includes providing clients with status reports on the lawsuit, as well as

communications from other parties that may significantly affect settlement or resolution of

the case. See Texas Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 1.03) and Virginia Rules of

Professional Conduct (Rule 1.04).


9

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.


J. GERALD HEBERT

Dated: September 10, 2013


Time Records of Attorney J. Gerald Hebert in State of

Texas v. Holder , No. 12-128 (D.D.C.)

Date Legal Services RenderedActual Time

Expended

Time Charged

(Hours/ Tenths)

1/24/2012 Review Texas' motion to Convene Three-Judge Court 0.1 0.1

1/26/2012 Review Order granting Motion to Convene Three-Judge Court 0.1 0.1

1/28/2012 Review Texas' Complaint 0.5 0.5

1/29/2012 Communication w/co-counsel re: division of labor for drafting

intervention papers to avoid duplication

0.2 0.2

2/1/2012 File MOTION to Intervene for Kennie et al. 0.1 no charge

2/9/2012 Participate in Telephone Conference with parties and Court 0.5 0.5

2/15/2012 Review U.S. RESPONSE to MOTION to Intervene of Kennie

Intervenors

0.2 0.2

2/16/2012 Review Texas' Memorandum in opposition to Kennie

Intervenors MOTION to Intervene

0.4 0.4

3/12/2012 Review Notice of Appearance by Maranzano for AG Holder 0.1 no charge

3/12/2012 Review Notice of Appearance by Westfall for AG Holder 0.1 no charge

3/12/2012 Review Motion to Intervene by TX NAACP and Mexican

American Leg. Caucus

0.4 no charge

3/12/2012 Review TX's motion to file amended Complaint with exhibits 0.5 0.5

3/12/2012 Review AG's Notice of Section 5 Determination of TX photo

ID bill

0.4 0.4

3/14/2012 Participate in Telephone Conference with Parties and court re:

scheduling issues/deadlines

0.5 0.5

3/14/2012 Review order granting intervention to our clients (and granting

TX leave to amend and setting forth deadlines for discovery

and briefing schedule)

0.2 0.2

3/16/2012 Review motion to appear pro hac vice of Ezra Rosenberg 0.1 no charge

3/16/2012 Review order granting pro hac vice to Rosenberg 0.1 no charge

3/19/2012 Review Notice of Appearance for Freeman for Holder 0.1 no charge

3/19/2012 Review Motion to Intervene by TX League of Young Voters,

et al.

0.3 no charge

3/20/2012 Review notice of appearance by Gear for Defendant AG 0.1 no charge

3/20/2012 Review Notice of Appearance by John Payton 0.1 no charge

3/20/2012 Review AG's filed notice of proposed scheduling order 0.2 0.2

3/20/2012 Draft Notice of Appearance for Hebert 0.1 0.1

3/21/2012 File Hebert Notice of Appearance in ECF 0.1 no charge

3/21/2012 Review motion to appear Pro Hac Vice for attys Haygood,

Korgaonkar and Aden

0.1 no charge

3/21/2012 Review status report filed by Defendant AG 0.2 0.2

3/21/2012 Review order setting telephone conference for 4/3 0.1 0.1

3/21/2012 Communication with Ezra Rosenberg regarding discovery

proposal from State and serving as co-administrator

0.2 0.2

3/21/2012 Participate in telephone conference with court and parties re:

pending issues

0.5 0.5

3/21/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg 0.3 no charge

3/22/2012 E-mail to Chashawn White (US District Court) that Ezra

Rosenberg and I will serve as co-aministrators for Defendant

Intervenors

0.1 0.1

3/22/2012 Review Order granting Intervention to TX League of Young

Voters

0.1 0.1


https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/doc1/04513718572

3/22/2012 Review notice of Appearance for Frederick for State of TX 0.1 no charge

3/22/2012 Review notice of Appearance for Ashton for State of TX 0.1 no charge

3/22/2012 Review notice of ESI agreement filed by Defendant Holder

with exhibit

0.2 0.2

3/22/2012 Review motion to intervene by TX Legis. Black Caucus 0.3 no charge

3/22/2012 Review TX's motion for protective order with exhibits 0.3 0.3


3/23/2012 Review notice of appearance by Wendy Weiser 0.1 no charge

3/23/2012 Review notice of appearance by Ian Vandewalker 0.1 no charge

3/23/2012 Review notice of appearance by Myrna Perez 0.1 no charge

3/23/2012 Review Notice filed by AG Holder 0.1 0.1

3/23/2012 Review Notice of Filing by TX with attached affidavit of TX

SOS Ingram

0.3 0.3

3/23/2012 Review motion to intervene and memo of SW Voter

Registration Project and Mi Familia Vota Education fund et al.

0.4 no charge

3/23/2012 Review TX Memorandum in opposition to TX Leg. Black

Caucus Motion to Intervene (with exhibits of Kennie

intervenors and US)

0.2 0.2


3/26/2012 Prepare, review, and edit agenda for call on March 27 with all

Defendant Intervenors' counsel

0.4 no charge


3/27/2012 Review Scheduling order setting trial dates discovery

deadlines and pretrial conference

0.2 0.2

3/27/2012 Review order granting pro hac vice status to Weiser, Perez and

Vandewalker

0.1 no charge

3/27/2012 Participate in conference call with court and parties regarding

disclosure of data base information and database fields

0.5 0.5

3/27/2012 Review Order entered on briefing of database issues. 0.1 0.1

3/27/2012 Review Defendant Holder's motion for Protective Order with

exhibits

0.3 0.3

3/27/2012 Review Notice of appearances for O'Connor, Abudu and

McDonald

0.2 no charge

3/27/2012 Review notice of appearance by Michelle Yeary 0.1 no charge

3/27/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg regarding desigination

of teams to handle issues: Affirm discovery, document

reviews, legal research/writings, defensive fact discovery,

expert teams

1.0 no charge

3/28/2012 Review RULE 26a1 Statement by TX League Young Voters 0.1 no charge

3/28/2012 Review notice of death of John Payton 0.1 no charge

3/28/2012 Review reply by TX Legis. Black caucus to TX's oppoistion to

the motion to intervene

0.2 no charge

3/28/2012 Make revisions to draft brief on legislative privilege (due 3/29) 0.5 0.5

3/28/2012 Review and edit Intervenors' consolidated Memorandum in

opposition to Texas' motion for Protective Order

0.3 0.3

3/28/2012 Telephonic conference call with Court 0.3 0.3


3/29/2012 Review TX's notice of Confidential database information 0.2 0.2

3/29/2012 Review Answer to Complaint filed by Mexican American Leg

Caucus to amended Complaint

0.2 no charge

3/29/2012 Review TX's Memo in Opp. To Holder's mot. for Protective

Order with Kennie Intervenor exhibit

0.4 0.4


3/29/2012 Review notice of appearance by Bell-Platts on behalf of

Holder

0.1 no charge

3/29/2012 Review Holder's Memo in Opp. To State of TX motion for

prot. order 03/29/2012)

0.3 0.3

3/29/2012 Review final draft of Intervenors' Memo in support of Holder's

Motion for Protective Order, and in Opposition to TX's notice

of confidential database information

0.5 no charge

3/29/2012 Revisie and edit Intervenors' memo in support of U. S. motion

for Protective Order

0.2 0.2

3/29/2012 Review Texas' 20-page memo on protective order 1.1 no charge

3/29/2012 Communication with co-counsel (Dunn) and Mr. Rosenberg

re: Eric Kennie and filing by State

1.0 no charge

3/29/2012 Review Defendant Holder's motion to file reply memo 0.1 0.1


3/30/2012 Review Order granting protective order to U.S. with

confidentiality language

0.2 0.2

3/30/2012 Review Order setting oral argument during telephone

conference for 4/3 on TX's motion for protective order

0.1 0.1

3/30/2012 Review Orders regarding turning over full social security #s to

DOJ

0.2 0.2

3/30/2012 Participate in telephone conference with court and parties

regarding production of database information

0.6 0.6

3/30/2012 Review 3/30 protective order 0.1 0.1

3/30/2012 Review order granting pro hac to O'Connor and Abudu 0.1 no charge

3/30/2012 Review order on U.S. Motion for Protective Order 0.1 0.1


4/1/2012 Review Correspondence to State Attorney (J. Mitchell)

regarding confidentiality concerns

0.2 no charge

4/2/2012 Review Correspondence to State Attorney (J. Mitchell)

regarding confidentiality concerns

0.1 no charge

4/2/2012 Review TX's reply to Holder's opposition to TX's motion for

Protective Order with attachment

0.2 0.2


4/3/2012 Participate in telephone conf with 3-judge court on data base

and discovery issues.

0.5 0.5

4/3/2012 Review motion for leave to file doc under seal by Texas 0.1 0.1

4/3/2012 Review TX filing of redacted document re: one of Kennie

Intervenors

0.2 0.2

4/3/2012 Review order re: discovery from TX legislators and briefing

thereon and vacating earlier orders

0.4 0.4

4/3/2012 Discuss with Intervenors' counsel and co-counsel (C. Dunn)

re: meet and confer, and regarding State's objections to

Defendant Intervenors' Request for Production and

Interrogatories

1.0 no charge

4/3/2012 Conference Call among Defendant Intervenors to discuss

experts and privilege hearings and discovery response

1.0 no charge


4/4/2012 Call with DOJ at 6 P.M. to discuss 4/10 submission 0.3 0.3

4/4/2012 Weekly Intervenors' Call to update status 1.0 no charge

4/4/2012 Review errata filed by TX as to Amended Complaint 0.1 0.1

4/4/2012 Review amended motion to intervene of TX Legis. Black

caucus

0.2 no charge



4/5/2012 Review letter to State as follow-up to meet and confer 0.2 no charge

4/5/2012 Review order sealing document attached to US mot for pro

order

0.1 0.1

4/5/2012 Review order denying motion for leave to file reply 0.1 no charge

4/5/2012 Review notice of Appearance by Dale Ho 0.1 no charge

4/5/2012 Review Gary Bledsoe's motion pro hac vice 0.1 no charge


4/6/2012 Communication and coordination with Ezra Rosenberg to

present dicovery dispute letters to Judge Collyer and join

DOJ's request for conference with Court

0.4 no charge

4/9/2012 Communication with DOJ Counsel (Westfall) regarding call

with court

0.1 0.1

4/9/2012 Discussions with co-counsel regarding pending request for call

with Court to resole direct discovery impasse

0.5 no charge

4/9/2012 Review Defendant Holder's answer to amended complaint 0.2 0.2

4/9/2012 Review order setting telephone conference re: discovery

dispute

0.1 0.1


4/10/2012 Review Draft Notice of 30b 6 depositions 0.2 no charge

4/10/2012 Review filing of Memo by Defendant AG Holder with

numerous exhibits for discovery dispute

0.4 0.4

4/10/2012 Participate in telephone conference regarding TX failure to

comply and discovery dispute

0.4 0.4

4/10/2012 Review Ezra draft communication enclosing Defendant

Intervenors' discovery dispute letters

0.2 no charge


4/11/2012 Review Notice filed by State of TX re: producing legislative

history

0.2 0.2

4/11/2012 Review notice of appearance for Debo Adegbile 0.1 no charge

4/11/2012 Review notice of appearance for Jon Greenbaum 0.1 no charge

4/11/2012 Defendant Intervenors' call regarding status of tasks by teams 1.2 no charge

4/12/2012 Review Order requiring TX to produce data base fields 0.1 0.1

4/12/2012 Review Advisory filed by Inteervenors' Mi Familia Vota Ed.

Fund, et al. re: intervention

0.1 no charge

4/12/2012 Discovery of Full SSN#'s in database mistakenly sent by State

AG to intervenors and discuss with co-counsel need to

promptly inform State AG of their error

0.4 no charge

4/12/2012 Review correspondence with State re: State's mistake in

sending data base with full SS#s.

0.2 no charge

4/12/2012 Communications with Rosenberg regarding status of all

pending requests

0.5 no charge

4/12/2012 Further correspondence with State regarding SSN mistake 0.1 0.1


4/13/2012 Review Order granting interventions and requiring all

Intervenors to avoid duplication and directing appointment of

adminsitrative counsel as contact for ct.

0.2 0.2

4/13/2012 Review answer to complaint filed by TX Leg. Black Caucus 0.2 no charge

4/13/2012 Review answer to amended complaint filed by TX Leg. Black

Caucus

0.2 no charge

4/13/2012 Review corporate disclosures filed by TX Leg. Black Caucus 0.1 no charge

4/13/2012 Review answer to complaint filed by Intervenors' Mi Familia,

et al

0.2 no charge

4/13/2012 Review corporate disclosures by Mi Familia et al. 04/13/2012) 0.1 no charge


4/13/2012 Review State of TX reply 0.3 0.3

4/13/2012 Discuss with Intervenors' counsel delays by State in producing

information and resulting impact on schedule and prejudice to

Intervenors

0.5 no charge

4/13/2012 Call with DOJ attorney regarding schedule delays by State 0.3 0.3


4/15/2012 Initial Draft of Defendant Intervenors Consolidated Motion to

Postpone Trial or Clarify Trial Date and Schedule

0.7 0.7

4/15/2012 Draft communication to State AG regarding noncompliance

with deadlines

0.2 0.2


4/16/2012 Communications with Rosenberg and Dunn regarding sending

a communication to Court regarding State's deficiencies

regarding discovery

0.4 no charge

4/16/2012 Draft Motion to postpone or clarify trial date and send to other

Intervenors

1.5 1.5

4/16/2012 Prepare for conference call with Court set for 4/16 0.3 0.3

4/16/2012 Conference call with Court regarding discovery issues 0.3 0.3

4/16/2012 Review & revise to Motion to Postpone or Clarify trial date 0.4 0.4

4/16/2012 Participate in telephone conf. with court and parties regarding

data base and discovery disputes.

0.5 0.5


4/16/2012 Conf Call with Intervenors' counsel re: current status in light of

discovery disputes and court's comments re: same

1.1 no charge

4/17/2012 Review order re: pro hac vice 0.1 no charge

4/17/2012 Review Notice of Discovery Disputes by Defendant Holder 0.2 0.2

4/17/2012 Review Order directing filings re: possible delay in trial date 0.1 0.1

4/17/2012 Participate in telephone Conf. with court and parties regarding

data base and discovery disputes.

0.5 0.5

4/17/2012 Communication with DOJ Counsel (Westfall) regarding call

with court

0.1 0.1

4/17/2012 Communication with Rosenberg regarding 30b(6) deposition

results and DOJ's position on trial date

0.2 0.2


4/18/2012 Edits to Kennie Intervenors' Answer to TX's Amended

Complaint

0.2 0.2


4/19/2012 Review Elsie Boddie's motion pro hac vice 0.1 no charge


4/20/2012 Review TX's Notice regarding subpoena 0.2 0.2

4/20/2012 Review order granting pro hac status to Boddie 0.1 no charge

4/20/2012 Review Order denying State of TX's motion for protective

order

0.2 0.2



4/22/2012 Review, revise and edit Intervenors' consolidated motion to

Clarify Trial Schedule

0.5 0.5

4/23/2012 Review Douglas Faum's pro hac vice motion 0.1 no charge

4/23/2012 Review motion for Bledsoe's pro hac vice 0.1 no charge

4/23/2012 Review Defendant Holder's motion to clarify schedule with

exhibits

0.4 0.4



4/24/2012 Review pro hac vice order for Flaum, de Leeuw, Harris, and

Bledsoe

0.1 no charge

4/24/2012 Review TX's filing asserting legislative privilege 0.3 0.3


4/25/2012 Communication with state AG attys re: data bases and

discovery

0.3 no charge

4/25/2012 Review Tx's amended notice of leg. Privilege 0.1 0.1

4/25/2012 Review Notice of appearance for Arthur Spitzer 0.1 no charge

4/25/2012 Review Defendant Holder's motion to compel (privilege logs) 0.5 0.5


4/26/2012 Review Defendant holder's Notice of Federal Databases 0.2 0.2


4/27/2012 Conference call with Intervenors' counsel re: interrogatories

and requests for production

0.8 no charge

4/27/2012 Review TX's response in opposition to Intervenors' and DOJ's

motion to clarify trial schedule with exhibits

0.4 0.4

4/27/2012 Review of Appearance by Sweeten for State of TX 0.1 no charge

4/27/2012 Review TX's response to DOJ filing on federal databases 0.2 0.2



4/30/2012 Participate in Telephone Conference with court and parties on

data base issues (handgun)

0.3 0.3

4/30/2012 Review order requiring TX to produce data fields for handgun

database

0.1 0.1

4/30/2012 Review State of TX's response in opp. to motion of Defendant

Holder to compel the Production of Documents and Privilege

Logs with exhibits.

0.6 0.6


5/1/2012 Review order setting status conference for 5/3. 0.2 0.2

5/1/2012 Review motion pro hac vice Amy Pedersen 0.1 no charge

5/1/2012 Conf. Call with Intervenors' counsel to discuss discovery

disputes/status

1.2 no charge

5/1/2012 Review State of TX's Advisory on Database Production 0.2 0.2


5/2/2012 Conf. Call with DOJ atty and Ezra Rosenberg re: discovery

disputes with State of TX

0.4 0.4

5/2/2012 Prepare for upcoming Status Hearing 1.1 1.1


5/3/2012 Review Order requiring TX to produce additional database

fields

0.1 0.1

5/3/2012 Review Order granting Pedersen pro hac vice motion 0.1 no charge

5/3/2012 Review notice of ppearance by Risa Berkower for AG holder 0.1 no charge

5/3/2012 Review AG Holder's motion & memo for Protective Order 0.4 0.4

5/3/2012 Review DOJ's reply to States' opposition to DOJ's motion to

compel Production of Privilege Logs

0.3 0.3

5/3/2012 Participate in Status Conference Hearing with Court (includes

one witness)

1.5 1.5

5/4/2012 Review State of TX notice of database production 0.2 0.2

5/4/2012 Review order re: database production and requiring jt report 0.1 0.1


5/4/2012 Participate in Conf Call with Intervenors' counsel re: privilege

issues (10am-11am)

1.0 no charge



5/7/2012 Review Notice of AG Holder Concerning Federal Databases 0.1 0.1

5/7/2012 Review order regarding discovery and pre-trial deadlines 0.1 0.1

5/7/2012 Review Notice filed by TX regarding its databse production 0.2 0.2


5/8/2012 Call with Intervenors' counsel to advise them of positions to be

taken at call with ct later that day

1.0 no charge

5/8/2012 Prepare for conference call with Court set for 3:15 this

afternoon

0.2 0.2

5/8/2012 Participate in telephone conference with Court and parties 0.4 0.4


5/9/2012 Review Order re: incomplete databases produced by State

(including failure to provide data bases to Defendant

Inteervenors Kennie et al.)

0.2 0.2

5/9/2012 Review Notice by TX of filing a document under seal 0.1 no charge

5/9/2012 Review TX's motion for leave to file document under seal 0.1 0.1

5/9/2012 Review TX's motion to respond to Court order re: deadlines 0.1 0.1

5/9/2012 Review Order granting extension to TX 0.1 0.1

5/9/2012 Review filing by TX responding to court's order re: scheduling 0.1 0.1


5/10/2012 Review Scott Brazil's motion pro hac vice 0.1 no charge

5/10/2012 Review MALC's motion to file an opposition under seal 0.1 no charge

5/10/2012 Review pro hac vice motion of Rebecca Robertson 0.1 no charge

5/10/2012 Conference call with co-counsel (Dunn) to discuss Kennie

deposition/trial testimony

1.0 no charge


5/11/2012 Review motion for pro hac vice status to Karolina Lyznik 0.1 no charge

5/11/2012 Review TX's response to DOJ's motion for protective order 0.2 0.2

5/11/2012 Review Order granting Brazil, Roberston and Lyznik pro hac

status

0.1 no charge

5/11/2012 Review Defendant Intervenors' filing and declaration of Gary

King

0.3 no charge

5/11/2012 Review filing by AG Holder re: status of database discovery 0.2 0.2

5/11/2012 Review Notice by AG Holder of Federal Data base 0.1 0.1




5/15/2012 Review Additional Notice by AG Holder of Federal Data base 0.1 0.1


5/16/2012 Participate in Status Conference with Court and parties re:

continuing discovery issues

0.3 0.3

5/16/2012 Review order on discovery and testimony by TX legislators 0.1 0.1


5/17/2012 Review order seeting status conf. for 5/18. 0.1 0.1


5/18/2012 Review motion of John Hughes for Pro Hac Vice 0.1 no charge

5/18/2012 Review motion of Adam Mortara for Pro Hac Vice 0.1 no charge

5/18/2012 Participate in telephone conference with court and parties 0.3 0.3


5/18/2012 Review State of TX response to court order re: discovery

requests

0.2 0.2

5/18/2012 Review Defendant AG Holder's reply to TX's opposition to

motion for Protective Order

0.3 0.3

5/18/2012 Conf Call with Intervenors' counsel re: witnesses and

discovery

1.0 no charge



5/21/2012 Review Order resolving motion to compel discovery on docs

and privilege logs

0.2 0.2

5/21/2012 Review order granting pro hac vice to Hughes and Mortara 0.1 no charge

5/21/2012 Review DOJ motion to exceed page limits 0.1 no charge

5/21/2012 Review TX motion to compel discovery with supporting

exhibits

0.5 0.5

5/21/2012 Review TX's advisory to Court re: allegedly defective

discovery (Dewhurst deposition)

0.1 0.1

5/21/2012 Review TX's motion for protective order re: depo. 0.1 0.1

5/21/2012 Review Defendant Holder's motion for protective order (re:

non-party depo) w/exhibits

0.2 0.2

5/21/2012 Review draft of Intervenors' motion to compel document

production and depo testimony

0.3 0.3

5/21/2012 Final review of Intervenors' motion to clarify and re-set expert

report deadlines

0.2 0.2

5/21/2012 Review DOJ's motion to compel discovery re: depositions,

privilege logs, with exhibits

0.4 0.4

5/21/2012 Review order denying motions to clarify or move trial date 0.2 0.2



5/23/2012 Review order denying TX's motion to file Document under

Seal

0.1 0.1

5/23/2012 Review TX's motion for extension of timere: filing privilege

logs

0.1 0.1

5/23/2012 Review TX filing re: updates to prov. logs 0.1 0.1


5/24/2012 Review DOJ filing re: Rep. Berman Deposition 0.1 0.1

5/24/2012 Review Order granting DOJ's motion for protective order 0.1 0.1

5/24/2012 Review order denying motion for protective order as to Rep.

Berman depo (Entered: 05/24/2012)

0.1 0.1

5/24/2012 Review notice of appearance by Flaum 0.1 no charge

5/24/2012 Review notice of appearance by Harris 0.1 no charge

5/24/2012 Review notice of appearance by Pedersen 0.1 no charge

5/24/2012 Review order granting TX' motion for extension of time (re:

privilege logs)

0.1 no charge

5/24/2012 Review AG Holder filing concerning email log (relates to DOJ

motion to compel)

0.1 0.1

5/24/2012 Review response by Mi Familia Vota Intervenors to motion to

compel and i Familia's motion for protective order

0.3 no charge

5/24/2012 Review AG Holder Memo in opp to TX's motion to compel 0.2 0.2

5/24/2012 Review TX's Memo in Opp. To AG Holder's motion to compel 0.2 0.2


5/25/2012 Review Order granting AG Holder's motion for protective

order.

