1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

SHANNON PEREZ, et al. )
) CIVIL ACTION NO.
Plaintiffs ) 11-CA-360-OLG-JES-XR
) [Lead case]
v. )
)
STATE OF TEXAS, et al. )
)
State Defendants )





STATE DEFENDANTS SECOND OPPOSED MOTION FOR DISCOVERY
SANCTIONS AGAINST LULAC



1. On April 15, 2014, the State Defendants filed a Motion for Discovery
Sanctions against the LULAC Plaintiffs, which was withdrawn on April 16. The State
Defendants have attempted to confer with Mr. Vera to resolve their outstanding discovery
dispute, but have again received no response. The State Defendants served the LULAC
Plaintiffs with the discovery requests at issue six months ago. With just over one week
remaining in the discovery period, the State Defendants have no choice but to re-urge their
Motion for Discovery Sanctions against the LULAC Plaintiffs. The State Defendants
respectfully ask this Court to enter an order preventing the LULAC Plaintiffs from
introducing any evidence at trial or otherwise supporting their claims. Granting the motion
will allow the State Defendants to prepare their case for trial without rewarding the
LULAC Plaintiffs for their lack of response.
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1000 Filed 05/21/14 Page 1 of 10
2

ARGUMENT
2. The history of the State Defendants discovery interactions with the LULAC
Plaintiffs is set forth at length in the State Defendants Motion for Discovery Sanctions,
which is incorporated by reference in its entirety. See State Def.s Mot. for Disc. Sanctions,
April 15, 2014 (ECF No. 975). The State Defendants sent Mr. Vera another email on May
5, 2014, asking for a response by May 15, 2014. See Exhibit H. Again, we have had no
response from the LULAC Plaintiffs.
3. The legal arguments and authority in support of the State Defendants
position is set forth in detail in their Motion for Discovery Sanctions, which is incorporated
by reference. In summary, Rule 37 authorizes the requested sanctions for not obeying a
discovery order (Rule 37(b)(2)) and for failure to disclose (Rule 37(c)). The Court may make
further just orders including dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part, and
prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or
defenses, or from introducing designated matters into evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A).
The State Defendants have diligently sought responses to discovery requests, repeatedly
requesting information and providing voluntary deadline extensions. The LULAC
Plaintiffs have consistently abused the process by repeatedly failing to respond, even failing
to comply with the Courts October 18
th
and February 4
th
Orders. This conduct shows a
pattern of disregard for the Courts orders and the discovery process as a whole.
4. The State Defendants are harmed by LULACs failure to produce documents
because that failure is interfering with the State Defendants ability to prepare a defense to
LULACs claims. The State Defendants have no other source to secure the documents
requested. Depositions are ongoing and nearing completion. If Plaintiff LULAC is allowed
to produce documents after their witnesses and experts are deposed, the late production
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1000 Filed 05/21/14 Page 2 of 10
3

would prejudice the State Defendants ability to properly prepare for the depositions and
trial of this case. LULAC has offered no good cause for its delay and to date has not
amended or responded in accordance with this Courts discovery Order.
Production Response Issues
5. The LULAC Plaintiffs have not produced any documents in response to the
State Defendants requests for production, so they should not be allowed to introduce any
evidence in support of their claims at trial. Under the Courts Order compelling discovery,
LULAC was required to produce documents on February 14, 2014. But instead of
producing documents, the LULAC Plaintiffs merely stated that they were working on the
documents, providing no time frame for when the documents might be available. LULAC
has not responded to the State Defendants letter and e-mail asking when these documents
might be available and has produced no documents. LULAC should not be allowed to
introduce these documents as evidence at trial. Specific production requests are discussed
in the Motion for Discovery Sanctions at 4-7.
Disclosure Issues
6. LULACs 2013 disclosures simply adopt their previously filed 2011
disclosures and the disclosures filed by the Perez Plaintiffs. All of these disclosures are
deficient for a variety of reasons as set forth in the Motion for Sanctions at 7-8.
Relief Requested
7. The State Defendants request an order prohibiting the LULAC Plaintiffs
from presenting evidence, testimony, or otherwise supporting their claims on the following
issues, is appropriate at this time:
1. LULACs contention that the Texas Legislature engaged in intentional
discrimination against minorities in passing the 2011 Congressional
Plan (C185) and the 2011 Texas House of Representatives Plan (Plan
H283). (RFP 2).
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1000 Filed 05/21/14 Page 3 of 10
4

