2:13-cv-00922 #54
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/12/2019 2:13-cv-00922 #54
1/14
-
8/12/2019 2:13-cv-00922 #54
2/14
(2) Interrogatory 2 cannot lead to the discovery of relevant information because the
education law is wholly unrelated to the anti-gay marriage laws challenged in this la
Sanctity Laws); and (3) the State Defendants have no way of knowing what motivat
legislature to enact the anti-gay sex education law (a matter about which Interrogato
inquire).
None of those reasons is sufficient to defeat the State Defendants obligation
to Interrogatory 2. The Court should grant the Motion To Compel.
I. The State Defendants Are Empowered To Respond to Interrogatory 2.
First, it simply is not true that the State Defendants are, in their official capa
Defendants in this lawsuit, unable to respond to Interrogatory 2 for lack of authority
Attorney General is statutorily designated to litigate cases on behalf of state officers
the Governor, sued in their individual capacities, such as in the present case. Ala. Co
1(2) (The Attorney General shall appear in the courts of . . . the United States, in an
which the state may be interested in the result.); Ala. Code 36-15-12 (The Attor
is authorized to institute and prosecute, in the name of the state, all civil actions and
proceedings necessary to protect the rights and interests of the state.).
The Attorney Generals powers, duties, and authority heretofore granted or
by the constitution, statutory law, or the common law are, according to statute, bro
construed. Ala. Code 36-15-1.1 (Nothing contained in this article shall be constru
in any way restrict, limit or abridge the powers, duties, or authority of the Attorney
Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 54 Filed 08/07/14 Pag
-
8/12/2019 2:13-cv-00922 #54
3/14
litigation and [t]he actions taken by him in the case at hand were an exercise of tha
and in fulfillment of the duties of the office.); McDowell v. State, 243 Ala. 87, 89,
570-71 (1942) (confirming that the express statutory authority of the Attorney Gene
on behalf of the state or its officers, such as the Governor, includes the implied auth
all things necessary and proper to their final conclusion). The statutory authority to
behalf of the States interests surely encompasses the authority to respond to legitim
requests, such as Interrogatory 2.
Foreclosing the possibility of any doubt as to that authority, the Attorney Ge
specific statutory duty to provide his opinion in writing, or otherwise, on any quest
connected with the interests of the state or with the duties of any of the departments,
required by the Governor. Ala. Code 36-15-1(1)(a). Moreover, the Attorney Gen
statutorily authorized to provide a legal opinion or advice to practically any governm
in Alabama at the state, county, or municipal level to assist that person in the perfo
some official act that the officer or governing body must perform. Ala. Code 36-
The statute clarifies as the outer boundary merely that the Attorney General is not to
such opinion or advice to a government officer for private or personal questions. A
36-15-1(1)(d).
The Attorney General, moreover, need not wait for a request but is statutoril
a core aspect of his duties to carefully examine all of the general statutes now in fo
hereafter may be enacted by the Legislature from time to time, as to their clarity and
Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 54 Filed 08/07/14 Pag
-
8/12/2019 2:13-cv-00922 #54
4/14
In sum, there is no valid contention that the State Defendants are unable, for
authority, to provide an answer to Interrogatory 2 about the government purpose beh
gay sex education law, and indeed the State Defendants provide no authority to the
Conclusory statements about the State Defendants claimed inability to respond to In
do not trump standard rules of discovery requiring responses to valid discovery requ
II.
Interrogatory 2 Seeks Relevant Evidence.
Second, Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion To Comp
explains the relevancy of Interrogatory 2 and is not repeated here. Plainly stated, the
series of anti-gay laws without any legitimate government purpose, including the an
education law and prohibition of any recognition of same-sex relationships is releva
question of whether anti-LGBT animus sustains the Sanctity Laws as well as the lev
applicable in this case.
The State Defendants argue that it is impossible for any animus to play into p
the Sanctity Laws. This makes no sense at all. It seems unusual, to say the least, for
pass a law and then subsequently take the extensive steps necessary to amend its ow
constitution just to restate what already is the law. SeeAla. Const. amend. 774. Giv
certainly is reasonable to suspect that animus may have played a role in the enactme
and constitutional amendment that the Attorney General and the Governor now say
more than surplusage. The fact that Alabama expended considerable time, effort, an
passing a law and then enshrined a similar provision in the state constitution, which
Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 54 Filed 08/07/14 Pag
-
8/12/2019 2:13-cv-00922 #54
5/14
equal protection and due process. These actions are consistent with the proposition t
Sanctity Laws reflect animus rather than any legitimate government purpose.
