Case 1:14-Cv-00273-REB Document 35 Filed 08/20/15 Page 1 of 3

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35 Filed 08/20/15 Page 1 of 3

Deborah A. Ferguson, ISB No. 5333 Craig Harrison Durham, ISB No. 6428 Ferguson Durham, PLLC 223 N. 6th Street, Suite 325 Boise, Idaho 83702 Tel.: (208) 345-5183 [email protected] [email protected]

Shannon P. Minter, pro hac vice Christopher F. Stoll, pro hac vice National Center for Lesbian Rights 870 Market Street, Suite 370 San Francisco, California 94102 Tel.: (415) 392-6257 [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

MADELYNN LEE TAYLOR, Case No. 14-cv-00273-REB Plaintiff,

v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’

FEES AND EXPENSES DAVID E. BRASUELL, as Administrator of the Idaho Division of Veterans Services, in his official capacity,

Defendant.

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 3

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys, and respectfully moves this

Court, pursuant to Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and District of Idaho Local

Civil Rules 54.1 and 54.2 to order Defendants to pay attorney fees and costs to the Plaintiff in the above entitled action. This Motion is made under the authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

This Motion is based upon the record herein, and the memorandum and declarations filed in support.

Respectfully submitted this 20th day of August 2015.

______/s/______Deborah A. Ferguson Attorneys for Plaintiffs

MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES - 2

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35 Filed 08/20/15 Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 20th day of August, 2015, I filed this (1) Motion,

together with the attached (2) Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Reasonable

Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses; (3) Declaration of Deborah A. Ferguson in Support of Plaintiff’s

Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses; (4) Declaration of Shannon P. Minter in

Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses; (5) Declaration of

Craig H. Durham in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses;

(7) Declaration of Howard A. Belodoff in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Reasonable

Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses; and (8) Declaration of Lauren I. Scholnick in Support of

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses; electronically through the

CM/ECF system, which caused the following parties or counsel to be served by electronic means, as more fully reflected on the Notice of Electronic Filing:

Attorneys for Defendant Brasuell:

Clay R Smith [email protected]

W. Scott Zanzig [email protected]

______/s/______Craig H. Durham

MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES - 3

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 1 of 11

Deborah A. Ferguson, ISB No. 5333 Craig Harrison Durham, ISB No. 6428 Ferguson Durham, PLLC 223 N. 6th Street, Suite 325 Boise, Idaho 83702 Tel.: (208) 345-5183 [email protected] [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

MADELYNN LEE TAYLOR, Case No. 14-cv-00273-REB Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR REASONABLE DAVID E. BRASUELL, as Administrator of ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND the Idaho Division of Veterans Services, in EXPENSES his official capacity,

Defendant.

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 11

INTRODUCTION

In this action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff has prevailed on all of her claims and has achieved all of her requested relief. Specifically, this Court has permanently enjoined

Defendant, as well as all of his successors, employees, agents, and those acting in concert with him, from ever rescinding approval of Plaintiff’s interment with her deceased wife, from removing

Plaintiff’s or her wife’s cremated remains from the Idaho State Veterans Cemetery at any time based on Idaho’s now defunct discriminatory marriage laws, from “taking any future action purporting to enforce any Idaho constitutional provision, statute, regulation, or policy to prevent, or undo, the interment of Plaintiff’s cremated remains” with those of her wife, and directing

Defendant (and his successors, etc.) upon Plaintiff’s death, to “promptly complete the internment of Plaintiff’s cremated remains together with the cremated remains of Ms. Mixner” at the cemetery.

(Dkt. 31 at pp. 1-2.)

Given Plaintiff’s complete victory in this case, as well as the high degree of skill and experience her attorneys brought to this matter to reach this wholly successful conclusion, Plaintiff now moves this Court to order Defendant to pay $78,407.50 for reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses pursuant to District of Idaho Local Civil Rules 54.1 and 54.2, and 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

STANDARD OF LAW

In an action to enforce the provisions of 42 U.S.C. §1983, “the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs . . .” 42 U.S.C. 1988(b). A prevailing party under § 1983 is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461

U.S. 424, 429 (1983).

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES - Page - 1

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 3 of 11

The court must begin by determining a “lodestar” amount, which is the “number of hours

reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” Hensley, 461 U.S.

at 433. Fee applicants have the burden of producing evidence to establish that their requested rates

are “in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably

comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, Inc., 523 F.3d

973, 980 (9th Cir. 2008). The relevant community is typically the forum in which the district court

sits. Id. at 979.1 Affidavits from the Plaintiff’s attorneys and other attorneys in the community

are satisfactory evidence of the prevailing market rate, as are rate determinations made in other

cases. United Steelworkers of America v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 1990).

The court also has the discretion to adjust the amount based upon the factors set forth in

Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67 (9th Cir. 1975) (the “Kerr factors”), that have not

already been subsumed in the lodestar calculation. Mendez v. County of San Bernardino, 540 F.3d

1109, 1126 (9th Cir. 2008).2

1 Although NCLR attorneys could request San Francisco and Washington, D.C. billing rates for this case based on their expertise and experience, see, e.g., Barjon v. Dalton, 132 F.3d 496, 501- 502 (9th Cir. 1997); Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1405 (9th Cir. 1992), they seek rates consistent with those in the Boise legal market. See also Declaration of Shannon P. Minter In Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (“Minter Dec.”) at ¶ 20.

2 The “Kerr factors” include: (1) the time and labor required of the attorneys, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly, (4) the preclusion of other work by the attorney due to acceptance of the case, (5) the customary fee for similar cases, (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances, (8) the amount of money, or the value of the rights involved, and the results obtained, (9) the experience, reputation and ability of counsel, (10) the “undesirability” of the case, (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client, and (12) awards in similar cases. Kerr, 526 F.2d at 70.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES - Page - 2

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 4 of 11

The most critical factor in determining the reasonableness of a fee award is “the degree of success obtained.” See, e.g., Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 114 (1992). “Where a plaintiff has obtained excellent results, [her] attorney should recover a fully compensatory fee.” Hensley, 461

U.S. at 435.

ARGUMENT

This Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety, resulting in a complete victory in this case. (Dkt. 30 at p. 16.) There can be no dispute that Plaintiff is thus the

“prevailing party” under § 1988(b), and is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses. For the reasons that follow, all of the requested fees and expenses are reasonable.

A. Plaintiff’s “Lodestar” Calculation is Reasonable.

The Court must first calculate the lodestar amount by multiplying a reasonable hourly rate by the number of hours expended on the case. There is a “strong presumption” that the lodestar represents the “reasonable fee.” City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557, 562 (1992) (internal citation and quotation omitted).

1. The Hourly Rates are Reasonable

Plaintiff’s attorneys seek the same hourly rates previously awarded by the District Court in the Latta v. Otter lawsuit, which Plaintiff’s counsel also litigated. Latta v. Otter, No. 1:13-cv-482-

CWD, 2014 WL 7245631, at *2-6 (D. Idaho Dec. 19, 2014); see also Community House, Inc., v.

City of Boise, No. 1:05-cv-283-CWD, 2014 WL 1247758, at *6-7 (D. Idaho Mar. 25, 2014).

Accordingly, all of these rates have already been established as reasonable in this Court. These include the following rates for six attorneys who performed substantial work on this case: Deborah

A. Ferguson, $400 per hour; Shannon P. Minter, $400 per hour; Craig Durham, $325 per hour;

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES - Page - 3

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 5 of 11

Christopher Stoll, $325 per hour; Amy Whelan, $275 per hour,3 and Jaime Huling Delaye, $175

per hour (See Declaration of Deborah A. Ferguson in Support Plaintiff’s Motion for Reasonable

Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (“Ferguson Dec.”) at ¶¶ 15-17; Declaration of Craig H. Durham in

Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (“Durham Dec.”) at ¶

11; Minter Dec. at ¶¶ 19.)4 As shown below, each of these attorneys has unique skills, which

created an efficient and complementary legal team that eliminated redundancy and maximized

Plaintiff’s chances of success.

Deborah A. Ferguson, lead counsel, has developed extensive federal civil litigation

experience over her 29-year career. For almost twenty-one years, she served as an Assistant United

States Attorney, first in the Civil Division of the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago), from 1991-

1995 and then in the District of Idaho from 1995-2012. (Ferguson Dec. at ¶ 3.) During those two

decades with the U.S. Department of Justice, she was lead counsel on hundreds of federal civil

cases on behalf of a wide array of agencies and individuals, before the federal District Court of

Idaho and the Northern District of Illinois, and on appeal before the Ninth and Seventh Circuit

3 Plaintiff only seeks fees for Ms. Whelan’s work on the instant fee motion (“fees for fees”). Ms. Whelan is a Senior Staff Attorney, has been practicing since 2001, and she has been with the NCLR since 2011. (Ex. C to Minter Dec. at p. 5.) Before that, she worked at the San Francisco firm of Rosen, Bien, Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, where she specifically focused on attorneys’ fees issues at both the trial and appellate levels, among other matters. (Id.) It is well-established that Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees for time spent on a fees motion. Orange Blossom P’Ship v. S. Cal. Sunbelt Developers, Inc., 608 F.3d 456, 462–65 (9th Cir. 2010). “This is so because it would be inconsistent to dilute a fees award by refusing to compensate attorneys for the time they reasonably spent in establishing their rightful claim to the fee.” Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 981 (9th Cir. 2008).

4 Plaintiff also seeks compensation, at $125 per hour, for Aaron Aruck, a paralegal who has worked at NCLR for nearly three years. (Minter Dec. at ¶ 19.) Mr. Aruck was awarded this rate for his work on the Latta lawsuit. See Latta v. Otter, No. 1:13-cv-482-CWD, 2015 WL 4623817, at *5 (D. Idaho Aug. 3, 2015).

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES - Page - 4

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 6 of 11

Courts of Appeals. (Id.) As lead counsel, she handled and tried a wide variety of complex federal

civil litigation, such as constitutional torts, environmental challenges, medical malpractice defense

and other torts. (Id.) In 2012, she left the U.S. Department of Justice to return to private practice

and formed her own firm. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Based on her extensive litigation experience, her practice concentrates on representing clients in civil litigation, and mediating litigated disputes. (Id.) From

November 2012 until June 2013, she was appointed to serve as a Special Master by a federal Senior

District Judge in a complex international electronic discovery dispute that arose in a commercial litigation in the District of Idaho. (Id.) Ms. Ferguson is also an active in the legal community in

Idaho and have served as a member and/or officer of a number of professional organizations such as the Idaho State Bar (Past President 2011 and Bar Commissioner, 2008-2011), the Federal Bar

Association—Idaho Chapter and a recipient of the Exemplary Service Award 2013, and the Idaho

Academy of Leadership for Lawyers (Founding Chair of Steering Committee, 2011- 2015). (Id. at ¶ 5.) She is also the Idaho State Bar Delegate to the American Bar Association, and a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation. (Id.)

Shannon Minter is the Legal Director of the National Center of Lesbian Rights (NCLR).

Mr. Minter, who has over 20 years of legal experience, was lead counsel for same-sex couples in the landmark California marriage equality case, In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (2008),

(Minter Dec. at ¶ 7.) He was also counsel for Respondent-Intervenor in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661 (2010), which upheld student group policies that prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and rejected the argument that such polices violated a student group’s rights to freedom of religion, association, and speech. Mr.

Minter has been recognized many times for his expertise. In 2009, he was named California

Lawyer of the Year by California Lawyer magazine, and in 2008 he received the Dan Bradley

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES - Page - 5

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 7 of 11

Award from the National Gay and Lesbian Bar Association for his work in the marriage cases.

(Exhibit A to Minter Dec. at p. 5.) In 2005, Mr. Minter was one of 18 people to receive the Ford

Foundation’s “Leadership for a Changing World” award (id.) and in June of 2015, President

Obama appointed Mr. Minter to serve on the President’s Commission on White House

Fellowships. (Minter Dec. at ¶ 6.)

Craig Durham has been an attorney for over 18 years, and he brought a wealth of research and writing experience, and, more specifically, civil rights expertise to Plaintiff’s team. For the first six years after he graduated from law school, he was an appellate public defender, where he researched and wrote over 150 briefs and orally argued dozens of cases in the appellate courts of

Kansas and Idaho. (Durham Dec. at ¶ 3.) During that time, he also represented clients who had been sentenced to death, navigating the complicated and high stakes world of modern death penalty jurisprudence. (Id. at ¶¶ 3-4.) Between 2003 and 2013, he was a death penalty law clerk and a staff attorney with the Prisoner Litigation Unit at the United States District Court in Boise. (Id. at

¶¶ 5-6.) Prisoner cases make up about 25% to 33% of the District Court’s total civil caseload from year-to-year, and the majority of the cases are brought 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id. at ¶ 6.) In his nearly ten years at the Court, Mr. Durham gained extensive experience in procedural and substantive civil rights law, and the bulk of his current private practice now involves plaintiff’s side civil rights and related cases.

Christopher Stoll and Jaime Huling Delaye, of the NCLR, also brought significant experience to Plaintiff’s legal team. Mr. Stoll, a Senior Staff Attorney at the NCLR, has practiced law for 20 years since his graduation from Harvard Law School. (Minter Dec. at ¶ 19 and Ex. C.)

Before joining the NCLR, he worked in the litigation department at the international law firm of

Heller Ehrman LLP. (Exhibit C to Minter Dec. at p.2.) Ms. Huling Delaye has been an attorney

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES - Page - 6

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 8 of 11

for six years. (Minter Dec. at ¶ 19.) She joined the NCLR in 2013 after clerking for Judges A.

Wallace Tashima of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and Richard Seeborg of the Northern

District of California. (Exhibit C to Minter Dec. at p. 8.)

Plaintiff’s counsel have also supported their requested rates with the declarations of

Howard A. Beladoff and Lauren I. Scholnick, highly respected attorneys who practice civil

litigation in the local community. See, e.g., United Steelworkers of America, 896 F.2d at 407

(Affidavits from the Plaintiff’s attorneys and other attorneys in the community are satisfactory

evidence of the prevailing market rate, as are rate determinations made in other cases). Both

attorneys state that the hourly rates are reasonable in light of the risk involved and the skill

necessary to successfully complete the case. (Declaration of Howard Beladoff in Support of

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (“Beladoff Dec.”) at ¶ 10;

Declaration of Lauren I. Scholnick in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’

Fees and Expenses (“Scholnick Dec.”) at ¶ 9.) As stated in the declaration of Mr. Beladoff,

“[t]hese are not ordinary matters, and there is little encouragement for the private bar to prosecute these complex and demanding constitutional claims.” (Beladoff Dec. at ¶ 10.) Further, “Most

Idaho attorneys or firms are simply unable to undertake a contingency fee case, and to make the commitment of time and outlay of expenses that is necessary to bring such an action successfully.”