2. LULACs contention that Plans C185 and H283 had or would have
had a discriminatory effect on minorities if either plan had been used
to conduct any election. (RFP 3).
3. LULACs contention that the 2013 Congressional Plan (C235)
purposefully fragments Latinos in all regions of the state. (RFP 8).
4. LULACs contention that the Texas Legislature actively worked to
disregard traditional and neutral redistricting principles through the
enactment of Plan C235. (RFP 9)
5. LULACs contention that Plan C235 purposefully fragments a
politically cohesive coalition of African-American and Latino voters in
the Dallas-Fort Worth area and Harris County. (RFP 10).
6. LULACs contention that Plan C235s configuration of Nueces County
was intended to sever the large Latino voting community of Nueces
County from other significant groups of Latino voters in the South
Texas region. (RFP 11).
7. LULACs contention that Plan C235 uses race as a tool to purposely
dismantle and destroy an existing crossover districtformer CD25
anchored in Travis County and the City of Austin and the tri-ethnic
voting coalition there. (RFP 12).
8. LULACs contention that Plan C235 purposely continues in place a
race-based redrawing of the historic CD 20. (RFP 13).
9. LULACs contention that Latinos are provided a less than equal
opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect
congressional representatives of their choice in the South Texas
Region and the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. (RFP 14).
10. LULACs contention that the 2013 Texas House of Representatives
Plan (H358) violates the one-person, one-vote principles contained in
the Fourteenth Amendment. (RFP 15).
11. LULACs contention that additional Latino majority districts could
have been created under Plans C235 and H358. (RFP 16).
12. LULACs contention that the Texas Legislature engaged in intentional
discrimination against minorities in passing Plans C235 and H358.
(RFP 17).
13. LULACs contention that Plans C235 and H358 have or will have a
discriminatory effect on minorities. (RFP 18).
14. Documents on which LULAC relied in preparing its interrogatory
responses. (RFP 19).
15. Documents identified in LULACs interrogatory responses (RFP20).
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1000 Filed 05/21/14 Page 4 of 10
5

16. LULACs claim for equitable relief under Section 3(C) of the Voting
Rights Act. (RFP 23).
17. Testimony by unknown individuals involved in preparing plans of
apportionment, and testimony about such plans. (2011 Disclosures at
5.)
18. Testimony by unknown witnesses associated with the national
political parties who participated in the redistricting process, and
testimony about such participation. (2011 Disclosures at 7).
19. Testimony by unknown individuals who contributed funds to support
redistricting or who briefed or provided documents to such individuals,
and testimony about such funds, briefing, and documents. (2011
Disclosures at 10).
20. Testimony by unknown accountants who had knowledge that state
funds spent during the redistricting process, and testimony about such
funds. (2011 Disclosures at 11).

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
The State Defendants respectfully ask this Court to sanction the LULAC
Plaintiffs for their discovery abuse by preventing the LULAC Plaintiffs from
introducing evidence on their claims or otherwise supporting those claims at any
hearings and at trial itself.









Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1000 Filed 05/21/14 Page 5 of 10
6

Dated: May 21, 2014 Respectfully submitted.

GREG ABBOTT
Attorney General of Texas

DANIEL T. HODGE
First Assistant Attorney General

DAVID C. MATTAX
Deputy Attorney General
for Defense Litigation

J. REED CLAY, JR.
Special Assistant and Senior Counsel
to the Attorney General

/s/ Patrick K. Sweeten_______________
PATRICK K. SWEETEN
Chief, Special Litigation Division
Texas State Bar No. 00798537

P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78711-2548
(512) 463-0150
(512) 936-0545 (fax)

ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE OF
TEXAS, RICK PERRY, AND JOHN
STEEN


CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I hereby certify that counsel attempted to confer with Mr. Luis Vera, counsel
for the LULAC Plaintiffs, via e-mail on May 5, 2014. To date, Mr. Vera has not
responded.


