Sunday, January 16, 2022

What Are The Limits To Attorney Client Privilege? Debate At AK Redistricting Board Pre-Trial Hearing Today [UPDATED]

[UPDATE Monday January 17, 2022:  It turns out that the Sunday hearing was recorded and is available at Judge Matthews page - at least for the time being.  So here it is.  You can see how much I fumbled in my notes.]  [UPDATE Wednesday January 19, 2022 - Seems they took the video down.]


]

There was a very lively discussion at the limits to attorney-client privilege focused on two points in this case:

  • whether the Board has to turn over all the emails between the Board's attorney and Board members
  • whether the Board members can involve attorney-client privilege to avoid answering questions during the trial

Essentially, several of the plaintiffs argued that attorney-client privilege is limited when there is a public board doing public business.  The Board's attorney argued it is a pre-Constitutional privilege that is sacrosanct and any dilution would harm all future redistricting boards.  Citing a case where the Supreme Court said  privilege extends beyond the death of the client.

I'm getting ready to go south again tomorrow to spend more time with family in the Seattle area, so I don't have much time.  This meeting lasted from 1pm to 4pm.  I don't know how this trial is going to get done on time.  There really are lots of things that have to be discussed and so little time to do it. 

For now, I offer my rough notes [normal disclaimers - not verbatim, not complete, but enough to give you a sense of what was covered, but really not anything you could attribute to any of the speakers with any confidence.]  I may be able to clean this up more on the plane or even start writing  about attorney-client issues the discussion raised for me.  

MY ROUGH NOTES

Judge Thomas Matthews:  Motion for Rule of Law and Board’s opposition  Jan 16, 2022  1 pm



Starting - 1:06  Opened hearing -  I don’t see any representative of he Intervenor.  Amdur-Clark not participating today.

Thanks you for intervening Sunday afternoon.  


Addressing motion for Rule of Law filed by East Anchorage and Open Meeting Act played large role in Board’s response.

Ms.Wells, I look to you first.

Singer:  1)  Time constraints on parties   3) We have expert discovery issues that need to be nailed down after or before.  

 

Mathews:  I’m here so let's get things covered.

No time line - roughly hour ideal, but I won’t cut you off.


Wells:  Try to brief.  Tried in the motion.  

Matthews:  I have 2 questions.  1)  Any question whether public meetings apples to board - does board have attorney-client privilege

Wells - It applies


Wells:  Comments about balance tween    Atty-client privilege allow them to deliberate.  We spent time in briefing on Griswold case - deals with quasi- judicial proceedings.  When Homer Board citing in judgment - “person seeking relief”  similar to court case.  We provided guidance to Homer, their findings and final written decision.  Interest and scope very different from here.  Not a legislative act.  Here duties, holding meetings engaging with public.  Still Art 6 Sec 10 - still have due process clause and ….   And that’s putting open meeting aside, which is a big aside.  Scope of motion, not saying you can’t give advice to board,  only saying you can’t say to us  - we give you one paragraph “We couldn’t do analysis…”  OK, when we get to trial, Singer will present and expert and we can seek answers.  But no expert.  OK, we’ll talk to Board members, all based on their rational.  Get to Board members and they claim patty-client privilege.  We have no way to determine how these very significant issues impacted their decisions at all.  Need to be able to ask basic questions of law to base their decisions.  Did I answer your question.


Matthews:  you did.  And the production of emails - more other counsels -  all the emails, what is being requested introduction of emails.  

Wells:  I’ll answer in part and let Mss Stone answer.  2 aspects  -  and 2 dealing with ther record.  Agree with Mat-Su attorneys - tried to be as reasonable as possible and scope as narrow as possible.  Extent to it being separate issue?  Sort of married.  

Go to Griswold, not just permission granted by court, but almost an obligation in atty-client dispute.  This is what Mat-Su B has asked for is reasonable - asking for specific set of documents.  


Stone:  We thru diligent process.  Tried to be reasonable as possible - dynamic spreadsheet to put reason for withholding.  I gave a referral.  Several refs to APOC and  

Maybe taking to heart your note because we got material this morning.  Now we have to compare two spread sheets.  


Public testimony withheld as privilege.  Bethany’s personal email to her redistricting email withheld.  We recognize board has benefit of legal counsels.  Hundreds of cells not identified.  We’re supposed to take them at their word without knowing what the document is.  We joined in the motion because of the scope - issue of consultants and open meeting act.  

Transcript - referencing statutes of Open Meetings Act.  Come out and lengthy discussion of what they discussed in ES which suggests they covered unexampled discussion.

Matthews:  I did a ??? Sort of email.  Something in excess of 50% are after Nov. 10.  Why is anything after the proclamation relevant.  

Stone:  We used date that litigation filed.  I will not from Nov 9 Fall 1142-1258  Still asking for 1142 emails, but I can’t compare the two spread sheets.  Hundred of items no date


Wells:  Add to that response to pre-Nov 10 emails.  For East Anchorage - looking at process and rationale.  Whether or not motivated by partisan, whether evidence of ???  Reflections made after Nov 10 could reflect on rationale.  When we give open meeting act training, whenever you make determinations, those communications become public records and must be stored.  Important for retention schedule requirement.  Board subject to those rules.  Not treated different from other Boards.  Not saying all relevant to disclosure, but don’t want to cut them off yet. 

No other significant point, but Open Meeting Act is just one part of whole suite of rules on privilege and public records, due process, due process protect.   Need to    I feel their briefing misrepresents the fact and the law.  More intentional than we anticipated.  Cites Hickel - says it may have applied then, but not now.  Board referred to Open Meetings Act throughout the process and now say it doesn’t apply.  

Matthews:  Saw in your reply, dovetails into question I have - way to separate open meeting argument, not just process but also substance issues.   What do you contemplate in further briefs.

Wells:  Appropriate to deal with it in closing argument and rule of law and it allows the Board wants to separate out the Open Meeting Act  - just one of due process claims violations.  Allows parties to present in way that makes sense.  Not all parties do have the Open Meetings Act argument.  Others do.  That would protect everyone’s abilities to prevent their arguments in way streamlined and 


Matthews:  Mis Stone, other comments?

Stone:  No

Brenna:  Thank you.  A few comments.  I’d like to focus on what was intended when the Board created prior to 1998 - it was political process.  1998 Legislature took it out of Governor’s hand.  Not designed to be adversary system.  One of cooperation.  They anticipated public engagement in the process.  They’re drawing of political boundaries - to avoid gerrymandering and things happen in closed political system.  I share Mr. Singer’s fear for the institution.  Not because institution too open, but too closed.

If two private companies engaged in fight over issue and protecting client privilege

Not that context.  This is public process not intended to be political.  Shielding from the public.  Not how the drafters of the redistricting board intended.  Intended that deliberate process should be public.  Atty-client privilege minimal. During these closed - the less transparent the process .

I agree fundamental threat to this institution, because institution taken behind closed doors for abuse     —  Public doesn’t know what constitution standards and advice board received how those constitutional standards should be applied.   Driven by some interpretation of the law.  As member of the public, we don’t even know whether the law the board was told to follow is legitimate, because behind closed doors.  Board did not deliberate of Socio Economic factors joining Valdez and Mat-Su.  Every Alaskan has a right to know the general legal advice directing this hold process, so we know if it was correct and whether it was followed by the board.  The applicants of the standards seems ad hoc, they seemed to pick and choose and apply it when it was convenient in different ways in different places.  They come up with legal principles that guide their decisions differently in different places.  I can’t imagine any reason why it should be confidential.  Done behind close doors.

Matthews:  For the record - disagreement that the Board is entitled to get legal advice in 

Brena:  I do not - but it has to be specific and according to the 8 Factos I put in my brief.  Not applied here.

Purpose of privilege, to ??? Of professional legal services.  I have to communicate with you in a certain way   in pursuit of legal services.  Secretness is not in the protected class.  When you go through the emails, just go thru them, apply the factors and decide if applies

Matthews:  If email from Singer or firm about processes for redistricting

Brena:  No, not related to litigation.  I think Singer acknowledged in public all legal advice is not subject to privilege.

VRA  districts historically most protected.  Hickel process very specific and the order it must occur.  If they brought in a VOA expert and took his counsel in ES.  Should fundamental part of Hickel process be able to aired in ES session only.  I believe that analysis has to be in public or it has no meaning in the process.  More important to this case.  This Board went out of its way to impose ANCSA boundaries wherever it could.  You’ve heard packing or cracking.  Packing is where you put minority members all in one districts.  When get to 80% litigation begins.  Putting them all in one district dilutes their vote.  District 38 - 84%  39  83% native.  Packed along the ANCSA boundaries.  Their expert known to go around the country and is known for unpacking districts.  He gave them advice, should his advice be considered public so the Board can see how they made the decisions, which surely must have come up in that conversation.  