Indeed, this new theory that the Sanctity Laws serve no purpose other than
and reaffirm the current state of the law is at odds with the Defendants own sworn
response submitted in this case. (Attached hereto as Exhibit A.) That response asser
Sanctity Laws advance the purported government interest of maintaining biological
between children and extended kin groups, not that they simply restate preexisting l
theory also is flatly contrary to the interests described in an expert report offered by
Defendants (written by a current, out-of-state law student) who links Alabamas cur
in maintaining the Sanctity Laws to the history of Western culture, beginning with P
argues that these laws advance the states interest in maintaining faith with a long h
privileging procreative marriages between a man and a women as superior.
Alabama, led by the Governor who has described marriage as a sacred insti
between a man and a woman, which should be revered and protected by our society
will work every day to continue to protect the sanctity of marriage in Alabama,2i
resistant to marriage equality. That resistance surely has some animating motivation
examining government purposes behind similar Alabama laws specifically singling
disadvantaging LGBT people, like the anti-gay sex education law, should help clarif
1
Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 54 Filed 08/07/14 Pag
-
8/12/2019 2:13-cv-00922 #54
6/14
III. Interrogatory 2 Asks the Government Interest for the Sex Education La
Finally, the State Defendants claim that they have no way of knowing the int
legislature in passing the anti-gay sex education laws. This a red herring because div
intent of the legislature is not requested in Interrogatory 2. The State Defendants sim
that they are unable to describe any government purpose for the anti-gay sex educati
that doing so might violate future attorney-client privilege. Defs. Oppn to Pl.s Mo
Compel at 3-4 (No. 49). But Interrogatory 2 contains no request for privileged advic
hypothetical case in the future. Plaintiff simply requests the State Defendants identi
any actual government purpose behind the anti-gay sex education law. If one does n
they should so state.
* * * *
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion To Compel Def
Bentleys and Defendant Stranges Response to Interrogatory 2 in Plaintiffs First S
Interrogatories for the reasons stated above as well as those presented in the origina
support of the Motion (No. 46).
August 7, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENT
By: /s/ Samuel Wolfe
Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 54 Filed 08/07/14 Pag
-
8/12/2019 2:13-cv-00922 #54
7/14
400 Washington Avenue
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
Telephone: (334) 956-8200Facsimile: (334) 856-8481
[email protected]@splcenter.org
*Admitted pro hac vice
(Attorneys for Plaintiff)
Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 54 Filed 08/07/14 Pag
-
8/12/2019 2:13-cv-00922 #54
8/14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 7th day of August, 2014, I electronic
foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system wh
notification of such filing to the following counsel of record:
David Bryson Byrne, Jr., Esq.
Office of the Governor
State Capitol600 Dexter Avenue
Suite NB-05
Montgomery, AL 36130
James William Davis, Esq.
Laura Elizabeth Howell, Esq.
State of Alabama
Office of the Attorney General501 Washington Avenue
Montgomery, AL 36130
Gabriel Joseph Smith, Esq.
Foundation For Moral Law
1 Dexter AvenueOpelika, AL 36103
/s/Samuel Wolfe
Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 54 Filed 08/07/14 Pag
-
8/12/2019 2:13-cv-00922 #54
9/14
EXHIBIT
A
Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 54-1 Filed 08/07/14 Pag
-
8/12/2019 2:13-cv-00922 #54
10/14
Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 54-1 Filed 08/07/14 Page 2 of 6
C 2 13 00922 WKW SRW D t 54 1 Fil d 08/07/14 P 3 f 6
-
8/12/2019 2:13-cv-00922 #54
11/14
Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 54-1 Filed 08/07/14 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:13 cv 00922 WKW SRW Document 54 1 Filed 08/07/14 Page 4 of 6
-
8/12/2019 2:13-cv-00922 #54
12/14
Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 54-1 Filed 08/07/14 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 54-1 Filed 08/07/14 Page 5 of 6
-
8/12/2019 2:13-cv-00922 #54
13/14
Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 54-1 Filed 08/07/14 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 54-1 Filed 08/07/14 Page 6 of 6
-
8/12/2019 2:13-cv-00922 #54
14/14
Case 2:13 cv 00922 WKW SRW Document 54 1 Filed 08/07/14 Page 6 of 6