You are on page 1of 25

KYLE J.

KAISER (13924)
DANIEL R. WIDDISON (11979)
Utah Attorneys General
Attorneys for Defendants
160 East 300 South, Sixth Floor
P.O. Box 140856
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-0856
Telephone: (801) 366-0100
Facsimile: (801) 366-0101
E-mail: kkaiser@utah.gov
E-mail: dwiddison@utah.gov


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION


ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND,
PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT
OF ANIMALS, COUNTERPUNCH, AMY
MEYER, WILL POSTTER, DANIEL
HAUFF, JAMES McWILLIAMS, JESSE
FRUHWIRTH,

Plaintiff,

v.

GARY R. HERBERT, in his official capacity
as Governor of Utah; SEAN D. REYES, in his
official capacity as Attorney General of Utah,

Defendants.


DEFENDANTS ANSWER TO CIVIL
RIGHTS COMPLAINT





Case No. 2:13-cv-00679-RJS
Judge: Robert J. Shelby


Defendants Gary R. Herbert and Sean D. Reyes (Defendants) answer the Complaint
filed by Plaintiffs and assert defenses as follows:
1


1
Unless specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny each and every allegation of
Plaintiffs Complaint.

Case 2:13-cv-00679-RJS Document 60 Filed 09/08/14 Page 1 of 25
2


PLAINTIFFS INTRODUCTION

1. Paragraph 1 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent
a response is required, Defendants deny Plaintiffs characterization of Utah Code 76-6-112
(hereinafter, the Act) that Plaintiffs Complaint states a cause of action as alleged or that any
Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief.
2. Defendants admit that Upton Sinclairs book, The Jungle, predated the enactment
of the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug act; Defendants deny the
allegation in all other respects.
3. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 3. Regarding footnote 1,
Defendants admit that undercover investigations have occurred at agricultural operations in other
states and selected operations have received media attention. Defendants lack information
sufficient to form a belief about the further allegations in footnote 1, and therefore deny the
same.
4. Paragraph 4 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent
a response is required, Defendants deny that the purpose of the Act is to gag speech that is
critical of industrial agriculture, deny Plaintiffs Complaint states a cause of action as alleged,
and deny that any Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief.
5. Paragraph 5 is an irrelevant statement of Plaintiffs purpose to which no response
is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit that the Act reads as stated in
footnote 2 and deny the allegations in all other respects.
Case 2:13-cv-00679-RJS Document 60 Filed 09/08/14 Page 2 of 25
3

6. As to the allegations in Paragraph 6, Defendants admit that federal crimes relating
to food safety and animal handling, in general, exist; Defendants deny the remaining allegations
of Paragraph 6.
7. Paragraph 7 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent
a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations.
8. Paragraph 8 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent
a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations.
9. Paragraph 9 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent
a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations.
10. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in the first and second sentences of Paragraph 10, and therefore deny the same.
Defendants deny the allegations in the third sentence of Paragraph 10.
11. The allegation of Paragraph 11 relates to Plaintiffs Third Cause of Action which
was dismissed. See Minute Entry, Docket # 54. To the extent a response is necessary,
Defendants deny the allegation.
12. Paragraph 12 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent
a response is required, Defendants deny the allegation.
13. Paragraph 13 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent
a response is required, Defendants deny the allegation.
14. Paragraph 14 is a request for legal relief, to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Defendants deny that Plaintiffs Complaint states a cause of action
as alleged or that any Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief.
Case 2:13-cv-00679-RJS Document 60 Filed 09/08/14 Page 3 of 25
4

15. Paragraph 15 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent
a response is required, Defendants deny that Plaintiffs Complaint states a cause of action as
alleged or that any Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16. As to the allegations in Paragraph 16, Defendants admit that Plaintiffs seek a
declaration to enforce the United States Constitution and laws of the United States including
42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988 and admit that jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343.
17. As to the allegations in Paragraph 17, Defendants admit that the rules and statutes
cited in Paragraph 17 authorize a court to provide relief, but deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to
such relief.
18. As to the allegations in Paragraph 18, Defendants admit that venue is proper in
the Central District of Utah.
PARTIES