To make matters worse, opposing counsel comes out and summarizes the advice given in ES.  You can’t play don’t look behind the curtain when you summarize what happened behind the curtain, Then I have a right to see what happened behind closed doors to see if your summary is accurate.  He didn’t let expert speak, just gave us a page of summary.  That’s breaking privilege even if it was properly asserted which I don’t believe it was.  

When see situation decisions made, but process doesn’t include deliberating the consensus, have to conclude the discussion out of the public process.  Fairbanks,Doyon district becomes Doyon Ahtna district.  You can’t see how they made those decisions.  Making Doyon whole and Ahtna whole.  Has …. Going through to Cantwell.  You can’t track the process.  Hours of confidential sessions and they say formed a consensus.  I challenge the court finding any discussion joining Valdez and Matsu.  Sort of, we took care of anything else, this is left over, do it.  We should have chance to see the VRA analysis not hidden from public.  


Now, to just basic litigation rights.  They have advanced opinion of the Board - these two are SE Integrated - making opinion conclusions about compactness etc.  In litigation you ought to explore the basis.  Doesn’t lend itself to expert analysis.  We want to understand how his opinion entered into the opinion testimony coming into this court.  If he’s going to advance Board members and their opinion testimony.  He can’t help shape their opinions.  But time after time Board relied on some pronouncement that Valdez and Matsu linked in the past disregarding that Valdez and Fairbanks were linked.  

Rule 26 goes to that.  Advice of expert witnesses.  Option testimony if to be considered by this court.  Many are legal opinions advanced that we can’t explore.  He’s hiding between a-c privilege to hide his advice that formed the opinions.

I was concerned if Board would be cooperative on emails.  I’d asked judge to have any assertion of a-c privilege given to the court, because we didn’t have time to get this info.  I’ve run out of time.  Even transcripts of what the Board said are late.  We need to go through the emails.

They filed at 8:20am today, they are withdrawing claims of privilege of some emails today.  Though haven’t produced any et so can’t determine.   One category - deliberations when counsel not even present.  It’s January 16.  A little late.  Filing today demonstrates abuse of process.  What they should have done before.  I don’t want to get back to the court on this.  Just roll up your sleeves and read.  If you think privilege applies and call some balls and strikes.  I don’t accept that now they’ve seen the light 2 hours before oral argument and haven’t actually seen anything.  Already prejudiced enough by delay and over application of a-c privilege.

Ashton-Mason firm any arguments?

Eva Gardner - no.

Singer:  One hour hearing has already gone an hour.  Do you want a five minute break? 

Matches:  We’re good on our end, but will give you five.  

Singer:  Brena good closing argument.  CA privilege predates our constitution.  Foster committed suicide and SC said patty-client privilege after death promotes candor between client and counsel.  Clients have right to believe what they say is confidential.  Here on Sunday four days - contemplating a rule of law that doesn’t exist.  No nexus between what you heard and the documents they are demanding.

Matthews:  Stop, Where’s the line.  No one says ac doesn’t exist.  Where’s the line

Singer:  There is no line.  Applies to communication that is confidential and made for legal services.  Ms. Stone - pre-litigation, you can go to lawyer and get confidential advice to 

Work product ??? To apply.  Singer - laughing - some limit to what can be discussion in ES.  But doesn’t apply to communications.  Nothing in the law says attorney cannot advise client …

Argues Cool Homes case extended not just ES and applied it to more.  ……..  Court acknowledges right to ac privilege.  This notion - if going to assert to single document, simply throwing mud at the Board.  Alaska SC has dealt with this Central Construction v Home Indemnity.  First plaintiff has to make a showing that in camera review will reveal one of the exceptions.  Showing has to be that went into ES to help the Board commit a crime.  And then if such a showing, you have to consider facts (listing them).  They haven’t attempted to go through that process.  We follow the SC’s approach,   US SC acknowledged chilling effect without some preliminary showing or safeguard.  Dealing with privilege fundamental to our legal system  and asking to adopt rule that has not been accepted by any court.  This befuddles me, such an overreach.

Matthews:  Number of arguments in case about the process.  Recognize questions whether Board’s decision meet the process, but many about the process was faulty.  How do you deal with that?

Singer:  This way:  Open Meetings Act has statutory remedies, if it’s true, the remedy the Board’s action becomes 

Matthews:  How do I determine that if everything they did in executive session is shielded

Singer :  B had 6 o 7 ES most under an hour and hundreds of hours of public session.  After law school, worked for Howard Trickey.  General Counsel School district.  I’ve done a lot of ES remedies that fall under the PMA - if you give general laws you do that in public.  But if a specific strategies do it in ES.   This Board understood the requirement - two attorneys.  You’re going to review the record.  Go to the decisions.  The Board will explain how they made decisions.  If Board says “I’m not going to explain because of ac privilege”   Ms. Wells mis

She asked, “did you discuss a general principle of law, and I objected.

Matthews:  Did you in ES pairings that hadn’t been discussed in public and you advised her not to answer.  

Singer:  I gave here good advice.  If she’d have asked if they discussed the pairings.

Matthews:  The question asked for a yes or no answer, not confidential info.  Only if -  why is that wrong?

Singer:  If I was wrong, then ask again at trial.

Matthews:  That’s why I asked - what can they ask in trial?

Singer:  If general principle of law was discussed then whole ES has to be in public.  If you have negligence and you need to deal with it.  In course of discussion I’m going to give general law as well to give advice.  Not required to say, OK, I told you will be sued and now we have to go public for me to discuss that in public.   I put summaries and put it in the public so people could see it.  No mystery at all.  Not like I gave one definition of compactness and had a secret definition in ES.  

Volume of documents.  Complaint about privilege laws.  Have to understand how we got here.  In ordinary course if had more time, we would have had affirmative to identify all communications about Skagway.  I advance several weeks ago that parties provide key words to search.  Didn’t go that way.  Asked Board to produce all non-privileged infor.  No limits.  We searched Board’s servers, The boards, all board and staff to search all their personal  computers.  We looked - couldn’t possible put eyes on all pages.  Used search software and data base and Bruce Adelson - another attorney as well.  I’d advice ED and he would tell the Board.  What he did after the process.


[Hard to keep up]  I’ve been general counsel for months before redistricting, I was doing day-to-day for a state agency.  Lots of issues about Census - all that - confidential advice to client.  Your Honors pretrial came out Jan 4 - all communications.  Order said present summary of all documents.  And plaintiffs need to object by Jan 10.  Speeded up had ten people working full time - another thousand that we felt not privileged.  Time wasn’t available.  We couldn’t law every documents.  We continued to produce more.  Contrary to Brena, no disclosure - documents already in counsel’s hands, letter to day was explaining.  Long intro, but a lot here.  

Privilege is in evidence rule 503 - anything you say intended to be confidential, not solely to legal advice.  When Mr. Foster, not clear if lawyer was hired.  Enough to fall into privilege.  

Not limited by Public Meetings Act.  When ?? Walker in Valdez.  When Ms. Stone writes to Mat-Su Borough.  Distinguish about public bodies different is not in the law.

Matthews:  Does it make a difference if Oper Meeting Act applies?

Singer:  No.  You should read every email between Board and Counsel.  It doesn’t matter if open meetings act applies, and you accept their allegations apply, then a Board action could be invalidated.  It’s your job to decide if that’s in the public interest.  Courts have been concerned it would hurt the public interests.  If I incorrectly advised client at deposition and it comes up again in court, Judge can call it ball or strike.  

Supposed to be public process and client committed to public process.  Law says Board shall have counsel and be advised … Sec 11 Article 6 anticipates your Honor’s role to determine if Board complied with Constitution.  Every single plan has been challenged in court.   Role for counsel to give confidential confidence to Board.  “If you consider that option, let me tell you the risks. Of that action.”  Intended by the constitution.  We followed the Cool Homes standard. 

If Board violates the rules, but we operated under the assumption that the act applied and we went into ES sparingly.  Majority of Board meetings the counsel didn’t attend.  Attended half of those meetings.  Ms Wells wants to deal later.  Don’t appreciate notion that we did things knowingly.  Issue not decided by SC.  If bases for invading AC is to see if we violated the Open Meeting Act, -   …….. Board is an independent entity, forms self every ten years.  Appointed by Gov, Speaker, Pres of Senate, SC Chief Justice.  Doesn’t answer to any of those.  Applies to Boards, that miss the point.  Independent entity.  Has to comply to Article 6 of Constitution, but free to set own rules. 

Matthews:  subject to judicial review?

Singer:  Article 6, absolutely subject to judicial review as legislature is, or any branch potentially.  But one branch can’t tell another how to organize themselves.  Redistricting Board independence important.  If legislature can tell the Board how to organize, where would it end?  Not contemplated in the independent Board when adopted in 1998.

Summarize:  Plaintiffs have mangled the law by conflating different laws.  There’s any possibility of waiver of privilege of those documents.  Then next point - to obtain review, plaintiff has to make case that one of the exceptions exist.  They don’t mention 503, no basis, no reason for court to conduct in camera review.