(Id. at ¶ 11.)

Defendant’s litigation choices and actions increased Plaintiff’s counsel’s fees in this matter. For instance, rather than stipulate to a judgment after interring Plaintiff’s deceased wife’s remains at the Idaho Veterans Cemetery, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss this case based on mootness. (Dkt. 18.) While Defendant ultimately lost its motion to dismiss, this forced Plaintiff’s

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES - Page - 7

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 9 of 11

counsel to oppose that motion while also briefing its own summary judgment motion seeking the relief Plaintiff ultimately won.

Finally, Plaintiff has exercised billing judgment. (Ferguson Dec. at ¶ 14; Durham Dec. at

¶ 10; Minter Dec. at ¶ 21.) For example, Mr. Minter did not record time he spent meeting with co- counsel or reviewing key documents in the case, in order to keep his legal fees to a minimum.

(Minter Dec. at ¶ 21.) Mr. Ferguson similarly did not charge for additional hours of research, review, communication (including numerous emails and phone calls) that he could reasonably request. (Ferguson Dec. at ¶ 10.)

2. The Hours Spent on this Case Were Reasonable

The moving party also bears the burden of establishing the reasonableness of the hours claimed, and the party must carry that burden by submitting adequate documentation of those hours. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437. The Court should not grant a fee award for “hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Id. at 433–34.

All of Plaintiff’s attorneys have stated under oath in their declarations that the hours claimed were reasonable and necessary to complete the tasks in the case at hand and were not expended on tasks unrelated to the case. (Ferguson Dec. at ¶ 14; Minter Dec. at ¶¶ 16, 21; Durham

Dec., ¶ 10.) They have also provided detailed time sheets to the Court to document the hours and the tasks that were completed.

As the Court is aware, the case primarily involved the filing of an original and amended complaint, opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. In performing their work, Plaintiff’s counsel conscientiously avoided duplication of

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES - Page - 8

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 10 of 11

effort. Moreover, the hours claimed were necessary and reasonable to achieve Plaintiff’s complete success in this litigation.5

3. Requested Lodestar

The lodestar amount in this case is $77,957.50 ($39,012.50 for Ms. Ferguson and Mr.

Durham and $38,945 for NCLR). There is a strong presumption that this is a reasonable fee.

Jordan v. Multnomah County, 815 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1987). When making a fee award, the most important factor is the degree of success that the attorneys have obtained for their clients.

Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 114 (1992). “Where a plaintiff has obtained excellent results, his attorney should recover a fully compensatory fee.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435. Here, Plaintiff’s counsel obtained complete relief, succeeding on all of her claims.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to fully recover the reasonable attorneys’ fees that have been requested.

B. Summary of Fees

ATTORNEY / LEGAL RATE HOURS AMOUNT STAFF Deborah Ferguson $400 85.1 $34,040.00

Shannon Minter $400 13.7 $5,480.00

Craig Durham $325 15.3 $4,972.50

Christopher Stoll $325 48.5 $15,762.50

5 Plaintiff’s counsel include a few hours spent working on press releases or performing other media tasks that were necessary as a result of the public interest in this case. That work is compensable in civil rights litigation. See, e.g., Gilbrook v. City of Westminster, 177 F.3d 839, 877 (9th Cir. 1999), as amended on denial of reh'g (July 15, 1999) (awarding compensation for media and other public relations work directly related to the case); Davis v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 976 F.2d 1536, 1545 (9th Cir. 1992), vacated in part on other grounds on denial of reh'g, 984 F.2d 345 (9th Cir. 1993) (press conferences and media work compensable for civil rights attorneys where it “is directly and intimately related to the successful representation of a client.”).

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES - Page - 9

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 11 of 11

ATTORNEY / LEGAL RATE HOURS AMOUNT STAFF Amy Whelan $275 11.7 $3,217.50

Jaime Huling Delaye $175 80.7 $14,122.50

Aaron Aruck (paralegal) $125 2.9 $362.50

C. Plaintiff Is Entitled To Expenses

Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of expenses that would normally be billed to fee-paying clients. 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (b). Plaintiff’s counsel have incurred a total of $450 in pro hac vice expenses related to the case, as supported by the Minter Declaration. (Exhibit B to Minter Dec. at p. 9.)

D. Plaintiff is Entitled to Interest

Plaintiff also requests interest on any award for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

Friend v. Kolodzieczak, 72 F.2d 1386, 1391-92 (9th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1146 (1996).

CONCLUSION

For all of the reasons stated above, Plaintiff requests an award of $78,407.50 in attorneys’ fees and expenses. Depending on the amount of time necessary to write a reply brief in support of this motion or to otherwise defend Plaintiff’s entitlement to reasonable fees and expenses, Plaintiff reserves the right to update these totals with her reply brief or at a future date if additional work becomes necessary.

Respectfully submitted this 20th day of August, 2015.

______/s/______Deborah A. Ferguson Attorneys for Plaintiffs

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES - Page - 10

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-2 Filed 08/20/15 Page 1 of 17

Deborah A. Ferguson, ISB No. 5333 Craig Harrison Durham, ISB No. 6428 Ferguson Durham, PLLC 223 N. 6th Street, Suite 325 Boise, Idaho 83702 Tel.: (208) 345-5183 [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

MADELYNN LEE TAYLOR, Case No. 14-cv-00273-REB Plaintiff,

v. DECLARATION OF DEBORAH A. FERGUSON IN

SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S DAVID E. BRASUELL, as Administrator of MOTION FOR REASONABLE the Idaho Division of Veterans Services, in ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND his official capacity, EXPENSES

Defendant.

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-2 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 17

I, Deborah A. Ferguson, hereby declare and state as follows:

1. I am lead counsel in this action and represent the Plaintiff, along with my co-

counsel. I am a member in good standing of the Idaho State Bar, and am admitted to practice before

this Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States. I am

submitting this declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and

Expenses, which has been filed concurrently. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated in

this declaration and could competently testify to these facts.

MY LEGAL BACKGROUND

2. I am a 1986 graduate of Loyola University Chicago School of Law, where I was a member of the Law Review. I have practiced law in the area of civil litigation for 29 years. I began practicing law in Chicago, Illinois in September 1986. I worked initially at a boutique law firm specializing in litigation, and then from 1987-1991 for the law firm, Katten Muchin & Zavis, in its litigation department, where I tried cases in federal and state court.

3. I left private practice in 1991 and for almost twenty-one years, I served as an

Assistant United States Attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice. I was assigned to the the Civil

Division of the Northern District of Illinois, (Chicago) from 1991-1995 and in the District of Idaho from 1995-2012. During those two decades with the U.S. Department of Justice, I was lead counsel on hundreds of federal civil cases on behalf of a wide array of agencies and individuals, before the federal District Court of Idaho and the Northern District of Illinois, and on appeal before the Ninth and Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeals. As lead counsel, I handled and tried a wide variety of complex federal civil litigation, such as constitutional torts, environmental challenges, medical malpractice defense and other torts.

DECLARATION OF DEBORAH A. FERGUSON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES - Page - 1

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-2 Filed 08/20/15 Page 3 of 17

4. In March 2012, I left the U.S. Department of Justice to return to private practice, and began litigating and mediating civil matters. In August 2014 I formed Ferguson Durham,

PLLC along with my partner Craig Durham. Based on my extensive litigation experience, my practice concentrates on representing clients in civil litigation, and mediating litigated disputes. I was lead counsel in Latta v. Otter, in the District of Idaho and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which successfully challenged Idaho’s laws prohibiting the issuance of marriage licenses to same- sex couples and prohibiting recognition of valid marriages of same-sex couples entered in other jurisdictions. From November 2012 until June 2013, I was appointed to serve as a Special Master by a federal Senior District Judge in a complex international electronic discovery dispute that arose in a commercial litigation in the District of Idaho. Attached as Exhibit A is a copy of my curriculum vitae, which contains a general summary of some of my significant cases.

5. I am active in the legal community in Idaho and have served as a member and/or officer of a number of professional organizations such as the Idaho State Bar (Past President 2011 and Bar Commissioner, 2008-2011), the Federal Bar Association—Idaho Chapter, the Idaho

Academy of Leadership for Lawyers (Founding Chair of Steering Committee, 2011- 2015) and the American Inns of Court. I am also the Idaho State Bar Delegate to the American Bar

Association, and a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation.

THE WORK OF COUNSEL IN THIS LITIGATION

6. I was retained in this litigation by the Plaintiff, along with co-counsel, on a fully contingent basis to challenge the State of Idaho’s policy of refusing to allow married same sex veterans to have their remains buried or interred with their spouse at the Idaho Veteran’s Cemetery.

The Plaintiff in this action did not have the resources to pay counsel and could not financially afford paying the attorney fees and expenses necessary to proceed with this action to protect her

DECLARATION OF DEBORAH A. FERGUSON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES - Page - 2

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-2 Filed 08/20/15 Page 4 of 17

fundamental rights to due process and equal protection of the law under the U.S. Constitution.

Plaintiff is not being charged a fee to represent her.

7. As lead counsel, I orchestrated the litigation since its inception, coordinating both the efforts of the legal team, and the communication with our client. I also contributed extensively to all pleadings and briefs.

8. Plaintiff’s counsel litigated this case efficiently and without unnecessary duplication of effort. Because of its long experience with the important federal constitutional issues involved in this case, the NCLR took primary responsibility for preparing initial drafts of many of the pleadings and briefs, including the briefing regarding the dispositive motions. Both of our offices were also counsel in the Latta v. Otter litigation challenging Idaho’s marriage laws.

Because we worked on that case, which had many overlapping issues, we were able to litigate this

case very efficiently and effectively, including by adapting substantial research and briefs that we

had already prepared.

9. Plaintiff’s counsel conducted much of their business during telephone conferences

and through email, which served as a cost-effective means to divide tasks between the attorneys

and staff while eliminating the need for travel by out-of-state counsel.

10. The Defendant aggressively litigated this case, requiring Plaintiff’s counsel to incur

additional fees. For instance, rather than stipulate to a judgment after interring Plaintiff’s deceased

wife’s remains at the Idaho Veterans Cemetery as Plaintiff requested, Defendant filed a motion to

dismiss this case based on mootness. While Defendant ultimately lost its motion to dismiss, this

forced Plaintiff’s counsel to oppose that motion while also briefing its own summary judgment

motion seeking the relief Plaintiff ultimately won.

DECLARATION OF DEBORAH A. FERGUSON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES - Page - 3

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-2 Filed 08/20/15 Page 5 of 17

11. Because my firm is still relatively new and growing, I took a financial risk when I agreed to represent the Plaintiff. There was no assurance at the time that we would prevail or that

I would ever be compensated for my work. But I believed that Plaintiff deserved to be zealously represented and that her cause was just.

12. During the course of this case, I turned away other fee-paying matters.

13. Plaintiff’s counsel produced an excellent result, as we prevailed on all claims in the

Complaint. Plaintiff’s life has been forever altered as a result of the Court’s Decision in this case, recognizing her fundamental rights to due process and equal protection of the law under the U.S.

Constitution. And because of this case, Plaintiff obtained all of the relief she sought, including an injunction ensuring that upon her death, she and her deceased spouse will be interred together at the Idaho State Veterans Cemetery.

MY BILLING RATE AND REASONABLE HOURS SPENT

14. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the detailed time records

I maintained for this case. I have devoted 85.1 hours to the merits and fees work for this case. I have carefully reviewed my time records and exercised billing judgment in the recording of my time. All of the work detailed in Exhibit B was reasonable and necessary to the prosecution of this action.

15. I am requesting to be compensated for 85.1 hours at a rate of $400 per hour, which is reasonable within this legal community given my background, experience, and skill. Further this rate is reasonable given the complexity, risk, and excellent degree of success achieved. This is the hourly rate that I was awarded by this Court in the Latta v. Otter lawsuit, in the District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

DECLARATION OF DEBORAH A. FERGUSON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES - Page - 4

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-2 Filed 08/20/15 Page 6 of 17

16. This hourly rate is based upon my own hourly billable rate in non-contingency fee

cases, and what other attorneys with similar skill, reputation and experience charge in Boise for

similar work. See Declarations of Howard A. Belodoff and Lauren I. Scholnick, filed concurrently in Support of the Motion for Reasonable Attorney Fees’ and Expenses.

17. My hourly billable rate is $350 per hour in non-contingency fee cases. For my services as a mediator, I charge a flat daily rate of $1,800, not including certain travel expenses.

This rate is comparable to the $400 hourly rate I request here, when the factors surrounding the rates are compared. In my non-contingency matters, I remit monthly invoices to my clients, and my fee is not dependent upon the results obtained or the need to submit a petition for fees for Court approval.

18. In all, I am seeking an award of $34,040.00 (85.1 hours at $400 per hour).

19. In the event Defendant disputes Plaintiff’s fee petition, Plaintiff’s counsel will submit supplemental time records, at the appropriate time, for any time incurred defending

Plaintiff’s entitlement to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed in Boise, Idaho on this 19th day of August 2015.

______/s/______Deborah A. Ferguson

DECLARATION OF DEBORAH A. FERGUSON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES - Page - 5

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-2 Filed 08/20/15 Page 7 of 17

EXHIBIT A Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-2 Filed 08/20/15 Page 8 of 17

Curriculum Vitae

Deborah A. Ferguson

Ferguson Durham, PLLC o: (208) 345-5183 223 North 6th Street, Suite 325 e: [email protected] Boise, Idaho 83702 w: www.fergusondurham.com

Professional Experience: Partner, Ferguson Durham, PLLC and Ferguson Mediation, Boise, Idaho 2012-Present • Lead counsel is successful constitutional challenge to Idaho’s same sex marriage ban in federal district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Also litigates a wide array of civil matters in federal and state court. Synopsis of significant cases follows. • Serves as mediator in civil disputes arising from employment matters, contracts, personal injuries and other torts, as well as real estate and environmental disputes. • Appointed Special Master by federal district court to manage and provide findings in complex international electronic discovery dispute.

Assistant United States Attorney, District of Idaho, Civil Division, Boise, Idaho 1995-2012 • Represented the United States as lead trial counsel in over 300 federal civil cases, including landmark environmental challenges, complex torts and constitutional litigation, as set forth in the attached synopsis. • Handled numerous appeals before the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Assistant United States Attorney, Northern District of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois 1991-1994 • Represented the United States as lead trial counsel in federal civil litigation, including medical malpractice, employment discrimination, and asset forfeitures. • Handled appeals before the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Associate, Katten Muchin & Zavis, Litigation Department, Chicago, Illinois 1987-1991 • Assisted in civil commercial litigation and trial advocacy in federal and state courts.

