Attorneys for a group of same-sex couples who are suing the state for the right to marry are arguing that state attorneys are seeking burdensome, and irrelevant, information about the plaintiffs.
In a letter sent to U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones 3d Dec. 16, Witold Walczak of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and Mark Aronchick of Hangley, Aronchick, Segal, Pudlin & Schiller requested the judge facilitate a “meet and confer” session with state attorneys. In the filing, the plaintiff attorneys say they have been attempting to schedule a conference call with the state for more than a month to no avail to discuss issues regarding the discovery process, and would pursue formal motions regarding those issues if no conference meeting is scheduled.
Among the complaints, the attorneys wrote, is that the state is being “highly invasive” and “overreaching” in its request for documents from and about the plaintiffs and their relationships.
The 11 couples, two children and one widow filed Whitewood v. Wolf this past summer in the first-ever challenge to the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.
According to Walczak and Aronchick, attorneys for the defendants — Health Secretary Michael Wolf and the registers of wills in Washington and Bucks counties — have requested “all documents reflecting the natural parents of [plaintiffs’] biological or adoptive children,” which the attorneys question could signify sperm donors. The defense has also requested that all plaintiffs “state whether you were ever in a relationship with and/or married to a person of the opposite sex” and goes on to request the names and addresses, as well as dates and length of relationships, of any opposite-sex exes. It also asks for names, dates and places of birth of any children produced with former opposite-sex partners.
The defense is also seeking all addresses where plaintiffs have lived in the last decade, as well as names and contact information of every person with whom they’ve resided in that time period. Plaintiffs have also been asked to “identify any and all health-care providers from whom you have sought or received medical or psychological treatment or counseling for harm you have alleged to have suffered” from the denial of state recognition of their same-sex unions.
The letter goes on to note that the defense has additionally requested any correspondence — including letters, diary entries or other notes — plaintiffs have written or received relating to the “subject matter” at hand, as well as federal and state taxes and W-2 forms for the past decade.
The plaintiff attorneys noted that the couples have produced financial records for the past three years and would consider producing some materials related to the correspondence request but “without some significant narrowing, that cannot be accomplished.”
They went on to note that they have been “exceedingly patient” in dealing with the state attorneys yet “will have no choice” but to file formal motions in response to the defense’s objectionable discovery actions if the state does not consent to a conference meeting.
The case is scheduled for trial in June.