Brena’s new argument about  - Board members explain how they came up to..  If Board members are opining about their own decisions, then decisions require in camera review.  Why argument is absurd.  If defendant says not responsible for causing the accident.  The Board members are charged in Sec 6 and proud of work project they’ve produced and they went to explain to the court.

Matthews:  Question:  You’re saying Board member can say, if asked Why did you make the decision.  Well it was based on sound legal advice we received.  Does that end the inquiry?”

Singer:  Guarantee that’s not the answer you’ll here.  Budd Simpson has lived in SE and he explained why he put Skagway where it is in detail.  If the Board said we drew this 40 district plan because of counsel, we’d had a problem.  But Brena says, if Board member says they have these characteristics and because there was no other way to draw it without disrupting everything.  Brena - something the lawyer said that influenced the decision.  Board is explaining the reason for its decision.  Board has to be able to explain oneself - not as a defendant.

Matthew:  Back to my hypothetical. “In part I based my decision on advice of counsel”  Doesn’t that open ‘what advice you get.”

Singer;  No - why did you cash that check.

Matthew:  If insurance caee say, I did on advice of attorney, doesn’t that open up to ask what the advice was?

Singer:  pause, then back to maybe will have to make calls in the trial.  Also think what Brena, …. He’s not offering to waive his ca privilege.  Board doesn’t waive.

Matthews:  To be clear:  If board member asked why did you make decisions to pair Valdez and Matsu and gives lengthy explanation and also and sound legal advice of attorney = are you saying that doesn’t open it up.

Singer:  I’d like to think about it more and it will come up in trial.

Matthews:  1.  In camera request for emails and 2. Questioning in trial of these decisions in how they decided and role of legal counsel.

Singer:  This board very hands on and they made the decision.  Simpson made SE maps and offered affidavit on how that was done.  Nicole Borromeo was principle drawer of that district but agreed by all.  It wasn’t possible to draw a district the way Valdez wants it. And it demonstrates why .  Hooper Bay has significant consequences.  Large community if you put it in 38 and it has ripple effect into other districts.  Wasn’t influenced by counsel in the least.  No issue and should be decided in trial.

Matthew:  Fair enough

Singer:  Trying tog et through the myriad issues here.  One of the painful things for Board about today’s fight.  They were invested in public process.  Ruedrich said in deposition this was the most public Board ever.  Understand the attorneys’ roles.  Not why Board put up the website and kept it up To date.  Concerned what this will do to future Boards.  Feel loyalty to institution and ability to function.  There are occasions when Board needs confidential legal advice.  

No VRA act questions raised.  Proud of that.  If there is problem they can can take it up in federal court.  Up to last time obligation to VRA but after 2013 no obligation to VRA.  Could have done it without looking at VRA, but risk of violating the VRA.  Didn’t need pre-clearance this time.  We haired VRA expert to make sure it was ok.  No intentional packing or cracking.  

If court demanded the Board produce all the communication, please consider what that means ten years from now, when the attorney in ten years, he or she will have to consider there will be litigation and my words will be opened.  Incredibly destructive to process and to client’s right to confidential advice.

Matthews:  Coming out of ES you talked about legal advice. 

Singer:  Talking out of both sides of your mouth.  First - we did specific candid advice about legal threat in ES.  In public session long presentation about VRA report.  I worked closely with the counsel about what should be in the court.  We did it to avoid violation and going to court.  

Any other questions your honor.

Matthews:  Point by Ms. Wells in reply - specific but narrow rule of law.  Not privileged.  

Singer:  What rule of law did you discuss in ES.  The rule is to discuss a specific legal threat.  If she asked if there was a session to provide general legal advice?  Fair questions.  One map had a problem map.  That’s identical to one Court blocked in ES and that’s a version of D2 that was held illegal by Hickel court - that decision would make you sued.  And mentioned compactness.  That doesn’t violate the rule of law.    In correct reading of Cool-Homes.  That’s my reading.

Matthews:  I understand, other points?

Singer:  Mis Stones says, “We don’t know if something I privileged”  Ms Marcum had a custom of writing questions down that she wanted to ask me and noted them as a/c  - she asked about pre-litigation.  I’ve gone too long.  apologize.  Kitchen sink.  

Matthews:  One miscellaneous question.  In your brief you refer to Board’s open meeting policy and we agreed on my seeing the Board’s website, so could you send it to me.?

Singer:  I’ll produce a copy.  D

Matthews:  Want to look at it, and didn’t want to go to website to do it.

Wells:  A lot of things said that were misrepresentations of the law and extremely inaccurate and won’t go in 

503 specifies subject to privilege.  But in a govt body - who’s the client, and the people of the state do not yield their sovereignty   public servants don’t get right to decide what is good for the people to know.  Not constitutional right, but expressed and fundamental.  We look at scope of the privilege under the ac privilege.  2018 Griswold case - this idea of fraudulent basis for fraudulent review.  Griswold involves documents withheld by quasi -legislative body and court found certain things privileged.  Then a request for public records of bills by attorney to city.  It tells you the 3 steps that allow the court to make the determination and present it to parties and allowing them to make …..   We don’t have to prove fraud to get there.  Other issues I hear Singer saying to decide at trial.  He has not given any affidavit of two Board members of the two members who are in disagreement and so we have no information on them.  Rule 1.13 rules of professional comment - rule on scope of - different balance between maintaining confidentiality when public interest is involved.  We are not talking about a private person, but a public body and its need for advice and the public’s need .  Questions.?

Matthews:  No

Stone:  I join what Ms Wells presented.  Mr. Singer mischaracterizes my words.  Mr. Singer threatened us to move to Federal Court concern with lack of collaboration between the parties., so we do think the in camera review.

Matthews:  Mr. Brena

Brena:  You asked the question if decisions are made on advice of counsel, I think the answer to your question is heck yeah.  Of course you can.  All through this process Singer was offering advice on all sorts of decision.  Specifically Valdez.  For example appendix A p59, Mr. Singer issues of Matsu and Valdez paired on compactness.  His interpretation of prior cases is central???   

2.  If opposing counsel is using too broad a scope, it cannot be remedied at trial.  We have 6.5 hours in trial.  It goes to whether they have to produce the information they were asked to produce.  Memo from Torkelson to Marcum, subject matter:  challenges and pathway to a plan.  Singer is not even copied on this.  Completely blacked out and redacted

Matthews:  If what is redacted is the advice from counsel.

Brena:  This is what we’re getting showing page after black pages.  I want the judge to call balls and strikes.  There is no choice but to ask you to go through those emails.  The standard he suggested for in camera review.  We had witness who relied on notes and refused to show us on advice from counsel.  We ask this from the beginning.  This is an abuse - showing blacked out pages.  

Review of VRA - direct you to brief Ex A p.29 - Ex A p 38  they come out of ES and say had extensive discussion of VRA experts.  Now we’ll hear from legal counsel who will summarize their finding.  He goes on for five pages.  Talks about the district - why summarizing five pages.  Summary VRA does not have problem with plan, at least as the plan is now considering tem?.  There’s a specific process under Hickel rule whether pre-approval is required or not.  You can’t talk about five pages of what was in the VRA report.  We need to know if Mr. Singer’s summary is complete.  Email exchange - numbers - between Mr. Torkelson and Bruce Adelson that was summarized in multiple pages after ES.  Mr. T suggests - Mr. Adelson lists risks if he is an expert witness, they have no confidentiality rights.  Mr. Adelson did an extensive report that is summarized extensively.  I think purest case I’ve seen of waiver of a privilege.  Can’t come out of ES with five pages of summary and then say the report itself is privileged.  As soon as you make aspects public, you open it .  You can’t reveal the parts you want to reveal and hide the parts that you don’t want to reveal.  You should order this report.  Important not because go to Federal court or not.  They did precisely what the Hickel plan says not to.  The planner say you start with these districts.  Once you start with VRA aspects - ignore VRA and do them in the end.  Took Fairbanks out of play then they wanted a Doyon and Ahtna District.

Matthews:  Don’t want to cut you off, but 

Brena:  VRA report was waived  and regard to emails, I’ve showed you the redacted pages.  Nothing has counsels notes.  

Is the constitution a deliberative process of the board and the basis of its decision should be before us or not.  If we cannot gain insight, we can not make a proper record to go to the SC.  Should the deliberate process be made in public  or not.?


Matthews:  Alright folks.  Lots to unpack.  I’ll get a decision as soon as I can.  Singer’s issue?

Singer:  The VRA report is in the Proclamation Plan.  We didn’t get Mr. Brena’s expert until this morning.  Mat-Su and East Anchorage.  Calista want more days.  

Baxter:  We don’t have documents from Brena and we’re asking court to ask plaintiffs to produce.  

Brena:  I wan’t completely prepared to have this conversation now

Matthews:  Just a timing questions

Brena:  With regard to shape files no problem, just trying to get them out.  We asked the same things - all communications to the Board and haven’t had opportunity to meet with Board.  As I understand how this is playing.  They plan to say ac privilege while asking us to produce it.  It is a timing issue, see it as burdens on, but happy to get the shape files out the door to evaluate our maps.

