Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document236 Filed10/23/09 Page1 of 2

GIBSON, DUNN &CRUTCHERLLP

LAWYERS
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS

555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, Calfornia 94105-2933

(415) 393-8200
ww.gibsondunn.com
EDettmer(ggibsondunn.com

October 23,2009

Direct Dial Client No.

(415) 393-8292 T 36330-00001

Fax No.
(415) 374-8444
The Honorable Vaughn R. Walker
Chief Judge of the United States District Cour
for the Northern District of California
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102

Re: Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Case No. C 09-2292 VRW

Dear Chief Judge Walker:

the Cour's Standing Orders, to request that the Court

I write pursuant to paragraph 1.5 of

enter an order to compel compliance with outstanding discovery requests.

As the Cour knows, all paries are committed to an early trial date and, in furtherance of
that commitment, the fact discovery cut-off is November 30, 2009. Plaintiffs served their First
Set of Requests for Production of Documents on August 21, 2009-more than two months ago-
and the paries litigated, among other things, whether Proponents could withhold documents
based on asserted protections under the First Amendment. Proponents claimed that production
was inappropriate because "(s)upporters of Prop. 8 have been subjected to social disapprobation,
verbal abuse, economic reprisal, vandalism of property, threats of physical violence, and actual
physical violence" and that this "abuse" has "chiled. . . the exercise of First Amendment rights
by supporters of the traditional definition of mariage." Doc # 187 at 20. But the Cour overrled
Proponents' objection, finding that "Proponents have not however adequately explained why the
discovery sought by plaintiffs increases the threat of har to Prop 8 supporters or explained why
a protective order strictly limiting the dissemination of such information would not suffice to
avoid future similar events." Doc #214 at 6. The Cour also overrled Proponents' relevance
objections, with the exception of the objection that Request No. 8 was overly broad. The Cour
directed plaintiffs to narow that request, and plaintiffs promptly did so, consistently with the
Cour's direction.

LOS ANGELES NEW YORK WASHINGTON, D.C. SAN FRANCISCO PALO ALTO LONDON
PARIS MUNICH BRUSSELS DUBAI SINGAPORE ORANGE COUNTY CENTURY CITY DALLAS DENVER
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document236 Filed10/23/09 Page2 of 2
GIBSON,DUNN &CRUTCHERLLP

The Honorable Vaughn R. Walker

October 23,2009
Page 2

As the Cour is aware, Proponents have asked the Cour for a stay of its October 1, 2009
Order. Doc #220. Although that request is pending and no stay has been ordered, Proponents
have to date refused to produce any of the documents that were the subject of their unsuccessful
motion for protective order. Proponents' refusal to tum over the documents interferes not only
with plaintiffs' ability to review and evaluate documents for use at trial, but also with plaintiffs'
ability to use the documents in depositions in this case, which are already under way.

To advance the resolution of the case while the question of a stay is pending, and to
minimize the adverse impact of Proponents' position on plaintiffs' ability to prepare this case for
trial, plaintiffs asked Proponents more than a week ago to agree to the Cour's standard form of
stipulated confidentiality order, and to begin producing the contested documents on a provisional
"attorneys' eyes only" basis. See highlighted portions of attached email exchange between E.
Dettmer and N. Moss. Plaintiffs explained that such production cannot cause the hars
Proponents claim to fear because this information would be strictly confidential pending a final
ruling on whether it is discoverable. Proponents have not ariculated any other concerns. But
Proponents continue to insist that they wil produce no contested documents until there is no
possibility of a stay from any Cour-presumably including both the Ninth Circuit and the
Supreme Cour. See id., at p. 5. In essence, Proponents are asking this Cour for a stay of
production while unilaterally creating their own "stay of production" which, though not ordered
by this or any other cour, would likely outlast the fact discovery period in this case.

Based on the foregoing, and on plaintiffs' need to move forward meaningfully with
discovery in this case, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Cour immediately enter its standard
form of confidentiality order, and direct Proponents to begin producing the contested documents
immediately under a provisional "attorneys' eyes only" designation that wil remain in effect
until the Cour resolves the pending motion for stay. This wil prevent any of the harms
Proponents claim they fear, while at the same time allowing the parties to move forward with
fact depositions that are necessary to bring this case to resolution on the time schedule entered by
the Cour.
We stand ready to discuss this with the Cour and counsel at the Cour's convenience.