PLAINTIFFS

19. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 19, and therefore deny the same.
20. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 20, and therefore deny the same.
21. As to the allegations in Paragraph 21, Defendants affirmatively assert that
Plaintiff COUNTERPUNCH was dismissed from this lawsuit by the Courts Order dated August
8, 2014 and is no longer a party, and therefore no response is required. See Minute Entry, Docket
Case 2:13-cv-00679-RJS Document 60 Filed 09/08/14 Page 4 of 25
5

# 54. To the extent a response is required, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or
deny the allegations in Paragraph 21 and therefore deny the same.
22. As to the allegations in Paragraph 22, Defendants admit that Plaintiff Meyer was
criminally charged for violating the Act, and such charges were dismissed without prejudice.
Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
allegations in Paragraph 22, and therefore deny the same.
23. As to the allegations in Paragraph 23, Defendants affirmatively assert that
Plaintiff WILL POTTER was dismissed from this lawsuit by the Courts Order dated August 8,
2014 and is no longer a party, and therefore no response is necessary. See Minute Entry, Docket
# 54. To the extent a response is necessary, Defendants lack information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 23, and therefore deny the same.
24. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 24, and therefore deny the same.
25. As to the allegations in Paragraph 25, Defendants affirmatively assert that
Plaintiff JAMES MCWILLIAMS was dismissed from this lawsuit by the Courts Order dated
August 8, 2014 and is no longer a party, and therefore no response is necessary. See Minute
Entry, Docket # 54. To the extent a response is necessary, Defendants lack information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 25, and therefore deny
the same.
26. As to the allegations in Paragraph 26, Defendants affirmatively assert that
Plaintiff JESSE FRUHWIRTH was dismissed from this lawsuit by the Courts Order dated
August 8, 2014 and is no longer a party. See Minute Entry, Docket # 54. To the extent a
Case 2:13-cv-00679-RJS Document 60 Filed 09/08/14 Page 5 of 25
6

response is necessary, Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the allegations in Paragraph 26, and therefore deny the same.
DEFENDANTS

27. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 27.
28. Defendants deny that JOHN SWALLOW is the Attorney General of Utah and
affirmatively assert that SEAN D. REYES is the Attorney General of Utah and admit the
remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 28.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Statutory Overview
29. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 29 and assert that the text of the
Act is plain.
30. Defendants admit that Paragraph 30 contains an accurate quotation of a portion of
the Act. Defendants deny any further allegations contained in Paragraph 30.
31. Defendants admit that Paragraph 31(a)-(d) contain accurate quotations of portions
of the Act. Defendants deny all remaining allegations in Paragraph 31, including, but not limited
to, that the statute in any way limits whistle-blowing activity.
32. As to the allegations in Paragraph 32, Defendants admit that a person who
commits agriculture operation inference is subject to a Class A or Class B Misdemeanor as
outlined in the Act. Defendants deny any further allegations, including the irrelevant comparison
stated in Paragraph 32 with regard to the same penalty as would attach to assaulting a police
officer, and the allegation in footnote 4.
Case 2:13-cv-00679-RJS Document 60 Filed 09/08/14 Page 6 of 25
7

33. Paragraph 33 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the
type of investigations contemplated by Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) and People for
the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and therefore deny the same. Defendants deny any
remaining allegations in Paragraph 33.
34. As to the allegations in Paragraph 34, Defendants lack information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the first clause of the sentence, and therefore deny the same.
Defendants deny the allegation in the second clause of Paragraph 34.
35. Paragraph 35 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 35.
36. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 36.
Statutory Purpose
37. As to the allegations in Paragraph 37, Defendants admit that one violates
subsection 2(a) of the Act only if the person knowingly or intentionally records an image of, or
sound from, the agricultural operation by leaving a recording device on the agricultural
operationwithout the consent of the owner of the agricultural operation, or the owners
agent, and that a person violations subsection 2(d) of the act if a person records images or
sounds from an agricultural operation while committing a criminal trespass, without the consent
from the owner or the owners agent. Defendants deny any remaining allegations in
Paragraph 37.
Case 2:13-cv-00679-RJS Document 60 Filed 09/08/14 Page 7 of 25
8

