Case Document 103-2 Filed 05/08/20 Page 1 of 10 EXHIBIT A Case 3:20-cv-00201-RNC Document 103-2 Filed 05/08/20 Page 2 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x : SELINA SOULE, A MINOR, BY : BIANCA STANESCU, HER MOTHER, : CHELSEA MITCHELL, A MINOR, BY : CHRISTINA MITCHELL, HER MOTHER,: ALANNA SMITH, A MINOR, BY : CHERYL RADACHOWSKY, HER MOTHER,: : Plaintiffs, : : vs : : CONNECTICUT ASSOCIATION : OF SCHOOLS, INC., D/B/A : CONNECTICUT INTERSCHOLASTIC : ATHLETIC CONFERENCE, ET AL. : : Defendants. : : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x No. 3:20CV201(RNC) HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT APRIL 16, 2020 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ON MOTIONS BEFORE: HON. ROBERT N. CHATIGNY, U.S.D.J. DARLENE A. WARNER, RDR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER Case 3:20-cv-00201-RNC Document 103-2 Filed 05/08/20 Page 3 of 10 Page 2 APPEARANCES: FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM 15100 N. 90th Street Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 BY: JEFF SHAFER, ESQ. ROGER GREENWOOD BROOKS, ESQ. CHRISTIANA M. HOLCOMB, ESQ. FIORENTINO, HOWARD, PATRONE, P.C. 773 Main Street Manchester, Connecticut 06040 BY: JAMES H. HOWARD, ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANTS: SHIPMAN & GOODWIN One Constitution Plaza Hartford, Connecticut 06103-2819 BY: LINDA L. YODER, ESQ. PETER JOSEPH MURPHY, ESQ. FORD HARRISON, LLP CityPlace II 185 Asylum Street Suite 610 BY: JOHANNA G. ZELMAN, ESQ. HOWD & LUDORF 65 Wethersfield Avenue Hartford, Connecticut 06114-1190 BY: DAVID S. MONASTERSKY, ESQ. Case 3:20-cv-00201-RNC Document 103-2 Filed 05/08/20 Page 4 of 10 Page 3 FOR THE PROPOSED INTERVENORS: AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION - NY 125 Broad Street Floor 18 New York, New York 10004 BY: JOSHUA A. BLOCK, ESQ. CHASE STRANGIO, ESQ. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION - CT 765 Asylum Avenue, 1st Floor Hartford, Connecticut 06105 BY: DAN BARRETT, ESQ. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & OPPORTUNITIES 450 Columbus Boulevard Avenue, Suite 2 Hartford, Connecticut 06103 BY: MICHAEL ROBERTS, ESQ. Case 3:20-cv-00201-RNC Document 103-2 Filed 05/08/20 Page 5 of 10 Page 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 THE COURT: 8 Let me raise a point that undoubtedly will cause 9 All right, thank you. some consternation for you, Mr. Brooks, and your 10 colleagues, but I exercise my prerogative as the presiding 11 judge in this instance and I hope you will forgive me. 12 I don't think we should be referring to the 13 proposed intervenors as "male athletes." 14 that you prefer to use those words, but they're very 15 provocative, and I think needlessly so. 16 that you surrender any legitimate interest or position if 17 you refer to them as transgender females. 18 the case is about. 19 have decided that they want to run in girls' events. 20 is a case about girls who say that transgender girls 21 should not be allowed to run in girls' events. 22 23 I don't think That is what This isn't a case involving males who So going forward, we will not refer to the proposed intervenors as "males"; understood? 24 25 I understand MR. BROOKS: saying. Your Honor, I hear what you're If I may respond? This Case 3:20-cv-00201-RNC Document 103-2 Filed 05/08/20 Page 6 of 10 Page 27 1 2 THE COURT: understand what I'm saying. 3 MR. BROOKS: 4 THE COURT: 5 No, no, I just want to be sure you May I respond? If you first tell me you understand what I'm saying. 6 MR. BROOKS: 7 THE COURT: I do understand what you're saying. All right, then go ahead. 8 want to respond, go right ahead. 9 MR. BROOKS: 10 exactly what the case is about. If you Your Honor is right that this is 11 The entire focus of the case has to do with the 12 fact that male bodies have a physiological advantage over 13 female bodies that gives them an unfair advantage to 14 competition. 15 The entire focus of the case is the fact that 16 the CIAC policy allows individuals who are 17 physiologically, genetically male to compete in girls' 18 athletics. 