United States District Court Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division

2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 1 of 27 Pg ID 5138

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

APRIL DEBOER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

-vs- ED Mi #12-civ-10285 Hon. Bernard A. Friedman RICHARD SNYDER, et al.,

Defendants. ______/

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TAXABLE COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO 42 USC §1988 AND RULE 54(D)(1) AND (2)

Now come the Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned attorneys, and pursuant to 42 USC §1988 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) and (2), hereby move this Honorable Court for an order granting attorney fees and taxable costs.

1. On January 23, 2012, Plaintiffs filed this action, pursuant to 42 USC

§1983, against Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, challenging Michigan’s

“second-parent adoption” law, MCL 750.24.

2. Following the filing of Plaintiffs’ initial Motion for Summary Judgment

(R 25), and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (R 14), this Court permitted Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to add a challenge to the Michigan Marriage

Amendment (R 33), and the amended complaint was filed on October 3, 2012 (R 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 2 of 27 Pg ID 5139

38). Governor Richard Snyder and Oakland County Clerk Bill Bullard were added as parties at that time. Bullard was later replaced as Oakland County Clerk by Lisa Brown in July of 2013. Mr. Bullard advocated against Plaintiffs while Ms.

Brown took a position in favor of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs do not seek fees or costs against the Oakland County Clerk after Brown was substituted as a party for

Bullard.

3. The Court denied the Defendants’ motion to dismiss (R 54) and the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment (R 89), and a two-week trial ensued, after which this Court entered findings of fact and conclusion of law (R 141), and judgment (R 152), in favor of Plaintiffs.

4. Plaintiffs are the prevailing party as defined by 42 USC §1988 as to their claims pursuant to 42 USC §1983 against Defendants for violation of Plaintiffs’

Fourteenth Amendment rights, and therefore, they are entitled to reimbursement of all taxable costs and attorneys’ fees as provided in 42 USC §1988.

5. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have each attached their respective affidavits and time records as required by Rule 54 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. (No costs or expenses are claimed). In addition, attached is the Economics of Law

Practice Survey of 2011 of the State Bar of Michigan, indicating that the billing rates for attorneys in Downtown Detroit are as follows: 75th percentile ($375/hour, and 95th percentile, $525/hour). As it bears on the “lodestar” calculation”, 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 3 of 27 Pg ID 5140

affidavits are also appended from attorneys from this district who engage regularly in complex federal civil rights litigation.

6. For the reasons set forth in the attached memorandum of law and time records, Plaintiffs demonstrate here that the foregoing calculations reflect accurately “the lodestar” -- the “number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate”. Hensley v Eckerhart, 461 U.S.

424, 434 (1983); Gonter v Hunt Valve Company, Inc., 510 F.3d 610, 616-617 (6th

Cir. 2007). The “lodestar” figure for Plaintiffs’ counsel is as follows:

For Carole Stanyar:

Hourly Rate No. of Hours Fee

$350/hour 2182.5 $763.875

For Dana Nessel:

Hourly Rate No. of Hours Fee

$350/hour 1165.10 $407,785

For Kenneth Mogill:

Hourly Rate No. of Hours Fee

$350/hour 1011.2 $353.920

For Robert Sedler:

Hourly Rate No. of Hours Fee

$350/hour 237.6 $ 83,160 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 4 of 27 Pg ID 5141

For Mary Bonauto:

Hourly Rate No. of Hours Fee

$350/hour 796.7 $278,845

For Vickie Henry:

Hourly Rate No. of Hours Fee

$350/hour 32.1 $ 11,235

7. In addition, for the reasons set forth in the attached brief, there is ample basis in this case to exceed the lodestar values set forth above.

8. The Defendants do not consent to the relief sought herein.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court issue an order granting their motion for attorney fees and costs as follows:

A. That no reimbursement shall be ordered for the taxable expenses incurred in this litigation for the reason that Plaintiffs’ counsel have born those expenses themselves through their fundraising efforts.

B. That the Court designate a combined “lodestar” attorney fee calculation in the amount of $1,927,450.

C. This Court consider in its discretion an enhancement to the lodestar calculation and grant Plaintiffs all other relief to which they may be entitled. 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 5 of 27 Pg ID 5142

Respectfully submitted, s/Carole M. Stanyar s/ Dana Nessel CAROLE M. STANYAR P34830 DANA M. NESSEL P51346 Attorney for Plaintiffs Attorney for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main Street, Suite 300 645 Griswold Street, #4300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 819-3953 (313) 556-2300 [email protected] [email protected] s/Robert A. Sedler s/ Kenneth M. Mogill ROBERT A. SEDLER P31003 Kenneth M. Mogill P17865 Wayne State University Law School MOGILL, POSNER & COHEN 471 W. Palmer Street 27 E Flint Street, 2nd Floor Detroit, MI 48202 Lake Orion, MI 48362 (313) 577-3968 (248) 814-9470 [email protected] [email protected] s/ Mary Bonauto MARY L. BONAUTO s/ Vickie Henry VICKIE HENRY Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders 30 Winter Street, Suite 800 Boston, MA 02108 (617) 426-1350

Counsel for Petitioners April DeBoer, Jayne Rowse, et al.

Dated: July 25, 2015 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 6 of 27 Pg ID 5143

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

APRIL DEBOER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

-vs- ED Mi #12-civ-10285 Hon. Bernard A. Friedman RICHARD SNYDER, et al.,

Defendants. ______/

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TAXABLE COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO 42 USC §1988 AND RULE 54(D)(1) AND (2)

While “the general rule in our legal system is that each party must pay its own attorney’s fees and expenses . . . Congress enacted 42 U.S.C. §1988 in order to ensure that federal rights are adequately enforced.” Perdue v. Kenny A., et al.,

559 U.S. 542, 550 (2010)(citations omitted). “Section 1988 serves an important public purpose by making it possible for persons without means to bring suit to vindicate their rights.” Id. 559. Attorney fees are awarded under this provision, through the so-called “private attorney general” doctrine, “not only to make it possible for non-affluent litigants to obtain legal representation, but to reward attorneys whose services has benefitted the public interest.” Dowdell v. City of

Apopka, Florida, 698 F.2d 1181, 1191 (11th Cir. 1983), discussing Note, Promoting

1 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 7 of 27 Pg ID 5144

the Vindication of Civil Rights Through the Attorney’s Fees Awards Act, 80 Colum.

L. Rev. 370, 377 (1980).

Section 1988(b) provides that a trial court may award attorney’s fees as part of the taxable costs to the prevailing party in a lawsuit brought under §1983.

“Parties are ‘prevailing’ for §1983 purposes ‘if they succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing the suit.’” Hensley v Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). Here, Plaintiffs prevailed for purposes of §1988 because the judgment was imposed as to all counts based upon a Fourteenth Amendment claim raised under §1983, and that judgment has been sustained on appeal. Plaintiffs’ counsel have attached the documentation required by L.R. 54.1.2(b) to support their respective fee requests.

A. The “lodestar” calculation:

This Court is to employ the “lodestar” approach to calculate a “reasonable” attorney fees award, which is “the product of reasonable hours times a reasonable rate.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434; Gonter v Hunt Valve Company, Inc., 510 F.3d 610,

616-617 (6th Cir. 2007).

[T]he lodestar looks to “the prevailing market rates in the relevant community” . . . “[It] produces an award that roughly approximates the fee that the prevailing attorney would have received if he or she had been representing a paying client who was billed by the hour in a comparable case.”

2 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 8 of 27 Pg ID 5145

Perdue, 559 U.S. at 551 (citations omitted). In Perdue, the Supreme Court reiterated that “a ‘reasonable’ fee is a fee that is sufficient to induce a capable attorney to undertake the representation of a meritorious civil rights case.” Id. 551-

552.

In determining fees, a district court has broad discretion to determine what constitutes a reasonable hourly rate for an attorney. Fuhr v. School District of the

City of Hazel Park, 364 F.3d 753, 762 (6th Cir.2004). The trial court has a unique institutional advantage over reviewing courts in determining an attorney’s fee award. Citing the extensive and lengthy record in Perdue, Justice Thomas noted that “[n]either we, nor an appellate panel, can easily read that entire record. Nor should we attempt to second-guess a district judge who is aware of the many intangible matters that the written page cannot reflect.” Id. 563-564 (Thomas, J., concurring). The Sixth Circuit observed in Roland v. Johnson, 974 F.2d 1339 (6th

Cir. 1992), “. . .as one who is regularly called upon to review fee matters in the

Eastern District of Michigan, [the district judge] was in the best position to evaluate the legal work in light of the market for legal services in the district.”

This Court should consider “the hourly rates prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation.” Perdue, 559 U.S. at 563-564 (Thomas, J., concurring), citing Blum v.

3 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 9 of 27 Pg ID 5146

Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 896, n. 11(1984). The proper scope of comparison for establishing reasonable hourly rates, for purposes of the lodestar calculation, extends to “all attorneys in the relevant community engaged in equally complex federal litigation, no matter the subject matter.” Cotton v City of Eureka, 889 F.

Supp. 2d 1154 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (attorneys awarded hourly rates of $525, $475 and

$300 in §1983 action, emphasis supplied). Courts have made clear that fees are

“not to be reduced because the rights involved [i.e., liberty, autonomy and equality] may be non-pecuniary in nature.” Blanchard v Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 95 (1989).

Consequently, this Court should compare fees awarded in the Eastern District of

Michigan in cases of equal complexity to the DeBoer case regardless of whether or not they are filed as actions under §1983.

B. Services properly billable:

It is well settled that “a prevailing party may recover fees for time spent before the formal commencement of the litigation on such matters as attorney- client interviews, investigation of the facts of the case, research on the viability of potential legal claims, drafting of the complaint and accompanying documents, and preparation for dealing with expected preliminary motions and discovery requests.”

Webb v. Board of Education, 471 U.S. 234, 250 (1985). Extensive attorney hours were expended, both before and after the complaint was filed in this case, due to its

4 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 10 of 27 Pg ID 5147

novel character. Plaintiffs and experts’ affidavits were generated, alternative legal theories were considered, dispositive motions and responses were researched and drafted anticipating challenges by the defendants based on abstention, lack of standing, injury causation, the absence of a federal question, and claimed justifications for the laws.

Courts have approved so-called “duplicative” billing, where two attorneys are billing for the same telephone conversation or meeting.

The practice of law often, indeed usually, involves significant periods of consultation among counsel. Talking through a set of authorities or seeking advice on a vexing problem is often significantly more efficient than one attorney’s trying to wade through the issue alone.

Tchemkou v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 506, 511-512 (7th Cir. 2008).

Hours spent on preparing the fee motion are compensable as long as they are not disproportionate to the overall time spent by counsel on the merits of the case.

Gibson, 873 FSupp2d at 992; Coulter v Tennessee, 805 F2d 146, 151 (6th Cir 1986)

(hours spent on fee motion are reasonable if they constitute 3% or less of the overall hours expended on the “the main case”).

C. Enhancements to the “lodestar” calculation:

Enhancements to the lodestar may be awarded in “rare” or “exceptional” cases, including cases in which the attorneys have achieved “exceptional success” .

5 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 11 of 27 Pg ID 5148

Hensley, 461 U.S. at 431; Barnes v City of Cincinnati, 401 F3d 729, 745 (6th Cir

2005). Justice Thomas, concurring in Perdue, noted that “[a]s our prior precedents make clear, the lodestar calculation ‘does not end the [fee] inquiry’ because there

‘remain other considerations that may lead the district court to adjust the fee upward.’” Id. 561-562, quoting from Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. An enhancement generally may not be awarded based on a factor that is already subsumed in the lodestar calculation. Perdue, 559 U.S. at 552. The burden of proving an entitlement to an enhancement falls on the party seeking the enhancement. Id. 553.

Where the “lawyers’ objective in the case [is] unusually important and fully consistent with the central objectives of the basic civil-rights statute, 42 U.S.C.

§1983", an enhancement of the lodestar may be warranted. Id. 564 (Thomas, J., concurring). In Perdue, as here, the attorneys seeking the enhanced award had a benevolent motive to help children, in that case, by reforming Georgia’s foster care system. Id.

[L]itigation was necessary to force reform. . . [Plaintiffs’] attorneys did what the child advocate could not do: They initiated this lawsuit. They thereby assumed the role of “a ‘private attorney general’” by filling an enforcement void in the State’s own legal system, a function that “Congress considered of the highest priority”, . . . and “meant to promote in enacting §1988.

Id. 565-567 (Thomas, J., concurring), quoting from Newman v Piggie Park

6 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 12 of 27 Pg ID 5149

Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402 (1968), Texas State Teachers Assn. v Garland

Independent School District., 489 U.S. 782, 793 (1989). Especially here, where it is the State’s own attorney general violating basic constitutional rights, someone other than the attorney general must step forward.

The Court in Perdue found that several factors, also present in this case, will support an enhancement. First, “superior results” in the lawsuit may support an enhancement insofar as “it can be shown that they are the result of superior attorney performance.” Perdue, 559 U.S. at 565-567. Second, “an enhancement may be appropriate where the method used in determining the hourly rate . . . does not adequately measure the attorney’s true market value, as demonstrated in part during the litigation.” Id. 554-555. Third, an enhancement may be appropriate if there has been “an extraordinary outlay of expenses and the litigation is exceptionally protracted”. Id. 555.

In Caudill v. Sears Transition Pay Plan, 2011 WL 1595044 (E.D. Mich), an ERISA class action where the Plaintiffs left enhancement to the Court’s discretion, the Court applied a 50% enhancement of the lodestar amount “to ensure a reasonable compensation,” bringing the total fee award to $758,016 and nearly back in line with the Plaintiffs’ original fee request. Id. at *18-19. Reasons for the enhancement in Caudill apply to the instant case including, inter alia, that

7 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 13 of 27 Pg ID 5150

“Plaintiffs’ counsel ‘did an excellent job’ in this matter, prevailing in what has been lengthy and complex ERISA litigation,” “[c]ounsel have submitted declarations detailing their vast experience, reputation and ample ability” and

“[t]he novelty and difficulty of the questions involved in this matter also justify an enhancement, as does the time and labor required”. Id. *19, quoting from Paschal v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 297 F.3d 431, 434 (6th Cir. 2002).

An “exceptional delay” in the payment of attorney fees can be ameliorated by allowing counsel to base the fee award on his or her current hourly rate, or by adjusting the fee based on historical rates to reflect its present value. Id. 556.

Such a compensatory method is especially appropriate where the delay in adjudication is caused by the defense. Id. 556. See also Gonter, 510 F.3d at 617;

Barnes v City of Cincinnati, 401 F.3d 729, 745 (6th Cir 2005).

D. Determining the fee award in this case:

Applying the rules enunciated above, there is ample basis in this case (a) to credit to number of hours reported by Plaintiffs’ counsel, (b) to allow an award of the fees requested based upon the DeBoer attorneys’ current hourly rate, and (c) to allow an enhancement to the lodestar.

Extensive time and labor was required for this case as set forth in the attached detailed time records as to each attorney requesting fees. The questions

8 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 14 of 27 Pg ID 5151

presented were unquestionably novel, complex and difficult. This was the first trial in history challenging the Michigan Marriage Amendment, and Michigan’s statutory marriage and second-parent adoption bans. It was only the third trial in

U.S. history challenging a marriage preclusion for same-sex couples. Briefing and motion work was unusually complex with several rounds of summary judgment motions, a motion to dismiss, motions in limine filed by the State to exclude

Plaintiffs’ evidence, and Daubert1 motions filed by both sides as to six different experts. The preparation of Plaintiffs’ findings of fact and conclusions of law immediately upon the conclusion of trial, due several days later, was both laborious and exceedingly stressful. See Perdue, 559 U.S. at 566-567 (Thomas, J., concurring) (enhanced award earned where the case was lengthy and “arduous”, and where the “State met the plaintiffs’ efforts with a host of complex procedural, as well as substantive, objections,” including unfounded abstention doctrine defenses).

The discovery process was both extensive and shoe-horned into a truncated time line. In the discovery phase, counsel had to investigate, obtain and review massive amounts of documents (including thirty years of research and prior published works) germane to eight different disciplines. See discussion, infra.

1 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

9 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 15 of 27 Pg ID 5152

The experts’ prior testimony in other cases (some dating back nearly 20 years), had to be located, reviewed, digested and worked into direct and cross examination.2 The 5000-page official court record in this case does not remotely encompass the document review necessary to this litigation. Tens of thousands of additional pages were analyzed, and hundreds were offered, but not admitted by the court, at trial. Moreover, with the case on an exceedingly short time track to trial, counsel was under extreme time pressure to locate experts from around the country, and then to depose them, in Boston, New York, San Francisco and

Lansing. Snow storms in January required several to be rescheduled. The depositions themselves were lengthy, taking between four and seven hours (on record) per deposition.

The DeBoer case took nearly two weeks to try. Significantly, between five and eight attorneys were present in the courtroom throughout trial on behalf of the

Defendants (five regularly present for the State Defendants), most questioning witnesses at some point during the trial. While Plaintiffs were assisted by as many as eight attorneys, seven law clerks, and multiple paralegals during this litigation,

2 Santos Sarantakos, a key authority relied upon by the State’s expert, Loren Marks, and addressed by this Court in its opinion, published his works only in Australia. His book was not available for purchase anywhere in this country and had to be obtained, on short notice and with much effort, through the collegiate intra-library system for use during depositions and trial.

10 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 16 of 27 Pg ID 5153

Plaintiffs are only seeking compensation from the State for the work of six attorneys. The trial issues in the case were unquestionably complex. Experts in psychology, sociology, demography, statistics, family studies, history, law and economics testified in this case. This case required an extensive, broad-based record on myriad important topics: the history and demographics of same-couples and their children; the comparative break up rates of same-sex versus opposite-sex couples, over history, in the U.S. and worldwide; the history of marriage; the history of discrimination against gay and lesbian persons; the comparative child outcome of same-sex versus opposite sex couples on a variety of measures

(including progress through school; propensity for substance abuse, mental illness, homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, peer and romantic relationship stability; and identity issues); the characteristics and outcomes for adoptive children (from birth, and after placement in foster care); the foster care system in Michigan; the demographics of children being adopted out of foster care; and the legal ramifications of guardianships versus adoptions, and wills.

The DeBoer trial record is spectacular. It has influenced the dialogue on marriage and parenting by same-sex couples across the country, and has been cited by most courts deciding the marriage question. The Supreme Court referred to facts found by this Court early and often, discussing April DeBoer and Jayne

11 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 17 of 27 Pg ID 5154

Rowse’s family in detail. In fact, the DeBoer case was the only marriage case (i.e.,

“Question One”) mentioned specifically by the Court in its opinion. See, e.g.,

DeBoer v. Snyder (“Obergefell”), 135 S.Ct. 2584, 2595, 2606 and Appendix A

(June 26, 2015); See also Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352, 383 (4th Cir.), cert denied, 135 S. Ct. (2014); Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F3d 1193, 1223 (10th Cir.), cert denied, 135 S. Ct. 265 (2014); Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 994 F. Supp. 2d 1128,1144

(D. Or. 2014); Latta v. Otter, 19 F. Supp. 2d 1054, 1081, n. 14 (D. Idaho 2014);

Baskin v Bogan, 983 F. Supp. 3d 1021, 1026 (S.D. Ind. 2014); Fisher-Borne v

Smith, 14 F.Supp. 3d 699, 710 (M.D.N.C. 2014) ; Love v Beshear, 989 F.Supp.2d

536, 549 (W.D.Ky. 2014); Majors v Jeames, 48 F. Supp. 3d 1310, 1313 (D.Ariz.

2014); Conde-Vidal v Garcia-Padilla 54 F. Supp. 3d 157 (D. Puerto Rico 2014).

The DeBoer trial record has served an important cost-saving function by allowing other courts across the country to reject bogus State rationales without a trial. By the time of the final decision in these cases, the Supreme Court could say with confidence that “[a]s all parties agree, many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted . . . [g]ays and lesbians can create loving, supportive families.” DeBoer, 135 S.Ct. at 2600.

A key factor under Perdue for an exceptional fee – the expenses in this case were astronomical. The challenge of funding of those expenses fell on three

12 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 18 of 27 Pg ID 5155

private practitioners. Expert witness fees are not compensable, even after a successful trial, under §1988. This case involved more expert witnesses than any other in counsels’ career. Fundraising for these case costs was exceedingly difficult and time consuming, with the average fundraiser falling well short of funding the fees of even one expert. Counsel have worked for more than three years (Nessel and Stanyar for over four) without being paid for time compensable under §1988. The stress associated with raising funds for this litigation cannot possibly be overstated.3

This litigation demanded highly experienced trial and appellate counsel. At the close of trial, this Court observed that counsel in this case met the highest professional standards, and that this was “the perfect trial in terms of collegiality, in terms of skill, in terms of presentation, in terms of representation of respective clients . . .” (R. 158, Pg ID 4084). See Perdue, 559 U.S. at 569 (Thomas, J., concurring) (counsel brought a high degree of “skill, commitment, dedication and professionalism” to the litigation).

The appellate issues were also complex. The legal landscape as to marriage equality challenges was changing on a daily basis, with the case being filed

3 As noted in her affidavit, attached, Attorney Stanyar, a sole practitioner, helped fund this litigation through the proceeds of the sale of her home.

13 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 19 of 27 Pg ID 5156

originally prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Windsor4, when marriage was legal in only a handful of jurisdictions, and ultimately passing through the Sixth

Circuit to the Supreme Court, when thirty-six states enjoyed marriage equality.

The rapid doctrinal development reflected in the opinions from other jurisdictions required repeated mid-course correction and adjustment in briefing the issues for appellate courts.

The Sixth Circuit panel hearing the case afforded the DeBoer parties (and no other) a full hour of oral argument -- exceedingly rare --underscoring the importance of this case. Oral argument, in the Sixth Circuit and in the Supreme

Court, was punctuated by near-constant probing questioning, with nearly every jurist weighing in. Although this Court resolved the Fourteenth Amendment question on equal protection/rational basis grounds, the appeal was litigated on multiple constitutional bases: (1) as a due process fundamental right violation assessed under heightened scrutiny, (2) as an equal protection violation assessed under rational basis, and (3) as an equal protection violation assessed under heightened scrutiny based on sexual orientation and gender discrimination.

Questions from the appellate courts during oral argument spanned all doctrines, and all standards of review. Consequently, counsels’ preparation for oral

4 United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013).

14 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 20 of 27 Pg ID 5157

argument – the most arduous and time-consuming of their careers – proved to be completely essential.

During large portions of this litigation over the last three years, private counsel for Plaintiffs could not take on other work because of the workload necessitated by the DeBoer case. Counsel had to turn away new business, ongoing clients had to be reassigned to substitute counsel, and associates had to be hired to assist with cases that could not be reassigned. Because the litigation was on such a fast track, there was no capacity to weave in other cases’ workload with the demands of the DeBoer case. For all practical purposes, counsels’ law practices were shut down for long periods over the last three years.

The relative experience of counsel is being detailed by each respective attorney in the attached affidavits. It is clearly extensive. Attorneys Stanyar,

Nessel, and Mogill each have participated in hundreds and hundreds of trials in both state and federal courts. Stanyar, Mogill and Sedler also have extensive appellate experience in the Sixth Circuit and each have argued before the United

States Supreme Court. Professor Sedler has taught constitutional law for over forty years, and he authored the first law review article outlining a possible challenge to the Michigan Marriage Amendment. Counsel have litigated Daubert5

5 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

15 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 21 of 27 Pg ID 5158

motions over decades (in trials and on appeal) and have presented, and cross examined, expert witnesses in a wide range of disciplines. Counsel have represented clients for decades in complex federal litigation. As indicated in their affidavits, attached, Attorney Stanyar has litigated some of this circuit’s leading cases involving the admissibility, necessity and parameters of expert witness testimony, and Attorney Bonauto has litigated marriage equality cases longer, more often, with more success than any other lawyer in America.

Affidavits are appended from long-time civil rights practitioners in this district in support of the instant motion. In addition, attached is the Economics of

Law Practice Survey of 2011 of the State Bar of Michigan, demonstrating that the lodestar calculations suggested herein as to each attorney are in line (and lower than) the billing rates for attorneys in Downtown Detroit in the 75th percentile

($375/hour) and the 95th percentile ($525/hour). Cases from around the country are also instructive on this point. See cases cited supra. In the case of Professor

Sedler and Attorney Henry, the fee requested here is half what they have garnered in the past for similar litigation.