Wells:  Let court know we did get it to them Saturday when it was due.  Some objections about cope, but a significant /// we think is responsive.  

Singer:  If there’s a withholding on ac privilege there should be a log

Wells:  I will look and talk to the board about that.  

Matthews:  Timing on depositions

Brena:  Yesterday was a heck of a day.

Baxter:  We have ????? No ac issues

Wells:  Witness being deposed 19th 

Baxter:  Wed, Thursday, Calista on Saturday

Brena:  My request complied with - took D’s two weeks ago and still don’t have a reply

Singer:  Think Brena is making

Matthews:  Hold up, let’s not go there Mr Singer

Singer:  He’s saying because Board members explain why plan is constitutional that that is a waiver, no discovery before the court

Matthews:  Docs on privilege log?

Brena:  don’t know the answer but don’t believe so.  Like all of us giving documents of our communications, we’re asking them to produce documents…..  Data request not responded to.  Went through five depositions without the data.  

Matthews:  I think I heard extensive argument with counsel

Stone:  We are in process in doing this but got delayed having to review the privilege log

Gardner?  We need clarification from Mr.  Baxter

Baxter:  To Skagway, Valdez, and Mat-So, not to Calista

Matthews:  Expert receive with enough time before Wednesday.  I’ll be addressing the ac privilege shortly. 

Brena:  Getting expert’s disclosures, just haven’t gotten it yet.

Matthews:  I know all are stretched - time is something you don’t have.  I’m on same schedule as all of you.  All on the same life raft.

Brena:  Does your honor have the email?

Matthews:  No, but Mr. Singer has them and will get them to me if I ask.

Depositions…

Singer:  Does court want transcript or video?

Mathews:  both

Brena:  We got them… ??

Matthews:  Court reported sent us and e???

Brena:  yes, that’s what we're doing, searchable.

Matthews:  Better if sent notes directly to redistricting email because that follows me.  

Gardner:  3 small things 1.  Confirm next scheduled hearing - still Wed 8am

Singer:  Can we change it to Tuesday we have depositions Tuesday.

Matthew:  Can set late onWednesday.  We’d like your stuff first.

Singer:  Two on Wednesday, but after 2pm Thursday.  Hard to do two depositions and court hearing.

Gardner:  We could take break from depositions on Wednesday.

Singer:  If can’t break ask court to do something?? On Saturday.  Time before the court.

Matthew:  If going at 9 and 1, either , how about  Wed at 4pm.  Hopefully got the depositions done.  Rather do it Wednesday.  You’ll all be in better position and don’t want to do it day before trial.  Wed at 4

Gardner:  2 cleared just now   3.  Several witnesses are living in RuralAlaska - internet access and travel unreliable - need to have deadline for cross examination decisions.  

Singer:  We can’t have a deadline.  I don’t want to ?? To anyone.  If we review affidavit and decide not to call .  Ms Gardner when I raised the two week requirement for our witness, she said, that’s what they signed up for.  Same process for both parties.  In each case when providing Boad testimony.  


Scheduled to go 3rd in lineup.  A difference here.  Board facing five different lawsuits.  Here you have the direct testimony and just a courtesy - does not seem unreasonable to ask who you intend to cross.

Singer:  I haven’t read them.  Not hiding the ball, I respect Ms Gardner and Schecter and if there are any witnesses.  It might be I’m disinclined to call, but then it doesn’t turn out that way.  Gardner:  I’m dismayed that Mr. Singer hasn’t read them.  I’ve talked to him about these issues and he insisted on no extension unless the Board gets extension.  Mr. Singer can’t be bothered to spend half and hour for multiple flights and life disruptions.  

Brena:  Done a number of reptile d  Just a courtesy, but not that it can’t be changed.  I would ask that all parties indicate who they intend to cross by Wed that could be changed.

Wells:  Housekeeping - we did provide 1300 pages, not ac privilege

Matthews:  Witness issue.  Ms Gardner you did raise before - internet and travel issues.  It is fair to find specific days people are going to testify.  Hard to tell when going to be called, most likely day just looking you’re #3 in group 

Brena is number 4

Matthews: - then early the following week.  Ought to be able as this progresses we can narrow when they will be called.  Word from Mr. Singer before the weekend.

Matthews:  fair not to wait until that day

Singer:  I have a number of points I want to establish from the witnesses. If have to make today, I’d say both.  If we know we don’t need them, I’ll tell you.  But we get to cross the witnesses

Matthews:  Ought to plan on taking them on second Monday.  Mr. Singer every courtesy you can when you know you have a final decisions.  Pick a day folks when should be available so they don’t have to make last minute travel arrangements.  May have to be in town the day before.  

Other housekeeping matters?  Thank you for doing this on a Sunday.  Longer than intended (4pm now)

4pm on Wednesday. I’ll be working on getting these decisions.  

Singer:  Brena can we talk.

Brena:  Do not intend to depose TJ tomorrow.  Does anyone intend to cross TJ tomorrow

Gardner:  I do have about five sessions


Saturday, January 15, 2022

Redistricting Overload Part 2: More Details On Friday's Pre-Trial Hearing

Part 1 is here.


What’s been vaguely clear became crystal clear at this hearing Friday - time, and how the attorneys use their allotted six hours, will be a major factor in these cases.  (Although the cases have been consolidated, all but two are being tried separately.  Two are loosely joined together.)


First part of meeting was about scheduling.  Judge wanted another hearing Saturday, but depositions are happening Saturday, So the next meting is Sunday at 1pm.  Then there were issues of when documents get in with the judge and others articulating how much time they’ll have to read and respond - but you can’t push too much because the trial starts on Friday January 21, 2022.  And on top of that, Monday is a holiday. 


The Sunday meeting, if I understood this right, is about a motion (which I haven’t gotten access to yet, but the issue was discussed previously) relating to turning over the email communications between the Board’s attorney, Mr. Singer, and Board members.  Mr. Singer has argued these emails are protected by attorney-client privilege.  At a previous meeting Ms. Wells said that attorney-client privilege for public boards is different and that Alaska’s Public Meetings Act plays a big role here.  At the previous meeting Singer said it would take time to redact sensitive information and the attorneys said there wasn’t time for that and they could get the emails and Singer could object to parts they wanted to use.  I’m guessing that is where we are now - with a motion to turn over all the emails and with Singer objecting.  But following a judge’s order, Singer said it’s all on a thumb drive if it does have to be turned over.  From what I could tell, this is what Sunday’s meeting will cover mostly.



They also decided to pair up the Matsu and Valdez cases because they overlap so much and there would be a lot of redundant testimony if they were two separate cases within this consolidated set of five cases.  Valdez objects to being put with Mat-Su and Mat-Su’s case opposed having Valdez in their district. 


Then there was discussion of the order of witnesses in the various cases and then who would get to cross-examine in what order. 


There was also discussion about what kind of transcripts they were getting.  The judge distinguished between real time (get them as they're being done) and Daily where you get the transcripts the next day.  The plaintiffs and Board are jointly paying for the service and Singer mentioned that Pacific Rim, the transcription company, wants to be paid within two weeks.  


These all might seem like highly technical issues, but they could greatly influence how things turn out.  


Then there was a critical discussion over a Board proposal by Mr. Singer to have the Board’s executive director do a 20-30 minute introduction to the software the state used so people will understand the terms and the practical capabilities and limits of the software.  

Mr. Brena strongly objected and wanted to have his expert witness there and to be able to question Torkelson and his expert witness about the software.  

Part 1 is here.



Brena argued that the Board used the software incorrectly and that using Alaska as the example geography for the demonstration would make it a demonstration of the software in Alaska and not a demonstration of the software.  


Ms Stone suggested Torkelson make a 30 minute video tape so people could view it and judge its neutrality.  Singer said there was no time to do that before Friday.  


I’d note that there is, actually, such a video tape by Peter Torkelson that he made and posted on the Board’s website which he used to help the general public get familiar with the software.  It is, though, and hour rather than 20-30 minutes.  


I’d note that Singer spoke as though this tool, with all the built in assumptions, is a neutral tool.  Sort of like, ‘people kill people, not guns.’  All tools affect the environment they are used in.  A shovel has a very different impact than a bulldozer.  


The judge backed off on this after hearing Brena’s arguments and postponed any decision on this.  But the trial begins Friday.  


Overall I thought the judge sounded very committed to as good an airing of the arguments as possible so that the Supreme Court has all it needs when it gets the appeal. It didn’t sound like anyone doubted there would be an appeal to the Supreme Court.  Judge Matthews was very open to the ideas of the attorneys and to hearing all issues for each topic.  Everyone’s demeanor ranged from extremely conciliatory to a bit competitive.  The most aggressive exchanges were between Singer and Brenna, but nobody was using elbows.  