___/s/ Patrick K. Sweeten_______________
PATRICK K. SWEETEN

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1000 Filed 05/21/14 Page 6 of 10
7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this filing was sent on May 21, 2014, via the
Courts electronic notification system and/or email to the following counsel of record:

DAVID RICHARDS
Richards, Rodriguez & Skeith LLP
816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1200
Austin, TX 78701
512-476-0005
davidr@rrsfirm.com

RICHARD E. GRAY, III
Gray & Becker, P.C.
900 West Avenue, Suite 300
Austin, TX 78701
512-482-0061/512-482-0924 (facsimile)
Rick.gray@graybecker.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS PEREZ,
DUTTON, TAMEZ, HALL, ORTIZ,
SALINAS, DEBOSE, and RODRIGUEZ

JOSE GARZA
Law Office of Jose Garza
7414 Robin Rest Dr.
San Antonio, Texas 78209
210-392-2856
garzpalm@aol.com

MARK W. KIEHNE
mkiehne@lawdcm.com
RICARDO G. CEDILLO
rcedillo@lawdcm.com
Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza
McCombs Plaza
755 Mulberry Ave., Ste. 500
San Antonio, TX 78212
210-822-6666/210-822-1151 (facsimile)

JOAQUIN G. AVILA
P.O. Box 33687
Seattle, WA 98133
206-724-3731/206-398-4261 (facsimile)
jgavotingrights@gmail.com

ATTORNEYS FOR MEXICAN AMERICAN
LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS
GERALD H. GOLDSTEIN
ggandh@aol.com
DONALD H. FLANARY, III
donflanary@hotmail.com
Goldstein, Goldstein and Hilley
310 S. St. Marys Street
San Antonio, TX 78205-4605
210-226-1463/210-226-8367 (facsimile)

PAUL M. SMITH, MICHAEL B.
DESANCTIS, JESSICA RING AMUNSON
Jenner & Block LLP
1099 New York Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
202-639-6000

J. GERALD HEBERT
191 Somervelle Street, # 405
Alexandria, VA 22304
703-628-4673
hebert@voterlaw.com

JESSE GAINES
P.O. Box 50093
Fort Worth, TX 76105
817-714-9988
gainesjesse@ymail.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
QUESADA, MUNOZ, VEASEY,
HAMILTON, KING and JENKINS












Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1000 Filed 05/21/14 Page 7 of 10
8

NINA PERALES
nperales@maldef.org
MARISA BONO
mbono@maldef.org
Mexican American Legal Defense
and Education Fund
110 Broadway, Suite 300
San Antonio, TX 78205
210-224-5476/210-224-5382 (facsimile)

MARK ANTHONY SANCHEZ
masanchez@gws-law.com
ROBERT W. WILSON
rwwilson@gws-law.com
Gale, Wilson & Sanchez, PLLC
115 East Travis Street, Ste. 1900
San Antonio, TX 78205
210-222-8899/210-222-9526 (facsimile)

ATTORNEYS FOR TEXAS LATINO
REDISTRICTING TASK FORCE,
CARDENAS, JIMENEZ, MENENDEZ,
TOMACITA AND JOSE OLIVARES,
ALEJANDRO AND REBECCA ORTIZ

JOHN T. MORRIS
5703 Caldicote St.
Humble, TX 77346
281-852-6388
Johnmorris1939@hotmail.com

JOHN T. MORRIS, PRO SE

MAX RENEA HICKS
Law Office of Max Renea Hicks
101 West Sixth Street Suite 504
Austin, TX 78701
512-480-8231/512/480-9105 (facsimile)