0.1 0.1

5/25/2012 Review Notice of appearance for Michael Birney de Leeuw 0.1 no charge


5/25/2012 Review Order compelling both TX and U.S. to file listing of

disputed privileges (U.S.) and documents under seal (TX)

0.1 0.1

5/25/2012 Review AG Holder Notice of Compliance with Order of 5/25 0.1 0.1

5/25/2012 Review AG Holder's motion to compel with logs attached 0.3 0.3


5/26/2012 Review TX's Notice of Complinance with 5/25 order 0.1 0.1


5/28/2012 Review Order concerning LT Gov Dewhurst discovery dispute 0.1 0.1


5/29/2012 Final review of Intervenors' opposition to TX's motion to

compel discovery and depositons

0.3 no charge

5/29/2012 Review DOJ reply to TX opposition to DOJ's motion to

compel

0.2 0.2

5/29/2012 Review TX response in opp. to DOJ's motion to compel 0.3 0.3

5/29/2012 Review TX Response to DOJ's filed privilege log 0.1 0.1

5/29/2012 Review TX's reply to DOJ's opp. To TX's motion to compel 0.1 0.1

5/29/2012 Review AG Holder motion re: sealed exhibit. 0.1 no charge


5/30/2012 Review notice of appearance by John McKenzie for TX 0.1 no charge

5/30/2012 Review order granting DOJ's motion re: sealed exhibit 0.1 no charge

5/30/2012 Review reply by AG Holder to TX's opp. To DOJ's motion to

compel

0.1 0.1


5/31/2012 Review TX's motion to modify scheduling order 0.2 0.2

5/31/2012 Discuss with Intervenors' counsel State's motion to modify

sched. Order and drafting of consolidated opposition

0.2 no charge


6/1/2012 Final review of Intervenors' consolidated memo opposing State

of TX's motion to modify scheduling. order

0.2 no charge



6/5/2012 Review DOJ's motion to compel discovery with exhibits 0.4 0.4

6/5/2012 Review Order regarding pending motions to compel discovery 0.2 0.2

6/5/2012 Review motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Donita Judge 0.1 no charge

6/5/2012 Review Order requiring TX to submit docs for in camera

review

0.1 0.1

6/5/2012 Review AG Holder's response to TX's motion to modify

scheduling order

0.1 0.1

6/5/2012 Review motion of AG Holder to modify scheduling order 0.2 0.2


6/6/2012 Review order requiring TX to respond to AG Holder's motion

to compel

0.1 0.1

6/6/2012 Review Joint Motion to modify scheduling order by TX 0.1 0.1

6/6/2012 Review AG Holder's notice of correction 0.1 no charge

6/6/2012 Review order granting pro hac vice status to Saenz 0.1 no charge


6/7/2012 Final review of Intervenors' motion to modify 5/7 sched. Order 0.2 no charge

6/7/2012 Final review of Joint motion of defendant Intervenors to

modify scheduling order

0.2 no charge

6/7/2012 Review Order granting in part motion to compel of AG Holder 0.1 0.1


6/7/2012 Review TX's response to DOJ's motion to compel 0.2 0.2

6/7/2012 Review order granting joint motion of Intervenors' to modify

scheduling order (re: expert rebuttal)

0.1 0.1


6/8/2012 Review DOJ reply to TX opposition to DOJ's motion to

compel

0.2 0.2

6/8/2012 Review order re: Rep. Harless deposition 0.1 0.1

6/8/2012 Review Order as to pro hac vice for Donita Judge 0.1 no charge

6/8/2012 Review TX's response to DOJ's motion to modify 5/7

scheduling order

0.1 0.1

6/8/2012 Review order denying TX's motion to compel discovery re:

from Mi Familia

0.1 no charge



6/11/2012 Review AG Holder's reply to TX's response to DOJ's motion to

modify 5/7 scheduling order

0.2 0.2

6/11/2012 Review motion to withdraw Brianna Williams as Defendant

Intervenor

0.1 no charge



6/13/2012 Review TX's motion for protective order with exhibits 0.4 0.4

6/13/2012 Review order modifying scheduling order 0.1 0.1

6/13/2012 Review notice of appearacne for Spencer Fisher for AG Holder 0.1 no charge

6/13/2012 Review DOJ's memorandum in opposition to State's motion to

compel discovery w/exhibits

0.2 0.2


6/14/2012 Order denying DOJ's motion to compel 0.1 0.1

6/14/2012 Review TX's reply to opposition to motion for protective order

with exhibits

0.2 0.2


6/15/2012 Review Order granting in part and denying in part TX's motion 0.2 0.2

6/15/2012 Review pro hac vice motion of Rebecca M. Couto 0.1 no charge



6/18/2012 Review TX unopposed motion to modify order 0.1 no charge

6/18/2012 Conf. Call with Intervenors' counsel to discuss trial witnesses 1.0 1

6/18/2012 Review order requiring TX to produce 30(b)(6) deposition

witness

0.1 0.1


6/19/2012 Review order granting TX motion to modify 0.1 no charge

6/19/2012 Review order granting Couto pro hac vice status 0.1 no charge

6/20/2012 Review TX motion to extend time to file findings of fact 0.2 0.2

6/20/2012 Review State of TX motion in limine (re: excluding testimony

based on legislative privilege)

0.3 0.3

6/20/2012 Review State of TX motion to exclude witness of TX League

Young Boters

0.2 no charge

6/20/2012 Review TX's motion and memo in limine to exclude testimony

of Kennie Intervenors' expert Dr. Allan J. Lichtman

0.6 0.6

6/20/2012 Review TX's motion and memo in Limine to Preclude

Evidence and Drawing Adverse Inference Based on

Legislators' Assertion of Legislative Privilege

0.5 0.5


6/20/2012 Review State of TX's Live Witness List 0.2 0.2

6/20/2012 Review TX's motion and memo in limine re: Subjective Intent

of Legislators

0.3 0.3

6/20/2012 Final review and edits to Consolidated Intervenors' intended

witness list

0.4 0.4

6/20/2012 Review State of TX Proposed Findings of Fact 0.8 0.8

6/20/2012 Review DOJ's listing of trial witnesses 0.2 0.2

6/20/2012 Review TX's motion and memo in limine to exclude testimony

of expert witness Dr. Morgan Kousser

0.8 no charge

6/20/2012 Review Appendix and attachments to State's Proposed

Findings of Fact filed by State of Texas

1.4 1.4

6/20/2012 Additional Review of Appendix and attachments to State's

Proposed Findings of Fact filed by State of Texas

0.6 0.6


6/21/2012 Legal research and review of cases cited in TX's motion in

limine to exclude testimony of Kennie Intervenors' expert

0.9 0.9

6/21/2012 Review motion by AG Holder to Take Judicial Notice of

Census Data

0.3 0.3


6/22/2012 Review motion to witndraw defendant intervenor by TX

League of Young Voters

0.1 no charge

6/22/2012 Review motion in limine to exclude expert testimony with

exhibits filed by AG Holder

0.5 0.5

6/23/2012 Review Jorge Sanchez's motion to appear Pro Hac Vice 0.1 no charge

6/23/2012 Draft Memo in Opposition to State of TX's motion to exclude

testimony of Kennie Intervenors' expert witness Dr. Lichtman

2.8 2.8


6/24/2012 Additional Drafting of Memo in Opposition to State of TX's

motion to exclude testimony of Kennie Intervenors' expert

witness Dr. Lichtman

1.7 1.7

6/24/2012 Redrafting & editing to memo in opposition to State's motion

in limine to preclude adverse inference based on assertion of

legislative privilege

0.5 0.5

6/24/2012 Redrafting & editing to memo in opposition to State's motion

in limine to preclude testimony protected by legislative

privilege

0.6 0.6


6/25/2012 Review Proposed Findings of Fact by AG Holder 1.3 1.3

6/25/2012 Review Exhibit Index by AG Holder 0.2 0.2

6/25/2012 Final Edits to Memorandum in opposition to TX's motion in

limine to exclude Testimony of Kennie expert Dr. Allan

Lichtman

0.5 0.5

6/25/2012 Review minute order re: pretrial conference date 0.1 0.1

6/25/2012 Review TX's Memo in Opp. to Motion in limine to exclude

testimony of Major Mitchell with exhibits

0.3 no charge

6/25/2012 Review filing of supplemental appendix by State of Texas re:

proposed findings of fact

0.2 0.2

6/25/2012 Review AG Holder's memo in opp. To State's motion in limine

re: assertion of legislative privilege

0.4 0.4

6/25/2012 Review AG Holder's memo in opp. To State's motion in limine

re: subjective intent of individual legislators

0.3 0.3


6/25/2012 Review memorandum of TX League of Young Voters in

opposition to TX's motion in limine to Preclude Testimony of

Newly Disclosed Witnesses with exhibits

0.4 no charge

6/25/2012 Review DOJ memo in opposition to State's motion in limine to

preclude testimony based on legislative privilege

0.3 0.3

6/25/2012 Review DOJ Deposition Designations 0.5 0.5

6/25/2012 Review Memorandum in opposition to motion in limine to

Exclude Testimony of J. Morgan Kousser with exhibits

0.4 no charge


6/26/2012 Review Defendant Intervenors notice of removal of Dorothy

Tates from witness list

0.1 no charge

6/26/2012 Review of motion to Take Judicial Notice to be filed by

defendant intervenors

0.2 no charge

6/26/2012 Prepare additions to draft of Defendant Intervenors' Proposed

Findings of Fact

0.7 0.7

6/26/2012 Select and designate deposition excerpts for clients (Kennie,

Burns), Sen. Ellis, Wood.

0.4 0.4


6/27/2012 Review order granting motion to withdraw Williams as

defendant intervenor

0.1 no charge

6/27/2012 Review agreement between parties re: DOJ's motion in limine 0.2 no charge

6/27/2012 Review Order granting additional time to file motion in limine

re: Dr. Sager

0.1 no charge

6/27/2012 Review order withdrawing Johnson as defendant intervenor 0.1 no charge


6/28/2012 Review motion of Asha Spencer to appear Pro Hac Vice 0.1 no charge

6/28/2012 Review order granting Spencer pro hac vice status 0.1 no charge


6/29/2012 Review order directing Holder to file exhibits 0.1 no charge

6/29/2012 Review AG Holder's Erratum re: Findings of fact 0.1 no charge

6/29/2012 Review Stipulation re: motion in Limine to Exclude Expert

Testimony

0.1 0.1

6/29/2012 Review state's reply to opposition to motion in limine 0.3 0.3

6/29/2012 Review state's reply to opposition to motion in limine re: TX

League of Young Voters' re: newly disclosed witness

0.3 no charge

6/29/2012 Review State's reply to opposition to motion in limine to

preclude adverse inference based on assertion of legisaltive

privilege

0.3 0.3


preclude testimony protected by legisaltive privilege

0.3 0.3


preclude testimony of Dr. Morgan Kousser

0.3 no charge


preclude testimony of Kennie Intervenors' expert Dr. Allan

Lichtman

0.4 0.4

6/29/2012 Review motion pro hac vice for Luis Figueroa 0.1 no charge

6/29/2012 Review Doj REPLY TO TX opposition to DOJ's motion in

limine to exclude documents/testimony of Major Mitchell

0.3 no charge

6/29/2012 Review State of TX's counter designations and objections to

depo designations

0.3 0.3



6/30/2012 Review TX's notice of correction 0.1 no charge

6/30/2012 Review Defendant Intervenors' Errata 0.1 no charge


7/1/2012 Review DOJ's Trial Exhibits 0.3 0.3

7/1/2012 Review TX's response to Defendant-Intervenors' Proposed

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

0.4 0.4

7/1/2012 Review TX's response re; Proposed Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law

0.3 0.3

7/1/2012 Review filing of exhibits and attachments by TX 0.3 no charge

7/1/2012 Review order granting Figueroa pro hac vice status 0.1 no charge

7/1/2012 Tele Conf/Meeting of Interevneors' counsel re: trial

preparation

2.0 no charge

7/1/2012 Meet with and prepare Dr. Lichtman for Deposition 2.3 2.3


7/2/2012 Review DOJ's Trial Exhibits 0.6 0.6

7/2/2012 Review DOJ's motion for immediate relief re: State's response

to proposed findings of fact

0.3 0.3

7/2/2012 Review DOJ's advisory re: stricken proposed findings &

conclusions

0.2 0.2

7/2/2012 Communication with Ezra Rosenberg re: whether to join DOJ

filing re: inadequacy of TX's response to findings of fact

0.1 0.1

7/2/2012 Review exhibit list of State of TX 0.2 0.2

7/2/2012 Deposition by TX of Kennie Intervenors' Expert Witness Dr.

Lichtman

6.8 6.8

7/2/2012 Review Notice by TX of Stipulation re: expert testimony 0.1 0.1

7/2/2012 Review Advisory filed by DOJ concerning stricken portions of

proposed findings

0.2 no charge

7/2/2012 Review Proposed Findings of Fact by Defendant Eric Holder 0.3 0.3

7/2/2012 Review Expert Deposition Designations by Defendant Eric

Holder

0.4 0.4

7/2/2012 Make additions to Defendant Intervenors Trial Exhibits for

filing

0.3 0.3

7/2/2012 Review DOJ notice of Trial Exhibit List 0.2 0.2


7/3/2012 Review State of TX response to DOJ motion for immediate

relief

0.4 no charge

7/3/2012 Review errata by State of TX re: proposed findings of fact 0.1 0.1

7/3/2012 Review motion of Thomas Saenz for pro hac vice 0.1 no charge

7/3/2012 Review Intervenors' clarification of trial exhibit listing 0.1 no charge

7/3/2012 Review Texas' Filing Supplement to Joint Appendix 0.1 0.1

7/3/2012 Review motion re: Camarillo testimony 0.2 no charge

7/3/2012 Review order re: extension of time 0.1 no charge

7/3/2012 Review State's motion to seal document 0.1 no charge

7/3/2012 Review order declaring motion in limine moot 0.1 no charge

7/3/2012 Review order denying Defendant Holder's motion for

immediate relief

0.1 0.1

7/3/2012 Review order denying TX's motion in limine re: adverse

inference based on legislative privilege

0.1 0.1

7/3/2012 Review order granting TX's motion in limine to preclude

testimony of RX League of Young Voters' newly disclosed

witness

0.1 no charge

7/3/2012 Review order granting motion to take judicial notice of census 0.1 0.1

7/3/2012 Review order denying TX's motion in limine re: legislative

privilege

0.1 0.1

7/3/2012 Review Order denying TX's motion in limine to exclude

testimony of Kennie Intervenors' expert, Dr. Lichtman

0.1 0.1


7/3/2012 Review Order denying TX's motion in limine to exclude

testimony of K expert, Dr. Kousser

0.1 0.1

7/3/2012 Review order denying Defendant Holder's motion in limine to

exclude testimony of Major Mitchell

0.1 0.1

7/3/2012 Review Order denying TX's motion in limine to preclude

evidence regarding subjective intent of individual legisaltors

0.1 0.1

7/3/2012 Review TX's advisory re: deposition designations 0.1 0.1

7/3/2012 Review DOJ's motion to take Judicial Notice of Senate Rules 0.2 0.2

7/3/2012 Review order re: hyperlinks in proposed findings of fact 0.1 0.1

7/3/2012 Review notice of appearance by Richard Dellheim for AG

Holder

0.1 no charge

7/3/2012 Communications with Michelle Yeary and Ezra Rosenberg re:

preparation of consolidated reply to TX's failure to offer

counter designations (for filing on 7/5)

0.2 0.2

7/3/2012 Communications with Brian Raphael/Ezra Rosenberg re:

preparation of hyperlinked findings of fact and Hebert

additions to proposed findings of fact re: Lichtman critique of

TX's experts

0.2 0.2


7/4/2012 Review notice of appearance by Bryan Sells for AG Holder 0.1 no charge

7/4/2012 Review DOJ reply re: proposed findings of fact 0.1 0.1

7/4/2012 Revisions to reply of Defendant Intervenors proposed findings

of fact

0.6 0.6


7/5/2012 Review TX's filing supplemental reply appendix 0.2 0.2

7/5/2012 Review order re: witness lists of AG Holder and Defendant-

Intervenors and scheduling issues

0.1 0.1

7/5/2012 Final revisions and review of Defendant-Intervenors objections

and counter designations of deposition testimony

0.2 0.2

7/5/2012 Review order changing time of telephonic status conference

with court and parties (7/6)

0.1 0.1

7/5/2012 Review AG Holder's Reply regarding deposition designations 0.2 0.2


7/6/2012 Edit/revise counter proposed findings of fact/deposition

designations

0.2 0.2

7/6/2012 Revisions to Defendant-Intervenors witness list and order of

witnesses

0.2 0.2

7/6/2012 Communications with Ezra Rosenberg to coordinate the order

of witnesses at trial for all Defendant-Intervenors and AG

Holder

0.2 0.2

7/6/2012 Review order granting TX motion to file under seal 0.1 0.1

7/6/2012 Review order granting motion re: Camarillo testimony 0.1 0.1

7/6/2012 Review order granting motion to take judicial notice 0.1 0.1

7/6/2012 Conf. Call with Intervenors' counsel re: case prep 1.0 no charge

7/6/2012 Review TX's motion extension of time re: JT. Req. for Judicial

notice

0.1 no charge

7/6/2012 Review TX's response to Defendant Intervenors' motion for

judicial notice

0.1 0.1

7/6/2012 Review filing by DOJ Listing order of trial witnesses 0.1 0.1

7/6/2012 Participate in telephonic conference call with court and parties

re: witnesses and trial

0.5 0.5

7/6/2012 Review notice of appearance of Matthew Colangelo for AG

Holder

0.1 no charge




7/8/2012 Review Order Overruling TX's objection to live witness and

depo designations.

0.2 0.2

7/8/2012 Trial Preparation. Review witness depositions, exhibits 6.5 6.5


7/9/2012 Final review/edits to reply to State of TX's opposition to

Defendant-Intervenors' motion for judicial notice

0.1 no charge

7/9/2012 Review Pro Hac Vice motion of Reynolds Brissenden for TX. 0.1 no charge

7/9/2012 Review motion to withdraw by O'Connor 0.1 no charge

7/9/2012 Review order granting pro hac vice to Brissenden 0.1 no charge

7/9/2012 Review order granting O'Connor mot. to withdraw 0.1 no charge

7/9/2012 Review TX's designations of Senator Uresti's Deposition 0.2 0.2

7/9/2012 Attend and participate in trial. Witnesses: Ingram, Aliseda,

Mitchell, Williams, & Sager 9-5:30

8.5 8.5

7/9/2012 Trial Preparation. Review notes of trial testimony from that

day. Review witness depositions, exhibits, prepare witness

outlines

5.3 5.3


7/10/2012 Review Order granting Defendant Intervenors' motion to take

judicial notice of facts

0.1 0.1

7/10/2012 Attend and participate in trial. Witnesses: Professor Sager

(cont.), Martinez Fischer, Anchia, Professor Kousser, and

Rodriguez 9-5:30

8.5 8.5


day (1.3). ReviewWood and Ellis depositions (1.7) , exhibits,

prepare witness outlines (0.5) , prepare Sen. Ellis (2.5) and

Buck Wood (2.0) for trial testimony

8.0 8

7/11/2012 Attend and participate in trial. Witnesses: Shaw, Rodriguez,

Camarillo, Rev. Jackson, Senator Ellis, Buck Wood, Professor

Flores, Dr. Marker, Senator Uresti (video)

8.5 8.5


day(0.5). Review witness depositions (0.9), exhibits, prepare

witness outlines(1.1), prepare Sen. Davis (2.1) and Dr.

Lichtman (2.0) for trial testimony

6.5 6.5

7/12/2012 Review TX's counter expert witness deposition designations 0.2 0.2

7/12/2012 Review Amended List of Trial Exhibits and Second

Supplemental Appendixfor Defendant Intervenors

0.1 no charge

7/12/2012 Review reply designation for Sen. Uresti by AG Holder 0.2 0.2

7/12/2012 Review filing by DOJ of Apache County opinion 0.2 0.2

7/12/2012 Review expert witness reply depo designations by AG Holder

w/exhibits

0.2 0.2

7/12/2012 Attend and participate in trial. Trial Witnesses: Senator Carlos

Uresti (video), Senator Wendy Davis, Dr. Allan Lichtman, and

Professor Ansolabehere.

8.5 8.5

7/12/2012 Communication and coordination w/E. Rosenberg re: closing

argument

0.5 0.5

7/12/2012 Prepare outline of closing argument with notes 3.8 3.8

7/12/2012 Prepare PowerPoint presentation for use in closing argument 1.6 1.6

7/13/2012 Review TX Advisory regarding EIC's (Election Ident. Cert.)

w/exhibits

0.3 0.3

7/13/2012 Review Mi Familia's advisory clarifying docs needed to obtain

EIC

0.2 no charge

7/13/2012 Trial. Closing Arguments. 3.5 3.5

7/13/2012 Review Defendant-Intervenors' Notice Withdrawing Trial

Exhibits

0.1 no charge


7/14/2012 Review DOJ Objections to State's Trial Exhibits (filed last day

of trial)

0.5 0.5

7/14/2012 Review DOJ's revised trial exhibit list (filed last trial day) 0.2 0.1

7/17/2012 Review DOJ's filing of exhibits 579-598 0.1 no charge

7/17/2012 Review TX's notice regarding DPS data and VRNID data 0.1 0.1

7/17/2012 Review TX's filing exhibit under seal 0.1 no charge

7/17/2012 Review TX's objections to Defendant-Intervenors' Trial

Exhibits

0.4 0.4

7/17/2012 Review TX's objections to AG Holder's Trial Exhibits 0.5 0.5

7/17/2012 Review Response Defendant Intervenors' Objection to State of

Texas's Trial Exhibits

0.1 no charge

7/18/2012 Review TX'smotion to file exhibit B under seal 0.1 0.1

7/18/2012 Review State of TX's revised trial exhibit list 0.2 0.2

7/18/2012 Review filing of trial exhibits by Texas 0.1 0.1

7/19/2012 Review motion to seal exhibits by Texas 0.2 0.2

7/19/2012 Communication from state regarding return to TX of data base

disks

0.1 0.1

7/19/2012 Review Texas' Notice of filing under seal 0.1 no charge

7/19/2012 Review Defendant Intervenors' response to TX's objections to

Defendant Intervenors' trial exhibits

0.2 no charge


7/23/2012 Communications with co-counsel (Ezra Rosenberg) about

gathering all data base disks from Defendant-Intervenors and

returning them to State of TX counsel (at state's request)

0.2 0.2

7/23/2012 Review order granting TX's motion for to File exhibits under

seal

0.1 0.1

7/26/2012 Review response by AG Holder to TX's objections to

Defendant's trial exhibits

0.2 0.2

7/26/2012 Review AG Holder's response re: EICs 0.1 no charge





8/3/2012 Review filing for Defendant Intervenors of recent photo ID

opinion

0.1 no charge


8/20/2012 Review AG's filing of Notice of Determination 0.1 0.1


8/30/2012 Read opinion of three judge court 1.9 1.9

8/30/2012 Review order denying Texas's request for judicial preclearance

of Senate Bill 14 and ordering submission of joint schedule.