The dynamic in 2022 is very different from 2012.  Then, the main case was a single attorney (mostly) representing some Fairbanks plaintiffs against the Board’s attorney.  I would say the Board’s attorney, who had been involved in the whole process, had all the facts and details on the tip of his tongue.  Nevertheless, the Fairbanks attorney did get the first maps thrown out and the Board had to begin again.  


This time there are five different lawsuits.  Each plaintiff is represented by firms with back-up attorneys.  (One of the attorneys - Robin Brena - is representing both Valdez and Skagway, and you can see this in the similarity of their initial written challenges. 


It’s like the Board’s attorney is playing chess with five different opponents at the same time.


Enough.  Below are my somewhat cleaned up, but still very rough notes from Friday’s hearing.  I have a lot of respect for court transcribers.  My notes missed a lot.  You can’t really quote them, but you can get a sense of what was discussed and who participated.   

Very rough notes of the meeting.  These are not verbatim and as you can tell there are gaps.  But until the judge makes real time transcripts publicly available, this is the best you have. At best they give a sense of the meeting, the topics, the participants. And they are a rough guide of where in the meeting to look if you need more.  

Judge Thomas Matthews:  Motion for Rule of Law and Board’s opposition

Schedule 1pm Saturday, rare situation and oral argument on those motions,  

Briefing raises issues on Attorney-client privilege and Open Meetings Act

Not much lead time, OK


Robin Brena [Attorney for Valdez and for Skagway]:  We have a deposition tomorrow

Matthews:  Sunday? Time is what it ….

Singer: [Redistricting Board's attorney]: Two depositions of Board staff, [Peter] Torkelson [Board Executive Director] tomorrow and Deputy Director. Monday, we could move both to Monday and do oral tomorrow.  Might make more sense and give court remainder of weekend.

Brena:  I need to get deposition of director tomorrow.  There’s a a 50/50 chance Monday deposition won’t go forward.  

Stacy Stone [Attorney for Mat-Su]:  We’ve been taking lunch breaks, we could do it during lunch tomorrow at noon.

Brena:  If you set it for 3pm the deposition should be over.  

Matthews:  

Singer:  Pretrial order says motions about privilege by the tenth, Matsu and 

East Anchorage and Valdez timely, the other three not timely.

Matthews:  I have your motion. valid point that [those were] after the deadline, but your motion yesterday is a summary judgment and I could say that was late too.  Deny your motion.  I want full presentation and court needs to set a record on that.

Singer:  Order should be on separate day from oral argument, deposition a different day.

Mike Schecter speaking? [Calista attorney]: Basically me too with others and don’t need extra oral argument time 

Matthews:  Sunday afternoon

Wells: [Attorney for Anchorage plaintiffs over Senate pairings] Sat or Sunday fine

Amdur-Clark - [Doyon attorney] not participating so either

Matthews:  Going to be a busy weekend,  Respect, if I set for Sunday pm, if others have Sunday commitment?  Madame clerk?

1, 2, 3 o’clock?

DECISION:  1 o’clock Sunday it is



One other issue:  Ordered yesterday and Mr. Singer responded in hours, in camera review.  I’m working this weekend as well, so if I make an order, please have them ready this weekend. [If I understand this right, the Board has been asked to turn over emails between attorney and Board.  Board has protested and the judge will make the decision soon if they have to be turned over.]

Singer:  We have it on a thumb drive and it’s ready.  Significant issue and implications for future boards and their counsel.  Will want to seek emergency review from the SC.  I respect the court, complicated issues, and time, but oldest ???  In the law (atty-client privilege)

Brena: I hope we don’t delay any process, not sure SC could rule before trial starts.  Hope court thinking as simultaneous actions.  They need to be looked at - 2400 emails asserted under privilege, many of which the attorney was copied on.

Matthews:

????:  

Mathews:  Would like reply briefs today, 4pm.  Want to be sure Singer has adequate time to review multiple replies, won’t hold strictly to 4pm since electronic.  

Production of emails, about order yesterday.  Only to be prepared to address the issue, one way or the other.  If ready on a thumb drive, at least have that ready.  Won’t make decision before oral arguments on privilege Sunday.  Recognize your right to appeal and will address issues on Sunday.


Msic. Issues.  Mr. Singer, courts power to compel.  

Filing deadline questions for objections, plaintiffs objections due, given court holiday on Monday.  Want to be fair to all and even handed.  Gave 3 days to keep things moving.  If I don’t get them until Tuesday, not much time 

Brena:  Was going to ask an additional day for reports to be filed - instead of today, tomorrow.  We’re doing the best we can, have outside experts,  asked Supreme Court for 15 days and got some,  Last night asked for maps, which have been in public record, but not available.  And older maps 1992 we can’t get.   Asking for 4pm reply, expert reports, no one harmed by one day extension.  Under circumstances that’s fair.  Don’t mind the objections on the holiday, but give us one more day for experts report.

Wells:  I don’t anticipate we’ll have objections.  Going first at trial, gives a little breathing room

Matthews:  Practical issues.  Singer’s concerns - if you aren’t going to file objections until after the holiday [MLK Day], when would you file.  

Brena:  ????   I’d give him an extra day to

Singer:  2 different sets of objections 1) board’s profiled testimony  

Brena:  Yes, I linked two things

Matthews:  Ms. Wells says no objections from her.  This is the last week, if fell on Saturday, gives you to Tuesday.  Singer said, then I have until Thursday.  Timing seems fair, other than we start trial on Friday.

Brena:  Fine either way

Matthews:  Three days would fall tomorrow, give Mr. Singer til middle of week for reply.

Singer:  Concerns, five, maybe only four, sets of objections times six witnesses to respond to.  We produced 150 K docs, made witnesses available for depositions, five to one, I ask for extra day.  If they submit tomorrow, then midweek.  Spill into trial, but opening case [Anchorage case] not affected.

Brena:  nature of our objection ????  However, we’re flexible

Matthews:  Objections to Board profiled testimony, due tomorrow, Board has four days to reply.  Expert Testimony that was due today  is now due tomorrow, and Board has four days.


In your brief yesterday, you asked for Valdez and Matsu  to go back to back.  Amdur-Clark said

Amdur-Clark - go after the court

Brena - raises several questions.  Talking about A or B, separate processes.  There are interrelated issues, but are separate cases.  I mentioned the two that made sense were Valdez and Mat-Su as plaintiffs.  Could go from five to four presentations.  Mat-su is open to the idea.  We want to be sure that Matsu first Valdez second, Intervenor third, and Board last.

Do we have opportunity ??? Cross exam.  No opportunity to close the case.  Ask for opportunity to call one of the witnesses to close the case.  Order:  profile testimony of Wasilla, the cross exam by???? Can’t keep up…. We aren’t perfectly aligned with Wasilla.  

We can go along with merging. Logical if done correct.  Wasilla, Valdez, Intervenor, Board, then if time, after Board witness to call our witness to respond.  

Stone:  Ask allocated entire two days because we have our own issues and we’d negotiate between us how to do  it, so we only have to call witnesses once.  Mr. singer says consensus among all parties, but not really.  

Brena:  Couple more things to add:  How trial works:  Observation;  Intervenors have 3 witnesses, so have nine witnesses, Valdez 3, Matsu 2.  Issue linked.  We selected 3 for Valdez day before affidavit due ??? Wouldn’t count toward our witnesses.  We were preserving slots for position, another issue is how deposition play into this>  Mr. Singer thought I was going to skip cross.  But we want to put in the depositions, but do intend to cross witnesses.  Gamesmanship with cross, if someone decides to pass on a cross.  ?????

If put - ok Matsu an Valdez together, [can’t keep up]  about order of witnesses and trial.

Mr. Singer:  Several items in play:  Possible miscommunication or not touching on real issues.  Mr. Brena said surprised didn’t cross.  They  were part of admission and fair game at trial, but not fair game, if someone submit Board deposition, but I was not given opportunity to redirect.  I haven’t had that opportunity.  Discovery depositions - 8 hours.  No second day for cross, because another witness the next day.  We’d have a meet and confer, but intent of Board testimony was to perpetuate testimony if not available.  Haven’t had oppotuniay.  If they do that???, then I have opportunity to redirect issues from deposition.  Preventing them from explaining.

No preference if Matsu or Valdez go first. Board has one explanation for why the distric tlooks that way.  Shouldn’t have to testify twice.  My experience that intervenor usually follows the defense, but have no profaner.  

Matthews:  not cutting anyone off - all important

Wells: We took deposition of Ruedrich, deposition instead of direct, hostile, I did think we were taking our direct testimony and then other parties would cross, but …. Ok submitting it as our testimony and our cross of Ruedrich.  A little different.

I did hear Matsu borough objected to opening statement but do want closing statement.

Amdur-Clark:  As Singer appreciates - our preference about coming after Board.  I will have questions and issues Singer doesn’t have and issues I wouldn’t raise, but Singer would.  Keep it a clear record and not redundant, makes sense for us to go after the Board.

Matthews:  Unclear why it makes a difference when you have your witnesses.  Seems that Board has biggest lift

Amdur-Clark - not that strong preference of witnesses, but really order of when crossing witnesses.  If Valdez makes witness available.  Likely many questions would be the same as he would ask.  More appropriate for Singer to ask, and I would just be filling in the holes. 

