123 F. Supp. 3d 967
M.D. Tenn.2015Background
- Plaintiffs challenge Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-7-112(c)(2)(B), which bars university-issued student ID cards from serving as voter identification, alleging violations of the Fourteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendments by discriminating against college students.
- Plaintiffs served Rule 45 subpoenas for documents and depositions on several Tennessee legislators involved with the Voter ID provision; document production was sparse and many legislative emails had been deleted.
- Four legislators (Ketron, Lynn, Todd, Carr) were served deposition subpoenas; the legislators moved to quash, asserting legislative immunity/privilege under federal common law (Rule 501), grounded in Speech or Debate principles.
- Plaintiffs seek to depose the legislators on legislative intent, deliberations, understanding of the provision, and knowledge of voter fraud; plaintiffs argue privilege objections are not yet ripe and that discovery is necessary to prove discriminatory intent/purpose.
- The court found the privilege is qualified in voting-rights challenges and adopted a middle path: depositions may proceed, legislators may invoke privilege at deposition, but transcripts must be filed under seal for in camera review; deposition testimony is attorneys-eyes-only and not to be disseminated publicly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether legislative privilege bars compelled depositions of state legislators in a federal constitutional challenge to a state voting law | Plaintiffs: privilege may not be ripe until questions are asked; discovery needed to show discriminatory intent/purpose; alternative evidence is scarce | Legislators: absolute or broad privilege shields them from compelled testimony and discovery | Court: privilege is qualified here; depositions allowed, privilege may be asserted at deposition, transcripts filed under seal for in camera review; depositions limited to counsel and not disseminated |
| Whether plaintiffs need legislators’ testimony to prove discriminatory intent under Fourteenth/Twenty-Sixth Amendment claims | Plaintiffs: likely need testimony because documentary evidence is limited; intent is often proven through admissions or contemporaneous communications | Legislators: (implicitly) plaintiffs have public legislative history; broad intrusion into deliberations unnecessary | Court: recognized that intent evidence may require legislator testimony given limited documentary record; discovery may yield relevant information but admissibility and privilege questions reserved for later |
| Proper procedural handling of privilege assertions | Plaintiffs: allow depositions then let deponents invoke privilege; transcripts submitted under seal for in camera review; later resolve admissibility | Legislators: move to quash now; argue discovery should be denied because this is not a redistricting or criminal case | Court: adopts plaintiffs’ procedural approach—deny quash, permit depositions, permit in-deposition invocation, require sealed filing and attorneys-only access |
| Scope of public disclosure and dissemination of deposition material | Plaintiffs: want to use deposition material in litigation and possibly public record | Legislators: seek protection from disclosure to prevent chilling legislative deliberation | Court: restricts access to counsel and staff; forbids disclosure to plaintiffs, press, or public absent further court order; preserves privilege and non-waiver to extent applicable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gillock, 445 U.S. 360 (re legislative speech-or-debate limits on state-legislator immunity from federal interference)
- Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union, 446 U.S. 719 (state legislators absolutely immune from liability for legislative acts under federal common law)
- Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (privileges construed narrowly; limits on testimonial privileges)
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (standards for proving discriminatory purpose in government decisionmaking)
- In re Grand Jury, 821 F.2d 946 (legislative privilege principles in federal common law)
- Rodriguez v. Pataki, 280 F. Supp. 2d 89 (applying a multi-factor test to assess whether legislative privilege blocks discovery)
- Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 114 F. Supp. 3d 323 (refusing blanket privilege in vote-related litigation; relevance of legislators’ testimony)
- Veasey v. Perry, 796 F.3d 487 (addressing discovery and privilege issues in voting-rights litigation)