0.1 0.1


9/5/2012 Review AG Holder's filing of Section 5 determination 0.1 0.1



9/12/2012 Review AG Holder filing re: proposed briefing schedule for

Claim II

0.1 0.1

9/12/2012 Review AG Holder's filing of no-determination letter 0.1 0.1


9/14/2012 Review order setting briefing schedule on Claim II

(constitutionality)

0.1 0.1


9/21/2012 Review DOJ motion for extension of time to file response to

TX filing

0.1 no charge

9/24/2012 Review Order granting extension to all defendants (including

Interv.)

0.1 0.1


10/1/2012 Review State's motion for summary judgment 1.1 1.1

10/3/2012 Conf. call among all Defendant Intervenors to discuss drafting

responsibilities/division of labor & issues raised by TX motion

for summary judgment

1.2 no charge



10/19/2012 Review draft memorandum in opposition to State's Motion for

Summary Judgment and offer edits and comments to same

0.5 0.5


10/22/2012 Final review Intervenors' cross motion for summary judgment 1.0 no charge

10/22/2012 Review DOJ's motion for summary judgment on Claim II

w/exhibits

0.5 no charge



10/31/2012 Review order granting TX's telephone request to exceed page

limits

0.1 0.1

10/31/2012 Review State of TX Memorandum in opposition to Cross

motions for summary judgment

0.3 0.3

11/1/2012 Review State of Texas' reply to Defendant and Intervenors'

opposition to State's motion for summary judgment

0.3 0.3





11/13/2012 Review DOJ reply to State's opposition to cross motions for

summary judgment

0.3 0.3

11/13/2012 Review final draft of memorandum in opposition to State's

motion for sumamry judgment. Communicate to E. Rosenberg

re: same

0.1 0.1

11/13/2012 Review AG Holder's memorandum in opposition to State's

motion for Summary Judgment

0.3 0.3


11/16/2012 Review order requiring parties to meet and confer on deferring

ruling

0.1 0.1



11/28/2012 Review Berkower motion to withdraw as attorney for Holder 0.1 no charge

11/28/2012 Review order granting motion to withdraw (Berkower) 0.1 no charge

11/28/2012 Edits to notice by Intervenors in response to court order about

deferring ruling until Shelby County decision

0.1 0.1


11/29/2012 Review notice by AG Holder. 0.1 0.1

11/29/2012 Review State of TX's response to court order re: deferring a

ruling until Shelby County is decided

0.2 0.2


11/30/2012 Review motion for entry of judgment by State of TX with

supporting memo

0.2 0.2





12/12/2012 Draft and make edits to Defendant-Intervenors' memorandum

in opposition toTX's motion for Entry of Final Judgment as to

Claim One

0.3 0.3


12/14/2012 Review response by AG Holder to TX's motion for Entry of

Final judgment

0.2 0.2


12/17/2012 Review order pursuant to rule 54, FRCP. 0.1 0.1

12/17/2012 Review TX's notice of appeal to Supreme Court 0.1 0.1

12/18/2012 Tele. Conf call with clients re: notice of appeal by TX 0.3 0.3



12/21/2012 Review order granting unopposed motion to hold attys fees in

abeyance

0.1 0.1



2/8/2013 Review Couto motion to withdraw as counsel for Mi Familia 0.1 no charge

2/8/2013 Review order granting Couto motion to withdraw 0.1 no charge

2/19/2013 Edit Reply to State's Opposition to Kennie Intervenors' Motion

to Intervene

0.3 0.3







4/24/2013 Review Ho's motion to withdraw as counsel 0.1 no charge

4/24/2013 Review order granting Ho's motion to withdraw 0.1 no charge




5/14/2013 Review Boddie's motion to withdraw as counsel 0.1 no charge

5/14/2013 Review order granting Boddie motion to withdraw 0.1 no charge

5/15/2013 Review Adegbile's motion to withdraw as counsel 0.1 no charge

5/16/2013 Review order granting Adegbile's motion to withdraw 0.1 no charge

5/23/2013 Review order granting dOJ's motion to exceed page limit 0.1 no charge

6/20/2013 Review TX's deposition designations 0.3 0.3


6/27/2013 Review judgment/ruling of U.S. Supreme Court 0.1 0.1

7/11/2013 Review Flaum's motion to withdraw as counsel 0.1 no charge

7/12/2013 Review State of TX Corrections to Sager Supp. Declaration 0.2 0.2

7/12/2013 Review order granting Flaum's motion to withdraw 0.1 no charge

7/25/2013 Review filing by DOJ of Shelby County decision 0.1 0.1


8/8/2013 Review Motion to Dismiss filed by State of TX 0.2 0.2


8/22/2013 Review DOJ response to State's motion to dismiss 0.1 0.1

8/22/2013 Edits to response of intervenors to state's motion to dismiss 0.2 0.2

8/22/2013 Review separate filing by Mi Familia intervenors 0.1 no charge



8/27/2013 Review order granting TX's motion to dismiss 0.1 0.1

8/28/2013 Initial Draft outline of motion for attys fees and expenses 1.5 1.5

8/30/2013 Legal Research on fees motions in DC court/Supreme Court 5.5 5.5

9/2/2013 Draft Motion for attorneys' fees and expenses 4.9 4.9

9/4/2013 Edits to Fee Motion 1.3 1.3


9/5/2013 Draft Hebert Declaration for Fee Motion 3.0 3

9/7/2013 Review Time Sheets for attaching to fee motion 2.1 2.1


9/8/2013 Review Time Sheets for attaching to fee motion 1.9 1.9

9/8/2013 Review Lichtman Invoice from 8/2/2012 0.1 no charge


9/9/2013 Review Dunn Time Sheets 1.0 no charge

9/9/2013 Review Brazil Time Sheets 0.5 no charge

TOTAL HOURS 271.7 182.4


EXHIBIT C

STATE OF TEXAS v. HOLDER, No. 12-0128 (D.D.C.)

Part I

Cases In Which J. Gerald Hebert Has Served As Legal Counsel for the United States

Listed below are cases in which I have appeared as legal counsel. I have divided the

cases into two categories: 1) those cases where I served as lead attorney for the Government and

the Government was a party to the lawsuit; and 2) those cases where I served as lead attorney for

the Government and the Government participated as amicus curiae. Cases marked with an

asterisk * are cases involving Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, those marked with a double

asterisk ** are Section 4 or 5 Voting Rights Act cases, and those marked with a triple asterisk

*** are language minority cases under the Voting Rights Act (Section 203 cases).

1. Voting rights cases where I served as lead counsel for the United States

in the trial court and the United States was a party to the litigation:

Bolden and United States v. City of Mobile, 446 U.S. 55 (1980)

Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997 (1994) *

County Council of Sumter County, South Carolina v. United States, 555 F. Supp. 694 (D.D.C.

1983) (3-judge court) **

Shaw v. Barr, C.A. No. 92-202-CIV-5-BR (E.D.N.C. 1992)(three-judge court), reversed sub

nom. Shaw v. Reno, 113 S. Ct. 2816 (1993)

City of Port Arthur, Texas v. U.S., 459 U.S. 159 (1982) **

Brown and United States v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 706 F.2d 1103

(11th Cir. 1983)

United States v. Dallas County Commission, 850 F.2d 1430 (11th Cir. 1988)*

United States v. Marengo County Commission, 811 F.2d 619 (11th Cir. 1987) *

United States v. State of South Carolina and Horry County, C.A. No. 79-2467-5 (D. So.

Car.)(three-judge court) **

State of Mississippi v. United States, No. 87-3464 (D.D.C.)(three-judge court) **

United States v. State of Georgia, No. 1:90-CV-1749-RCF (N.D. Ga.) *


2

Georgia v. Reno, C.A. No. 90-2065 (D.D.C. 1995)(three-judge court) **

United States v. State of Arizona, CV 88-1989 PHX EHC (D. Ariz.)***

United States v. Socorro County, New Mexico, C.A. No. 93-1244-JP (D. N.M.) ***

United States v. Brooks County, GA, No. 90-105-Thom (M.D. Ga.)*

United States v. State of Wisconsin, No. 92C-0263-S (W.D. Wisc.)

United States v. McKinley County, NM, No. 86-0028-M (D. N.M.)***

United States v. State of South Carolina, No. 3:90-760-17

(D. SO. CAR.)(three-judge court) **

United States v. Cibola County, NM, No. CIV93-1134 SC (D. N.M.)***

United States v. Lawrence County, MS,(S.D. Miss. 1983)(three-judge court) **

United States v. City of Demopolis, (S.D. Ala. 1986) *

United States v. Laurens County, SC, C.A. No. 6:87-1817-3 (D.S.C. 1987) *

United States v. City of Spartanburg, SC, (D.S.C. 1987)*

United States v. Town of Zebulon, GA, (N.D. Ga.) *, **

United States v. Wilkes County Board of Ed., (S.D. Ga.)

United States v. County Council of Sumter County, SC, (D.S.C.)(three-judge court) **

United States v. Town of Indian Head, MD, (D. Md.) *

United States v. City of Laurel, MS, (S.D. Miss. 1981) *

United States v. County Council of Colleton County, SC, No. 78-903 (D.S.C. 1981)(three-judge

court) **

United States v. City of Houston, TX, No. 91-3076 (S.D. Tex.)(three-judge court)**

United States v. Victoria ISD, TX, C.A. No. V-86-17 (S.D. Tex. 1986)(three-judge court) **

United States v. City of Barnwell, SC, No. 1:84-2508-6 (D.S.C. 1986) **


3

Medina County, TX v. United States,(D.D.C.)(three-judge court) **

Gregg County, TX v. United States,(D.D.C.)(three-judge court) **

United States v. Jones, 846 F. Supp. 955 (S.D. Ala. 1994) *

United States v. City of Augusta, GA, (S.D. Ga.) *

United States v. Wicomico County, MD, No. MJG-87-2557 (D. Md. 1991) *

United States v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, LA, C.A. No. 76-252 (M.D. La.) *

2. Cases where J. Gerald Hebert served as lead counsel for the United States

in the trial court and the United States appeared as amicus curiae in the

litigation:

Blanding v. Dubose, 454 U.S. 393 (1982) (I represented the United States as amicus curiae before

the three-judge court in this successful lawsuit brought to enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights

Act) **

Lodge v. Buxton, aff'd sub nom. Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S. 613 (1982)(I represented the United

States as amicus curiae before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in this

successful lawsuit brought under the Voting Rights Act and the United States Constitution) *

Martin v. Mabus, 700 F.Supp. 327 (S.D. Miss. 1988)(three-judge court)(remedy)(I represented the

United States as amicus curiae before the three-judge court in this successful lawsuit brought to

enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act) **

SCLC v. Siegelman, C.A. No. 88-D-462-N (M.D. Ala.)(I represented the United States which filed

a brief as amicus curiae in this lawsuit brought by private plaintiffs to enforce Section 5 of the

Voting Rights Act) **

Clark v. Roemer, C.A. No. 86-435 (M.D. La.)(three-judge court)(I represented the United States

which filed a brief as amicus curiae in this lawsuit brought by private plaintiffs to enforce Section

5 of the Voting Rights Act) **

Lopez v. Monterey County, California, No. C-91-20559-RMW (EAI) (N.D. Cal.)(three-judge

court) (I represented the United States which filed a brief as amicus curiae in this lawsuit brought

by private plaintiffs to enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act)**


4

Part II

Voting Rights and Election Cases In Which J. Gerald Hebert Has Served As Legal Counsel

As a Solo Practitioner (1994 to the Present)

Listed below are cases in which I have appeared as legal counsel in my solo law practice,

1994 to the present. Cases marked with an asterisk * are cases involving Section 2 of the Voting

Rights Act, those marked with a double asterisk ** are Section 4 or 5 Voting Rights Act cases, and

those marked with a triple asterisk *** are language minority cases under the Voting Rights Act

(Section 203 cases). Cases in bold are cases where I served as lead counsel for the party I

represented:

1994 to 2000:

CITY OF ANDREWS, TX V. RENO, No. 1:95CV01477 (D.D.C. 1996)(three-judge court) (I

represented the City of Andrews, Texas in this lawsuit against the United States Attorney General

in which the City obtained a declaratory judgment that changes adopted by the City were entitled to

preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act)**

DILLARD v. CITY OF FOLEY, AL, No. CV 87-T-1213-N (M.D. Ala.)(I represented private

plaintiffs in this successful challenge under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and Constitution to

the City of Foley's racially selective annexation policy) *

FOREMAN v. COMMISSIONERS’ COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, TX (N.D. TX) (3-

judge court) (I represented private plaintiffs in a suit which established that the changes in the

discretionary method of selecting polling officials was a covered change under Section 5 of the

Voting Rights Act)**

PEGRAM and UNITED STATES v. CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS, VA, No. 4:940000-79

(E.D. Va.) (I represented private plaintiffs in this successful suit challenging the City's at-large

method of election under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act) *

SIMPSON V. CITY OF HAMPTON, VA, No. 4:95cv83 (E.D. Va.)(I represented private

plaintiffs in this suit challenging the City's at-large method of election under Section 2 of the

Voting Rights Act) *

SOUTH CAROLINA CONFERENCE OF BRANCHES OF THE NAACP v. TOWN OF

HEMINGWAY, SC, No. 4:93-2733-21 (D.S.C.) (I represented plaintiffs in this lawsuit brought


5

under the Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act challenging Hemingway's racially

selective annexation policy) *

RICHMOND CRUSADE FOR VOTERS v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, No. 3:95cv531

(E.D. Va.) (I represented plaintiffs who successfully challenged the Commonwealth of Virginia's

refusal to implement the provisions of the National Voter Registration Act)

MOON v. MEADOWS, 952 F. Supp. 1941(E.D. Va. 1997)(three-judge court)(I represented a

group of voters who intervened as defendants in this lawsuit challenging, on racial gerrymandering

grounds, congressional redistricting in Virginia)

KING v. STATE BD OF ELECTIONS, No. 95-C-827(N.D. Ill. 1995)(three-judge court) (I filed

a brief amicus curiae before the three-judge court in 1996 on behalf of the Democratic National

Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in this lawsuit challenging

congressional redistricting in Illinois)

VERA v. BUSH, 116 S. Ct. 1941 (1996)(I appeared as counsel for three incumbent members of

Congress whose districts were challenged or affected by this lawsuit challenging congressional

redistricting in Texas. One of the three members was granted amicus status)

ABRAMS v. JOHNSON (I filed a brief amicus curiae in the Supreme Court of the United States

on behalf of the Georgia Association of Black Elected Officials in this lawsuit challenging

congressional redistricting in Georgia)

CITY OF FAIRFAX v. RENO, C.A. No. 97-2212-JR (D.D.C. 1997)(three-judge court)(I

represented the City of Fairfax, Virginia, in this first post-1982 suit brought to obtain a declaratory

judgment and bailout from coverage under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The

bailout judgment was granted to the City in October 1997).**

SHENANDOAH COUNTY v. RENO, C.A. No. 99-00992-PLF (D.D.C. 1999)(three-judge

court)(I represented Shenandoah County, Virginia, in this suit brought to obtain a declaratory

judgment and bailout from coverage under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The

bailout judgment was granted to the County in 1999.)**

FREDERICK COUNTY v. RENO, C.A. No. 99-00941-CKK (D.D.C. 1999)(three-judge court)(I

represented Frederick County, Virginia, in this suit brought to obtain a declaratory judgment and

bailout from coverage under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The bailout judgment

was granted to the County in 1999.)**

JENKINS v. CITY OF OZARK, ALABAMA, No. CV97-A-1450-S (M.D. Ala. 1997)(three-

judge court)(I represent the plaintiffs in this successful Section 5 enforcement action)**

LULAC V. CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, No. A97 CA 908SS(W.D. Tex. 1998)(three-judge


6

court)(I represented the City of Austin, Texas in this Section 5 enforcement action).**

BAKER V. RAINBOW CITY, AL., No. 97-PT-3014 (N.D. Ala. 1997)(three-judge court)(I

represented plaintiffs who successfully brought suit to enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights

Act)**

WILSON V. CITY OF ATTALLA, AL., No.97-AR-3195 (N.D. Ala. 1997)(three-judge court)(I

represented plaintiffs who successfully brought suit to enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights

Act)**

HAYS V. LOUISIANA, 839 F. Supp. 1138 (W.D. La. 1994)(three-judge court)(I represented

individual voters and members of the Louisiana Legislature who participated as amicus curiae in

this lawsuit challenging congressional redistricting in Louisiana)

JOHNSON V. MORTHAM, No. CV-94-40025 (N.D. Fla.)(three-judge court) (I represented

Congresswoman Corrine Brown as a defendant-intervenor in this lawsuit brought challenging

congressional redistricting in Florida)

HUNT V. CROMARTIE, (U.S. Supreme Court) (I represented several members of the

Congressional Black Caucus and filed a brief as amicus curiae in this lawsuit challenging

congressional districts in North Carolina)

BOXX V. STATE OF ALABAMA, M.D. Ala. (3-judge court)(I represented plaintiffs who

successfully brought suit to enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act)**

WARD V. STATE OF ALABAMA, M.D. Ala. (3-judge court)(I represented plaintiffs who

successfully brought suit to enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act)**

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA V. RENO, No. 1:00 CV 00751 (D.D.C.)(3-judge court) (I

represented defendant intervenors, a group of state legislators, in this lawsuit which challenged,

inter alia, the Department of Justice’s plan to use statistically-sampled census data to review

redistricting plans under the Voting Rights Act).**

VOTING INTEGRITY PROJECT v. ARIZONA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, I represented the

Arizona Democratic Party in a suit brought under the Voting Rights Act challenging the State

Party’s use of internet voting in the 2000 Presidential Primary. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary

injunction against the Party’s use of internet voting, but the district court denied the requested

injunction.*


7

2001 to 2010:

BALDERAS V. STATE OF TEXAS, (E.D. TX 2001) (3-judge court)(consolidated), summarily

affirmed, 536 U.S. 919 (2002). This suit involved a successful challenge to the failure of the Texas

Legislature to redistrict its Texas congressional districts. I represented a group of Congressmen

who intervened in the case. *

SESSIONS V. STATE OF TEXAS, (E.D. TX 2003)(3-judge court)(consolidated). This suit

challenged the 2003 re-redistricting of the Texas congressional districts. The case eventually went

to the U.S. Supreme Court sub nom. LULAC v. Perry.*

JACKSON v. STATE OF TEXAS, (E.D. TX 2003)(3-judge court)(consolidated). This suit

challenged the 2003 re-redistricting of the Texas congressional districts. The case eventually went

to the U.S. Supreme Court sub nom. LULAC v. Perry.*

DEL RIO v. STATE OF TEXAS (Travis County District Court & Texas Supreme Court) This

suit involved the redistricting of the Texas congressional districts. I represented a group of

Congressmen who intervened in the case.*

CITY OF HARRISONBURG, VA v. ASHCROFT, No. 02-00289-JDB (D.D.C) (I represented

the City of Harrisonburg, Virginia, in this suit brought to obtain a declaratory judgment and bailout

from coverage under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The bailout judgment was

granted to the City in 2002).**

CITY OF WINCHESTER, VA v. RENO, No. 00-03073-ESH (D.D.C) (I represented the City of

Winchester, Virginia, in this suit brought to obtain a declaratory judgment and bailout from

coverage under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The bailout judgment was granted

to the City in 2001).**

WARREN COUNTY, VA v. RENO, No. 02-0173-EGS (D.D.C) (I represented Warren County,

Virginia, in this suit brought to obtain a declaratory judgment and bailout from coverage under the

special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The bailout judgment was granted to the County in

2002).

ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, VA v. ASHCROFT, No. 02-00391-ESH (D.D.C) (I represented

Rockingham County, Virginia, in this suit brought to obtain a declaratory judgment and bailout

from coverage under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The bailout judgment was

granted to the County in 2002).**

GREENE COUNTY, VA v. ASHCROFT, No. 03-1877-HHK (D.D.C.). (I represented Greene

County, Virginia, in this successful suit brought to obtain a declaratory judgment and bailout from

coverage under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The bailout judgment was granted


8

to the County in January 2004).**

AUGUSTA COUNTY, VA v. GONZALES, No. 05-1885 (D.D.C.) (three-judge court). In this

action, I represented Augusta County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting

Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. **

NAACP v. ST. LANDRY PARISH, LOUISIANA, I represented the defendants St. Landry

Parish Council and School Board in this Voting Rights Act challenge to the 2002 redistricting

plans adopted by the Council and School Board. The case was settled in January 2005.*

HALL v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, 276 F. Supp. 2d 528 (E.D. Va. 2003), affirmed,

385 F.3d 421 (4th

Cir. 2004), cert. denied, ___U.S. ____(2005). I served as co-counsel

representing plaintiffs in an unsuccessful Voting Rights Act challenge to the post-2000

congressional redistricting plan adopted by the Commonwealth of Virginia.

MAY v. CITY OF MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA, No. 2:07cv738 (M.D.Ala.)(three-judge court).

This suit alleged, among other things, that the City had failed to obtain the requisite preclearance

of a new election schedule from federal authorities. Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the upcoming

elections, citing the alleged lack of preclearance under the Voting Rights Act. I was co-counsel to

the City of Montgomery, which contended that preclearance had been obtained. The case was

dismissed as moot. **

CITY OF SALEM, VA v. GONZALES, No.06-977 (DDC) (three-judge court). In this action, I

represented the City of Salem in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights

Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. **

BOTETOURT COUNTY, VA v. GONZALES, No. 06-1052(D.D.C) (three-judge court). In this

action, I represented Botetourt County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting


ESSEX COUNTY, VA v. MUKASEY, (D.D.C) (three-judge court). In this action, I represented

Essex County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a

bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. **

AMHERST COUNTY, VA v. MUKASEY, (D.D.C) (three-judge court). In this action, I

represented Amherst County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights


MIDDLESEX COUNTY, VA v. MUKASEY, (D.D.C) (three-judge court). In this action, I

represented Middlesex County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights



9

PAGE COUNTY, VA v. MUKASEY, (D.D.C) (three-judge court). In this action, I represented

Page County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a

bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. **

CITY OF KINGS MOUNTAIN v. HOLDER, 1:10-cv-01153-PLF -DST –TFH (D.D.C.) (three-

judge court). In this action, I represented the City of Kings Mountain in a successful action

brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial

provisions of the Act. **

WILLIE RAY v. STATE OF TEXAS, 2:06-CV-385(TJW) (E.D. Texas). This case challenged

the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Texas Election Code, and the racially selective

prosecution of African American and Latino citizens by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott for

allegedly violating those provisions. The case was settled.

