Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 84 Filed 12/16/13 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 84 Filed 12/16/13 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 84-1 Filed 12/16/13 Page 1 of 10

E-MAIL TRAIL OF ATTEMPTS SINCE EARLY NOVEMBER TO SCHEDULE MEET AND CONFER ON DISCOVERY
(relevant text in italics) FIRST ATTEMPT IN NOVEMBER TO SCHEDULE MEETING 11/6 10:27am Stapleton to defendants counsel From: Stapleton, John S. Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 10:27 AM To: William Lamb (wlamb@lambmcerlane.com); Maureen McBride; 'Nate Fox' Cc: Witold (Vic) Walczak; Aronchick, Mark A. Subject: Whitewood -- scheduling a meet and confer Bill, Maureen and Nate, Weve all agreed during our calls over the last couple of weeks that it would be beneficial for counsel to meet and confer regarding discovery and scheduling issues prior to the next conference with the Court on November 22nd. Judge Jones indicated that the Court would rule upon the defendants motions to dismiss by November 15th, but we think it would be best to at least schedule a date now. Hangley Aronchick gladly will host the meeting. We are available on November 18th, from 9 - 11 am or 2 - 5 pm, and on November 19th, we are available all day. We also are open to having the meeting prior to November 15th if that would work better for you. Please let us know what dates/times work for you, so that we can all reserve some time on our respective calendars. (Bill and Maureen I didnt include Greg and Linda on this email, but they are certainly welcome and it would probably be most efficient for all if they did in fact attend.) Regards, John

11/6 1:42pm Lamb response From: William Lamb [mailto:wlamb@lambmcerlane.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 1:42 PM To: Stapleton, John S.; Maureen McBride; 'Nate Fox' Cc: Witold (Vic) Walczak; Aronchick, Mark A. Subject: RE: Whitewood -- scheduling a meet and confer

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 84-1 Filed 12/16/13 Page 2 of 10

Not sure why we are doing this. While JJones indicated he would have a result by 11/15we have no assurance that will be the case. I for one prefer to wait until our conference on 11/22 to do scheduling. No need for a meeting before that. WHL 11/6, 2:26pm, Walczak response to Lamb >> With all due respect, Bill, if the judge doesnt dismiss the entire case we are obligated to have a proposed case management plan, which includes a schedule for moving forward. The dates we proposed originally are obsolete because of the intervening discovery stay to allow for decision on outstanding motions. So assuming the case goes forward, we need to amend the proposed plan to insert new dates. I dont expect we will agree on dates this time since we werent able to agree before. Perhaps we could simply move our respective dates back 6 weeks, which is about the time weve been in hiatus. Just a thought. In any event, the judge will want something thats not obsolete as a basis for discussion at the CMC on 11/22. My $.02. VW << NO RESPONSE from defendants counsel 11/15/13 COURT DENIES MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND ATTEMPT ON EVE OF CMC TO SCHEDULE MEETING 11/21 9:56p -- Stapleton to McBride and Ds counsel Thanks for your message, Maureen. If you could send a redline of your version versus ours, we would appreciate it. That could help speed the process for all. Regarding the deadlines, this is one of the issues we wanted to discuss at a meeting among counsel, but Bill's Nov. 6 email seemed rather clear that defendants Wolf and Meuser did not want to meet before the Nov 22 case management conference about discovery or other deadlines. We are willing to talk with you tomorrow morning about extensions, but we will have to get more details on what the terms would be before we can give you a formal answer. See you tomorrow.