Bar Admissions and Mediation Certification:

United States Supreme Court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth and Seventh Circuits United States District Court for the District of Idaho and Illinois Idaho State Bar Mediator Roster, Idaho Supreme Court and United States District Court of Idaho Legal Education and Mediation Training: Center for International Legal Studies, Professor Orientation, Salzburg, Austria 2014 Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, Pepperdine University School of Law 2012 Civil Mediation Certification Northwest Institute for Dispute Resolution 2012 U.S. Department of Justice National Advocacy Center, Columbia S.C 1995-2011 National Institute of Trial Advocacy- Chicago, Illinois 1989 Loyola University Chicago School of Law, Juris Doctor, Law Review 1986

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-2 Filed 08/20/15 Page 9 of 17

Professional Service and Affiliations

Idaho Academy of Leadership for Lawyers, Chair, Steering Committee 2011-2015 American Bar Association, Idaho State Bar Delegate 2013-2015 American Bar Foundation, Fellow 2010-2015 American Bar Association, Member 2008-2015 American Bar Association, Legal Access Job Corps Task Force 2014-2015 American Inns of Court, Inn No. 130, Bencher 2005-2015 Idaho District Court ADR Working Group 2013-2015 Federal Bar Association, Idaho Chapter, Member 2006-2015 Idaho Women Lawyers, Board of Directors 2000-2012 American Bar Association, Committee on Resolution and Impact Review 2013 Idaho State Bar President 2011 Idaho State Bar Commissioner 2008-2011 American Bar Association Law Days, Washington D.C 2010-2012 Idaho Supreme Court Judicial Recruitment Committee 2010

Professional Awards

Kate Feltham Award, Idaho Women Lawyers 2015 Tribute to Women in Industry Award, Women’s & Children’s Alliance 2015 Dave Judy Civil Rights Service Award, ACLU of Idaho 2015 Exemplary Service Award, Idaho Chapter of Federal Bar Association 2013 Women of the Year, Idaho Business Review 2008

Selected Publications and Presentations:

Women under Title VII and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Idaho State Bar 2015 Science in Litigation: Working with Experts, Idaho State Bar 2015 Same Sex Marriage and the Constitution, University of Idaho College of Law 2014 Marriage and the Fourteenth Amendment, FBA Tri-State Conference 2014 Using ADR in Employment Matters, National Business Institute 2014 “Participating in a Mediation- A Guide for Attorneys,” The Advocate 2013 “Eight Benefits of Mediation,” The Advocate 2012 “Preparing Your Client for Mediation,” The Advocate 2012 The University of Idaho College of Law, Professionalism Speaker Series 2012 Idaho State Bar, swearing in new attorneys, Guest Speaker 2011 Monthly State Bar President’s Column, The Advocate 2011 “Last Place is No Place to Be – Women in the Idaho Judiciary,” The Advocate 2011 “The Long and Winding Road- Restoration of Sherlock Creek,” The Advocate 2008 Environmental Litigation in District of Idaho, Federal Bar Association 2007 Electronic Discovery under New Federal Civil Rules, Inns of Court 2007

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-2 Filed 08/20/15 Page 10 of 17

Synopsis of Significant Cases:

• Challenged Idaho’s Constitutional ban on same sex marriage as violating the protections of the 14th Amendment on behalf of four Idaho same sex couples, in Latta v. Otter. Prevailing before the district court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, this historic case resulted in the striking of similar marriage bans throughout the Ninth Circuit.

• Represented the United States Department of Energy in a challenge to the continued operation of the nuclear Advanced Test Reactor at the Idaho National Laboratory. The claims under the National Environmental Policy Act were successfully defeated.

• Defended the United States Department of Transportation before the federal district court and in an expedited appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a challenge to the construction of U.S. Highway 95, brought under the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. This major public project was completed as planned.

• Represented a federal supervisor accused of violating the constitutional rights of an employee who died in a work related accident on a national forest. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the defense judgment.

• Represented the United States Forest Service in an action to stop an illegal mining operation on the national forest that impaired the habitat of an endangered species. The operation was permanently shut down, and the area restored to its formerly pristine condition.

• Defended a federally insured health care provider at trial under the Federal Tort Claims Act, after an eight-year-old child died for the failure to diagnose spinal meningitis.

• Represented six federal agents in their individual capacities, accused of executing an illegal search warrant in an Idaho home. The case was dismissed against the federal agents.

• Defended a challenge to grazing on over a million acres of public lands in southeast Idaho alleging violations under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. After a ten day evidentiary hearing, the federal district court found in favor of the Bureau of Land management in five of the six causes of action.

• Represented the United States in a contested land exchange in the Yellowstone ecosystem in exchange for the base property of a major ski resort. After defending two appeals to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the land transfer was upheld.

• Represented a federal agent accused of violating the constitutional rights of an individual who was accidently shot and killed during an arrest. The court found in favor of the agent, at the conclusion of the trial.

• Defended the United States Forest Service in the seminal Lands Council v. McNair litigation, which challenged a forest restoration project under the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act. After successfully defending a preliminary injunction, an appeal was taken. After an initital loss, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted an en review and then reversed and vacated its prior decision. Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-2 Filed 08/20/15 Page 11 of 17

EXHIBIT B Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-2 Filed 08/20/15 Page 12 of 17 Taylor v. Brasuell (1:14-cv-00273) Deborah Ferguson Time DATE DESCRIPTION HOURS BILLED 5/5/2014 Initial client meeting 0.5 5/7/2014 Draft client engagement letter, confer with co-counsel CD re: same 0.4

5/12/2014 Client meeting, representation letter signed, client delivered 0.7 documents on case, reviewed same

5/12/2014 conferred with co-counsel CD and CS re complaint 0.3

5/16/2014 Responded to inquiry from reporter from LA Times who 0.2 interviewed client 5/28/2014 Conferred with co-counsel CS on status of draft complaint 0.2 6/4/2014 Phone call from client; conferred with CS on status of draft 0.2 complaint 6/5/2014 Confer with co-counsel on complaint and factual issues 0.5

6/5/2014 Review and edits to complaint 2 6/6/2014 Email to co-counsel on client meeting, denial letter from cemetery, 0.3 and case strategy 6/6/2014 Review of Idaho Veteran's Cemetery denial letter 0.2 6/6/2014 Client meeting at office on status of case 0.7 6/10/2014 Confer with SM on status of matter, and recent client contact 0.2 6/11/2014 Interview with reporter on MT's case and impact of marriage 0.3 equality ruling, appeal in 9th Cir. 6/12/2014 Research survivability of §1983 claim in Idaho, implications on case 1.5

6/12/2014 Confer with co-counsel and CD on research re: complaint 0.5 6/13/2014 Research on other potential claims for Complaint, confer with co- 0.5 counsel re: same 6/16/2014 Revisions to Complaint, review of exhibits A-D to same, Complaint 1.9 sent to co-counsel for review 6/16/2014 Telephone call to client on new developments 0.2 6/16/2014 Review of draft complaint with CD, and revisions 0.5 6/16/2014 Confer with co-counsel SM, CS and CD on non-survivabilty of claim 0.7 under Idaho law and next steps 6/17/2014 Confer with co-counsel SM, CS, and CD on relief requested 0.3 6/17/2014 Confer with co-counsel CD on revisions to Complaint 0.2 Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-2 Filed 08/20/15 Page 13 of 17 Taylor v. Brasuell (1:14-cv-00273) Deborah Ferguson Time DATE DESCRIPTION HOURS BILLED 6/17/2014 Revisions to Complaint 2.2 6/18/2014 Review BW article on MT, confer with co-counsel, email to 0.3 reporter 6/18/2014 Review CS's edits to Complaint, revisions re: same 0.3 6/18/2014 Conference with client and CD on survivability of claims, case 0.7 strategy and draft complaint 6/23/2014 Phone call from MT re: complaint; meeting scheduled for June 0.2 24th with client and CD 6/24/2014 Confer with co-counsel CD, CS and SM on timing of filing and 0.3 strategy 6/24/2014 Review of client comments, revisions to Complaint 1.8 6/24/2014 Research on potential additional state cause of action 1 6/24/2014 Meeting with CD before client meeting re: possible state cause of 0.4 action 6/24/2014 Meeting with client and co-counsel CD to discuss revisions to 0.6 Complaint, and respond to client questions 6/25/2014 Follow up on review of Complaint and coordination for case filing 0.2

6/26/2014 Review of exhibits, confer with CD and CS re: redaction of private 0.2 information of client 6/26/2014 Email to Steve Olsen at AG, request waiver of service 0.2 6/26/2014 Edits to complaint, email of final draft to MT 0.3 6/26/2014 Review of edits from CD, revisions to Complaint 0.3 6/28/2014 Review research memo of JD re: abatement of claims, research re: 0.5 same, email with CD on analysis 7/2/2014 Revision to complaint with additional damage claim 0.4 7/3/2014 Phone conference with client, respond to client questions 0.2 7/3/2014 Phone message from AG office on filing of complaint, return call 0.2 re; same, follow up email 7/3/2014 Phone conference with client on timing of filing, confer with co- 0.2 counsel re: same 7/3/2014 Review of press release, confer with media coordinator re: same 0.3

7/3/2014 Review civil cover sheet, attachment to same, waiver of summons, 0.5 exhibits 7/3/2014 Final proof and revisions to complaint from CD, same from CS 0.3 Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-2 Filed 08/20/15 Page 14 of 17 Taylor v. Brasuell (1:14-cv-00273) Deborah Ferguson Time DATE DESCRIPTION HOURS BILLED 7/7/2014 Filed two pro hoc vice motions- SM and CS, received Court order 0.2 granting same 7/7/2014 Respond to media questions, Associated press 0.2 7/7/2014 Respond to media questions- Spokane Review 0.2 7/7/2014 Email co-counsel SM, CS, and CD re: re-cap of filing, media 0.3 interviews and Magistrate Judge consent issue 7/7/2014 Reviewed and filed waiver of service of Summons from 0.2 defendant's counsel 7/7/2014 Several media interviews with client and co-counsel CD 2.7 7/7/2014 Client meeting with CD 2 7/7/2014 Finalize complaint and exhibits, file same with Court 1 7/8/2014 Coordinate with client and CD on CNN interview 0.3 7/8/2014 Respond to CNN request for live TV interview on 7/9, discuss with 1.5 NCLR and SM, preparation re: same 7/8/2014 Review of press articles in LA Times, Idaho Statesman, etc 0.4 7/9/2014 Communications with NCLR media coordinator and Huffington 0.3 Post, confer with client 7/9/2014 Client meeting to discuss case issues 1 7/9/2014 CNN's interview with client, broadcast live from NY, and 1 preparation re; same 7/10/2014 Confer with client and Huffington Post regarding interview request 0.2

7/11/2014 Phone call from Scott Zanzig 0.1 7/11/2014 Confer with Huffington Post on 7/14 interview and equipment test 0.5

7/14/2014 Phone call with Client on request to film 0.3 7/14/2014 Meeting with client, Huffington Post Live interview, client 1.5 preparation for same 7/15/2014 Coordinate with client, videographer and NCLR on filming on 7/19 1 and 7/21 7/15/2014 Review of Rule 45 request and letter re: same 0.2 7/15/2014 Coordinated schedule with client and film maker, and establish 1.5 schedule 7/15/2014 Reviewed Dkt. 7, sent signed consent to Clerk's Office, emailed co- 0.3 counsel re: same 7/15/2014 Phone call to Clerk's Office on consent issue 0.2 Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-2 Filed 08/20/15 Page 15 of 17 Taylor v. Brasuell (1:14-cv-00273) Deborah Ferguson Time DATE DESCRIPTION HOURS BILLED 7/16/2014 Revised co-counsel agreement 0.5 7/17/2014 Coordination with co-counsel CD on meeting with client and media 0.3

7/17/2014 Phone conference with client re: meeting on 7/21 0.2 7/19/2014 Email to SM with draft of co-counsel agreement 0.2 7/20/2014 Client interview re:facts surrounding litigation filmed 1.5 7/22/2014 Received co-counsel agreement, signed and forwarded same to CD 0.1 for signature 7/24/2014 Review of video of film of client 0.2 7/25/2014 Research on survivability of 1983 claims under Idaho law 0.5 8/19/2014 Confer with CD re: litigation plan 0.2 8/27/2014 Confer with CD and CS on litigation strategy 0.3 8/27/2014 Draft litigation plan and email same to opposing counsel 0.3 8/27/2014 Phone conference with Defendant's counsel on litigation plan 0.5 9/10/2014 Email to SM, CS and CD on case management issues and schedule, 0.2 re-cap of conversation with OC and Judge Bush 9/10/2014 Email to client on case management plan and litigation issues 0.3 9/10/2014 Case management conference call with counsel and Judge Bush 0.4

9/11/2014 Email to client with Amended Complaint 0.2 9/11/2014 Review and respond to OC's email on amended complaint 0.1 9/11/2014 Review of exhibits and filing of Amended Complaint, Ex.A-D 0.4 9/11/2014 Confer with CD re: amended complaint 0.3 9/11/2014 Drafted Amended complaint, review of same 0.6 10/14/2014 Emails with opposing counsel, SZ re: potential settlement 0.3 10/16/2014 Email from C.Smith and responses to same re: compliance with 9th 0.3 Cir.'s decision 10/17/2014 Email from SZ and responses to same re: settlement authority 0.3

10/21/2014 Phone conference with SZ concerning potential settlement 0.3 10/22/2014 Conference with client at Idaho Veterans Cemetery to complete 1.5 documentation for interment 10/23/2014 Draft outline for dispositive motion 2 10/23/2014 Phone conference with co-counsel CD, CS and SM regarding next 0.5 steps, State's response to settlement proposal and dispositive motion deadline Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-2 Filed 08/20/15 Page 16 of 17 Taylor v. Brasuell (1:14-cv-00273) Deborah Ferguson Time DATE DESCRIPTION HOURS BILLED 10/24/2014 Research and drafting of SJ memorandum and motion 5.8 10/25/2014 Revision to SJ memo and incorporation of edits of CS and CD 1.8 10/25/2014 Discussion with client SJ motion and declaration in support 0.3 10/26/2014 Draft declaration of MT, and revisions to SJ memo 2.5 10/27/2014 Confer with CD on call from AG Office 0.3 10/27/2014 Phone call from S. Zanzig on status conference 0.1 10/27/2014 Draft Statement of Facts 1 10/27/2014 Discussion with client re: declarations, revisions re: same 0.3 10/28/2014 Meeting with client, review declaration 0.4 10/28/2014 Status conference with Court 0.3 10/29/2014 Review of Motion to Dismiss and related filings 0.6 10/29/2014 Final review of Motion for SJ, Memo in Support, Statement of 1 Facts, Declaration of M. Taylor and filing of same 10/31/2014 Confer with SM on status conference, and motion to dismiss 0.3 11/10/2014 Phone conference with Client on cross motions 0.2 11/19/2014 Confer with SM and CD on response to AG's motion to dismiss 0.4