NAMUDNO v. HOLDER, 557 U.S. 193 (2009). This case challenged the constitutionality of

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. In the district court, I represented Travis County, Texas, which

supported the defendant Holder and argued in favor of the constitutionality of Section 5 of the

Voting Rights Act. In the U.S. Supreme Court, I represented jurisdictions that had bailed out from

Section 5 coverage and urged the Court to uphold Section 5.

2011 to 2013:

PEREZ v. PERRY, No. 11-360 (W.D. TX)(three-judge court)(consolidated cases--including

Quesada v. Perry, No. 11-593-OLG-JES-XR) challenging Texas Congressional and State House

districts under Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution. The case remains pending.

DAVIS v. PERRY, No. 11-788 (W.D. TX)(three-judge court)(consolidated with LULAC v.

Perry), No. 11-788, challenging under Section 2 and the United States Constitution the state senate

redistricting plan insofar as it dismantled Senate District 10 and in doing so discriminated against

minority voters in the district. The case remains pending.

BEAUMONT INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 1:13-

cv-00401-RC-BMK-ESH (D.D.C.) (three-judge court) (In this Section 5 declaratory judgment case

that is currently pending, I represent the Plaintiff Beaumont ISD seeking Voting Rights Act

approval of certain voting changes)

STATE OF TEXAS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH

(D.D.C.) (three-judge court) (In this lawsuit, the State of Texas sought preclearance to its statewide

redistricting plans. I represented a group of Defendant Intervenors who successfully opposed

preclearance of the state senate plan and the congressional plan before the three-judge court. I also


10

served in the case as co-administrative coordinator for the various Defendant-Intervenor groups in

the lawsuit. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case following the decision in Shelby

County, Al. v. Holder).

STATE OF TEXAS v. HOLDER, 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW (TX Voter ID case). In this

lawsuit, the State of Texas sought Section 5 preclearance of its photo ID bill. I represented a group

of Defendant Intervenors who opposed preclearance. I also served as co-administrative

coordinator for the various Defendant-Intervenor groups. The three-judge court denied

preclearance. On appeal, the decision was vacated and the case remanded to the D.C. Court in

light of Shelby County, AL v. Holder.

LAROQUE et al v. HOLDER, 1:10-cv-00561-JDB (D.D.C.) This case challenged the

constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act and I represented a group of Defendant-Intervenors

defending against the challenge. On appeal, the case was declared moot.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 1:12-cv-00203

(CKK-BMK-JDB) (D.D.C.) (three-judge court). I served as co-counsel to a group of Defendant-

Intervenors in this Section 5 declaratory judgment suit involving the South Carolina voter ID law.

The State was granted preclearance after changes were made during the litigation to the photo ID

bill.**

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS v. DETZNER, No.: 2012-CA-00490 (Leon County, Florida). I

am co-counsel to the League of Women Voters which challenges the redistricting of Florida’s state

senate and congressional redistricting plans, on the grounds that those plans violate the State

Constitution’s prohibitions on drawing plans to favor one political party over another or to favor an

incumbent. The case is pending.

BROWN v. STATE OF FLORIDA (S.D. Florida). This case was a challenge to the

constitutionality of amendments to the Florida Constitution that regulated statewide redistricting

plans. I represented a group of intervenor defendants who supported the provisions. The district

court upheld the amendments and the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed.

YUBA COUNTY WATER AGENCY v. HOLDER, No. 1:13-cv-00352 (D.D.C.) (three-judge

court). In this action, I represent the Water Agency in a pending action brought under Section 4 of

the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. **

NORTH YUBA WATER DISTRICT v. HOLDER, 1:13-cv-00407 (D.D.C.) (three-judge court).

In this action, I represent the Water District in a pending action brought under Section 4 of the

Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. **


11

LINDA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT v. HOLDER, 1:13-cv-00485 (D.D.C.). In this

action, I represent the Fire Protection District in a pending action brought under Section 4 of the


LINDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT v. HOLDER, 1:13-cv-00363-JEB-JWR-JDB). In this

action, I represent the Water District a pending action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights


HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 1:13-cv-00625-BAH-JRB-KBJ). In this

action, I represent Hanover County in a pending action brought under Section 4 of the Voting


CITY OF FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 1:13-cv-00201-ABJ-DBS-RJL). In this

action, I represented the City of Falls Church in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the


CITY OF WHEATLAND, CALIFORNIA v. HOLDER, 1:13-cv-00054-RMC-DST-RBW). In

this action, I represented the City of Wheatland in a successful action brought under Section 4 of


STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE v. HOLDER, 1:12-cv-01854-EGS-TBG-RMC). In this action,

I represented the State of New Hampshire in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the


BROWNS VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT v. HOLDER,1:12-cv-01597-RWR-KLH-

TFH). In this action, I represented Browns Valley Irrigation District in a successful action brought

under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions

of the Act. **

MERCED COUNTY, CALIFORNIA v. HOLDER, 1:12-cv-00354-TFH-DST-ABJ). In this

action, I represented Merced County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the Voting


PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 1:12-cv-00014-ESH-TBG-JEB). In

this action, I represented Prince William County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of


KING GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 1:11-cv-02164-BAH-KLH-ESH). In this

action, I represented King George County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the



12

JAMES CITY COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 1:11-cv-01425-PLF-DST-TFH). In this

action, I represented James City County in a successful action brought under Section 4 of the


CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 1:11-cv-01415-EGS-JR–RWR

(D.D.C.) (three-judge court). In this action, I represented Williamsburg in a successful action

brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial

provisions of the Act. **

CULPEPER COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 1: 1:11-cv-01477-JEB-JWR-RLW (D.D.C.)

(three-judge court). In this action, I represented Culpeper County in a successful action brought

under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions

of the Act. **

CITY OF BEDFORD, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 11-cv-00473-TFH-TBG-RLW (D.D.C.) (three-

judge court). In this action, I represented the City of Bedford in a successful action brought under

Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the

Act. **

BEDFORD COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 1:11-cv-00499-ESH-KLH-BAH (D.D.C.)

(three-judge court). I represented Bedford County in a successful bailout action brought under

Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. **

RAPPAHANNOCK COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 1:11-cv-01123-JEB -KLH–RMC

(D.D.C.) (three-judge court). I represented Rappahannock County in a successful bailout action

brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. **

CITY OF MANASSAS PARK, VIRGINIA v. HOLDER, 1:11-cv-00749-CKK-JRB-HHK

(D.D.C.) (three-judge court). I represented the City of Manassas Park in a successful bailout action

brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. **

ALTA IRRIGATION DISTRICT v. HOLDER, 1:11-cv-00758-RJL-DAG–PLF (D.D.C.) (three-

judge court). I represented the Alta Irrigation District in a successful bailout action brought under

Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. **

JEFFERSON COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 7 v. HOLDER, 1:11-cv-00461-RWR-

DST-RJL) (D.D.C.) (three-judge court). I represented this Jefferson County Drainage District in a

successful bailout action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act.**

HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA V. HOLDER (D.D.C.) (three-judge court). In this pending

lawsuit, I represent Hanover County an action brought under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to

obtain a bailout from the special remedial provisions of the Act. **


13

PART III

Cases In Which J. Gerald Hebert Has Served As Legal Counsel

To A Party or An Amicus Curiae on Behalf of the Campaign Legal Center

(2004 to the present)

Listed below are cases in which I have appeared as legal counsel for a party or for an

amicus curiae in campaign finance cases or other election law cases in my capacity as Director of

Litigation at the Campaign Legal Center, a non-profit, non-partisan organization in Washington

DC.

Federal Litigation

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEC (U.S. Supreme Court.) Citizens United filed suit to challenge the

federal “electioneering communications” corporate funding restriction and disclosure requirements

as applied to its film entitled Hillary: The Movie and its advertisements promoting the film. On

July 18, 2008, a three-judge panel upheld the federal law. On January 21, 2010, the Supreme

Court struck down the 60-year-old federal restriction on corporate expenditures in candidate

elections, and overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and part of McConnell

v. FEC (2003). In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign

Legal Center, I filed one amici brief with the district court and two amici briefs with the Supreme

Court on behalf of campaign finance reform groups.

WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE v. FEC, (US Supreme Court) and No. 04-1260 (DBS, RWR,

RJL)(D.D.C.)(3-judge court). Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) challenged provisions of BCRA

which prohibited it from making certain election communications during and prior to the 2004

elections. The three-judge court rejected WRTL’s challenge and the Supreme Court reversed and

struck down the provisions. I served as legal counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, Senator John

McCain, and Representatives Christopher Shays and Martin Meehan in the case as amici curiae

supporting the defendant FEC.

MCCOMISH v. BENNETT, No. 10-686 (U.S. Supreme Court). This was a constitutional

challenge to the “matching funds trigger provisions” of the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act,

which provided participating candidates with additional funds if non-participating opponents or

outside groups spend above the statutory threshold. In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the

non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amici brief in the Supreme Court on

behalf of the Legal Center and seven other public interest groups to defend the Arizona law. In my

capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I also

filed an amici brief with the district court in 2009.

MCCUTCHEON v. FEC (U.S. Supreme Court). This challenge to federal aggregate

contribution limits was filed by plaintiffs Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National


14

Committee (RNC). Plaintiffs in McCutcheon v. FEC challenge both the $70,800 aggregate limit

on contributions to non-candidate committees and the $46,200 aggregate limit on contributions to

candidate committees in a two-year election cycle. The three-judge district court rejected the

challenge, but the U.S. Supreme Court has noted probable jurisdiction. In my capacity as Director

of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amici brief in the

district court and the Supreme Court defending the aggregate limits.

SHELBY COUNTY v. HOLDER (U.S. Supreme Court). This case involved a challenge to the

constitutionality of certain special provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended. In my

capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an

amici brief in the Supreme Court on behalf jurisdictions that have bailed out from coverage under

the Act.

DAVIS V. FEC, 554 U.S. 724 (2008) (Supreme Court). This was a federal court challenge to the

Millionaire’s Amendment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Under the

Millionaire’s Amendment, when a wealthy self-financed candidate spent in excess of a specified

threshold of personal funds, the Amendment provided for an increase in contribution limits and an

elimination of coordinated party spending limits for such candidate’s non-wealthy opponent. The

Amendment also imposed additional disclosure requirements on the self-financing wealthy

candidate. The Supreme Court invalidated all of these provisions. I served as legal counsel to

amici supporting these amendments in the U.S. Supreme Court.

SHAYS v. FEC, No. 04-5352 (D.C.Cir.) (Shays I). This is an appeal from a ruling of this court

(Kollar-Kotelly, J.) striking down regulations promulgated by the FEC to implement the Bipartisan

Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). I served as legal counsel to United Senators John McCain and

Russell Feingold who appeared in the case as amici curiae and filed a brief supporting Appellees

Shays and Meehan.

SHAYS v. FEC (527 Suit), No. 1:04-cv-01597-EGS (D.D.C.) (Sullivan, J.) (Shays II). This

lawsuit challenge the failure of the FEC to promulgate effective regulations that would apply to

527 groups. I served as legal counsel to United Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold who

appeared in the case as amici curiae.

NC RIGHT TO LIFE v. LEAKE, No. 5:99-CV-798-BO(3). This case involves a constitutional

challenge to several North Carolina campaign finance laws. I represent the Campaign Legal Center

in the case, which filed a brief as amicus curiae arguing that North Carolina’s limits on

contributions to independent expenditure political committees are constitutional.

VOTERS EDUCATION COMMITTEE v. WASHINGTON PUBLIC DISCLOSURE

COMMISSION, No. 04-2-23551-1SEA (King County Superior Court). Suit alleges that certain

ads aimed at a state Attorney General candidate are not express advocacy, but rather are “issue

advocacy” and protected “political speech”. I represent the Campaign Legal Center in the case,

which filed a brief as amicus curiae arguing that the state law at issue does not violate the free


15

speech rights of plaintiff 527 corporations by requiring them to register as a political organization

and file reports of their contributions and expenditures.

EMILY’S LIST v. FEC, No. 1:05cv00049 (D.D.C.). EMILY’s List challenged a new rule

adopted by the FEC late last summer that requires a federal committee to use at least 50 percent

federal funds to pay for generic voter mobilization drives and other activities that affect both

federal and nonfederal elections, along with a rule that clarified the definition of the term

“contribution.” I represented Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold, Representatives

Christopher Shays and Martin Meehan, and the Campaign Legal Center which appeared as amici

curiae in the case and filed a brief opposing EMILY’s List’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

CHRISTIAN CIVIC LEAGUE OF MAINE v. FEC, No. 06- (D.D.C.) (three-judge court) The

Christian Civic League of Maine has challenged provisions of BCRA which prohibited it from

making certain election communications during and prior to the 2006 elections in Maine. The

three-judge court denied the Christian Civic League’s motion for preliminary injunction and the

case is on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. I served as co-counsel for the defendant intervenors

in the case: U.S. Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold, and Representatives Christopher

Shays, Martin Meehan, and Tom Allen supporting the defendant FEC.

UNITED STATES v. VALDES. No. 03-3066 (DC Cir.) I filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the District of Columbia on behalf of the Campaign Legal Center supporting the

defendant United States in this appeal, which involved an interpretation and application of the

federal anti-gratuities statute.

CAO (RNC) v. FEC, No. 10-30146 (5th Cir.), cert. denied No. 10-776 (U.S. Sup. Ct.) In my


amicus brief on April 19, 2010 with the en banc Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to defend the

constitutionality of the party coordinated spending limits.

GREEN PARTY OF CONNECTICUT V. LENGE, Nos. 09-0599, 09-0609 (2d Cir.), cert.

petition No. 10-795 (U.S. Sup. Ct.) In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit,

non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, , I served as co-counsel to the defendant-intervenors in the

Supreme Court opposing the petition for certiorari, a case that challenged the constitutionality of

Connecticut’s public financing system and its statutory ban on contributions from lobbyists, state

contractors and members of their immediate families and their solicitation of contributions.

U.S. V. O’DONNELL, No. 09-50296 (9th Cir.), cert. petition No. 10-1099 (U.S. Sup. Ct.) This

case involved whether federal law “prohibits straw donor contributions, in which a defendant

solicits others to donate to a candidate for federal office in their own names and furnishes the

money for the gift either through an advance or a prearranged reimbursement. CLC, with D21,

filed an amici brief with the Ninth Circuit, urging the Court to correct the erroneous interpretation

given to the federal law provision by the district court.

U.S. V. DANIELCZYK, No. 11-cr-00085 (E.D. Va.), No. 11-4667 (4th Cir.) This criminal case

concerned a number of alleged campaign finance violations, including that the defendants illegally

directed corporate contributions to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 Presidential campaign. In my capacity as


16

Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amici brief

in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on the side of the United States.

KOERBER v. FEC, No. 2:08-cv-00039 (E.D.N.C.) In September 2008, the Committee for Truth

in Politics challenged the constitutionality of the federal disclosure requirements for

“electioneering communications,” and the FEC’s policy for determining federal “political

committee” status. The CLC, with D21, filed amici briefs defending the law on October 14, 2008

with the district court, and on April 24, 2009 with the Fourth Circuit.

THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT OBAMA, INC. (RTAO) v. FEC, No. 08-cv-00483 (E.D. Va.),

No. 11-1760 (4th Cir.) RTAO filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of

Virginia to enjoin a number of FEC regulations governing when independent groups must register

as federal political committees and comply with the applicable federal restrictions and disclosure

requirements. The CLC, with D21, filed an amici brief on October 27, 2011 to defend the FEC

rules with the Fourth Circuit following the remand of the case from the Supreme Court. The CLC

previously filed amici briefs in this case in the district court and the Fourth Circuit on August 14,

2008, October 28, 2008 and October 17, 2010.

VAN HOLLEN v. FEC, No. 11-cv-00766 (D.D.C.) On April 21, 2011, Representative Chris

Van Hollen (D-MD) filed a lawsuit against the FEC to challenge a 2007 FEC regulation that

narrowed the scope of federal disclosure requirements connected to electioneering

communications. In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign

Legal Center (CLC), I was one of the attorneys representing Rep. Van Hollen as CLC is part of

Van Hollen’s pro bono legal team.

AMERICAN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC. v. BULLOCK, DA 11-0081 (Sup. Ct.

Mont.), cert. denied No. 11-1179 (U.S. Sup. Ct.) In March 2010, plaintiffs filed suit to challenge

Montana’s corporate expenditure restriction, M.C.A. § 13-35-227, on grounds that it was

unconstitutional under Citizens United v FEC. In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-

profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amici brief in support of itself and 13 other

public interest groups on May 18, 2012, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to deny certiorari, or if it

grants certiorari, to grant plenary review.

WAGNER v. FEC, No. 11-cv-1841 (D.D.C.) On October 19, 2011, plaintiffs filed a complaint

with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to challenge the constitutionality of the

federal governmental contractor contribution ban, 2 U.S.C. § 441c, as applied to individuals who

have personal services contracts with federal agencies. In my capacity as Director of Litigation at

the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amicus brief in the district court

supporting the contractor contribution ban.

RNC v. FEC, No. 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC (D.D.C.) (three-judge court). On November 13,

2008, the RNC filed suit in federal district court to challenge BCRA’s “soft money” restrictions

that bar the national parties from raising or spending soft money and prohibit state parties from

using soft money for activities that affect federal elections, such as voter registration or GOTV


17

drives. On March 9, 2009, the Legal Center filed an amici brief on behalf of former

Representatives Shays and Meehan and Senators McCain and Feingold to defend the “soft money”

provisions. On June 29, 2010, the Supreme Court summarily affirmed the decision of a three-judge

panel to dismiss the RNC’s as-applied challenge to the soft money restrictions of the Bipartisan

Campaign Reform Act (BCRA).

SPEECHNOW.ORG v. FEC (D.C. Cir.) In February 2008, SpeechNow.org filed suit and

requested a preliminary injunction to enjoin the federal contribution limits and disclosure

requirements as applied to so-called “independent expenditure committees.” THE DC Circuit

struck down the contribution limits but upheld the disclosure requirements. The Legal Center filed

two amici briefs with the D.C. Circuit in 2009 to support the constitutionality of the federal

contribution limits as applied to a political committee making only independent expenditures.

HISPANIC LEADERSHIP FUND v. FEC, No. I:12cv893 (E.D. VA.). Plaintiffs sought to air

television advertisements criticizing President Obama without complying with “electioneering

communication” disclosure requirements, which include donor disclosure. The ads proposed by

HLF would not have mentioned President Obama by name and instead would use the terms “the

White House” and “the Administration” and audio recordings of the President’s voice. In an

attempt to evade the electioneering communication disclosure requirements, HLF argued that its

ads do not refer to a clearly identified candidate, and that the disclosure provisions are

unconstitutional. The District Court denied an injunction and rejected the constitutional challenge.

In my capacity as Director of Litigation for the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I

filed an amicus brief in 2012 supporting the FEC and defending the challenged provisions

STATE/MUNICIPAL LAW LITIGATION

State Disclosure Cases

DOE v. REED, No. 09-559 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), on remand No. 3:09-cv-05456 (W.D. Wa.), on

appeal No. 11-35854 (9th Cir.) Plaintiffs filed suit to halt Washington State from making

petitions connected to a state ballot measure available in response to requests made under the state

Public Records Act. In my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan

Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amicus brief on March 28, 2012 with the Ninth Circuit, urging

the court to reject the plaintiffs’ as-applied challenge and arguing that the narrow exemption to

disclosure for harassment set forth in Buckley v. Valeo was not warranted in this case.

PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM v. BOWEN, 2:09-cv-00058 (E.D. Calif.), on appeal No. 11-

17884 (9th Cir.) In January 2009, Plaintiffs brought a challenge in the U.S. District Court for the

Eastern District of California to a California law requiring ballot measure committees to disclose

the names and other information of their contributors of $100 or more. In my capacity as Director

of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amicus brief to

support California’s ballot measure disclosure law with the Ninth Circuit on April 17, 2012.


18

HUMAN LIFE OF WASHINGTON, INC. (“HLW”) v. BRUMSICKLE, No. 09-35128 (9th

Cir.) In April 2008, HLW challenged the constitutionality of several components of the State of

Washington’s political committee disclosure regime, including the State’s definitions of “political

committee,” “independent expenditure,” and “political advertising.” On June 4, 2009, and in my


amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit to defend the disclosure laws.

OHIO RIGHT TO LIFE (ORTL) v. OHIO ELECTION COMMISSION, 08-cv-00492 (S.D.

Ohio). ORTL filed suit in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Ohio to challenge

multiple provisions of Ohio’s campaign finance law, including its “electioneering

communications” corporate funding prohibition and related disclosure requirements. On July 18,

2008, and in my capacity as Director of Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal

Center (CLC), I filed an amici brief on behalf of CLC and Ohio Citizen Action, defending the

constitutionality of Ohio’s electioneering communications disclosure requirements.

TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY v. KING STREET PATRIOTS, No. D-1-GN-11-002363

(D.Ct. Travis Co.) The Texas Democratic Party filed an action seeking damages and declaratory

and injunctive relief in connection to several violations of state campaign finance law allegedly

committed by the King Street Patriots. In response to the suit, the King Street Patriots filed a

counterclaim challenging numerous provisions of Texas campaign finance law, including the state

corporate contribution restriction, and the disclosure and organizational requirements applicable to

political committees and related statutory definitions. In my capacity as Director of Litigation at

the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed in September 2011 an amicus brief to

oppose the counterclaim and to defend the constitutionality of Texas’ campaign finance laws.

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE v. BROWNING, This was a constitutional

challenge to certain provisions of Florida law relating to electioneering communications and

disclosure, alleging that the provisions were overbroad and vague. In my capacity as Director of

Litigation at the non-profit, non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, I filed an amicus brief in the

Eleventh Circuit defending the Florida laws, which were upheld by the court of appeals.

State Contribution Limit Cases

COMMITTEE ON JOBS, ET AL. v. HERRERA, 07-cv-03199 (N.D. Cal.) In June 2007, two

political committees filed a challenge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of

California to the constitutionality of San Francisco’s limit on contributions to political committees

that make only independent expenditures in City elections. On August 27, 2007, the CLC filed an

amici brief on behalf of itself and four other nonprofit political reform organizations supporting the

constitutionality of the San Francisco contribution limits.

MINNESOTA CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR LIFE (MCCL) v. SWANSON, 10-cv-2938 (D.

Minn.), on appeal No. 10-3126 (8th Cir.) MCCL challenged multiple provisions of Minnesota’s

campaign finance law pertaining to the regulation of corporations. On December 22, 2010, the

CLC, with D21, filed an amici brief to defend Minnesota’s disclosure law and its restrictions on

corporate contributions.


19

THALHEIMER v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, No. 10-55322 (9th Cir.) In December 2009,

plaintiffs filed a constitutional challenge to several provisions of San Diego’s campaign finance

laws. On April 9, 2010, the CLC filed a brief amici curie with the Ninth Circuit on behalf of itself

and two other public interest groups to support the contribution limit.

State Public Financing Cases

WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE v. BRENNAN, 3:09-cv-00764 (W.D. Wis.), No. 11-1769 (7th

Cir.) and KOSCHNICK v. DOYLE, 3:09-cv-00767 (W.D. Wis.). In December 2009, two cases

were filed to challenge the trigger provisions of Wisconsin’s recently-enacted public financing

program, as well as other program components. The CLC filed an amici brief on June 17, 2011.