John 11/22/13 Case Management Conference in Harrisburg 11/22 3:30pm, McBride response to Stapleton From: Maureen McBride [mailto:mmcbride@lambmcerlane.com] Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 3:30 PM 2

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 84-1 Filed 12/16/13 Page 3 of 10

To: Stapleton, John S. Cc: William Lamb; Joel Frank; Nate Fox; Aronchick, Mark A.; Witold (Vic) Walczak; Casale, Helen E.; James Esseks; Leslie Cooper; Mary Catherine Roper; Melley, Rebecca S.; Molly Tack-Hooper; Seth Kreimer; Steinberg, Dylan J. Subject: RE: Whitewood v. Wolf -- Draft confidentiality stipulation and order Hi, John, Attached is our draft confidentiality stipulation. Lets discuss early next week. Thanks. Maureen THIRD ATTEMPT TO SCHEDULE MEETING, IMMEDIATELY AFTER THANKSGIVING BREAK 12/1 9:12p Stapleton to McBride From: <JStapleton@hangley.com> Date: December 1, 2013 at 21:11:56 EST To: Maureen Mcbride <mmcbride@lambmcerlane.com>, Bill Lamb <wlamb@lambmcerlane.com>, Joel Frank <jfrank@lambmcerlane.com> Cc: "Mark A. Aronchick Esquire" <maa@hangley.com>, Witold Walczak <VWalczak@aclupa.org>, Leslie Cooper Esquire <lcooper@aclu.org> Subject: Whitewood v Wolf Maureen, We hope you and the rest of your team had a happy Thanksgiving. We write this email to address a few outstanding issues. First, during our last call on Monday, November 25, we requested that defendants meet with us for a meet and confer regarding each sides anticipated objections to the outs tanding discovery requests, and if possible, reach compromises on production issues prior to the production date of December 16. Defendants have had our discovery since September, and we received Defendants Wolfs and Meusers discovery on Wednesday, November 27. We are available to meet in Philadelphia from 9-12 on Thursday, or anytime before 2:30 pm on Friday. Please let us know if those times will work on your end. Second, we await your comments on the draft stipulated confidentiality order we circulated on Nov. 21. Please let us know when you anticipate sending us comments to the draft. Third, during our call we also asked whether you would have any objection to Plaintiffs redacting personal identifying information (e.g., social security numbers, addresses, telephone numbers, license plate numbers, etc.) from documents that otherwise would not be confidential, to avoid having to produce them marked as Confidential. To begin working toward our first document production on December 16, would you please advise as soon as possible preferably no later than the end of the day on Monday (December 2) whether this proposal is amenable to you? 3

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 84-1 Filed 12/16/13 Page 4 of 10

Fourth, we also await your response to our proposal that the parties agree to accept service of documents, including discovery requests, via electronic mail. I think this covers all of the outstanding items from the November 25 call, but if there is anything else you think I left out, please let me know. Regards, John 12/2 10:26am McBride response to Stapleton From: Maureen McBride [mailto:mmcbride@lambmcerlane.com] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 10:26 AM To: Stapleton, John S.; William Lamb; Joel Frank Cc: Aronchick, Mark A.; Witold (Vic) Walczak; Leslie Cooper Subject: RE: Whitewood v Wolf Hi, John, I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving as well. I will address your points in turn. First, we think that a meeting to discuss discovery and/or objections before discovery is due is premature. We will provide our responses to you in due course. If there is a need to meet afterwards, wed be happy to revisit the issue after the first round of discovery is produced. Second, we intend to give you our thoughts on your version of the confidentiality stipulation by tomorrow, Tuesday, December 3. Third, we prefer to receive documents in complete, unredacted form. As we discussed on the call, we need complete information (including social security numbers, etc.) in order to be able to crossreference this information against other records. Fourth, we would prefer to receive documents (including discovery requests) via email and hard copy to make sure that nothing slips through the cracks. As we discussed, we only need one hard copy (not the original and two) of discovery requests. I hope this answers all of your questions. Please let me know if you need anything else. Thanks. Maureen 12/2 4:25pm Stapleton reply to McBride From: Stapleton, John S. Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 4:25 PM 4

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 84-1 Filed 12/16/13 Page 5 of 10