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS CITY OF
AUSTIN, TRAVIS COUNTY, ALEX
SERNA, BEATRICE SALOMA, BETTY F.
LOPEZ, CONSTABLE BRUCE ELFANT,
DAVID GONZALEZ, EDDIE
RODRIGUEZ, MILTON GERARD
WASHINGTON, and SANDRA SERNA



LUIS ROBERTO VERA, JR.
Law Offices of Luis Roberto Vera, Jr.
1325 Riverview Towers
San Antonio, Texas 78205-2260
210-225-3300
lrvlaw@sbcglobal.net

GEORGE JOSEPH KORBEL
Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid, Inc.
1111 North Main
San Antonio, TX 78213
210-212-3600
korbellaw@hotmail.com

ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENOR-
PLAINTIFF LEAGUE OF UNITED
LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS

ROLANDO L. RIOS
Law Offices of Rolando L. Rios
115 E Travis Street, Suite 1645
San Antonio, TX 78205
210-222-2102
rrios@rolandorioslaw.com

ATTORNEY FOR INTERVENOR-
PLAINTIFF HENRY CUELLAR

GARY L. BLEDSOE
Law Office of Gary L. Bledsoe
316 W. 12
th
Street, Ste. 307
Austin, TX 78701
512-322-9992/512-322-0840 (facsimile)
garybledsoe@sbcglobal.net

ATTORNEY FOR INTERVENOR-
PLAINTIFFS TEXAS STATE
CONFERENCE OF NAACP
BRANCHES, TEXAS LEGISLATIVE
BLACK CAUCUS, EDDIE BERNICE
JOHNSON, SHEILA JACKSON-LEE,
ALEXANDER GREEN, HOWARD
JEFFERSON, BILL LAWSON, and
JUANITA WALLACE




Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1000 Filed 05/21/14 Page 8 of 10
9

STEPHEN E. MCCONNICO
smcconnico@scottdoug.com
SAM JOHNSON
sjohnson@scottdoug.com
S. ABRAHAM KUCZAJ, III
akuczaj@scottdoug.com
Scott, Douglass & McConnico
One American Center
600 Congress Ave., 15th Floor
Austin, TX 78701
512-495-6300/512-474-0731 (facsimile)

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS CITY OF
AUSTIN, TRAVIS COUNTY, ALEX
SERNA, BALAKUMAR PANDIAN,
BEATRICE SALOMA, BETTY F. LOPEZ,
CONSTABLE BRUCE ELFANT, DAVID
GONZALEZ, EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, ELIZA
ALVARADO, JOSEY MARTINEZ,
JUANITA VALDEZ-COX, LIONOR
SOROLA-POHLMAN, MILTON GERARD
WASHINGTON, NINA JO BAKER, and
SANDRA SERNA

CHAD W. DUNN
chad@brazilanddunn.com
K. SCOTT BRAZIL
scott@brazilanddunn.com
Brazil & Dunn
4201 FM 1960 West, Suite 530
Houston, TX 77068
281-580-6310/281-580-6362 (facsimile)

ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENOR-STATE
DEFENDANTS TEXAS DEMOCRATIC
PARTY and BOYD RICHIE












VICTOR L. GOODE
Asst. Gen. Counsel, NAACP
4805 Mt. Hope Drive
Baltimore, MD 21215-5120
410-580-5120/410-358-9359 (facsimile)
vgoode@naacpnet.org

ATTORNEY FOR TEXAS STATE
CONFERENCE OF NAACP
BRANCHES

ROBERT NOTZON
Law Office of Robert S. Notzon
1507 Nueces Street
Austin, TX 78701
512-474-7563/512-474-9489 (facsimile)
robert@notzonlaw.com

ALLISON JEAN RIGGS
ANITA SUE EARLS
Southern Coalition for Social Justice
1415 West Highway 54, Ste. 101
Durham, NC 27707
919-323-3380/919-323-3942 (facsimile)
anita@southerncoalition.org

ATTORNEYS FOR TEXAS STATE
CONFERENCE OF NAACP
BRANCHES, EARLS, LAWSON,
WALLACE, and JEFFERSON

DONNA GARCIA DAVIDSON
PO Box 12131
Austin, TX 78711
512-775-7625/877-200-6001 (facsimile)
donna@dgdlawfirm.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
STEVE MUNISTERI

