2:13-cv-00922 #54

8/12/2019 2:13-cv-00922 #54

1/14

8/12/2019 2:13-cv-00922 #54

2/14

(2) Interrogatory 2 cannot lead to the discovery of relevant information because the

education law is wholly unrelated to the anti-gay marriage laws challenged in this la

Sanctity Laws); and (3) the State Defendants have no way of knowing what motivat

legislature to enact the anti-gay sex education law (a matter about which Interrogato

inquire).

None of those reasons is sufficient to defeat the State Defendants obligation

to Interrogatory 2. The Court should grant the Motion To Compel.

I. The State Defendants Are Empowered To Respond to Interrogatory 2.

First, it simply is not true that the State Defendants are, in their official capa

Defendants in this lawsuit, unable to respond to Interrogatory 2 for lack of authority

Attorney General is statutorily designated to litigate cases on behalf of state officers

the Governor, sued in their individual capacities, such as in the present case. Ala. Co

1(2) (The Attorney General shall appear in the courts of . . . the United States, in an

which the state may be interested in the result.); Ala. Code 36-15-12 (The Attor

is authorized to institute and prosecute, in the name of the state, all civil actions and

proceedings necessary to protect the rights and interests of the state.).

The Attorney Generals powers, duties, and authority heretofore granted or

by the constitution, statutory law, or the common law are, according to statute, bro

construed. Ala. Code 36-15-1.1 (Nothing contained in this article shall be constru

in any way restrict, limit or abridge the powers, duties, or authority of the Attorney

Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 54 Filed 08/07/14 Pag

8/12/2019 2:13-cv-00922 #54

3/14

litigation and [t]he actions taken by him in the case at hand were an exercise of tha

and in fulfillment of the duties of the office.); McDowell v. State, 243 Ala. 87, 89,

570-71 (1942) (confirming that the express statutory authority of the Attorney Gene

on behalf of the state or its officers, such as the Governor, includes the implied auth

all things necessary and proper to their final conclusion). The statutory authority to

behalf of the States interests surely encompasses the authority to respond to legitim

requests, such as Interrogatory 2.

Foreclosing the possibility of any doubt as to that authority, the Attorney Ge

specific statutory duty to provide his opinion in writing, or otherwise, on any quest

connected with the interests of the state or with the duties of any of the departments,

required by the Governor. Ala. Code 36-15-1(1)(a). Moreover, the Attorney Gen

statutorily authorized to provide a legal opinion or advice to practically any governm

in Alabama at the state, county, or municipal level to assist that person in the perfo

some official act that the officer or governing body must perform. Ala. Code 36-

The statute clarifies as the outer boundary merely that the Attorney General is not to

such opinion or advice to a government officer for private or personal questions. A

36-15-1(1)(d).

The Attorney General, moreover, need not wait for a request but is statutoril

a core aspect of his duties to carefully examine all of the general statutes now in fo

hereafter may be enacted by the Legislature from time to time, as to their clarity and


8/12/2019 2:13-cv-00922 #54

4/14

In sum, there is no valid contention that the State Defendants are unable, for

authority, to provide an answer to Interrogatory 2 about the government purpose beh

gay sex education law, and indeed the State Defendants provide no authority to the

Conclusory statements about the State Defendants claimed inability to respond to In

do not trump standard rules of discovery requiring responses to valid discovery requ

II.

Interrogatory 2 Seeks Relevant Evidence.

Second, Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion To Comp

explains the relevancy of Interrogatory 2 and is not repeated here. Plainly stated, the

series of anti-gay laws without any legitimate government purpose, including the an

education law and prohibition of any recognition of same-sex relationships is releva

question of whether anti-LGBT animus sustains the Sanctity Laws as well as the lev

applicable in this case.

The State Defendants argue that it is impossible for any animus to play into p

the Sanctity Laws. This makes no sense at all. It seems unusual, to say the least, for

pass a law and then subsequently take the extensive steps necessary to amend its ow

constitution just to restate what already is the law. SeeAla. Const. amend. 774. Giv

certainly is reasonable to suspect that animus may have played a role in the enactme

and constitutional amendment that the Attorney General and the Governor now say

more than surplusage. The fact that Alabama expended considerable time, effort, an

passing a law and then enshrined a similar provision in the state constitution, which


8/12/2019 2:13-cv-00922 #54

5/14

equal protection and due process. These actions are consistent with the proposition t

Sanctity Laws reflect animus rather than any legitimate government purpose.