STATE OF TEXAS,

Plaintiff,

v.




Defendant,

AND


Defendant-Intervenors

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 1:12-cv-00128

RMC-DST-RLW

DECLARATION OF CHAD W. DUNN IN

SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEE

Background and Prevailing Party

1. I am counsel for the Kennie Intervenors in the above-styled matter. A true

and correct copy of my curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Attachment No. 1. I am

presenting this declaration in support of Kennie Intervenors’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees

and Costs. The Kennie Intervenors are the prevailing parties in this action and are

entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs.


Experience and Qualifications

2. My resume is attached hereto and it contains an accurate summary of my

education, training and experience. I have handled scores of litigation matters under

federal and state law. I have represented Kennie Intervenors and private parties in federal

or state voting rights litigation in Texas and Washington, D.C since 2002. I have handled

or are currently handling redistricting cases throughout Texas relative to commissioner’s

court, school boards, justices of the peace and constables. I have handled federal cases

relative to candidate qualifications. I am currently handling a federal case challenging

voter registration restrictions adopted by the State of Texas as well as federal challenges

to the state’s photo voter I.D. law (SB 14). I have argued numerous cases at the Fifth

Circuit, including numerous cases that have resulted in reported opinions. I have been

counsel of record for parties to several U.S. Supreme Court cases as well as most Texas

courts of appeal, including the Texas Supreme Court.

3. As a result of the foregoing and much more experience than can be listed

here, I have extensive training, education and experience handling federal cases and, in

particular, those pertaining to civil and voting rights.

Time

4. My time in this case is kept contemporaneously with the work performed. I

devoted a total of approximately 436.90 hours representing the Kennie Intervenors in this

case for which I chose to bill. I have attached the time records that I maintained in this

action but I did not bill more than 100 hours for which I am not seeking a court award. I


also billed for many hours that I did not seek compensation for in the bill. Those hours

eliminated are explained in the attached fee bill.

5. In fact, the reductions I have taken in time far exceed industry norms of

“billing judgment.” I was principally in charge of covering numerous depositions taken

in Texas. I handled the Kennie Intervenors discovery responses and presented the

Intervenors' depositions. I also defended the depositions of Senators Wendy Davis and

Rodney Ellis, both of whom were cited in the Court's final opinion.

6. At trial, I examined as many or more witnesses than any other attorney for

an Intervenor group. I conducted the trial cross-examination of Keith Ingram. I also

conducted the trial direct examinations of Randall Buck Wood, Senator Wendy Davis

and Senator Rodney Ellis.

Market Rate

7. I have extensive experience handling civil and some criminal matters in

federal court. I have extensive experience with civil and voting rights cases. I believe,

based upon the complicated issues and the time involved and the various factors

described herein, that a reasonable hourly rate for such services in this locale is at least

$375 per hour. I have been retained this year by Beaumont Independent School District

at the rate of $375 per hour to represent the school district in multiple federal and state

voting and redistricting cases. $375 per hour is well within the reasonable market rate

charged for similar services in similar cases.


Lodestar

8. In determining the Lodestar a court should usually consider the actual hours

devoted to the case and the market hourly rate for the lawyer in question. It is my

opinion the fees and expenses claimed in the provided statement are reasonable and

necessary.

Johnson Factors

9. Preclusion of Other Employment. My work in this litigation restricted the

time available for pursuit of other litigation during the period of activity in this case.

Because of the extensive work required in a time-compressed period of time, I was

unable to accept and work on other cases. This case included several hearings that often,

due to the nature of the dispute, came with little notice. Scores of deadlines were

required to be met in much shorter deadlines than required under normal federal court

procedure.

10. Time Limitation Imposed by Circumstances. The time limitations in this

case were imposed by pending election schedules and the urgency of these types of

disputes.

11. Undesirability of the Case. This case is desirable from a political

perspective. However, the case is very undesirable from an economic perspective

because the expedited trial schedule and multiple forums (Texas and D.C.) placed

unusual time constraints on the development and preparation of the case and because of

the specialized nature of the actions. Moreover, the short deadlines, time commitment


and complicated nature of the claims make other work easier and, often, more financially

rewarding.

12. Experience and Expertise. My experience has included participation in

federal litigation, extensive advocacy in state and federal cases, and preparation of

pleadings, briefs and evidence for cases in both state and federal courts. I am and have

been counsel in numerous voting rights cases. I have tried countless matters before a

court of a single judge or three judges. I have tried approximately twenty jury trials as

first chair. My trial experience includes federal and state criminal matters. My

experience is more extensively described in Exhibit E, my Curriculum Vitae.

13. It is my opinion, based on my experience and upon inquiring of other

lawyers, that the prevailing market rate for an attorney with my experience, in a difficult

and complicated civil and voting rights case is at least $375 per hour.

Costs

14. The expenses claimed in this motion are actual expenses that were

necessary to properly and successfully represent the Kennie Intervenors in this case.

They include expenses for necessary travel and deposition transcript expenses. These

expenses are described in more detail in the attached billing statement. Only some

deposition transcript expenses are shown because the intervenors divided among

themselves paying for these transcriptions.

15. I have also reviewed the invoices submitted by the Kennie Intervenors'

experts, Dr. Alan Lichtman and Randall Buck Wood, which I have appended to my time

and expense records (Exhibit F). The expert invoices are submitted as Exhibit F, parts 2


(Lichtman) and part 3 (Wood). Both experts testified at trial. It is my opinion that both

invoices are reasonable, and that the testimony of these two witnesses and the time they

billed is both reasonable and necessary.

In closing, it is my opinion that the fees, expenses, and expert fees I have claimed

in this case are both reasonable and necessary and that, given the more than adequate

reductions I have made, should be reimbursed by the State of Texas in light of my

contributions to the prevailing claims and orders in the case.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best

of my knowledge.


/s/ Chad W. Dunn

Chad W. Dunn


1

Chad W. Dunn BRAZIL & DUNN

4201 Cypress Creek Parkway, Suite 530 Houston, Texas 77068

281-580-6310

LICENSES/CERTIFICATIONS: Licensed to practice law in all Texas state courts

Licensed to practice law in all District of Columbia courts Licensed to practice law in the United States Supreme Court

Licensed to practice law in the United States Court of Appeals – Fifth Circuit Licensed to practice law in the United States Court of Appeals – Tenth Circuit Licensed to practice law in the United States Court of Appeals – District of Columbia

Licensed to practice law in the Texas United States District Court – Southern Region Licensed to practice law in the Texas United States District Court –

Northern Region Licensed to practice law in the Texas United States District Court – Western Region Licensed to practice law in the Texas United States District Court – Eastern Region Licensed to practice law in the United States District Court – District of Columbia

EDUCATION: May 2002 South Texas College of Law, Houston, Texas Doctor of Jurisprudence


2

August 1999 University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas Bachelor of Arts in Government

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: 2006-present Brazil & Dunn

Trial Attorney: Perform all duties required by a civil litigation and appellate practice, participate in or conduct trial and mediation of causes. Prepare appellate briefs and

argue same. 2003-present Texas Democratic Party General Counsel: Attend to legal responsibilities

as directed by party needs. Handle election and constitutional cases before all state and federal courts. Handle appeals for state courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and The United States Supreme Court. Assist with fundraising by leveraging litigation successes. Pursue aggressive litigation strategy to protect minority voting rights and fair election procedures.

2003-2007 Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation Board Member 2002-2006 Riddle & Brazil, L.L.P.

Trial Attorney: Perform all duties required by a personal injury/civil litigation practice, participate in or conduct

trial and mediation of causes. 2001-2002 O’Quinn, Laminack and Pirtle, Houston, Texas

Law Clerk/Attorney: Assisted litigation and trial of large damage and multiple party litigation. Conducted research, drafted motions and other pleadings, prepared for and attended hearings and trial.

2001 State Senator Rodney Ellis, Austin, Texas – 77th Legislature

Policy Advisor: Reviewed and prepared summaries and voting suggestion for bills in the Jurisprudence, Health and Human Services, Education, and Natural Resources Committees; developed ideas for legislation; drafted language for bills and speeches; met with constituents, lobbyists, public officials; delivered speeches; prepared press releases and talking points; followed legislation through committees and floor debate.


3

2000 South Texas College of Law, Houston, Texas Research Assistant, Professor Val Ricks: Conduct research on potential scholarly publications; proofread draft law review submissions; check citation forms and improve footnotation.

1999 State Representative Dawnna Dukes, Austin, Texas – 76th Legislature Legislative Assistant: Staff member concerning her

position on the Environmental Regulation Committee. Developed ideas for legislation; drafted language for bills and speeches; met with constituents, lobbyists, public officials; delivered speeches; prepared press releases and talking points; followed legislation through committees and floor debate.

1997 Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Washington D.C.

Legislative Intern: Coordinated with Legislative Assistants on various policy issues; attended briefings and seminars at various executive departments; discussed policy issues with various constituent groups; drafted correspondence and conducted policy research.

SELECT REPORTED CASES:

Texas v. U.S., United States District Court, District of Columbia. January 6, 2012.

279 F.R.D. 176. Suit under the Voting Rights Act concerning the implementation of

a new photo identification voter law.

Richie v. Dallas County, United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division.

December 9, 2010. 2010 WL 5141352. Suit under the Voting Rights Act concerning

preclearance requirement for new voting equipment. Also handled two appeals to

the United States Supreme Court.

Davis v. Perry, United States District Court, W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division.

November 23, 2011. 2011 WL 6207134. Concerning the constitutionality of

statewide redistricting plans for State Senate.

Rodriguez v. Perry, United States District Court, W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division.

November 23, 2011. 835 F. Supp2d 209. Concerning the constitutionality of

statewide redistricting plans for State House and Congress.

Perez v. Perry, United States Supreme Court. January 20, 2012. Appeal in the Davis

and Rodriguez cases concerning constitutionality of statewide redistricting plans.


4

Petteway v. Henry, United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division.

December 9, 2011. 2011 WL 6148674. Concerning the constitutionality of

redistricting plans for Galveston County.

Rodruguez v. Harris County, United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston

Division. Concerning the constitutionality of redistricting plans for Harris County.

LULAC v. TDP, States District Court, W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division. August 24,

2009. 651 F.Supp.2d 700. Concerning the applicability of Section 5 of the Voting

Rights Act to actions of a political party. Also appealed to the United States Court of

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

In re Brown, Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio. July 14, 2008. 2008 WL

2725833. Suit to determine eligibility of a candidate to seek election to the Court of

Appeals.

In re Lakewood Forest Fund, Inc., Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.).

October 20, 2005. 2005 WL 2674971. Suit concerning deed restrictions and a

homeowner's right to repair own property.

Texas State University-San Marcos v. Bonnin, Supreme Court of Texas. June 25,

2010. 314 S.W.3d 912. Suit to recover for the drowning death of a university student

trapped in an undertow and hidden caverns on a waterway held by the State.

DOE v. DOE, United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division. August 12,

2008. 2008 WL 3874693, 2008 WL 5422871 and 2009 WL 306173. Suit for collection

of damages for transmission of sexual disease.

Miller v. Gibraltar Sav. Ass'n, United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Galveston

Division. July 22, 2005. 2005 WL 1719702. Suit concerning the collection of penalties

owed homeowners for failing to deliver a timely deed.

Kucinich v. Richie, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. March 24, 2009. 563

F.3d 161. Suit to determine the extent to which the First Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution protected a political party's requirement to execute an oath to seek the

party's nomination.

Lulac of Texas v. State of Texas, United States District Court, W.D. Texas, San

Antonio Division. August 24, 2009. 651 F.Supp.2d 700 and 318 Fed.Appx. 261. Suit

concerning the scope of the Voting Rights Act.

In re Cullar, Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas. August 19, 2010. 320 S.W.3d 560.

Suit to determine the residency of a candidate who sought election to the Texas

Senate.


5

In re Sharp, Supreme Court of Texas. January 27, 2006. 186 S.W.3d 556. Suit to

determine eligibility of candidate to seek election as a Court of Appeals Justice in

light of alleged errors on ballot application.

Sartin v. Serum Products, LLC., United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas

Division. March 25, 2008. 2008 WL 782645. Suit for damages alleged to be owed

company salesman.

Brimer v. Maxwell, Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas. October 06, 2008. 265 S.W.3d

926. Suit to determine eligibility of nominee for election to Texas Senate.

In re Wilson, United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division.

November 27, 2006. 355 B.R. 600. Suit concerning the ownership and operation of

baseball training business.

Jackson v. Carlson. Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin. March 12, 2009. 2009 WL

638848. Suit concerning ownership of family ranch.

Sachtleben v. Bennett. Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.). August 12,

2010. 2010 WL 3168395. Suit concerning eligibility of incumbent Justice of the Pease

for election when the candidate's ballot application lacked the requisite number of

petition signatures.

Texas State University--San Marcos v. Bonnin, Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin.

December 18, 2008. 315 S.W.3d 58. Suit for wrongful death of a student who

drowned on campus.

Richie v. Benkiser, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. August 03, 2006 459

F.3d 582. Suit to determine whether a member of Congress was ineligible for re-

election and therefore could be replace on the ballot by party leaders.

In re Angelini, Supreme Court of Texas. February 24, 2006. 186 S.W.3d 558. Suit to

determine if an error in a ballot application was fatal to a person's a candidacy.

PUBLICATIONS/PAPERS:

“Courthouse Steps.” Monthly general legal information column for the Houston/Heights Tribune. Beginning December 2002 to present. “Doing Things Right – The First Time.” Vol. VII, No. 1 Plumbing Air-Conditioning Mechanical Contractors Association, January 2003.


6

“Playing by the Rules: The Need for Constitutions to Define the Boundaries of the Legislative Game with a One-Subject Rule.” 34 UWLA L. Rev. ___, University of West Los Angeles Law Review, Summer 2002 “The Sophisticated Doctrine of Consideration.” 9 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 99, George Mason Law Review, Fall, 2000 by Professor Val D. Ricks. (Received footnote credit for research assistance.)

MEMBERSHIPS: Houston Bar Association Greater Houston Heights Bar Association, Founder, President 2006 Phi Delta Phi Legal Honors Fraternity Texas Bar Association


Brazil & Dunn LLP

4201 Cypress Creek Pkwy, #530

Houston, TX 77068

Phone: (281) 580-6310

Fax: (281) 580-6362

www.brazilanddunn.com

Voter ID Statement Date: 09/09/2013

Re: [State of Texas v. Holder-Photo ID case] [U.S. District Court for D.C.]

FOR LEGAL SERVICES RENDERED

Date Description Hour Rate Amount

01/21/12 Conference with Gerry Hebert concerning

Photo ID case. .50 $375.00 No Charge

01/26/12 Conference with potential clients concerning

Photo ID case. 1.20 $375.00 No Charge

01/27/12 Conference with potential client concerning

Photo ID case. .50 $375.00 No Charge

01/30/12 Received Form Motion To Intervene from

Gerry Hebert and begin work on preparing

it for Photo ID case; conference with Gerry

Hebert concerning same. 1.20 $375.00 $ 450.00

01/30/12 Conference with Eric Kennie concerning the


01/31/12 Review address and voting records for Eric

Kennie. .40 $375.00 $ 150.00

01/31/12 Continue working on Motion to Intervene;

Receive case style from staff and make edits

to same; research standard for intervention. 2.10 $375.00 $ 787.50

01/31/12 Conference with clients regarding upcoming


01/31/12 Receive clients’ addresses and look up the

Voting history. .40 $375.00 No Charge

02/01/12 Conference with DOJ concerning their position


https://webmail.campaignlegalcenter.org/owa/redir.aspx?C=2b14c4a82f0a48cb92eef354151594b3&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.brazilanddunn.com%2f


Page No. 2

on Kennie Intervenor’s Motion to Intervene. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00


Conference with DOJ. .20 $375.00 No Charge

02/01/12 Draft and Finalize Motion to Intervene and

Associated documents in the Texas Photo

ID case; receipt and review of edits from

Gerry Hebert concerning same and make

His changes to pleadings; file same with

The Court. 2.10 $375.00 $ 787.50

02/01/12 Conference with The State of Texas concerning

Their position on Motion to Intervene; edit

Motion to reflect Texas’ opposition to the

Intervention. .30 $375.00 $ 112.50

02/01/12 Correspond with Court Clerk concerning the

Filing of Intervention papers outside of the

Normal PACER process. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

02/01/12 Respond to multiple media contacts concerning

Intervention in Photo ID case. .80 $375.00 No Charge

02/02/12 Conference with co-counsel concerning

Preparing Discovery to send to The State of

Texas .20 $375.00 $ 112.50

02/02/12 Research Discovery issues in the Photo ID

Case. .40 $375.00 $ 150.00

02/02/12 Review PACER Docket Sheet to see case

Activity. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

02/02/12 Conference with client, Sergio DeLeon

Concerning the filing of the Photo ID case

And contacts he has received from the media. .50 $375.00 No Charge

02/04/12 Conference with Senator Ellis concerning

Photo ID case and his potential to be a

Witness. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

02/08/12 Receipt and review of Court Notice scheduling

Hearing for February 9, 2012 at 4:45 p.m.

Conference with co-counsel concerning same. .30 $375.00 $ 112.50

02/09/12 Prepare for First Hearing in case. .50 $375.00 $ 187.50



Page No. 3

02/09/12 Call into Court Telephonic Conference and

Participate in Hearing. .80 $375.00 $ 300.00

02/15/12 Receipt and review of The United States’

Response to Kennie Intervenor’s Motion to

Intervene. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

02/16/12 Receipt and review of The State of Texas’

Memorandum and Opposition to The Kennie

Intervenor’s Motion to Intervene; research

Authority cited therein; begin draft of Reply

Thereto. 1.80 $375.00 $ 675.00

02/21/12 Receipt and review of Initial Draft of sections

For Reply to Motion to Intervene from

Gerry Hebert; incorporate with sections into

The Reply to The State of Texas’ Memorandum

And Opposition. .40 $375.00 $ 150.00

02/21/12 Begin Initial Draft of Answer to Complaint;

Research other complaints filed in similar

Cases. 1.40 $375.00 $ 525.00

02/22/12 Continue working on Intervention Reply

Brief; research authorities for same and

Coordinate edits with Gerry Hebert. 2.20 $375.00 $ 825.00


Reply Brief and Amended Complaint. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

02/23/12 Make final edits to Reply Brief and Answer

To Complaint; prepare and file same with

The Court. 2.50 $375.00 $ 937.50

03/06/12 Conference with various clients and others

Concerning the pending Photo ID case. 2.20 $375.00 No Charge

03/08/12 Receipt and review of docket entry concerning

Summons return executed. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

03/12/12 Receipt and review of docket entry showing

Notice of Determination By The Attorney

General; review Attorney General’s

Determination Against Pre-clearance of

Photo ID law. .50 $375.00 $ 187.50

03/12/12 Conference with clients and co-counsel

Concerning DOJ’s decision pre-clearance. 1.50 $375.00 No Charge



Page No. 4

03/12/12 Receipt and review of multiple Notices

Of Appearance for additional attorneys

For the Department of Justice. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

03/12/12 Receipt and review of Motion to Intervene

By The Texas State Conference of NAACP

Branches and MALC; review same. .30 $375.00 $ 112.50

03/12/12 Receipt and review of Motion for Leave To

File Amended Complaint by The State of

Texas with associated exhibits; review

Authorities cited in same. 1.10 $375.00 $ 412.50

03/13/12 Receipt and review of Docket Entry from

Court Setting A Telephonic Conference for

March 14, 2012 at 4:30 p.m.; arrange calendar

To attend same. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

03/14/12 Attend Telephone Conference Hearing with

Three Judge Court. 1.50 $375.00 $ 562.50

03/14/12 Participate in Conference Call with other

Parties to meet and confer concerning pending

Motions. .40 $375.00 $ 150.00

03/15/12 Receipt and review of proposed Scheduling

Order from Adam Aston; review same and

Offer edits. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

03/15/12 Receipt and review of Court Order Granting

Various Motions to Intervene and allowing

Leave to Amend Complaint; also scheduling

A Telephonic Conference for March 21, 2012. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00


Court rulings. .40 $375.00 No Charge

03/15/12 Receipt and review of Answer to Complaint

By MALC and The United States. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

03/15/12 Make final edits of Answer to Complaint

And file same with the Court on behalf of

Kennie Intervenors. .50 $375.00 $ 187.50

03/16/12 Conference call with other Intervenors

Concerning scheduling matters. .50 $375.00 No Charge



Page No. 5

03/16/12 Participate in Conference Call with Intervenors

And DOJ concerning scheduling matters. 1.00 $375.00 No Charge

03/16/12 Receipt and review of Notice of Appearance

For Ezra Rosenberg. .10 $375.00 No Charge


Motion to Appear for Ezra Rosenberg. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50


For Daniel Freeman on behalf of The United

States. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50


By The Texas League of Young Voters

Education Fund. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

03/19/12 Conference call with clients and co-counsel

Concerning preparation for Discovery and

Trial in the Photo ID case. 1.50 $375.00 No Charge

03/19/12 Exchange correspondence with DOJ and The

State of Texas concerning Modifications to

The Proposed Scheduling Order. .30 $375.00 $ 112.50

03/19/12 Conference call with John Tanner concerning

Pending Photo ID case. .30 $375.00 No Charge

03/19/12 Receipt and review of letter from Department

Of Justice concerning the identities of Texas

Legislature members they wish to depose; also

Requesting documents; compare same with

Draft request for documents the Intervenors

Were preparing. .30 $375.00 $ 112.50


For Bruce Gear for The United States. .10 $375.00 No Charge


For The Texas League of Young Voters. .10 $375.00 No Charge

03/20/12 Arrange for and participate in conference call

Of Intervenors in The United States concerning

Discovery and scheduling matters. .40 $375.00 $ 150.00

03/20/12 Draft and edit Initial Rule 26 Disclosures to

File in Photo ID case; forward to Gerry

Hebert for changes. 1.50 $375.00 $ 562.50



Page No. 6

03/21/12 Conference with Intervenor’s counsel

Concerning The State’s proposal regarding

Interrogatories. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

03/21/12 Participate in conference call with Three

Judge Court concerning Discovery, scheduling

And multiple issues in Photo ID case. 1.20 $375.00 $ 450.00

03/21/12 Receive edits to initial disclosures, finalize

Same and serve on all counsel. 1.20 $375.00 $ 450.00

03/21/12 Receipt and review of Joint Proposed Scheduling

Orders, suggest same and review final filing

Of Proposed Scheduling Order with Court. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00


By Gerry Hebert. .10 $375.00 No Charge

03/21/12 Receipt and review of Joint Status Report

Prepared by DOJ, suggest edits to same. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

03/21/12 Receipt and review of Motion for Leave

To Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of

Multiple NAACP attorneys. .10 $375.00 No Charge

03/21/12 Receipt and review of Docket Entry

Scheduling Another Telephonic Conference

With Court on April 3, 2012. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

03/22/12 Receipt and review of Court Orders concerning

Intervention and Pro Hac Vice Motions. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50