This case was both rare and difficult because Plaintiffs’ counsel were defending members of an historically unpopular minority. Although public opinion has shifted considerably in the years that this case has been pending, when

16 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 22 of 27 Pg ID 5159

filed, a decided majority of the Michigan population were opposed to marriage by same-sex couples. As the affidavit of Professor Chauncey demonstrated (R 169-

1), this state and this country has a history of virulent and persistent prejudice against gay and lesbian persons. While this Court was extraordinarily welcoming to Plaintiffs in its courtroom, Plaintiffs and counsel had to pass through a wall of anti-gay protesters every morning on the way into court. Both before and during the trial, there was an ongoing hostility in the community from those opposed to gay marriage. See Gonter, 510 F. 3d at 621, n. 7, citing Johnson v. Georgia

Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717–19 (5th Cir. 1974)(“undesirability” of the case is a factor to be considered in awarding fees).

By the time this case reached the Supreme Court, the anti-gay sentiment had hardly abated. Anti-gay protesters appeared at the courthouse in much greater numbers, they were louder and much more hostile. They crowded and taunted the

DeBoer Plaintiffs and their counsel in particular as the team attempted to enter the courthouse. One anti-gay protester actually interrupted Supreme Court oral arguments screaming “Abomination” repeatedly and damning plaintiffs to “burn in hell” as he was carted away to the Court’s downstairs lock up.6

6 Attorney Stanyar and the adult plaintiffs have also received threatening mail. Stanyar has also received relentless phone calls from persons protesting on the basis of their religious beliefs.

17 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 23 of 27 Pg ID 5160

Any claim that public opinion has now shifted decidedly toward support of gay and lesbian people in this state is belied by Michigan’s most recent election.

Attorney General Bill Schuette – the person most associated with defending the ban – was re-elected by a wide margin on November 2, 2014. Even now, gay and lesbian people are confronted with anti-gay billboards as they travel local thoroughfares to their jobs. Anti-gay billboards spark controversy, WDIV, http://hit.ly/F4k5ur (last visited 5/11/15).

Plaintiffs contend that this litigation was “exceptionally protracted”,

Perdue, 559 U.S. at 555, because of the State’s conduct in the litigation. First, the trial in this case was necessitated by the fact that the State Defendants asserted falsely at the summary judgment stage that there remained a genuine dispute within the social science community that the children of same-sex parents fare worse than those raised by opposite-sex couples (a claim that this Court found in its opinion to be flatly untrue). In contrast, every other marriage equality case in the country (most post-dating the DeBoer trial record) was resolved by way of summary judgment. Second, the State Defendants moved successfully to stay the judgment in the Sixth Circuit, proclaiming (inaccurately) a “likelihood of success” on appeal, which caused further delay in the execution of the judgment and awarding of fees. This factor bears heavily in favor of awarding counsel fees at

18 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 24 of 27 Pg ID 5161

their current hourly rate in this case. Perdue , 559 U.S. at 556.

Courts have stressed that a fee under §1983 must be adequate “to encourage competent lawyers to undertake the representation in question”, while not offering

“a windfall”. Gonter, 510 F3d at 616. As to this factor, it is most significant that prior to the DeBoer filing in 2012, no civil rights organization, no law firm, no governmental entity, and no individual attorney had stepped forward to represent gay and lesbian couples and their children as to these issues in Michigan, even though the MMA had been in effect for 8 years, and the statutory bans had been in effect for 16 years. The reluctance to do so may well be due to a variety of factors: the fact that expert witness fees (which were astronomical here) are not compensable under §1988; the fact that marriage equality did not even remotely appear to be on the horizon in Michigan in 2012 and the prospect of gaining

“prevailing party” status was, therefore, minimal at best; and the fact that a lawsuit like this can bankrupt the average sole practitioner. See Affidavits of Patricia

Streeter and Juan Mateo, appended. Regardless, the fee imposed by this Court must be adequate to encourage lawyers to marshal worthy cases under §1983 despite long odds and widespread opposition so that the most vulnerable members of our society can find a voice in our nation’s court system. A fee consistent with, or greater than, the market average is clearly needed here to accomplish the

19 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 25 of 27 Pg ID 5162

historical intended purpose of §1988.

Certainly, the DeBoer case qualifies as an exceptional success. Tobin v

Gordon, 614 FSupp2d 514, 20 (D. Del. 2009) (the “degree of success obtained” is the “most critical factor”), quoting from Farrar v Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 114

(1992)(O’Connor, J., concurring) . Counsel obtained a judgment for these plaintiffs as to a novel cause of action which will improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples and their children now and into the future. In addition, with this Court’s patience and guidance, this case served to educate the public that the children of same-sex couples develop no differently than the children of opposite sex couples, and that there is no reason for society to fear gay and lesbian parents.7 Every case adjudicated after the DeBoer decision was disposed of on the basis of summary judgment, Plaintiffs contend, because there is no longer any need for a trial to debate the issues of comparative child outcomes.

That significant societal question is now settled as a result of the work done in this case. In appeals elsewhere the country, some State defendants abandoned child outcome rationales for the bans altogether. See e.g., Love v Beshear, 989

F.Supp.2d at 548. In the wake of this Court’s findings, in the Tenth Circuit, the

7 For their work in this case, all four of Plaintiffs’ Michigan-based attorneys were awarded the prestigious “Champions of Justice” award from the State Bar of Michigan, a non-monetary award.

20 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 26 of 27 Pg ID 5163

State of Utah wrote a letter to that Court (appended) retrenching from its overblown claims based upon Professor Mark Regnerus’s testimony. Plaintiffs’ attorneys in this litigation have made an enormous contribution to the jurisprudence of marriage equality, a fact they contend bears on a finding of an

“exceptional success”. See also Brotherton v Cleveland, 141 F. Supp. 2d 907, 913

(S.D. Ohio 2001) (25% enhancement from the lodestar value for “exceptional success”, a solo practitioner bringing a previously unrecognized cause of action).

Finally, considerable “billing judgment” has already been exercised by

Plaintiffs’ counsel. No costs other than attorney fees for the undersigned are being sought from the State even though the costs were extensive, even though other attorneys provided service and actually filed appearances in the district court,8 and even though many paralegals and law clerks were utilized throughout the lawsuit.

Considerable reductions in fees have already been made by counsel in both hourly rates and in number of hours billed to avoid unjustified duplicate billings.

For all of the foregoing reasons, and based upon the information contained in the attached exhibits, Plaintiffs respectfully request that their motion pursuant to

8 For example, Attorney Henry is billing for time expended in preparing and attending a deposition in New York for Witness George Chauncey, and for assisting in the preparation of Plaintiffs’ proposes findings of fact and conclusions of law. She is not billing for time spent attending the trial.

21 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 27 of 27 Pg ID 5164

42 USC §1988 be granted.

Dated: June 25, 2015

22 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-1 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 5165

INDEX OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FEES PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. §1988

1. Michigan State Bar Survey of Attorney Fees (2014)

2. Affidavit of Attorney Carole M. Stanyar

3. Time Records of Attorney Stanyar, Part I**

4. Time Records of Attorney Stanyar, Part II

5. Affidavit of Attorney Dana Nessel

6. Time Records of Attorney Nessel

7. Affidavit and Time Records of Attorney Kenneth Mogill

8. Affidavit of Professor Robert Sedler

9. Time Records of Professor Sedler

10. Affidavit of Attorney Mary Bonauto

11. Time Records of Attorney Bonauto, Part I**

12. Time Records of Attorney Bonauto, Part II

13. Affidavit and Time Records of Attorney Vickie Henry

14. Affidavit of Attorney Patricia Streeter, with attachment

15. Affidavit of Attorney Juan Mateo

16. Letter of State of Utah in Kitchen v. Herbert, No. 13-4178, regarding Mark Regnerus, April 9, 2014

** Time records of Attorneys Stanyar and Bonauto are being filed in two parts because they exceed the 50-page limit for ECF attachments 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-2 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 1 of 14 Pg ID 5166 State Bar of Michigan

2014 Economics of Law Practice Attorney Income and Billing Rate Summary Report

July 2014 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-2 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 2 of 14 Pg ID 5167

State Bar of Michigan ECONOMICS OF LAW PRACTICE 2014

Contents Economics of Law Practice in Michigan 2014 Attorney Income and Billing Rate Summary Report

July 2014

Methods and Measures...... 1

I 2013 Attorney Income

Table 1—2013 Reported Attorney Income—Private Practitioners...... 3

Table 2—2013 Reported Attorney Income—Non-Private Practitioners...... 3

II 2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates

Table 3—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates...... 4

Table 4—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by Years in Practice...... 4

Table 5—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by Firm Size in a Single Location...... 5

Table 6—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by Office Location...... 5

Table 7—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by Field of Practice...... 6

Table 8—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by County...... 7

Table 9—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by Circuit ...... 9 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-2 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 3 of 14 Pg ID 5168

State Bar of Michigan ECONOMICS OF LAW PRACTICE 2014 Economics of Law Practice in Michigan 2014 Attorney Income and Billing Rate Key Findings Report

The survey was conducted in May 2014 and requested income and billing rate information for 2013.

The State Bar of Michigan Economics of Law Practice Survey provides Michigan attorneys with a re- source that allows access to the most current law practice economic information available. The survey results are provided as a service to members of the State Bar of Michigan.

The survey has two practical objectives:

• To provide timely, relevant and accurate information to inform and guide the practical management decisions of Michigan attorneys • To track and illustrate changes and trends within the legal profession

The survey monitors and reports on several points of information useful to attorneys:

• Attorney income • Prevailing average hourly billing rates by several indicators including fields of practice, judicial circuit, and geographic location • Time allocated to billable and non-billable professional activities • Management practices • Perceptions regarding current and future economic circumstances related to the practice of law

The key finding report contains information pertaining to attorney income and billing rates. It is produced as an early and separate report to provide attorneys with this target information as quickly as possible, as it is the most requested information from all attorneys. All other information will be contained in the full 2014 Economics of Law Practice Summary Report that will follow.

Methods and Measures

The 2014 Economics of Law Practice Survey was conducted in May of 2014. An electronic survey was sent to 18,610 private practice members of the State Bar of Michigan, and 14,861 non-private practice members, inviting their participation. 2,734 completed questionnaires were returned by private practitioners (14.7% response rate) and 1,158 completed questionnaires were returned by non-private practitioners (7.8%). Questionnaires were tabulated by Dr. James McComb, an independent consultant statistician.

To help interpret the information presented in the surveys the following is a brief description of statistical terms of measures of central tendency (median and mean) and measures of dispersion (spread).

Mean—The mean (also called the average) is calculated by adding the values of all responses then dividing by the number of responses. Example: Three responses (30, 1, 2) are reported. The average or mean is calculated by adding 30+1+2=33 and then by dividing by 3 = 11.

Median—The median is the middle value in a series or distribution of values (50th percentile, which is initially rank-ordered (from low to high or vice versa). By definition half of the numbers are greater and half are less than the median. Example: Three responses (30, 1, 2) are reported. The median is the middle number of the order of distribution (1, 2, 30), or 2. By comparison, the average of this distribution as shown above is 11.

Use of the median as a statistical metric of central tendency reduces the effects of ‘outliers’ (extremely high or low values, such as the data point of 30 in the previous example) while the average does not. Median values are utilized throughout the survey results to denote the measure of central tendency.

—1— 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-2 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 4 of 14 Pg ID 5169

State Bar of Michigan ECONOMICS OF LAW PRACTICE 2014

Percentiles—In addition to the median, four other percentile values are used in the survey results to reveal the spread of a particular data distribution. The percentiles include:

• 25th percentile—Also referred to as the “lower quartile.” One-fourth of the values are less and three-fourths are more than this value. • Median or 50th percentile—Half of the values are less and half are more than the “median” value. • 75th percentile—Also referred to as the “upper quartile.” Three-fourths of the values are less and one-fourth are more than this value. • 95th percentile—Ninety-five percent of the values are less and five percent of the values are more than this value.

Note of clarification: Extreme values (multiple thousands per hour) were excluded due to their unrep- resentative qualities; four were excluded for reporting $10,000 or above per hour.

—2— 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-2 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 5 of 14 Pg ID 5170

State Bar of Michigan ECONOMICS OF LAW PRACTICE 2014

I 2013 Attorney Income

Table 1—2013 Reported Attorney Income—Private Practitioners

value by percentile

N 25th Percentile Median Mean 75th Percentile 95th Percentile Sole Practitioner, 444 40,000 75,000 120,929 145,000 325,000 office outside of home Sole Practitioner, 222 9,563 25,083 47,881 64,000 175,000 working out of home office Sole Practitioner, sharing space 138 40,000 70,000 92,728 103,000 300,000 Managing Partner 161 104,000 200,000 329,036 350,000 1,100,000 Equity Partner/Shareholder 528 132,287 215,000 300,921 350,000 750,000 Non-Equity Partner 142 121,000 174,500 181,482 211,000 360,000 Of Counsel 49 45,000 114,000 134,404 180,000 362,352 Senior Associate 109 85,000 105,000 123,595 143,000 250,000 Associate 342 50,000 70,000 79,412 97,000 139,935 Arbitrator/Mediator 8 4,250 42,500 131,688 230,000 500,000 Assigned Counsel * - - - - - Other 51 60,000 100,000 559,055 150,000 950,000 Total 2,196 52,900 100,000 178,340 200,000 500,000

*Data is not displayed for categories with fewer than three respondents due to insufficient information but is included in the totals.

Table 2—2013 Reported Attorney Income—Non-Private Practitioners value by percentile N 25th Percentile Median Mean 75th Percentile 95th Percentile Academia 41 50,000 75,000 101,131 141,500 200,000 Law School 38 58,000 81,695 96,208 149,000 200,000 In-House Counsel 246 87,000 125,000 167,194 185,000 400,000 Judge 55 138,000 139,900 139,646 140,000 176,000 Other Judiciary 76 49,000 68,747 258,477 90,175 125,000 Legal Service Agency 70 42,132 55,000 56,944 71,938 95,000 Federal Government 70 83,000 111,100 112,053 144,000 165,000 Local Government 147 52,000 75,000 75,125 98,500 116,000 State Government 152 67,500 90,000 87,722 107,570 134,000 Governmental Relations * - - - - - Military 5 70,000 80,000 71,363 80,000 85,000 Non-Law Related 22 30,000 58,000 72,701 96,000 180,000 Non-Profit Org 59 42,000 58,000 76,968 102,000 220,000 Retired 15 2,000 20,000 57,333 130,000 155,500 Other 45 50,000 69,000 99,002 102,458 300,000 Total 1043 58,000 90,000 119,378 125,000 220,000

*Data is not displayed for categories with fewer than three respondents due to insufficient information but is included in the total.

—3— 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-2 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 6 of 14 Pg ID 5171

State Bar of Michigan ECONOMICS OF LAW PRACTICE 2014

II 2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates

Table 3—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates value by percentile

N 25th Percentile Median Mean 75th Percentile 95th Percentile Sole Practitioner, 468 185 225 231 250 383 office outside of home Sole Practitioner, 230 150 200 199 250 350 working out of home office Sole Practitioner, sharing space 146 175 211 231 275 350 Managing Partner 171 205 250 282 325 500 Equity Partner/Shareholder 569 225 310 333 417 545 Non-Equity Partner 159 250 325 330 400 500 Of Counsel 50 225 300 315 408 500 Senior Associate 115 200 250 264 300 445 Associate 351 175 208 218 250 320 Arbitrator/Mediator 8 188 275 261 329 400 Assigned Counsel * - - - - - Other 41 180 250 254 300 523 Total 2,310 192 245 265 315 490

*Data is not displayed for categories with fewer than three respondents due to insufficient information but is included in the totals.

Table 4—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by Years in Practice

value by percentile N 25th Percentile Median Mean 75th Percentile 95th Percentile <1 8 138 163 172 214 250 1 to 2 140 150 189 189 225 284 3 to 5 197 160 200 205 250 317 6 to 10 326 180 225 236 283 370 11 to 15 228 195 250 260 300 435 16 to 25 544 200 269 291 350 488 26 to 30 264 200 250 279 347 500 31 to 35 319 200 250 276 300 515 >35 540 200 250 285 350 525 Total 2566 192 245 264 310 483

—4— 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-2 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 7 of 14 Pg ID 5172

State Bar of Michigan ECONOMICS OF LAW PRACTICE 2014

Table 5—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by Firm Size in a Single Location

value by percentile N 25th Percentile Median Mean 75th Percentile 95th Percentile 1 902 175 210 222 250 375 2 249 183 225 248 275 400 3 155 200 250 259 300 400 4 to 6 302 192 235 259 300 450 7 to 10 201 192 250 273 325 455 11 to 20 184 201 260 290 366 500 21 t0 50 217 212 288 299 340 520 >50 277 280 375 377 475 570 Total 2487 192 245 265 313 485

Table 6—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by Office Location

value by percentile N 25th Percentile Median Mean 75th Percentile 95th Percentile Downtown Detroit 159 195 275 304 400 550 & New Center area Detroit, not downtown 16 150 250 243 313 538 Remainder Wayne County 139 195 225 227 250 350 Oakland County (north of M-59) 69 200 250 266 300 563 Oakland County (south of M-59) 625 200 250 280 325 495 Southfield 157 210 275 308 395 550 Mount Clemens area 40 181 225 232 258 383 Remainder Macomb County 94 192 225 237 285 400 Ann Arbor area 127 200 275 290 350 520 Livingston County 29 192 200 213 250 275 Battle Creek area 24 163 200 203 250 250 Bay City/Midland/Saginaw area 52 178 216 228 250 450 Flint area 66 180 215 238 275 400 Grand Rapids area 330 210 280 298 370 510 Jackson area 29 167 185 210 240 370 Traverse City area 42 175 200 206 240 288 Kalamazoo area 68 178 243 242 295 400 Muskegon area 44 175 200 231 250 455 Lansing area 171 175 230 241 297 400 Mid-Michigan area 38 150 184 202 250 350 Other metro areas 20 150 175 190 207 363 Out state, lower peninsula 47 175 200 212 242 383 Upper Peninsula 33 123 173 158 195 225 Northern Michigan, 58 153 200 197 222 333 lower peninsula Out of state 103 225 300 312 355 613 Total 2580 192 245 265 312 485

—5— 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-2 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 8 of 14 Pg ID 5173

State Bar of Michigan ECONOMICS OF LAW PRACTICE 2014

Table 7—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by Field of Practice value by percentile N 25th Percentile Median Mean 75th Percentile 95th Percentile Administrative law 85 200 250 284 350 520 Appellate law 139 195 275 274 350 480 Arbitration/Mediation 89 200 260 285 325 550 Auto (not lemon) law 38 250 350 344 400 550 Auto no fault 142 150 250 300 400 550 Bankruptcy, creditor 73 250 295 327 350 510 Bankruptcy, debtor 124 195 223 230 260 350 Business planning 337 215 260 289 325 520 Civil litigation 768 210 275 290 345 500 Civil rights 74 200 250 276 350 450 Collections, creditor 107 175 200 225 260 375 Collections, debtor 14 225 300 295 385 400 Condemnation law 5 250 300 291 330 400 Construction law 70 225 275 287 325 465 Consumer law 44 200 335 321 400 500 (including lemon law) Criminal (private defendant) 293 175 200 222 250 360 Criminal (public defendant) 111 50 85 112 190 250 Employment law (plaintiff) 94 200 250 274 330 450 Employment law (defense) 145 225 275 285 340 455 Environmental law 40 245 300 319 363 528 Family law 509 175 200 221 250 350 Foreclosure, debtor 6 200 210 237 350 350 Foreclosure, lender 48 198 215 237 250 435 General practice 284 175 210 227 250 360 Health & hospital law 62 245 298 330 420 550 Immigration law 27 175 250 254 300 405 Insurance law 149 150 195 236 300 455 Intellectual property/trade 120 250 333 342 425 550 secrets Landlord/tenant (commercial) 30 190 250 254 300 445 Landlord/tenant (residential) 67 165 200 189 210 250 Medical malpractice (plaintiff) 39 350 400 474 500 1000 Medical malpractice (defendant) 51 150 175 171 185 238 Other civil law 261 200 250 272 325 500 Other professional liability 40 223 315 320 388 500 Personal injury (defendant) 119 150 165 190 200 325 Personal injury (plaintiff) 184 250 350 358 400 600 Probate, administration, dece- 371 195 225 234 250 395 dent’s estates Guardianship & conservatorship 103 175 210 215 250 350 Probate litigation, decedent’s 90 200 243 250 275 460 estates Probate, trust administration 198 200 250 272 300 475 Probate, trust litigation 68 243 295 300 350 460 Product liability 29 220 300 304 350 500

—6— 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-2 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 9 of 14 Pg ID 5174

State Bar of Michigan ECONOMICS OF LAW PRACTICE 2014

Table 7—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by Field of Practice value by percentile N 25th Percentile Median Mean 75th Percentile 95th Percentile Public benefits 14 180 225 231 250 395 Public corporation law (including 71 140 175 196 225 445 city & village) Real estate 369 200 250 257 300 450 Securities law 31 275 400 387 500 600 Tax law 137 250 300 331 410 550 Workers’ compensation 25 200 250 244 300 400 employee Workers’ compensation 27 100 115 115 125 145 employer Total 6321 195 250 263 300 480

Table 8—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by County

value by percentile N 25th Percentile Median Mean 75th Percentile 95th Percentile Alcona 3 153 195 183 200 200 Alger 5 175 197 181 200 225 Allegan 55 193 225 249 290 425 Alpena 9 180 185 188 200 210 Antrim 26 175 210 208 233 275 Arenac * - - - - - Baraga 5 110 175 152 180 195 Barry 16 223 258 259 292 333 Bay 47 175 225 233 275 450 Benzie 14 150 205 219 235 625 Berrien 47 175 217 238 267 400 Branch 11 150 190 195 240 250 Calhoun 54 175 201 220 250 375 Cass 21 160 200 228 255 400 Charlevoix 18 200 220 251 280 545 Cheboygan 8 175 200 215 252 333 Chippewa 4 165 183 184 203 205 Clare 8 204 255 259 320 350 Clinton 56 186 225 234 263 350 Crawford 5 150 180 187 225 250 Delta 7 105 133 136 175 200 Dickinson 4 131 181 184 238 250 Eaton 91 175 213 220 250 340 Emmet 24 198 226 242 254 445 Genesee 129 180 217 241 275 400 Gladwin * - - - - - Gogebic * - - - - - Grand Traverse 66 167 211 213 250 325 Gratiot 11 183 225 255 307 500

—7— 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-2 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 10 of 14 Pg ID 5175

State Bar of Michigan ECONOMICS OF LAW PRACTICE 2014

Table 8—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by County value by percentile N 25th Percentile Median Mean 75th Percentile 95th Percentile Hillsdale 4 179 190 235 292 383 Houghton 8 123 167 163 185 250 Huron 3 320 325 363 445 445 Ingham 218 175 232 249 300 480 Ionia 11 185 200 226 250 375 Iosco 8 139 193 198 260 325 Iron * - - - - - Isabella 20 179 220 223 250 342 Jackson 49 167 190 231 300 400 Kalamazoo 121 190 242 258 320 450 Kalkaska 8 125 200 178 220 250 Kent 389 208 280 298 370 510 Keweenaw * - - - - - Lake 0 - - - - - Lapeer 37 175 205 242 250 450 Leelanau 27 157 223 210 250 300 Lenawee 34 183 241 250 300 420 Livingston 86 185 225 231 267 350 Luce * - - - - - Mackinac 6 200 228 214 250 250 Macomb 675 200 250 262 300 450 Manistee 5 205 210 209 225 255 Marquette 23 137 180 181 225 300 Mason 4 153 190 179 205 210 Mecosta 9 150 200 210 250 335 Menominee 3 75 143 131 175 175 Midland 33 185 228 249 275 470 Missaukee 3 125 150 162 210 210 Monroe 35 167 183 253 250 900 Montcalm 18 195 241 254 333 450 Montmorency 9 175 200 193 210 233 Muskegon 72 182 233 269 328 455 Newaygo 13 175 193 194 200 275 Oakland 1226 200 250 278 325 500 Oceana 9 127 180 188 200 383 Ogemaw 6 125 163 150 180 195 Ontonagon 3 83 173 186 300 300 Osceola 5 167 200 185 210 250 Oscoda * - - - - - Otsego 13 150 200 198 225 300 Ottawa 182 200 250 278 325 485 Presque Isle 5 185 200 192 200 210 Roscommon 6 150 165 174 192 250 Saginaw 80 172 225 244 299 468

—8— 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-2 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 11 of 14 Pg ID 5176

State Bar of Michigan ECONOMICS OF LAW PRACTICE 2014

Table 8—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by County value by percentile N 25th Percentile Median Mean 75th Percentile 95th Percentile Sanilac 3 57 60 106 200 200 Schoolcraft 3 107 175 159 197 197 Shiawassee 23 175 200 282 250 900 St. Clair 29 180 200 215 250 325 St. Joseph 21 200 235 230 250 300 Tuscola 13 155 200 189 220 238 Van Buren 36 155 201 215 250 360 Washtenaw 245 200 250 284 342 510 Wayne 1195 200 250 275 325 500 Wexford 10 167 230 238 288 350 Statewide Practice 45 201 263 301 375 560 Out of state practice 125 223 300 336 425 625 Total 5968 192 245 264 309 480

*Data is not displayed for counties with fewer than three respondents due to insufficient information but is included in the totals.