Ethan D. Dettmer

Attachment

cc: All Counsel

l00750024_I.DOC
 Page 1 of 9
Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document236-1 Filed10/23/09 Page1 of 9

Dettmer, Ethan D.

From: Dettmer, Ethan D.

Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 4:28 PM
To: 'Nicole Moss'; 'Jesse Panuccio'; 'David Thompson'
Cc: McGill, Matthew D.; Dusseault, Christopher D.
Subject: RE: Outstanding Perry Discovery Issues

Thanks for your email, Nicole. My responses to your points are below:

1. ESI – my and Rebecca's recollections of our conversations differ from yours, but it does not
advance the ball to spend time on that disagreement. With respect to the terms we proposed,
you have pointed out two that you say will result in significant overinclusion. We are happy to
remove them from the list based on your representation. More generally, many of the terms on
the list we provided are very specific (e.g., "message impact"; pedophil*; procreat*) and as
such, may be unlikely to generate a significant number of "hits." Nevertheless, we recognize
that this process is not an exact science and we are as eager as you are to avoid terms that
result in significant overinclusion or underinclusion. If you can provide us with more specific
information concerning terms which are pulling in an unusual number of unique "hits," we are
confident that we can resolve these issues promptly. When are you available to discuss this in
more detail?

2. Custodians – thanks for your clarification regarding custodians. My email below was
unclear. I would like to agree on a group of people whose emails would be subject to
production if they are within your clients' possession, custody or control. In other words, if we
had a list of who the "control group" of the campaign was, I am hopeful that we could come to
an agreement that relevant emails to or from those people would be subject to production.
This is a potential means of alleviating the burden concerns that you have expressed.

3. Protective Order – you have not specified what "holes" you think there are in the Court's
standard form of protective order; but whatever they are, let's talk them through and resolve
them promptly. Your larger concern about the effectiveness of an "attorneys' eyes only"
protective order does not make sense to me. Your stated concern about producing these
documents is that your clients will somehow be subject to threats, reprisals or intimidation if
their communications are available to the public. But even assuming that public availability of
these documents might subject them to these things (and we don't agree that they would),
production under a provisional "attorneys' eyes only" protective order certainly will not subject
them to these concerns. At the same time, immediate production under these conditions will
allow us all to move forward in meeting the Court's schedule.

4. Scope of Discovery – I don't follow your reasoning on this point, but the bottom line is
that we agreed to a compromise under which, if you would produce internal documents that
support or contradict your allegations, then we would not seek other internal documents. But
you said that there are no such internal documents, based on your narrow interpretation of
relevance (which interpretation the Court has rejected). Thus this "compromise" was no
compromise at all.

Thanks again for your stated commitment to moving this case along. I firmly believe that the

10/23/2009
 Page 2 of 9
Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document236-1 Filed10/23/09 Page2 of 9

proposals in my emails will facilitate that process, and I hope we can get them implemented as
soon as possible.

Best,

Ethan

From: Nicole Moss [mailto:nmoss@cooperkirk.com]

Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 2:36 PM
To: Dettmer, Ethan D.; Jesse Panuccio; David Thompson
Cc: McGill, Matthew D.; Dusseault, Christopher D.
Subject: RE: Outstanding Perry Discovery Issues

Dear Ethan: 
  
I am writing in follow up to your email of October 14, 2009 regarding several discovery issues.   
  
First, you are certainly correct that we share your commitment to moving this case along on the schedule set by 
the Court.  It is for that reason that we have attempted to work with you in good faith to narrow and the clarify 
the discovery being requested and to resolve ESI production issues, so that if Defendant‐Intervenors must 
produce the information we have objected to, we will be in a position to do so.   I have to disagree slightly with 
your characterization of our search term discussion.  As you note, we have discussed search terms previously, 
including early in September when I first raised the issue with your colleague, Rebecca Lazarus.  It was Ms. 
Lazarus who indicated in response to my request that Plaintiffs provide us with a list of suggested search terms 
that such a request was premature.  While it was and remains our position that much of the discovery Plaintiffs 
have requested is irrelevant and protected from disclosure by the First Amendment, we have made clear from 
the beginning of discovery that we were willing, and in fact desired, to address whatever issues we could to 
facilitate discovery in the event our objections to producing this information are ultimately overruled.   
  