For Matthew Frederick. .10 $375.00 No Charge

03/22/12 Receipt and review of the Answer to Amended

Complaint filed by the Texas League of Young

Voters. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

03/22/12 Receipt and review of draft electronic Discovery

Agreement; suggest changes to same; review

Multiple exchange of e-mails concerning the

Electronic Discovery Agreement; review

Appearance of Final Agreement filed with the

Court. .50 $375.00 $ 187.50



Page No. 7

03/22/12 Receipt and review of Motion For

Protective Order by The State of Texas; review

Authorities included in same. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

03/22/12 Exchange multiple correspondence among

The Intervenors concerning document requests

And discovery requests from the Intervenor

Group; suggest edits and additions to same;

Participate in multiple telephone conferences

Concerning same. 1.50 $375.00 $ 562.50

03/23/12 Receipt and review of final interrogatories

Propounded by Intervenors. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

03/23/12 Receipt and review of filings by The United

States and by The State of Texas concerning

Timing of upcoming election; review Affidavit

of Keith Ingram; investigate Keith Ingram’s

recent appointment to The Secretary of State’s

office; review authorities recited in both

pleadings. 2.20 $375.00 $ 825.00

03/23/12 Conference with co-counsel concerning The

State of Texas’ position concerning the

Timing of trial and upcoming election. .20 $375.00 No Charge


By the Southwest Voter Registration

Education Project. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

03/26/12 Receipt and review of Opposition filed by

The State of Texas to Motions to Intervene. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

03/26/12 Conference call with Dan Freeman at the

Department of Justice concerning Photo ID

Case. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

03/27/12 Participate in conference call with Intervenor’s

Counsel concerning Discovery, scheduling,

Depositions and multiple other issues. 1.50 $375.00 $ 562.50

03/27/12 Receipt and review of Court Scheduling

Order setting trial for July 9, 2012 and setting

Other Discovery Deadlines; calendar same;

Conference call with Gerry Hebert concerning

Same. .30 $375.00 $ 112.50



Page No. 8

03/27/12 Prepare for and attend telephone conference

With Court concerning data base disclosure. .50 $375.00 $ 187.50

03/27/12 Receipt and review of Court Docket Entry

Order setting deadlines and requiring the

Parties to take certain action concerning

Production of data bases. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00


Adjusting Scheduling Order Deadlines. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

03/27/12 Receipt and review of Motion For Protective

Order by The Department of Justice; review

Authorities cited in same. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

03/27/12 Receipt and review of draft prepared by

Mark Posner for Intervenor’s Opposition

To The State’s Brief Asserting Privilege;

Provide edits to same. .40 $375.00 $ 150.00

03/27/12 Conference call with Senator Ellis’ office

Concerning a Scheduled Interview between

The Senator and The Department of Justice

On Photo ID. .50 $375.00 $ 187.50

03/28/12 Receipt and review of The Texas Legislative

Black Caucus’ Reply and Opposition to

Motion to Intervene. .50 $375.00 No Charge


Notice of Confidential Data Information. .30 $375.00 No Charge


Briefing Concerning Motion For Protective

Order; review attached evidence concerning

Alleged Kennie criminal history; review

Public data bases to confirm Kennie had

No felony convictions. 1.20 $375.00 $ 450.00

03/29/12 Receipt and review of multiple Oppositions

To the Request by The State of Texas to

Receive a Protective Order. .50 $375.00 $ 187.50


Motion For Leave To File A Reply

Memorandum. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50



Page No. 9

03/29/12 Receive multiple drafts of the Confidentiality

Brief to be filed by Intervenors concerning

The State of Texas’ request for Protective

Order; provide edits to multiple versions

And correspond with other Intervenor

Counsel. 1.20 $375.00 $ 450.00

03/30/12 Receipt and review of multiple Minute

Entries from the Court issuing various

Rulings on Discovery and data base

Exchange. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

03/30/12 Prepare for and attend telephone conference

With Judge Colyer concerning data base

Issues. .80 $375.00 $ 300.00

03/30/12 Receipt and review of Order by Three

Judges concerning Protective Order requested

By State. .40 $375.00 $ 150.00


Responses to Interrogatories and Request

For Production; review same. .40 $375.00 $ 150.00

03/31/12 Receipt and review of Encryption Code for

Discovery Responses by The United States;

Review Discovery Responses by The United

States. 1.50 $375.00 $ 562.50

04/02/12 Multiple conferences and e-mails concerning

Dividing up document production for consideration

By Intervenors’ counsel. 1.20 $375.00 $ 450.00

04/02/12 Receipt and review of Court Minute Entry

Orders granting a number Pro Hac Vice

Motions. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50


Reply concerning Protective Order. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

04/03/12 Receipt and review of Minute Entry Order

From Court requesting certain actions by

The State of Texas. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50


Preparation of evidence for trial. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00



Page No. 10

04/03/12 Receive a draft of letter to The State concerning

Discovery issues from Ezra Rosenberg; provide

Edits to same. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00


Motion to File Documents Under Seal. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

04/03/12 Receipt and review of sealed documents

File by The State of Texas concerning

Alleged criminal record by Eric Kennie. .50 $375.00 $ 187.50

04/03/12 Attend telephone conference between Three

Judge Court. 1.00 $375.00 $ 375.00

04/04/12 Receipt and review of Errata Sheet filed

The State of Texas concerning its Amended

Complaint. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

04/04/12 Receipt and review of Amended Motion to

Intervenor by The Texas Legislative Black

Caucus. .40 $375.00 No Charge

04/04/12 Participate in conference call of Intervenors’

Counsel concerning multiple issues. 1.20 $375.00 $ 450.00

04/05/812 Provide edits to Discovery letter prepared

By Intervenors’ counsel to send to The State

Of Texas. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50


Denying As Moot a Motion For Leave to File

Reply on the Protective Orders. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

04/05/12 Receipt and review of Appearances from

Multiple Counsel for Intervenors. .10 $375.00 No Charge


Preparation of declarations for Senators Ellis,

Davis and Representative Veasey. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

04/05/12 Exchange multiple e-mails with members of

The Legislature and co-counsel concerning

Preparation of Sworn Declaration by

Legislators. 1.20 $375.00 $ 450.00

04/06/12 Exchange multiple e-mails concerning

Scheduling of an additional Court conference

Regarding discovery issues. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00



Page No. 11


Witness preparation for upcoming Photo ID

Trial. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

04/09/12 Participate in conference call among Intervenors’

Counsel to divide up deposition attendance

Among counsel. 1.20 $375.00 $ 450.00

04/09/12 Exchange documents with John Tanner

Concerning declarations for use in elections

By persons without ID. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

04/09/12 Receipt and review of The Department of

Justice’s Answer to the Amended Complaint. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

04/10/12 Prepare for and participate in telephone

Conference with Court concerning Discovery

Disputes. 1.20 $375.00 $ 450.00


Justice’s Memorandum concerning Discovery

Issues for today’s telephone conference with

Court. .40 $375.00 $ 150.00

04/10/12 Participate in conference call between

Intervenors, DOJ, and The State of Texas to

Meet and confer on Discovery issues. .30 $375.00 $ 112.50

04/11/12 Receipt and review of initial list of deponents

Requested by Intervenors from Amy Rudd;

Provide edits to same and propose additional

Deponents; exchange edited draft to Intervenor

Counsel. 1.20 $375.00 $ 450.00

04/11/12 Conference call with Nancy Abudu concerning

Preparation of list of people to depose. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

04/12/12 Receipt and review of letter from The Department

Of Justice of The State of Texas concerning

Its failure to produce a number of e-mails and

Other documents requested in Document

Production. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

04/12/12 Exchange multiple e-mails concerning data

Base issues regarding voter registration

and social security numbers. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00



Page No. 12

04/12/12 Participate in multiple e-mails between

Intervenors and The State of Texas regarding

The scheduling of 30(b)(6) deposition over

Data base issues. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

04/12/12 Receipt and review of multiple transcripts

From Matthew Frederick from The State

Of Texas concerning House Committee’s

On Photo ID bill. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00


Counsel regarding scheduling and Discovery

Issues. 1.20 $375.00 $ 450.00

04/13/12 Receipt and review of Court Minute Order

Granting multiple motions to intervene and

Also directing Intervenors to identify a

Single attorney to examine deponents at

Depositions. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

04/13/12 Receipt and review of multiple answers to

Amended Complaint filed by Intervenors. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

04/13/12 Receipt and review of Reply filed by The

State of Texas. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

04/14/12 Receipt and review of the Supplemental

Initial Disclosures by The United States. .30 $375.00 $ 112.50

04/15/12 Conference with Intervenors’ counsel

Concerning correspondence with The

State on Discovery issues. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

04/16/12 Receipt and review of letter from The

Department of Justice to The State of

Texas concerning additional deficiencies

In The State’s document production and

The State’s provided privilege log. .30 $375.00 $ 112.50

04/16/12 Participate in conference call with the

Court concerning multiple Discovery issues. .70 $375.00 $ 262.50

04/16/12 Receipt and review of multiple e-mails from

The State of Texas providing legislative

Histories. .30 $375.00 $ 112.50



Page No. 13

04/16/12 Conference call with The State of Texas and

The United States conferring on multiple

Discovery issues. .50 $375.00 $ 187.50

04/16/12 Conference call with Gerry Hebert concerning

Multiple matters of Photo ID case. 1.20 $375.00 No Charge

04/16/12 Receipt and review of draft of Motion to

Postpone the Trial; provide edits to same. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

04/16/12 Conference call with co-Intervenors counsel

Concerning multiple outstanding Discovery

Issues. 1.00 $375.00 No Charge

04/17/112 Receipt and review of Notice of Disputed

Discovery issues filed by The Attorney

General. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

04/17/12 Receipt and review of Minute Order requesting

The United States file by April 23rd

its Motion

For Clarification Upon The Trial Date. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

04/17/12 Participate in telephone conference with Court

Concerning a number of issues. .40 $375.00 $ 150.00

04/18/12 Participate in conference call among

Intervenors to divide up Discovery and

Deposition issues. 1.00 $375.00 $ 375.00

04/18/12 Begin edits to prepare Answer to Amended

Complaint filed by The State of Texas. 1.00 $375.00 $ 375.00

04/18/12 Exchange multiple e-mails regarding e-mail

Search term to be used The State of Texas in

Producing legislative e-mails. .50 $375.00 $ 187.50


Counsel to work through Discovery and

Scheduling issues and divide up matters among

Intervenor counsel. .80 $375.00 $ 300.00

04/18/12 Participate in conference call with other

Members of the deponent team for Intervenors

To determine who should be deposed and who

Would cover certain depositions; exchange

e-mails among Intervenors explaining our

findings. 1.20 $375.00 $ 450.00



Page No. 14

04/19/12 Receipt and review from Gerry Hebert

Changes to Amended Complaint; incorporate

Same; File same with the Court. 1.50 $375.00 $ 562.50

04/19/12 Begin preparation of and edits to a deposition

Outline for upcoming legislator depositions. 1.10 $375.00 $ 412.50

04/19/12 Exchange of multiple e-mails with Intervenor

Counsel concerning e-mail searches to be

Performed by The State of Texas on legislative

e-mails. .50 $375.00 $ 187.50

04/19/12 Research foreign languages available on

Registration Cards and The State of Texas’

Proposed election documents concerning Photo

ID. .40 $375.00 $ 150.00

04/20/12 Receipt and review of draft concerning postpone-

Ment of trial brief and provide edits to same. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00


Supplemental document production and responses

To Interrogatories. .50 $375.00 $ 187.50

04/20/12 Receipt and review of Court Order Denying a

Motion For Protective Order. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

04/20/12 Receipt and review of The State of Texas’ Notice

Regarding subpoena. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

04/23/12 Conference call with Senator Ellis’ office concerning

Photo ID case and his testimony. .30 $375.00 $ 112.50

04/23/12 Receipt and review of Motion to Clarify Schedule

Filed by The Department of Justice. .40 $375.00 $ 150.00

04/23/12 Multiple conference calls and exchange of e-mails

With Intervenors’ counsel concerning depositions

That are desired to take and priority in scheduling

Such depositions. 1.20 $375.00 $ 450.00

04/24/12 Receipt and review of Brief filed by The State

Of Texas concerning legislative privilege

Assertion. .50 $375.00 $ 187.50

04/24/12 Gather together legislative privilege research

Performed in other cases and forward same to

Co-counsel for Intervenors. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00



Page No. 15

04/25/12 Participate in telephone conference with The

State and The United States on a meet and

Confer for several discovery issues. 1.00 $375.00 $ 375.00

04/25/12 Receipt and review of multiple Docket Entries

By the Court concerning corrected docket entries

And resetting deadlines; also receipt and review

Of Court Notice concerning transcript availability

Of proceedings. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

04/25/12 Receipt and review of Motion to Compel the

Production of Documents and Privilege Log filed

By The United States against The State of Texas. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

04/26/12 Receipt and review from Gerry Hebert form

Objections and answers to Texas Interrogatories

Used in a redistricting case; begin edits and changes

To those two; provided interrogatory responses to

The State on behalf of the Kennie Intervenors. 2.20 $375.00 $ 825.00

04/26/12 Receipt and review of Scheduling Order entered

In the South Carolina Photo ID case and review

Applicability to Texas case. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50


Counsel coordinating responses to The State of

Texas Interrogatories and requests for production

Propounded to all the Intervenors. 1.20 $375.00 $ 450.00

04/27/12 Receipt and review of multiple e-mails seeking

Additional telephone conference with the Court

Regarding discovery issues. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

04/27/12 Research media reports concerning in person

Voter fraud in Texas over the last ten (10) years. 2.20 $375.00 $ 825.00

04/27/12 Prepare Verifications to be signed by each

Plaintiff in response to their Interrogatories. .80 $375.00 $ 300.00

04/27/12 Multiple conferences with clients concerning

Their responses to discovery and interrogatories. 1.8 $375.00 $ 675.00

04/27/12 Receipt and review of discovery requests

Propounded to Kennie Intervenors by The State

Of Texas. .40 $375.00 $ 150.00



Page No. 16

04/27/12 Conference with Gerry Hebert regarding

Answering The State of Texas discovery

Requests. .30 $375.00 No Charge

04/27/12 Receipt and review of The State’s response

To DOJ’s Motion to Clarify The Trial Schedule. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

04/27/12 Receipt and review of The State’s Advisory

Regarding discovery. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

04/27/12 Receipt and review of letter from The State

Of Texas concerning the data base fields and

The drivers’ license data base. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

04/30/12 Continue to work with clients to prepare their

Responses to Interrogatories and requests for

Production. 4.50 $375.00 $1,687.50


Response and Motion to Compel filed by The

United States. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

04/30/12 Prepare for and participate in Court telephone

Hearing regarding data base issues. .40 $375.00 $ 150.00

05/01/12 Receipt and review of Court Order scheduling

Status Conference for May 3, 2012. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

05/01/12 Continue working on drafts of Interrogatories

And requests for production responses for each

Of the Kennie Intervenors. 4.20 $375.00 $1,575.00


Responses to discovery. .40 $375.00 No Charge

05/01/12 Conference call with and coordinate receiving

Signed Verifications from each of the Kennie

Intervenors. .80 $375.00 $ 300.00


Advisory concerning data base production. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

05/02/12 Participate and meet and confer conference

Call between The State of Texas, Intervenors

And The United States. .60 $375.00 $ 225.00



Page No. 17

05/02/12 Continue edits and finalize responses to

Interrogatories and requests for production to

The State of Texas; continue collecting signed

Verifications from Kennie Intervenors to

Accompany responses to discovery. 4.40 $375.00 $1,650.00

05/02/12 Receipt and review of requests for admissions

Propounded by The State of Texas. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

05/02/12 Receipt and review of documents pulled from

The State’s document production concerning

Average wait times at DPS’ Drivers License

Offices. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

05/02/12 Conference call with Ezra Rosenberg concerning

Various discovery issues and the scheduling of

Upcoming depositions. .40 $375.00 $ 150.00

05/03/12 Receipt and review of Court Minute Order

Requiring The State of Texas to produce certain

Fields to the Team data base. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

05/03/12 Receipt and review of Motion for Protective

Order from The United States concerning the

Social Security data base. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

05/03/12 Receipt and review of The United States responses

To Motion to Compel. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

05/03/12 Participate in conference call with the Court of

Three Judges including the testimony of

Secretary of State employee Keith Ingram. 1.80 $375.00 $ 675.00

05/03/12 Provided drafts of responses to The State of

Texas discovery by Kennie Intervenors to other

Intervenors’ counsel to coordinate responses;

Receive suggestions and return. .50 $375.00 $ 187.50

05/03/12 Receipt and review of responses to discovery

Propounded by The State of Texas to other

Intervenors. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00


Of Justice to The State of Texas arranging for

The scheduling of multiple legislator and other

Witness depositions. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00



Page No. 18

05/04/12 Receipt and review of Notice of Data Base

Production by The State of Texas. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

05/04/12 Receipt and review of Minute Order from

Court requiring a report by May 8th

of various

Issues related to data base production. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

05/07/12 Receipt and review of multiple advisories

Concerning data base production. .40 $375.00 $ 150.00

05/07/12 Exchange multiple e-mail between counsel

Arranging for and scheduling multiple legislator

Depositions. .40 $375.00 $ 150.00

05/07/12 Participate in conference call with The Department

Of Justice concerning upcoming depositions

Witnesses in Texas. .80 $375.00 $ 300.00


Justice’s letter to The State of Texas concerning

Their assertion of privilege concerning various

Documents. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

05/07/12 Receipt and review of letter from The’

Department of Justice to The State of Texas

Regarding production as a Team data base. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

05/07/12 Receipt and review of multiple responses to

The State of Texas’ requests for admissions. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

05/08/12 Participate in telephone conference before

Three Judge Court. 1.20 $375.00 $ 450.00


Counsel regarding deposition and discovery

Issues. 1.50 $375.00 $ 562.50

05/08/12 Continue edits to Kennie Intervenors’ responses

To discovery with request to the requests for

Admissions propounded The State; conference

With each client concerning admissions

Responses. 4.40 $375.00 $1,650.00

05/08/12 Conference call with Gerry Hebert regarding

Responses to admissions. .40 $375.00 No Charge



Page No. 19

05/08/12 Receipt and review of multiple discovery

Responses to The State’s requests by other

Intervenors. .50 $375.00 No Charge


Of Texas concerning alleged deficiencies in

The Kennie Intervenors responses to discovery. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00


The State of Texas’ complaints with Kennie

Intervenors’ responses to discovery. .40 $375.00 No Charge

05/09/12 Receipt and review of Court’s Minute Order

Concerning multiple data base document

Production issues. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00


Filings under seal, and Motion to Support

Same. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

05/09/12 Conference with The State of Texas regarding

Its Motion to Extend The Time To Respond

To The Court’s Trial Schedule questions. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50


Motion For Extension of Time. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50


Motion For Extension of Time. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

05/09/12 Exchange e-mails with Intervenor counsel and

Images of voter registration cards concerning

The conflicting language on the back of the

Voter registration card concerning photo id

And its inaccuracy based on the law. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

05/09/12 Participate in conference call among Intervenor

Counsels regarding depositions and multiple

Other discovery issues. 1.10 $375.00 $ 412.50

05/09/12 Participate in conference call among Intervenor

Deponent Team concerning additional depositions

To request. .30 $375.00 $ 112.50

05/09/12 Conference call with Nancy Abudu concerning

Scheduling upcoming depositions. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00



Page No. 20

05/09/12 Receipt and review of letter from The United

States to The State of Texas concerning

Protective Order issues. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

05/09/12 Begin preparing form deposition outline for

Upcoming legislator depositions. 1.20 $375.00 $ 450.00

05/10/12 Continue working on deposition outline for

Legislator depositions to be used by Intervenor

Counsel. 1.70 $375.00 $ 637.50

05/10/12 Exchange multiple e-mails regarding The State

Of Texas’ Motion on Protective Order. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

05/10/12 Receipt and review of Intervenors’ draft Brief

In Opposition To Motion For Protective Order

And provide edits to same. .40 $375.00 $ 150.00

05/10/12 Prepare Motion For Leave To Appear Pro Hac

Vice for K. Scott Brazil and Order In Support

So that Mr. Brazil can assist with covering of

Depositions; file same with the Court. .40 $375.00 $ 150.00

05/10/12 Conference call with Ezra Rosenberg regarding

Dividing up of upcoming depositions among

Counsel. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

05/10/12 Continue conference calls with Intervenor

Deponent Team to ensure a comprehensive

Lists of Deponents and to discuss each issue

We hope to learn from each deponent. 1.40 $375.00 $ 525.00

05/11/12 Finalize draft of Kennie Intervenors’ Responses

To Admissions and send draft to Gerry

Hebert for his edits. 2.10 $375.00 $ 787.50

05/11/12 Receipt and review of Gerry Hebert’s

Changes to Admissions; incorporate same;

Finalize and send documents. .80 $375.00 $ 300.00

05/11/12 Conference call with The State of Texas

Concerning Kennie Intervenors’ Discovery

Responses. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

05/11/12 Receipt and review of multiple Docket

Entries and associated documents concerning

Data base discovery. 1.20 $375.00 No Charge



Page No. 21

05/12/12 Receipt and review of Deposition Notices

From The State of Texas for Rule 30(b)(6)

Depositions of MALC and NAACP. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

05/12/12 Make flight and hotel accommodations for

Upcoming Photo ID trial. 1.10 $375.00 No Charge

05/13/12 Conference call with Intervenor counsel

Concerning upcoming Rule 30(b)(6) depositions

Of organizational intervenor defendants. .50 $375.00 No Charge

05/13/12 Finalize edits to proposed deposition outline

For upcoming depositions and forward same

To Intervenor counsel. 2.20 $375.00 $ 825.00

05/14/12 Receipt and review of Deposition Notice

From The State of Texas concerning Kennie

Intervenors and conference call with The

State of Texas regarding more appropriate

Dates. .30 $375.00 $ 112.50

05/14/12 Conference call with clients to arrange their

Availability for deposition. .50 $375.00 $ 187.50

05/14/12 Receipt and review of new information

Concerning Texas’ DPS’s requirements of

Documentation to obtain driver’s license

Just issued. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

05/14/12 Participate in conference call with Intervenor

Counsel to coordinate upcoming depositions. .30 $375.00 $ 112.50

05/14/12 Travel to and from Austin, Texas to attend

The deposition of Koby Bueck. 4.50 $375.00 No Charge

05/14/12 Participate in the deposition of Koby Bueck. 6.20 $375.00 $2,325.00

05/15/12 Receipt and review of edits to deposition

Outline from Intervenors’ counsel; incorporate

Same. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

05/15/12 Participate in deposition of Senator Troy

Fraser. 6.20 $375.00 $2,325.00

05/15/12 Receipt and review of The United States

Request for conference call to the Court

Concerning outgoing depositions and

Legislative privilege. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50



Page No. 22


Status of ongoing depositions. .40 $375.00 No Charge

05/16/12 Participate in conference call with Court regarding

Legislative privilege issues as it relates to

Depositions. .80 $375.00 $ 300.00


The State of Texas’ objections to our discovery

Responses. .30 $375.00 No Charge

05/16/12 Conference call with John Tanner regarding

Election Day form for use by poll watchers

Concerning Photo ID. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

05/16/12 Participate in conference call with other members

Of the Intervenor Deponents Team to discuss

Additional depositions to request and the

Schedule for already scheduled depositions. 1.20 $375.00 $ 450.00


Depositions. 4.50 $375.00 No Charge

05/17/12 Participate in deposition of Senator Troy

Fraser. 6.20 $375.00 $2,325.00

05/17/12 Receipt and review of Court Order by Judge

Wilkins concerning legislative privilege and

Depositions; review same and conference call

With other attorneys covering depositions. .30 $375.00 $ 112.50

05/17/12 Receipt and review of the model ALEC Voter

ID loan compared to SB14. .30 $375.00 $ 112.50

05/17/12 Coordinate with Nancy Abudu concerning

Deposition issues and coordinating those

Issues to remaining Intervenor counsel. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00