11/21/2014 Review draft of response to motion to dismiss 0.3 11/22/2014 Review and edit response to Defendant's motion to dismiss 1 11/24/2014 Final edits to Response to Motion to Dismiss, filed same 1.2 11/25/2014 Email to client re: recent briefing 0.2 12/2/2014 Confer with client from hospital re: medical emergency 0.3 12/3/2014 Follow up with client re: her condition post surgery 0.2 12/4/2014 Follow up with client re: emergency surgery 0.2 12/8/2014 Review of draft SJ reply brief, revisions re: same.; email CS, SM, CD 1.2

12/8/2014 Confer with client re: second declaration in support of summary 2 judgment, draft same, revisions 12/10/2014 Finalize filings for 12/11 0.4 12/10/2014 Client meeting to review and sign declaration 0.5 1/6/2015 Review of draft response to Order to show cause; research and 1.4 edit of same 1/9/2015 Review Defendant's response to Court's Order to Show Cause 0.2 (Dkt.27), confer with CD re; same 1/9/2015 File review and edits to Plaintiff's Response to Court's Order to 0.3 Show Cause; filed same Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-2 Filed 08/20/15 Page 17 of 17 Taylor v. Brasuell (1:14-cv-00273) Deborah Ferguson Time DATE DESCRIPTION HOURS BILLED 1/13/2015 Confer with Co-counsel on notifying Court re: 9th Cir.'s denial of 0.2 en banc petition 1/20/2015 Drafted and filed Notice of 9th Cir.'s denial of en banc petitions in 0.3 Latta, relating to Rule to Show Cause briefing 1/28/2015 Meeting with client to discuss status of case and respond to 0.3 questions 1/29/2015 Review Dkt 29 - Notice from Court re: denying stay 0.1 7/9/2015 Review Court's Decision and Memorandum Opinion, confer with 0.5 client re: same 7/10/2015 Consult with NCLR re: Court's Decision and Memorandum Opinion 0.4 and drafting of proposed judgement 7/13/2015 Discussion with NCLR AW re; fee petition 0.3 7/16/2015 Review of proposed judgement, confer with co-counsel and edits 0.3 re: same 7/17/2015 Email to opposing counsel on extension of time for fee petition 0.1

7/17/2015 Email to chambers with proposed judgment 0.1 7/20/2015 Email from opposing counsel on suggested edit to final judgment, 0.3 edit of same, email to chambers with new draft 7/24/2015 Email draft stip to co- counsel, and opposing counsel, filed same 0.2 with Court 7/24/2015 Drafted a stipulation to extend briefing schedule for fee petition 0.3

8/12/2015 Review of my time records and draft of my declaration in support 1.5 of fee petition 8/13/2015 Draft of declaration of HB in support of rate requested for fee 1.3 petition TOTAL 85.1 Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-3 Filed 08/20/15 Page 1 of 6

Deborah A. Ferguson, ISB No. 5333 Craig Harrison Durham, ISB No. 6428 Ferguson Durham, PLLC 223 N. 6th Street, Suite 325 Boise, Idaho 83702 Tel.: (208) 345-5183 [email protected] [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

MADELYNN LEE TAYLOR, Case No. 14-cv-00273-REB Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF CRAIG v. H. DURHAM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE DAVID E. BRASUELL, as Administrator of ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND the Idaho Division of Veterans Services, in EXPENSES his official capacity,

Defendant.

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-3 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 6

I, Craig H. Durham, hereby declare and state as follows:

1. I am a member in good standing of the state bars of Idaho and Kansas. I am also licensed to practice in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho and for the District of Kansas, and in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. I am submitting this declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated in this declaration and could competently testify to these facts.

2. I am a 1996 graduate of the University of Kansas School of Law, and have been an attorney for nearly 19 years. I first received a license to practice law in Kansas in September of

1996.

3. From 1996 until 2001, I worked at the Kansas Appellate Defender’s Office, where

I represented convicted felony defendants on appeal to the Kansas Court of Appeals and the Kansas

Supreme Court. I also mentored and supervised junior attorneys, and I began working on death penalty cases. At the time, the death penalty had recently been re-instated in Kansas, and our team worked efficiently on complex issues of first impression that were presented to the Kansas

Supreme Court.

4. In 2001, I moved to Boise and became a member of the Idaho State Bar. I continued to practice appellate and death penalty law at the Idaho State Appellate Defender’s Office.

Between my experience in Kansas and Idaho, I have written well over 150 appellate briefs, have orally argued dozens of cases in the appellate courts, and have been co-counsel in several death penalty appeals and post-conviction cases.

5. For nearly ten years, from 2003 until 2012, I worked as a staff attorney at the United

States District Court for the District of Idaho. I was the only death penalty law clerk for the District

DECLARATION OF CRAIG H. DURHAM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES - 1 Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-3 Filed 08/20/15 Page 3 of 6

of Idaho during that time, and in that capacity I assisted judges in researching the law, drafting

opinions, and resolving capital habeas corpus matters. Each case often spanned several years,

contained thousands of pages of documents and records, and demanded knowledge of a large and

arcane body of case law that is unique to the death penalty.

6. While at the Court, I was also was a member of the Prisoner Litigation Unit (PLU),

which is a small team of staff attorneys who are responsible for managing pro se cases brought by

prisoners. Prisoner cases make up approximately 25% to 33% of the Court’s civil caseload from year-to-year, and the majority of those cases are brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In 2011 and again in 2012, I was assigned to assist judges in two § 1983 cases brought by death-sentenced inmates who were challenging Idaho’s lethal injection protocol at the eleventh hour. See Rhoads v. Reinke, et al., 1:11-cv-00455-REB; Creech, et al. v. Reinke, et al., 1:12-cv-00173-EJL. Each of

these cases carried high stakes and required exacting work under significant time pressure.

7. In May of 2013, I opened my own solo firm in Boise, where I concentrated on civil

rights and discrimination cases and on criminal defense. Specifically, I represented, almost

exclusively, prisoners and non-prisoners in § 1983 and Bivens cases, individuals claiming

discrimination in employment, and criminal defendants in the state and federal courts. In 2014,

Deborah Ferguson and I started the firm Ferguson Durham PLLC.

8. Because our firm is still relatively new and growing, I took a financial risk when I

agreed to represent the Plaintiff. There was no assurance at the time that we would prevail or that

I would ever be compensated for my work. But I believed that Plaintiff deserved to be represented

zealously and that her cause was just.

9. As co-counsel in Ms. Taylor’s case, I relied on my civil rights and federal court

background to provide important litigation support for the team. My tasks included: consultations

DECLARATION OF CRAIG H. DURHAM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES - 2 Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-3 Filed 08/20/15 Page 4 of 6

with co-counsel and the legal team regarding strategy and tactics; reviewing and editing our complaints; reviewing and editing our motion for summary judgment; and reviewing and editing our response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss; attending client meetings; and attending telephonic hearings. We obtained excellent results for our client, prevailing on all claims in the Complaint and achieving all of the relief she requested.

10. I have devoted 15.3 hours to this case, which is documented by my contemporaneous time records. (Exhibit A.) All of this work was reasonable and necessary to secure Plaintiff’s victory in the case. I have exercised billing judgment reductions and have not recorded or charged for additional hours for research, review, communication (including numerous emails and phone calls), and other work that I believe I could reasonably request. For instance, I frequently did not record my time for meetings or phone calls with co-counsel about strategy issues or our substantive legal briefs.

11. Accordingly, I am requesting to be compensated for 15.3 hours at $325 per hour.

This is the hourly rate that I was awarded by this Court in the Latta v. Otter lawsuit. See Latta v.

Otter, No. 1:13-cv-482-CWD, 2014 WL 7245631, at *4 (D. Idaho Dec. 19, 2014). This rate is also reasonable within this legal community given my background, experience, and skill and the high degree of success that we have achieved. As stated in the declaration of Mr. Howard

Belodoff, “[t]hese are not ordinary matters, and there is little encouragement for the private bar to prosecute these complex and demanding constitutional claims.” (Belodoff Dec. at ¶ 10.)

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed in Boise, Idaho on this 20th day of August 2015.

Craig H. Durham

DECLARATION OF CRAIG H. DURHAM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES - 3 Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-3 Filed 08/20/15 Page 5 of 6

EXHIBIT A Case 1:14-cv-00273-REBTaylor v. Document Brasuell (1:14-cv-00273) 35-3 Filed 08/20/15 Page 6 of 6 Craig Durham Time DATE DESCRIPTION HOURS BILLED 6/12/2014 Discussion with DAF about complaint and case 0.5 6/16/2014 Reviewing proposed complaint and provided edits. 0.5 6/16/2014 Discussion on telephonic conference with co-counsel regarding 0.7 complaint and strategy for same 6/17/2014 Discussion on telephone conference about complaint with DAF, 0.2 regarding editing and relief requested. 6/18/2014 Discussion with client and DAF regarding complaint and next steps. 0.7

6/24/2014 Meeting with client about complaint, revisions, and filing schedule. 0.6

6/24/2014 Discussion with DAF about complaint, revisions, and meeting with 0.4 client. 6/28/2014 Reading memorandum re: survival of civil rights claim post-death. 0.5 Correspondences with DAF on this issue. 7/3/2014 Finalizing editing and proofing of draft complaint and exhibits. 1 Comments to DAF. 7/7/2014 Media interviews with client and co-counsel. 2.7 7/7/2014 Client meeting with DAF. 2 7/7/2014 Finalizing and filing complaint with exhibits. 1 7/17/2014 Phone call with Cheryl Rosenthal about filming client. 0.6 9/10/2014 Discussion with DAF and prep for telephonic scheduling conference. 0.3

9/10/2014 Telephonic scheduling conference with Judge Bush. 0.3 10/28/2014 Reviewing our motion for summary judgment; making suggested edits 0.5 on same. 10/29/2014 Reviewing State's motion to dismiss. 0.1 11/23/2014 Reviewing for suggested edits to response to State's motion to 0.3 dismiss. 12/10/2014 Client meeting. 0.5 12/10/2014 Reviewing for suggested edits to reply to response to MSJ. 0.3 1/5/2015 Reviewing our response to Court's order to show cause, making notes 0.2 on same. 1/9/2015 Reviewing State's Response to Court's Order to Show Cause. 0.1 7/10/2015 Reading Judge Bush's memorandum decision and order. 0.3 8/13/2015 Edited my declaration in support of fee petition 1 TOTAL 15.3 Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 1 of 36

Deborah A. Ferguson, ISB No. 5333 Craig Harrison Durham, ISB No. 6428 Ferguson Durham, PLLC 223 N. 6th Street, Suite 325 Boise, Idaho 83702 Tel.: (208) 345-5183 [email protected] [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

MADELYNN LEE TAYLOR, Case No. 14-cv-00273-REB Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF v. SHANNON P. MINTER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE DAVID E. BRASUELL, as Administrator of ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND the Idaho Division of Veterans Services, in EXPENSES his official capacity,

Defendant.

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 36

I, Shannon P. Minter, hereby declare and state as follows:

1. I am an attorney admitted pro hac vice before this Court and represent the Plaintiff in this action. I am a member in good standing of the California State Bar and am admitted to practice law in California state and federal courts, several U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the Supreme

Court of the United States. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated in this Declaration and could and would competently testify to these facts.

2. This Declaration is filed concurrently with Plaintiff’s Motion for Reasonable

Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses.

3. I am a 1993 graduate of Cornell University School of Law, and have been a licensed attorney since that year. Since 2000, I have been the Legal Director of the National Center for

Lesbian Rights (NCLR), which is a national legal organization committed to advancing the civil and human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and their families. In particular,

NCLR is committed to litigating precedent-setting cases at the trial and appellate court levels throughout the country. A more complete recitation of my experience and background in civil rights cases is included below and in my curriculum vitae, a copy of which is attached hereto as

Exhibit A.

MY MOST RELEVANT GENERAL BACKGROUND

4. NCLR maintains a diverse legal practice and I have litigated a variety of complex cases in state and federal courts during my twenty-one year tenure at the organization. For instance, I have litigated complex child custody, adoption, youth, immigration, employment discrimination, and civil rights matters. I have also argued cases before trial and appellate courts, including state supreme courts and federal circuit courts of appeal.

DECLARATION OF SHANNON P. MINTER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES - Page - 1 Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 3 of 36

5. I am an expert on legal matters involving lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender

(LGBT) people and frequently teach or lecture regarding these topics. For example, I have taught

courses on LGBT legal issues at Berkeley, Stanford, Santa Clara, American University

Washington College of Law, and several other laws schools.

6. I have authored several treatises and publications on legal issues related to the

LGBT community, including in the areas of family law, constitutional rights, employment discrimination, and immigration / asylum, and frequently lecture around the country and abroad regarding LGBT civil and human rights. For example, in September of 2013, I traveled to El

Salvador to meet with various governmental agencies about hate violence against LGBT people at the request of the U.S. Department of State. In June of 2015, President Obama appointed me to serve on the President’s Commission on White House Fellowships.

7. I also have extensive experience litigating challenges to state laws that prohibit marriages by same-sex couples or recognition of valid marriages of same-sex couples performed in other jurisdictions. NCLR was lead counsel for same-sex couples in In re Marriage Cases, 43

Cal.4th 757, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384 (2008), representing fifteen (15) same-sex couples

in the case that made California the second state in the country to allow same-sex couples to

marry. I argued the case on behalf of the couples before the California Supreme Court, which

ruled in May 2008 that the California Constitution’s guarantees of due process and equal protection

prohibited the state from barring same-sex couples from marriage. The decision was also the first

ruling by a state supreme court that laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation are

subject to strict scrutiny under the equal protection guarantee of a state constitution. The decision

followed more than four years of litigation in the California courts, including briefing and

argument by NCLR and its co-counsel in the San Francisco Superior Court and California Court

DECLARATION OF SHANNON P. MINTER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES - Page - 2 Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 4 of 36

of Appeal. I was substantially involved in the briefing and strategy for the case throughout the process, as was Senior Staff Attorney Christopher Stoll, who was then a partner at Heller Ehrman

LLP, one of the law firms that worked with NCLR on the case.