With respect to the list of suggested search terms you provided on October 14, 2009, two significant issues jump 
out right away.  You have asked that we search the email boxes of our clients, which include Andy Pugno and 
Ron Prentice, for the terms “Pugno” and “Prentice.”  This would capture every email in their respective email 
boxes.  This list needs to be modified so that we are not searching for a custodian’s name in that custodian’s 
ESI.  Further, to the extent any of these suggested terms appear in any custodian’s automatic email signature, 
those terms would also have to  be excluded from a search of that custodian’s ESI.  Secondly, the more than 
150 search terms you have proposed are so voluminous that they do not in any way alleviate the burden of your 
document requests.  If you are willing to consider significantly reducing the number of search terms, we remain 
open to the utilization of a reasonable set of terms.   
  
Second, your email suggests that there are additional custodians whose ESI will be subject to production by 
Defendant Intervenors whose names we have not provided to you, and that if we did so this would possibly ease 
the burden of production.  That is not correct.  You have the names of all of the individuals whose documents 
are within our custody and control and who might potentially have responsive information.  The Proponents are 
named parties so their identity is already known.  In addition, on behalf of Protect.Marriage.com, also a named 
party, we have provided you with the name of its treasurer, the name of its counsel, and the name of the 
Chairman of the ad hoc volunteer executive committee.  The other members of the executive committee who 
might have responsive information have their own counsel, whose names I have provided to you, and otherwise 
there are no other custodians that are subject to production based on the document requests served on 
Defendant‐Intervenors who might have responsive information 
  

10/23/2009
 Page 3 of 9
Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document236-1 Filed10/23/09 Page3 of 9

Third, with respect to the protective order you attached to your email, while this is a good start and lays the 
groundwork for us to come to a resolution on a stipulated order, there are significant holes that need to be filled 
in.  We question, however, whether it makes sense to devoting scarce resources to this matter now, however, 
since we fundamentally disagree with your assertion that producing documents under an “attorneys’ eyes only” 
provision alleviates any harm to our clients. Having to produce private, privileged, and protected information is 
harmful regardless of the existence of a protective order.  Our motion for a stay is currently pending before 
Judge Walker and, if it is denied, we intend to seek a stay from the Ninth Circuit.  We certainly do not intend to 
produce any materials we believe are protected from disclosure at this juncture. 
  
Fourth, with respect to the questions regarding discovery asked of you in my last email, on the first question 
regarding whether you have now rescinded your agreement that Request No. 8 does not seek internal 
communications solely between Defendant‐Intervenors, we will have to agree to disagree.    On August 
31, Matt  McGill  wrote: "I am writing to confirm that Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production does not 
seek internal communications among and between your clients regarding Proposition 8 and the related political 
campaign, except to the extent that you deem such communications responsive to Requests No. 9, 10, 13, 14, or 
15."  In other words, as to Request No. 8, you "confirm[ed] that ... [it] does not seek internal communications 
among and between your clients."  By its own terms, revised Request No. 8 reaches “communications among 
and between any … Defendant‐Intervenors.”  So, unless you indicated something to the contrary, we will 
understand you to have rescinded, on October 5, the representation you made on August 31 that Request No. 8 
does not encompass communications between and among Defendant‐Intervenors. 
  
If it would be helpful to discuss any of the above, please let me know. 
  
Regards,   
  
Nicole Jo Moss 
Cooper & Kirk, P.L.L.C. 
1523 New Hampshire Ave. N.W. 
Washington, D.C.  20036 
(910) 270‐8768 
(202) 220‐9601 (fax) 
(202) 423‐3237 (cell) 
  
From: Dettmer, Ethan D. [mailto:EDettmer@gibsondunn.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 6:34 PM
To: Nicole Moss; Jesse Panuccio; David Thompson
Cc: McGill, Matthew D.; Dusseault, Christopher D.
Subject: RE: Outstanding Perry Discovery Issues 
  
Dear Nicole - I am following up on my email immediately below, and particularly the proposals
set forth in paragraphs 2. a., b. & c. These proposals are designed to allow us to move forward
with the discovery process promptly, while at the same time, protecting the concerns that you
have stated underlie your clients' purported First Amendment concerns. Please get back to me
as soon as possible to address these issues.  
 