Table 9—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by Circuit

value by percentile Count 25th Percentile Median Mean 75th Percentile 95th Percentile 1 Hillsdale 4 179 190 235 292 383 2 Berrien 47 175 217 238 267 400 3 Wayne 1195 200 250 275 325 500 4 Jackson 49 167 190 231 300 400 5 Barry 16 223 258 259 292 333 6 Oakland 1226 200 250 278 325 500 7 Genesee 129 180 217 241 275 400 8 Ionia, Montcalm 29 193 240 244 300 375 9 Kalamazoo 121 190 242 258 320 450 10 Saginaw 80 172 225 244 299 468 11 Alger, Luce, Mackinac, 15 175 200 191 225 250 Schoolcraft 12 Baraga, Houghton, 14 110 174 160 180 250 Keweenaw 13 Antrim, Grand Traverse, 119 167 213 211 250 300 Leelanau 14 Muskegon 72 182 233 269 328 455 15 Branch 11 150 190 195 240 250 16 Macomb 675 200 250 262 300 450 17 Kent 389 208 280 298 370 510 18 Bay 47 175 225 233 275 450 19 Benzie, Manistee 19 150 205 217 235 625 20 Ottawa 182 200 250 278 325 485 21 Isabella 20 179 220 223 250 342 22 Washtenaw 245 200 250 284 342 510

—9— 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-2 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 12 of 14 Pg ID 5177

State Bar of Michigan ECONOMICS OF LAW PRACTICE 2014

Table 9—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by Circuit

value by percentile Count 25th Percentile Median Mean 75th Percentile 95th Percentile 23 Alcona, Arenac, Iosco, 26 150 198 191 222 320 Oscoda 24 Sanilac 3 57 60 106 200 200 25 Marquette 23 137 180 181 225 300 26 Alpena, Montmorency 18 175 188 190 210 233 27 Newaygo, Oceana 22 160 187 192 200 275 28 Missaukee, Wexford 13 150 210 220 275 350 29 Clinton, Gratiot 67 185 225 238 275 350 30 Ingham 218 175 232 249 300 480 31 St. Clair 29 180 200 215 250 325 32 Gogebic, Ontonagon 5 83 173 183 275 300 33 Charlevoix 18 200 220 251 280 545 34 Ogemaw, Roscommon 12 138 163 162 186 250 35 Shiawassee 23 175 200 282 250 900 36 Van Buren 36 155 201 215 250 360 37 Calhoun 54 175 201 220 250 375 38 Monroe 35 167 183 253 250 900 39 Lenawee 34 183 241 250 300 420 40 Lapeer 37 175 205 242 250 450 41 Dickinson, Iron, Menominee 9 125 143 159 175 250 42 Midland 33 185 228 249 275 470 43 Cass 21 160 200 228 255 400 44 Livingston 86 185 225 231 267 350 45 St. Joseph 21 200 235 230 250 300 46 Crawford, Kalkaska, Otsego 13 130 200 181 225 250 47 Delta 7 105 133 136 175 200 48 Allegan 55 193 225 249 290 425 49 Mecosta, Osceola 14 150 200 201 250 335 50 Chippewa 4 165 183 184 203 205 51 Lake, Mason 4 153 190 179 205 210 52 Huron 3 320 325 363 445 445 53 Cheboygan, Presque Isle 13 185 200 206 210 333 54 Tuscola 13 155 200 189 220 238 55 Clare, Gladwin 10 183 250 249 307 350 56 Eaton 91 175 213 220 250 340 57 Emmet 24 198 226 242 254 445 84 Statewide Practice 45 201 263 301 375 560 85 Out Of State Practice 125 223 300 336 425 625 Total 5968 192 245 264 309 480

—10— 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-2 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 13 of 14 Pg ID 5178

State Bar of Michigan ECONOMICS OF LAW PRACTICE 2014 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-2 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 14 of 14 Pg ID 5179 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-3 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 1 of 12 Pg ID 5180 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-3 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 2 of 12 Pg ID 5181 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-3 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 3 of 12 Pg ID 5182 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-3 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 4 of 12 Pg ID 5183 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-3 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 5 of 12 Pg ID 5184 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-3 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 6 of 12 Pg ID 5185 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-3 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 7 of 12 Pg ID 5186 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-3 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 8 of 12 Pg ID 5187 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-3 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 9 of 12 Pg ID 5188 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-3 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 10 of 12 Pg ID 5189 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-3 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 11 of 12 Pg ID 5190 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-3 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 12 of 12 Pg ID 5191 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 1 of 49 Pg ID 5192 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 2 of 49 Pg ID 5193 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 3 of 49 Pg ID 5194 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 4 of 49 Pg ID 5195 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 5 of 49 Pg ID 5196 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 6 of 49 Pg ID 5197 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 7 of 49 Pg ID 5198 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 8 of 49 Pg ID 5199 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 9 of 49 Pg ID 5200 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 10 of 49 Pg ID 5201 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 11 of 49 Pg ID 5202 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 12 of 49 Pg ID 5203 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 13 of 49 Pg ID 5204 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 14 of 49 Pg ID 5205 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 15 of 49 Pg ID 5206 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 16 of 49 Pg ID 5207 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 17 of 49 Pg ID 5208 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 18 of 49 Pg ID 5209 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 19 of 49 Pg ID 5210 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 20 of 49 Pg ID 5211 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 21 of 49 Pg ID 5212 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 22 of 49 Pg ID 5213 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 23 of 49 Pg ID 5214 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 24 of 49 Pg ID 5215 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 25 of 49 Pg ID 5216 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 26 of 49 Pg ID 5217 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 27 of 49 Pg ID 5218 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 28 of 49 Pg ID 5219 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 29 of 49 Pg ID 5220 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 30 of 49 Pg ID 5221 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 31 of 49 Pg ID 5222 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 32 of 49 Pg ID 5223 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 33 of 49 Pg ID 5224 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 34 of 49 Pg ID 5225 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 35 of 49 Pg ID 5226 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 36 of 49 Pg ID 5227 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 37 of 49 Pg ID 5228 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 38 of 49 Pg ID 5229 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 39 of 49 Pg ID 5230 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 40 of 49 Pg ID 5231 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 41 of 49 Pg ID 5232 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 42 of 49 Pg ID 5233 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 43 of 49 Pg ID 5234 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 44 of 49 Pg ID 5235 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 45 of 49 Pg ID 5236 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 46 of 49 Pg ID 5237 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 47 of 49 Pg ID 5238 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 48 of 49 Pg ID 5239 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-4 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 49 of 49 Pg ID 5240 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-5 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 1 of 24 Pg ID 5241 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-5 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 2 of 24 Pg ID 5242 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-5 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 3 of 24 Pg ID 5243 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-5 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 4 of 24 Pg ID 5244 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-5 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 5 of 24 Pg ID 5245 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-5 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 6 of 24 Pg ID 5246 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-5 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 7 of 24 Pg ID 5247 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-5 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 8 of 24 Pg ID 5248 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-5 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 9 of 24 Pg ID 5249 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-5 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 10 of 24 Pg ID 5250 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-5 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 11 of 24 Pg ID 5251 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-5 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 12 of 24 Pg ID 5252 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-5 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 13 of 24 Pg ID 5253 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-5 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 14 of 24 Pg ID 5254 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-5 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 15 of 24 Pg ID 5255 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-5 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 16 of 24 Pg ID 5256 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-5 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 17 of 24 Pg ID 5257 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-5 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 18 of 24 Pg ID 5258 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-5 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 19 of 24 Pg ID 5259 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-5 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 20 of 24 Pg ID 5260 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-5 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 21 of 24 Pg ID 5261 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-5 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 22 of 24 Pg ID 5262 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-5 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 23 of 24 Pg ID 5263 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-5 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 24 of 24 Pg ID 5264 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-6 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 1 of 12 Pg ID 5265 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-6 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 2 of 12 Pg ID 5266 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-6 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 3 of 12 Pg ID 5267 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-6 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 4 of 12 Pg ID 5268 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-6 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 5 of 12 Pg ID 5269 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-6 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 6 of 12 Pg ID 5270 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-6 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 7 of 12 Pg ID 5271 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-6 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 8 of 12 Pg ID 5272 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-6 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 9 of 12 Pg ID 5273 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-6 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 10 of 12 Pg ID 5274 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-6 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 11 of 12 Pg ID 5275 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-6 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 12 of 12 Pg ID 5276 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 1 of 45 Pg ID 5277

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time E-mails with Clients regarding family background. 0.2 3/13/11 E-mails with Clients regarding family background. 0.2 3/14/11 Telephone call with April DeBoer. 1.8 3/15/11 Meeting with Stanyar re: filing challenge to Michigan 1.5 3/22/11 Adoption Code (MAC), discussion of theories for lawsuit. Review MAC stature, caselaw, pleadings on Harmon v 5.2 3/22/11 Davis, research on MAC. E-mails with Stanyar re: Clients and family 0.1 3/24/11 background.

E-mails, telephone calls with Stanyar re: potential legal 0.2 3/31/11 claims for Clients. E-mails with Stanyar re: legal claims for Clients. 0.1 4/4/11 Phone call with DeBoer regarding family background 2.0 4/4/11 and legal issues of potential case. E-mails, telephone call with Stanyar re: legal claims of 1.1 4/5/11 Clients. E-mails with Stanyar re: legal claims for Clients. 0.2 4/6/11 E-mails with Clients re: family background and 0.7 4/7/11 potential lawsuit. E-mails with Stanyar re: meeting with Clients and 0.1 4/7/11 lawsuit. Meeting with Stanyar about theories for legal challenge 0.5 4/7/11 re: MAC. E-mails with Clients and Stanyar about potential 0.2 4/8/11 lawsuit. E-mails with Clients re: family background and 0.2 4/10/11 potential claims. Telephone conference with Stanyar about theories for 0.4 4/19/11 legal challenge re: MAC. E-mails with Clients re: up-coming meeting. 0.2 4/25/11 E-mails with Mogill, Steinberg, Stanyar re: Clients 0.2 4/26/11 family history and possible case initiation. Phone conference with Mogill, Steinberg, Kaplan and 0.5 4/27/11 Stanyar re: Michigan Adoption Code and theories for legal claim. E-mails with Mogill, Stanyar, Kaplan and Steinberg 0.2 5/4/11 regarding legal strategy for filing adoption case.

1 Page Total: 15.8 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 2 of 45 Pg ID 5278

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time Telephone conference with Stanyar about theories for 0.2 5/6/11 legal challenge re: MAC. Telephone conference with Stanyar about theories for 0.2 5/13/11 legal challenge re: MAC. Phone conference with Mogill, Kaplan, and ACLU re: 0.5 5/13/11 legal strategy/claims for lawsuit. E-mails with Clients re: employer related issues with 1.1 filing of lawsuit. Calls to Detroit Medical Center. 5/19/11 Phone call with Kevin Simowski, legal counsel for DMC. E-mails with Mogill, Stanyar re: agenda for meeting, 0.1 5/20/11 theories/jurisdiction for challenge to MAC.

Meeting with Stanyar, and ACLU attorneys re: filing 1.5 5/23/11 of lawsuit, potential claims of lawsuit. Travel Detroit to Ann Arbor/return 1.2 5/23/11 Meeting with Clients, Stanyar, ACLU re: clients 1.5 5/24/11 background, claims for lawsuit, reviewed adoption documents of children. E-mails with Mogill and Stanyar re: drafting of 0.2 5/24/11 complaint. E-mails with Clients regarding children’s adoption 0.1 5/26/11 info.

Reviewed ACLU memo’s re: filing of challenge to 3.0 5/26/11 MAC and relevant case law. E-mail with Kaplan re: meeting of clients. 0.1 6/7/11 Meeting in Ann Arbor with Stanyar, Soble, Zearfoss, 1.5 6/8/11 Woloshin, re: strategy for MAC challenge. Drive from Detroit to Ann Arbor/return 1.1 6/8/11 E-mails with attorneys from Ann Arbor meeting re: 0.3 6/8/11 strategy discussed during meeting re: MAC. E-mails with Clients and Stanyar re: agenda for next 0.1 6/13/11 meeting. Research on second-parent adoption cases nationally. 3.0 6/14/11 Phone conference with Stanyar about agenda for 0.5 6/15/11 meeting, legal theories for claim. E-mail to Clients re: documents for up-coming 0.1 6/15/11 meeting. E-mail to Stanyar and Kaplan about agenda for next 0.2 6/15/11 meeting.

2 Page Total: 16.5 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 3 of 45 Pg ID 5279

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time E-mail/phone call to Clients about documents/agenda 0.1 6/17/11 for meeting. E-mail/phone call to Clients about documents/agenda 0.1 6/21/11 for meeting. Meeting in Ann Arbor with Soble, Zearfoss, Wolshin, 2.0 6/27/11 Stanyar discussing strategy to challenge MAC. Travel to from Ann Arbor to Detroit/return 1.1 6/27/11 Meeting with Clients and Stanyar regarding strategy on 2.0 6/30/11 proceeding on the challenge to MAC.(Detroit) E-mails with Client re: background info on adoption 0.1 7/5/11 process of children/documents. Phone conference/texts with Stanyar re: 9th Circuit 0.2 7/5/11 case, Golinski, DOJ brief on DOMA. E-mails with Clients re: medical info on children and 0.1 7/10/11 info for affidavits. E-mails with Stanyar, Steinberg re: strategy for claims 0.2 7/11/11 against MAC. Phone conference with Stanyar re: strategy, division of 0.3 7/12/11 responsibility, possible assistance from ACLU. E-mails and phone calls with Clients re: background of 0.2 7/15/11 children, adoption documents, affidavit info. Meeting with Stanyar re: drafting of affidavits, claims 0.2 7/19/11 for complaint. E-mails with Clients re: adoption information of 0.2 7/19/11 children. Phone conference with Morgan, Mogill, Stanyar, and 0.4 7/20/11 O’Rourke re: division of responsibilities, filing decisions. E-mails with Sedler re: facts of case, case law, 0.5 7/21/11 constitutional abstention issues related to challenge to MAC. Phone call with Sedler re; jurisdictional and abstention 0.8 7/21/11 issues related to claim against MAC. E-mails with Kaplan, Steinberg re: abstention issues 0.3 8/8/11 for federal court filing of complaint. E-mail to Sedler re: jurisdictional and abstention issues 0.5 8/16/11 of adoption case. Meeting with Sedler, Stanyar, Unger re: strategy for 3.0 8/23/11 filing adoption case and division of responsibilities. (WSU Law)

Travel from office to meeting. 0.4 8/23/11

3 Page Total: 12.7 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 4 of 45 Pg ID 5280

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time E-mails with Clients re: Jacob’s adoption info. 0.1 8/24/11 Review of Adar pleadings 1.0 9/1/11 E-mails with Stanyar, Mogill, Sedler re; drafting of 0.2 9/2/11 pleadings. 9/21/11 Meeting with Stanyar, Sedler, Unger re: division of 2.0 responsibilities, strategy on adoption case. (WSU Law) Travel from Office to WSU/return 0.4 9/21/11 Phone conference with Stanyar re: topics of meeting, 0.2 9/21/11 drafting of complaint.

Phone conference with Stanyar and Mogill re: edits to 0.4 9/22/11 complaint. 9/22/11 E-mails with Stanyar and Unger re: division of 0.2 responsibilities. Review of law review articles re: second parent 2.5 9/22/11 adoption in Michigan. Review of second-parent adoption cases nationally. Search for expert on adoption by same-sex couples. 2.7 9/22/11 Phone calls to Lambda legal, NCLR. E-mail to Prof. Gilia Smith WSU, Donaldson Adoption Institute. Phone conference with Stanyar re: edits to complaint. 0.3 12/12/11 Review/edits to adoption complaint and attached 0.5 12/13/11 affidavits. Phone conference with Stanyar, Zearfoss re: state court 0.4 12/13/11 petitions. Phone conferences with Stanyar re: edits to complaint. 0.3 12/14/11 12/19/11 Research on experts, articles, studies on adoption by 2.0 same-sex couples nationally. 12/19/11 Phone conference with Stanyar re: division of 0.3 responsibilities Research on experts, articles, studies on adoption by 3.0 12/20/11 same-sex couples nationally. 12/23/11 Research on experts, articles, studies on adoption by 2.0 same-sex couples nationally. Reviewed district court pleadings, trial testimony, 3.0 12/26/11 opinion on Perry. Phone conference with Stanyar re: strategy, contents of 0.8 summary judgment motion, use of studies and experts 1/2/12 in brief and affidavit.

4 Page Total: 22.3 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 5 of 45 Pg ID 5281

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time Reviewed federal complaint in Bassett. 0.7 1/6/12 Phone calls and e-mails with Stanyar, Sedler, and 0.4 1/6/12 Mogill re: revisions to complaint, division of responsibilities. E-mails with Stanyar and Sedler re: edits to complaint. 0.2 1/8/12 Research on experts, articles, studies on adoption by 2.0 1/9/12 same-sex couples nationally. Phone call with National Center for Lesbian Rights 1.0 1/9/12 (NCLR) re: adoption experts and studies on LGBT adoption. E-mails and phone conferences with Stanyar re: 0.8 1/10/12 revisions of complaint and affidavits. E-mails to NCLR re adoption experts and 0.1 1/10/12 studies/briefs.

Strategy conferences with Sedler and Stanyar re: 0.6 1/11/12 division of responsibilities on complaint and affidavits. 1/12/12 Review revisions to draft of complaint, phone 0.3 conference with Stanyar re: revisions to complaint. 1/12/12 Research on experts, articles, studies on adoption by 2.0 same-sex couples nationally. 1/15/12 Phone conference with Stanyar re: filing, time lines, 0.5 strategy. Meeting with Sedler and Stanyar, division of 1.5 1/17/12 responsibilities. 1/17/12 Travel from office to WSU Law/return 0.4

E-mails to NCLR re adoption experts and 0.2 1/18/12 studies/briefs.

E-mail to adoption expert Charlotte Patterson. 0.1 1/18/12 Phone call with Stanyar re: experts. 0.2 1/18/12 1/19/12 Phone call with Charlotte Patterson. 0.6

Reviewed expert testimony of Patterson, Lamb, 3.0 1/22/12 Brodzinsky in other adoption cases involving LGBT parents, same-sex couples. E-mails with Clients regarding adoption proceedings of 0.1 1/23/12 children. Meeting with Clients re: filing, time line of events, 0.5 1/23/12 future proceedings.

5 Page Total: 15.2 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 6 of 45 Pg ID 5282

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time Meeting with Stanyar re: filing, drafting of Motion for 0.6 1/23/12 Summary Judgment. Phone call with Stanyar re: research for motion for 0.5 1/24/12 summary judgment. E-mails and phone call with adoption expert Kathi 1.0 1/24/12 Nelson. 0.6 1/25/12 Phone call with potential witness Cynthia Bostick,

Review draft of Motion for Summary Judgment, 1.2 1/27/12 perform edits. Phone call with Stanyar re: experts, strategy regarding 0.2 2/9/12 defendant’s potential claims to be addressed. 2/9/12 Review/perform additional edits to Motion for 0.3 Summary Judgment. Phone call with Kathi Nelson re: contents of affidavit. 0.4 2/9/12 Research on adoption cases, statutes, law review 8.0 2/10/12 articles related to LGBT/same-sex couples in other states/federal circuits. Research for Motion for Summary Judgment on 8.0 2/11/12 specific laws/statutes that pertain to legal parent vs. guardianship for children. 2/13/12 Research for Motion for summary judgment on 2.1 animus/history of Michigan Adoption Code. Reviewed Defendants Motion to Dismiss. 1.0 2/17/12 2/17/12 Emails and texts with Stanyar re: Motion for Summary 0.2 Judgment. 2/17/12 Phone call with Stanyar re: Motion for Summary 0.3 Judgment. Research on experts, articles, studies on adoption by 8.0 2/17/12 same-sex couples nationally. Research on experts, articles, studies on adoption by 5.0 2/18/12 same-sex couples nationally. E-mail to Brodzinsky re: serving as an expert witness. 0.2 2/20/12 E-mail/phone call to Adam Pertman of Donaldson 0.8 2/20/12 Adoption Institute re: use of an expert witness on adoption matters. 2/20/12 E-mails with Kathi Nelson re: drafting of affidavit for 1.5 motion for summary judgment. E-mails and phone call with Stanyar re: motion for 0.2 2/21/12 summary judgment.

6 Page Total: 40.1 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 7 of 45 Pg ID 5283

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time E-mails with Kathi Nelson re: affidavit. 1.6 2/22/12 Phone calls (x2) with Kathi Nelson re: affidavit. 0.7 2/22/12 Phone calls (x2) with expert Jeanne Howard. 1.6 2/22/12 E-mails with Jeanne Howard. 0.2 2/22/12 2/23/12 Edits to Nelson affidavit. 0.3

Edits to Nelson affidavit. 0.2 2/26/12 Edits to Howard affidavit. 0.4 2/26/12 E-mails with Howard re: affidavit. Phone call with 2.2 2/27/12 Howard re: affidavit. 2/29/12 Research on state/federal cases involving adoption by 1.4 LGBT parents/same-sex couples. 2/29/12 Research on equitable parenthood cases. 2.4

Meeting with Mogill, Sedler, Stanyar re: Motion for 1.3 2/29/12 Summary Judgment/division of responsibilities. Travel to WSU Law/return from office. 0.4 2/29/12 Revisions/edits to Howard affidavit. 0.6 3/1/12 Reviewed and assembled affidavits/CVs/resumes of 0.3 3/1/12 experts. Research on lack of legal protections provided by 2.3 3/1/12 guardianships/other legal documents. Edits to affidavits 0.5 3/2/12 Edits to affidavits 0.3 3/5/12 E-mails to Stanyar re: affidavits. 0.2 3/5/12 Phone call with Mogill re: edits to affidavits 0.4 3/6/12 E-mails with Stanyar re: edits to affidavits. 0.2 3/6/12 Reviewed and made edits to brief in response to 1.3 3/7/12 motion to dismiss.

3/8/12 Edits to affidavits, confirm article links to affidavits. 2.3

7 Page Total: 21.1 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 8 of 45 Pg ID 5284

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time E-mails with Stanyar re: edits to brief in response to 0.5 3/8/12 mo to dismiss and affidavits. Edits to motion in response to dismiss and affidavits. 1.5 3/9/12 E-mails, phone conferences with Sedler, Stanyar, 1.5 3/11/12 Mogill re: affidavits, edits to brief in response to motion to dismiss. 3/11/12 Revisions to affidavits. 2.3

3/12/12 E-mails to Howard, Nelson re: affidavits. 0.2

Revisions to affidavit, research re: American Psych. 1.5 3/12/12 Assoc. formal statement. Phone conference with Stanyar re: court’s order on 0.2 3/16/12 brief.