8. NCLR was also lead counsel in Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal. 4th 364, 207 P.3d 48

(Cal. 2009). I argued that case before the California Supreme Court, which held that the marriages

of same-sex couples who legally married in California before the enactment of Proposition 8 were

valid.

9. In 2012, NCLR litigated Port v. Cowan, 426 Md. 435, 44 A.3d 970 (Md. 2012). I

argued that case before the Maryland Court of Appeals, the highest state court in that state, which

held that Maryland must recognize the marriages of same-sex couples who validly married in other

jurisdictions.

10. In 2011 through 2013, NCLR also successfully litigated Cozen O’Connor, P.C. v.

Tobits, et al., No. 11–0045, 2013 WL 3878688 (E.D. Penn. Jul. 29, 2013) in the Eastern District

of Pennsylvania establishing the validity of a marriage of a same-sex couple. In that case, Jennifer

Tobits lost her wife to a four-year battle with cancer. When she sought distribution of her wife’s

employee pension plan, the employer refused to distribute the funds based on the federal “Defense

of Marriage Act.” Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, the

federal judge ruled that Jennifer was a legal spouse entitled to her wife’s pension plan.

11. NCLR also represented same-sex couples in Griego v. Oliver, a lawsuit challenging

New Mexico’s failure to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In that case, we secured a

unanimous decision from the New Mexico Supreme Court ruling that the New Mexico

Constitution requires the state to allow same-sex couples to marry and to recognize the valid

marriages of same-sex couples performed outside the state.

DECLARATION OF SHANNON P. MINTER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES - Page - 3 Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 5 of 36

12. In 2013, NCLR served as amicus counsel for the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the American Association of University Women, the Hispanic National Bar

Association, the Japanese American Citizens League, the League of United Latin American

Citizens, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Southern Poverty Law

Center and other civil rights organizations in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013).

13. I, along with Christopher Stoll, Amy Whelan, and other NCLR legal staff, also served as Plaintiffs’ counsel in multiple marriage cases around the country, including in Utah,

Florida, Tennessee, Alabama, Idaho, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Our Tennessee case, Tanco v. Haslam, was one of the five consolidated cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell, et al. v. Hodges, et al, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015). Because of our extensive experience and expertise litigating these cases, we also provided legal assistance and research to numerous other attorneys around the country who were litigating marriage cases in both state and federal courts.

SUMMARY OF THE LITIGATION AND THE EXCELLENT RESULTS OBTAINED

14. NCLR was retained in this litigation, along with co-counsel, on a fully contingent basis to challenge Idaho’s laws prohibiting the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and prohibiting recognition of valid marriages of same-sex couples entered in other jurisdictions.

Ms. Ferguson served as lead counsel, and NCLR and Mr. Durham were actively involved in overall strategy, drafting of key briefs and documents, and decision making for the case. All counsel worked hard to divide tasks so that their effort was not duplicative. Plaintiff’s counsel conducted much of their business during telephone conferences and through email, which served as a cost- effective means to divide tasks between the attorneys and staff while eliminating the need for expensive travel by NCLR.

DECLARATION OF SHANNON P. MINTER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES - Page - 4 Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 6 of 36

15. In addition, because we were all counsel in the Latta v. Otter case, we were able to

utilize substantial legal research and briefing from that matter, resulting in significantly fewer

hours of billed work. Plaintiff’s counsel also litigated this case efficiently by using legal research

and briefing from NCLR’s other marriage cases around the country, where it was relevant and applicable. Some legal issues, however, were unique to Madelyn’s case. For instance, because

Madelyn had several serious health issues, it was essential to understand what could happen to her claims if she was incapacitated or even died during the course of the litigation. As a result, and in order to fully protect our client’s legal claims, we had to research whether her Section 1983 claim would survive her death—a legal question that depends on the intersection of federal and state law.

12. Plaintiffs’ counsel litigated this case efficiently and without unnecessary duplication of effort. Because of NCLR’s long experience with the important constitutional issues involved in this case, we took primary responsibility for preparing initial drafts of many of the pleadings and briefs, including the briefing regarding the dispositive motions, which were reviewed and edited by co-counsel. Ms. Ferguson prepared the initial draft of the complaint as well as the initial draft of the motion for summary judgment.

13. The Defendant aggressively litigated this case, requiring Plaintiff’s counsel to incur additional fees. For instance, rather than stipulate to a judgment after interring Plaintiff’s deceased wife’s remains at the Idaho Veterans Cemetery, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss this case based on mootness. While Defendant ultimately lost its motion to dismiss, this forced Plaintiff’s counsel to oppose that motion while also briefing its own summary judgment motion seeking the relief

Plaintiff ultimately won.

DECLARATION OF SHANNON P. MINTER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES - Page - 5 Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 7 of 36

14. Based on my extensive litigation experience, the results obtained in this case are excellent. Plaintiff prevailed on all of her claims, including that Idaho’s laws violate her rights to due process and equal protection of the laws, and also secured all of the relief requested.

BILLING RATES, RECORDS, REDUCTIONS, AND CHARTS

15. As a non-profit litigation firm, NCLR does not charge our clients for legal services.

We do, however, seek reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses in cases where there are fee-shifting statutes and our clients are the prevailing parties. NCLR and our co-counsel have incurred all costs in this matter and Plaintiff has agreed that any awarded attorneys’ fees and costs shall belong to and be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel.

16. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and accurate transcription of NCLR’s time and expenses in this case. That time reflects our work on the following major categories of work:

(1) review and editing of the complaint, the amended complaint, and other related documents; (2) legal research regarding the Plaintiff’s claims in the event of incapacity or death; (3) preparation of Plaintiff’s successful opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss; (4) work on Plaintiff’s successful motion for summary judgment; (5) preparation of Plaintiff’s response to the Order to

Show Cause regarding a stay of the case pending the outcome of the Latta lawsuit. All of this work was necessary and reasonable to secure Plaintiff’s victory in the case.

17. Exhibit B also includes hours preparing the instant motion for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in this case.

18. I have been assisted in this case by the following persons for whose work fees are claimed: NCLR’s Senior Staff Attorneys Christopher F. Stoll and Amy Whelan, Staff Attorney

Jaime Huling Delaye, and paralegal Aaron Aruck. Mr. Stoll’s, Ms. Whelan’s and Ms. Huling

Delaye’s resumes are attached hereto as Exhibit C.

DECLARATION OF SHANNON P. MINTER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES - Page - 6 Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 8 of 36

19. The current billing rates we seek in this case are as follows: $400 per hour for

myself, $325 per hour for Christopher Stoll, who has 20 years of litigation experience, $275 per

hour for Amy Whelan, who has 14 years of litigation experience, $175 per hour for Jaime Huling

Delaye, who has 6 years of litigation experience, and $125 per hour for Aaron Aruck, a paralegal

who has worked at NCLR for almost three years. These are the hourly rates that were awarded by

this Court to NCLR attorneys in the Latta v. Otter lawsuit. See Latta v. Otter, No. 1:13-cv-482-

CWD, 2014 WL 7245631, at *4-6 (D. Idaho Dec. 19, 2014).1 These rates are also consistent with those charged in the Boise market. See Community House, Inc., v. City of Boise, No. 1:05-cv-283-

CWD, 2014 WL 1247758, at *6-7 (D. Idaho Mar. 25, 2014).

20. Although NCLR could seek our San Francisco and Washington, D.C. billing rates for this case based on our expertise and experience, see, e.g., Barjon v. Dalton, 132 F.3d 496, 501-

502 (9th Cir. 1997); Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1405 (9th Cir. 1992), we are seeking rates consistent with those in the Boise legal market. As a result, our fee request is markedly lower than that permitted under Ninth Circuit law. For example, my 2014 market rate in Washington,

D.C. is $650 per hour, Mr. Stoll’s and Ms. Whelan’s market rates in San Francisco are between

$510 and $600 per hour, and Ms. Huling Delaye’s rate is $410 per hour.

21. NCLR and our co-counsel performed work efficiently, effectively, with extreme diligence, and without unnecessary duplication. Based on my experience litigating complex civil rights cases, I believe the hours recorded by NCLR staff on this case to be extremely conservative.

As an initial matter, I did not even record time I spent meeting with co-counsel about various strategy issues or reviewing key documents in the case. Although that time is compensable, I did

1 Aaron Aruck’s hourly rate of $125 was awarded in a supplemental fees order. See Latta v. Otter, No. 1:13-cv-482-CWD, 2015 WL 4623817, at *5 (D. Idaho Aug. 3, 2015).

DECLARATION OF SHANNON P. MINTER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES - Page - 7 Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 9 of 36

not record it in order to keep our legal fees to a minimum. We have also made billing judgment reductions for the purpose of eliminating any possible duplication, overstaffing or overwork. We made a few discrete deductions of time based upon the same careful review of billing records that a lawyer would do before sending a bill to a fee-paying client. These deductions appear in the

“Billing Judgment Reduction” columns on our timesheets.

22. Following the exercise of the various billing judgment reductions described above,

NCLR’s total claimed lodestar is $38,945. We also seek $450 in expenses, for a total request of

$39,395.

23. Depending on the amount of time necessary to write a reply brief in support of this motion or to otherwise defend Plaintiff’s entitlement to reasonable fees and costs, Plaintiff reserves the right to update these totals with her reply brief or at a future date if additional work becomes necessary.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed in Washington, D.C. on this 19th day of August 2015.

Shannon P. Minter (pro hac vice) Attorney for Plaintiffs

DECLARATION OF SHANNON P. MINTER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES - Page - 8 Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 10 of 36

EXHIBIT A Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 11 of 36

SHANNON PRICE MINTER Legal Director

EDUCATION AND BAR ADMISSIONS

Cornell Law School, J.D., 1993 Honors: Magna Cum Laude, Order of the Coif, Graduation Address Activities: Symposium Editor, CORNELL INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL

Cornell University, Ph.D. program, English & American Literature, 1984-88 Honors: Mellon Fellow, Andrew White Fellow University of Texas at Austin, B.A., 1983 Honors: Phi Beta Kappa

Bar Admissions: California (1993); admitted to CA state and federal courts, several U.S. Courts of Appeals, and U.S. Supreme Court

EXPERIENCE

National Center for Lesbian Rights Legal Director, 2000-present; Senior Staff Attorney, 1996-1999 Legal director of national civil rights organization with offices in California and Washington, D.C. with nationwide impact litigation and policy practice. Litigation: Serve as lead counsel in state and federal impact cases, including child custody, adoption, youth, immigration, employment discrimination, and other areas. Supervise legal team of 13 in-house counsel and manage co-counsel relationships with other legal organizations and law firms. Coordinate national network of 40 to 45 family law and estate planning attorneys and legal scholars who develop new legal strategies for protecting same-sex couples and their children. Legislation: Draft local, state, and federal anti-discrimination and family recognition bills and regulations affecting gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. Policy advocacy: Develop and implement national and state policy initiatives relating to LGBT parents, students, youth, immigrants, elders, and prisoners. Examples include: testimony as expert on gender identity discrimination before House Committee on Education and Labor (June, 2008); development with Child Welfare League of America of best practice guidelines for serving LGBT youth in foster care and juvenile justice settings (2006); development of model safe school policies for San Francisco and Los Angeles Unified school districts (2004).

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 12 of 36

National Association of Public Interest Law Fellow, 1993-1995 Created national legal and public policy advocacy program to address abuse of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender youth in mental health system.

American University Washington College of Law Visiting Professor, Constitutional Law Summer Program, 2011-present

Whittier Law School Visiting Professor, Transgender Rights, Summer 2010

Santa Clara Law School Lecturer, Gender, Sexuality, and the Law, Spring 2004

University of San Francisco School of Law Adjunct Professor of Law, Sexual Orientation and the Law, Fall 2003

University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall) Adjunct Professor of Law, Gender, Sexuality and the Law, Spring 2003

Golden Gate School of Law Adjunct Professor of Law, Sexual Orientation and the Law, Spring 2003

Stanford Law School Adjunct Professor of Law, Gender, Sexuality, and the Law, Spring 2001

The Schomberg Library African-American Fiction and Periodicals Project Editorial Assistant to Henry Louis Gates, Jr., 1988-1990 Responsible for identifying and preserving fiction and book reviews published in nineteenth and early twentieth century African-American owned or edited newspapers in the U.S.

SAMPLE PUBLICATIONS

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER FAMILY LAW. Coauthored with Courtney G. Joslin (West Publishing 2012).

TRANSGENDER RIGHTS. Co-edited with Paisley Currah and Richard M. Juang (Minnesota University Press 2006).

The Great Divorce: The Separation of Equality and Democracy in Contemporary Marriage Litigation, 19 UNIV. OF SOUTHERN CALIF. REV. OF L. & SOCIAL JUSTICE 89 (2010)

Representing Transsexual Clients, in SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND THE LAW (West Publishing 2012).

Same-Sex Marriage and Its Implications for Employee Benefits, 9 EMPLOYEE RIGHTS AND EMPLOYMENT POLICY JOURNAL 499 (2005).

Unprincipled Exclusions: The Struggle to Achieve Judicial and Legislative Equality for Transgender People, (with Paisley Currah) 7 WILLIAM & MARY JOURNAL OF WOMEN AND 2

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 13 of 36

THE LAW 37 (2000). Published in Elizabeth Bernstein and Laurie Schaeffer, eds., REGULATING SEXUALITY (Routledge 2005).

Preface, SOCIAL SERVICES WITH TRANSGENDERED YOUTH, Gary Mallon, ed. (2000).

Beyond Second-Parent Adoption: The Uniform Parentage Act and Intended Parents, (with Kate Kendell) 2 GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF GENDER AND THE LAW 29 (2000).

Do Transsexuals Dream of Gay Rights? Getting Real About Transgender Inclusion in the Gay Rights Movement, 17 NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS 589 (2000).

TRANSGENDER EQUALITY. Coauthored with Paisley Currah (National Gay & Lesbian Task Force 2000).

Lesbians and Gay Men as Adoptive Parents: A Child Welfare Perspective, in ADOPTION FACTBOOK III (National Council for Adoption, 1999).

Diagnosis and Treatment of Gender Identity Disorder in Children, in Matthew Rottnek, ed., SISSIES AND TOMBOYS: GENDER NONCONFORMITY AND HOMOSEXUAL CHILDHOOD (NYU Press 1999).

Lesbians and Political Asylum: Sexual Orientation, Gender, and Lesbian Human Rights, in A RESOURCE GUIDE FOR ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING LESBIANS AND GAY MEN IN ASYLUM CASES (International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission 1996).

Lesbian Rights in the United States, in Rachel Rosenbloom, ed., UNSPOKEN RULES: SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND WOMEN'S HUMAN RIGHTS (Cassell 1996).