Matthews:  order cross exam witnesses of Valdez and Matsu, not your witnesses

Stone: I do think Mr. Singer has the opportunity to redirect at deposition and if he needs more, then he should file reasons.

Wells:  One significant point:  We have two Board members who did not present any testimony about senate pairings.  Can’t be in scope of direct, because there was not direct.

Singer:  Civil rules allows depositions for the purposes, but not-noticing, when each deposition went over 8 hours when court made it clear that cross at trial.  All went over 8 hours and we would have been there til 10 or 11 at night if I did it at deposition.  Ultimate question is whether the Board acted rationally.  Plaintiffs at last minute want to use deposition and ???  Ask opportunity to redirect out of our time.

Brena: What we agreed on:  order of witness and order of cross muddled until Mr. Clark’s comments.  Don’t object.  ???????  [Sorry can’t keep up]   Let Board cross witnesses first.  For Valdez witnesses, Matsu, Board, Intervenors???? [But not sure and he offered more of these timelines.]

Matthews:  Let’s pause and see if agreement

Mr.Amdur-Clark - for Board witnesses, Plaintiffs first and we after.  

Brena:  don’t want 

Amdur-Clark -retract that, confusion in mind.

Matthews:  Sense that Board’s testimony and way crossed is going to overlap, so having them put together and have int


Matsu-Valdez-Intervenor- Board (presentation of Witnesses)

Cross different Brena correct

Brena - other parties may want to ask a question, so I would ask if anyone is going to do that, that would be the first people crossing

Matthews:  no issue with that.  Each party gets 6.5 hours for each case.  If Brena wanted to cross a Valdez witness instead of Matsu, but you only get the six hours

Brena:  comments on depositions too.  No gamesmanship here.  Valdez gave up 3 witnesses so have opportunity to use depositions in fact.  You said it didn’t count against the trial witnesses, but didn’t have time, so created open spots to get these depositions before your honor.  Since first order that depositions could take place of witness.  Just asking that depositions that were taken, Singer saying doing discovery depositions, I didn’t think so, I was doing them so they would take time from trial.  Asked several times - getting sure that depositions are part of the record and go to the SC.  I’m going to use things from depositions in trial.  I should have to use them to validate the position I took, to preserve.  Depositions should be part of the record.  Singer raises point.  We didn’t have eight hours on the clock and he did ask redirect in his depositions..  Taken, videotaped, transcribed, lot of money, and want to sue them in court.

Matthews:  maybe not be hearing each other.  Brena you want to lodge testimony with court as any witness Rule 32

Brena:  And doesn’t take from trial time

Matthews:  Fine, but doesn’t take from his time and ability to cross

Singer:  Then I get take my time, not just scope of cross in court, but if ambiguity in deposition, I can ask witness to explain any ambiguity in the deposition.    Depositions very lengthy, I don’t need to question my witnesses.  I know what they are going to say at trial.

Brena:  Can he redirect.  Problem.  I may ask six questions and not raise a question.  He can redirect on topics I didn’t know he was going to raise.  They not only get to close, but on testimony not contested in live trial.  So, if he raise new issues I didn’t cross on, then I can redirect after.  Witness may say thing I never heard.  Not fair to give him that without giving me opportunity to call in my witnesses to rebut

Matthews:  We haven’t spoken to rebuttal.  You have six hours and in ordinary course you could do that.  Only piece we eliminated is that direct is prefiled.  You get to cross and redirect.  ???  We do that all the time.  Issue isn’t that we throw out the window, it’s just time.  How you use the six hours.  If you need a rebuttal witness and only have 15 minutes left, need to do it quick.  You have burden to go forward and have opportunity for limited rebuttal

Brena  Singer ok.

Singer:  If I do my redirect about things Brena raised and then go to p.42 on deposition, if Brena wants to recross, rather than a rebuttal witness …

Brena - argument for recross usually depends on circumstanes, but right to rebut everyone has

Matthews:  True and doesn’t prevent Singer from redirect/rebuttal????  Board members will be ??? of lawyers.  I can’t think of any trial without oopses.  I know you are on a really tight schedule and I’m trying to give you every opportunity.  Our issues is time.

Singer:  how present deposition

Mattjhews:  Haven’t fully thought this through.  1.  You simply file the transcript and you have it all.  

Wells:  Because we go first, want to be clear about deposition who are silent in their affidavits from Bahnke and Borromeo, we didn’t anticipate being closed from presenting testimony.  We have no opportunity to cross because 

Brena:  A judge trial case and no reason to not just let the deposition go in as part of the record.  Underlying rules are to protect juries, but you can do this.  Just lodge the depositions people can use them however they want.

Singer:  We don’t need line and page number, but having counsel simply id, this is the section that relates to City of Skagway’s case, then we should have opportunity - otherwise  free-for-all.  

Matthews:  Assuming, maybe incorrectly, for everyone except Brena who has two different cleints,  when Ms. Stone is going to be asking about Matsu.  

Singer:  Brena asked about Matsu and about Senate pairings.

Brena:  There aren’t any surprises on issues here. Anyone who wants to read through the depositions.  We are all capable of going through deposition and say what relates to which case.  These are capable sophisticated counsel here.

Miss Stone:  Why opening on the record is important.

Brena:  Do our best, but 

Stone:  That when do trial brief identify what we are going to use.  

Matthews [I think this was Singer]:  What I’m going to get with 8 hour deposition is that people will designate 7.5 hours and it puts more work on you.  Whether in trial brief at front end or ??? At the tail end.  Give me the whole thing.  Which raises another question I wanted to ask:  You all in earlier discussion with judge Morse, talked about real time transcription with Pacific Rim lined up.  Court ordered each party responsible for equal percentage of bill.  They are concerned about payment within two weeks.  

Matthews:  Let’s be clear here:  There’s a difference between real time transcription - transcribing as in progress so can be read on the spot.  Daily is overnight and ready the next time.  

Singer:  Real time

Brena: Yes, we anticipate real time. Lots of moving parts in this trial.  Concerned about two weeks payment cycle   Representing Municipality and Borough and they have their own procedures, typically 30 day cycle - I’ll talk with Matt.

Matthews:  Worked with many reporters, that have had trouble with attorneys payment.  Particularly with real time transcription, they should be paid timely.

Brena:  If you want to ask for 30 days I’m ok

Matthews:  or deposit

Amdur-Clark:  Stone raised issue.  There have been objections filed to pretrial testimony which court hasn’t ruled on.  Since they are before the court should we object now or wait until court?

Matthews:  We’ll address objections as we go.  Cite in trial briefs

???? Back to deposition, Ms. Stone, Ms Wells, about Randy Ruedrich.  Had discussion on what to do as a non-party witness.  Ruedrich is a bit of ????

Wells: We took his testimony to authenticate some documents.  We’re fine with that.  Don’t have a preference but wanted ???  We could submit designations and Board could do the same.

Matthews:  Anyone planning live testimony from Mr. Riuedrich?

Singer:  Put whole transcript in.  If plaintiffs don’t …. We don’t want to go thru it either.  If something inadmissible, your honor will exclude it.

Wells:  OK your honor.

Matthews:  Oral openings and closing and appeared from briefs you’re all in agreement.  Today sounds like agreement on oral closings, but not openings.

Closings makes sense to me once submitted findings of fact and conclusions of law

Oral openings, thought we resolved that you would include that in trail briefs.  No one jumping up and down.  Matter of time.  Oral closing.

Singer:  Timing, schedule closing argument right after filing findings and conclusions of law

???? Figuring out calendar for this - give me 24 hours or longer to review before getting oral arguments.

Brena:  I’m fine - I asked for opening - I have no problem having opening briefs address the issue. 


[Move on to talk about a presentation on the software and how it works]


Matthews:  Mr. Singer, you raised about presentation about the [redistricting software] 

Singer:  In standard trial would be first witness - software and how it works - non-controversial.  I’m a first time redistricting lawyer and had my own confusion about how you build maps.  More like legos than drawing lines.  Propose to do that without questioning about any areas of the state or about ???between getting data and final proclamation in November.  Ideally bring in 64 inch high res monitor and Mr. Torkelson would do a back and forth, 20-30minutes.  Willing to cede time to cross examine.  The Autobound and Districtor  software.  

Very first thing we do at trial or first thing after Anchorage case.  

If in person not possible, could be done through share screen.  Just not get the impact on a smaller screen.  

Brena:  Think that Ms. Brooks first

Stone:  Involves an area of expertise, may need an expert to ??  The process the Board used.

Brena:  We don’t think the Board did it right, so having an explanation by a non-expert on how to do it right starts things off wrong.  We want equal time to have our explanation of how it should work.  We believe they did it wrong.  Having their director say how this works because they didn’t do it right.  If you want a presentation, allow all the experts make one.  All ??oate equal time for experts to do it properly.  They should put their ?? how they want, but this is not a neutral point.  Best addressed in context of actual case.

