Perez v. Perry, No. SA:11-CV-00360-OLG-JES-XR, slip op. (W.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2014)(Garcia, J., Rodriguez, J., and Smith, C.J.)

Davis v. Perry, No. SA:11-CV-00788-OLG-JES-XR, slip op. (W.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2014)(Garcia, J., Rodriguez, J., and Smith, C.J.)

These two January 8 orders addressed the attorneys’ fees applications in these redistricting challenges.

In Perez v. Perry, the plaintiffs sought interim fees on the basis of the preliminary injunctive relief they obtained. Slip op. at 1-4. But the three-judge panel determined that (a) their interim victory did not make them “prevailing parties,” and (b) a final decision on the merits would determine whether they ultimately qualified as “prevailing parties.” Id. at 3-4.

In Davis v. Perry, the interim relief the plaintiffs achieved became part of the State’s election plan, meaning there was no chance such relief could be reversed, dissolved, or otherwise undone by a final decision in this case. Thus, the panel concluded that the plaintiffs were “prevailing parties.” Slip op. at 6-15. The balance of the 58-page opinion parsed through the attorneys’ fees evidence, addressing when out-of-state rates trump rates in the forum, as well as many common objections to attorneys’ fees evidence. Id. at 15-58.

Perez v. Perry, No. SA:11-CV-00360-OLG-JES-XR, slip op. (W.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2014)(Garcia, J., Rodriguez, J., and Smith, C.J.)

The defendants in this redistricting challenge had unsuccessfully sought a protective order shielding legislators and their staff from deposition. Slip op. at 1. The three-judge panel ordered that the depositions go forward, but specified that the deponents could assert the privilege in response to specific questions and then answer the question under seal for the three-judge panel’s in camera review. Id. at 1-2. In this opinion, the panel clarified the procedure by pointing out that the privilege is personal to the individual legislators or staff members, rather than a right the Governor or others can invoke. Id. The panel then cited the five- factor test in Rodriguez v. Pataki, 280 F. Supp. 2d 89, 93-94 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) as controlling on the scope of the privilege. Slip op. at 3-4.