Status conference with court. Meeting with opposing 1.2 3/28/12 counsel following status conference. E-mails with Stanyar re: status conference, instructions 0.2 3/29/12 by the court. Review of reply brief for motion to dismiss, telephone 0.5 4/3/12 conference with Stanyar. Phone conference with Stanyar re: court order and 0.2 6/1/12 strategy. Phone conference with Stanyar re: court order and 0.2 6/4/12 strategy. E-mails with Stanyar, Sedler, Mogill re: hearing on 0.5 6/22/12 motion to dismiss. E-mails with Stanyar, Sedler, Mogill re: hearing on 0.2 6/23/12 motion to dismiss. Contact with court re: adjourning motion hearing. 0.1 6/25/12 E-mails to Stanyar re: prep for argument on motion to 0.2 8/6/12 dismiss. E-mails with Stanyar, Mogill, Sedler re: divisions of 0.2 8/9/12 responsibility for hearing prep. Meeting with Stanyar, Mogill, Sedler on prep for 2.0 8/13/12 motion hearing. Travel to WSU Law to/from office. 0.4 8/13/12 Review/edit draft of oral argument for motion to 0.3 8/17/12 dismiss.

8/20/12 E-mails with Stayar, Mogill, Sedler re: oral argument. 0.2

8 Page Total: 14.1 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 9 of 45 Pg ID 5285

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time Phone call with Stanyar re: oral argument. 0.1 8/23/12 Review e-mail edits to oral argument. 0.3 8/23/12 Review e-mail edits to oral argument. 0.2 8/24/12 Meeting with Sedler, Mogill, Stanyar re: prep for oral 2.0 8/27/12 argument. Travel to WSU Law/office and return 0.4 8/27/12 Meeting with co-counsel and clients. 1.0 8/29/12

8/29/12 Appearance at oral argument. 1.0

Meetings, telephone conference and e-mails with 3.1 8/29/12 Mogill, Sedler, and Stanyar and clinets re: amending complaint. E-mail to Lambda Legal re: assistance with amended 0.2 8/30/12 complaint. Phone call with clinets re: proceedings on marriage 1.2 8/30/12 claim, time-line, possible issues. E-mails with Sedler, Stanyar and Mogill re: proposed 1.2 8/31/12 amended complaint. Review of pending DOMA cases in 1st and 2nd 2.0 9/1/12 Circuits. Review of Baker v Nelson. E-mails with Sedler, Stanyar and Mogill re: proposed 0.9 9/1/12 amended complaint, division of responsibilities. E-mails with Sedler, Stanyar and Mogill re: proposed 0.3 9/2/12 amended complaint, division of responsibilities. Research and review of cases, law review articles, and 8.0 pleadings on previous s/s marriage cases nationally. 9/4/12 Phone calls to Lambda legal, NCLR re: brief banks, resources. E-mails with co-counsel re: division of responsibilities. Meeting with Stanyar, Mogill, Sedler. 2.0 9/5/12 Travel to/from office to Southfield for meeting. 0.8 9/5/12 9/5/12 Research and review of cases, law review articles, and 4.2 pleadings on previous s/s marriage cases nationally. 9/6/12 Research re: methods to amend Michigan Constitution. 1.3 Law review articles and publications. Meeting with clients and co-counsel. 0.5 9/7/12

9 Hours Total: 30.7 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 10 of 45 Pg ID 5286

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time Phone conference with Stanyar re: experts, amicus 0.3 9/20/12 briefs. Phone conference with Stanyar and Lambda Legal 0.3 9/20/12 regarding amicus briefs. Phone conference with Stanyar re: status conference. 0.2 9/25/12 Reviewed s/s/m cases and pleadings from Nebraska, 8th 2.7 9/28/12 Circuit cases, Nevada case. Phone conference with Stanyar re: status conference. 0.2 10/3/12 E-mails with Stanyar, Sedler, Mogill re: status 0.2 10/4/12 conference, division of responsibilities. Phone conference with Mogill re: strategy for motion 0.2 for summary judgment, potential witnesses. 10/8/12 10/9/12 Research on animus, origins, campaign for Prop. 4.2 2/Michigan Marriage Amendment (MMA). Research on animus, origins, funding, campaign for 4.0 10/10/12 Prop. 2/MMA. E-mails with Stanyar, Mogill, Sedler re: MMA count. 0.3 10/11/12 Phone call with Stanyar and Mogill re: Bullard’s 0.5 request for a stay. Further e-mails with Stanyar, 10/22/12 Mogill, and Sedler re: proceeding on s/s/m case. Phone call with Stanyar re: draft of brief. 0.2 10/23/12 Reviewed arguments for motion to dismiss. 0.2 10/25/12 10/26/12 Reviewed arguments for motion to dismiss. 0.2

Reviewed AG brief and e-mails from Mogill, Stanyar, 2.5 11/7/12 Sedler re brief and election of Lisa Brown to replace Bullard as OC clerk. E-mails with Sedler, Stanyar, Mogill re: strategy for 0.4 11/8/12 response brief on motion to dismiss ct. II. Research re: empirical evidence on divorce/marriage 2.3 11/9/12 rates in Massachusetts following legalization of s/s/m in 2004. Research on demographics of the American family 3.3 11/10/12 nationally and in state of Michigan. Research on gender roles/impact on children of various 5.6 11/12/12 family constructions. Research on states which allow s/s/m, civil unions, 2.8 11/12/12 domestic partnerships, cites for statutes and cases.

10 Page Total: 30.6 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 11 of 45 Pg ID 5287

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time Revisions on response to response to motion to 0.8 11/13/12 dismiss/e-mails with co-counsel re: edits/meeting. Compiled list of rights/benefits encompassed in 4.6 11/13/12 marriage under Michigan state law and federal law. E-mails with Stanyar re: sociological research on s/s/m 0.6 11/16/12 impact on populations/census data. Research on accepted restrictions on marriage in 5.2 11/23/12 Michigan and other states (relative marriages, polygamy, etc). Research on restrictions on legislature to repeal 4.5 11/24/12 constitutional amendment, other efforts to amend constitution. Research on doctrinal changes throughout US 6.1 11/24/12 jurisprudence.

Research on studies re: stability of s/s couples and 5.6 11/25/12 effect of marriage on stability of families. E-mails with Stanyar, Mogill, Sedler re: revisions/edits 1.2 11/25/12 to brief. Review of draft. E-mails with Stanyar, Mogill, Sedler re: revisions/edits 0.5 11/28/12 to brief. Review of draft. E-mails with Stanyar, Mogill, Sedler re: revisions/edits 1.1 11/29/12 to brief. Review of draft. Review of Sevcik v Sandoval 0.7 11/30/12 Phone conference with Stanyer re: arguments for 0.2 1/11/13 motion

Reviewed briefs on Windsor and Perry cases pending 1.3 2/5/13 before SCOTUS Reviewed Def. Brown’s motion to withdraw motion to 0.3 2/12/13 dismiss. Phone conference with Sedler re: new amendments to 0.4 2/13/13 MAC. Phone call from Keith Lerminiauxk re: request by OC 0.2 2/14/13 corp counsel for time extension on answer. E-mails with Sedler, Stanyar, Mogill re: filing of 0.3 2/15/13 supplemental brief on amendment to MAC. E-mails with Stanyar, Mogill, Sedler re: request by 0.2 2/15/13 Lerminiauxk for time extension. Drafted proposed supplemental brief re: amendments 1.7 2/17/13 to MAC. E-mails with Stanyar, Mogill, Sedler re: filing 0.7 2/18/13 supplemental brief re: amendments to MAC.

11 Page Total: 36.2 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 12 of 45 Pg ID 5288

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time Phone conference with Stanyar re: strategy, division of 0.3 2/19/13 responsibilities. E-mails with Stanyar, Mogill, Sedler re: strategy for 0.5 2/19/13 argument of motions. E-mails with Stanyar, Mogill and Sedler re: prep for 0.2 2/27/13 argument. Meeting with Stanyar, Mogill, Sedler re: prep for oral 2.0 2/28/13 argument on motion to dismiss. 2/28/13 Travel from office to WSU Law/return. 0.4 3/7/13 Appearance at oral argument on motion to dismiss. 1.0 E-mails with co-counsel re: oral argument of 0.2 3/27/13 Perry/Windsor. E-mails with co-counsel re: oral argument of 0.2 3/28/13 Perry/Windsor. Listen to audio tape of Perry/Windsor arguments 1.0 3/28/13 before SCOTUS. Phone conference with Stanyar re: Perry, Windsor, 0.6 3/28/13 supplemental brief. E-mails with co-counsel re: oral argument of 0.2 4/13/13 Perry/Windsor. 6/28/13 Reviewed Bassett decision on DP benefits. 0.5 Reviewed Windsor and Perry decisions from 2.2 6/28/13 SCOTUS. E-mail with Stanyar, Mogill, Sedler on strategy in light 1.3 6/30/13 of Windsor decision. Phone conference with Stanyar re: timing of Perry 0.5 6/10/13 decision, strategy. Meeting with Stanyar, Sedler re: delegation of 2.0 6/26/13 responsibilities/strategy following Perry, Windsor decisions. 6/26/13 Travel to/from WSU Law from office. 0.4 Phone call with Sedler re: strategy (request AG to stip 0.4 6/30/13 to no further discovery, proceed to cross-motions for summary judgment). Reviewed order on motion to dismiss. 0.5 7/1/13 E-mails with Stanyar, Mogill, Sedler re: strategy for 0.5 scheduling conference (request AG to stip to no further 7/1/13 discovery, proceed to cross-motions for summary judgment). E-mails with Stanyar, Mogill, Sedler re: strategy for 0.5 scheduling conference (request AG to stip to no further 7/7/13 discovery, proceed to cross-motions for summary judgment).

12 Page Total: 15.4 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 13 of 45 Pg ID 5289

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time E-mails with Stanyar, Mogill, Sedler re: strategy for 0.4 scheduling conference (request AG to stip to no further 7/8/13 discovery, proceed to cross-motions for summary judgment). E-mails with Sedler, Stanyar, Mogill re: strategy for 0.5 7/9/13 proceeding on motions with respect to Sixth Circuit considerations, division of responsibilities. Meeting with clients, asst. AG’s, co-counsel. 1.0 7/10/13 Appearance at pre-trial conference. 0.5 7/10/13 E-mails and phone calls with co-counsel re: dividing 0.3 7/11/13 responsibility on motions. Phone call with Prof. Daniel Ray/Cooley Law re: 0.6 7/11/13 amicus on animus. E-mails with co-counsel re: strategy on motion for 0.2 7/12/13 summary judgment, division of responsibility. E-mails with co-counsel re: strategy on motion for 0.2 7/15/13 summary judgment, division of responsibility. E-mails with Sedler re: strategy on motion for 0.3 7/16/15 summary judgment re: Windsor opinion, division of responsibility. 7/17/13 Phone call with Stanyar re: brief contents on MMA. 0.2 Review of case law re: heightened scrutiny argument 1.3 7/17/13 DOMA case, 9th Circuit rulings. E-mails with Sedler re: strategy for Brown filings. 0.2 7/23/13 E-mails with Perry attorneys. 0.2 7/23/13 Phone call with Perry attorneys re: strategy. 1.0 7/24/13 E-mails/phone calls with Clients re: future hearings, 1.2 7/25/13 contents of brief, info. required for statement of fact. Review of draft of motion for summary judgment brief, 1.7 7/25/13 edits. Edits to motion for summary judgment brief, research 2.3 of current state law for other states with s/s/m, civil 7/31/13 unions, domestic partnerships, additional Michigan state statutes involving marriage. E-mail to Howard re: new/revised affidavit for brief in 0.2 8/5/13 support of motion for summary judgment. Edits to brief, revisions to cites, e-mails to co-counsel 2.5 8/6/13 re: edits. Telephone call with Prop. 8 attorneys 0.6 8/7/13

13 Page Total: 15.4 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 14 of 45 Pg ID 5290

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time Reviewed Michigan law professors amicus, e-mails 1.0 8/7/3 with Mogill, Stanyar re: amicus, edits to brief referencing amicus material. E-mails to Howard, phone call to Howard re: new 1.4 8/8/13 affidavit re: Marks, Regnerus articles. Reviewed congressional research service report, IRS 1.5 8/9/13 guide re: federal tax implications to s/s couples married in other states residing in states without recognition. Phones call with Stanyar re: content of brief, division 0.3 8/9/13 of responsibility. Review of new social studies re: outcomes for children 2.2 8/9/13 of s/s couples from Howard, critiques of Regnerus, NFSS. Telephone conference with Stanyar re: draft of brief. 0.2 8/11/13 Edits to brief, cites for brief. 2.5 8/16/13 Review of AG Motion for Summary Judgment. 1.6 8/16/13 E-mails to Sedler, Stanyar, Mogill re: response brief 1.4 8/16/13 (Baker analysis, marriage as a fundamental right, adoption claims by AG). Reviewed Regnerus articles and critiques, phone call 4.2 with Howard re: Regnerus study and relevant articles, 8/19/13 reviewed American Sociological Association Perry/Windsor amicus brief for social science related materials for response brief. Reviewed draft of Baker response, Baker v Nelson 0.4 8/19/13 arguments. E-mails with Stanyar and Mogill re: revised Howard 0.6 8/19/13 affidavit related to Regnerus rebuttal. Research/review of Prop. 2 articles, videos from 1.5 8/19/13 proponents re: animus. Review/edits of brief in opposition to AG motion for 0.4 8/20/13 summary judgment. E-mails with Stanyar, Mogill, Sedler re: response to 0.3 8/20/13 Regnerus study. Review Scholar letter re: NFSS, Regnerus Audit, 3.5 Sherkat criticisms, NYT article, other Regnerus 8/20/13 critiques, transcript of witnesses from Perry trial on parenting by s/s couples. Telephone calls with Stanyar re: division of 0.3 responsibilities for response to AG motion for 8/20/13 summary judgment.

14 Page Total: 23.3 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 15 of 45 Pg ID 5291

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time E-mail discussions with Howard and co-counsel re: 0.5 8/21/13 strategy to debunk Regnerus and Marks. Edits to Howard Regnerus rebuttal affidavit. 2.2 8/21/13 Review of amici briefs of Michigan Family Forum, 1.3 8/23/13 Catholic Conference. Review of ACLU amicus brief. 0.6 8/30/13 E-mails with Howard re: edits to affidavit. 0.3 9/6/13 Phone call with Howard re: affidavit. 0.4 9/6/13 Edits to Howard affidavit. 0.4 9/7/13 Edits to Howard affidavit. E-mails, phone call with 2.4 9/8/13 Mogill re: Howard affidavit and relevant cites. E-mails with Stanyar re: Howard affidavit, revising of 1.5 9/9/13 affidavit. 9/9/13 Phone call with Stanyar re: Howard affidavit, edits. 0.2 Review of post-DOMA IRS revenue ruling impacting 1.0 9/9/13 s/s couples married out-of-state. Review of AG response to cross motion for summary 1.6 9/9/13 judgment. Review of motion for summary judgment filed by 0.5 9/9/13 Brown. Phone call, e-mails with Howard and Stanyar re: state 1.6 9/11/13 defendants response, rebuttal info. to Regnerus/Marks materials. E-mails with Sedler, Stanyar, Mogill re: arguments for 1.8 9/11/13 reply brief and edits. E-mails with Stanyar and Howard re: Marks, Prop. 8 1.6 materials, testimony of David Blankenship from Perry 9/12/13 and NYT editorial from Blankenship re: studies on s/s couples children. E-mails with Sedler, Stanyar and Mogill re: reply brief 1.1 9/12/13 contents and edits. Review of AG reply brief. 1.4 9/17/13 E-mails with Stanyar, Mogill, Sedler re: prep for oral 0.8 9/30/13 arguments for summary judgment motions. Phone call with AG re: concurrence on motion to align 0.1 10/2/13 parties. 0.2 10/2/13 Phone call with Sedler re: motion to align parties.

15 Page Total: 21.5 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 16 of 45 Pg ID 5292

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time E-mails with AG re: motion to align parties. 0.2 10/2/13

E-mails and phone calls with clients re: up-coming 1.0 10/2/13 proceedings. E-mails with Sedler, Mogill, Stanyar re: AG motion to 0.6 10/3/13 align parties. Edits to draft of motion in response.

Reviewed s/s/m pleadings from NJ s/s/m case. 1.2 10/14/13 Arguments/opinion re: stay following ruling for use at argument, potential motion following ruling. Meeting at courthouse with clients and legal team. 1.5 10/16/13 Attended court hearing. 1.5 10/16/13 Phone call with Stanyar re: experts needed for trial. 0.5 10/17/13 Phone conference with Stewart/Flynn from Perry trial 0.8 10/17/13 re: witnesses for trial. Reviewed list of witnesses used for Perry trial, 2.0 10/17/13 reviewed trial transcripts. E-mail, phone call with Zach Wahls re: potential 0.5 10/18/13 testimony for trial. Phone calls with Stanyar re: division of responsibility 1.0 10/18/13 for expert witnesses. Organize draft of areas for witnesses will be required 1.5 10/19/13 for trial. E-mails with Sedler re: trial strategy. 0.1 10/20/13 Phone call with Mogill re: witnesses for trial. 0.1 10/21/13 Meeting with Stanyar and Equality Michigan re: 1.8 10/22/13 assistance in locating experts for trial. Phone call with Mogill re: witnesses. 0.3 10/22/13 E-mail with Howard re: expert witnesses. 0.1 10/22/13 Phone call with Kate Kendall of NCLR re: assistance 0.6 10/23/13 with locating witnesses for trial. Meeting with Sedler, Stanyar, Mogill, Pitt to determine 4.0 10/24/13 expert witness areas; delegation of responsibilities. Travel to/from Royal Oak from office. 1.0 10/24/13 Phone call with Cooley Law Prof. Dan Ray re: 0.6 10/24/13 assistance on amicus, locating expert witnesses.

16 Page Total: 20.9 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 17 of 45 Pg ID 5293

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time E-mails with Univ. of Michigan Law clerks re: 0.3 10/24/13 assistance with research. E-mails with Sedler, Mogill, Stanyar re: expert 0.2 10/24/13 witnesses. E-mails with Stewart, Flynn re: potential expert 0.2 10/24/13 witnesses. Phone call with Bonauto re: assistance from GLAD, 0.5 10/25/13 potential expert witnesses.

Research on potential witnesses (Abbie Goldberg, 5.5 10/26/13 Brian Powell, Tina Fetner, Simon Cherg, Philip Cohen, Andrea Perrin) Research on potential expert witnesses (Neal Caren, 3.3 10/27/13 Laurie Essig, Daren Sherkat). E-mails with Stanyar, Mogill, Sedler re: locating 0.5 10/27/13 experts, delegation of responsibility. Phone call with Brodzinsky re: testifying. 0.5 10/28/13 Reviewed Brodzinsky CV, depositions, articles. 0.6 10/28/13 Phone call with Pat Muscat re: use of new Lexis Nexis 0.5 10/28/13 technology for use at trial. E-mails to legal team re: use of technology needs/uses 0.3 10/28/13 for trial. E-mails with Bonauto re: experts. 0.2 10/29/13 Investigation and attempt to locate experts. 2.5 10/29/13 Conference call with Bonauto re: expert witnesses. 2.0 10/30/13 Phone call with Mogill re; witnesses. 0.4 10/30/13 Research on witness Gary Gates (reviewed 3.2 10/30/13 publications). E-mails with Sedler, Mogill, Stanyar re: expert 1.0 10/30/13 witnesses, use of ACLU attorney Leslie Cooper for Regnerus information. E-mails to Stewart, Kendall re: experts. 0.1 10/30/13 Review of Chauncey Perry expert report, trial 2.0 10/30/13 testimony, amicus brief. Investigation of University of Michigan professors 2.2 (law school and undergraduate studies) for use as 10/31/13 experts.

17 Page Total: 26.0 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 18 of 45 Pg ID 5294

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time E-mail and phone call with Prof. Sankaran. 1.1 10/31/13 E-mails with Stewart and Flynn re: experts. 0.2 10/31/13 E-mails with Bonauto re: Gates, review of Gates 2.3 10/31/13 publications, amicus briefs. E-mails and phone call with Mogill re: Sankaran. 0.4 10/31/13 Investigation into tax expert and phone call with CPA 1.6 Jennifer Sanderson re: tax implications for s/s couples 11/1/13 who live in non-marriage equality states. Review of IRS materials. E-mails with Equality Michigan re: investigation into 0.3 11/1/13 witnesses for trial. E-mails with Brodzinsky. 0.2 11/1/13 Phone call with Emily Dievendorf (Equality MI) re: 0.4 11/1/13 witnesses for trial. E-mails, phone calls with Stewart, Flynn re: expert 0.5 11/1/13 witnesses. E-mails with sociologist Abbie Goldberg re: potential 0.2 11/2/13 witnesses. Phone call with Goldberg re: potential witnesses. 0.4 11/2/13 E-mails with expert Sanderson, discussion about other 0.3 11/3/13 potential experts. Reviewed materials re: Nancy Cott from Perry. 1.5 11/3/13 Reviewed Michigan commission on civil rights report 0.2 11/4/13 re: economic injury to state. Phone call with Bonato, Stanyar re: locating expert 2.0 11/4/13 witnesses. Phone calls to parents, children of s/s couples 1.8 11/4/13 regarding potential testimony, life experiences regarding discrimination against their families. Phone call with Jane Bassett (MI family law/probate 1.2 11/4/13 law attorney) re: adoption/guardianship laws in MI. E-mails with Bonauto re: Cott. 0.2 11/4/13 Phone call with Stewart, Flynn re: witness preparation, 0.8 11/4/13 expert report preparation. Reviewed family law/guardianship law/adoption law 2.2 11/4/13 for use in expert reports. Phone call with Mogill re: Cott as an expert. 0.2 11/5/13

18 Page Total: 18.0 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 19 of 45 Pg ID 5295

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time E-mails with Sedler, Stanyar, Mogill re: potential new 0.6 11/5/13 experts. E-mail to Howarth at MSU Law re: assistance locating 0.2 11/5/13 MI experts for trial. Investigate potential experts for use at trial (parenting 3.0 11/6/13 lay and expert witnesses). E-mails with co-counsel re: Jackson/Hawaii case. 2.2 11/6/13 Review of Jackson pleadings. E-mails with Muscat re: Lexis Nexis Sanction software 0.5 11/6/13 for use at trial. Meeting with co-counsel re: witnesses, division of 2.0 11/7/13 responsibility for experts. Travel to Royal Oak to/from office. 1.0 11/7/13 E-mails to Emily Wolfe re: lay witnesses for trial. 0.3 11/7/13 Phone call with Howarth re: locating expert witnesses 0.6 11/8/13 (MI attorneys) for trial. E-mail and phone call with Kathi Nelson re: adoption 1.4 11/8/13 experts, adoption law, experience with adoption by s/s/ couples. E-mails with Stanyar re: affidavits for potential 0.4 11/8/13 witnesses. E-mails with Stanyar re: affidavits for potential 0.3 11/9/13 witnesses. E-mails with co-counsel re: division of responsibilities 0.3 11/10/13 for witnesses. E-mails with Nelson re: expert report, adoption law. 0.3 11/11/13 Reviewed publications, materials by Gates. 2.6 11/11/13 E-mails and phone call with Zach Wahls re: potential 0.5 11/11/13 testimony for trial. E-mails with legal team re: witnesses for trial. 0.2 11/11/13 E-mails with Stanyar, Mogill re: Rule 26 reports 0.2 11/11/13 Phone call with Mogill re: Rule 26 report requirements 0.1 11/11/13 Drafted expert engagement letters 0.4 11/11/13 Phone call with Mogill re: heightened scrutiny 0.4 11/12/13 witnesses. Phone calls with Stanyar re: scheduling conference, 1.0 11/12/13 witness list.