38. Paragraph 38 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 38, including the
allegation that the statute criminalizes recording based on the content recorded.
39. Paragraph 39 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 39.
40. Paragraph 40 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 40, including the
allegation that the statute criminalizes the production of speech.
41. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 41.
42. Defendants admit that Paragraph 42 contains select, out-of-context quotations by
a Utah state legislator. Defendants deny any further allegations in the paragraph, including that
such a quotation is relevant to the constitutionality of the Act.
43. Defendants admit that Paragraph 43 contains select, out-of-context quotations by
a Utah state legislator. Defendants deny any further allegations in the paragraph, including that
such a quotation is relevant to the constitutionality of the Act, or that the legislator had disdain
for animal protection organizations.
44. Defendants admit that Paragraph 44 contains select, out-of-context quotations by
a Utah state legislator. Defendants deny any further allegations in the paragraph, including that
such a quotation is relevant to the constitutionality of the Act.
45. Defendants admit that Paragraph 45 contains select, out-of-context quotations by
a Utah state legislator. Defendants deny any further allegations in the paragraph, including that
such a quotation is relevant to the constitutionality of the Act.
Case 2:13-cv-00679-RJS Document 60 Filed 09/08/14 Page 8 of 25
9

46. Defendants admit that Paragraph 46 contains select, out-of-context quotations by
a Utah state legislator. Defendants deny any further allegations in the paragraph, including that
such a quotation is relevant to the constitutionality of the Act. Defendants further object to the
characterization of a representatives floor testimony through the use of an on-line slang
dictionary, and denies the allegations in footnote 5. Defendants deny the final sentence of
Paragraph 46.
47. Defendants admit that Paragraph 47 contains select, out-of-context quotations by
a Utah state legislator. Defendants deny any further allegations in the paragraph, including that
such a quotation is relevant to the constitutionality of the Act, or that the legislator provided a
litany of personal, animus-based objections to PETAs lawful activity.
48. Defendants admit that Paragraph 48 contains select, out-of-context quotations by
a Utah state legislator. Defendants deny any further allegations in the paragraph, including that
such a quotation is relevant to the constitutionality of the Act, or that Plaintiffs viewpoints are
not entitled to protection.
49. Defendants lack the information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations in
Paragraph 49, and therefore deny the same.
50. Defendants admit that Paragraph 50 contains select, out-of-context quotations by
a Utah state legislator. Defendants deny any further allegations in the paragraph, including that
such a quotation is relevant to the constitutionality of the Act.
51. Defendants admit that Paragraph 51 contains select, out-of-context quotations by
a Utah state legislator. Defendants deny any further allegations in the paragraph, including that
such a quotation is relevant to the constitutionality of the Act, or that Plaintiffs have been labeled
Case 2:13-cv-00679-RJS Document 60 Filed 09/08/14 Page 9 of 25
10

as animal rights terrorists. Defendants deny the allegation in footnote 7 that the Act is
grounded in animus.
52. Defendants admit that Paragraph 52 contains select, out-of-context quotations by
a Utah state legislator. Defendants deny any further allegations in the paragraph, including that
such a quotation is relevant to the constitutionality of the Act and that Plaintiffs are misguided.
53. Defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 53, and therefore deny the same.
54. Defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 54, and therefore deny the same.
55. Defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 55, and therefore deny the same.
56. Defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 56, and therefore deny the same.
57. Defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 57, and therefore deny the same.
58. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 58.
59. Paragraph 59 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 59.
Investigations and Reporting Generally
60. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 60, and therefore deny the same.
Case 2:13-cv-00679-RJS Document 60 Filed 09/08/14 Page 10 of 25
11

61. As to the allegations in Paragraph 61, Defendants affirmatively assert that
Plaintiffs Potter, CounterPunch, McWilliams, and Fruhwirth were dismissed from this lawsuit by
the Courts Order dated August 8, 2014 and are no longer parties, and therefore no response is
necessary. See Minute Entry, Docket # 54. To the extent a response is necessary, Defendants
lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 61.
62. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 62, and therefore deny the same.
63. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 63, and therefore deny the same.
64. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 64, and therefore deny the same.
65. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 65, and therefore deny the same.
66. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 66, and therefore deny the same.
67. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 67, and therefore deny the same.
68. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the
allegations in paragraph 68 and, therefore, deny the same.
69. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 69, and therefore deny the same.
Case 2:13-cv-00679-RJS Document 60 Filed 09/08/14 Page 11 of 25
12

70. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 70, and therefore deny the same.
71. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the
allegations in paragraph 71 and, therefore, deny the same.
72. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 72, and therefore deny the same.
State Speech Regarding Animal Agriculture
73. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 73.
74. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 74.
75. Defendants deny that the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (UDAF)
currently posts a series of videos entitled Agriculture 101 on its website,
http://www.ag.utah.gov, but admits that videos produced over the last number of years by the
Department are available for viewing at online at http://www.youtube.com/user/UtahAgriculture.
Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of any remaining
allegations in Paragraph 75, and therefore deny the same.
76. Defendants admit that a video, entitled Why Utah Eggs Are Safe appears as
uploaded to YouTube by the Department on September 4, 2010. Defendants deny that the video
has any relevance to Plaintiffs claims, and deny any further allegations contained in
Paragraph 76.
a. Defendants admit that Paragraph 76(a) includes accurate, partial quotations from
the video presented without context. Defendants deny that the quotation has any
Case 2:13-cv-00679-RJS Document 60 Filed 09/08/14 Page 12 of 25
13

relevance to Plaintiffs claims, and deny any further allegations contained in
Paragraph 76(a).
b. Defendants admit that Paragraph 76(b) includes accurate, partial quotations from
the video presented without context. Defendants deny that the quotation has any
relevance to Plaintiffs claims, and deny any further allegations contained in
Paragraph 76(b).
c. Defendants admit that Paragraph 76(c) includes accurate, partial quotations from
the video presented without context. Defendants deny that the quotation has any
relevance to Plaintiffs claims, and deny any further allegations contained in
Paragraph 76(c).
d. Defendants admit that Paragraph 76(d) includes a reference to certain video
footage in the video. Defendants deny that the quotation has any relevance to
Plaintiffs claims, and deny any further allegations contained in Paragraph 76(d).
e. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 76(e), and therefore deny the same.
f. Defendants admit that the voters of California passed a proposition in 2008
prohibiting cages in which animals cannot stretch their limbs, but the statute
resulting from the proposition does not take effect until January 1, 2015.
Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 76(f), and therefore deny the same.
g. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 76(g).
Case 2:13-cv-00679-RJS Document 60 Filed 09/08/14 Page 13 of 25
14

77. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 77, and therefore deny the same. To the extent such a video exists,
Defendants deny that the video has any relevance to Plaintiffs claims, and deny any further
allegations contained in Paragraph 77.
a. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 77(a), and therefore deny the same.
b. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 77(b), and therefore deny the same.
c. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 77(c), and therefore deny the same.
d. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 77(d), and therefore deny the same.
e. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 77(e), and therefore deny the same.
f. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 77(f), and therefore deny the same.
g. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 77(g), and therefore deny the same.
h. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 77(h).
78. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 78, and therefore deny the same. To the extent such a video exists,
Case 2:13-cv-00679-RJS Document 60 Filed 09/08/14 Page 14 of 25
15

Defendants deny that the video has any relevance to Plaintiffs claims, and deny any further
allegations contained in Paragraph 78.
a. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 78(a), and therefore deny the same.
b. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 78(b), and therefore deny the same.
c. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 78(c), and therefore deny the same.
d. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 78(d), and therefore deny the same.
e. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 78(e), and therefore deny the same.
f. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 78(f), and therefore deny the same.
g. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 78(g), and therefore deny the same.
h. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 78(h).
79. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the
allegations in paragraph 79 and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants assert that the Learn
About Agriculture, Links of Interest has been moved to http://ag.utah.gov/learn-ag.html.
Defendants deny that the website links have any relevance to Plaintiffs claims, and deny any
further allegations contained in Paragraph 79.
Case 2:13-cv-00679-RJS Document 60 Filed 09/08/14 Page 15 of 25
16