Several issues. .80 $375.00 No Charge


The State of Texas’ request to depose State

Representative Mark Veasey and the

Applicability of legislative privilege to such

Deposition. .30 $375.00 $ 112.50



Page No. 23

05/17/12 Conference call with Elizabeth Westfall at

Department of Justice concerning depositions. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

05/18/12 Participate in conference call with Three Judge

Court. 1.20 $375.00 $ 450.00

05/18/12 Participate in conference call with Intervenors’

Counsel to divide up work and handle discovery

And deposition issues. 1.10 $375.00 $ 412.50

05/18/12 Receipt and review of Docket Entry showing

Notice of Appearance for law firm of Bartlit

Beck for The State of Texas; investigate named

Attorneys. .20 $375.00 No Charge

05/18/12 Participate in conference call with Three Judge

Court. 1.00 $375.00 $ 375.00


Response to the Court’s Order concerning

Discovery requests. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00


Reply and Opposition to Motion For Protective

Order. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

05/19/12 Confer with the Intervenor Deponent Team to

Discuss past and future depositions and make

Recommendations to the Intervenor Group. 1.10 $375.00 $ 412.50

05/19/12 Receipt and review of draft of transcript for

Senator Fraser’s deposition; review for excerpts

To use in Motion to Reschedule Senator

Fraser’s deposition. 1.50 $375.00 $ 562.50

05/20/12 Receipt and review of draft Brief from

Intervenors concerning discovery issues;

Provide edits to same and return. .40 $375.00 $ 150.00

05/21/12 Multiple e-mails and telephone conferences

To arrange Representative Veasey’s deposition

In Fort Worth. 1.20 $375.00 $ 450.00

05/21/12 Arrange for conference space in Austin, Texas

For depositions of Senator Wendy Davis and

Intervenor Kennie. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00



Page No. 24

05/21/12 Receipt and review of past deposition for

Secretary of State employee Anne McGeehan. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

05/21/12 Review the witness folders created on the

Intervenor shared network system for documents

To use in depositions. 1.80 $375.00 $ 675.00

05/21/12 Receipt and review of Motion To Compel filed

By The State of Texas. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00


Objection to the scheduling of the deposition

Of Dewhurst. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50


Motion For Protective Order concerning the

Dewhurst deposition. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

05/21/12 Receipt and review of Motion to Compel

Production of documents and testimony by

Intervenors. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50


Motion To Compel The State of Texas to

Produce documents and testimony. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00


Multiple issues. .50 $375.00 No Charge

05/22/12 Receipt and review of Court Order Denying

The Motion to Move The Trial Date. .30 $375.00 $ 112.50


Potential expert witnesses. .40 $375.00 $ 150.00

05/22/12 Conference call with multiple individuals

Concerning consideration of their giving

Expert testimony in the Photo ID case. .60 $375.00 $ 225.00

05/22/12 Conference call with Senator Ellis concerning

His upcoming deposition and testimony in the

Case. .30 $375.00 $ 112.50


Concerning witnesses Kennie Intervenors intend

To call at trial and therefore necessitate

Deposition. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00



Page No. 25


Deposition issues. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

05/23/12 Exchange multiple e-mails concerning

Scheduling a conference with the Department

Of Justice to discuss multiple issues and

Preparation for trial. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

05/23/12 Conference call with the Brennan Center

Attorneys concerning depositions taken of


05/23/12 Conference with Gerry Hebert and Alan

Lichtman concerning his testimony as an

Expert in the upcoming case. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

05/24/12 Coordinate with Senator Ellis’ staff the

Scheduling of his upcoming deposition. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

05/24/12 Receipt and review of Court’s Order concerning

The State of Texas’ Motion of Extension of

Time to Produce Privilege Logs. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

05/24/12 Receipt and review of the Department of

Justice’s Notice concerning e-mail privilege

Log. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

05/24/12 Receipt and review of multiple motions and

Responses concerning Motions to Compel. .30 $375.00 $ 112.50

05/24/12 Conference call with Intervenor Deponent

Team to discuss additional depositions needed

Before discovery period ends. .50 $375.00 $ 187.50

05/24/12 Conference call with Senator Davis’ office

To schedule her deposition. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

05/25/12 Receipt and review of an Evidence and Proof

Chart prepared by Dechert; make changes to

Same; review and consider in light of the

Depositions taken. .50 $375.00 $ 187.50


Of Justice to The State of Texas regarding its

Assertion of legislative privilege over the

Governor and Lieutenant Governor. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00



Page No. 26

05/25/12 Multiple conferences to schedule Senator Davis’

Deposition and location. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00


Of Texas to the Court regarding privilege

Issues. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

05/25/12 Receipt and review of Court e-mail providing

Instructions of the exchange of documents

In light of recent Court Orders. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

05/25/12 Receipt and review of a number Deposition

Notices from The State of Texas and schedule

Same. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

05/25/12 Receipt and review of Deposition Notices for

Senators Ellis and Davis and forward same to

Them and their staff. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

05/25/12 Exchange e-mails with The State of Texas

Concerning accommodations for deposition

And disclosure of additional potential trial

Witnesses. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50


Issues by The United States for a Major

Mitchell and calendar same. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50


Notice of Compliance With Court’s Orders

Filed with the Court. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

05/27/12 Receipt and review of draft Reply by

Intervenors on legislative privilege issues;

Offer commits and confer with co-counsel. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

05/28/12 Receipt and review of Court Order concerning

The Lieutenant Governor privilege discovery

Dispute. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50


Deposition. 4.50 $375.00 No Charge

05/29/12 Participate in deposition of Michael

Schofield. 6.20 $375.00 $2,325.00



Page No. 27

05/29/12 Exchange e-mails with Intervenors’ counsel

Dividing up upcoming depositions for

Coverage; telephone conference call with

Ezra Rosenberg. .30 $375.00 $ 112.50

05/29/12 Receipt and review of The States of

Texas’ Notice of Depositions for Veasey,

Burns and Kennie; forward same for

Deponents and confirm deposition

Locations are available. .50 $375.00 $ 187.50

05/29/12 Conference call with Intervenors’ counsel

Regarding issuing deposition notices for

Deniece Davis and Karina Davis. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

05/29/12 Conference call with Gerry Hebert and Eric

Kennie regarding his upcoming deposition. .30 $375.00 $ 112.50

05/29/12 Receipt and review from The State of Texas

A draft Motion To Alter Scheduling Order. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50


The State of Texas’ proposed Scheduling

Order modifications. .20 $375.00 No Charge

05/29/12 Receipt and review of multiple reply and

Responses concerning Motions to Compel

Filed by The State of Texas and The

Department of Justice. .50 $375.00 $ 187.50


Regarding Intervenors’ position on The

State of Texas’ Motion to Modify Scheduling

Order. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

05/30/12 Participate in conference call with The

State of Texas and Intervenors’ counsel

Concerning position on Scheduling Order. .30 $375.00 $ 112.50

05/30/12 Conference call with Senator Davis’ office

To arrange preparation time for her

Deposition. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

05/30/12 [Scott Brazil] Travel to and from Austin,

Texas to attend Photo ID depositions. 4.50 $375.00 No Charge

05/30/12 [Scott Brazil] Attend the deposition of

Brian Birdwell. 6.20 $375.00 $2,325.00



Page No. 28



05/30/12 Participate in deposition of Senator Dan

Patrick. 5.40 $375.00 $2,025.00

05/30/12 [Scott Brazil] Attend the deposition of

Brian Birdwell. 6.20 $375.00 $2,325.00

05/31/12 [Scott Brazil]Participate in deposition of

Representative Gonzales. 6.20 $375.00 $2,325.00


Regarding their request to move Senator

Davis’ deposition. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00


Reviewing depositions and creating

Designations. .50 $375.00 $ 187.50


Amended Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice

Of League of Women Voters. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

06/01/12 Receipt and review of draft Memorandum

In Opposition to the Motion To Modify

Scheduling Order; receipt and review of

Final filed with the Court. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

06/01/12 Receipt and review and exchange

Correspondence regarding procedure to

Follow to exchange or file expert disclosures. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50


Regarding Senators Van De Putte and

Zaffirini as well as election officials from

Various counties to be called as witnesses

At trial. .30 $375.00 $ 112.50

06/01/12 Conference call with Representative Dukes

Concerning her testimony as a witness in

The Photo ID case. .50 $375.00 $ 187.50


Designation of Experts; review expert

Reports and consider experts to hire in

Response; contact with several potential



Page No. 29

Experts. 4.10 $375.00 $1,537.50


The State of Texas’ expert designation. .50 $375.00 No Charge


Designation of Experts; consider in light of

Experts contacted to be used on behalf of

Kennie Intervenors. 2.10 $375.00 $ 787.50

06/02/12 Exchange e-mails with Intervenors’ counsel

Dividing up upcoming depositions for

Coverage. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00


Regarding retaining the schedule of deposition

For Senator Davis and Kennie; also discuss

Scheduling other depositions of potential

Trial witnesses. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

06/04/12 Conference call with Gerry Hebert and Dr.

Lichtman concerning preparation of his

Report .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

06/04/12 Conference call with co-counsel concerning

Deposition summaries. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

06/04/12 Conference call with Dallas County election

Officials concerning affects of Photo ID on

Election administration in preparation of a

Declaration concerning same. 1.50 $375.00 $ 562.50


To divide up additional deposition scheduled. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

06/05/12 Receipt and review of additional Rule 30(b)(6)

Deposition Notices issued by The State of

Texas. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

06/05/12 Prepare, edit and provide The State of Texas’

Amended Responses to Disclosures. .40 $375.00 $ 150.00


Concerning issuing Third Party subpoenas

For trial. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

06/05/12 Receipt and review of Motion to Compel by

The United States. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50



Page No. 30

06/05/12 Receipt and review of Order by Court

Concerning Motion to Compel. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

06/05/12 Receipt and review of Court Order regarding

Specific documents that must be turned over

By The State of Texas. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

06/05/12 Receipt and review of The Unite States’ response

Concerning Modifying the Scheduling Order. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50



06/06/12 Conference with Senator Wendy Davis to

Prepare for deposition. 1.00 $375.00 $ 375.00

06/06/12 Present and prepare Senator Wendy Davis for deposition

Taken by The State of Texas. 5.10 $375.00 $ 1,912.50

06/06/12 Present and prepare Eric Kennie for deposition

Taken by The State of Texas. 3.10 $375.00

06/06/12 Receipt and review of Court Order requiring

Responses to Motion to Compel by June 7th

. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

06/06/12 Conference call with Intervenors’ counsel about

Obtaining an Extension To Produce Expert

Reports. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

06/06/12 Receipt and review of rough draft of Senator

Davis’ deposition transcript; review of same

For errors; forward same to Senator Davis’

Office for review. .50 $375.00 $ 187.50


Regarding Reconvening Representative

Harless’ deposition. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00


Regarding using Buck Wood as an expert. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

06/07/12 Prepare Intervenors Veasey and Burns for

Their depositions. 1.50 $375.00 $ 562.50

06/07/12 Present Intervenors Veasey and Burns for

Depositions taken by The State of Texas. 6.50 $375.00 $2,437.50



Page No. 31

06/07/12 Travel to and from Fort Worth, Texas. 6.50 $375.00 No Charge

06/07/12 [Scott Brazil] Travel and from Austin,

Texas to attend depositions. 5.00 $375.00 No Charge

06/07/12 [Scott Brazil] Attend deposition of Senator

Robert Duncan. 6.50 $375.00 $2,437.50

06/07/12 Conference call with Department of Justice

Regarding logistics for Representative

Veasey deposition. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

06/07/12 Multiple conferences with Buck Wood; prepare

Initial draft of Wood Expert Report; go over

Report with Buck Wood and make changes

To same and forward first final draft of Wood

Report to other Intervenors’ counsel for

Suggestions. 5.50 $375.00 $2,062.50

06/07/12 Conference call with Anne Burns concerning

Her deposition and the case. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

06/07/12 Receipt and review of additional briefing on

Adjustments to the Scheduling Order. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

06/07/12 Receipt and review of Order from Judge

Tatel concerning the Motion to Compel. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

06/07/12 Receipt and review of Court Minute

Orders Altering the Scheduling Order. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50


And the Court Clerk regarding the Kennie

Intervenors Seeking to Reconvene the

Deposition of Harless. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

06/08/12 [Scott Brazil] Travel to and from Austin,

Texas to attend depositions. 4.50 $375.00 No Charge

06/08/12 [Scott Brazil] Attend deposition of Carlos

Uresti. 6.60 $375.00 $2,475.00

06/08/12 Receipt and review of Court Order Reopening

The Representative Harless Deposition at

Kennie Intervenors’ request. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

06/08/12 Incorporate edits to the Buck Wood Expert

Report and finalize same. 2.70 $375.00 $1,012.50



Page No. 32

06/08/12 Conference call with The Department of

Justice’s office concerning the cancellation

Of the Montez and Pope deposition in light

Of the fact The State of Texas never issued

A deposition notice. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

06/08/12 Receipt and review of numerous deposition

Transcripts and review a few to determine

Case issues. .70 $375.00 $ 262.50

06/08/12 Exchange correspondence with The State of

Texas concerning the deposition of Ms.

Burns and other discovery issues. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00


Response to The State of Texas’ complaints

About discovery and Ms. Burns deposition

And document production. .40 $375.00 No Charge

06/08/12 Receipt and review of expert report of Dr.

Engstrom and Dr. Florez. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00


For the Reconvening of Senator Fraser’s

Deposition. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

06/11/12 Conference call with co-counsel concerning

Preparation of deposition summaries. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

06/11/12 Receipt and review of multiple deposition

Notices for various parties and witnesses. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00


Of Texas to The Department of Justice

Concerning the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition

Notice of Texas issued. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00


Notices. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

06/12/12 Receipt and review of letter from Dan Freeman

To The State of Texas concerning discovery

Document production issues. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

06/13/12 Travel to and from Austin, Texas for Senator

Fraser’s second deposition. 4.50 $375.00 No Charge



Page No. 33

06/13/12 Prepare for and attend second volume of

Senator Fraser’s deposition. 3.5 $375.00 $1,312.50

06/13/12 Attend the second volume of Patricia

Harless’ deposition. 2.50 $375.00 $ 937.50

06/13/12 Exchange multiple e-mails with all counsel

Regarding the scheduling of the Representative

Harless Deposition. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00


Adjusting Pre-trial Deadlines. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50


The additional time given on pre-trial deadlines. .10 $375.00 No Charge


His work with Dr. Lichtman to prepare a

Report. 1.0 $375.00 No Charge


And Gerry Hebert regarding the scheduling

Of Dr. Lichtman’s deposition. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00


Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50


Notices for experts and calendar same. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

06/18/12 Participate in conference call with Intervenors’

Counsel to divide up trial witnesses and trial

Duties. 2.1 $375.00 $ 787.50

06/18/12 Conference regarding updating of deposition

Summaries for Senator Fraser and Representative

Harless. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50


The Department of Justice regarding Secretary

Of State’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

06/19/12 [Scott Brazil] Prepare deposition questions and

Thoughts on Sager’s Report and strategy for

Handling his deposition and forward same

To Ezra Rosenberg to cover deposition. 1.50 $375.00 $ 562.50

06/19/12 Receipt and review of Court Order Modifying



Page No. 34

Deadline for The State of Texas to Produce

A Rule 30(b)(6) witness. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50


Other counsel regarding setting up deposition

June 29 for Buck Wood. .40 $375.00 $ 150.00

06/20/12 Receipt and review of Motion For Extension

Of Time to File Findings of Facts and

Conclusions of Law by The State of Texas. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

06/20/12 Receipt and review of multiple Motions in

Limine to Preclude Expert Testimony Including

Testimony offered by Experts presented by



Live Witness List. .40 $375.00 $ 150.00

06/20/12 Receipt and review of proposed findings of

Fact by The State of Texas with multiple

Attachments; review and preparation for

Trial. 4.50 $375.00 $1,687.50


Deposition designations and review for

Witnesses I am assigned. .70 $375.00 $ 262.50

06/21/22 Receipt and review of deposition notice for

Buck Wood; forward same for his office and

Coordinate deposition. .30 $375.00 $ 112.50


Logistics for upcoming trial and travel

Arrangements. .50 $375.00 No Charge

06/21/12 Conference call with The Department of

Justice regarding upcoming Senator Ellis

Deposition and arrange for The Department

Of Justice participation by telephone. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

06/22/12 Prepare for Senator Ellis for his deposition. 1.50 $375.00 $ 562.50

06/22/12 Present Senator Ellis for first installment of

His deposition. 3.50 $375.00 $1,312.50

06/22/12 Work on deposition designations for witnesses

I am assigned to provide to the Intervenors’



Page No. 35

Counsel Group. 2.20 $375.00 $ 825.00

06/23/12 Receipt and review of deposition transcript

For Senator Ellis; review same for errors and

Forward same to Senator’s office for his

Review; also forward to other Intervenors’

Counsel. 1.20 $375.00 $

06/23/12 Present Senator Ellis for second installment

Of his deposition. 3.30 $375.00 $1,237.50


Regarding Opposition to Motions in Limine

Of Experts. .30 $375.00 $ 112.50

06/24/12 Receipt and review of draft by Gerry Hebert

On the Motion To Exclude Dr. Lichtman;

Provide edits to same and return. .40 $375.00 $ 150.00

06/25/12 Review proposed findings of facts and

Conclusions of law by Intervenors; offer

Additions. 1.20 $375.00 $ 450.00

06/25/12 Collect deposition of Major Mitchell and

Other documents to provide Buck Wood in

Advance of his upcoming deposition. 1.20 $375.00 $ 450.00

06/25/12 Exchange e-mails with the Court Clerk

Concerning delays and designating certain

Depositions since transcripts are not yet

Available. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

06/25/12 Provide Ezra Rosenberg additional deposition

Designations to include in findings of fact and

Conclusions of law. 1.50 $375.00 $ 562.50

06/25/12 Receipt and review of multiple Briefs filed

With the Court regarding efforts to exclude

Various expert witnesses. .40 $375.00 $ 150.00

06/25/12 Receipt and review of deposition designations

By The Department of Justice and review to

Consider adding additional designations on

Witnesses I am assigned. 1.50 $375.00 $ 562.50

06/26/12 Make additional edits to draft Findings of Fact

And conclusions of law to be filed by

Intervenors. 1.10 $375.00 $ 412.50



Page No. 36

06/27/12 Draft and prepare several witness declarations;

Coordinate with the witnesses; obtain signatures;

Produce for use in the Photo ID trial. 3.50 $375.00 $1,312.50

06/27/12 Make changes to provide Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of law regarding standing of Kennie

Intervenors as proven up by declarations

Prepared this day. 1.20 $375.00 $ 450.00

06/28/12 Continue obtaining declarations concerning

Standing of various Kennie Intervenors. .80 $375.00 $ 300.00

06/28/12 Arrange for delivery of disks received from The

Department of Justice to The U.S. Attorney’s

Office in Houston due to Inadvertent Production

Of sensitive information. .50 $375.00 $ 187.50

06/28/12 Conference call with Senator Ellis regarding

The trial schedule and the expected day he

Would take the stand. .50 $375.00 $ 187.50

06/29/12 Receipt and review of Stipulation concerning

Excluding certain expert testimony by The

United States. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00

06/29/12 Conference with Kennie Intervenor, expert

Buck Wood to prepare for depositions. 1.50 $375.00 $ 562.50



06/29/12 Present Expert Buck Wood for depositions

Taken by The State of Texas. 4.50 $375.00

06/29/12 Receipt and review of Counter Designations

Of witnesses by The State of Texas. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

06/30/12 Receipt and review of Exhibits filed by The

United States for Trial. 7.50 $375.00 $2,812.50


To prepare for trial and divide up witnesses. 3.50 $375.00 $1,312.50


Response to Findings of Fact and Conclusions

Of Law. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00



Page No. 37

07/01/12 Coordinate with Intervenors’ counsel for

Offering additional Trial Exhibits. .40 $375.00 $ 150.00


Exhibit List. 2.50 $375.00 $ 937.50


Entry of Stipulation. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

07/02/12 Receipt and review of Final Exhibit List by

All parties. 1.20 $375.00 $ 450.00

07/03/12 Receipt and review of multiple Court Minute

Orders regarding various Trial and Evidence

Issues. 1.20 $375.00 $ 450.00

07/03/12 Receipt and review of Court’s Order refusing

To Exclude Dr. Lichtman; conference call

With Gerry Hebert concerning same. .50 $375.00 No Charge

07/03/12 Review additional deposition designations

Filed by The State of Texas. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00


Justice’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice of

Senate Rules. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

07/05/12 Receipt and review of Court Order Scheduling

Telephone Hearing for July 6th

. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

07/05/12 Provide edits to Plaintiffs’ counter designations

And forward to Ezra Rosenberg for filing with

The Court. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00


Outcome of Court Telephone Hearing. .50 $375.00 No Charge

07/06/12 Prepare examination outline for Senator Ellis

For trial testimony. 3.30 $375.00 $1,237.50


Regarding the handling of witnesses with

Deposition designations. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

07/08/12 Meeting with Intervenors’ trial counsel to

Discuss strategy for first day of trial, divide

Up witnesses and prepare for trial. 2.20 $375.00 $ 825.00



Page No. 38

07/07/12 Review past depositions of Keith Ingram to

Prepare for cross-examination for him at

Trial; review previous testimony in this

Case of Keith Ingram; begin preparing

Outline for cross-examination. 2.20 $375.00 $ 825.00

07/07/12 Prepare examination outline for Buck Wood. 2.20 $375.00 $ 825.00

07/08/12 Continue preparing cross-examination of

Keith Ingram and prepare outline for same;

Review testimony of Keith Ingram in recent

Texas election cases. 4.50 $375.00 $1,687.50


Trial preparations. 1.20 $375.00 No Charge

07/09/12 Attend trial, perform cross-examinations of

Keith Ingram on behalf of Intervenors. 8.2 $375.00 $3,075.00

07/09/12 Meet with co-Intervenor counsel to prepare

Attorneys handling witness examinations for

The next day. 1.20 $375.00 $ 450.00

07/10/12 Attend trial on second day. 8.50 $375.00 $3,187.50

07/10/12 Confer with Buck Wood regarding his

Testimony before the Court the following

Day. 1.20 $375.00 $ 450.00

07/10/12 Confer with Senator Ellis regarding his

Testimony on the following day. .50 $375.00 $ 187.50

07/10/12 Prepare examination outline for Senator Wendy

Davis. 2.10 $375.00 $ 787.50

07/11/12 Attend trial on third day; examine expert

Witness Buck Wood and examine Senator

Ellis. 8.40 $375.00 $3,150.00

07/11/12 Meet with Senator Davis to prepare for her

Trial testimony the following day; finalize

Examination outline with Senator Davis. 3.10 $375.00 $1,162.50

07/11/12 Conference call with Dr. Lichtman and

Gerry Hebert to assist in preparing Dr.