19 Page Total: 18.5 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 20 of 45 Pg ID 5296

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time Phone call with Gates. 1.2 11/12/13 E-mails with Bonauto re: Gates testimony/report. 0.5 11/12/13 Phone call with Mogill re: Sanderson, Sankeran 0.2 11/12/13 testimony. Reviewed draft of witness list. 0.2 11/12/13 E-mails with Yale Law students re: assistance with 0.3 11/13/13 research. Reviewed FL case re: Regnerus disclosures. 0.3 11/13/13 Phone call with Prof. Starnes re: potential expert 0.3 11/13/13 testimony. Phone calls, investigation for potential expert and lay 2.3 11/13/13 witness testimony re: s/s parenting. Reviewed Perry depositions, trial transcript, expert 3.5 11/13/13 reports. Phone call with Stewart re: potential heightened 0.6 11/14/13 scrutiny expert witnesses. E-mails with Stanyar, Mogill, Sedler re: edits of 0.5 11/14/13 witness list. Phone calls with Stanyar, Mogill re: witness list. 0.7 11/14/13 Research on potential heightened scrutiny witnesses. 2.2 11/14/13 Review of state defendants witness list. Research into 5.2 11/15/13 defense witnesses. Phone call with Stanyar re: heightened scrutiny 0.3 11/15/13 witnesses. E-mails to legal team re: heightened scrutiny 0.5 11/15/13 witnesses. Research on potential witnesses for Plaintiffs. 2.0 11/15/13 Research on Regnerus, Price, Allen. Review of 5.0 11/16/13 publications in academic journals. Review of Brodzinsky depositions from various 1.2 11/16/13 adoption, gay and lesbian parenting cases. E-mails to/from co-counsel re: regarding state 0.7 11/16/13 witnesses. 11/16/13 E-mails with Bonauto re: defense witnesses. 0.5 E-mails with Stanyar, Mogill, Sedler re: defense and 1.0 11/17/13 plaintiff witnesses. Review of expert reports, prior testimony from 2.0 11/17/13 Chauncey, Herek, Primus.

20 Page Total: 31.2 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 21 of 45 Pg ID 5297

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time E-mails with Nelson re: expert report. 0.2 11/18/13 E-mails with Stewart re: expert report for Herek. 0.2 11/18/13 Review of Herek materials from Perry, additional 2.6 11/18/13 Herek publications, depositions, opposition research. E-mails with co-counsel re: opposition research on 0.3 11/18/13 defense witnesses. Review of Peplau, Sergura bios and publications. 0.3 11/18/13 Review of Hollingsworth amicus. 0.5 11/18/13 Research on defense witnesses Allen and Price. 1.6 11/18/13 Reviewed Chauncey affidavit on Windsor. 0.3 11/18/13 Research on Jennifer Sanders, other potential 1.1 11/18/13 witnesses. Investigate available court reporting agencies for 0.5 11/18/13 depositions. Reviewed Brodzinsky materials, e-mail with Stanyar, 0.3 11/18/13 Mogill re: use of Brodzinsky on various topics. Drafted cost estimates for expert travel, time for 2.0 11/19/13 reports, depositions, other potential expenses for case. Reviewed Gary Gates and related materials published 2.8 11/19/13 by The Williams Institute on LGBT demographics. Reviewed sociological reviews, critiques on Regnerus 1.1 11/19/13 (article authored by Gates). 11/19/13 E-mails to Bonauto re: Gates material for report. 0.2 Phone call with Howard re: Regnerus critique by Gates 0.7 11/19/13 and additional sociological critiques of NFSS study. E-mails with Howard re: critiques of Regnerus 0.3 11/19/13 NFSS/rebuttal witnesses. Research/Investigate potential witnesses. 2.5 11/19/13 Research/investigate potential witnesses. 3.0 11/20/13 E-mails with co-counsel re: heightened scrutiny 0.5 11/20/13 witnesses, bifurcation of trial. Reviewed amicus brief from GLAD on Sevcik v 0.5 11/20/13 Sandoval for 9th Circuit.

Reviewed Allen study on high school graduation rates 1.2 11/20/13 of children of s/s/ couples.

21 Page Total: 22.7 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 22 of 45 Pg ID 5298

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time Reviewed proposed stipulation by AG re: timelines for 0.4 11/20/13 depositions, e-mails with Stanyar re: timing of depositions and motions. E-mails with Shannon Minter of NCLR re: research 0.4 11/20/13 assistance and potential witnesses. Phone call with Bonauto, Stanyar, Mogill re: 0.4 11/20/13 bifurcation of trial, heightened scrutiny witnesses, division of responsibility. E-mails with Howard re: using Sherkat as a witness. 0.2 11/20/13 Reviewed state defendants interrogatories, request to 0.5 11/21/13 produce documents. Review Gates, Williams Institute, census studies on 4.5 11/21/13 LGBT population and adoption in Michigan and nationally. E-mails with Gates re: specific types of data, studies to 0.6 11/21/13 be utilized in expert report, format of report. Phone call with Stanyar re: witnesses, division of 0.3 11/21/13 responsibility. Reviewed orders and pleadings re: HRC case against 0.3 11/22/13 University of Central Florida re: Regnerus e-mails on NFSS. Phone call to HRC re: Regnerus e-mails, assistance 0.4 11/22/13 procuring Regnerus information. E-mails with Regnerus critic, sociologist Sherkat. 0.5 11/22/13 Reviewed Rosenfeld publications, studies. 1.7 11/23/13 Research on Sherkat. 0.6 11/23/13 Review and edits to amended witness list. 0.3 11/23/13 E-mails with co-counsel re: amended witness list. 0.3 11/23/13 E-mails with Bonauto, co-counsel re: Chauncey 0.2 11/24/13 testifying as a witness for Plaintiffs. Reviewed Perry exhibits, Perry expert reports, 2.6 11/24/13 proposed finds of fact, conclusions of law. E-mails with co-counsel re: Rule 26 specifications, 0.5 11/25/13 format of expert reports. Phone call with Sherkat. 0.8 11/25/13 0.2 11/25/13 E-mails to Sherkat.

22 Page Total: 15.7 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 23 of 45 Pg ID 5299

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time Review of rule 26 disclosure requirements, relevant 1.0 11/25/13 case law. E-mails with Howard and Sherkat re: Regnerus info. 0.3 11/25/13 E-mails with Mogill re: rule 26 disclosures. 0.2 11/25/13 Reviewed Cott’s expert report from Perry. 0.3 11/25/13 E-mails with Bonauto about expert report format, 0.1 11/25/13 inclusions. Reviewed Girgis amicus for Windsor. 0.5 11/25/13 Reviewed Chauncey expert report for Harris v 0.6 11/25/13 McDonnell (Virginia). Phone call with Stanyar, Mogill, Bonauto re: 0.5 11/26/13 witnesses, reports. Reviewed/investigated Gates, Williams Institute, 3.2 11/26/13 related LGBT demographic studies and reports. Phone call with Bonauto re: material to be included in 1.0 11/26/13 Gates report. Conference call with Mogill, Stanyar re: avoiding 1.5 11/27/13 overlap of information by witnesses, information to be included or excluded in reports of witnesses. Phone call with research assistants re: delegation of 0.4 11/27/13 responsibility on summary of various publications by experts. Research, investigation on publications by Girgis. 1.8 11/27/13 Research, investigation on Allen. 1.4 11/27/13 E-mails with Stanyar re: content of expert reports, 0.2 11/30/13 overlap on political powerless for Herek, Gates, and Brodzinsky material. Reviewed In Re Adoption of XXG (Florida adoption 0.5 11/30/13 case). E-mails with Bonauto, Cooper, Mogill and Stanyar re: 0.2 11/30/13 Regnerus. 12/1/13 E-mails with Bonauto re: availability of experts. 0.1 E-mails with Stanyar, Bonauto, Mogill about 0.2 12/2/13 availability of witnesses. E-mails with Stanyar, Mogill re: material to be 0.4 12/2/13 included in expert reports of adoption witnesses, HRC Regnerus materials from Florida case. Reviewed Gates amicus from Windsor. 0.7 12/3/13

23 Page Total: 15.1 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 24 of 45 Pg ID 5300

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time E-mails with Gates, Flynn, Stewart re: Gates report. 0.2 12/3/13 Reviewed publications by Allen. 0.4 12/3/13 Conference call with Bonauto, Stanyar re: material to 1.2 12/3/13 be used in Brodzinsky, Gates reports. E-mails with co-counsel re: division of responsibility 0.2 12/3/13 on witnesses. Phone call with Gates re: expert report material. 2.0 12/3/13 E-mails to witnesses re: testimony, deposition 0.3 12/4/13 arrangements. E-mails with co-counsel re: division of responsibility 0.7 12/4/13 on witnesses, contents of individual witnesses reports, planning of deposition dates. Reviewed order from court on motion to realign 0.1 12/4/13 parties. E-mails with Nelson re: expert report. 0.3 12/5/13 E-mails with Gates re: arrangements for deposition. 0.3 12/5/13 Phone call with Bassett re: report, info on adoption, 1.0 12/5/13 probate, guardianship law in Michigan. Met with Bassett. Review of contents of report, 2.0 12/6/13 adoption, guardianship, foster care, probate law. Travel to/from Ann Arbor from office. 1.2 12/6/13 Phone call with Gates re: report and deposition. 0.2 12/6/13 E-mails with Bonauto re: use of Kirkland as a witness 0.1 12/6/13 on history of discrimination. Reviewed McLauglin v Florida, dissertation on history 1.6 12/6/13 of equal protection by Klarman, Frontiero v Richardson. E-mails with Nelson re: adoption material. 0.3 12/6/13 Met with Nelson about report, adoption materials at 2.2 12/7/13 Hands Across the Water Adoption Agency, Ann Arbor. Travel to/from Ann Arbor from office. 1.0 12/7/13 E-mails with clients re: case updates. 0.3 12/8/13 Phone call with Tim Retzloss, grad student doing PhD 1.2 12/9/13 on history of discrimination against LGBT community in Michigan.

24 Page Total: 16.8 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 25 of 45 Pg ID 5301

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time Research/review of LGBT related legislation proposed 4.3 12/9/13 in Michigan legislature from 1995-2013. E-mails with co-counsel re: MDCR report, testimony 0.2 12/9/13 regarding report. Review of articles on history of LGBT discrimination 1.4 12/10/13 in Michigan. Review of MDCR report. 1.0 12/10/13 Met with Nelson re: report, adoption law. 1.5 12/10/13 Met with Bassett re: report, adoption, guardianship, 2.0 12/10/13 probate, foster care law, materials. Travel to/from Ann Arbor. 1.1 12/10/13 Review draft of Brodzinsky report. 0.3 12/10/13 Review draft of Rosenfeld report. 0.3 12/10/13 Review draft of Bassett report. 0.5 12/10/13 Review draft of Gates report, edits to report. 1.0 12/10/13 Phone call with Gates re: report. 0.3 12/11/13 Phone call with Bonauto re: material in Gates report. 0.3 12/11/13 E-mails with Gates re: edits to report. 0.8 12/11/13 Edits to Gates report. 1.2 12/11/13 E-mails with co-counsel re: updates/progress on Gates, 1.0 12/11/13 Bassett, Nelson reports, other expert reports discussed. E-mails with Cooper, HRC, co-counsel re: Regnerus. 0.4 12/11/13 E-mails to Gates re: edits to report. 1.0 12/12/13 Review of Kirkland report. 0.4 12/12/13 Research on Price publications, amicus briefs, 3.2 12/12/13 affidavits on s/s marriage cases. Reviewed AG’s response to motion to bifurcate trial. 0.5 12/12/13 1.0 12/12/13 Drafted retainer with experts.

25 Page Total: 23.7 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 26 of 45 Pg ID 5302

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time E-mails to co-counsel re: coordination of depositions. 0.3 12/12/13 E-mails with co-counsel re: American Academy of 0.3 12/12/13 Matrimonial Lawyers amicus brief. E-mails with Bonauto re: expert witness fees. 0.3 12/12/13 Phone call with Stanyar re: material in reports, division 0.1 12/13/13 of report material between experts. Phone call with Bonauto re: material in reports, 0.3 12/13/13 division of report material between experts. 12/13/13 E-mails with Bassett re: report, adoption materials. 0.4 E-mails, phone call with Nelson about cancer 1.0 12/13/13 diagnosis, inability to testify, replacement witnesses. Review of Cott report draft. 0.5 12/13/13 Review of Marks export report on Perry. 0.5 12/13/13 Phone call with potential adoption witness Julie 0.7 12/13/13 Roesch. Phone call with potential adoption expert Jill Dettman. 1.0 12/13/13 E-mail to/from co-counsel re: use of Dettman as 0.7 12/13/13 adoption expert. E-mails, text messages with Stewart, Flynn, Gates re: 0.5 12/13/13 Gates report, preparation for Gates deposition. Phone call with Gates re: report, deposition, 0.5 12/13/13 preparations and travel for deposition. E-mails with Dettman re: potential testimony. 0.5 12/13/13 Investigate, research publications by Price. 1.3 12/13/13 E-mails with co-counsel regarding coordination of 0.7 12/13/13 depositions. E-mails with Bassett re: edits to report. 0.3 12/13/13 Review of Price, Marks, Regnerus, Girgis materials. 3.1 12/14/13 Phone call with Dettman re: contents of report, 1.0 12/15/13 adoption materials, s/s couples adoption issues. Review/edit Dettman report. 2.4 12/16/13 Phone call with Gates re: edits to report, deposition. 0.5 12/16/13 Reviewed Sankaran draft report. 0.5 12/16/13

26 Page Total: 17.4 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 27 of 45 Pg ID 5303

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time Review Kirkland, Herek edits. 0.6 12/16/13 E-mails with co-counsel re: edits to Kirkland report. 0.4 12/16/13 Phone call with Dettman re: edits to report, adoption 0.8 12/16/13 issues, deposition. E-mails with Gates re: edits to report, deposition. 0.6 12/16/13 Review of adoption articles re: history of second- 1.3 12/16/13 parent adoption for s/s couples in Michigan. Reviewed, edited Gates report, studies cited in Gates 1.0 12/17/13 report. Reviewed, edited Dettman report, request to amend 1.3 12/17/13 witness list re: Dettman/Nelson illness. E-mails with Gates re: edits to report, exhibits to be 1.1 12/17/13 included in report, travel arrangement for deposition. Conference call with Gates re: report, exhibits, 1.5 12/17/13 deposition, trial testimony, rebuttal to state witnesses testimony. Phone call with Bonauto re: Kirkland report related to 1.0 12/17/13 history of s/s/ couple and LGBT adoption in Michigan. Reviewed edits to Sankaran report. E-mails with co- 0.6 12/17/13 counsel re: contents of Sankaran report vs. content of other reports with similar content. Reviewed edits to Rosenfeld report. 0.7 12/17/13 Reviewed edits to Brodzinsky report, coordinated with 0.8 12/17/13 drafts to related reports. Reviewed export reports of state witnesses filed in 1.1 12/17/13 Harris v McDonnell (Regnerus, Price, Marks). Phone call with Bassett re: edits to Bassett, Dettman, 1.0 12/18/13 Sankaran reports, adoption, probate codes materials. E-mails with co-counsel re: coordination of content of 0.9 12/18/13 Gates, Peplau, Herek reports. E-mails to Gates re: revisions, edits to report. E-mails 2.7 12/18/13 to co-counsel re: Gates revisions. Phone calls with Gates re: report revisions, stats for use 1.2 12/18/13 in other reports. (x3) Reviewed Sanderson, Bassett, Dettman reports, edits to 3.8 12/18/13 reports, e-mails to team re: consolidating Sanderson and Bassett reports, coordination of reports. Phone calls to Dettman re: reports, adoption materials. 0.4 12/18/13 (x2) Phone call with Cooper re: revisions to Dettman report. 0.3 12/18/13

27 Page Total: 23.1 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 28 of 45 Pg ID 5304

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time E-mails with Brodzinsky and Howard re: additional 0.2 12/18/13 adoption statistics for use in reports. Review of Journal of GLBT Family Studies by 1.3 12/18/13 Fedeurs/Clare for material used in reports. Phone conferences with co-counsel re: coordination of 0.5 12/18/13 material in reports. (x2) Edits to Gates report, attach exhibits, coordinate 3.5 12/19/13 documents with scanned signature for filing. Phone calls with Gates re: report, exhibits, signature. 0.3 12/19/13 (x2) Edits to Dettman report. Phone calls, e-mails with 2.0 12/19/13 Dettman re; revisions, edits to report. Edits to Bassett report to consolidate material on 4.6 Sanderson report, coordinate with Sankaran and Gates 12/19/13 reports. Review adoption, probate, custody, guardianship materials cited in reports. Review edits to Herek report; coordinated info with 0.8 12/19/13 other reports. Review edits to Cott report; coordinate material with 0.6 12/19/13 other reports. Final edits to Gates, Bassett, Dettman reports; filing of 7.0 12/20/13 reports. E-mails, phone calls, text messages with co-counsel re: 1.2 12/20/13 coordination of and filing of all expert reports. E-mail to AG. 0.1 12/23/13 Review of articles cited in Gates report to prepare for 4.5 12/24/13 deposition. Blacketta, Gates/Newport, Klawitter, Gates/Cooke, Pew research, American survey data. Review Griego v Oliver opinion (New Mexico SCT 1.1 12/25/13 case). Review Kitchen v Herbert opinion (Utah). 1.2 12/25/13 Review of state defendant expert reports, materials 5.2 12/26/13 cited in state defendant witness reports. E-mails with Cooper re: strategy for depositions on 0.2 12/26/13 Brodzinsky, Gates, Price demography content. E-mails with Cooper re: strategy for depositions on 0.3 12/27/13 Brodzinsky, Gates, Price demography content. Review of Daubert related cases. 1.5 12/28/13 1.2 Review draft of answers to interrogatories, Request to 12/28/13 produce documents, edits to document.

28 Page Total: 37.3 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 29 of 45 Pg ID 5305

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time Review of studies and articles cited in defense expert 6.3 reports. (NFSS by Regnerus, Florida case peer review 12/28/13 critiques, Sherkat critique, Potter study, Child trend studies, Rosenfeld study, Allen study). Review of Price publications, critiques of Price. 3.3 12/29/13 E-mails with co-counsel re: depositions, requirements 0.4 12/30/13 for requests to produce for witnesses, disclosure rules. 12/30/13 Reviewed Price report. 0.8 Phone call with Cooper re: Price report, issues re: 0.8 12/30/13 questions for deposition of Price. E-mails with co-counsel re: scheduling for depositions, 0.3 12/31/13 disclosures. Reviewed draft of proposed Regnerus deposition 0.6 12/31/13 questions, edits. Phone call with AG Heyse re: coordination of 0.2 1/2/14 depositions. E-mails with Sankaran re: deposition testimony, 1.7 1/2/14 coordination of deposition dates. E-mails with co-counsel re: coordination of 0.2 1/2/14 depositions. E-mail to AG Heyse re: scheduling of depositions. 0.2 1/2/14 Phone call with Cooper re: coordination of depositions, 0.5 1/2/14 strategy for Gates, Regnerus depositions. E-mails with Gary Gates re: deposition testimony. 0.4 1/2/14 E-mails with Cooper re: Price, Gates, Regnerus 0.4 1/2/14 deposition strategies. E-mails/phone calls with court reporting agency to 0.5 1/2/14 schedule depositions for state witnesses. Multiple calls, e-mails with court reporting agency for 1.0 1/3/14 scheduling of depositions. Phone call with Gary Gates for deposition preparation. 0.5 1/3/14 E-mails with Cooper re: deposition scheduling. 0.2 1/3/14 Reviewed court order re: motion to bifurcate trial. 0.3 1/3/14 Travel to San Francisco for Gates deposition. 8.0 1/3/14 Review of Gates amicus filing for Windsor/Perry. 2.2 1/4/14 Review of Gates materials to prepare for deposition. Meeting with Gates, Stewart, Flynn to prepare for 3.0 1/4/14 deposition.

29 Page Total: 31.8 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 30 of 45 Pg ID 5306

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time Meeting with Gates, Stewart, Flynn to Prepare for 4.0 1/5/14 deposition. Prepare for Gates deposition, reviewed Gates 2.0 1/5/14 materials, court rules. Phone calls with AG Heyse re: AG cancellation of 0.2 1/5/14 deposition. E-mails with co-counsel re: cancellation and 0.3 1/5/14 rescheduling of depositions. Phone calls with AG, Stanyar, Gates, court reporting 1.4 1/6/14 services re: cancellation of depositions due to polar vortex and rescheduling of depositions. Phone calls with airline regarding travel issues due to 1.3 1/6/14 polar vortex. Phone call with clients re: deposition scheduling, 1.0 1/6/14 involvement of Henry, Cooper and Bonauto as attorneys of record, future proceedings. Travel from San Francisco to Detroit. 8.0 1/7/14 Calls with court reporting agency re: rescheduling of 0.8 1/7/14 depositions (x3) E-mails with Cooper re: logistics of Regnerus 0.3 1/7/14 deposition. Phone call with Cooper re: logistics of Regnerus 0.2 1/7/14 deposition. E-mails with co-counsel re: rescheduling of 0.4 1/7/14 depositions, available dates, coordination of witnesses. Reviewed stipulation and order re: discovery. 0.2 1/8/14 E-mails, phone call with Block re: Price deposition. 0.5 1/8/14 Reviewed Price report, publications, prep for Price 4.0 1/8/14 deposition. Phone call with Gates re: deposition testimony, 1.4 1/8/14 deposition preparation. Phone calls with Bassett (x2) re: deposition, adoption, 0.8 1/8/14 probate, custody, guardianship issues. E-mails with co-counsel re: Bassett testimony. 1.0 1/8/14 Phone call with Block re: Price deposition questions. 1.0 1/9/14 Deposition preparation for Price. 3.6 1/9/14 E-mails with Gates re: deposition logistics, 0.4 1/9/14 preparation.

30 Page Total: 32.8 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 31 of 45 Pg ID 5307

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time Phone call with Gates re: deposition logistics. 0.3 1/9/14 E-mails with Henry, co-counsel re: Chauncey 0.3 1/9/14 deposition re-scheduling. Drafted outline for Price deposition. 3.0 1/10/14 Reviewed e-mails from co-counsel re: Cott deposition. 0.2 1/10/14 Reviewed Allen publications on marriage, children, 4.5 1/10/14 sexual orientation of parents. Investigated, reviewed Price and Allen publications, 7.0 1/13/14 prep for depositions. E-mails, phone call with Howard re: Price expert report 0.5 1/13/14 sections involving adopted children. E-mails with Block re: Price deposition. 0.2 1/13/14 Phone call with Gates re: demographic portions of 0.5 1/13/14 Price report. Reviewed Price articles, reviewed publications cited in 4.3 1/14/14 Price and Allen reports, search for unpublished abstracts cited in report, prep for deposition. E-mails with Block re: Price deposition questions. 0.3 1/14/14 Phone call with Block re: prep for Price deposition. 0.5 1/14/14 Phone call with Gates re: Price demographic/census 0.8 1/14/14 analysis. Telephone call, e-mails with court reporter re: 0.3 1/15/14 deposition transcripts. E-mails with co-counsel re: Chauncey and Brodzinsky 0.3 1/15/14 depositions/transcripts. Reviewed Marks report and publications. 1.4 1/15/14 E-mails with Sedler re: edits of Price deposition 0.3 1/15/14 outline. Review of Girgis materials, publications. 1.5 1/15/14 E-mails with Cooper re: Price outline for deposition. 0.2 1/15/14 Reviewed Rosenfeld study, Allen/Price revision of 2.0 1/15/14 Rosenfeld study. Reviewed Regnerus deposition transcript. 2.1 1/16/14 E-mails with Gates re: new consumer reports 0.4 1/16/14 demography info. on LGBT community.

31 Page Total: 30.9 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 32 of 45 Pg ID 5308

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time E-mails with court reporter re: deposition transcripts. 0.3 1/16/14 E-mails with co-counsel re: scheduling changes for 0.2 1/16/14 depositions. Research/prep for Price deposition. 2.7 1/16/14 Review of Sandefur study, critiques of Sandefur study. 1.0 1/16/14 E-mails with Howard re: Sandefur study. 0.2 1/16/14 E-mail, call to AG Heyse re: deposition schedule. 0.1 1/17/14 E-mails, phone calls with co-counsel re: AG Heyse last 1.3 1/17/14 second change of deposition schedule for state witnesses. E-mails with Stanyar re: Marks deposition. 0.1 1/17/14 Reviewed American College of Pediatrics, American 0.8 1/17/14 Academy of Pediatrics statements re: parenting by s/s couples Review of Michigan family law statutes vis-à-vis Price 1.5 1/17/14 report statements on divorce statutes. Prep for Price deposition. 7.5 1/17/14 Travel to/from Lansing from Detroit 3.0 1/18/14 Deposition of Price. 4.0 1/18/14 Research on Heritage Foundation, Alliance Defense 2.2 Fund, Witherspoon Institute, National Organization for 1/18/14 Marriage re: recruitment of state defense witnesses for anti-LGBT studies. E-mails with Stanyar re: scheduling of depositions. 0.3 1/19/14 Review of e-mails re: deposition scheduling. 0.1 1/20/14 E-mails with court reporters re: newly scheduled 0.4 1/20/14 depositions. Prep. For Gates deposition. 4.3 1/20/14 Travel to/from Lansing/Detroit. 3.0 1/21/14 8.0 1/21/14 Gates deposition, prep Gates for deposition.