To: 'Maureen McBride'; 'William Lamb'; 'Joel Frank' Cc: Aronchick, Mark A.; Witold (Vic) Walczak; Leslie Cooper Subject: RE: Whitewood v Wolf Maureen, We do not understand the Commonwealth Defendants position that a meet and confer would be premature. If anything, we think it is overdue. Discovery can go a lot smoother and will be less costly for all involved if we can maintain an open dialogue among counsel. To that end, we have been open with the Commonwealth Defendants since July then represented exclusively by OGC as to what our anticipated discovery would be. We explained it again at the September Rule 26(f) conference with you and Bill present. We offered to meet and confer in October and November. In late-October, on a call with you, Bill and Greg, you all indicated your agreement that having a discussion about discovery would be worthwhile and your comments on the draft agreement and stipulation stated the same. But when we then emailed to try to schedule a date for a meeting, Bill rejected the notion of having any discussion before the conference with Judge Jones. Weve now had that conference, and yet, the Commonwealth Defendants still refuse to have any dialogue regarding discovery. A discussion now among counsel would clearly help matters, making the case more efficient and less costly as it would help identify areas of agreement and disagreement and reach compromises on a preproduction basis where possible. Below are just a few examples: The Commonwealth Defendants indicated in the joint case management report that they object to Plaintiffs pending interrogatories regarding the state interests that Defendants contend are furthered by Pennsylvanias prohibitions against marriage and recognition of marriage for same sex couples. Is that still the Commonwealth Defendants position or will they provide substantive answers to the interrogatories? Especially as the discovery was served in September and we have been open since July that this would be a primary area of discovery, we would appreciate knowing the Commonwealth Defendants position. If the Commonwealth Defendants are going to simply rest on objections to those interrogatories and not provide substantive responses, it would be useful to know that now. In response to the Commonwealth Defendants discovery served on November 27, we have documents and responses to certain requests and interrogatories that seek relevant information, and we intend to produce the same. However, absent further explanation from you, many requests appear designed to accomplish no purpose other than harassment of Plaintiffs and do not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. For example, the Commonwealth Defendants seek ten years worth of tax returns, which is far longer than an individual is legally required to keep such records. The discovery also seeks information regarding the natural parents of any of Plaintiffs children and the identity and contact information of any heterosexual spouses from prior marriages. We remain open to discussing with you these and other requests as to why the Commonwealth Defendants believe they are entitled to such information and documents, but without explanation, we otherwise see no basis 5

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 84-1 Filed 12/16/13 Page 6 of 10

for the requests. Rather than engage in costly letter-writing and motion practice, we would prefer to have a conversation with you to understand your position on these requests. We also would like to discuss a process with you of scheduling depositions. Rather than serving notices and subpoenas where we unilaterally pick dates and locations, we think it would be more efficient to at least discuss with you potential dates and locations.

The above are just a few examples of topics that we would like to discuss with you now, and which we believe both sides should be fully prepared to address at this time. If we engage in dialogue on a postproduction basis as you suggest, any compromises by the parties or orders by the Court requiring additional productions will almost inevitably disrupt the winter holidays, a situation that can be avoided, or at least minimized, by at starting the discussion now. Thanks for considering this. John Dec 4, 2013, at 15:15, McBride reply to Stapleton From: Maureen McBride [mailto:mmcbride@lambmcerlane.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 3:15 PM To: Stapleton, John S.; William Lamb; Joel Frank Cc: Aronchick, Mark A.; Witold Walczak; Leslie Cooper Subject: RE: Whitewood v Wolf John, Sorry for the delay in responding. Please understand that we are not refusing to meet and confer with you about discovery; in fact, we also believe that a conversation regarding discovery may be useful. The issue we have with your proposal is one of timing. We do not, for instance, think sending deposition notices and setting a schedule before initial written discovery is supplied on the 16th makes sense as we need to review Plaintiffs discovery answers in order to properly evaluate the numbers and lengths of depositions. We believe that waiting until after the 16th to meet and confer will make the discussion more productive than one that takes place before the 16th (which would require us to set dates in a vacuum.) While we appreciate your desire to move things along quickly, we believe our approach is consistent with traditional discovery timing, even on an expedited schedule. Hopefully, this better clarifies our position. Best, Maureen 12/4 10:29pm, Stapleton response to McBride