I look forward to talking with you. 
 
Best, 
 
Ethan 
 

10/23/2009
 Page 4 of 9
Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document236-1 Filed10/23/09 Page4 of 9

From: Dettmer, Ethan D.

Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 6:15 AM
To: Nicole Moss; Jesse Panuccio; David Thompson
Cc: McGill, Matthew D.; Dusseault, Christopher D.
Subject: RE: Outstanding Perry Discovery Issues 

Dear Nicole: 
 
Thanks for your email, and thank you for your team's work in getting the responsive and non-
privileged documents gathered and prepared for production. 
 
I want to clarify and correct a couple of the points in your email.  
 
1. You have not requested in the past that we provide you with search terms in connection with
document production. We have discussed search terms in a general manner on a couple of
occasions, but prior to the October 1 Order, your clients' position was that you were not going
to produce anything other than public communications, so the issue of search terms was
academic. In our conversation last week, I proposed that the best way to ease the burden of
production and move production along in a prompt and efficient manner is to get a targeted
list of custodians who will be subject to production. I thought that you were open to this idea
in our call last week, but I take it from your email below that you are no longer open to this
idea.  
 
2. We are, as you know, deeply interested in and committed to moving this case along on the
schedule set by the Court. I know that you and your team are, as well. The following proposals
are in the interest of meeting that mutual commitment and the schedule ordered by the Court. 
 
a. I have attached our initial list of search terms to speed production of relevant
documents. As you note, we reserve the right to augment this list.  
 
b. I have attached a proposed form of protective order for your consideration in advance
of the October 19 date you propose. This is the Northern District of California's form
confidentiality order, and it contains an attorneys' eyes only provision. Given our mutual
desire to advance discovery and meet the Court's deadline, I suggest we agree to this right
away, and then you can produce the relevant names to us under an "Attorneys' Eyes Only"
designation right away so that we can further narrow and target discovery.  
 
c. Upon entering the proposed protective order, your clients can immediately start
producing responsive documents (on a rolling basis) that are the subject of your appeal, but do
so on a provisional "attorneys' eyes only" basis. If discovery is not stayed, you can re-designate
produced documents as appropriate. If discovery is stayed pending appeal, we return the
documents to you pending final resolution. But production now under these terms will allow
us to move forward in preparing for discovery on an expeditious basis. In addition, there is no
harm to your clients in doing so, as the interests you claim are protected are not threatened
by production on an attorneys' eyes only basis.  
 
In response to the questions at the end of your email: 
 
First, our position is that you must produce all relevant documents. Your
stated position was that, because you believe "all internal communications are legally irrelevant

10/23/2009
 Page 5 of 9
Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document236-1 Filed10/23/09 Page5 of 9

to any claim in this case, [you] 'deem such communications' as 'tend[ing] [neither] to support
or refute' any claim in this case." General Objections to First Set of Requests for Production,
paragraph 12. But the Court expressly disagreed with this interpretation of relevance (Dkt. 214
at 12-13), and so all documents that support or refute any of your claims and defenses in this
case must be produced, whether they are external communications or purely internal.  
 
Second, with respect to your question about "unexpressed motivations," we are unclear on
exactly what you are asking. Could you kindly specify what you mean by "documents that
reveal unexpressed motivations"? 
 
Third, Chief Judge Walker directed us to revise our request number 8, and we have done so in
a way that we believe conforms with his Order. The Court denied your protective order with
respect to all other outstanding requests, and thus they stand as drafted.  
 
As we have said before, we stand ready to discuss these matters with you at any point. I look
forward to hearing back from you promptly.  

