McConnell v FEC: District Court: Court Orders and SchedulesDistrict Court Order Staying May 1 Decision On May 19, 2003, the district court stayed the entire May 1 decision in McConnell v. FEC. Click on the titles below to view the documents in their entirety. Order Regarding Post-Judgment Motions Memorandum Opinion Regarding Post-Judgment Motions
Court Order Regarding All Stay Applications On May 8, the three-judge district court panel that decided McConnell v. FEC issued a briefing schedule for the filing of motions to stay all or part of its judgment in this case. Click here to view the court's order in its entirety.
Court Order on Final Judgment This final order from the three-judge panel sets forth the comprehensive list of BCRA provisions the district court struck down, and those it upheld.
Click here to see a copy of the Final Order in its entirety.
Court Order on Sealed Matters Judge Kollar-Kotelly, the judge with responsibility for resolving multiple disputes over the confidentiality of documents, ordered that all documents and materials cited by the judges in their opinions would be made public. A handful of documents will remain confidential to protect the identities of third parties. All documents and other evidence filed under seal in the case, but not cited in the court's decision, will remain confidential.
Click here to read the court order on Sealed Matters in its entirety.
Court Order Granting Defendants' Request to File Supplemental Expert Report In this order, issued April 29, 2003, the panel granted a motion by the Reform Act's defenders to submit a supplemental rebuttal report from Dr. Jonathan Krasno, one of their key experts on the effect of soft money on the political process. The report addresses the reliability of a series of studies relied upon by defendants entitled "Buying Time," which set forth empirical data on the public perception of so-called soft money "issue ads." These ads generally blanket the airwaves on the final days of election campaigns. The "Buying Time" studies conclude that such ads are generally perceived not just as speech about campaign issues, but as entreaties to either support or defeat particular candidates. Under Federal law, soft money may not be used to fund advertisements that advocate the election or defeat of federal candidates for office. Click here to view the court's order in its entirety. Click here to view Professor Krasno's Supplemental Rebuttal Report.
Order Remanding Confidentiality Matters to Single Judge
In this Order, the three-judge panel remanded all disputes over the confidentiality of case documents to a single member of the panel, Judge Collen Kollar-Kottelly. The Court reasoned that these matters were outside the scope of its mission, which extends only to resolution of the constitutional issues in the case. Click here to view the court's order in its entirety.
Court Order Scheduling Oral Argument, Nov. 15, 2002 The Court's order of November 15 announced that oral argument in the case will span two days, December 4 and 5, divided between plaintiffs and defendants/intervenors. The order contains additional details regarding the number of counsel permitted to argue and the allocation of time among the issues and parties. Click here to view the court's order in its entirety.
Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Order On October 16, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer to establish page limits for a possible joint submission of "findings of fact" and "conclusions of law." This process, now standard in the federal courts, is an opportunity for the parties to attempt to reach agreement on basic factual and legal issues. If the parties can identify areas of agreement, the court can place those matters aside and focus on areas of genuine dispute at trial. On matters on which the parties cannot agree, they will submit separate findings and conclusions. Click here to view the court's order in its entirety.
Briefing Order On October 15, the court released an order establishing briefing rules for the case, including formats, page numbers and dates for submission of briefs. Click here to view the court's order in its entirety.
Order Denying Republican National Committee Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Certain Witnesses On October 8, the District Court denied a motion by the Republican National Committee to bar 42 of the defendants' fact witnesses and five of their expert witnesses from testifying in the case. The RNC argued that the number of witnesses the defendants decided to present to the Court was an "outrageous" increase over the number set forth in an earlier, preliminary list required by the Court. The Court rejected this argument, holding that the defendants acted appropriately and urging the parties to concentrate on the merits of the case "rather than sparring over scheduling burdens, hefty as they may be." Click here to view the court's order in its entirety.
Order Dismissing Without Prejudice Plaintiff National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors On September 29, the District Court issued an order allowing the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors to drop out of the case as plaintiffs. This follows similar orders allowing the Christian Coalition, the Alabama Republican Party and other plaintiffs to leave the case. By withdrawing from the case, they will not be required to turn over documents about their political activities requested by the Reform Act's defenders. Click here to view the court's order in its entirety.
Order Denying Motion of California Democratic Party and California Republican Party to Compel Responses to Requests for Admission On September 25, the District Court denied a motion made by the California Republican and Democratic Parties, who are plaintiffs in the suit, to compel the defendants to answer certain "requests for admission." In those requests, the plaintiffs had asked the law's supporters to answer questions about the Reform Act's effects on future advertising campaigns. The court agreed with the defendants that these questions required them to draw legal conclusions about hypothetical situations, and were therefore inappropriate. Click here to view the court's order in its entirety.
Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Clarification Concerning Depositions of Expert Witnesses On September 19, the District Court issued an order settling several discovery disputes. The three-judge panel ruled, among other things, that the parties will not be allowed to depose expert witnesses in addition to cross-examining them after they submit their expert reports. This position was urged by Defendants. Click here to view the court's order in its entirety.
