3:10-cv-00257 #121
Post on 07-Apr-2018
222 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #121
1/20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFFS ADMIN MOT. RE MOT. TO DISMISS AND ANTICIPATED MOT. FOR SUM. JUDGMT.CASE NO. 3:10-cv-0257-JSW
sf- 2991955
JAMES R. McGUIRE (CA SBN 189275)JMcGuire@mofo.comGREGORY P. DRESSER (CA SBN 136532)GDresser@mofo.comRITA F. LIN (CA SBN 236220)RLin@mofo.comAARON D. JONES (CA SBN 248246)AJones@mofo.comMORRISON& FOERSTER LLP425 Market StreetSan Francisco, California 94105-2482Telephone: 415.268.7000Facsimile: 415.268.7522
JON W. DAVIDSON (CA SBN 89301)JDavidson@lambdalegal.orgTARA L. BORELLI (CA SBN 216961)TBorelli@lambdalegal.org LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC.
3325 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1300Los Angeles, California 90010-1729Telephone: 213.382.7600Facsimile: 213.351.6050
Attorneys for PlaintiffKAREN GOLINSKI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
KAREN GOLINSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNELMANAGEMENT, and JOHN BERRY, Directorof the United States Office of PersonnelManagement, in his official capacity,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:10-cv-0257-JSW
PLAINTIFF KAREN GOLINSKI'S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONREGARDING OPPOSITIONS TO
MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND
ANTICIPATED MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121 Filed06/08/11 Page1 of 4
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #121
2/20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFFS ADMIN MOT. RE MOT. TO DISMISS AND ANTICIPATED MOT. FOR SUM. JUDGMT.CASE NO. 3:10-cv-0257-JSW
sf- 2991955
1
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-11, plaintiff Karen Golinski respectfully submits the following
motion for administrative relief regarding plaintiffs oppositions to the motions to dismiss filed by
defendants and by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) and plaintiffs anticipated
motion for summary judgment.
On June 3, 2011, BLAG filed an overlength motion to dismiss of 30 pages, as authorized
by the Court pursuant to stipulation of the parties. On the same day, defendants also filed their
own motion to dismiss. Due to the recent change in Local Rule 7-3, which went into effect on
June 3, 2011, plaintiffs oppositions to both motions to dismiss are now due June 17, 2011.
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the deadline to oppose the motions to dismiss be extended by
one week to June 24, 2011, in order to permit plaintiff sufficient time to address the lengthy brief
filed by BLAG, which is twice as long as ordinarily permitted pursuant to this Courts standing
order. BLAG has stated that it does not oppose this request, so long as it too is provided an
additional week for its reply brief (a request to which plaintiff has no objection). Plaintiff notes
that the motions to dismiss are scheduled to be heard on August 5, 2011, so extending the
opposition and reply deadlines by one week will not affect the hearing date and will still permit
the motion to be fully briefed four weeks prior to the hearing date.
In addition, plaintiff anticipates filing a motion for summary judgment at the same time as
her oppositions to the motions to dismiss. In order to avoid repetitive and duplicative briefing,
plaintiff respectfully requests leave to file a single consolidated memorandum of points and
authorities of no more than forty-five pages opposing both motions to dismiss and supporting
plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff notes that, if plaintiff were to file three
separate briefs as to each of those motions instead of a single consolidated brief, plaintiff would
have fifteen pages for each brief, for a total of forty-five pages. Plaintiff further submits that the
requested length is reasonable in light of the thirty-page brief submitted by BLAG on its motion
to dismiss, in addition to the separate three-page brief filed by defendants.
The parties are in the process of meeting and conferring regarding a potential schedule for
discovery in connection with plaintiffs anticipated summary judgment motion, with which
plaintiff intends to submit expert testimony. It is therefore possible that the parties may need to
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121 Filed06/08/11 Page2 of 4
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #121
3/20
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #121
4/20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFFS ADMIN MOT. RE MOT. TO DISMISS AND ANTICIPATED MOT. FOR SUM. JUDGMT.CASE NO. 3:10-cv-0257-JSW
sf- 2991955
3
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit over sixteen months ago, and originally sought insurance for her wife
over two and half years ago. Her spouse remains without adequate health insurance. There is no
reason why she should have to wait to bring her dispositive motion.