Amdur-Clark - we support his idea.  There is plenty of time using trial to put on experts to say they did it wrong.  This is just Mr Singer saying “This is how we did it.”  We support having the court see clicking the buttons and making maps.

Brena:  We don’t oppose it, but should be part of the case.

Matthews:  My question was “how does this stuff work” Mr. Brena are you saying they didn’t run the software correctly?

Brena:  I’m deposing the witness tomorrow.  We don’t think they understood the software correctly, not consistent with how to use the software, because they did some things wrong.  We don’t agree Peter Torkelson is an expert.  Should not get some special status before the court.  Not a fair status to give them.  Let that be their first witness.

Singer:  I proposed we do it out of our time, and plaintiffs could question. Mr. Torkelson is a computer programer and probably there is no one more expert in the state. Going to be helpful to the court.  Not asking for special status.  If this an auto accident caee near courthouse, could ask court to walk to intersection.

Time out of us, allowing time for cross-exam.  If court thinks it useful..

Brena:  Compromise.  Singer proposing 30 minutes out of his time and me 30 minutes out of time.  My expert out of town, so ask this be zoom and I can ask Torkelson or ask my own expert.  If Singer gives us his time, not just cross, b

Singer:  Not proposing opportunity to get to any decisions in the case or evidence about the case.  Just showing the court about the tool the board used..  Then Brena wants to say we did it wrong.  If their witnesses wants to say, the software has these four functions the board didn’t use.  We aren’t going to get into what the Board did.  Just the census blocks and shape files and take a non-controversial area of the state and then look at the public software and see how it works - tha t?? of Valdez -that’s all I want.  Counsels misunderstanding of how software used,  we want to see click by click.  Mr. Brace, will come in with his ideas.  But court should have some understanding.  If this about a red car, court should see red car.

Stone:  What if Board submits a video of presentation before and we can look.

Brena:  Singer’s comments raise more issue.  “Non-Controversial” area of the state.  This is not about the software, but about Alaska and Alaska maps.  If any demonstration of how we ??use the software correctly and we disagree on this.  Then I want the opportunity to show how do it correctly.  Not sure we should use Alaskans as the example.  Mr. Singer hasn’t seen our deposition.  He said he’s [Peter I think] familiar - but uses it every ten years.   If wants to make presentation about software, then why use Alaska?  And then doesn’t want our expert.  I shouldn’t have to cross him in front of the court.

Ms. Stone’s suggestion is good, but I don’t like this whole thing.  If going to aocmodate out of court’s curiosity.

Singer:  No one disputes Northwest districts.  We could draw part of state not identified as problem in the state and could draw several maps to show what happens when you click the button.  Not going to have time to do video deposition and send in advance [lists things to do all week]

Brena:  They had opportunity to have Torkelson make this video.  Traditional to start with Arctic Slope where they pack a disproportionate number of Native Alaskans - goes right to the heart of the issues.  More I hear, the more it has to do with substantive issues.  If permit this, then we want 30 minutes too.

Matthews:  Perhaps I opened a can of worms . I see distinction between how does the software work and how did the Board use the software.  You’ve raised questions about my assumptions   Question of what order I take this evidence and the order.  It makes it difficult to do demonstration of software by affidavit.  I’ll wait until what you give based on expert deposition.  If software is critical to case, then having one understanding of how it works at the beginning would be helpful.  But you raise issues.  Take it one step at a time.  Not going to schedule it now.  I’ll hear evidence as it comes in.

Couple of hours now -

 other issues we haven’t touched on?

Brena:  Good for today

Wells:  No other issues

Stone: She left but no other issues

Amdur-clark:  no

Singer:  See you Sunday.








Friday, January 14, 2022

Redistricting Overload - Hearing Today Raises A Bunch Of Issues And Trove Of Court Filings

 Between updating my COVID page - another record high number of cases today (5321 over two days) - and a two hour pre-trial hearing on the Redistricting Board Cases -there's way too much to do.  I have to clean up my rough notes - to make them legible but also to help me clarify the key issues that came up.  I will say there were two big issues today:

  • Waiting on a ruling by the judge about how much of the Board's documentation is covered by attorney-client privilege and the Open Meetings Act.
  • How neutral would a presentation on the Board's software by the Board's executive director be?  The Board's attorney offered it so the judge and the people attending the trial would have a basic understanding of how it works.  But Valdez' attorney Robin Brena says he'd want his expert witness to be able to follow with a presentation on the "correct use" of the software, because how the Board used it wasn't correct
Meanwhile they were also talking about the depositions which will be used for the direct testimony - that is the witnesses' direct testimony will be profiled to the court in the form of depositions.  So, I'm thinking, how will the public know what the witnesses said in the first place when they are being cross examined?  

On Courtview, if you take the right path*, you can see a list of documents the various attorneys and the judge have filed.  But you can't open them.  PACER is a way to see documents in Federal Court.  

*On the link, there are tabs - go to DOCKET.  

So I emailed the judge's clerk to find out how the public and journalists can get access.  
She quickly responded that she'll get fuller answers to my questions, but that the documents in this case are being posted on the Court's "Most Requested Appellate Case Files" page.  There are three cases there.  
  1. Kohlhaas et al. v. SOA et al. - Proposition 2 (2020) constitutionality
  2. Short, Madilyn et al vs. Dunleavy, Michael J et al - Constitutional Budget Reserve Sweep - Higher Education Investment Fund and
  3. Wilson Felisa et al vs. Alaska Redistricting Board - Redistricting
The third one is the one of interest.  But as you look down the list of links, the latest one is December 29, 2021.  Today is January 14, 2022.  They are two weeks behind and the document I really want to see is the one about Attorney-Cleinte Privelege and the Open Meetings Act, which the judge said he'd rule on shortly.  

OK, that's enough of a preview.  Probably most of you would prefer I kept all posts this short.  I will add that the next court pretrial hearing is Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 1pm,  You can watch on Judge Matthews' YouTube channel.  

My life would be, of course, much easier without access to all that documentation - there are thousands of pages.  

The following is dessert for those who choose to indulge.  It is from the list of documents and is the proposed witness list for the Anchorage plaintiffs - challenging the Eagle River Senate Pairings.  Remember, this is proposed and over two weeks old now.  


"Holly C. Wells
Mara E. Michaletz
William D. Falsey
Birch Horton Bittner & Cherot 510 L Street, Suite 700 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 hwells@bhb.com mmichaletz@bhb.com wfalsey@bhb.com Telephone: 907.276.1550 Facsimile: 907.276.3680

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Felisa Wilson, George Martinez, and Yarrow Silvers

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA

THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE

) In the Matter of the ) ) 2021 REDISTRICTING PLAN. ) ) )

Case No. 3AN-21-08869CI

EAST ANCHORAGE PLAINTIFFS’ PRELIMINARY WITNESS LIST

COME NOW Plaintiffs Felisa Wilson, George Martinez, and Yarrow Silvers (the “East Anchorage Plaintiffs”), by and through undersigned counsel, and hereby file this Preliminary Witness List:
I. EAST ANCHORAGE PLAINTIFFS’ CASE-IN-CHIEF WITNESSES

A. Fact Witnesses

1. Felisa Wilson (via affidavit)
c/o Birch Horton Bittner & Cherot 510 L Street, #700
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 276-1550

Scope of Testimony: Ms. Wilson is a resident of House District 23. She is expected to testify regarding her experiences and participation in and observations of the 2021 redistricting process, and the dilution of East Anchorage voters within adopted House District 23, including that of her own influence regarding her legislative needs and her observations regarding the communities of interest at issue in this case. Ms. Wilson is also expected to testify regarding the Board member’s reliance and reference to her testimony regarding the proposed and/or adopted senate pairings.

2. Sean Murphy (via affidavit) 17906 Kantishna Drive

Eagle River, AK 99577 (907) 632-5307

Scope of Testimony: Mr. Murphy is a resident of House District 22. He is expected to testify regarding his experiences and participation in and observations of the 2021 redistricting process and the needs and interests he experiences as a resident of the Eagle River community of interest and House District 22. He is expected to testify regarding the differences between the needs and interests of the Eagle River community when compared to the East Anchorage communities of interest with which it is paired in the adopted plan.

3. Yarrow Silvers (via affidavit)   Attorney-Client Privilege
c/o Birch Horton Bittner & Cherot 510 L Street, #700
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 276-1550

Scope of Testimony: Ms. Silvers is a resident of House District 21. She is expected to testify regarding her experiences and participation in and observations of the 2021 redistricting process, and the dilution of East Anchorage voters within adopted House District 21, including that of her own influence regarding her legislative needs and her observations regarding the communities of interest at issue in this case.

4. David Dunsmore (via affidavit) 6321 Brown Tree Circle

Anchorage, AK 99507 (907) 830-4288

Scope of Testimony: Mr. Dunsmore is expected to testify regarding his experiences and participation in and observations of the 2021 redistricting process with emphasis on his observations of the November 8 and 9, 2021 redistricting meetings, including work sessions, and the Board member’s related conduct.