Court Sets Schedule for Discovery Disputes On September 5, the 3-judge panel of the U.S. Discrict Court for the District of Columbia hearing McConnell v. FEC issued a scheduling order for a number of discovery disputes in the case. Click here to view the court's order in its entirety.
Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part Plantiffs' Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses On August 15, the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia issued an order requiring the defendants of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 to produce responses to a portion of the plaintiffs' interrogatories. Click here to view the court's order in its entirety.
Order in Response to Motion to Compel On July 26, the court amended the schedule for BCRA litigation. Click here to view the court's order in its entirety.
Order Consolidating Cases Click here to view the court's order in its entirety.
Order Granting Motin to Intervene Click here to view the court's order in its entirety.
Scheduling Order Issued by Three-Judge Panel 4/24/02 Begin general discovery.
5/7/02 Deadline for amendment of pleadings, intervention or joinder of additional parties and consolidation of addional cases.
5/27/02 Deadline for filing answers.
8/16/02 Parties exchange lists of fact and expert witnesses that they intend to use at trial and identify documents intended for use at trial.
8/26/02 Deadline for exchange of document requests interrogatories and requests to admit.
9/06/02 Parties identify rebuttal fact and expert witnesses thaty they intend to use at trial, supplement their lists of fact and expert witnesses and their lsts of documents thaty they intend to use at trial.
9/16/02 Deadline to exchange final listst of affirmative fact and expert witnesses that the parties intend to use at trial and for final production of documents, answeres to interrogatories and requests to admit exchanged.
9/18/02 Deadline for service of deposition notices.
9/23/02 Deadline to exchange final expert reports and supporting documetnary evidence and final list of documents that the parties intend to use at trial.
9/30/02 End of discovery.
10/4/02 Begin period for cross-examination of fact and expert witnesses. Deadline to exchange fact witness affidavits.
10/06/02 Deadline to exchange rebuttal affidavits, rebuttal expert reports and suporting documentary evidence for both.
10/25/02 End period for cross-examination of fact and expert witnesses.
11/04/02 Deadline for filing of opening briefs in support of judgment, accompanied by fact witness and expert testimony and documentary evidence.
11/18/02 Deadline for filling opposition briefs.
11/25/02 Deadline for filing reply briefs.
12/04/02 Oral argument.
Judges Selected in Challenges to the New Campaign Finance Law Judge Colleen Killar-Kotelly
(District Court Judge)
Judge Kollar-Kotelly was appointed to the United States District Court in May 1997 by President Clinton. She received a B.A. in 1965 from The Catholic University of America and a J.D. in 1968 from Columbus School of Law, the Catholic University. Following law school, she served as law clerk to Judge Catherine B. Kelly of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. From 1969 to 1972, Judge Killar-Kotelly was an attorney in the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and then serves as the chief legal counsel to Saint Elizabeths Hospital until 1984. She was appointed Associate Judge of the D.C. Superior Court in October 1984, and served as Deputy Presiding Judge of the Criminal Division from 1995 until her appointment to the federal bench. Judge Kollar-Kotelly has been a Fellow of the American Bar Association, a founding member of the Thurgood Marshall Inn of Court, as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University School of Medicine in a joint teaching program on mental health and the law, and chair of the Board of the Art Trust for Superior Court. (Microsoft case judge-four days a week)
Judge Richard J. Leon
(District Court Judge)
Judge Leon was appointed two months ago (February 2002) to the U.S. District Court by President George W. Bush. He received his A.B. from Holy Cross College in 1971, his J.D. cum laude from Suffolk Slaw School in 1974, and is LL.M. from Harvard Law School in 1981. Prior to being appointed to the bench, Judge Leon was engaged in private practice in Washington, D.C. from 1989 to 2002. Judge Leon served as the U.S. Department of Justice in a number of positions, including Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Environment Division, Senior Southern District of New York. He served as counsel to congressional committees in the investigations of three sitting Presidents and as a Special Counsel to the U.S. House Ethics Reform Task Force. He also served as a Commissioner on the White House Fellows Commission and the Judicial Review Commission on Foreign Asset Control. A former full-time law professor at St. John's Law School, Judge Leon is currently an adjunct law professor at both Georgetown and Catholic University.
Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson
(Circuit Court Judge)
Judge Henderson was appointed United States Circuit Judge in July 1990 by President George H. W. Bush. She received her undergraduate degree from Duke University and her law degree from the University of North Carolina. Following law school, she was in private practice in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. From 1973 to 1983, she was the Office of the South Carolina Attorney General, ultimately tin the position of Deputy Attorney General. In 1983, she returned to private practice as a member of the firm Sinkler, Gibbs & Simons of Charleston and Columbia, South Carolina. In June 1986, Judge Henderson was appointed United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina by President Bush, where she served until her appointment to the D.C. Circuit.
|