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 84-1 Filed 12/16/13 Page 7 of 10

From: "Stapleton, John S." <jzs@hangley.com> Date: December 4, 2013 at 22:28:32 EST To: Maureen McBride <mmcbride@lambmcerlane.com> Cc: William Lamb <wlamb@lambmcerlane.com>, Joel Frank <jfrank@lambmcerlane.com>, "Aronchick, Mark A." <maa@hangley.com>, "Witold (Vic) Walczak" <vwalczak@aclupa.org>, Leslie Cooper <lcooper@aclu.org> Subject: Re: Whitewood v Wolf Maureen, Thanks for your response. Our concern, too, is an issue of timing, as we think waiting until the week of the 16th is going to waste time holding off progress that the parties can accomplish now, will likely be inconvenient for counsel and the Court as it will inevitably run up against the holidays, and also does not sufficiently protect our clients privacy interests regarding the concerns raised in my email be low. To that end, we would appreciate a response to our first bullet point below: Will the Commonwealth Defendants respond substantively to Plaintiffs contention interrogatories and the corresponding document requests, or will they rest on the objections previewed in the case management order that the discovery of those contentions is not appropriate as being discovery of legislative facts? Having had these requests for months, surely the Commonwealth Defendants know the answer to that question now and we would very much appreciate the courtesy of a response. In addition, having a discussion among counsel now regarding the bases of the Commonwealth Defendants requests will only help facilitate us getting you information and documents you seek sooner. As to our objections, please be advised that absent a discussion about the bases for certain requests and/or a narrowing of Commonwealth Defendants' requests, Plaintiffs intend to move for a protective order from the Court. To protect our clients interests, we will ask for that relief on or beforeDecember 16th. Obviously, we would prefer to have a discussion ahead of time, but we cannot force you to speak with us now if you do not want to. Regarding the scheduling of depositions, we see nothing unusual about setting a schedule, or at least beginning to set a schedule, before all documents and discovery responses are received. In fact, thats rather normal practice regardless of the length of the discovery period, so we do not understand the objection to beginning that discussion now either. Finally, we have not yet received the Commonwealth Defendants' comments on the draft confidentiality order. Please provide them as soon possible. Thank you. Regards, John 12/5 12:22 pm McBride response to Stapleton

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 84-1 Filed 12/16/13 Page 8 of 10

From: Maureen McBride [mailto:mmcbride@lambmcerlane.com] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 12:22 PM To: Stapleton, John S. Cc: William Lamb; Joel Frank; Aronchick, Mark A.; Witold (Vic) Walczak; Leslie Cooper Subject: Re: Whitewood v Wolf John, I will get back to you on this later this afternoon or tomorrow in more detail but wanted to let you know that Scot Withers will be in touch with you this afternoon to discuss the stipulation. On a separate note, I wanted to remind you, while I'm thinking of it, that Judge Jones made it clear he did not want the parties to engage in motion practice over discovery. [*This relates to the protective order issue]. Best regards, Maureen Sent from my iPhone 12/5 2:14pm, Aronchick response to McBride From: Aronchick, Mark A. Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 2:14 PM To: 'Maureen McBride'; Stapleton, John S. Cc: William Lamb; Joel Frank; Witold (Vic) Walczak; Leslie Cooper Subject: RE: Whitewood v Wolf Maureen, we were at the same conference. Judge Jones wanted the parties to work together on discovery. Right now, defendants are refusing to speak with us. If youre not going to speak with us, then moving for a protective order from the Court is the only option left for us to pursue. Mark FOURTH ATTEMPT TO SCHEDULE MEETING 12/11 6:07 pm Stapleton to McBride From: Stapleton, John S. [mailto:jzs@hangley.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 6:07 PM To: William Lamb; Maureen McBride; Joel Frank Cc: Aronchick, Mark A.; Witold (Vic) Walczak; Leslie Cooper Subject: Whitewood v. Wolf Counsel,