19 But if I use the term "females" to describe 20 those individuals -- and we've said in our opening brief, 21 we're happy to use their preferred names, because 22 names are not the point to the case. 23 not the point of this case. 24 physiology of bodies driven by chromosomes and the 25 documented athletic advantage that comes from a male body, Gender identity is The point of this case is Case 3:20-cv-00201-RNC Document 103-2 Filed 05/08/20 Page 7 of 10 Page 28 1 2 male hormones, and male puberty in particular. So, Your Honor, I do have a concern that I am 3 not adequately representing my client and I'm not 4 accurately representing their position in this case as it 5 has to be argued before Your Honor and all the way up if I 6 refer to these individuals as "female," because that's 7 simply, when we're talking about physiology, that's not 8 accurate, at least in the belief of my clients. 9 So I believe -- 10 THE COURT: 11 MR. BROOKS: 12 THE COURT: Go ahead, I'll let you finish. 13 MR. BROOKS: So I believe, consistent with I'm fairly -I -- 14 vigorous representation of my clients, I am not -- as I 15 sit here right now, Your Honor, this is a serious thing to 16 say -- I am not sure that I can comply with that direction 17 consistent with vigorous representation of the position 18 that my clients are putting forward here. 19 If you see Dr. Brown's expert report that we put 20 in in support of the preliminary injunction, you will see 21 that it's all about male and female bodies using the terms 22 as they're understood in science, and we can't get away 23 from that. 24 THE COURT: 25 MR. BROOKS: Mr. Brooks, are you done? I am. Case 3:20-cv-00201-RNC Document 103-2 Filed 05/08/20 Page 8 of 10 Page 29 1 THE COURT: 2 I'm not asking you to refer to these individuals Okay, thank you. 3 as "females." 4 I'm saying is you must refer to them as "transgender 5 females" rather than as "males." 6 accurate terminology, and I think that it fully protects 7 your client's legitimate interests. 8 individuals as "transgender females" is consistent with 9 science, common practice and perhaps human decency. I know that you don't want to do so. What Again, that's the more Referring to these 10 To refer to them as "males," period, is not 11 accurate, certainly not as accurate, and I think it's 12 needlessly provocative; and, for me, civility is a very 13 important value, especially in litigation. 14 So if you feel strongly that you and your 15 clients have a right to refer to these individuals as 16 "males" and that you therefore do not want to comply with 17 my order, then that's unfortunate. 18 time to think about it and you can let me know if it's a 19 problem. 20 something. 21 time, I don't want you to be bullying anybody else. 22 But I'll give you some If it is, gosh, maybe we'll need to do I don't want to bully you, but at the same Maybe you might need to take an application to 23 the Court of Appeals. 24 don't want to put civility at risk in this case. 25 the opposite. I don't know. But I certainly Quite My goals for this case include, very Case 3:20-cv-00201-RNC Document 103-2 Filed 05/08/20 Page 9 of 10 Page 30 1 importantly, the goal of maintaining civil discourse, 2 respectful, humane, intelligent, civil discourse in the 3 course of the case. 4 Nothing more, nothing less. Beyond that, let me turn now to Mr. Block and 5 ask: 6 support of your application to intervene? Is there anything more that you want to say in 7 MR. BLOCK: Your Honor, this isn't on the merits 8 of the application, but if we could have some guidance 9 about in terms of upcoming deadlines, whether we should 10 tender a request for a prefiling conference or any other 11 stuff while we, you know, wait for either a future filing 12 or an order, that would be helpful for us in just figuring 13 out how to proceed. 14 15 THE COURT: Whoever is pressing buttons on their phone, please don't do that. 16 Let me now come back to Mr. Brooks. 17 Mr. Brooks, this is your opportunity to make 18 whatever presentation you want to make this morning in 19 opposition to the motion to intervene filed on behalf of 20 the transgender females. 21 22 23 24 25 Is there anything you would like to add to your papers? MR. BROOKS: Yes, Your Honor, briefly; but may I ask a follow-up question on your earlier instruction? THE COURT: Sure. Case 3:20-cv-00201-RNC Document 103-2 Filed 05/08/20 Page 10 of 10 Page 31 1 MR. BROOKS: Do you have any objection to our 2 referring to those intervenors simply as transgender 3 athletes? 4 THE COURT: 5 MR. BROOKS: That's fine. That's fine with me. Am I correct that you also have no 6 objection to our discussing, as need be to make argument, 7 the fact that they have male bodies and, in at least one 8 case, don't deny that they went through male puberty? 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: That is your prerogative, certainly. As you say, that's what the case is about.