KAREN M. KENNARD
2803 Clearview Drive
Austin, TX 78703
(512) 974-2177/512-974-2894 (facsimile)
karen.kennard@ci.austin.tx.us
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
CITY OF AUSTIN
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1000 Filed 05/21/14 Page 9 of 10
10

RONALD C. MACHEN, JR.,
United States Attorney
District of Columbia
JOCELYN SAMUELS
T. CHRISTIAN HERREN, JR.
TIMOTHY F. MELLETT
timothy.f.mellett@usdoj.gov
BRYAN SELLS
Bryan.sells@usdoj.gov
JAYE ALLISON SITTON
jaye.sitton@usdoj.gov
DANIEL J. FREEMAN
daniel.freeman@usdoj.gov
MICHELLE A. MCLEOD
michelle.mcleod@usdoj.gov
Civil Rights Division, Voting Rights
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
NWB #7266
Washington, D.C. 20530
(202) 305-4143; (202) 305-4355

ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENOR
THE UNITED STATES



DAVID ESCAMILLA
Travis County Asst. Attorney
P.O. Box 1748
Austin, TX 78767
(512) 854-9416
david.escamilla@co.travis.tx.us

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
TRAVIS COUNTY



/s/ Patrick K. Sweeten
PATRICK K. SWEETEN

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1000 Filed 05/21/14 Page 10 of 10
1
Jackson, Jennifer
From: Sweeten, Patrick
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 3:30 PM
To: Luis Vera (lrvlaw@sbcglobal.net)
Cc: Jackson, Jennifer; Morris, Kathleen
Subject: Perez v. Perry et al.
Mr.Vera,

Asyouareaware,wewroteyoualetteronMarch17thoutliningtheissueswehavewithyourdiscoveryresponsesand
disclosures.WealsofiledamotionforsanctionsonApril15ththatagainoutlinedtheissueswehavewithyour
discovery.Wewithdrewthatmotionassoonaswefoundoutaboutyourhealthproblems.Wehopeyouarefeeling
better.

Aswearelessthanamonthawayfromthecloseofthediscoveryperiodinthiscase,weneedtoresolvethesediscovery
issuesassoonaspossible.
ThereforepleaseprovidethefollowingbyMay15th:

AllthedocumentsreferencedinyourresponsetotheDefendantsRequestforProduction,asdiscussedinthe
attachedMotionforSanctionsatpages47.Ifyoudonthaveanydocumentstoproduce,pleasejustwritebackandsay
sosucharesponsewouldresolveourconcernsatthistime.

Theidentitiesofanywitnessesyouintendtocallrelatingtoyour2011disclosuresasoutlinedonpages78of
theattachedMotionforSanctions:individualsinleaguewiththeDefendants;personsaffiliatedwiththenational
politicalpartieswhoallegedlyparticipatedintheTexasredistricting;individualswhoallegedlycontributedfund(s)to
supportredistrictingorwhobriefedorsentdocumentationtosuchcontributors;andunknownaccountants.Similarly,if
youdonthaveanyadditionalwitnessestodisclose,pleasewriteusandsaysothatwillresolveourconcerns.

Also,pleaseletusknowifyouexperiencehealthproblemsbetweennowandMay15ththatwillimpactyourabilityto
respond.Whiletimeisgettingshort,wewouldprefertoworkwithyoutogetthisresolvedamicably.

Pleasegivemeacallifyouwishtodiscussthisfurther.

