Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02292/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02292-45/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KRISTIN M PERRY, SANDRA B STIER,

PAUL T KATAMI and JEFFREY J

ZARRILLO,

Plaintiffs,

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

v

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his

official capacity as governor of

California; EDMUND G BROWN JR, in

his official capacity as attorney

general of California; MARK B

HORTON, in his official capacity

as director of the California

Department of Public Health and

state registrar of vital

statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her

official capacity as deputy

director of health information &

strategic planning for the

California Department of Public

Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his

official capacity as clerkrecorder of the County of

Alameda; and DEAN C LOGAN, in his

official capacity as registrarrecorder/county clerk for the

County of Los Angeles, 

Defendants,

DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J

KNIGHT, MARTIN F GUTIERREZ,

HAKSHING WILLIAM TAM, MARK A

JANSSON and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM –

YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF

CALIOFORNIA RENEWAL, as official

proponents of Proposition 8,

Defendant-Intervenors. /

No C 09-2292 VRW

ORDER

Case 3:09-cv-02292-JW Document 683 Filed 06/11/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

On May 5, 2010, proponents moved to supplement the record

with documents produced by various No on 8 groups pursuant to the

court’s March 5 (Doc #610) and March 22 (Doc #623) orders. Doc

#655. Proponents’ motion was updated on June 2, 2010 to reflect

completed negotiations with the No on 8 groups surrounding the

confidentiality of certain exhibits. Doc #673. Proponents’ motion

argues the relevance of each exhibit proponents seek to have

included in the record. See Doc #673-4. 

Plaintiffs object that the exhibits proponents seek to

admit are “hearsay, irrelevant, and untimely.” Doc #665 at 2. 

Plaintiffs do not however object to the court taking judicial

notice of the exhibits. Id.

Because proponents seek to admit documents without a

sponsoring witness, and because plaintiffs do not object, the court

finds it appropriate to take judicial notice of the 129 exhibits

listed in Doc #673-1. The 129 exhibits will therefore be included

in the record as documents subject to judicial notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02292-JW Document 683 Filed 06/11/10 Page 2 of 2