32 Page Total: 41.0 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 33 of 45 Pg ID 5309

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time Review of Marks deposition transcript. 1.5 1/22/14 E-mails with Clients re: deposition. 0.3 1/22/14 Meeting with DeBoer, Stanyar, Mogill, Sedler re: edits 2.5 1/22/14 to witness list, decisions re: witness testimony to be consolidated. Travel to/from Royal Oak, Detroit. 1.0 1/22/14 Review new notices of depositions, e-mails with 0.3 1/22/14 Stanyar, Mogill re: deposition schedule. Review Chauncey deposition transcript. 1.8 1/22/14 Phone call with Gates re: revisions to report, trial 1.0 1/23/14 exhibits. E-mails with Cooper re: new stats on MA divorce rates 0.3 1/23/13 since 2004. E-mails with Sankaran to prep for deposition. 1.6 1/23/14 E-mails with Stanyar re: scheduling for witness 0.6 1/23/14 depositions. E-mails with Gates re: amended exhibits, amended 0.5 1/23/14 expert report. Edit to Gates report, new exhibits for Gates. 0.4 1/24/14 E-mails with Sankaran, Stanyar, Heyse re: last minute 1.6 1/24/14 rescheduling of depositions by AG. E-mails, phone call with Dettman re: cancellation of 1.2 1/27/14 deposition, consolidation of testimony into Sankaran testimony. E-mails with Sankaran re: prep for deposition. 1.1 1/27/14 Phone call with Sankaran re: prep for deposition. 2.0 1/27/14 E-mails, phone call with Bassett, re: consolidation of 1.2 1/27/14 testimony with Sankaran testimony. E-mails with Mogill re: financing of deposition 0.3 1/27/14 expenses. E-mails, phone call with Sankaran re: prep for 3.0 1/28/14 deposition. E-mails with co-counsel re: payment to court reporter 0.7 1/28/14 for transcripts. Phone call with Dettman re: consolidating of testimony 1.2 1/28/14 with Sankaran testimony.

33 Page Total: 24.1 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 34 of 45 Pg ID 5310

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time Phone call with DeBoer/Rowse re: deposition 1.1 1/28/14 testimony, potential stipulations in lieu of testifying. Sankaran deposition, waiting in lobby for Sankaran 2.5 1/28/14 deposition after AG altered deposition time without advising counsel. E-mails with co-counsel re: stipulations for Plaintiffs 0.6 1/28/14 testimony in lieu of deposition or trial testimony. Edits to proposed stipulations. Travel to/from Lansing/Detroit. 3.0 1//28/14 E-mails with co-counsel discussing details of 0.5 1/29/14 deposition issues with Sankaran, areas of Sankaran testimony. Review of Brodzinsky deposition transcript. 1.8 1/29/14 Review of opinion on Obergefell v Wymyslo. 0.8 1/29/14 Review of recent amicus filing info by Donaldson 0.6 1/29/14 Adoption Institute. Review of Cott deposition transcript. 1.4 1/29/14 E-mails with co-counsel regarding Daubert motions on 0.6 1/29/14 Regnerus, Price, Allen, Girgis. E-mails to co-counsel to summarize Sankaran 0.4 1/29/14 testimony. E-mails, phone call to Cooper re: drafting of 1.3 amendments to Gates report and exhibits. E-mails to 1/30/14 co-counsel re: coordination of motion prep for Daubert challenges. Reviewed Smithkline Beechamp Corp v Abbot Labs 0.7 1/30/14 (9th Circuit heightened scrutiny). E-mails with Sedler, Mogill re: findings of fact, 0.2 1/30/14 conclusions of law drafts. E-mails with co-counsel re: Sankaran testimony, 0.6 1/30/14 probate code, material anticipated to be used during trial, anticipated motion to strike and response. Designed revised charts, graphs for Gates testimony, 1.0 1/31/14 amended report. E-mails with court reporter re: transcripts of 0.2 1/31/14 deposition, attachments, errors. Review of Price deposition transcript, notes for motion 2.2 1/31/14 in limine. 1.5 1/31/14 Review of Gates deposition transcript.

34 Page Total: 21.0 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 35 of 45 Pg ID 5311

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time Review of Allen deposition transcript. 1.0 1/31/14 E-mails with AG Heyse re: amended Gates report and 0.1 1/31/14 graphs. Review of Girgis deposition transcript. 0.8 1/31/14 Software training for Lexis-Nexis Sanction Powerpoint 1.5 2/1/14 program for use at trial with software representative. Reviewed Daubert cases, FRE 702, Kumho Tore Co v 2.3 2/2/14 Carmichael, Perry motions re: David Blankenhorn, additional Daubert ICLE review. Drafted motion to strike Price as expert witness under 8.5 2/3/14 Daubert. E-mails/phone calls with court reporter re: pagination, 0.4 2/3/14 document issues with transcript and exhibit attachments. Reviewed draft of Regnerus motion in limine. 0.5 2/3/14 Drafted motion to strike Price as witness under 0.5 2/4/14 Daubert. E-mails with V. Henry re: billing for Chauncey 0.2 2/4/14 deposition. E-mails with S. Augustyniak re: hotel arrangements for 0.4 2/4/14 attorneys and witnesses during trial. Phone call with Bassett re: consolidation of testimony 0.6 2/4/14 with Sankaran testimony for judicial economy. E-mails with co-counsel re: edits to Plaintiffs Daubert 0.4 2/4/14 motions. Reviewed court order re: protective order. 0.1 2/4/14 Reviewed AG filings on motion to disqualify and 1.2 exclude Sankaran, motion to exclude references to 2/4/14 second-parent adoption during trial, and motion to preclude Lisa Brown from testifying. Draft response to AG’s motion in limine to disqualify 4.0 2/4/14 Sankaran. E-mails, phone call with Sedler re: edits to Sankaran 0.7 2/5/14 response. Coordinated Price exhibits for Daubert Motion to 3.0 2/5/14 strike. E-mails with Stanyar, Cooper, Henry re: order of 0.4 witnesses at trial, time required for opening, closing, 2/5/14 travel arrangements for witnesses, remote testimony of Chauncey.

35 Page Total: 26.6 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 36 of 45 Pg ID 5312

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time E-mails with co-counsel re: findings of fact, 0.4 2/5/14 conclusions of law. Review Plaintiffs motion to exclude witnesses. 0.2 2/5/14 Review of motion in limine to bar testimony of Girgis. 0.3 2/5/14 Review motion to extend time for filing of Daubert 0.3 2/6/14 motions. Phone conference with co-counsel re: findings of 1.0 2/6/14 fact/conclusions of law. Filed exhibits for Daubert motions. 0.5 2/6/14 E-mails with Mogill re: filing of exhibits for Daubert 0.2 2/6/14 motions. E-mails with Gates re: logistics of travel, prep for trial, 0.3 2/7/14 trial testimony. Drafted response to AG’s motion in limine/motion to 2.0 2/7/14 strike testimony of Sankaran. Review of Price deposition testimony on Bassett v 2.0 2/7/14 Snyder. E-mails with co-counsel re: errata on depositions of 0.2 2/7/14 experts. Review response, edits to AG motion to exclude 0.3 2/7/14 Chauncey. Conference call with co-counsel re: findings of fact, 0.5 2/7/14 conclusions of law. E-mails with co-counsel re: scheduling conference 0.5 2/7/14 with court. Review, edits to AG motion to exclude references to 0.4 2/7/14 second-parent adoption at trial. Drafted response to AG motion to exclude Sankaran. 8.2 2/8/14 Review newly released DOJ policy re: federal 0.5 2/8/14 recognition of s/s marriages. E-mails with Sedler re: edits to Sankaran motion. 0.5 2/8/14 Research, e-mails with Gates re: higher placement 1.1 2/9/14 rates from foster care for children in states with more progressive adoption/marriage laws for s/s couples. E-mails with co-counsel re: travel arrangements, 0.4 2/9/14 scheduling for trial witnesses. Review, edits of responses to AG’s motions to exclude 1.0 2/9/14 Chauncey, Brown. Phone call with clients re: emergency surgery needed 0.9 2/9/14 for Rowse prior to trial, trial schedule.

36 Page Total: 21.7 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 37 of 45 Pg ID 5313

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time E-mails with co-counsel re: surgery needs for Rowse 0.7 2/9/14 prior to trial. Phone call with Gates re: adoption data, graphs, charts, 1.0 2/10/14 trial testimony. Drafted and filed certificate of service on exhibit filing. 0.2 2/10/14 Edits to Sankaran motion. 2.5 2/10/14 Review, edits to Plaintiffs response to AG’s motion to 1.2 2/10/14 exclude adoption references, witnesses. Phone call with Sedler re: Sankaran, adoption motions, 0.5 2/10/14 findings of fact, conclusions of law. E-mails with co-counsel re: scheduling of witnesses for 1.2 2/10/14 trial, stips with AG, Daubert rulings, Brodzinsky/Gates adoption data from 2012 census, Edits to adoption motion in limine. 0.5 2/10/14 Reviewed Maryland Family Policy Impact Seminar 0.4 2/10/14 materials re: adoption laws and policies nationally. Review/edit Chauncy stipulated facts. 0.3 2/10/14 E-mails with co-counsel re: Chauncey stip, agenda for 0.6 2/11/14 status conference with court. E-mails with Augustyniak re: hotel arrangements for 0.3 2/11/14 out-of-state attorneys and witnesses, conference room, exhibits. Edits to Sankaran response. 2.0 2/11/14 Reviewed amicus briefs to 10th Circuit on Kitchen v 2.1 2/11/14 Herbert from Social Science Professors, State of Michigan, Sherif Girgis. Status conference call with court. 0.5 2/12/14 Edits to Sankaran response motion. 2.3 2/12/14 E-mails with co-counsel re: amended stip for Plaintiffs 0.6 2/12/14 testimony, Sankaran testimony. Reviewed/edited additional Gates materials for 0.7 2/12/14 amended report re: adoption stats from 2012 census. 2/13/14 Reviewed stipulated protective order issued by court. 0.1 E-mails with co-counsel re: Chauncey stip, 1.0 coordination of opening, closing arguments, new 2/13/14 depositions for supplemental reports on Brodzinsky and Gates.

37 Page Total: 18.7 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 38 of 45 Pg ID 5314

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time Review of opinion on Bourke v Beshear (Kentucky). 1.0 2/13/14 E-mails with Gates re: supplemental deposition, hotel 0.5 2/14/14 arrangements. Reviewed AG responses to motion in limine. 1.1 2/14/14 Reviewed opinion issued on Bostic v Schaefer 1.0 2/14/14 (Virginia). Prep. For Gates direct exam for trial. 8.0 2/16/14 Review of Lisa Brown deposition transcript. 0.8 2/16/14 E-mails with Augustyniak re: arrangements with 0.3 2/16/14 witnesses, out-of-state attorneys for trial. Created PowerPoint presentation for Gates testimony. 6.5 2/17/14 E-mails with co-counsel re: exhibits, witnesses, 0.8 2/17/14 expedited/daily trial transcripts E-mails with Pitt, A. Johnson re: Brown testimony. 0.3 2/17/14 E-mails with Cooper re: Regnerus/Gates materials on 0.3 2/17/14 census data, offer to work on NFSS. E-mails, phone call with Sankaran re: trial prep. 0.7 2/17/14 Review of proposed findings of fact, conclusions of 0.5 2/17/14 law. E-mails with Mogill re: 2000 census errors pertaining 0.4 2/17/14 to testimony of Resenfeld/Gates. E-mails with Howard re: travel arrangements, 0.3 2/17/14 comments on Regnerus deposition testimony. Review court order denying motions in limine. 0.4 2/18/14 E-mails, phone call with clients re: Rowse surgery, 0.8 2/18/14 appearance at trial. E-mails with co-counsel re: technical run through in 0.6 2/18/14 courtroom, rulings on motions. Prep for Gates trial testimony, revisions to PowerPoint, 4.0 2/18/14 exhibits. Prep. For Sankaran trial testimony. 3.5 2/18/14 Prep. For Gates trial testimony. 4.3 2/19/14 E-mails with Bassett re: mock direct/cross of Sankaran. 0.3 2/19/14

38 Page Total: 36.4 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 39 of 45 Pg ID 5315

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time E-mails re: order of witnesses, Chauncey testimony, 1.0 2/19/14 admission of exert reports, listing of exhibits. Correlate Gates CV, publications, exhibits. 1.3 2/19/14 Review audio of Regnerus speech at Franciscan 0.7 2/19/14 University. E-mails with co-counsel re: findings of fact, 0.3 2/19/14 conclusions of law. Research on FRE 803 for expert witness testimony. 0.8 2/19/14 Prep. for Sankaran trial testimony, drafted Sankaran 8.5 2/20/14 PowerPoint. E-mails with co-counsel re: listing of exhibits. 0.2 2/20/14 E-mails with clients re: children’s adoption documents. 0.3 2/20/14 E-mails with Augustyniak re: witness transportation, 0.1 2/20/14 travel. E-mails with Sedler re: edits to Sankaran/Gates direct 0.3 2/20/14 exams, PowerPoint presentations, exhibits. Technical prep in courtroom. 2.0 2/21/14 Prep. for Gates trial testimony. 4.5 2/21/14 Prep. for Sankaran trial testimony, PowerPoint 4.0 2/21/14 presentation. Research on foster care stats, DHS summaries, youth aging out of foster care studies. E-mails with Sedler re: edits to direct exam, PowerPont 0.5 2/21/14 on Gates. Review of Bos, Van Gelderem, Gartell study on 1.2 2/21/14 adolescent-parent relationship for lesbian and heterosexual two parent families. E-mails with co-counsel re: admissions of treatise’s, 0.2 2/21/14 periodicals, studies under FRE 803. Prep. For Sankaran trial testimony, PowerPoint. 8.0 2/22/14 Reviewed adoption document for N, R, and J. 0.5 2/22/14 E-mails with Cooper, Stanyar re: coordination of 0.3 2/22/14 Brodzinsky and Sankaran adoption materials. Review of Brodzinsky deposition and proposed 0.4 2/22/14 testimony. 8.0 2/23/14 Prep. for Sankaran trial testimony, PowerPoint.

39 Page Total: 43.1 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 40 of 45 Pg ID 5316

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time E-mails with Augustyniak re: witness travel, hotel 0.2 2/23/14 accommodations for witnesses. Prep. for Gates trial testimony/PowerPoint. 4.0 2/23/14 E-mails with Mogill re: Gates/Rosenfeld testimony 0.3 2/24/14 pertaining to solicitations to work with Regnerus on NFSS. Phone conference with Gates/mock direct and cross of 2.5 2/24/14 trial testimony. E-mails with co-counsel, Augustyniak re: exhibits. 0.3 2/24/14 Sankaran trial prep/PowerPoint presentation. 8.0 2/24/14 E-mails with Sedler re: Gates direct exam. 0.1 2/24/14 Reviewed order of court denying motions in limine. 0.1 2/25/14 Meeting with clients to discuss trial. 0.8 2/25/14 Attendance at trial. 7.0 2/25/14 Sankaran trial prep/PowerPoint presentation. 5.0 2/25/14 Appearance at trial. 4.5 2/26/14 Prep. Gates testimony. 3.5 2/26/14 E-mails with co-counsel re: payment for daily 0.2 2/26/14 transcripts, arrangements for orders. Review opinion on DeLeon v Perry (Texas). 0.5 2/26/14 Prep. Gates testimony. 2.0 2/27/14 Appearance at trial. 2.5 2/27/14 Prep. for cross of Price. 3.5 2/27/14 E-mails from Henry re: findings of fact, conclusions of 0.1 2/27/14 law. Appearance at trial. 2.0 2/28/14 Meeting with co-counsel and clients. 0.5 2/28/14 E-mails with Cooper re: Price exhibits, court reporter. 0.1 2/28/14

40 Page Total: 47.7 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 41 of 45 Pg ID 5317

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time E-mails with Stanyar r: Price exhibits. 0.1 2/28/14 Prep for cross of Lisa Brown. 5.0 3/1/14 Prep for cross of Price. 3.0 3/1/14 Prep cross of Brown. 5.0 3/2/14 Prep cross of Price. 3.0 3/2/14 E-mails with Sedler Re; Price cross. 0.4 3/2/14 Appearance at trial. 5.5 3/3/14 Prep cross of Price 7.0 3/3/14 Review 30 PowerPoint slides for Price emailed from 2.0 3/3/14 AG Heyse at 10:27 pm. E-mails to Cooper re: Regnerus cross. 0.2 3/3/14 Review University of Texas statement re: Regnerus. 0.1 3/3/14 Appearance at trial. 7.0 3/4/14 E-mails with Gates re: Price cross materials. 0.2 3/4/14 Prep for cross of Price. 5.0 3/4/14 Appearance at trial. 7.0 3/5/14 E-mails from Sedler re: draft of findings of fact, 0.5 3/6/14 conclusions of law. Appearance at trial. 4.3 3/6/14 E-mails with co-counsel re: court’s admission of expert 0.1 3/7/14 reports and PowerPoint presentations. Appearance at trial. 2.5 3/7/14 Review emails of co-counsel re: findings of fact, 0.4 3/8/14 conclusions of law. 3/21/14 Reviewed opinion of Judge Friedman. 1.0 Discussed district court opinion with Clients; discussed 2.0 potential for immediate marriage and subsequent filing 3/21/14 of adoption petitions, appellate concerns, procedure for state appeal of district court decision.

41 Page Total: 61.3 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 42 of 45 Pg ID 5318

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time Review motion to stay. 0.2 3/23/14 Telephone conference with co-counsel re: division of 0.6 3/23/14 responsibility, strategy. Review motion to expedite. 0.3 3/24/14 Review Schuette to Coalition to Defend Affirmation 1.2 4/25/14 Action, e-mails with co-counsel. Review brief submitted by Defendants-Appellants. 2.2 5/8/14 Review draft of response brief, edits of brief. 2.0 5/24/14 Review Tenth Circuit Opinion on Kitchen v Herbert. 1.7 6/25/14 E-mails to co-counsel. Travel to/from Ann Arbor for mock argument. 1.1 7/28/14 Attended mock argument. 3.0 7/28/14 Reviewed opinion from Fourth Circuit on Bostic v 1.5 7/28/14 Schaefer. Travel to Cincinnati. 3.7 8/5/14 Meeting with co-counsel and clients. 1.0 8/6/14 Attended oral arguments. 3.0 8/6/14 Travel to Detroit 4.0 8/7/14 Reviewed Seventh Circuit opinion (Baskin v Bogan, 1.8 9/4/14 Wolf v Walker). E-mails with co-counsel re: Posner opinion. 0.3 9/5/14 Telephone conference with co-counsel re: cert denials 0.5 10/6/14 from SCOTUS. E-mails with Stanyar re: heightened scrutiny 0.3 10/9/14 arguments and strategy. Telephone conference with Stanyar re: motion. 0.2 11/5/14 Review Sixth Circuit opinion. 1.0 11/6/14 Telephone conference with co-counsel re: decision and 0.5 11/6/14 petition for cert. Meeting with clients to discuss circuit court opinion, 1.5 11/6/14 strategy moving forward on appeal to SCOTUS.

42 Page Total: 31.6 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 43 of 45 Pg ID 5319

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time Telephone conference with co-counsel re: strategy, 0.3 11/7/14 division of responsibilities. Telephone call with Sixth Circuit co-counsel regarding 0.5 11/7/14 plans for appeal/ Telephone conference with Mogill and Stanyar re: 0.2 11/7/14 strategy. E-mails with Stanyar re: hiring/payment for publishing. 0.1 11/8/14 E-mails with Stanyar re: division of responsibility. 0.3 11/12/14 E-mails with Stanyar re: Gates testimony for petition. 0.2 11/13/14 Telephone calls with Cockell publishing (x3). 1.0 11/13/14 Review draft of petition, edits to co-counsel. 2.1 11/13/14 E-mails with Stanyar re: filing, publication concerns. 0.2 11/14/14 E-mails with Stanyar re: strategy. 0.3 11/22/14 Reviewed response to petition for cert by Respondents. 1.2 11/24/14 Telephone call with Mogill and Stanyar re: strategy. 0.2 11/24/14 Review of district court opinions on Arkansas and 2.3 11/26/14 Mississippi cases. E-mails with Stanyar re: new district court opinions, 0.5 11/26/14 critique of Sixth Circuit opinion. E-mails with Stanyar re: waiver of reply. 0.2 12/5/14 E-mails with Stanyar, Mogill re: meeting. 0.1 12/26/14 Meeting with Mogill and Stanyar re: strategy and 1.6 12/30/14 division of responsibilities. Travel to/from Ferndale. 1.0 1/4/14 Meeting with co-counsel, clients. 8.0 1/14/14 Review opinion on Caspar v Snyder 1.0 1/15/14 Travel to/from Ferndale. 1.0 1/16/14 Meeting with co-counsel, clients re: granting of cert by 1.5 1/16/14 SCOTUS.

43 Page Total: 23.8 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 44 of 45 Pg ID 5320

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time E-mails with co-counsel re: division of responsibilities. 1.0 1/17/14 E-mails with co-counsel re: strategy, division of 0.5 1/19/14 responsibilities. Telephone conference with co-counsel re: division of 1.0 1/19/14 responsibilities. Review of Sedler memo re: merits brief. 0.5 1/24/14 E-mails with Stanyar re: harms content of brief. 0.2 1/30/14 Review Sedler suggestions re: merits brief. 0.4 2/3/14 Review draft of brief, edits. 1.2 2/4/14 Meeting with WSU Law Asst. Dean Lance Gable re: 1.0 2/7/14 mock arguments. E-mails, phone call with Stanyar re: harms. 0.2 2/11/14 Phone calls with Cockle publishing (x2). 0.6 2/16/14 E-mails with Stanyar re: harms statutes. 0.2 2/19/15 Research on cites for harms statutes (tort law). 1.5 2/19/15 E-mails with Stanyar re: payment to publisher. 0.2 2/23/15 E-mails with Stanyar re: inheritance rights. 0.3 2/24/15 Research on statutes implicated for inheritance rights. 0.8 2/24/15 Review briefs for petitioners of OH, TN, KY cases. 2.5 3/5/15 Reviewed e-mails from Sixth Circuit petitioner 0.3 3/17/15 attorneys re: argument. E-mails with co-counsel re: argument. 0.5 3/18/15 Telephone conference with co-counsel re: arguments. 1.0 3/19/15 E-mails with co-counsel re: strategy for arguments. 0.8 3/20/15 Telephone calls with co-counsel re: strategy for 0.8 3/20/15 arguments. 1.0 3/29/15 Travel to/from Ann Arbor

44 Page Total: 16.5 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-7 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 45 of 45 Pg ID 5321

DeBoer v. Snyder Dana Nessel

Date Services Rendered Time Meeting with co-counsel, clients, counsel from all 8.0 3/29/15 Sixth Circuit cases for Petitioners, mock arguments, group critique of mock arguments. Telephone conference with Stanyar re: arguments. 0.5 3/31/15 Review Respondent’s response. 1.3 4/1/15 Review of amici briefs. 3.5 4/10/15 Review of amici briefs, responses of Respondents on 2.0 4/22/15 OH, KY, TN cases. Review of amici briefs. 3.0 4/22/15 Travel to D.C. 4.0 4/23/15 Attendance at Georgetown mock argument, meeting 5.0 4/24//15 with co-counsel. Meeting with clients to discuss procedures for 1.0 4/26/15 argument, entrance to SCT. Meeting with all co-counsel and all petitioners, travel 1.0 4/28/15 to courthouse. Attendance at oral argument. 2.5 4/28/15 Meetings with co-counsel and clients. 2.0 4/28/15 Travel from DC to Detroit. 4.0 4/29/15 Reviewed opinion from SCT, reviewed opinion with 1.0 6/26/15 clients and co-counsel. Met with clients while we waited for President Obama n/c 6/26/15 to call; consoled clients when President Obama only called Obergefell, but not them.