Plaintiff therefore respectfully requests that the deadline to oppose the motions to dismiss
be extended by one week and that she be permitted to file a single consolida ted brief of no longer
than forty-five pages opposing both motions to dismiss and supporting her anticipated motion for
summary judgment.
Dated:June 8, 2011 MORRISON& FOERSTER LLP
LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND
EDUCATION FUND, INC.
By: /s/Rita F. LinRita F. Lin
Attorneys for PlaintiffKAREN GOLINSKI
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121 Filed06/08/11 Page4 of 4
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #121
5/20
EXHIBIT A
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121-1 Filed06/08/11 Page1 of 5
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #121
6/20
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #121
7/20
Case 1:09-cv-10309-JLT Document 46 Filed 11/23/09 Page 2 of 4Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121-1 Filed06/08/11 Page3 of 5
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #121
8/20
Case 1:09-cv-10309-JLT Document 46 Filed 11/23/09 Page 3 of 4Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121-1 Filed06/08/11 Page4 of 5
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #121
9/20
Case 1:09-cv-10309-JLT Document 46 Filed 11/23/09 Page 4 of 4Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121-1 Filed06/08/11 Page5 of 5
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #121
10/20
EXHIBIT B
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121-2 Filed06/08/11 Page1 of 3
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #121
11/20
1
05 '10/2011 TUE 17:27 FAX 202 416 0262 BANCROFT ASSOCIATES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
EDITH SCHLAIN WINDSOR,Plaintiff,
v,THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
10 Civ. 8435 (BSJ) (JCF)
idl005/00
0 0 tTl V cr [ / )0 0tTln n un [ / )tTl c-J [ /)""r1 "7':::::; ..;;..>-< Vr I (1.. tTl ' ~ l " /" "'.Tl L.I - ~ .-
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #121
12/20
05/10/2011 TUE 17:28 FAX 202 416 0262 BANCROFT ASSOCIATES r.tI006/00
9. Plaintiff shall file a motion for summary judgment on or beforeJuly 15, 2011 (unless the House has not identified any experts pursuant to paragraphs 5and 6 above, in which case plaintiff's motion for summary judgment shall be filed on orbefore June 24,2011);
10. The House shall file its opposition to plaintif f's motion forsummary judgment and a motion to dismiss (if any) on or before August 15,2011 (unlessthe House has not identified experts pursuant to paragraphs 5 and 6 above, in which casethe House shall file its opposition to plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and amotion to dismiss (if any) on or before August 1,2011);11. Plaintif f shall file a reply in support of her motion for summary
judgment (including expert rebuttal declarations) (if any) and an opposition to theHouse's motion to dismiss (i f any) and DOJ shall file a brief, if any, on or beforeSeptember 2, 2011 (unless the House has not identified experts pursuant to paragraphs 5and 6 above, in which case plaintiff shall file a reply in support of her motion forsummary judgment (including expert rebuttal declarations) (i f any) and an opposition tothe House's motion to dismiss (i f any) and DO] shall file a brief, if any, on or beforeAugust 19,2011); and
12. The House shall file its reply in support of its motion to dismiss (i fany) on or before September 23, 2011 (unless the House has not identified expertspursuant to paragraphs 5 and 6 above, in which case the House shall file its reply insupport of its motion to dismiss (i f any) on or before September 9,2011).SO ORDERED.
S C. FRANCIS IVED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated: New York, New York May Jl, 2011
2
Case 1:10-cv-08435-BSJ -JCF Document 22 Filed 05/11/11 Page 2 of 2Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121-2 Filed06/08/11 Page3 of 3
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #121
13/20
EXHIBIT C
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121-3 Filed06/08/11 Page1 of 6
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #121
14/20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THEDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
JOANNE PEDERSEN & ANN MEITZEN, et al., :
Plaintiffs, ::v. : CIVIL ACTION NO.
: 3:10-CV-1750 (VLB)OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, et al., :
Defendants. : May 27, 2011
SCHEDULING ORDER
After consideration of the submissions by the parties, the Court orders as
follows:
1. The Plaintiffs, the Defendants and the Defendant-Intervenor, the Bipartisan
Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (the
House) (collectively the parties), shall exchange initial disclosures pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) on or before May 27, 2011.
