June 4, 2012
By Scottie Thomaston
Via Kathleen in Quick Hits, we have several new filings in Nevada’s marriage equality case, Sevcik v. Sandoval. Recently, as we reported, the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage filed a motion to intervene in the case to defend the marriage law. As we wrote:
The Coalition was one of the proponents behind the ballot initiative, Question 2, that put a marriage ban in the Nevada state constitution in 2002. Because of that, the Coalition argues that it has a stake in the outcome of the case and should be allowed to intervene. It will be interesting to see how the district court handles this application, which is similar in some ways to other applications for intervention made in the Prop 8 case in California.
Then, we covered the remaining responses to the initial complaint in the case. There are four defendants in the case, and we first covered Governor Sandoval’s response, then subsequently saw the filings from the other three defendants.
Now, as Kathleen reports:
Stipulated to Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order.
Responses to the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage’s motion to intervene:
- Defendant Alan Glover’s statement of non-opposition
- Defendant Brian Sandoval’s statement of non-opposition
- Plaintiff’s Opposition to motion to intervene
From the documents we learn that:
1. The parties want to proceed on an expedited schedule, and the judge says that all parties agree that “any party wishing to file a motion for summary judgment will do so within 21 days following any denial of the pending motion to dismiss, or within 21 days following the ruling on the pending motion to intervene, whichever is later in time.”
2. Two of the defendants do not oppose the motion to intervene by the Coalition.
3. The plaintiffs (same-sex couples) do oppose intervention, unless the court allows for limited intervention. The plaintiffs want the court to allow the Coalition to intervene only under certain conditions:
Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny the Coalition’s motion to intervene as of right but allow it to participate as a permissive intervenor subject to the following conditions: (1) the government shall continue to be the lead defendants, and as such shall control the scope of discovery on behalf of the government defendants and the Coalition; (2) the Coalition shall not introduce witnesses on topics duplicative of those addressed by witnesses introduced by the government defendants; and (3) the Coalition shall adhere to the Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order jointly filed by the parties and shall make its best efforts to comply with future deadlines agreed upon by Plaintiffs and the government defendants.
They say Ninth Circuit precedent suggests the Coalition isn’t entitled to intervene in the case to defend the passed ballot initiative as a matter of right.