Page Total: 38.8

Hours Total: 1,165.1 Rate: $350/hour Total: $407,785

45 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-8 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 1 of 30 Pg ID 5322 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-8 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 2 of 30 Pg ID 5323 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-8 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 3 of 30 Pg ID 5324 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-8 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 4 of 30 Pg ID 5325 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-8 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 5 of 30 Pg ID 5326 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-8 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 6 of 30 Pg ID 5327 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-8 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 7 of 30 Pg ID 5328 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-8 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 8 of 30 Pg ID 5329 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-8 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 9 of 30 Pg ID 5330 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-8 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 10 of 30 Pg ID 5331 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-8 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 11 of 30 Pg ID 5332 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-8 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 12 of 30 Pg ID 5333 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-8 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 13 of 30 Pg ID 5334 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-8 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 14 of 30 Pg ID 5335 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-8 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 15 of 30 Pg ID 5336 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-8 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 16 of 30 Pg ID 5337 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-8 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 17 of 30 Pg ID 5338 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-8 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 18 of 30 Pg ID 5339 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-8 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 19 of 30 Pg ID 5340 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-8 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 20 of 30 Pg ID 5341 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-8 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 21 of 30 Pg ID 5342 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-8 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 22 of 30 Pg ID 5343 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-8 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 23 of 30 Pg ID 5344 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-8 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 24 of 30 Pg ID 5345 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-8 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 25 of 30 Pg ID 5346 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-8 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 26 of 30 Pg ID 5347 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-8 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 27 of 30 Pg ID 5348 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-8 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 28 of 30 Pg ID 5349 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-8 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 29 of 30 Pg ID 5350 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-8 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 30 of 30 Pg ID 5351 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-9 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 5352 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-9 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 5353 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-9 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 5354 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-9 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 5355 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-9 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 5356 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-10 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 1 of 18 Pg ID 5357

Robert Sedler, Time record, DeBoer v. Snyder

Date Services Rendered Time

7/21/11 E-mails with Nessel re: facts of 0.5 case, case law, abstention related to challenge to MAC.

7/21/11 Phone call with Nessel re: jurisdiction 0.8 and abstention issues related to claim against MAC.

8/16/11 Read Nessel’s e-mail re: jurisdiction 0.3 and abstention issues in adoption case.

8/23/11 Meeting in my office with Nessel, Stanyar, 3.0 and Ungar re: strategy for filing adoption case and division of responsibilities.

9/2/11 Read Nessel’s e-mail re: drafting of pleadings. 0.2

9/21/11 Meeting in my office with Nessel, Stanyar, 2.0 and Ungar re: division of responsibilities and strategy in adoption case.

1/6/12 Phone calls and e-mail with Nessel, Mogill, 0.4 and Stanyar re: revisions to complaint and division of responsibilities.

1/8/12 E-mails with Nessel and Stanyar on edits 0.2 to complaint.

1/11/12 Strategy conferences with Nessel and 0.6 Stanyar re: division of responsibilities on complaint and affidavits.

1/12/12 Telephone conference with Stanyar re: affidavits 0.3

1/15/12 Exchange of e-mails with Stanyar and Mogill 0.2 re: complaint and companion case rule

1/17/12 Meeting in my office with Nessel and Stanyar re: 1.5 division of responsibilities.

1 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-10 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 2 of 18 Pg ID 5358

1/24/12 Telephone conference with Stanyar, Nessel 0.5 and Mogill.

1/31/12 Telephone conference with Nessel and 0.4 Stanyar re: case strategy and division of responsibilities.

2/7/12 Comments on draft motion for summary 2.0 judgment in e-mails to Nessel and Stanyar.

2/9/12 Exchange of e-mails and telephone 0.8 conferences with Nessel, Stanyar, and Mogill re: strategy and defendants’ position in lawsuit, division of responsibilities.

2/13/12 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel and Stanyar re: 0.2 summary judgment motion.

2/16/12 Comments on draft brief in support of motion for 1.0 summary judgment in e-mails to Nessel and Stanyar.

2/17/12 Analyze defendants’ motion to dismiss and send 0.6 e-mail to Stanyar, Nessel and Mogill.

2/21/12 Telephone conference with Stanyar re: summary 0.3 judgment motion and strategy.

2/29/12 Meeting in my office with Nessel, Mogill 1.3 and Stanyar re: motion for summary judgment and division of responsibilities.

3/7/12 Comments on draft brief in support of motion 1.0 for summary judgment in e-mails to Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill.

3/10/12 Comments on statement of undisputed facts in 0.5 e-mails to Mogill, Nessel, and Stanyar

3/11/12 Exchange of e-mails and telephone conferences 1.1 with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill re: changes, edits to brief, and statement of undisputed facts.

3/12/12 Telephone conference with Stanyar re: motions 0.2

2 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-10 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 3 of 18 Pg ID 5359

and page limits.

3/12/12 E-mails to Stanyar, Nessel and Mogill: re 0.2 Howard and Nelson affidavits and attachments.

6/22/12 E-mails with Nessel, Stanyar, and Mogill re: 0.5 hearing on motion to dismiss.

6/23/12 E-mails with Nessel, Stanyar, and Mogill re: 0.2 hearing on motion to dismiss.

7/7/12 E-mails to Stanyar, Nessel and Mogill re: 1.0 strategy following denial of state’ motion to dismiss.

8/9/12 E-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill re: 0.2 division of responsibility for hearing preparation.

8/13/12 Meeting in my office with Nessel, Mogill 1.8 and Stanyar re: preparation for hearing.

8/16/12 Preparation of detailed outline for oral 2.5 argument. 4 pp. E-mails to Stanyar, Nessel and Mogill.

8/17/12 Preparation of final outline for oral argument. 1.0 E-mails to Stanyar, Nessel and Mogill.

8/20/12 E-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill re: 0.2 oral argument.

8/23/12 Prepare draft oral argument. E-mail to 2.0 Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill.

8/24/12 Prepare draft of revised oral argument. 2.5 e-mail to Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill.

8/27/12 Meeting in my office with Nessel, Mogill, and 2.0 Stanyar re: preparation for oral argument on motion to dismiss.

8/29/12 Prepare for and present oral argument in court 3.0 on motion to dismiss.

3 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-10 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 4 of 18 Pg ID 5360

8/29/12 Meetings, telephone conference and e-mails 3.1 with Nessel, Mogill, Stanyar and clients re: amending complaint.

8/30/12 Work on exchange of e-mails and telephone 2.2 conferences with Nessel, Stanyar, and Mogill re: proposed amended complaint. complaint.

8/31/12 Work on exchange of e-mails with Nessel, 1.5 Stanyar, and Mogill re: proposed amended complaint.

9/1/12 Work on exchange of e-mails with Nessel, 0.9 Stanyar and Mogill re :proposed amended complaint and division of responsibilities.

9/1/12 Memo to Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill on the 0.5 “Baker problem.”

9/2/12 Memo to Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill on the 0.2 “Baker problem.”

9/2/12 Work on exchange of e-mails with Nessel, 0.3 Stanyar and Mogill re: proposed amended complaint and division of responsibilities.

9/5/12 Meeting at my home with Nessel, Stanyar 2.0 and Mogill re: proposed amended complaint.

9/20/12 Telephone conference with co-counsel re: 0.3 experts, amicus brief page limitations.

9/25/12 Phone calls and e-mails to and from Stanyar 0.3

10/4/12 E-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill re: 0.2 status conference, division of responsibilities.

10/4/12 Review e-mail from Stanyar re: status conference 0.1 strategy.

10/4/12 Telephone conference with Stanyar 0.2

10/11/12 E-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill re: 0.3 MMA count.

4 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-10 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 5 of 18 Pg ID 5361

10/24/12 Analysis and preparation of overview of case. 9 3.0 pp. E-mail to Nessel, Mogill, and Stanyar.

10/26/12 Preparation of memo memo on standards of 1.5 review. 2 ½ pages. E-mail to Nessel, Mogill, and Stanyar.

11/7/12 Review of state’s brief and exchange of e-mails 2.5 with Nessel, Mogill and Stanyar re: brief and election of Lisa Brown to replace Bullard as Oakland County Clerk.

11/8/12 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and 0.4 Mogill re: strategy for response brief on motion to dismiss count II of amended complaint.

11/9/12 E-mails to Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill re: possible 0.1 religious freedom argument.

11/25/12 Review draft response brief and exchange 2.5 e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill on revisions and edits.

11/26/12 E-mails to Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill re: arguments 0.5 in brief.

11/27/12 E-mails to Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill re: arguments 0.2 in brief.

11/28/12 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar 0.5 and Mogill on revisions and edits.

11/29/12 Final review of draft response brief and exchange 1.1 of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill on revisions and edits.

11/30/12 E-mails to Stanyar, Nessel and Mogill 1.0 re: traditional marriage.

11/30/12 E-mails to Nessel, Staynar and Mogill 0.5 re: Sevick case.

1/11/13 Prepare and send e-mail to Stanyar . 0.2

2/12/13 E-mail to Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill re 0.2

5 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-10 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 6 of 18 Pg ID 5362

amendments to MAC.

2/13/13 Phone conference with Nessel re: new 0.4 amendments to MAC.

2/15/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar 0.3 and Mogill re: filing of supplemental brief on amendments to MAC.

2/15/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar 0.2 and Mogill re: request by OC corporation counsel for time extension.

2/18/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and 0.7 Mogill re: amendments to MAC

2/19/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar, and 0.5 Mogill re: strategy for argument of motions.

2/19/13 Telephone conference with Stanyar, Nessel and 0.3 Mogill re: strategy and division of responsibilities

2/26/13 Exchange of e-mails with Stanyar, Nessel and 0.2 Mogill: next actions and division of responsibilities

2/27/13 Exchange of e-mails with co-counsel 0.2 Mogill re: division of responsibiities.

2/28/13 Meeting in my office with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill re: 2.0 preparation for oral argument on motion to dismiss.

3/7/13 Appearance at oral argument. 1.0

3/7/13 Exchange of e-mails with Stanyar, Nessel and 0.3 Mogill re: strategy.

3/29/13 Read and prepare comments on transcript of oral 3.0 argument in Perry and Windsor cases. E-mails to Stanyar, Nessel and Mogill.

3/29/13 Prepare and send e-mail to Stanyar re: strategy. 0.5

4/1/13 Exchange of e-mails with Stanyar, Nessel, and 0.2 Mogill re: strategy.

6 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-10 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 7 of 18 Pg ID 5363

6/19/13 Exchange of e-mails with Stanyar, Nessel, and 0.3 Mogill re: strategy.

6/26/13 Meeting in my office with Nessel and Stanyer re: 2.0 delegation of responsibilities and strategy following Perry and Windsor decisions.

6/30/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill re: 1.3 strategy in light of Windsor decision

6/30/13 Phone call with Nessel re: strategy (request AG to 0.4 stipulate to no further discovery and proceed to cross-motions for summary judgment).

7/1/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill re 0.5 strategy for scheduling conference (stipulation for no further discovery; cross-motions for summary judgment).

7/7/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill re 0.5 strategy for scheduling conference (stipulation for no further discovery and cross-motions for summary judgment).

7/8/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill re 1.0 strategy for scheduling conference (stipulation for no further discovery and cross-motions for summary judgment).

7/9/13 Exchange of e -mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 0.5 re: strategy for proceeding on motions with respect to Sixth Circuit.

7/11/13 Exchange of e-mails and phone calls with co-counsel re: 0.3 dividing responsibilities on motions.

7/12/13 Exchange of e-mails with co-counsel re: strategy and 0.2 division of responsibilities on motion for summary judgment.

7/15/13 Exchange of e-mails with co-counsel re: strategy and 0.2 division of responsibilities on motion for summary judgment.

7/16/13 Preparation of memo with analysis of Windsor, 4 pp; 3.0

7 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-10 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 8 of 18 Pg ID 5364

e-mails to Stanyar, Nessel and Mogill.

7/16/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel re: strategy on motion 0.3 for summary judgment; division of responsibilities.

7/23/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel re: strategy for Brown 0.2 fiIlings.

7/25/13 Preparation of draft merits brief. E-mails to Nessel, 4.0 Stanyar and Mogill.

8/16/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 1.4 re: Response brief, including Baker analysis, marriage as a fundamental right.

8/19/13 Telephone conference with Stanyar, Nessel and Mogill 0.5 re: division of responsibilities and amicus brief.

8/20/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill re: 0.7 response to Regnerus study.

9/11/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill re: 1.8 arguments for reply and edits.

9/12/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill re: 1.1 arguments for reply brief and edits.

9/30/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill re: 1.1 preparation for oral argument on summary judgment motions.

10/2/13 Phone call with Nessel re: motion to align parties 0.2

10/3/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill re: 0.6 AG’s motion to realign parties and edits to draft of motion in response.

10/10/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 0.4 re: likely questions at oral argument.

10/14/13 Telephone conferences with Nessel, Stanyar and 0.6 Mogill re: strategy for oral argument.

10/17/13 Telephone conference and exchange of e-mails 0.6 with co-counsel.

8 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-10 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 9 of 18 Pg ID 5365

10/20/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel re: trial strategy 0.1

10/20/13 Comments on transcript of Lamb testimony; e-mails 0.7 to Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill.

10/24/13 Meeting in Pitt’s office in Royal Oak with Nessel, 4.0 Stanyar, Mogill and Pitt re: determination of expert witness areas; delegation of responsibilities.

10/24/13 Travel to/from Royal Oak office. 1.0

10/24/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 0.2 re: expert witnesses.

10/27/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 0.5 re: locating expert witnesses; delegation of responsibilities.

10/27/13 E-mails to Stanyar, Nessel and Mogill re: outline 1.0 of trial.

10/30/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 0.5 re: expert witnesses; use of ACLU attorney Leslie Cooper for Regnerus information.

11/4/13 Telephone conferences and exchange of e-mail with 0.4 co-counsel re: expert witnesses.

11/5/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 0.6 re: potential new expert witnesses.

11/7/13 Meeting in Pitt’s office in Royal Oak with Nessel, Stanyar, 4.0 and Mogill re: expert witnesses and division of responsibilities for expert witnesses.

11/7/13 Travel to/from Royal Oak office. 1.0

11/10/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 0.3 re: division of responsibilities for expert witnesses.

11/11/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 0.2 re: expert witnesses.

11/14/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 0.5 re: review and editing of witness list.

9 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-10 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 10 of 18 Pg ID 5366

11/15/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 0.5 re: expert witnesses on issue of heightened scrutiny.

11/16/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 0.7 re: state’s expert witnesses.

11/17/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 1.0 re: plaintiffs’ and state’s expert witnesses.

11/18/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 0.3 re: opposition research on state’s expert witnesses

11/23/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 0.3 re: amended witness list.

11/25/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 0.5 re: Rule 26 specifications, format of expert witness reports.

12/9/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 0.2 re: MDCR report and testimony regarding report reports.

12/13/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 0.7 re: use of Detman as adoption expert.

12/16/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 0.4 re: edits to Kirkland report.

12/17/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 0.6 re: contents of Sankaran report and similar reports.

12/18/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 0.9 re: coordination of Gates, Peplau and Herek reports

12/18/13 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 1.0 re: consolidating Sanderson and Bassett reports

12/18/13 Phone conferences with co-counsel re: coordination 0.5 of material in reports.

12/19/13 Exchange of e-mails with co-counsel re: expert witnesses 0.3

12/20/13 Exchange of e-mails and phone conference with Nessel, 2.0 Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill re: expert witnesses,

10 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-10 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 11 of 18 Pg ID 5367

striking witnesses and deciding what witnesses not to call.

1/3/14 Telephone conference with co-counsel to prepare for 0.3 depositions.

1/3/14 E-mail to Stanyar re: Marks deposition. 0.5

1/5/14 E-mail to Stanyar re: Marks deposition. 0.5

1/8/14 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 1.0 re: Bassett testimony.

1/8/14 Summary of analysis of writings of Allen, Price, Marks 2.0 and Girgis. E-mail to Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill.

1/9/14 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 0.6 re: Bassett testimony.

1/15/14 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 0.3 re: Chanucey and Brodzinsky depositions and transcripts.

1/15/14 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel re: Price and Allen 0.3 depositions.

1/17/14 E-mail to Nessel; copies to Stanyar and Mogill. 2.5 Comments on Price Report and overview of social science testimony; suggestions for Price deposition.

1/22/14 Meeting at Pitt’s office with DeBoer, Nessel, Stanyar 2.5 and Mogill re: edits to witness list; decisions re witness testimony to be consolidated.

1/22/14 Travel to and from Detroit to Royal Oak. 1.0

1/28/14 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 0.4 re: stipulations for plaintiffs’ testimony in lieu of depositions and trial testimony.

1/29/14 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 0.5 re: deposition issues with Sankaran, areas of

11 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-10 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 12 of 18 Pg ID 5368

Sankaran testimony.

1/29/14 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 0.6 re: Daubert motions on Regnerus, Price, Allen, Girgis.

1/30/14 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel and Mogill re: 0.2 Draft findings of fact/conclusions of law.

2/3/14 E-mails to Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill re: proposed 0.3 findings of fact/conclusions of law.

2/4/14 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 0.4 re: edits to plaintiffs’ Daubert motions

2/5/14 E-mails and phone calls with Nessel re: edits to 0.7 Sarkaran response.

2/5/14 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and 0.4 Mogill re: findings of fact/conclusions of law.

2/6/14 Phone conversation with co-counsel re: 1.0 findings of fact/conclusions of law.

2/7/14 Phone conversation with co-counsel re: 0.5 findings of fact/conclusions of law.

2/7/14 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and 0.5 Mogill re: scheduling conference with court.

2/8/14 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel re: edits to 0.5 Sankaran motion.

2/9/14 E-mail to Nessel on her response to state’s 0.3 motion to disqualify Sankaran.

2/9/14 Draft of proposed findings of fact/conclusions 4.0 of law for use at trial and for after trial.

2/10/14 Phone call with Nessel re: Sankaran, adoption 0.5 motions, findings of fact/conclusions of law.

2/10/14 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and 1.2 Mogill re: scheduling of witnesses for trial, stipulations with Attorney-General, Daubert rulings, Brodzinsky/Gates adoption data from

12 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-10 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 13 of 18 Pg ID 5369

2012 census information.

2/10/14 Preparation of proposed findings of fact based 2.0 on Chauncey’s testimony on the historic pattern of disadvantage.

2/11/14 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar 0.6 and Mogill re:Chauncey stipulation; agenda for status conference with court.

2/12/14 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar, and 0.6 Mogill re: amended stipulation for plaintiffs’ testimony, Sankaran testimony.

2/13/14 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and 1.0 Mogill re: Chauncey stipulation, coordination of opening and closing arguments, supplemental Brodzinsky and Gates reports.

2/17/14 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 0.8 re: exhibits, witnesses, daily trial transcripts.

2/18/14 Telephone conferences and exchange of e-mails 1.5 with Stanyar, Nessel and Mogill re: witness problems; stipulations to eliminate witnesses; coordination of content of expert testimony.

2/19/14 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 0.3 re: findings of fact, conclusions of law.

2/20/14 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel re: edits to Sankaran/ 0.3 Gates direct examinations, exhibits and power point.

2/21/14 Review of Nessel’s proposed direct examination of Gates. 1.5 Comments and suggestions by e-mail to Nessel.

2/24/14 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill 0.3 re: Augustiyniak, exhibits.

2/24/14 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel re: Gates direct 0.1 examination.

2/25/14 Attendance at trial. 7.0

2/26/14 Attendance at trial. 4.5

13 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-10 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 14 of 18 Pg ID 5370

2/28/14 Attendance at trial. 7.0

2/28/14 Meeting with co-counsel and clients. 0.5

3/1/14 E-mail to Mogill re: Old and new legal norms 0.5

3/2/14 Exchange of e-mails with Nessel re: 0.4 Price cross-examination.

3/2/14 E-mail to Mogill re: tradition and incidents of 0.3 marriage.

3/3/14 Attendance at trial. 7.0

3/4/14 Attendance at trial. 7.0

3/4/14 Prepare and send to co-counsel draft findings 4.0 of fact/conclusions of law.

3/5/14 Attendance at trial. 7.0

3/7/14 Appearance at trial. 7.0

3/8/14 Prepare and send to co-counsel revised 2.0 draft findings of fact/conclusions of law.

3/21/14 Read, analyze, and comment on Judge Friedman’s 1.5 Opinion.

3/25/14 E-mails to Stanyar, Nessel and Mogill re: stay 2.0

5/12/14 Analyze the Schuette decision and show how why 2.0 it does not apply to our case. E-mail to Stanyar,, Nessel and Mogill.

5/25/14 Review, analyze and comment on Stanyar draft 3.0 Sixth Circuit brief and give overview of the case. E-mail to Stanyar, Nessel and Mogill.

5/30/14 Exchange of e-mails with Mogill, Stanyar, and Nessel 1.0 in regard to due process argument.

6/2/14 E-mail to Stanyar with comments on revised draft 1.0 Sixth Circuit brief.

14 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-10 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 15 of 18 Pg ID 5371

6/6/14 Telephone conference with co-counsel on draft 1.0 Sixth Circuit brief

7/10/14 E-mail to Stanyar analyzing issue of polygamy and 1.0 rational basis review.

7/31/14 Exchange of e-mails with Stanyar and co-counsel re: 0.9 argument strategy.

9/4/14 E-mail to Stanyar, Nessel, Mogill and Soubly on Soubly’s 0.3 comments on Posner’s opinion for the 7th Circuit.

9/5/14 E-mail to Stanyar, Nessel, Mogill and Soubly on Soubly’s 0.3 comments on Posner’s opinion for the 7th Circuit.

10/2/14 E-mail to Stanyar on structure of Stanyar anticipated 0.5 petition for certiorari.

10/6/14 Exchange of e-mails and telephone conference with 0.5 co-counsel and Soubly re: certiorari denials in Bostic, Kitchen, etc.

10/7/14 Exchange of e-mails with Stanyar on certiorari denials. 0.2

10/9/14 Read and comment on Stanyar anticipatory petition 1.0 for certiorari; E-mail to Stanyar, Nessel and Mogill.

10/13/14 Read and comment on Stanyar anticipatory petition 0.8 for certiorari; E-mail to Stanyar, Nessel and Mogill.

10/29/14 Preparation of 7 page memo for our legal team analyzing 3.0 the 4 U.S. Court of Appeals decisions holding unconstitutional state bans on marriage for same-sex couples. E-mail to Stanyar, Nessel and Mogill.

10/30/14 Analysis of due process argument in relation to equal 1.2 protection argument. E-mail to Stanyar, Nessel, and Mogill

11/7/14 Analyze 6th Circuit opinion 3.5

11/7/14 Telephone conference with Stanyar, Nessel and Mogill re: 0.3 delegation of responsibilities.

11/7/14 Exchange of e-mails with Stanyar re: strategy 0.2

15 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-10 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 16 of 18 Pg ID 5372

11/7/14 Read and comment on draft certiorari petition 0.8

11/8/14 Exchange of e-mails with Stanyar re: 6th Circuit’s analysis. 0.3

11/11/14 Exchange of e-mails with Stanyar re: 6th Circuit’s analysis. 0.3

11/14/14 E-mail to Stanyar re: comments on draft petition for 0.4 certiorari.

12/31/14 E-mail to Nessel on effect in other states of negative U.S. 0.4 Supreme Court ruling in DeBoer.

1/19/15 Exchange of e-mails with Stanyar, Mogill, Nessel and 0.6 Bonauto re: strategy and delegation of responsibilities.

1/19/15 E-mail to Mogill re: Nieto amicus brief. 0.2

1/20/15 Analyze and comment on draft brief. E-mail to co-counsel. 1.5

1/22/15 E-mails to Stanyar,Nessel, Mogill and Bonauto on Snyder 0.2 decision re recognition of out-of-state marriages.