a. Defendants admit that a link to the website of the Animal Agriculture Alliance, is
located at http://ag.utah.gov/learn-ag.html and the content of the page located at
the link speaks for itself. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph
79(a).
b. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the
allegations in paragraph 79(b) and, therefore, deny the same.
c. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the
allegations in paragraph 79(c) and, therefore, deny the same.
d. Defendants admit that a link to the website, I Love Farmers, is located at
http://ag.utah.gov/learn-ag.html and lack sufficient knowledge and information to
admit or deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 79(d) and, therefore, deny
the same.
e. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 79(e).
80. Paragraph 80 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Defendants admit that the Department of Agriculture is free to
promote agriculture and deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 80.
Investigative Interests
81. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 81, and therefore deny the same.
82. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 82, and therefore deny the same.
Case 2:13-cv-00679-RJS Document 60 Filed 09/08/14 Page 16 of 25
17

83. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 83, and therefore deny the same.
84. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 84.
85. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 85, and therefore deny the same.
86. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 86, and therefore deny the same.
87. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 87, and therefore deny the same.
88. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 88, and therefore deny the same.
89. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 89, and therefore deny the same.
90. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 90, and therefore deny the same.
91. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 91, and therefore deny the same.
92. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 92, and therefore deny the same.
93. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 93, and therefore deny the same.
Case 2:13-cv-00679-RJS Document 60 Filed 09/08/14 Page 17 of 25
18

94. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 94, and therefore deny the same.
95. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 95, and therefore deny the same.
96. Defendants admit that Defendants have not instructed prosecutors in Utah to
refuse to enforce Utah Code Ann. 76-6-112. Defendants deny all remaining allegations in
Paragraph 96.
97. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 97.
98. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 98, and therefore deny the same.
99. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 99.
Reporter and Scholarly Interests
100. Regarding Paragraphs 100104, Defendants affirmatively assert that Plaintiffs
Potter, CounterPunch, McWilliams, and Fruhwirth were dismissed from this lawsuit by the
Courts Order dated August 8, 2014 and are no longer parties, and therefore no response is
necessary. See Minute Entry, Docket # 54. To the extent a response is necessary, Defendants
deny these dismissed Plaintiffs state a cause of action or that the Act is unconstitutional.
Fear of Arrest or Prosecution for Lawful Conduct
105. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 105.
106. Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 106, and therefore deny the same.
Case 2:13-cv-00679-RJS Document 60 Filed 09/08/14 Page 18 of 25
19

107. Defendants admit that Meyer was charged with violation of the Act and lack
information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 107, and
therefore deny the same.
108. Defendants admit that the charges against Meyer were dismissed and lack
information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 108, and
therefore deny the same.
109. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 109.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Declaratory Relief
110. The allegations in paragraph 110 contain legal conclusions to which no response
is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit that Plaintiffs contend that
Utah Code Ann. 76-6-112 is unconstitutional.
111. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 111.
Injunctive Relief
112. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 112.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(First Amendment: Overbreadth)
113. Defendants incorporate by reference all preceding responses and defenses to
Plaintiffs Complaint.
114. The allegations in Paragraph 114 contain legal conclusions to which no response
is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in
Paragraph 114.
Case 2:13-cv-00679-RJS Document 60 Filed 09/08/14 Page 19 of 25
20

115. The allegations in Paragraph 115 contain legal conclusions to which no response
is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit that the concept of
overbreadth has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court but deny that the Act is
overbroad.
116. The allegations in Paragraph 116 contain legal conclusions to which no response
is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in
Paragraph 116.
117. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 117.
118. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 118.
119. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 119.
120. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 120.
121. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 121.
122. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 122.
123. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 123.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(First Amendment: Content & Viewpoint Based Discrimination)
124. Defendants incorporate by reference all preceding responses and defenses to
Plaintiffs Complaint.
125. The allegations in Paragraph 125 contain legal conclusions to which no response
is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit that the United States
Supreme Court has recognized that laws which discriminate based on their content and
viewpoint are entitled to heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment. Defendants deny that
Case 2:13-cv-00679-RJS Document 60 Filed 09/08/14 Page 20 of 25
21