2. As the parties have advised the Court that they have agreed to coordinate
expert discovery and depositions (if any) in this case and in the case of Windsor
v. United States of America, 10 Civ. 8435 (S.D.N.Y.) (BSJ)(JCF) so that any expert
reports and any expert depositions may be used in both cases, the parties shall
follow Paragraphs 2-3 and 5-7 of the Revised Scheduling Order of May 11, 2011,
entered in Windsor(attached as Exhibit A).
3. The parties shall exchange all written requests for discovery (including
document requests, interrogatories and requests for admissions pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26, 33 and 36) on or before June 8, 2011.
4. All fact and expert discovery shall be complete by July 11, 2011.
Case 3:10-cv-01750-VLB Document 54 Filed 05/27/11 Page 1 of 2Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121-3 Filed06/08/11 Page2 of 6
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #121
15/20
5. Plaintiffs shall file a motion for summary judgment on or before July 15, 2011.
6. The House shall file its opposition to Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment
and a motion to dismiss (if any) on or before August 15, 2011.
7. Plaintiffs shall file a reply in support of their motion for summary judgment
(including expert rebuttal declarations) (if any) and an opposition to the Houses
motion to dismiss (if any) and DOJ shall file a brief, if any, on or before
September 14, 2011.
8. The House shall file its reply in support of its motion to dismiss (if any) on or
before October 5, 2011.
SO ORDERED.
_______/s/______________Vanessa L. BryantUnited States District Judge
Dated at Hartford, Connecticut: May 27, 2011.
Case 3:10-cv-01750-VLB Document 54 Filed 05/27/11 Page 2 of 2Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121-3 Filed06/08/11 Page3 of 6
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #121
16/20
Case 3:10-cv-01750-VLB Document 54-1 Filed 05/27/11 Page 1 of 3Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121-3 Filed06/08/11 Page4 of 6
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #121
17/20
Case 3:10-cv-01750-VLB Document 54-1 Filed 05/27/11 Page 2 of 3Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121-3 Filed06/08/11 Page5 of 6
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #121
18/20
Case 3:10-cv-01750-VLB Document 54-1 Filed 05/27/11 Page 3 of 3Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121-3 Filed06/08/11 Page6 of 6
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #121
19/20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROPOSED ORDER READMIN MOT. RE MOT. TO DISMISS AND ANTICIPATED MOT. FOR SUM. JUDGMT.CASE NO. 3:10-cv-0257-JSW
sf-3004731
JAMES R. McGUIRE (CA SBN 189275)JMcGuire@mofo.comGREGORY P. DRESSER (CA SBN 136532)GDresser@mofo.comRITA F. LIN (CA SBN 236220)RLin@mofo.comAARON D. JONES (CA SBN 248246)AJones@mofo.comMORRISON& FOERSTER LLP425 Market StreetSan Francisco, California 94105-2482Telephone: 415.268.7000Facsimile: 415.268.7522
JON W. DAVIDSON (CA SBN 89301)JDavidson@lambdalegal.orgTARA L. BORELLI (CA SBN 216961)TBorelli@lambdalegal.org LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC.
3325 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1300Los Angeles, California 90010-1729Telephone: 213.382.7600Facsimile: 213.351.6050
Attorneys for PlaintiffKAREN GOLINSKI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
KAREN GOLINSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNELMANAGEMENT, and JOHN BERRY, Directorof the United States Office of PersonnelManagement, in his official capacity,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:10-cv-0257-JSW
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTINGPLAINTIFF KAREN GOLINSKI'SADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONREGARDING OPPOSITIONS TOMOTIONS TO DISMISS ANDANTICIPATED MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121-4 Filed06/08/11 Page1 of 2
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #121
20/20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
P O A M M D A M S J 1
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11, and good cause so appearing, Plaintiffs Administrative
Motion Regarding Oppositions to Motions to Dismiss and Anticipated Motion for Summary
Judgment is hereby GRANTED.
Plaintiffs deadline to oppose the motions to dismiss filed by the Bipartisan Legal
Advisory Group (BLAG) and defendants is hereby extended by one week to June 24, 2011.
BLAGs and defendants deadline to file reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss is also
extended by one additional week to July 8, 2011.
Plaintiffis hereby granted leave to file a single consolidated memorandum of points and
authorities of no longer than forty-five pages opposing to both motions to dismiss and supporting
plaintiffs anticipated motion for summary judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: _____________, 2011.
The Honorable Jeffrey S. WhiteUnited States District Judge
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121-4 Filed06/08/11 Page2 of 2
top related