Sodomy and Public Morality Offenses Under U.S. Immigration Law: Penalizing Lesbian and Gay Identity, 26 CORNELL INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL 771 (1993).

SELECTED PRESENTATIONS

Keynote: “Realizing the Dream of Equality for All,” New Mexico Bar Association, May 1, 2013

“Winning Cases, Losing Children: The Human Impact of Litigation in LGBT Impact Cases,” Roundtable Discussion, Law & Society Conference, San Francisco, June 3, 2011.

“LGBT Legal Issues in Utah,” State Judges Annual Judicial Conference, Homestead, Utah, May 5, 2011

Plenary, “What the LGBT and Disability Rights Movements Can Learn from One Another,” Jacobus tenBroek Disability Law Symposium, Bridging the Gap between the Disability Rights Movement and Other Civil Rights Movements, April 14, 2011

Panel, “How Does it Get Better? New Directions in LGBT Equality,” "Gay Rights as Human Rights" Conference at the Harvard Kennedy School, April 15, 2011

“The Relevance of Martin Luther King To LGBT Advocacy,” Martin Luther King Memorial, 3

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 14 of 36

DePaul University College of Law, January 17, 2011

Keynote, “Gay Rights, Democracy, and the United States Supreme Court,” Minnesota Lavender Bar Association, January 29, 2011

Keynote, “Do Transsexuals Dream of Gay Rights?,” Harvard Kennedy School, Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Nicholas Papadopoulos Lecture, April 23, 2010

Keynote, “The Heart of Democracy: Marriage Equality for Same-Sex Couples,” Conference: Controlling Sexuality through Violence, Harassment and Intrusion: Implications and Prospects for Fundamental Human Rights, Tanner Humanities Center, University of Utah, February 26, 2010

Keynote, “The Legal and Political Implications of Proposition 8,” ‘Til Ballot Initiative Do Us Part: Marriage Equality, Religion, and Civil Rights,” American University Washington College of Law, March 19, 2009

“The Future of Marriage Equality in California,” The Global Arc of Justice: Sexual Orientation Law around the World, UCLA School of Law, March 14, 2009

Keynote, “Why Gender Theory Should Not Determine Transgender Advocacy,” Trans Rhetorics Conference, Cornell University, March 7, 2009

“The Struggle To Achieve Equality for Same-Sex Couples,” Conference: Race, Class, Ethnicity and Gender, University of North Carolina Law School, February 21, 2009

Keynote, “The Concepts of Dignity and Privacy in Transgender Advocacy,” Symposium: Transgender Lives and the Law, Temple Law School, November 8, 2008

“The Case Against Proposition 8,” Levin Center for Public Service and Public Interest Law Award, Stanford Law School, November 10, 2008

“Relationship Recognition for Same-Sex Couples in California,” Symposium: When Change Comes Home: Legal Repercussions and Comparative Perspectives on Changing Structures of American Households, Santa Clara Law School, February 15, 2008

“Legal & Policy Issues Affecting Transgender Students, Faculty, and Staff,” Conference: Legal Issues in Higher Education, Vermont Law School, October 16, 2007

“Gay Marriage in California: Legal and Political Prospects,” Debate sponsored by the Federalist Society, the American Constitution Society, the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, and the USC Annenberg Knight Chair in Media and Religion, Los Angeles, California, February 28, 2007

Plenary speaker, “The Role of Ethics in Public Interest Law,” University of Maryland Law School, October 18, 2006

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 15 of 36

“Do Transsexual Athletes Have A Right To Compete?,” Sports Law Symposium, Marquette Law School, October 6, 2006

“The Evolution of Transgender Rights Nationally and Globally,” Symposium: Transgender Civil Rights Issues, Hastings Law School, July 21, 2006

Speaker, Panel on the Marriage Debate, The Charles R. Williams Project on Sexual Orientation and Public Policy, UCLA School of Law, April 21, 2006

“The Struggle to Achieve Marriage Equality for Same-Sex Couples,” Cornell Law School, November 16, 2005

“The Salience of Gender-Based Humiliation in Human Rights Abuses Against Transgender Prisoners in the United States and So-Called ‘Enemy Combatants’ Abroad,” Conference: Race, Class, Gender, and Ethnicity, University of North Carolina Law School, February 18, 2005

Speaker, Panel on the California Frontier: Litigating Exclusions to Gay and Lesbian Adoption and Marriage, Conference: Gay and Lesbian Adoption: Past, Present and Future, New York Law School, September 21, 2005

“The Current State of Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Law,” Conference: Progress and Promise in Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law, Pace Law School, April 21, 2003

SELECTED HONORS AND AWARDS

 Distinguished Service Award, GayLaw D.C. Bar Association, 2010  One of California Lawyers of the Year, California Lawyer Magazine, 2009  One of Nation’s Top 8 Lawyers of the Year, Lawyers USA, 2009  One of California’s 100 Top Lawyers, Daily Journal, 2008  National Public Service Award, Stanford Law School, 2008  Exemplary Public Service Award, Cornell Law School, 2008  Award of Excellence, University of San Francisco Public Interest Law Foundation, 2008  Community Service Award, Elections Committee of the County of Orange, 2008  Advocacy Award, Bay Area Municipal Elections Committee, 2008  Dan Bradley Award, National Lesbian and Gay Law Association, 2008  Legal Advocacy Award, San Francisco State University National Sexuality Resource Center, 2008  Visionary Award, Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, 2008  Community Service Award, Long Beach Lambda Democratic Club, 2008  Award, International Foundation for Gender Education, 2008  Community Advocacy Award, Gender Spectrum, 2007  Unity Award, Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, 2006  Leadership for a Changing World Award, Ford Foundation, 2005  Justice Award, Equality California, 2005  Advocacy Award, San Francisco Bar Association, 2004  Honorary Doctorate, City University of New York Law School, 2004  Anderson Foundation Prize, National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, 2003

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 16 of 36

 National Service Award, Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual Transgender Bar Association of Washington, D.C., 2002

COMMUNITY AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICE

American Bar Association Commission on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, 2007- 2009 Transgender Law and Policy Institute, Board of Directors, 2000-present International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, Advisory Board, 2003-present Council for Global Equality, 2008-present Faith in America, Board of Directors, 2009-present Aids Relief Fund for China, 2010-present Gender Spectrum, 2010-present

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 17 of 36

EXHIBIT B Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 18 of 36 Taylor v. Brasuell (1:14-cv-00273) Shannon P. Minter Time DATE DESCRIPTION HOURS HOURS BILLING BILLED CHARGED JUDGMENT REDUCTIONS

6/5/2014 Review and edit complaint 1 1 0 6/16/2014 TC with DF, CS, CD re abatement issues 0.7 0.7 0 7/6/2014 Review and edit complaint 0.7 0.7 0 7/27/2014 Review and edit Motion for Summary Judgment 2 2 0 10/29/2014 Review defendants’ motion to dismiss; conference re 1 1 0 same 11/21/2014 Review and edit opposition to motion to dismiss 3.1 3.1 0 11/22/2014 Review and edit opp to Motion to Dismiss 2 2 0 11/24/2014 Review and edit opp to MTD 0.6 0.6 0 12/8/2014 Review and edit reply in support of motion for 1.7 1.7 0 summary judgment 7/9/2015 Review court order granting Motion for Summary 0.3 0.3 0 Judgment; emails with team re same 8/18/2015 reviewed draft Memo of Law ISO Fee motion 0.3 0.3 0 8/18/2015 Edited my declaration ISO Fee Motion 0.3 0.3 0 TOTALS 13.7 13.7 0 Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 19 of 36 Taylor v. Brasuell (1:14-cv-00273) Christopher F. Stoll Time DATE DESCRIPTION HOURS HOURS BILLING BILLED CHARGED JUDGMENT REDUCTIONS 4/26/2014 Telephone interview with client re potential 2 2 0 case. 5/5/2014 Meeting with client re potential case. 0.5 0.5 0 5/8/2014 Draft complaint. 2.4 2.4 0 5/12/2014 Confer with co-counsel re complaint and timing 0.3 0.3 0 of filing. 5/28/2014 Confer with co-counsel re case filing. 0.2 0.2 0 6/3/2014 Draft complaint. 1.8 1.8 0 6/4/2014 Draft and revise complaint. 4.4 4.4 0 6/5/2014 Draft and revise complaint; confer with co- 1.5 1.5 0 counsel re same and re strategy issues. 6/10/2014 Review research re survivial of causes of action 0.3 0.3 0

6/12/2014 Conferences with co-counsel re survival of 1.2 1.2 0 causes of action and related issues; review research memos from JHD re same. 6/16/2015 TC w/ DF, SM, CD re strategy and abatement 0.7 0.7 0 issues 6/16/2014 review research re abatement; revise 0.6 0.6 0 complaint 6/17/2014 Further revisions to complaint. 1.6 1.6 0 6/24/2014 Confer with co-counsel re complaint. 0.3 0.3 0 6/26/2014 Revise complaint 0.8 0.8 0 6/27/2014 Review further research re abatement of 0.3 0.3 0 claims. 7/3/2014 Review and revise complaint; confer with co- 0.2 0.2 0 counsel re same. 7/7/2014 Review final complaint and pro hac vice 1 1 0 motions; emails with co-counsel re filing of same. 8/28/2014 Confer with co-counsel re litigation plan and 0.3 0.3 0 meeting with opposing counsel. 10/23/2014 Confer with co-counsel re strategy, settlement 0.5 0.5 0 offer, and SJ deadline 10/24/2014 Revise draft motion for summary judgment. 1.3 1.3 0 10/26/2014 Revise draft motion for summary judgment; 1.6 1.6 0 emails with co-counsel re same. 10/27/2014 Further revise motion for summary judgment; 0.4 0.4 0 emails re same. Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 20 of 36 Taylor v. Brasuell (1:14-cv-00273) Christopher F. Stoll Time DATE DESCRIPTION HOURS HOURS BILLING BILLED CHARGED JUDGMENT REDUCTIONS 10/29/2014 Review defendant's motion to dismiss; emails 1.1 1.1 0 re same and re motion for summary judgment.

11/19/2014 Review and revise draft opposition to motion 4.7 4.7 0 to dismiss; emails re same; research re same.

11/20/2014 Revise draft opposition to motion to dismiss; 2.5 2.5 0 emails re same. 11/22/2014 Emails with co-counsel re motion to dismiss; 1.4 1.4 0 review opposition to same. 11/23/2014 Review final opposition to motion to dismiss; 0.6 0.6 0 conference with JHD re cite checking and filing of same. 11/24/2014 Review opposition to motion for summary 0.3 0.3 0 judgment. 12/1/2014 Conference with SM re reply in support of 0.2 0.2 0 motion for summary judgment. 12/4/2014 Draft reply in support of motion for summary 2.8 2.8 0 judgment; research re same. 12/5/2014 Draft and revise reply in support of summary 4.2 4.2 0 judgment motion. 12/8/2014 Draft and revise reply in support of summary 3.6 3.6 0 judgment motion; emails with co-counsel re same. 12/11/2014 Review final reply in support of motion for 0.3 0.3 0 summary judgment; conference re same. 12/16/2014 Review order to show cause; conference re 0.2 0.2 0 same with JHD and SM 1/5/2015 Review and revise draft response to order to 0.7 0.7 0 show cause; conference re same. 1/6/2015 Further revisions to response to order to show 0.4 0.4 0 cause; emails re same. 1/8/2015 Team emails re order to show cause. 0.3 0.3 0 1/9/2015 Review defendant's response to order to show 0.2 0.2 0 cause. 1/28/2015 Review notice from court re pending motions 0.1 0.1 0 Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 21 of 36 Taylor v. Brasuell (1:14-cv-00273) Christopher F. Stoll Time DATE DESCRIPTION HOURS HOURS BILLING BILLED CHARGED JUDGMENT REDUCTIONS 7/9/2015 Review order denying motion to dismiss and 0.4 0.4 0 granting motion for summary judgment; emails with co-counsel re same. 7/16/2015 Revise proposed judgment; emails with team 0.3 0.3 0 re same. TOTALS 48.5 48.5 0 Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 22 of 36 Taylor v. Brasuell (1:14-cv-00273) Amy Whelan Time DATE DESCRIPTION HOURS HOURS BILLING BILLED CHARGED JUDGMENT REDUCTIONS

7/13/2015 TC with DF re fee motion for case 0.2 0.2 0 8/4/2015 Prep of Taylor Memo of law ISO fee motion 0.5 0.5 0 8/5/2015 Continued prep of memo of law ISO fee motion; 2.9 2.9 0 review of docket for case history for same 8/5/2015 drafted two outside attorney supporting decls re rates 0.4 0.4 0 and experience of counsel 8/5/2015 drafted motion for fees 0.1 0.1 0 8/6/2015 drafted DF decl ISO fee motion 0.3 0.3 0 8/6/2015 drafted SM decl ISO fee motion 0.5 0.5 0 8/6/2015 drafted CD decl ISO fee motion 0.2 0.2 0 8/11/2015 prepared and filed bill of costs 0.2 0.2 0 8/13/2015 reviewed and edited time runs for work product or 0.1 0.1 0 confidential inforamtion and billing judgment reductions 8/17/2015 edited CD decl ISO fees; email to CD re same 0.1 0.1 0 8/17/2015 edited DF decl ISO fees; email to DF re same 0.1 0.1 0 8/17/2015 reviewed Belodoff decl ISO fees and email to CD re 0.1 0.1 0 minor edits to same 8/17/2015 email to L. Scholnick re fee decl ISO plaintiff motion; 0.1 0.1 0 LM for same 8/17/2015 TC with CD re final tasks for fee motion and supporting 0.3 0.3 0 documents 8/17/2015 LR re compensability of media time for cases; drafted 0.9 0.9 0 insert for brief re same 8/17/2015 reviewed and edited time runs for all time keepers to 1 1 0 remove work product and privileged information and for BJ reductions 8/17/2015 revised Memo of Law ISO fee motion 1.8 1.8 0 8/18/2015 finalized Memo of law, motion, and all supporting 1.9 1.9 0 decls for fee motion; emails with team re same TOTALS 11.7 11.7 0 Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 23 of 36 Taylor v. Brasuell (1:14-cv-00273) Jaime Huling Delaye Time DATE DESCRIPTION HOURS HOURS BILLING BILLED CHARGED JUDGMENT REDUCTIONS 6/6/2014 Research re survivability of Taylor's claim in the event of 2.7 2.7 0 her death 6/7/2014 Research re survivability of Taylor's claim in the event of 3 3 0 her death 6/11/2014 Research Federal and State Regs Governing Idaho 6.4 6.4 0 Veteran's Cemetary for draft complaint 6/27/2014 Additional research and drafting of memo re abatement 4.9 4.9 0 of claims 11/4/2014 Review Motion to Dismiss 0.5 0.5 0 11/7/2014 Research for Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 0.9 0.9 0 11/10/2014 Research for Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 4.2 4.2 0 11/13/2014 Research for Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 3.2 3.2 0 11/18/2014 Draft Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 11.1 11.1 0 11/19/2014 Conference with C. Stoll and S. Minter re draft motion to 0.5 0.5 0 dismiss 11/19/2014 Additional research for and editing of Opposition Motion 11 11 0 to Dismiss 11/20/2014 Additional research for Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, 4.7 4.7 0 review and combine edits from S. Minter and C. Stoll; circulate new draft to co-counsel 11/21/2014 Revise Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, incorporating 0.8 0.8 0 comments from co-counsel 11/22/2014 Email correspondence re Idaho local rules and 0.3 0.3 0 abatement of claims for Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