Indeed, this new theory that the Sanctity Laws serve no purpose other than

and reaffirm the current state of the law is at odds with the Defendants own sworn

response submitted in this case. (Attached hereto as Exhibit A.) That response asser

Sanctity Laws advance the purported government interest of maintaining biological

between children and extended kin groups, not that they simply restate preexisting l

theory also is flatly contrary to the interests described in an expert report offered by

Defendants (written by a current, out-of-state law student) who links Alabamas cur

in maintaining the Sanctity Laws to the history of Western culture, beginning with P

argues that these laws advance the states interest in maintaining faith with a long h

privileging procreative marriages between a man and a women as superior.

Alabama, led by the Governor who has described marriage as a sacred insti

between a man and a woman, which should be revered and protected by our society

will work every day to continue to protect the sanctity of marriage in Alabama,2i

resistant to marriage equality. That resistance surely has some animating motivation

examining government purposes behind similar Alabama laws specifically singling

disadvantaging LGBT people, like the anti-gay sex education law, should help clarif

1


8/12/2019 2:13-cv-00922 #54

6/14

III. Interrogatory 2 Asks the Government Interest for the Sex Education La

Finally, the State Defendants claim that they have no way of knowing the int

legislature in passing the anti-gay sex education laws. This a red herring because div

intent of the legislature is not requested in Interrogatory 2. The State Defendants sim

that they are unable to describe any government purpose for the anti-gay sex educati

that doing so might violate future attorney-client privilege. Defs. Oppn to Pl.s Mo

Compel at 3-4 (No. 49). But Interrogatory 2 contains no request for privileged advic

hypothetical case in the future. Plaintiff simply requests the State Defendants identi

any actual government purpose behind the anti-gay sex education law. If one does n

they should so state.

* * * *

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion To Compel Def

Bentleys and Defendant Stranges Response to Interrogatory 2 in Plaintiffs First S

Interrogatories for the reasons stated above as well as those presented in the origina

support of the Motion (No. 46).

August 7, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENT

By: /s/ Samuel Wolfe


8/12/2019 2:13-cv-00922 #54

7/14

400 Washington Avenue

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Telephone: (334) 956-8200Facsimile: (334) 856-8481

[email protected]@splcenter.org

*Admitted pro hac vice

(Attorneys for Plaintiff)


8/12/2019 2:13-cv-00922 #54

8/14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 7th day of August, 2014, I electronic

foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system wh

notification of such filing to the following counsel of record:

David Bryson Byrne, Jr., Esq.

Office of the Governor

State Capitol600 Dexter Avenue

Suite NB-05

Montgomery, AL 36130

James William Davis, Esq.

Laura Elizabeth Howell, Esq.

State of Alabama

Office of the Attorney General501 Washington Avenue

Montgomery, AL 36130

Gabriel Joseph Smith, Esq.

Foundation For Moral Law

1 Dexter AvenueOpelika, AL 36103

/s/Samuel Wolfe


8/12/2019 2:13-cv-00922 #54

9/14

EXHIBIT

A

Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 54-1 Filed 08/07/14 Pag

8/12/2019 2:13-cv-00922 #54

10/14

Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 54-1 Filed 08/07/14 Page 2 of 6

C 2 13 00922 WKW SRW D t 54 1 Fil d 08/07/14 P 3 f 6

8/12/2019 2:13-cv-00922 #54

11/14


Case 2:13 cv 00922 WKW SRW Document 54 1 Filed 08/07/14 Page 4 of 6

8/12/2019 2:13-cv-00922 #54

12/14



8/12/2019 2:13-cv-00922 #54

13/14



8/12/2019 2:13-cv-00922 #54

14/14

Case 2:13 cv 00922 WKW SRW Document 54 1 Filed 08/07/14 Page 6 of 6

Documents

2:13-cv-00922 #54