BestRegards,

PatrickK.Sweeten

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1000-1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 1 of 1

H
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

SHANNON PEREZ, et al. )
) CIVIL ACTION NO.
Plaintiffs ) 11-CA-360-OLG-JES-XR
) [Lead case]
v. )
)
STATE OF TEXAS, et al. )
)
State Defendants )



PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING STATE DEFENDANTS SECOND MOTION FOR
DISCOVERY SANCTIONS AGAINST LULAC


Before the Court is the State Defendants Second Motion for Discovery
Sanctions dated May 21, 2014. After considering the motion, the Court GRANTS
the Motion.
The Court has considered the LULAC Plaintiffs conduct in light of the
purposes of discovery sanctions and FINDS that the least severe sanction available
to meet those purposes is to prevent the LULAC Plaintiffs from introducing
evidence, examining witnesses, or otherwise pursuing the following claims at trial:
1. LULACs contention that the Texas Legislature engaged in intentional
discrimination against minorities in passing the 2011 Congressional
Plan (C185) and the 2011 Texas House of Representatives Plan (Plan
H283). (RFP 2).
2. LULACs contention that Plans C185 and H283 had or would have
had a discriminatory effect on minorities if either plan had been used
to conduct any election. (RFP 3).
3. LULACs contention that the 2013 Congressional Plan (C235)
purposefully fragments Latinos in all regions of the state. (RFP 8).
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1000-2 Filed 05/21/14 Page 1 of 3
2

4. LULACs contention that the Texas Legislature actively worked to

disregard traditional and neutral redistricting principles through the
enactment of Plan C235. (RFP 9)
5. LULACs contention that Plan C235 purposefully fragments a
politically cohesive coalition of African-American and Latino voters in
the Dallas-Fort Worth area and Harris County. (RFP 10).
6. LULACs contention that Plan C235s configuration of Nueces County
was intended to sever the large Latino voting community of Nueces
County from other significant groups of Latino voters in the South
Texas region. (RFP 11).
7. LULACs contention that Plan C235 uses race as a tool to purposely
dismantle and destroy an existing crossover districtformer CD25
anchored in Travis County and the City of Austin and the tri-ethnic
voting coalition there. (RFP 12).
8. LULACs contention that Plan C235 purposely continues in place a
race-based redrawing of the historic CD 20. (RFP 13).
9. LULACs contention that Latinos are provided a less than equal
opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect
congressional representatives of their choice in the South Texas
Region and the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. (RFP 14).
10. LULACs contention that the 2013 Texas House of Representatives
Plan (H358) violates the one-person, one-vote principles contained in
the Fourteenth Amendment. (RFP 15).
11. LULACs contention that additional Latino majority districts could
have been created under Plans C235 and H358. (RFP 16).
12. LULACs contention that the Texas Legislature engaged in intentional
discrimination against minorities in passing Plans C235 and H358.
(RFP 17).
13. LULACs contention that Plans C235 and H358 have or will have a
discriminatory effect on minorities. (RFP 18).
14. Documents on which LULAC relied in preparing its interrogatory
responses. (RFP 19).
15. Documents identified in LULACs interrogatory responses (RFP20).
16. LULACs claim for equitable relief under Section 3(C) of the Voting
Rights Act. (RFP 23).
17. Testimony by unknown individuals involved in preparing plans of
apportionment, and testimony about such plans. (2011 Disclosures at
5.)
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1000-2 Filed 05/21/14 Page 2 of 3
3

18. Testimony by unknown witnesses associated with the national

political parties who participated in the redistricting process, and
testimony about such participation. (2011 Disclosures at 7).
19. Testimony by unknown individuals who contributed funds to support
redistricting or who briefed or provided documents to such individuals,
and testimony about such funds, briefing, and documents. (2011
Disclosures at 10).
20. Testimony by unknown accountants who had knowledge that state
funds spent during the redistricting process, and testimony about such
funds. (2011 Disclosures at 11).
No lesser sanction is available because the LULAC Plaintiffs have repeatedly failed
to timely respond to the State Defendants discovery requests, and the LULAC
Plaintiffs violated this Courts Scheduling Order of October 18, 2013 and this
Courts Order compelling discovery of February 4, 2014.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the LULAC Plaintiffs are prevented
from introducing evidence, examining witnesses, or otherwise pursuing their claims
at trial.
DATED: __________________
______________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1000-2 Filed 05/21/14 Page 3 of 3