Best, 
 
Ethan 
 

From: Nicole Moss [mailto:nmoss@cooperkirk.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 12:50 PM
To: Dettmer, Ethan D.; Jesse Panuccio
Cc: David Thompson; McGill, Matthew D.; Dusseault, Christopher D.
Subject: RE: Outstanding Perry Discovery Issues 

Ethan, 
 
You have asked whether we “intend to withhold the documents that should be produced
pursuant to Chief Judge Walker's October 1, 2009 Order while your motion to stay and/or your
appeal are pending.” While a motion for a stay is pending, our clients intend not to produce
documents subject to their claim of First Amendment privilege. If there is no longer a
possibility for a stay from any court, then, subject to the terms of a protective order as
contemplated in the October 1 order, our clients will produce remaining documents responsive
to your requests so far as those requests are consistent with the Federal Rules, other
privileges that might apply, and any controlling judicial order, and are not otherwise subject to
a valid objection (e.g. the information is otherwise publically available). We are thus currently
working with our clients to review and sort their documents along the lines suggested in the
October 1 order such that we can be in a position to produce in a reasonable amount of time in
the event that a stay is no longer a possibility. As we have discussed with you from the outset
of discovery, this is a hugely burdensome task that would be made significantly less
burdensome if your clients would provide targeted search terms. As we have in the past, we
again request that you please provide us with any search terms that might assist our clients in
locating responsive documents. We realize that you may want to augment such a list as
documents are produced (e.g., to include searches for communications to a particular person),
but we believe it is possible for your clients to devise an initial list at this point. If your clients
are not willing to reduce the burden on our clients by producing such search terms, please
confirm as much in writing. Your prompt response is appreciated and will greatly facilitate the
discovery process. 

10/23/2009
 Page 6 of 9
Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document236-1 Filed10/23/09 Page6 of 9

 
You have asked whether we “[c]an … send [you] the names and the contact
information for the lawyers who are representing the ProtectMarriage.com steering committee
members who your firm is not representing?” As we have indicated, we believe the identity of
these individuals is protected by the First Amendment, but we are willing to identify them as
Does and provide you with their attorneys’ names and contact information. They are: 
 
Doe No. 1 
Represented by Jim Bopp 
James Bopp, Jr.
BOPP, COLESON & BOSTROM
1 South 6th Street
Terre Haute, IN 47807
voice: 812-232-2434
fax: 812-235-3685
cell: 812-243-0825
e-mail: jboppjr@aol.com 
 
Doe No. 2 
Represented by Jim Sweeney and Steve Greene 
Sweeney & Greene, LLP 
9381 East Stockton, Blvd. Suite 218 
Elk Grove, CA 95624 
916-753-1300 
 
You have asked “whether [we] will provide the names and responsibilities in the
ProtectMarriage.com organization, or whether we should proceed to get that information
through formal discovery.” Consistent with the position laid out above, our clients’ believe this
information, to the extent it is not otherwise publically available, is subject to their asserted
First Amendment privilege and will not produce such information while a stay application is
pending. Should the possibility of a stay no longer exist, then our clients will produce
remaining documents responsive to your requests so far as those requests are consistent with
the Federal Rules, other privileges that might apply, and any controlling judicial order and
would consider at that time whether this information can be provided outside of the formal
discovery process. 
 
You have noted that we “are preparing a proposed confidentiality order to circulate and
discuss.” This is correct and we hope to have a draft to you by close of business on Monday,
October 19. 
 
You have asked us to “confirm that [we] have produced all non-
privileged communications responsive to our outstanding discovery requests that were sent to
"targeted" groups smaller than the public at large (e.g., teachers, registered Republicans, truck
drivers, church groups)?” First, it is important to note that your question appears to assume
that any and all "targeted" communications lack any First Amendment protection. Our
clients do not share that position and believe that some targeted communications are subject
to their claim of First Amendment privilege. Second, our clients have made a good faith effort
to produce communications to voters, including to targeted groups, to the extent they
originated with the campaign’s (ProtectMarriage.com 's ) vendors. Consistent with their
obligations under the Federal Rules, our clients will supplement this production if any such
additional documents are discovered. Third, with respect to the individual Proponents and

10/23/2009
 Page 7 of 9
Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document236-1 Filed10/23/09 Page7 of 9

any ad hoc executive committee members represented by an attorney who is also an attorney
for Defendant-Intervenors, those individuals are working to review and sort their personal email
accounts and files to determine whether any responsive, additional documents exist. We
reiterate a request for search terms that will help facilitate this process. Fourth, we also note,
as we have in our motion papers, that to the extent a document is anonymous (unlike, for
example, the documents bearing ProtectMarriage.com’s identifying information), it is subject to
our clients’ claim of First Amendment privilege. Lastly, to the extent such documents are
responsive to your revised Request No. 8, we note that the time for responding to that request
has not yet expired. 
 