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 84-1 Filed 12/16/13 Page 9 of 10

Attached please find (i) Plaintiffs Objections and Responses to the First Set of Interrogatories of Secretary Michael Wolf and Secretary Dan Meuser and (ii) Plaintiffs Objections and Responses to the First Set of Requests for Production of Documents of Secretary Michael Wolf and Secretary Dan Meuser. As we do not yet have your agreement on the proposed Stipulation and Order Governing the Production and Exchange of Confidential Information we circulated, we have not attached the Appendix to the Interrogatories, which includes confidential information to Plaintiffs. Further, we also await your response to our proposal regarding the format in which the parties will exchange documents. As soon as we have a resolution of that issue and the Stipulation, Plaintiffs will immediately process their documents for production. Finally, please let us know what dates and times from now through Monday, December 16th at Noon you are available to meet and confer regarding Plaintiffs objections. As previously noted, absent an agreed upon withdrawal or narrowing of certain requests, Plaintiffs intend to move for a protective order from the Court to, among other things, protect Plaintiffs privacy interests. Sincerely, John 12/12 1:19pm, McBride reply to Stapleton From: Maureen McBride [mailto:mmcbride@lambmcerlane.com] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 1:19 PM To: Stapleton, John S.; William Lamb; Joel Frank Cc: Aronchick, Mark A.; Witold Walczak; Leslie Cooper Subject: RE: Whitewood v. Wolf John, We have no problem with your additional edits to the stipulation and Order. As to your question regarding the format in which the parties will exchange information, are the ones you identify all viable options? Please advise. Finally, we will be in touch with you after the 16th to discuss dates for a meeting regarding the objections to both sides discovery requests. Maureen 12/13 5:04am, Walczak reply to McBride From: Witold Walczak Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 5:04 AM To: Maureen McBride; William Lamb; Joel Frank

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 84-1 Filed 12/16/13 Page 10 of 10

Cc: Aronchick, Mark A.; Leslie Cooper; Stapleton, John S. Subject: RE: Whitewood v. Wolf Thank you for your response of yesterday afternoon, Maureen. John Stapleton will be in touch today to finalize the first two issues, to wit, the confidentiality agreement and the formatting of our respective document production. Im writing to address the meet-and-confer issue. I have observed, with increasing dismay, the Commonwealth defendants parrying of Johns repeated attempts over the past several weeks to schedule a meeting to discuss important discovery matters, especially ones raised by your requests to our clients. Ive written many things in this space but then deleted them as too strident so youll have to use your imagination. Suffice it to say that Defendants persistent recalcitrance in scheduling a meeting to discuss discovery issues is unacceptable, especially given the timeline established by the Court. There is absolutely no reason to wait until after Monday, as you have proposed, to schedule a meeting; we already know there are problems that require discussion. We should already have conferred by now. If we do not meet and confer early next week it is unlikely we will be able to present disputes to the judge before Christmas, which likely means everything will be pushed back a couple of weeks into the new year. We simply do not have the leisure to accommodate such a pace. Please let us know, by close of business today, when on Monday, December 16, or Tuesday, December 17, you can be available to meet or have a telephone conference regarding outstanding discovery issues. We will make ourselves available to fit your schedule, but need to know today as we may have to do some appointment re-arranging on our end to match your availability. I would appreciate your cooperation on this important matter so we can avoid bothering the judge. Thank you. Witold J. Walczak Legal Director ACLU of Pennsylvania No response to above, but several emails from defendants about other matters.

10