Ballard Spahr LLP
1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555
Telephone: 602.798.5400
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 49 Filed 09/28/12 Page 1 of 4
1 Joseph A. Kanefield (015838)
Brunn W. Roysden III (028698)
2 BALLARD SPAHR LLP
1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300
3 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2555
Telephone: 602.798.5400
4 kanefieldj@ballardspahr.com
roysdenb@ballardspahr.com
5
Mary R. O’Grady (011434)
6 Jeffrey B. Molinar (018512)
OSBORN MALEDON, P.A. (00196000)
7 2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100
Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2793
8 Telephone: 602.640.9000
mogrady@omlaw.com
9 jmolinar@omlaw.com
10 Attorneys for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission and Commissioners
Mathis, McNulty, Herrera, Freeman, and Stertz solely in their official capacities
11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
13
Wesley W. Harris, et al.,
No.: 2:12-CV-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC
14
DEFENDANTS ARIZONA
Plaintiffs,
INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING
15
COMMISSION AND
COMMISSIONERS MATHIS,
vs.
16
MCNULTY, HERRERA, FREEMAN,
AND STERTZ’S RESPONSE TO
17
PLAINTIFFS’ RULE 56(D) MOTION
Arizona Independent Redistricting
18 Commission, et al.,
(Assigned to three-judge panel)
19
Defendants.
20
21
The Court should reject Plaintiffs’ improper attempt to delay consideration of the
22 Commission’s Motion to Dismiss by relying on Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil
23 Procedure. Rule 56(d) is inapplicable because the Commission properly has brought its
24 motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and the Court may consider the exhibits submitted
25 without converting the motion into one seeking summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
26 56(d) (permitting party opposing summary-judgment motion to seek relief where it
27 cannot present sufficient facts to justify its opposition).
28
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 49 Filed 09/28/12 Page 2 of 4
1
As explained in the Commission’s reply briefs supporting its motion and its
2 related Request for Judicial Notice, Plaintiffs cannot prevent dismissal unless they can
3 allege that not even one legitimate factor affected and led to the population deviations in
4 the final map.
The meeting transcripts, data, preclearance submission, and other
5 documents in the public record provide multiple examples of the Commission’s
6 consideration and application of proper redistricting criteria.
7
Moreover, Plaintiffs’ strained attempt to conjure purported areas of factual
8 dispute, through declarations of their counsel and expert, ignores the proper standard for
9 the Court’s review of their claims and the purpose for which Plaintiffs rely on the public
10 record. While Plaintiffs allege that discovery is necessary to determine every factor and
11 motive that contributed to the deviations, they ignore the fact that, based on their own
Ballard Spahr LLP
1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555
Telephone: 602.798.5400
12 articulation of the standard for rebutting the presumption of constitutionality, the
13 Commission needs to show only the existence of at least one legitimate consideration in
14 the Commission’s analysis. See Rodriguez v. Pataki, 308 F. Supp. 2d 346, 365 (S.D.N.Y.
15 2004) (Plaintiffs cannot prevail on their claims unless they can show that the deviations
16 “in the plan result[] solely from the promotion of an unconstitutional or irrational state
17 policy.”), summarily aff’d, 542 US 947 (2004); see also Response Opposing the Motions
18 to Dismiss (“Response”) at 13. Because Plaintiffs do not and could not contend that
19 discovery will disprove every statement in the record establishing that the Commission
20 discussed and applied legitimate factors, their request for needless delay and discovery
21 should fail.
22
Finally, several of the topics that are listed in the Cantelme Declaration in support
23 of Plaintiffs’ Rule 56(d) Motion are publicly available. (Dkt. 46-1.) For example, all
24 public advice by Bruce Adelson is contained in the Commission’s Transcripts. (Id. at 2
25 ¶ 3(A).) Likewise, the public change orders are available on the Commission’s website.
26 (Id. at 2 ¶ 3(B).) The Commissioners’ reasoning in deciding to adopt ten ability to elect
27 districts is likewise available on its website and in its preclearance submission. (Id. at 2
28 ¶ 3(D).) And the Commission’s consideration of communities of interest, compactness,
2
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 49 Filed 09/28/12 Page 3 of 4
1 contiguity, and competitiveness is available in the Commission’s transcripts. (Id. at 2
2 ¶ 3(E)-(G).)
3
The Court should therefore deny Plaintiffs’ motion for the reasons stated above.
4
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 28th day of September, 2012.
5 BALLARD SPAHR LLP
OSBORN MALEDON, P.A.
6 By:/s/ Joseph A. Kanefield
Joseph A. Kanefield (015838)
7 Brunn W. Roysden III (028698)
By:/s/ Mary R. O’Grady (with permission)
Mary R. O’Grady (011434)
Jeffrey B. Molinar (018512)
8 Attorneys for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission and Commissioners
Mathis, McNulty, Herrera, Freeman, and Stertz solely in their official capacities
9
10
11
Ballard Spahr LLP
1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555
Telephone: 602.798.5400
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 49 Filed 09/28/12 Page 4 of 4
1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
3
4
5
I hereby certify that on September 28th, 2012, I electronically transmitted the
attached document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and
transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the CM/ECF registrants on record.
/s/ Lisa Black
6
7
8
9
10
11
Ballard Spahr LLP
1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555
Telephone: 602.798.5400
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4