2/2/15 Further analysis and comments on draft brief. E-mail to 2.4 co-counsel.

2/09/15 E-mail to Nessel, Stanyar and Mogill re: equal dignity 0.1 and respect.

2/9/15 Read Stanyar’s e-mail regarding brief 0.1

2/10/15 Review second draft and prepare comments. E-mail to 2.5 co-counsel

2/11/15 Exchange of e-mails with Stanyar re: amicus briefs. 0.2

2/12/15 Telephone conference with Stanyar re: order of arguments 0.4

2/13/15 E-mails to Mogill, Bonauto and Stanyar re: out-of-state 0.5 recognition in relation to in-state marriage.

2/14/15 Extensive analysis of recognition of out-of-state 2.0 marriages of sex-sex persons as justification for denying in-state marriage. 3 ½ pp: e-mails to Mogill, Stanyar and Bonauto.

16 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-10 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 17 of 18 Pg ID 5373

2/15/15 E-mails to Mogill,Bonuto, Stanyar, and Nessel re: New 0.2 research on children of same-sex parents.

2/23/15 Analysis and comments on draft brief. 5 pp. E-mails to 3.0 Stanyar, Nessel, Mogill and Bonauto.

3/15/23 E-mail to Mogill re: Marriage within home state 0.2

3/23/15 Memo for Stanyar on religious freedom and sex 1.0 discrimination.

3/24/15 Review law student summaries of amicus briefs and 2.0 e-mails to Stanyar, Nessel, Mogill and Bonauto.

3/26/15 E-mail to Stanyar re: polygamy. 0.1

3/28/15 E-mail to Stanyar and Mogill re: Town of Greece case 0.1

4/6/15 Prepare comments on draft brief. E-mail to co-counsel. 1.5

4/6/15 E-mail to Stanyar re: rational basis and equal protection 0.2

4/7/15 E-mails to Stanyar, Mogill and Bonauto re: Due process 0.2 and denial of benefit.

4/8/15 Analyze, prepare comments and forward to co-counsel 1.0 law student analysis of Family Research Council amicus brief.

4/9/15 Prepare comments on draft brief. E-mail to co-counsel. 2.0

4/10/15 E-mail to co-counsel on turning state’s arguments against it. 0.5

4/11/15 E-mail to Stanyar re: due process and denial of benefits 0.1

4/25/15 Travel to D.C. 4.0

4/28/15 Attendance at oral argument 1.5

4/28/15 Meetings with co-counsel and clients 2.0

17 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-10 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 18 of 18 Pg ID 5374

Total Sedler hours 286.6

Hourly Rate (reduced) $350

Sedler Lodestar Amount $100,310

18 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-11 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 5375

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

APRIL DEBOER, et al., Plaintiffs, -vs- ED Mi #12-civ-10285 Hon. Bernard A. Friedman

RICHARD SNYDER, et al., Defendants. ______

AFFIDAVIT OF MARY L. BONAUTO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

I, MARY L. BONAUTO, do hereby declare under the penalty of perjury as follows:

1. I am one of the lawyers for the Plaintiffs in the above-captioned case. I am

Counsel and the Civil Rights Project Director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates &

Defenders (GLAD). I am legally competent to make this Affidavit and have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein. This Affidavit is submitted in support of Plaintiffs’ Petition for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees.

2. Founded in 1978, GLAD is one of the oldest legal organizations in the country committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and those living with HIV through impact litigation, education and public policy work. GLAD is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm that does not charge its clients, but relies in part on fees awarded by the

2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-11 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 2 of 8 Pg ID 5376

courts. For information on the work of the Civil Rights Project (one of GLAD’s

Projects), currently and over the years, see http://www.glad.org/work/initiatives/c/civil-rights-project.

3. As a GLAD attorney since 1990, I have unique and highly specialized experience in constitutional advocacy on behalf of lesbian and gay persons generally and in challenging the constitutionality of exclusions from marriage. At

GLAD, I have been lead or party counsel in several state court challenges to barring same sex couples from marriage, including several of the earliest successes in Vermont (Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 744 A.2d 864 (2000)), Massachusetts

(Goodridge v. Dep’t. of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N.E.2d 941 (2003)) and

Connecticut (Kerrigan v. Comm’r of Public Health, 289 Conn. 135, 957 A.2d 407

(2008)), and I have filed amicus briefs for GLAD or other organizations in many other state court marriage cases. See, e.g. Griego v. Oliver, 2014-NMSC-003, ___

N.M. ___, 316 P.3d 865 (2014) (holding New Mexico’s marriage limitation unconstitutional); Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W. 2d 862 (Iowa 2009) (holding Iowa's marriage ban unconstitutional); In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal. 4th 757, 183 P.3d

384 (Cal. 2008) (holding California's marriage ban unconstitutional).

4. On behalf of GLAD and along with co-counsel, I also filed and won the first federal court challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, Gill v. Office of

Pers. Mgmt., which I argued at both the District Court (Gill v. Office of Pers.

2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-11 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 3 of 8 Pg ID 5377

Mgmt., 699 F. Supp. 2d 374 (D. Mass. 2010)) and First Circuit (Massachusetts v.

United States HHS, 682 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. Mass. 2012)). I was also counsel and prevailed at summary judgment at the District Court in another DOMA case,

Pedersen v. OPM, 881 F. Supp. 2d 294 (D. Conn. 2012). GLAD (with my participation) was amicus in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), and

I also coordinated the extensive amici brief effort for the Respondents in Windsor at the U.S. Supreme Court.

5. In addition to coordinating amici briefs in a number of Federal Courts of

Appeals, I filed (often in conjunction with other counsel), amici briefs on rational basis review or other topics on behalf of GLAD in other marriage cases. 1

6. I worked closely with Michigan co-counsel starting in October 2013 when this Court denied summary judgment to both parties and ordered a trial. DeBoer attorneys Nessel and Stanyar contacted me about possible experts for the trial and requested I secure their participation. From that point forward, I secured experts,

1 See, e.g., DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014), rev’d sub nom. Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 4250 (2015); Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10 th Cir. 2014), cert. denied sub nom. Herbert v. Kitchen , 135 S. Ct. 265 (2014) (holding Utah marriage ban unconstitutional); Bishop v. Smith, 760 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir. 2014) (holding Oklahoma marriage ban unconstitutional), cert. denied sub nom. Smith v. Bishop, 135 S. Ct. 271 (2014); Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 2014) (holding Indiana marriage ban unconstitutional), cert. denied 135 S.Ct. 316; Bostic v. Schaeffer, 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014) (holding Virginia marriage ban unconstitutional), cert. denied sub nom. Rainey v. Bostic, 190 L. Ed. 2d 140 (2014), sub nom. Schaefer v. Bostic, 190 L. Ed. 2d 140 (2014), and sub nom. McQuigg v. Bostic, 190 L. Ed. 2d 140 (2014); Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S.Ct. 2652 (2013); Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012).

2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-11 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 4 of 8 Pg ID 5378

provided witness materials from other cases, and otherwise assisted the DeBoer team in many aspects of the case and entered an appearance for the plaintiffs.

Ultimately I played a significant role – primarily with Attorney Mogill - in reviewing the trial transcripts and drafting the findings of fact and conclusions of law for this Court. I was not counsel of record in the 6th Circuit but conferred and consulted with DeBoer counsel and do not include my time for 6th Circuit matters.

I again officially joined the DeBoer team in conjunction with the petition for certiorari at the United States Supreme Court and then participated in drafting and editing the Petitioner’s brief and Reply Brief. I also coordinated much of the overall amici curiae effort with counsel in the other cases consolidated with

Obergefell and handled virtually all amici issues for the DeBoer team. I presented oral argument at the Supreme Court on the Court’s first question presented (the marriage question) on behalf of Petitioners from Michigan and Kentucky.

7. I have been a lawyer at GLAD since 1990, and was promoted to Civil Rights

Project Director in 1992. As stated above, I have been party counsel in numerous marriage and marriage-related cases or amici in such cases, and also have extensive experience in legislative advocacy and public education efforts on marriage from my work on DOMA and securing marriage legislatively or at the ballot in other states.

2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-11 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 5 of 8 Pg ID 5379

8. I received my law degree from Northeastern University School of Law

(1987) and my bachelor’s degree from Hamilton College (Phi Beta Kappa, 1983).

I have been admitted to practice in Maine and Massachusetts since 1987, and have been admitted in numerous other Federal District Courts, Courts of Appeals, and the Supreme Court since that time, including in the Eastern District for the District of Michigan beginning in 2014. I remain in good standing of each bar.

9. I have substantial federal and state appellate experience in both constitutional and family law issues. I am or have been the co-author of sexual orientation discrimination chapters in employment law treatises (American Bar

Association, Massachusetts CLE) as well as law review and legal journal articles.2

I am a frequent speaker at seminars or conferences relating to civil rights for

2 See, e.g. Mary Bonauto & James Esseks, Marriage Equality Advocacy From the Trenches, 29.1 Columbia J. of Gender & Law 117 – 142 (2015); Mary L. Bonauto, DOMA Damages Same- Sex Families and Their Children, 32(3) Family Advocate 10, 10-17 (A.B.A. 2010); Mary L. Bonauto, et al., Equity Actions Filed by De Facto Parents, in 1 PATERNITY AND THE LAW OF PARENTAGE IN MASSACHUSETTS, ch. 11 (Pauline Quirion ed., 2d ed. 2009); Mary L. Bonauto and Evan Wolfson, Advancing the Freedom to Marry in America, 36(3) HUMAN RIGHTS 11 (A.B.A. 2009); Mary L. Bonauto, Ending Marriage Discrimination: A Work in Progress, 40 SUFFOLK U. L. REV 813 (2007); Mary L. Bonauto, Goodridge in Context, 40 HARV. C.R.-C.L. L Rev. 1 (2005); Mary L. Bonauto and R. Douglas Elliot, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in North America: Legal Trends, Legal Contrasts, 48(3) J. HOMOSEXUALITY 91, 91-106 (2005); Mary L. Bonauto, Same-Sex Marriage Pros and Cons: Denying Marriage Rights Is Unconstitutional, 19 Maine Bar J. 78 (Spring 2004); Mary L. Bonauto, Civil Marriage as a Locus of Civil Rights Struggles, 20 HUM. RTS. 3 (A.B.A. 2003); Mary L. Bonauto, Advising Non-Traditional Families: A General Introduction, 40 Boston Bar J. 10 (1996).

2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-11 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 6 of 8 Pg ID 5380

LGBT persons.3 Since 2013, I have been the Shikes Fellow in Civil Liberties at

Harvard Law School and teach a reading group on LGBT legal issues every other semester. I have engaged in community service relevant to my legal work, including as a past co-chair of the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity subcommittee of the IRR Section of the American Bar Association (“ABA”), and currently as an advisory board member to the American Constitution Society

Boston chapter. Some of the more recent honors I have received include:

MacArthur Fellowship (2014), American Bar Association Stonewall Award (2013, first inaugural); Brudner Prize, Yale University (2010); Lawyer of the Year,

Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly (1999, 2003). In August 2015, I will receive the

Dan Bradley award from the National LGBT Bar Association.

10. I am requesting an hourly rate of $350 per hour for the time spent on this case. This fee is well below the market rate for a civil rights lawyer with my experience, ability and reputation and is justified for the reasons stated in the accompanying Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. It is my opinion that the amounts of billable time (796.7 hours) described represent a reasonable use of attorney time in light of the importance of the issues presented in this case, its factual posture,

3 Recent examples include: Judge Frank Coffin Lecture, University of Maine Law School, Oct. 2015 (forthcoming); Massachusetts CLE Legal Services Conference keynote speaker (2015); American Constitution Society Annual Meeting, plenary speaker (2014); panel on post-DOMA at American Bar Association Annual Meeting (2014); Maine Access to Justice Symposium (2014); After Marriage Symposium, Florida State University Law School (2013).

2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-11 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 7 of 8 Pg ID 5381

coordination with counsel in other cases, economies achieved from my experience with marriage litigation and family law, preparation for argument before the

United States Supreme Court, and the results achieved.

11. My time sheet filed with this Affidavit is a true and correct compilation of time records for services performed in this case. While most of the entries reflect the actual time spent, I also edited some of my time records to reduce redundancies or to eliminate inefficiencies. I have reduced or omitted hours doing research and working with the experts for trial in the District Court in deference to DeBoer counsel who conducted direct and cross examinations of those experts. Nor have I included time for consultation with the DeBoer attorneys for the 6th Circuit briefing, oral argument preparation, or coordinating amici briefs at the 6th Circuit in DeBoer v. Snyder and the other cases pending with DeBoer at the 6th Circuit. I have not included time of any other attorneys or legal assistants at GLAD although

I consulted with them and secured research and other assistance from them on myriad matters. The sole exception to this is that Attorney Vickie Henry is billing for her time at the District Court for the preparation and deposition of plaintiffs’ expert George Chauncey. I have also omitted all time spent in preparing this

Affidavit and time sheet.

12. At the hourly rate of $350, for 796.7 hours, the cost of attorney’s fees for my participation in this litigation as of the date of filing this fee petition is $278,845.

2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-11 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 8 of 8 Pg ID 5382

Dated July 23, 2015

______Mary L. Bonauto, Esq. Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders 30 Winter St., Suite 800 Boston, MA 02108-4608 (617) 426-1350

2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 1 of 49 Pg ID 5383 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 2 of 49 Pg ID 5384 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 3 of 49 Pg ID 5385 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 4 of 49 Pg ID 5386 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 5 of 49 Pg ID 5387 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 6 of 49 Pg ID 5388 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 7 of 49 Pg ID 5389 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 8 of 49 Pg ID 5390 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 9 of 49 Pg ID 5391 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 10 of 49 Pg ID 5392 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 11 of 49 Pg ID 5393 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 12 of 49 Pg ID 5394 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 13 of 49 Pg ID 5395 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 14 of 49 Pg ID 5396 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 15 of 49 Pg ID 5397 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 16 of 49 Pg ID 5398 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 17 of 49 Pg ID 5399 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 18 of 49 Pg ID 5400 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 19 of 49 Pg ID 5401 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 20 of 49 Pg ID 5402 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 21 of 49 Pg ID 5403 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 22 of 49 Pg ID 5404 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 23 of 49 Pg ID 5405 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 24 of 49 Pg ID 5406 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 25 of 49 Pg ID 5407 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 26 of 49 Pg ID 5408 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 27 of 49 Pg ID 5409 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 28 of 49 Pg ID 5410 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 29 of 49 Pg ID 5411 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 30 of 49 Pg ID 5412 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 31 of 49 Pg ID 5413 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 32 of 49 Pg ID 5414 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 33 of 49 Pg ID 5415 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 34 of 49 Pg ID 5416 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 35 of 49 Pg ID 5417 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 36 of 49 Pg ID 5418 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 37 of 49 Pg ID 5419 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 38 of 49 Pg ID 5420 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 39 of 49 Pg ID 5421 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 40 of 49 Pg ID 5422 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 41 of 49 Pg ID 5423 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 42 of 49 Pg ID 5424 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 43 of 49 Pg ID 5425 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 44 of 49 Pg ID 5426 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 45 of 49 Pg ID 5427 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 46 of 49 Pg ID 5428 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 47 of 49 Pg ID 5429 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 48 of 49 Pg ID 5430 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-12 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 49 of 49 Pg ID 5431 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-13 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 1 of 12 Pg ID 5432 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-13 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 2 of 12 Pg ID 5433 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-13 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 3 of 12 Pg ID 5434 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-13 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 4 of 12 Pg ID 5435 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-13 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 5 of 12 Pg ID 5436 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-13 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 6 of 12 Pg ID 5437 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-13 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 7 of 12 Pg ID 5438 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-13 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 8 of 12 Pg ID 5439 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-13 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 9 of 12 Pg ID 5440 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-13 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 10 of 12 Pg ID 5441 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-13 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 11 of 12 Pg ID 5442 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-13 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 12 of 12 Pg ID 5443 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-14 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 5444 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-14 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 5445 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-14 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 5446 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-14 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 5447 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-14 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 5448 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-14 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 5449 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-15 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 5450

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

APRIL DEBOER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

-vs- ED Mi # 12-civ-10285 Hon. Bernard A. Friedman RICHARD SNYDER, et al.,

Defendants. I

DECLARATION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1746 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR A WARD OF FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1988

I, PATRICIA A. STREETER, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, make the following declaration in support of the attorney fees request by plaintiffs' counsel in this case:

1. I have practiced law for thirty-six (36) years as a sole practitioner in the

State of Michigan. I am admitted to the Bar in the States of Michigan and Illinois, the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of Michigan, Western

District of Michigan, Northern District of Illinois and the Central District of

Illinois, the Courts of Appeal for the Sixth and Seventh Circuits, and the United

States Supreme Court. I have been a panel attorney on the Detroit Federal

Defenders Office roster of Criminal Justice Act attorneys since 1985 and regularly accept appointments pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act. 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-15 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 5451

2. My legal education includes a Juris Doctor degree from the Detroit

College of Law (1979); an LL.M. in International Business and Trade Law from

The John Marshall Law School in Chicago (2000); and a Ph.D. from the

Department of Law of the University of Leicester in the United Kingdom (2013).

My undergraduate degree is a Bachelor of Science from Wayne State University

(1973) in Education.

3. I have substantial experience litigating for plaintiffs in civil rights actions, primarily with co-counsel in prisoner class action cases, and have remained active in general civil rights cases and issues throughout my legal career.

See attached list of cases and activities.

4. Based upon my background and experience, it is my opinion that, as of

January 2012, neither civil rights practitioners nor civil rights organizations in the

State of Michigan were willing to take on a federal challenge to Michigan's second parent adoption statute or the Michigan Marriage Amendment because:

a. It did not appear that any plaintiffs in such challenges had a chance to prevail on the merits;

b. Such a challenge would be enormously costly given the Michigan Attorney General's practice of vigorous and protracted litigation before, during and after a trial;

c. Not all costs would be reimbursable under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 even if plaintiffs prevailed; and

2 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-15 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 5452

d. The high level of hostility to these claims from large segments of the Michigan population would make the challenge even more unappealing to potential counsel.

I DECLARE UNDER PAIN AND PENAL TY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING STATEMENTS ARE TRUE.

DATED: July 17, 2015

3 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-15 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 5453

ATTACHMENT

Civil Rights Cases and Related Projects Patricia A. Streeter

1. Declarant is one plaintiffs' counsel who prosecuted or are prosecuting the following prisoner civil rights cases:

a. Hadix v. Caruso (formerly Hadix v. Johnson), in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, No. 4:92-CV-110. This is a conditions of confinement case on behalf of male prisoners at several state correctional facilities at Jackson, Michigan. The case, initial brought by prisoners in 1980 in the Eastern District of Michigan (No. 80-CV-73581-DT) settled by Consent Judgment on most issues and resulted in periodic enforcement litigation in both the Eastern and Western Districts of Michigan. Enforcement included the Hadix plaintiffs in their amicus role in a related case brought by the United States Department of Justice in United States v. Michigan pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA). See Hadix v. Johnson, 694 F. Supp. 259 (E.D. Mich. 1988), remanded, 977 F.2d 996 (6th Cir. 1992), cert. denied 507 U.S. 973 ( 1993) (consolidated on appeal with Knop v. Johnson, noted below). Medical care issues still pending. See also United States v. Michigan, 940 F.2d 143 (6th Cir. 1991).

b. Knop v. Johnson, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan (1985-1993), a conditions of confinement case on behalf of male prisoners at Jackson, Ionia and Marquette, including access to the courts and conditions in segregation for the mentally ill. See Knop v. Johnson, 667 F. Supp. 467 (W.D. Mich. 1987) (finding of liability), and Knop v. Johnson, 685 F. Supp. 636 (W.D. Mich. 1988) (remedial order), remanded, 977 F.2d 996 (6th Cir. 1992), cert. denied 507 U.S. 973 (1993).

c. Heit v. VanOchten, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, No. 1 :96 CV 800 (W.D. Mich.), a prisoner class action addressing lack of impartiality of hearing officers in prison misconduct hearings coerced to find prisoners guilty by officials of the Michigan Department of Corrections. The case resolved by a consent order.

4 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-15 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 5454

d. The related cases of Neal, et al. v. Michigan Dep 't of Corr., et al., Washtenaw County Circuit Court, No. 96-6986-CZ; Anderson, et al. v. Michigan Dep 't of Corr., Michigan Court of Claims, No. 03-162-MZ; LaCross v. Zang, et al., Washtenaw County Circuit Court, No. 05-944-CZ; and Mason v. Granholm, United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan No. 05-cv-73943. Plaintiffs in these related cases were hundreds of women prisoners who had suffered sexual assault and discrimination by male staff of the MDOC. After two groups of plaintiffs prevailed in jury trials, the cases were dismissed in a global settlement. Before settlement, plaintiffs successfully challenged the March 10, 2000 amendment to the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act ("ELCRA") that excluded prisoners from protection from discrimination. The State of Michigan did not appeal that ruling. See Mason v. Granholm, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4579, 2007 WL 201008 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 23, 2007).

e. Kemp v. Count ofKnox, et al., United States District Court, Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division, No. 98-1149 (C.D. Ill), filed in 1998 and later settled, to address improper classification, housing, and supervision policies that resulted in the death of a mentally disabled prisoner from beatings over a one-month period in the Knox County jail, Illinois;

f. Wayne County Jail Inmates v. McNamara, et al., Wayne County Circuit Court No. 71-173-217-CZ, a conditions of confinement challenge at the Wayne County Jail. Declarant's activities were limited to work in 2000 verifying jail monitoring reports by conducting a facilities inspection with plaintiffs' correctional expert.

g. Stoudemire v. Michigan Department of Corrections, et al, United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, No. 07-cv-15387-DT, representing a former MDOC prisoner for Eighth Amendment violations relating to her health care and disabilities accommodations pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. See Stoudemire v. Mich. Dep't of Corr., 2015 FED App. 0371N (6th Cir.); Stoudemire v. Mich. Dep't of Corr., 705 F.3d 560 (6th Cir. 2013).

5 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-15 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 5455

2. Declarant's other civil rights-related litigation and justice policy activities:

a. Varner v. City ofDetroit, Case No. 99-cv-73 704- DT (E.D. Mich), filed in 1999 and later settled as a result of the ongoing practice of the Homicide Division's practice of arresting and assaulting citizens who are not suspected or charged with an crime during their investigations;

b. Active involvement on the Council of the State Bar of Michigan Prisons and Corrections Section 2003-2012, serving as Section Chair (2009-2011), and currently serving as editor of the section newsletter. The purpose of the council is to study and debate the operation of the criminal justice system as it affects incarcerated persons, their families, and the public; alternatives to incarceration; the functioning of jails, prisons and parole; and post-incarceration issues; to educate its members and the general public; and make recommendations to the State Bar, public officials, the Legislature and the Judiciary regarding the adoption of rational, effective and fair policies in these areas.

c. A member of the Advisory Board of the Michigan Partners in Crisis, serving as Vice-Chair since 2007. Michigan Partners in Crisis is an umbrella organization for a statewide coalition on mental health and justice issues. It was founded in 2007 by the Mental Health Association in Michigan (MHAM) and the Michigan Association for Children with Emotional Disorders (MACED) - both statewide, United Way-supported nonprofit organizations. It is dedicated to enhancing access to quality, clinically appropriate treatment and support services and settings for children and adults experiencing emotional disorders and mental illnesses.

d. In 1986 and 1987 served as the Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Fund of Michigan, supervising the docket of the ACLU Fund of Michigan's cases approved for litigation, including assignment of volunteer attorneys, media contact and legislative development; and

e. Served periodically as pro bona counsel to the Eastern District Court for civil rights cases that included claims of discrimination in employment and prisoner civil rights.

6 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-16 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 1 of 10 Pg ID 5456 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-16 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 2 of 10 Pg ID 5457 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-16 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 3 of 10 Pg ID 5458 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-16 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 4 of 10 Pg ID 5459 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-16 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 5 of 10 Pg ID 5460 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-16 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 6 of 10 Pg ID 5461 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-16 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 7 of 10 Pg ID 5462 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-16 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 8 of 10 Pg ID 5463 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-16 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 9 of 10 Pg ID 5464 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-16 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 10 of 10 Pg ID 5465 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-17 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 5466 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 177-17 Filed 07/25/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 5467