Steve Cooley & Associates

1 Steve Cooley, State Bar No. 56789

Brentford J. Ferreira, State Bar No. 113762
2 5318 E. 2d Street, #399
Long Beach, California 90803
3 Tel. (508) 400-8578
4 bjferreira47@hotmail.com

5 Thomas More Society

Thomas Brejcha*
6 Peter Breen*
309 W. Washington St., Ste. 1250
7 Chicago, Illinois 60606
Tel. (312) 782-1680
8 tbrejcha@thomasmoresociety.org
pbreen@thomasmoresociety.org
9 *Admitted Pro Hac Vice
10 Attorneys for Defendant David Daleiden
11
12
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT
14
15 )
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Case No. 2502505
16 )
CALIFORNIA, )
17 ) REPLY TO OPPOSITION
Plaintiff and Respondent, ) MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
18 )
vs. ) (PENAL CODE § 1054.5 SUBD. (b))
19 )
DAVID ROBERT DALEIDEN and SANDRA ) Date: 9/13/2021
20 ) Court:
SUSAN MERRITT, ) Dept:
21 )
Defendants. )
22
23
EXHIBITS
24
25
26
27
-1-
28
DEFENDANT DALEIDEN’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
 1. I am an attorney of record for Defendant David Daleiden in this case and in
National Abortion Federation v. Center for Medical Progress, N.D. Cal. case no. 3:15-cv-03522-
WHO, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America v. Center for Medical Progress, N.D.
Cal. case no. 3:16-cv-00236-WHO.
2. In connection with their motion for attorney’s fees in NAF v. CMP, the National
Abortion Federation filed 610 pages of “NAF Attorney Hours and Fees Through May 7, 2021.”
Dkt. #756-1. True and accurate copies of several pages of those records are attached hereto as
Exhibit A and Exhibit B.
3. Those records include numerous references to attorney time spent by NAF
attorneys in collaboration and support of this prosecution. In particular, NAF’s billing records
relate calls with, and what appears to be legal research for, the Attorney General’s office in the
weeks leading up to the execution of the search warrant on Mr. Daleiden’s home.
4. Then, on April 6, 2016, the day after the search warrant was executed on Mr.
Daleiden’s home, a NAF attorney bills time to “Coordinate review of new videos.”
5. However, in the NAF v. CMP case, no new videos were produced to NAF in the
weeks leading up to that billing record. All of Mr. Daleiden’s footage from NAF’s conferences
were provided earlier in 2015, as part of expedited discovery performed in relation to
preliminary injunction proceedings. Briefing on NAF’s preliminary injunction motion was
completed before the end of 2015. The next significant discovery production of video material to
NAF did not occur until June 2017, when Mr. Daleiden produced the full videos he took at
Planned Parenthood events and facilities in Planned Parenthood’s civil lawsuit (to which NAF
was given access), attached as Exhibit C.
6. I know of no other video production to NAF in connection with the NAF v. CMP
case in the weeks leading up to that April 6, 2016 billing record. I have conferred with
my co-counsel who primarily handled discovery matters in NAF v. CMP and PPFA v. CMP, and
he also has no recollection of other “new videos” provided to NAF in the weeks leading up to
April 6, 2016. I have also searched my email for emails to Mr. Foran in the weeks leading up to
April 6, 2016, and have not seen any “new videos” provided in that time period.
7. While NAF’s billing records submitted in connection with NAF v. CMP are
extensive, they do not appear to be a complete recitation of what every attorney did for NAF
during this entire controversy. The records are supposed to reflect only those hours compensable
under NAF’s civil contract claim in federal court—the one and only count that NAF succeeded
on in the NAF v. CMP case. In fact, this entry (and others) may well have slipped through
inadvertently, as on its face, it does not appear compensable in NAF v. CMP. Even so, this entry
(and others) relating to this criminal prosecution give this Court at least a partial glimpse into the
coordination between NAF and the Attorney General’s office. Discovery directed at the
coordination in this case would presumably shed light on the coordination reflected in these
billing entries.

