38-page opinion - Election Law Blog
38-page opinion - Election Law Blog
38-page opinion - Election Law Blog
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Case 6:12-cv-00012-CCL Document 168 Filed 10/10/12 Page 6 of <strong>38</strong><br />
On June 20, 2012, the defendants-without leave ofthe Court-moved for<br />
summary judgment on the plaintiffs' claims concerning Montana's contribution<br />
limits. The Court denied the motion because, as explained in the scheduling order,<br />
the parties agreed that those claims would be resolved only through a bench trial.<br />
Moreover, the defendants' motion was untimely.<br />
The Court held a bench trial from September 12, 2012, to September 14,<br />
2012, in order to resolve the plaintiffs' claims related to Montana's campaign<br />
contribution limits in Montana Code Annotated § 13-37-216(1), (3), and (5). At<br />
the final pretrial conference immediately preceding the trial, the plaintiffs renewed<br />
their motion for summary judgment, and the Court took that motion under<br />
advisement.<br />
TESTIMONY AT THE BENCH TRIAL<br />
James Bopp, Jr. argued the plaintiffs' case.! Michael Black and Andrew<br />
Huff argued the defendants' case. Having considered the testimony of both the<br />
plaintiffs' and the defendants' witnesses, the Court finds the plaintiffs' witnesses<br />
more persuasive and that the facts weigh in favor of the plaintiffs.<br />
I James E. Brown initially appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs, but he was<br />
called as the plaintiffs' first witness and was therefore barred from subsequently<br />
arguing the plaintiffs' case at the trial. See Mont. R. Prof Conduct 3.7.<br />
6
Change language