11/23/2014 Email correspondence re finalizing brief and filing 0.2 0.2 0 logistics for Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 11/24/2014 Cite-check and finalize Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 3.3 3.3 0 for filing 12/16/2014 Review Order to Show Cause; discuss drafting with C. 0.5 0.5 0 Stoll and S. Minter 12/30/2014 Research for Response to Order to Show Cause 7.6 7.6 0 1/1/2015 Draft Response to Order to Show Cause 4.9 4.9 0 1/2/2015 Draft Response to Order to Show Cause 3.4 3.4 0 1/4/2015 Email Correspondence with S. Minter re revisions to 0.3 0.3 0 Response to Order to Show Cause 1/5/2015 Revise Response to Order to Show Cause 1.6 1.6 0 1/6/2015 Revise Response to Order to Show Cause 1 1 0 1/8/2015 Revise, Cite-check and Finalize Response to Order to 3 1.5 -1.5 Show Cause for filing 7/9/2015 Review Order on Motion for Summary Judgment and 0.6 0.6 0 Motion to Dismiss, calendar deadlines 7/13/2015 Review Bill of Costs 0.1 0 -0.1 7/15/2015 Draft Proposed Form of Judgment 1.1 1.1 0 Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 24 of 36 Taylor v. Brasuell (1:14-cv-00273) Jaime Huling Delaye Time DATE DESCRIPTION HOURS HOURS BILLING BILLED CHARGED JUDGMENT REDUCTIONS 7/16/2015 Email correspondence with co-counsel re Proposed Form 0.2 0.2 0 of Judgment 7/21/2015 Review final judgment, calendar attorneys fees deadlines 0.2 0.2 0

7/22/2015 Email correspondence re extension of motion for 0.1 0.1 0 attorneys fees TOTALS 82.3 80.7 -1.6 Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 25 of 36 Taylor v. Brasuell (1:14-cv-00273) Aaron Aruck Time DATE DESCRIPTION HOURS HOURS BILLING BILLED CHARGED JUDGMENT REDUCTIONS

6/5/2014 Research pro hac vice admission procedure for U.S. 1 1 0 District Court, District of Idaho; confirm with attorneys re same 6/16/2014 Completed pro hac vice forms with relevant 0.7 0.7 0 information; comfirm with attorneys re courts admitted 7/6/2014 Pull and file from PACER complaint, exhibits, and other 0.5 0 -0.5 case filings for initial complaint 7/27/2014 Coordinate reimbursments to DF with finance 0.5 0 -0.5 department to repay filing and pro hac vice fees; provide receipts 10/29/2014 Download and file amended complaint and 0.2 0 -0.2 corresponding exhibits; circulate to legal team 8/18/2015 Format attorney time sheets and edit same for fee 1.2 1.2 0 motion TOTALS 4.1 2.9 -1.2 Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 26 of 36

Taylor v. Brasuell NCLR Expenses through August 18, 2015

Date Description Cost

7/7/2014 Pro Hac Vice Fee (Minter) $225.00 7/7/2014 Pro Hac Vice Fee (Stoll) $225.00

TOTAL: $450.00

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 27 of 36

EXHIBIT C Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 28 of 36

CHRISTOPHER F. STOLL Senior Staff Attorney

EDUCATION AND BAR ADMISSIONS

Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, J.D. magna cum laude, 1994 Harvard Law Review, Supreme Court Editor, 1992-94

DePauw University, Greencastle, Indiana, B.A. summa cum laude, 1991 Political Science/Russian Area Studies

Bar Admissions: California (1995); admitted to CA state and federal courts, several U.S. Courts of Appeals, and U.S. Supreme Court

LEGAL EXPERIENCE

National Center for Lesbian Rights, San Francisco, California Senior Staff Attorney, 2008-present  Oversee NCLR’s general litigation, policy, and public education work.  Supervise and manage legal team members on complex civil cases around the country.  Litigate numerous marriage equality cases, including in Florida, Idaho, Tennessee, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.  Litigate a variety of employment, discrimination, Title IX, First Amendment, family law, and complex constitutional cases around the country.

Heller Ehrman LLP, San Francisco, California Shareholder, 2003-2008, Associate, 1995-2002  Broad-based complex civil litigation practice with focus on insurance law, intellectual property, and consumer class action matters. First and second chair trial and appellate experience in state and federal courts in California and nationally. (List of representative litigation matters attached.)  Supervised case teams and personally handled all aspects of civil litigation, including legal research and writing, discovery, depositions, oral argument, trial, appeal, alternative dispute resolution and settlement. Prepared case budgets and advised clients on litigation strategy.  Managed staffing of more than 30 litigation associates and senior counsel as Staffing Partner for the San Francisco office of large national law firm. Monitored and balanced attorney workload. Drafted and delivered performance reviews. Mentored, counseled, and trained junior attorneys.

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 29 of 36

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, San Francisco, California Law Clerk to the Honorable James R. Browning, 1994-95

MEMBERSHIPS & HONORS

State Bar of California, American Bar Association, San Francisco Bar Association, Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, Northern California SuperLawyers

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

Board of Directors, Community United Against Violence, 1999-2006 Board of Directors, Positive Resource Center 1996-1999

REPRESENTATIVE LITIGATION ENGAGEMENTS, 2008-present

Kitchen v. Herbert (United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit). Represent three same-sex couples in a federal lawsuit challenging Utah’s laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying and refusing to respect the legal marriages of same-sex couples who married in other states.

Tanco v. Haslam (United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit). Represent three legally married same-sex couples challenging Tennessee laws that prevent the state from respecting their legal marriages. Pickup v. Brown (United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit). Participated as amicus curiae in case defending California state law that prohibits state-licensed therapists from trying to change the sexual orientation or gender expression of a patient under 18 years old. King v. Christie (United States District Court, District of New Jersey). Represent intervenor in case defending New Jersey state law that prohibits state-licensed therapists from trying to change the sexual orientation or gender expression of a patient under 18 years old. Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (Supreme Court of the United States). Represented student organization at Hastings College of the Law as intervener in First Amendment case challenging Hastings’ Policy on Nondiscrimination. Prevailed before the U.S. Supreme Court. Doe v. Anoka-Hennepin School District No. 11 and E.R. (United States District Court, District of Minnesota). Represented students in lawsuit against the school district and school officials for failure to stop daily harassment and bullying by their peers because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender expression. Obtained favorable lawsuit for plaintiff students. Howe v. Haslam (Court of Appeals for Tennessee, Middle Section). Represent plaintiffs in constitutional challenge of Tennessee law precluding localities from passing anti-discrimination ordinances. Currently on appeal.

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 30 of 36

REPRESENTATIVE LITIGATION ENGAGEMENTS, 1995-2008

Insurance Recovery

Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. TransUnion LLC (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois). First chair role representing national consumer credit reporting agency in litigation seeking errors and omissions insurance coverage for consumer class actions relating to alleged privacy violations.

Acuity v. Symantec Corporation et al. (Supreme Court of Wisconsin). First chair role representing Symantec Corporation in suit seeking CGL advertising injury insurance coverage for trademark and copyright infringement actions brought by Symantec relating to alleged piracy of Symantec’s commercial software products. Obtained favorable summary judgment, Court of Appeals and Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions resulting in full coverage for claim.

PMI Mortgage Insurance Co. v. American International Specialty Lines Insurance Co. (United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit). Represented policyholder in litigation seeking errors and omissions insurance coverage for settlement of nationwide consumer class action claims. Drafted successful partial summary judgment motions, obtained judgment at trial for full policy limits, and wrote successful appeal brief resulting in affirmance of the judgment.

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Factory Mutual Ins. Co. (United States District Court, Southern District of New York). Represented HP in suit seeking first-party property and business interruption insurance coverage for property damage arising out of sabotage by a former HP employee.

PG&E v. Lexington Ins. Co. et al. (Superior Court of California, City & County of San Francisco). Represented PG&E in litigation seeking CGL insurance coverage for environmental liabilities arising out of historical manufactured gas plant operations.

Scheidt v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Superior Court of California, County of Marin). Represented policyholder in successful litigation challenging denial of life insurance benefits.

Class Actions and Representative Plaintiff Actions

Philip Morris Incorporated. (Various matters.) Represented Philip Morris Incorporated in actions brought by governmental entities and private plaintiffs seeking recoupment of medical costs arising out of tobacco-related illnesses. Drafted successful oppositions to class certification and successful appeal briefs affirming dismissal of challenges to Master Settlement Agreement between states and tobacco companies.

Semler v. First Colony Life Ins. Co. et al. (Superior Court of California, City & County of San Francisco). Represented plaintiff in successful litigation under California Business and Professions Code challenging life insurers’ practice of charging premiums for periods of time in which no insurance is provided. Obtained injunction following court trial against Guardian Life Insurance Company of America. Argued successful summary judgment motions.

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 31 of 36

Intellectual Property Litigation

Chan v. Symantec Corporation (United States District Court, Northern District of California) Defended Symantec Corporation in patent litigation relating to the LiveUpdate feature and Internet hyperlinks contained in certain Symantec CD-ROM software products. Drafted Markman brief and obtained favorable claim construction ruling. Worked with experts and consultants in preparing opinions relating to claim construction, infringement and invalidity issues.

ActivCard v. VASCO (United States District Court, District of Delaware). Represented ActivCard in patent litigation relating to encryption technology.

Pro Bono

In re Marriage Cases (Supreme Court of California). Representation of plaintiffs in one of several consolidated cases challenging on constitutional grounds California’s statutory exclusion of same-sex couples from civil marriage.

Smith v. Knoller et al. (Superior Court of California, City and County of San Francisco). Representation of plaintiff in civil wrongful death action arising from dog attack.

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 32 of 36

AMY WHELAN Senior Staff Attorney

EDUCATION AND BAR ADMISSIONS

Northeastern University School Of Law, Boston, MA: Juris Doctor, May 2001

Princeton University, Princeton, NJ: Bachelor of Arts, June 1996

Senior Thesis: Gay Marriage: A Social Contract and Utilitarianism Analysis Princeton Project ’55 Fellowship (now Princeton AlumniCorps) at Disability Rights Advocates

Bar Admissions: California (2001); admitted to CA state and federal courts, several U.S. Courts of Appeals, and U.S. Supreme Court

LEGAL EXPERIENCE

National Center for Lesbian Rights San Francisco, CA Feb. 2011—present Senior Staff Attorney: Oversee NCLR’s general litigation, policy, and public education work. Supervise and manage legal team members in complex civil cases around the country. Litigate numerous marriage equality cases, including in Florida, Idaho, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming, as well as employment, discrimination, Title IX, First Amendment, family law, and complex constitutional matters around the country.

Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld, LLP San Francisco, CA 2001—Jan. 2011 Associate: General and complex civil litigation firm, with an emphasis on civil rights, prisoners’ rights, employment, and attorneys’ fees cases at the trial court and appellate levels. Perform all litigation-related tasks for diverse cases and hire and manage paralegals and law student interns. Highlights: . Member of 2008-2009 trial team in Coleman/Plata v. Schwarzenegger before federal three-judge court and then U.S. Supreme Court, holding that California must reduce prison overcrowding in order to meet the medical and mental health needs of prisoners. . Litigated post-judgment issues in Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, a class action lawsuit under the 8th Amendment regarding mental healthcare in California’s state prison system. . Litigated post-judgment issues and acted as a monitor in Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, a class action lawsuit under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act and the 8th Amendment regarding disability accommodations and access in California’s state prison system. . Represented a federal public defender in her administrative grievance process regarding the federal government’s discriminatory denial of healthcare benefits to her same-sex partner. Obtained retroactive and ongoing benefits. Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 33 of 36

. Responsible for all matters of civil discovery including taking and defending depositions, developing expert testimony, propounding and responding to written discovery and drafting and arguing motions. . Hired, managed and supervised paralegal staff and law student interns.

Legal Action Center, New York, NY Fall 2000 Legal Intern: Conducted legal research and provided direct legal services to ex-offenders and people with HIV experiencing discrimination in employment, housing, and public benefits.

American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, San Francisco, CA Spring 2000 Legal Intern: Conducted research regarding an array of constitutional and civil rights issues, including a legal challenge to a “Juvenile Crime” voter initiative, a public school prohibition of extracurricular activities on Jewish holidays in violation of the Establishment Clause, and the Racial Justice Program’s “Driving While Black/Brown” campaign.

San Francisco Human Rights Commission, San Francisco, CA Fall 1999 Legal Intern: Advised and educated city contractors regarding compliance with San Francisco’s Nondiscrimination in Contracts ordinance. Investigated and prosecuted complaints of discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and HIV status.

Disability Rights Advocates, Oakland, CA August 1996—August 1998 Princeton Project ’55 Fellow: Assisted attorneys representing persons with disabilities in class action employment and public accommodations cases. Participated in a United Way “Schools Project” to educate superintendents in more than fourteen school districts about the legal requirements for physical and programmatic access for students with disabilities. Participated on the trial team for a case of first impression against Macy’s for failure to provide physical access to persons with disabilities.