5. Kevin McGee (via affidavit)
President NAACP Anchorage Branch #1000 Post Office Box 200089
Anchorage, AK 99520
(907) 272-8717 naacpanchorage2017@gmail.com

Scope of Testimony: Mr. McGee is the President of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Alaska Branch #1000 (“NAACP”). He is expected to testify regarding the NAACP’s mission and vision and the impact that the adopted senate pairings have on that mission and vision as well as the NAACP’s engagement and participation in the communities of interest implicated and impacted by the adopted senate pairings that include Eagle River.

B. Expert Witness

1. Chase Hensel
Morrow and Hensel Consulting 1674 Redfox Drive
Fairbanks, AK 99709
(907) 699-2107 cell chasehensel1@gmail.com

Scope of Testimony: Mr. Hensel is expected to testify as an expert witness for the East Anchorage Plaintiffs. He is expected to testify regarding the senate pairings adopted by the Alaska Redistricting Board, the contiguity of the pairings challenged by the East Anchorage Plaintiffs and other impacted districts. He will also testify regarding the communities of interest within the paired districts challenged by the East Anchorage Plaintiffs, and the dilution of the voting influence of voters in the East Anchorage Communities, as that term was defined in the East Anchorage Plaintiff’s Application.

II. DEFENDANT OR OTHER PLAINTIFF WITNESSES TO BE RELIED UPON AT TRIAL

  1. E. Budd Simpson
    c/o Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C. 420 L Street, #400
    Anchorage, AK 99501
    (907) 339-7125

  2. John Binkley
    c/o Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C. 420 L Street, #400
    Anchorage, AK 99501
    (907) 339-7125

I

  1. Bethany Marcum
    c/o Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C. 420 L Street, #400
    Anchorage, AK 99501
    (907) 339-7125

  2. Melanie Bahnke
    c/o Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C. 420 L Street, #400
    Anchorage, AK 99501
    (907) 339-7125

  3. Nicole Borromeo
    c/o Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C. 420 L Street, #400
    Anchorage, AK 99501
    (907) 339-7125

Scope of testimony by Redistricting Board members: While the East Anchorage Plaintiffs do not have knowledge of the full scope of the testimony by Board members, the East Anchorage Plaintiffs will be focusing their examination of these witnesses on their deliberations, considerations, and/or the lack thereof regarding the “East Anchorage Communities” identified in the East Anchorage Plaintiffs’ Application and House Districts 22 and 24.

6. Randy Ruedrich (via deposition) 1515 West 13th Ave

Anchorage, AK 99501 (907) 586-8090

Scope of Testimony: While the East Anchorage Plaintiffs do not have knowledge regarding Mr. Ruedrich’s testimony beyond the description provided in the Calista Plaintiffs’ Witness List, the East Anchorage Plaintiffs intend to examine Mr. Ruedrich regarding his influence and participation in the 2021 redistricting process with an emphasis on his input on senate pairings proposed and/or adopted by the Alaska Redistricting Board, the political affiliation and voting patterns of the house districts at issue in the Application to Compel the Alaska Redistricting Board to Correct Its Senate District Pairings in Anchorage, and any other subject matters that arise during his deposition testimony as an expert for the Calista Plaintiffs.

III. EAST ANCHORAGE PLAINTIFFS’ GENERAL WITNESSES

1. Expert witnesses as they are determined to be necessary and identified during the course of discovery.

2. All witnesses necessary to authenticate documents to whose admissibility other parties are unwilling to stipulate.

3. All witnesses listed by other parties.

4. All witnesses identified in the course of subsequent discovery or

investigation

5. All witnesses whose depositions are taken in this case.

6.  All witnesses necessary for rebuttal purposes.

DATED this 28th day of December, 2021.

BIRCH HORTON BITTNER & CHEROT Attorneys for Plaintiffs

By: /s/ Holly C. Wells
Holly C. Wells, ABA #0511113 Mara E. Michaletz, ABA #0803007 William D. Falsey, ABA #0511099"


Thursday, January 13, 2022

The Difficult Life Of Flight Attendants And Passengers

When we waited for our plane in LA, there was a large group of men, say mid twenties through forties, maybe fifties.  They kind of invaded the waiting area and were speaking to each other in another language.  And they were less than fastidious about their masks.  I'd guess five to ten had their masks on their chins much of the time.  Others didn't have their noses covered. 

When we got on the plane, I mentioned this to one of the flight attendants at the entrance as a bit of a warning.  She said she'd already heard.  We sat down.  The lady next to us was handicapped and needed assistance getting up to let us pass to our seats.  She was agitated.  The men were still breathing mask free around us.  She said she'd told Alaska Airlines before we boarded.  She had health issues and was worried about getting COVID.  She got an attendant and explained her concerns and pointed out that the men around us had noses and mouths showing before the attendant arrived.  She even got the captain to come out and talk to her.  

It's not clear how good their English was (presumably some better than others) and if they could even understand the captain's announcement about keeping masks on.  But they did know they needed to be masked and did pull them up when an attendant was nearing.  This wasn't a political statement.  It just appeared to be avoidance of an inconvenience.  

The men pulled up their masks when asked to and then they would slip off again.  Around us there were four or five offenders.  We took off.  Soon the lady next to us got the attendant again and wanted to move.  We decided to just stick it out.  An American Airlines flight attendant soon replaced the woman who got assistance to move to another seat.  The attendant was headed to Anchorage to celebrate his birthday with friends and relatives.

Throughout the flight the masks went up when attendants came by and then down again.  

It's a tricky business when you are up in the air.  The flight attendant sitting next to us told us that it was something like three warnings and then you go on a no fly list.  But it didn't appear that was happening.  The flight attendant sitting with us left and then the original woman was back next to us.  

When we landed we were all told to stay seated while those who needed assistance got helped off.  An attendant was there to help the woman next to us and the nearest offender stood up and helped her get up too.  His mask was in place at that point.  

I'm just thinking about the calculations the airlines make.  This was a large group - maybe 20 or 30  good sized men.  Were they flying up to work on the Slope?  Fishing?  Who knows?  Was Alaska Airlines weighing the loss of a bunch of passengers against trouble in the air?  It was a five hour flight.  No one wanted to land midway and drop off anyone.  The attendants were clearly avoiding confrontations and the men didn't refuse to wear masks.  They complied when asked.  Alcohol was not an issue.  

I already had  concerns about flying on a plane full of masked people with Omicron spiking, when it turned out I'd be flying with some unmasked and partially masked passengers.  You could say that we're overreacting - most people who are fully vaxed and masked are less likely to get COVID and if they do, not likely to get too sick.  That's what I told myself.  

As a blogger, I know pictures pique people's interest.  But as a person, I'm not comfortable putting any pictures of these folks up.  

Just want to let everyone know that even the Airline that banned an Alaska State Senator is walking a fine line between enforcing the mask rules and looking the other way.  

To the person who wrote a letter to the editor (Anchorage Daily News)  yesterday complaining about the Airlines giving in to the unions and cutting back in-flight services, I'd say the flight attendants' lives are hard enough as it is without spending lots of time among the passengers.  And serving alcohol is clearly not a good idea. Sure, a lot of people would like a drink on a flight and for most it wouldn't be an issue.   If people really can't get through a flight without a drink, it would seem to be an indicator of a problem that needs attention.  Not having alcohol on board (and I'm not completely sure that's the case) keeps the skies a little calmer.  


Tuesday, January 11, 2022

Headed Home

 Now that we're at LAX waiting for our 7:20 pm non-stop back to Anchorage, we had the most beautiful day since we got here. Thanks to my mom's neighbor who drove us to the airport!   I did get in a bike-ride to the beach (stopping to duplicate some keys on the way).  

Not only was it warmer than it's been (low 70s) but clear too.  Though to the south you could see fog/clouds/haze.  This is looking north toward the Santa Monica mountains (really hills.)  I've been to a lot of places and I'm only now truly appreciating the great beaches of LA.  Not that I didn't always love the beach growing up, but I never appreciated the huge expanse of sand between the water and the buildings.  There's a lot of sand.  No rocks.  In the picture the water is to the left.  You can see a thin band of water between the sand and the sky.  


This African iris was sticking out from the wall of green between my mom's house and the neighbor's.  The plant itself was way inside, but the flower found the light.  It wasn't there yesterday.






These oranges were weighing down a tree in front of an apartment building in Beverly Hills. If people had more edibles in their gardens here they could feed a lot of people 




An oak tree across the street from friends we visited Sunday.

It's been a different, pandemic trip.  We've gotten take out, but haven't dined in any restaurants like we normally would.  

And the ceiling at our gate at LAX this evening.

This has been, until this week, a pretty chilly visit, for LA.  But it's been chilly for Anchorage too while we were gone.  Our house sitter reported that our kitchen sink pipes froze, but he was able to get that taken care of.  

Looking forward to being home for a bit.