We would also ask that you confirm three additional matters, two of which we
discussed by telephone on October 8, 2009.  
 
First, please confirm that your requests now extend to communications solely
between Defendant-Intervenors.  
 
Second, please confirm that, in light of revised Request No. 8, you are now seeking
documents that reveal unexpressed motivations .  
 
Third, please confirm that you have only revised Request No. 8 in response to the
Order of October 1, 2009, and that your position is that the scope of the other requests was
unaffected by that Order. 
 
Sincerely, 
 
Nicole Jo Moss 
Cooper & Kirk, P.L.L.C. 
1523 New Hampshire Ave. N.W. 
Washington, D.C.  20036 
(910) 270‐8768 
(202) 220‐9601 (fax) 
(202) 423‐3237 (cell) 
  
From: Dettmer, Ethan D. [mailto:EDettmer@gibsondunn.com]
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 6:56 PM
To: Nicole Moss; Jesse Panuccio
Cc: David Thompson; McGill, Matthew D.; Dusseault, Christopher D.
Subject: Outstanding Perry Discovery Issues 
  
Nicole and Jesse - in addition to following up on the matters in my email, below, I have two
additional questions regarding the status of discovery in this case. Can you please respond to
two questions for us by the close of business on Tuesday, October 13?  
 
First, can you confirm that you have produced all non-privileged communications responsive
to our outstanding discovery requests that were sent to "targeted" groups smaller than the
public at large (e.g., teachers, registered Republicans, truck drivers, church groups)?  
 
Second, can you please let us know whether you intend to withhold the documents that should
be produced pursuant to Chief Judge Walker's October 1, 2009 Order while your motion to
stay and/or your appeal are pending?  
 

10/23/2009
 Page 8 of 9
Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document236-1 Filed10/23/09 Page8 of 9

I very much appreciate your prompt response to these questions. 

 
Best, 
 
Ethan 
 

From: Dettmer, Ethan D.

Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 1:11 PM
To: 'Nicole Moss'; 'Jesse Panuccio'
Cc: 'David Thompson'; McGill, Matthew D.; Dusseault, Christopher D.
Subject: RE: Perry Discovery Call 

Nicole and Jesse - I am writing to follow up on a couple of the matters we discussed yesterday.
 
1) Can you please send me the names and the contact information for the lawyers who are
representing the ProtectMarriage.com steering committee members who your firm is not
representing?  
 
2) Please get back to me as soon as possible regarding whether you will provide the names and
responsibilities in the ProtectMarriage.com organization, or whether we should proceed to get
that information through formal discovery. As we discussed, this information will allow us to
target our discovery so as to minimize the inconvenience and burden of the process for all
involved.  
 
3) You are preparing a proposed confidentiality order to circulate and discuss. 
 
We look forward to hearing back from you shortly.  
 
Best, 
 
Ethan 
 

From: Nicole Moss [mailto:nmoss@cooperkirk.com]

Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 10:04 AM
To: Dettmer, Ethan D.; McGill, Matthew D.
Cc: Jesse Panuccio; David Thompson
Subject: Perry Discovery Call 

Ethan and Matt, 
  
I have spoken with Jesse.  He is available at 4:00 Eastern this afternoon to have further discussions about the 
outstanding discovery issues in this case.  If this time still works for you, please let me know and I will circulate a 
call‐in number.   
  
Nicole Jo Moss 
Cooper & Kirk, P.L.L.C. 
1523 New Hampshire Ave. N.W. 
Washington, D.C.  20036 
(910) 270‐8768 
(202) 220‐9601 (fax) 

10/23/2009
 Page 9 of 9
Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document236-1 Filed10/23/09 Page9 of 9

(202) 423‐3237 (cell) 
  
==============================================================================
This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has
been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and
then immediately delete this message.
==============================================================================
==============================================================================
This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has
been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and
then immediately delete this message.
==============================================================================

10/23/2009