« Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 4 today (and 8 NFP) | Main | Ind. Courts - "Notice of Contracting Opportunity for Statewide Electronic Filing Manager" »

Thursday, July 31, 2014

Ind. Decisions - How will time be divided between consolidated plaintiff-appellees in Indiana's SSM case before the 7th Circuit?

Some quotes from the 7/31/14 brief of Counsel for the Baskin Plaintiffs [h/t @EQCF], asking the Court to allow them argue on behalf of plaintiffs in all three Indiana consolidated cases before the 7th Circuit panel next month.

2. On July 25, 2014, this Court ordered oral argument for all three consolidated cases to take place on August 26, 2014, allocating 20 minutes per side.

3. Seventh Circuit Rule 34(c) provides:
(c) Divided Argument Not Favored. Divided arguments on behalf of a single party or multiple parties with the same interests are not favored by the court. When such arguments are nevertheless divided or when more than one counsel argues on the same side for parties with differing interests, the time allowed shall be apportioned between such counsel in their own discretion. If counsel are unable to agree, the court will allocate the time.
No counsel in any of the consolidated cases believe divided time best serves the interests of the parties or the panel, but counsel are at an impasse.

4. For the following reasons, the Baskin Plaintiffs request that this Court direct their counsel to argue on behalf of plaintiffs in all three cases. * * *

10. Counsel for the Baskin Plaintiffs are skilled and experienced in arguing marriage cases and are more than qualified to argue on behalf of plaintiffs in all three consolidated cases. Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. (“Lambda Legal”), is the nation’s oldest and largest legal organization advocating on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender people, and people with HIV. Lambda Legal has been party counsel for plaintiffs in numerous state and federal cases challenging the constitutionality of laws excluding same-sex couples from marriage, and also was party counsel in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and co-counsel in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), two of the Supreme Court’s leading cases redressing sexual orientation discrimination.

11. Finally, Camilla B. Taylor, counsel who would argue for the Indiana consolidated cases, is a skilled appellate advocate and well suited to provide the most cogent arguments on behalf of all the Plaintiffs’ legal claims and most responsive answers to the panel’s questions. As Lambda Legal’s National Marriage Project Director, she has served as party counsel in 10 cases in state and federal courts seeking the freedom to marry and marital protections for same-sex couples and is thoroughly familiar with the facts and legal history of the more than 90 marriage equality decisions rendered over the past two decades.

CONCLUSION

In the interest of providing the panel the greatest diversity of argument across the four cases, and because counsel for the Baskin Plaintiffs are most familiar with the record and history that primarily resulted in the District Court’s decision, the Baskin Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter an order directing counsel for the Baskin Plaintiffs to argue on behalf of plaintiffs in all three Indiana consolidated cases.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 31, 2014 03:55 PM
Posted to Ind Fed D.Ct. Decisions