Dated: September 9, 2021 /s/Peter Breen

P. Breen Declaration 001

P. Breen Declaration 002
P. Breen Declaration 003
P. Breen Declaration 004
P. Breen Declaration 005
P. Breen Declaration 006
P. Breen Declaration 007
P. Breen Declaration 008
P. Breen Declaration 009
P. Breen Declaration 010
P. Breen Declaration 011
P. Breen Declaration 012
P. Breen Declaration 013
 National Abortion Federation
Date Name / Invoice Number
5/31/2017 DEREK F. FORAN
P. Breen Declaration
Part 1/2: Contempt Proceedings
Billing Included Included Description
Rate Hours Amounts
other social media platforms regarding
publication of materials in violation of
Preliminary Injunction (0.9); legal research
regarding Younger v. Harris abstention doctrine
for response to Order to Show Cause regarding
Contempt (0.5); phone calls and emails with
counsel for NAF regarding
(0.6);
draft declarations in support of response to
Order to Show Cause regarding Contempt, and
related matters (0.5); phone call with M.
Hearron et al regarding drafting of legal
argument section for NAF's Response to Order to
Show Cause regarding Contempt (0.3); phone call
with general counsel for Planned Parenthood
regarding (0.1);
revise draft declarations in support of NAF's
Response to Order to Show Cause regarding
Contempt (0.3).
$910 7.80 $7,098.00 Revise response to Order to Show Cause
regarding Contempt (4.7); phone calls with
superior court and California AG's office
regarding status of flash drive of NAF
materials lodged in criminal case (0.5);
correspondence with counsel for Twitter and
Facebook regarding materials being published in
violation of court order (0.5); provide comment
on declarations in support of response to Order
Page 6 of 27
014
 National Abortion Federation Part 1/2: Contempt Proceedings
Date Name / Invoice Number Billing Included Included Description
Rate Hours Amounts

to Show Cause regarding Contempt (0.4); emails and

phone calls with L. Brown of NAF regarding

(1.1); review comments received from L. Brown

(0.6)

5/31/2017 NICHOLAS ALAN ROETHLISBERGER $695 8.00 $5,560.00 Draft response to OSC re contempt.

5/31/2017 MARC A. HEARRON $885 1.70 $1,504.50 Revise draft of response to OSC re contempt.

5/31/2017 THOMAS E. BEYER
$360 7.80 $2,808.00 Compile documents cited in response to OSC re
contempt (1.8); organize exhibits to Foran
Declaration in support of Response to Order to
Show Contempt (1.9); fact check response (3.4);
draft manual filing notice (.7).

5/31/2017 LENA H. HUGHES $650 3.00 $1,950.00 Review case law regarding referral to U.S.
attorney's offices (1.9); review and comment on draft
of brief in response to order to show cause (1.1).

5/31/2017 ALEXANDRA LAKS $600 2.00 $1,200.00 Review all exhibits and documents in support of
response to order to show cause regarding
contempt (1.0); prepare proposed redactions for
filing (1.0).

5/31/2017 RANDY D. ZACK $540 0.90 $486.00 Review and revise NAF response to order to show
cause regarding contempt.

5/31/2017 RANDY D. ZACK $540 3.00 $1,620.00 Legal research re Court's obligation to enforce orders

Page 7 of 27

P. Breen Declaration 015

Charles S. LiMandri Post Office Box 9520
Rancho Santa Fe, California 92067
Telephone: (858) 759-9948
Facsimile: (858) 759-9938

Website: www.ConscienceDefense.org

June 14, 2017

Via E-Mail: amy.bomse@apks.com
& Overnight Federal Express

Ms. Amy Bomse

ARNOLD & PORTER, LLP
Three Embarcadero Center
10th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111

Re: Planned Parenthood Federation of America, et al. v. Center for Medical

Progress, et al.

Amy,
Please find enclosed the first set of videos being produced by Defendant Daleiden. The
first flash drive contains all of the videos taken at the Society for Family Planning conference.
The second flash drive contains the videos taken on the first two days at the Association for
Reproductive Health Professionals conference. I encountered technical difficulties in
transferring the videos from the third day. I will include them in the next production which
will contain all of the remaining videos. The videos have all been designated AEO. Please note
that Defendant interprets the protective order as presently precluding access of the videos to
Ms. Krasnoff and Ms. Parker. Please let us know if Plaintiffs need to meet and confer on that.

Sincerely,

FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE DEFENSE FUND

Jeffrey M. Trissell

cc: all parties via email

P. Breen Declaration 016