SAMPLE PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONS

Amy Whelan & Gay C. Grunfeld, No Time to Waste-California’s Rules for Claims against Public Entities, The Recorder, winter 2009 Supplement at 6-7. Sid Wolinsky & Amy Whelan, Federal Law and the Accommodation of Students with LD: The Lawyers’ Look at the BU Decision (Guckenberger v. Boston University), Journal of Learning Disabilities, Volume 32, Number 4, July/August 1999 at 286-291. Amy Whelan, Presenter at National Lawyers Guild 2009 Disability Rights Seminar (The Changing Face of Disability Rights Law), panel on Institutions: Prisons, Adult Homes & Integration of Children. Presenter at ACLU of Southern California 2010 Brown Bag Lunch Series, Prisoners Rights: Mississippi’s Super-Max and California Prison Overcrowding Litigation. Presenter at National Lawyers Guild 2010 Far West Regional Conference, panel on Prisoner Overcrowding in California State Prisons. Presenter at 6th Annual KBA CLE on LGBT Issues, First Amendment Issues as They Relate to the Community, October 7, 2011. 2

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 34 of 36

David Coon, Heather Gray, and Amy Whelan, Presenters at 14th Annual Updates on Dementia Conference, LGBT Aging Research and Practice: Updates and Implications for Care Panel, May 6 2012. Amy Whelan & Julie Nice, Panelists at 2012 Summer Brown Bag Lectures In Public Interest Law, The Season For Gay Rights? A Discussion of Emerging Constitutional Law, July 24 2012. Cameo Speaker, Pacific Coast Labor & Employment Conference, April 26 2013.

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 35 of 36

JAIME M. HULING DELAYE Staff Attorney

EDUCATION

STANFORD LAW SCHOOL, J.D., academic and pro bono distinction, May 2009

Journals: STAN. L. REV., Executive Editor; STAN. J. CIV. RIGHTS & CIV. LIBERTIES, Development Editor Activities: Equality Pro Bono Project, Founding Member & Coordinator; Class of 2009, Treasurer

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, History B.A. with a minor in Gender Studies, June 2004

Honors: cum laude, Departmental Honors in History for Public Conceptions of Private Behavior: The American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code and the 1950s Origins of Sodomy Law Reform, Dean’s List 7 of 10 quarters Leadership: emPOWER, Co-Director; Women’s Coalition, Executive Board Member Study Abroad: Barcelona, Spain (Spanish Language, History, and Art History coursework)

LEGAL EXPERIENCE

NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS, San Francisco, Nov. 2013-present Staff Attorney: Work on all aspects of litigation in precedent-setting cases involving sexual orientation change efforts, marriage equality, discrimination, family law, and other issues affecting the LGBT community.

JUDGE RICHARD SEEBORG, Northern Dist. of CA, San Francisco, Oct. 2012-Jan. 2014 Law Clerk: Cases included employment discrimination, labor law, consumer class actions, immigration, and criminal law.

JUDGE A. WALLACE TASHIMA, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Pasadena, Aug. 2009- Aug. 2010 Law Clerk: Cases included civil rights, election law, employment discrimination, immigration, and environmental law.

ARNOLD & PORTER (HOWARD RICE), San Francisco, May-June 2008, Nov. 2010-Aug. 2012 Attorney & Summer Associate: Generalist litigator with expertise in attorney liability and active pro bono practice. • Litigation matters included: legal malpractice, ethics inquiries, partnership dissolution, breaches of fiduciary duties, government contracts, a food-borne illness outbreak, stock options backdating, and trademark. • Experience: pre-filing investigations, drafting pleadings, arguing three motions, authoring dispositive and other crucial motions (including for summary judgment, to dismiss, for

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-4 Filed 08/20/15 Page 36 of 36

injunctive relief, for writ of mandate, and to stay), drafting written discovery and discovery motions, managing voluminous document productions, taking and defending fourteen depositions, and mediation of complex multijurisdictional litigation. • Pro bono: invalidated California’s lethal injection protocols under the state APA, defended Nevada’s “none of the above” ballot option, and represented Planned Parenthood in responding to subpoena for patient records.

SUSMAN GODFREY, Seattle, July-Aug. 2008 Summer Associate: Represented tribe in novel property law dispute against energy companies over global warming.

STANFORD SUPREME COURT LITIGATION CLINIC, Stanford, Sep.-Dec. 2008 Student Attorney: Drafted portions of respondents’ brief and prepared counsel of record for oral argument in AT&T v. Hulteen, a Pregnancy Discrimination Act case. Drafted portions of petitions for certiorari in criminal case, Mitchell v. Rees, and Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest Service, regarding religious rights under RLUIPA.

O’MELVENY & MYERS, Menlo Park, May-July 2007 Summer Associate: Drafted memorandum on statute of limitations issues in Ninth Circuit civil rights appeal.

LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, Los Angeles, July-Aug. 2007 Law Clerk: Performed legal research for California Supreme Court supplemental briefing in In re Marriage Cases.

NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS, San Francisco, Jan.-May 2007 Law Clerk: Responded to intake calls regarding discrimination, relationship rights, custody, and adoption.

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-5 Filed 08/20/15 Page 1 of 4

Deborah A. Ferguson, ISB No. 5333 Craig Harrison Durham, ISB No. 6428 Ferguson Durham, PLLC 223 N. 6th Street, Suite 325 Boise, Idaho 83702 Tel.: (208) 345-5183 [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

MADELYNN LEE TAYLOR, Case No. 14-cv-00273-REB Plaintiff,

v. DECLARATION OF HOWARD A. BELODOFF IN SUPPORT OF

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DAVID E. BRASUELL, as Administrator of REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES the Idaho Division of Veterans Services, in AND EXPENSES his official capacity,

Defendant.

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-5 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 4

I, Howard A. Belodoff, hereby declare and state as follows:

1. This declaration is submitted in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Reasonable

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated in this Declaration

and could and would competently testify to these facts.

2. I have been a member of the bar of the State of Idaho since September 1978. I am

also admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, the

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court.

3. Since 1978, I have specialized in representing plaintiffs throughout the State of

Idaho, in both the state and federal courts, including civil rights cases involving class actions for

injunctive, declaratory and monetary relief. These decisions have established new case precedent

in the District of Idaho and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and some have involved an issue

of national importance in the field of civil rights practice. I have past experience in several

successful cases for violations of the Medicaid Act and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution. I have been counsel of record in numerous appeals

to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and Idaho Supreme Court. I have also filed briefs in three different cases in the United States Supreme Court.

4. I have been the Associate Director of Idaho Legal Aid Services, Inc. (ILAS) and have been an employee for thirty-eight years. ILAS is a statewide non-profit law firm which is primarily funded by grants and donations. ILAS is the primary provider of free civil legal services in the State of Idaho. All of ILAS’s clients have to be qualified as a low income person or group and request legal representation in a case which is determined by the ILAS’s Board of Directors

DECLARATION OF HOWARD A. BELODOFF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES - 2 Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-5 Filed 08/20/15 Page 3 of 4

to be eligible for services. The need for civil legal representation far outstrips ILAS’s ability to provide those services and most of the persons seeking assistance have to be turned down.

5. I also have had a part time private practice since 1996. My private office's primary focus is on litigation including major civil rights cases. On many occasions I have been contacted by other attorneys representing plaintiffs as well as governmental defendants to get my opinion and advice in these types of cases. On a regular basis I receive referrals of civil rights cases from other attorneys in Boise who direct clients to me because they will not undertake this type of representation and recognize my expertise in these matters. I have been retained to co-counsel cases with other law firms due to my expertise in federal civil rights litigation. I have also been invited to speak at state and national conferences of civil rights attorneys on issues involving civil rights and federal litigation.

6. The hourly rate I claim for my attorney time is $425 per hour. This hourly rate is based upon the rate I presently charges for federal civil rights litigation and what other attorneys with similar skill, reputation and experience charge in Boise for similar work. I have charged and received this hourly rate in other federal court litigation.

7. I understand that Plaintiff’s counsel request compensation for the professional services of their lead counsel, Deborah A. Ferguson, who has 29 years of experience, is at an hourly rate of $400 and her co-counsel, Craig H. Durham, who has

18 years of experience, at an hourly rate of $325 per hour.

8. I have reviewed the Court’s decision in this matter. I have also generally followed this case.

DECLARATION OF HOWARD A. BELODOFF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES - 3 Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-5 Filed 08/20/15 Page 4 of 4 Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-6 Filed 08/20/15 Page 1 of 5

Deborah A. Ferguson, ISB No. 5333 Craig Harrison Durham, ISB No. 6428 Ferguson Durham, PLLC 223 N. 6th Street, Suite 325 Boise, Idaho 83702 Tel.: (208) 345-5183 [email protected] [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

MADELYNN LEE TAYLOR, Case No. 14-cv-00273-REB Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF LAUREN v. I. SCHOLNICK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE DAVID E. BRASUELL, as Administrator of ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND the Idaho Division of Veterans Services, in EXPENSES his official capacity,

Defendant. Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-6 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 5

I, Lauren I. Scholnick, hereby declare and state as follows:

1. I am a member in good standing of the Idaho State Bar and also the Illinois

(inactive) and Utah State Bars. I am also one of the founding partners at Strindberg & Scholnick,

LLC. I have been asked to make this declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Reasonable

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated in this Declaration

and could and would competently testify to these facts.

2. I attended Stanford University for my undergraduate education, graduating in

1988. I attended the University of Illinois College of Law and graduated cum laude in 1995.

3. After graduation from law school, I clerked for a year with Judge Gregory K.

Orme at the Utah Court of Appeals. I then worked as a Staff Attorney and Development

Director at Utah Legal Services, Inc. and in private practice where I litigated a variety of cases.

In 2002, I started my current firm, Strindberg & Scholnick, LLC, with my law partner, Erik

Strindberg. We have offices in Salt Lake City, Utah and Boise, Idaho and focus our practice on

employment and discrimination matters. We are currently the largest boutique plaintiffs’

employment law firm in Utah and Idaho. We also litigate various constitutional claims beyond

employment cases.

4. For example, in Utah, we, along with the ACLU of Utah, represented the plaintiffs

in Evans et al v. Herbert, Case No. 2:14cv55 DAK (D. Utah) in which same sex couples lawfully

married in Utah from December 20, 2013 to January 6, 2014 challenged the State of Utah’s

decision to deny legal rights to those married couples. We obtained a preliminary injunction

against the state in that case on May 19, 2014 and a permanent injunction on November 24, 2014.

DECLARATION OF LAUREN I. SCHOLNICK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES - Page - 1

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-6 Filed 08/20/15 Page 3 of 5

5. I and the law firm have extensive experience litigating complex cases, including

the following major decisions:

 Successfully represented the former director of the Idaho Transportation Department in a due process challenge to her termination. Lowe v. Idaho Transp. Dep’t, 878 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (D. Idaho 2012).

 Obtained a substantial race discrimination verdict ($880,000) for a garbage truck mechanic who was denied promotion and fair treatment in the terms and conditions of his employment by a national waste management corporation. Garcia v. PSI et al., 10-cv-55 (D. Idaho June 29, 2012).

 Successfully appealed an important racial harassment case resulting in a published appeals decision that contains numerous favorable holdings for employees facing a hostile work environment. Tademy v. Union Pacific Corp., 520 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2008).

 Obtained Utah’s largest Title VII jury verdict ($2,500,000 for emotional distress) for a client who had been raped by her supervisor. Parker v. Olympus Healthcare Center, 2:00 CV-626 (D. Utah 2002).

 Established that a cause of action for wrongful termination exists for employees who are discharged from their employment in retaliation for filing workers’ compensation claims. Touchard v. La-Z-Boy, Inc., 148 P.3d 945 (Utah 2006).

 Successfully represented a transgender employee under the Price Waterhouse theory that people who do not conform to gender stereotypes have a cause of action under Title VII & the Equal Protection clause. Etsitty v. Utah Transit Authority, 502 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2007).

6. I have reviewed the Court’s decision in this matter. I have also generally

followed this case and reviewed the dispositive briefs filed.

7. I have also reviewed the Declaration of Deborah A. Ferguson, submitted in support

of Plaintiff’s fee petition. Ms. Ferguson has been litigating complex civil federal cases for over

twenty years. She has an excellent reputation, background, and experience as a lead attorney

in complex federal cases in the District of Idaho.

DECLARATION OF LAUREN I. SCHOLNICK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES - Page - 2

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-6 Filed 08/20/15 Page 4 of 5

8. I am also specifically familiar with the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR)

and its lawyers as we worked with the organization and Mr. Minter in the Etsitty v. UTA case,

described above. Shannon P. Minter, NCLR’s Legal Director, is an excellent constitutional law

scholar and litigator. NCLR has a reputation for extremely high-quality work and has litigated

numerous marriage equality cases across the country. When I litigated the Etsitty case on behalf

of a transgender employee who was terminated from her job because of her gender identity,

NCLR, along with other nationally-recognized organizations specializing in civil rights, submitted

an amicus curiae brief based on its extensive experience representing lesbian, gay, bisexual,

and transgender employees.

9. I have reviewed the backgrounds of and rates claimed by the Plaintiff’s attorneys

in this case. I understand that Ms. Ferguson and Shannon P. Minter, both of whom graduated

from law school more than 20 years ago, are seeking compensation at the rate of $400 per hour.

Plaintiffs’ counsel also seek rates of $325 per hour for Christopher P. Stoll, and Craig Durham,

who graduated from law school 18-20 years ago, $275 per hour for Amy Whelan, who

graduated from law school 14 years ago, and $175 per hour for Jaime Huling Delaye, who

graduated from law school 6 years ago. In my opinion, these hourly rates are within the range of

market rates charged by attorneys of equivalent experience, skill, and expertise for comparable

work in this community.

10. The bulk of my practice is on a contingency basis. When attorneys bill at their

customary hourly rates, those rates do not factor in the contingent risk, skill, difficulty, and

complexity of cases. During my years specializing in litigation, I have come to understand the

close relationship between the award of reasonable attorneys’ fees to successful plaintiffs’

counsel and the enforcement of civil rights and employment rights laws.

DECLARATION OF LAUREN I. SCHOLNICK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES - Page - 3

Case 1:14-cv-00273-REB Document 35-6 Filed 08/20/15 Page 5 of 5

11. I also am familiar with the special difficulties litigating against public entities, which include the fact that punitive damages are not available and that cases against public

entities tend to be hard-fought. This case is no exception. During the pendency of litigation and

appeal, the case operates as a serious and constant drain of funds and attorney time from the

Plaintiffs’ firms. These facts of economic life explain the small number of Plaintiff attorneys

willing to take on this type of litigation.

12. Courts are empowered to award fee enhancements, or multipliers, based on various

factors, including the time and labor required, the complexity of a case, the skill required, the preclusion of other employment, whether the fee is contingent, the results obtained, and the experience and skill of counsel. Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel obtained excellent results, are highly skilled, were likely precluded from accepting other employment due to the case, litigated the matter on a contingency basis, and litigated complex constitutional issues. Awarding multipliers under these circumstances ensures that meritorious cases will be brought to enforce important constitutional rights, despite the risk involved. I understand that Plaintiff’s counsel are not seeking a fee enhancement. In my opinion, this further supports the reasonableness of the hourly rates requested.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed in Salt Lake City, Utah on August 19, 2015.

Lauren I. Scholnick