Lichtman for his examination by Mr.

Hebert at trial. .70 $375.00 No Charge



Page No. 39

07/12/12 Attend trial on fourth day; examine

Senator Wendy Davis. 8.50 $375.00 $3,187.50

07/12/12 Conference call with Gerry Hebert to

Prepare him for his portion of the closing

Argument. .50 $375.00 $ 187.50

07/13/12 Attend final day of trial and closing

Arguments. 4.50 $375.00 $1,687.50

07/17/12 Receipt and review of multiple filings

Concerning withdrawn and additional

Trial exhibits. 1.0 $375.00 $ 375.00

07/18/12 Receipt of multiple filings regarding Amended

Exhibit List. .40 $375.00 $ 150.00

08/12/12 Receipt and review of multiple Docket Entries

Regarding preparation of transcript of the

Trial proceedings. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

08/30/12 Receipt and review of Court Opinion (2.0);

Conference with clients concerning same. 3.50 $375.00 $1,312.50


Three Judge Court Opinion. .50 $375.00 No Charge

12/17/12 Receipt and review of Court Final Judgment

Granting injunction against SB14 and staying

Case pending ruling by The Supreme Court

In Shelby County v. Holder. .20 $375.00 $ 75.00


Notice of Appeal to The Supreme Court. .10 $375.00 $ 37.50

08/29/13 Begin editing of billing records for filing

With the Court for Fee Motion. 1.20 $375.00 $ 450.00

09/04/13 Continue working on billing records to file

With Fee Application. 1.40 $375.00 $ 525.00

09/05/13 Continue working on billing records to file

With Fee Application. 4.40 $375.00 $1,650.00


Attorney fee motion. 1.0 $375.00 No Charge

09/06/13 Draft Affidavit to Support billing time for



Page No. 40

Attorneys’ fees request. 2.10 $375.00 $ 787.50

09/09/13 Review and edit Motion For Attorneys Fees

Prepared by Gerry Hebert and return same. .50 $375.00 $ 187.50


Fee motion. .50 $375.00 No Charge

09/10/13 Finalize billing affidavits and billing records

And provide same to Gerry Hebert for

Filing with the Court. 2.10 $375.00 $ 787.50

Recapitulation

Timekeeper Hours Rate Total

K. Scott Brazil 47.2 $375.00 $17,700.00

Chad W. Dunn 436.9 $375.00 $163,837.50

Total Fees for Brazil & Dunn: $181,537.50

EXPENSES

Date Description Amount

05/08/12 Long distance telephone charges: Conference Call $ 117.71

05/12/12 Travel expense: Airfare $ 519.10

05/17/12 Travel expense: Hotel $ 391.70

05/17/12 Travel expense: Gas $ 51.39


05/20/12 Travel expense: Parking $ 18.00






06/04/12 [KSB] Travel expense: Gas $ 71.16

06/07/12 Travel expense Gas $ 36.41


06/14/12 [KSB] Travel expense: Parking $ 25.00

06/14/12 [CWD] Travel expense: Parking $ 25.00





07/03/12 Deposition Fee: Esquire Deposition Solutions

Fee for Depositions of Larry Gonzales, Robert

Duncan and Michael Schofield $2,861.64





Page No. 41

07/12/12 Travel expense: Hotel $2,529.68



07/17/12 Delivery Fee: Hour Messenger $ 63.17

07/17/12 Deposition Fee: Depositions of Wendy Davis

And Rodney Ellis $ 850.11


Fee for Randall Wood $ 343.65


Fee for Dr. Allan Lichtman $618.85

Subtotal expenses: $12,038.47

EXPERT WITNESS FEES:

9/9/13 Invoice of Ray and Wood (Buck Wood) $13,815.00

8/2/12 Invoice of Dr. Allan J. Lichtman $27,200.00

Subtotal expert fees: $41,015.00

TOTAL EXPENSES: $53,053.47

TOTAL ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES FOR BRAZIL AND DUNN $234,590.97


Allan J. Lichtman (060-38-1842) 9219 Villa Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817 (301) 530-8262

Invoice # 08/02/2012 August 2, 2012

TO: J. Gerald Hebert

RE: Texas Voter ID Litigation, TX v. Holder DC court

1. Study of expert reports: 7.5 hours

2. Study of expert depositions: 3.5 hours

3. Documentary research: 14.5 hours

4. Preparation of written report: 8.5 hours

5. Preparation for deposition: 5.0 hours.

6. Deposition: 7.0 hours

7. Attendance at trial: 15 hours

8. Study of trial transcripts: 2.0 hours

9. Preparation for trial testimony: 4.0 hours

10. Trial testimony. 1.0 hours

68 hours at $400 per hour.

Total Bill: $27,200


Ray & Wood 2700 BEE CAVES ROAD P.O. BOX 165001 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78716-5001 (512) 328-8877

September 9, 2013

Invoice# 19185 RBW Kennie Intervenors Our file# 05550 00000 c/o Brazil & Dunn LLP Billing through 09/30/2013 4201 Cypress Creek Parkway #530 Attn: Chad Dunn Houston, TX 77068

=============== Kennie Intervenors ===============

Accounts receivable balance carried forward $0.00

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

06/06/2012 RBW Conference wtih Chad Dunn regarding photo 0.50 hrs. 225.00 ID case expert testimony. 06/06/2012 RBW Finalize and edit final expert report. 1.80 hrs. 810.00 06/07/2012 RBW Several conference calls with Dunn regarding 2.50 hrs. 1,125.00 opinions, analysis and report; begin draft of expert report. 06/08/2012 RBW Continue work on expert report. Calls with 3.20 hrs. 1,440.00 dunn 06/25/2012 RBW Receive and review documents from Dunn in 2.50 hrs. 1,125.00 preparation for deposition; review deposition of Lt. Mitchell 06/29/2012 RBW Conference with Dunn to prepare for 1.50 hrs. 675.00 deposition 06/29/2012 RBW Attend my deposition 4.40 hrs. 1,980.00 07/10/2012 RBW Conference with Dunn and Hebert to prepare 1.20 hrs. 540.00 for trial testimony. 07/10/2012 RBW Travel to DC. 4.50 hrs. 2,025.00 07/11/2012 RBW Wait at courthouse for testimony, testify 8.60 hrs. 3,870.00 before court, travel home

$13,815.00


05550 Kennie Intervenors Invoice# 19185 Page 2 Billing Summary

Total professional services $13,815.00 Total of new charges for this invoice $13,815.00

Total balance now due $13,815.00




STATE OF TEXAS,

Plaintiff,

v.




Defendant,

AND


Defendant-Intervenors

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 1:12-cv-00128

RMC-DST-RLW

DECLARATION OF SCOTT BRAZIL IN

SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES and COSTS

Background and Prevailing Party

1. I am co-counsel for the Kennie Intervenors in the above-styled matter. I am

presenting this declaration in support of the Kennie Intervenors’ Motion for Attorney’s

Fees and Costs. The Kennie Intervenors are the prevailing parties in this action and are

entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs.

Experience and Qualifications

2. I am Board Certified in Civil Trial Law and Personal Injury Trial Law and

have been since 1989. I graduated from South Texas College of Law in 1984 and served


a one-year period as briefing attorney for Justice Bill Cannon on the 14th

Court of

Appeals in Houston. I am admitted to practice before all federal district courts in Texas,

the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court. I

have filed briefs in the state appellate and Texas Supreme Court, Fifth Circuit Court of

Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court. I have tried a wide variety of cases,

including automobile, trucking, products liability, medical malpractice, premise,

commercial, contract, probate, bad faith insurance, election law and federal white collar

crime. I have taken over 1,000 depositions in cases ranging in trucking and automobile

litigation, probate, copyright infringement, bankruptcy, oil and gas, voting rights, divorce

and others. I have lectured on topics before various bar associations, including such

topics as trial in federal court and taking depositions. I have handled numerous litigation

matters under federal and state law. I have represented Plaintiffs and private parties in

federal voting rights litigation in Texas, both federal and state. I have handled or am

currently handling redistricting cases throughout the state relative to commissioner’s

court, school boards, justices of the peace and constables. I have handled federal cases

relative to candidate qualifications.

3. As a result of the foregoing and much more experience than can be listed

here, I have extensive training, education and experience handling federal cases and, in

particular, those pertaining to civil and voting rights.

Time

4. My time in this case is kept contemporaneously with the work performed. I

devoted a total of approximately 47.20 hours representing the Kennie Intervenors in this


case for which I have chosen to bill. I have attached the time records (Exhibit F) that I

maintained in this action but I eliminated the many hours for which I am not seeking a

court award. I eliminated even some of the time that was billed since it was duplicative

of Mr. Dunn or Mr. Hebert's work. I primarily participated in covering, for all the

intervenor groups, some of the many depositions taken in Texas in this case. At all

except the most critical depositions, the Kennie Intervenors would coordinate with all the

other intervenors to select one person to attend depositions. The vast majority of the time

I have billed was for covering depositions that I attended on behalf of all intervenors.

Market Rate

5. I have extensive experience handling civil and some criminal matters in

federal court. I have extensive experience with civil and voting rights cases. I believe,

based upon the complicated issues and the time involved and the various factors

described herein, that a reasonable hourly rate for such services in this locale is at least

$375 per hour. I have been retained this year by Beaumont Independent School District

at the rate of $375 per hour to represent the school district in multiple federal and state

voting and redistricting cases. $375 per hour is well within the reasonable market rate

charged for similar services in similar cases.

Lodestar

6. In determining the Lodestar a court should usually consider the actual hours

devoted to the case and the market hourly rate for the lawyer in question. It is my

opinion the fees and expenses claimed in the provided statement are reasonable and

necessary.


Johnson Factors

7. Preclusion of Other Employment. My work in this litigation restricted the

time available for pursuit of other litigation during the period of activity in this case.

Because of the extensive work required in a time-compressed period of time, I was

unable to accept and work on other cases. This case included several trials and numerous

hearings and status conferences that often, due to the nature of the dispute, came with

little notice. Scores of deadlines were required to be met in much shorter deadlines than

required under normal federal court procedure. In particular, the Court would often

require me to draft orders concerning election deadlines with only days or hours to

complete the task. I also was required to consult numerous attorneys, parties and

agencies to discern the proper and workable election schedules that could be imposed.

8. Time Limitation Imposed by Circumstances. The time limitations in this

case were imposed by pending election schedules and the urgency of these types of

disputes.

9. Undesirability of the Case. This case is desirable from a political

perspective. However, the case is very undesirable from an economic perspective

because the expedited trial schedule and multiple forums placed unusual time constraints

on the development and preparation of the case and because of the specialized nature of

the actions. Moreover, the short deadlines, time commitment and complicated nature of

the claims make other work easier and, often, more financially rewarding.

10. Experience and Expertise. My experience has included participation in

federal litigation, extensive advocacy in state and federal cases, and preparation of


pleadings, briefs and evidence for cases in both state and federal courts. I am and have

been counsel in numerous voting rights cases. I have tried dozens of jury trials as first

chair. My trial experience includes federal and state civil matters and federal criminal

matters. It is my opinion, based on my experience and upon inquiring of other lawyers,

that the prevailing market rate for an attorney with my experience, in a difficult and

complicated civil and voting rights case is at least $375 per hour.

Costs

11. The expenses claimed in the Kennie Intervenors’ motion (and documented

in Exhibit F) are actual expenses that were necessary to properly and successfully

represent the Kennie Intervenors in this case. They include expenses for necessary travel

and necessary expert fees. Each of these charges is reasonable. These expenses are

described in more detail in the attached billing statement (Exhibit F).

In closing, it is my opinion that the fees and expenses I have claimed in this case

are both reasonable and necessary and that, given the more than adequate reductions I

have made, should be reimbursed by the State of Texas in light of the prevailing claims

and orders in the case.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best

of my knowledge.


/s/ K. Scott Brazil

K. Scott Brazil




STATE OF TEXAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., in his

official capacity as Attorney General

of the United States,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 1:12-cv-00128

RMC-DST-RLW

DECLARATION OF STEPHEN B. PERSHING, ESQ.,

UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1746

Under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746, Stephen B. Pershing, Esq., makes

the following declaration:

1. My name is Stephen B. Pershing. I am over 18 years of age, of sound mind, and

capable of making this declaration.

2. I obtained a J.D. in 1987 from the University of Virginia Law School, and an A.B.

degree in 1979 from Harvard College.

3. From 1989 to 1996, I served as legal director of the American Civil Liberties

Union of Virginia in Richmond, Virginia. In that capacity, I developed and litigated a wide

variety of federal civil rights and civil liberties cases, including a number of racial vote

dilution actions under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. At the Virginia ACLU I

also submitted and litigated numerous petitions for attorney fees under federal civil rights fee-

shifting provisions, including that of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973l(e).


4. From 1996 to 2005, I served as a trial attorney in the Voting Section, Civil Rights

Division, United States Department of Justice, where I handled cases under Sections 2 and 5 of

the Voting Rights Act and other federal laws protecting the right to vote.

5. From 2005 to 2009, I was senior litigation counsel at the Center for Constitutional

Litigation, P.C., in Washington, D.C. Founded in 2001, CCL has represented parties in numerous

high-profile constitutional rights and access to justice cases in the U.S. Supreme Court and

federal and state appellate courts. At CCL I was involved in at least one federal voting rights

case.

6. I am a member of the adjunct faculty at George Washington University Law School

in Washington, D.C. There I teach a course on voting rights law, and have done so since 1999.

7. I currently serve as managing lawyer with The Chavers Firm, LLC, of Washington,

D.C., where I primarily represent plaintiffs in federal civil rights cases and other civil matters.

Also, since 2009 I have directed and taught in Washington semester externship programs for law

students, first for the University of California and then at the Washington Consortium for Law

Externships and Exchange, which I founded in 2011.

8. I am an active member in good standing of the bars of the Commonwealth of

Virginia (admitted 1990) and the District of Columbia (admitted 2006). I am a member of the

U.S. Supreme Court bar (admitted 1994) and the bars of a number of federal trial and appellate

courts.

9. I am qualified by my experience, education, knowledge, skill and training to make

the statements in this Declaration.


10. I have been asked to review the request for attorneys’ fees submitted to this Court by

J. Gerald Hebert, Esq., counsel for the Kennie Intervenors, and to provide my views on the

reasonableness of the requested fee award.

11. I am very familiar with Mr. Hebert’s work. I first met Mr. Hebert in or about 1994,

when I was working for the Virginia ACLU. At that time he had just left the U.S. Justice

Department after many years of distinguished service. I was privileged to move his admission

into the Virginia bar. He and I have worked closely together on a number of voting rights cases,

and served as co-counsel in several of them. While at the Justice Department I reviewed Section

5 preclearance submissions and Section 3 “bailout” requests from jurisdictions Mr. Hebert

represented.

12. Voting rights and redistricting cases are among the most difficult to litigate of all

federal civil actions. The issues are often complex, the proofs highly technical, and the relevant

legal standards difficult to discern and apply. These cases require attorneys with great skill and

experience in this very specialized, exceptionally challenging area of the law. Texas voting rights

cases in particular have historically been some of the most complex and difficult of all such

cases, and the litigation now before this Court has been among the more difficult and intricate of

those, both procedurally and substantively.

13. In my opinion, Mr. Hebert is one of the finest, most skilled and expert voting rights

and redistricting litigators in the United States. His skill, talent and effectiveness as an advocate

are legendary in our field, but I can attest to them from close and sustained personal knowledge.

Over a period of four decades he has been involved in many of the nation’s most important

Voting Rights Act and redistricting cases, and voting rights lawyers looking for light on their

own work often seek the benefit of his vast knowledge of the subject.


14. I am familiar with the fees charged by attorneys in the Washington, D.C., area,

having spent over 20 years practicing law in and around the nation’s capital. In particular, I am

familiar with the so-called Laffey matrix in both its versions, the one put forward by the U.S.

Attorney’s office and the one known as the “adjusted Laffey matrix,” adopted by many courts,

which tends to reflect market rates for D.C.-area professional legal services more accurately

although in my experience it still understates those rates as they exist.

15. According to the adjusted Laffey matrix for the current year, a copy of which is

attached to the Kennie Intervenors’ motion for an award of attorneys’ fees in this case, the

appropriate hourly rate for an attorney in the D.C. area with twenty or more years out of law

school—the highest rate in the matrix—is $771. That estimate is low: Washington lawyers with

lengthy, high-level federal litigation experience now charge significantly more, and some bill up

to and in excess of $1,000 an hour.

16. Mr. Hebert’s hourly rate set forth in his fee application in this case, $650, is quite

reasonable, especially in light of his exceptional experience and expertise. Mr. Hebert’s skill and

ability in voting rights law are as great if not greater than those of other lawyers, less luminous

and accomplished in their fields than he, who charge far more.

17. I have reviewed Mr. Hebert’s timesheets in light of my own experience litigating

voting rights cases and submitting attorney fee applications. The number of hours set forth in Mr.

Hebert’s Declaration is reasonable and displays sound billing judgment, indeed significantly

understates the number of hours his fee petition could properly claim.

18. As I understand it, Mr. Hebert served as co-administrative counsel for the groups of

defendant-intervenors. This was an important role, and Mr. Hebert’s willingness to take it on is

consistent with the leadership I have seen him display in case after case. It also explains his


extensive involvement in all aspects of the case, and would justify compensation for a

substantially greater number of hours than Mr. Hebert requests.

19. After reviewing Mr. Hebert’s fee petition and schedule of hours in detail, I

emphatically concur with his representation that he staffed this case “leanly” and successfully

avoided duplication of effort with and among co-counsel. In fact, it is apparent to me that Mr.

Hebert has done an admirable job of stripping down the cost of his representation, and that of his

co-counsel, to the bare essentials.

20. Mr. Hebert’s time expended on this case exceeds 270 hours, but he has written off

fully a third of that time. His timesheets record “no charge” for almost all the studying he has

done of other parties’ pleadings, even their most substantive and lengthy legal memoranda. Mr.

Hebert has charged just above three hours for the drafting, editing and finalizing of his clients’

motion to intervene, with supporting points and authorities, and their proposed answer in

intervention. I personally have found that drafting such pleadings can take three to five times that

long. The largest of Mr. Hebert’s time entries—and there are very few above four hours—are for

tasks I personally know to be enormously time-consuming, for which there are no short cuts.

21. Mr. Hebert uses his time efficiently, indeed is one of the most productive litigators I

know, so the self-imposed fee reductions described above, for work undeniably essential to his

clients’ case, is all the more striking.

22. In essence Mr. Hebert asks for only a fraction of the compensation he has earned,

and effectively donates the rest. In my opinion the Court should consider awarding fees above

Mr. Hebert’s request, in order to restore to him compensation for some of that donated time, and

certainly should not punish the charity of his billing by docking him more severely than he has

himself.


23. In short, I believe the number of hours and the hourly rate set forth in the Kennie

Intervenors’ fee motion are reasonable, indeed modest, given Mr. Hebert’s extensive

involvement in this case, his superior skills, expertise and experience, and his accomplishments

for his clients in this complex and difficult case.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my

knowledge, information and belief.

Dated: September 10, 2013 /s/ Stephen B. Pershing

Stephen B. Pershing


Exhibit K to Kennie Intervenors’ Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees

Years Out of Law School *

Year Adjustmt Factor**

Paralegal/ Law Clerk 1-3 4-7 8-10 11-19 20 +

6/01/13- 5/31/14 1.0244 $175 $320 $393 $567 $640 $771

6/01/12- 5/31/13 1.0258 $170 $312 $383 $554 $625 $753

6/01/11- 5/31/12 1.0352 $166 $305 $374 $540 $609 $734

6/01/10- 5/31/11 1.0337 $161 $294 $361 $522 $589 $709

6/01/09- 5/31/10 1.0220 $155 $285 $349 $505 $569 $686

6/01/08- 5/31/09 1.0399 $152 $279 $342 $494 $557 $671

6/01/07-5/31/08 1.0516 $146 $268 $329 $475 $536 $645

6/01/06-5/31/07 1.0256 $139 $255 $313 $452 $509 $614

6/1/05-5/31/06 1.0427 $136 $249 $305 $441 $497 $598

6/1/04-5/31/05 1.0455 $130 $239 $293 $423 $476 $574

6/1/03-6/1/04 1.0507 $124 $228 $280 $405 $456 $549

6/1/02-5/31/03 1.0727 $118 $217 $267 $385 $434 $522

6/1/01-5/31/02 1.0407 $110 $203 $249 $359 $404 $487

6/1/00-5/31/01 1.0529 $106 $195 $239 $345 $388 $468

6/1/99-5/31/00 1.0491 $101 $185 $227 $328 $369 $444

6/1/98-5/31/99 1.0439 $96 $176 $216 $312 $352 $424

6/1/97-5/31/98 1.0419 $92 $169 $207 $299 $337 $406

6/1/96-5/31/97 1.0396 $88 $162 $198 $287 $323 $389

6/1/95-5/31/96 1.032 $85 $155 $191 $276 $311 $375

6/1/94-5/31/95 1.0237 $82 $151 $185 $267 $301 $363


The methodology of calculation and benchmarking for this Updated Laffey Matrix has been approved in a number of cases. See, e.g., McDowell v. District of Columbia, Civ. A. No. 00-594 (RCL), LEXSEE 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8114 (D.D.C. June 4, 2001); Salazar v. Dist. of Col., 123 F.Supp.2d 8 (D.D.C. 2000).

* “Years Out of Law School” is calculated from June 1 of each year, when most law students

graduate. “1-3" includes an attorney in his 1st, 2nd and 3rd years of practice, measured from

date of graduation (June 1). “4-7" applies to attorneys in their 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th years of

practice. An attorney who graduated in May 1996 would be in tier “1-3" from June 1, 1996

until May 31, 1999, would move into tier “4-7" on June 1, 1999, and tier “8-10" on June 1,

2003.

** The Adjustment Factor refers to the nation-wide Legal Services Component of the

Consumer Price Index produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States

Department of Labor.

Source for this Exhibit: http://www.laffeymatrix.com/see.html


http://www.laffeymatrix.com/see.html

Plaintiff - moritzlaw.osu.edu · One week later, on February 1, 2012, the Kennie Intervenors were...

Documents

Transcript of Plaintiff - moritzlaw.osu.edu · One week later, on February 1, 2012, the Kennie Intervenors were...