the Act constitutes content- or viewpoint-based discrimination, and deny all remaining
allegations in Paragraph 125.
126. The allegations in Paragraph 126 contain legal conclusions to which no response
is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit that the United States
Supreme Court has recognized that laws which discriminate based on their content and
viewpoint are entitled to heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment. Defendants deny that
the Act constitutes content- or viewpoint-based discrimination, and deny all remaining
allegations in Paragraph 126.
127. The allegations in Paragraph 127 contain legal conclusions to which no response
is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit that the United States
Supreme Court has recognized that laws which discriminate based on their content and
viewpoint are entitled to heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment. Defendants deny that
the Act constitutes content- or viewpoint-based discrimination, and deny all remaining
allegations in Paragraph 127.
128. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 128.
129. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 129.
130. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 130.
131. The allegations in Paragraph 131 are vague and conclusory, and therefore no
response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit that the Act is
limited to enforcement on agricultural operations, but deny any remaining allegations in
Paragraph 131.
Case 2:13-cv-00679-RJS Document 60 Filed 09/08/14 Page 21 of 25
22

132. The allegations in Paragraph 132 contain legal conclusions to which no response
is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in
Paragraph 132.
133. The allegations in Paragraph 133 contain legal conclusions to which no response
is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny that the compelling interest
test is the appropriate level of review of the Act, and deny all remaining allegations in
Paragraph 133.
134. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 134.
135. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 135.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Article VI, 2: Supremacy Clause: Preemption)
136. Defendants incorporate by reference all preceding responses and defenses to
Plaintiffs Complaint.
137. Regarding Paragraphs 137146, Defendants affirmatively assert that Plaintiffs
Third Cause of Action was dismissed from this lawsuit by the Courts Order dated August 8,
2014, and therefore no response is necessary. See Minute Entry, Docket # 54. To the extent a
response is necessary, Defendants deny that Plaintiffs have stated a claim and deny all other
allegations made in Paragraph 137146.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fourteenth Amendment: Equal Protection & Due Process)
147. Defendants incorporate by reference all preceding responses and defenses to
Plaintiffs Complaint.
Case 2:13-cv-00679-RJS Document 60 Filed 09/08/14 Page 22 of 25
23

148. The allegations in Paragraph 148 state a legal conclusion to which no response is
required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit that Paragraph 148 contains a
quotation from the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
149. The allegations in paragraph 149 state a legal conclusion to which no response is
required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny that animus alone can invalidate
a statute, and deny that the Act was enacted based on animus.
150. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 150.
151. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 151.
152. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 152.
PLAINTIFFS RELIEF REQUESTED

Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief as listed in paragraphs 153157
of the section of plaintiffs Complaint entitled PRAYER FOR RELIEF.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

FIRST DEFENSE

Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a claim for relief.
SECOND DEFENSE

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity to the extent Plaintiffs seek monetary
damages.
THIRD DEFENSE

Plaintiffs claims are foreclosed by the Eleventh Amendment, sovereign immunity,
governmental immunity, or are subject to or barred by the provisions of the Governmental
Immunity Act of Utah, Utah Code Ann. 63-30(d)-101, et seq.
Case 2:13-cv-00679-RJS Document 60 Filed 09/08/14 Page 23 of 25
24

FOURTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims.
FIFTH DEFENSE

Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean
hands.
SIXTH DEFENSE

The Act does not restrict speech on its face, and, to the extent the Act incidentally affects
Plaintiffs expression, it is not unduly restrictive of any of Plaintiffs expression.
SEVENTH DEFENSE

Defendants preserve and do not waive any of the affirmative defenses set forth in Rule
8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as discovery may reveal to be applicable, or any
other matter constituting an affirmative defense as may become known in the future.
JURY DEMAND

Defendants demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Defendants Gary R. Herbert and Sean D. Reyes, respectfully pray that
the Court enter judgment dismissing Plaintiffs Complaint with prejudice, that Plaintiffs take
nothing, and that the Court award Defendants their costs incurred and such other relief as the
Court deems just.



Case 2:13-cv-00679-RJS Document 60 Filed 09/08/14 Page 24 of 25
25

DATED: September 9, 2014

OFFICE OF THE UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL


/s/ Daniel R. Widdison
KYLE J. KAISER
DANIEL R. WIDDISON
Assistant Utah Attorneys General
Attorneys for Defendants

Case 2:13-cv-00679-RJS Document 60 Filed 09/08/14 Page 25 of 25

You might also like