United States District Court Northern District of California
Uploaded by
Equality Case FilesUnited States District Court Northern District of California
Uploaded by
Equality Case FilesCase3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document208 Filed09/25/09 Page1 of 4
1 COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC
Charles J. Cooper (DC Bar No. 248070)*
2 [email protected]
David H. Thompson (DC Bar No. 450503)*
3 [email protected]
Howard C. Nielson, Jr. (DC Bar No. 473018)*
4 [email protected]
Nicole J. Moss
5 [email protected] (DC Bar No. 472424)
Jesse Panuccio
6 [email protected] (DC Bar No. 981634)
Peter A. Patterson (Ohio Bar No. 0080840)*
7 [email protected]
1523 New Hampshire Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
8 Telephone: (202) 220-9600, Facsimile: (202) 220-9601
9 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO
Andrew P. Pugno (CA Bar No. 206587)
10 [email protected]
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630
11 Telephone: (916) 608-3065, Facsimile: (916) 608-3066
12 ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND
Brian W. Raum (NY Bar No. 2856102)*
13 [email protected]
James A. Campbell (OH Bar No. 0081501)*
14 [email protected]
15100 North 90th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
15 Telephone: (480) 444-0020, Facsimile: (480) 444-0028
16 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH,
GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM,
17 MARK A. JANSSON, and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM – YES ON 8, A
PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL
18
* Admitted pro hac vice
19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
20 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
21 KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER,
PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J.
22 ZARRILLO, CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
23 DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’
Plaintiffs, MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
24 LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE
v. LIMITATIONS
25
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official Date: October 14, 2009
26 capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND Time: 10:00 a.m.
Judge: Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker
27 G. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Location: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor
Attorney General of California; MARK B.
28 HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE
CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document208 Filed09/25/09 Page2 of 4
1 the California Department of Public Health and
State Registrar of Vital Statistics; LINETTE
2 SCOTT, in her official capacity as Deputy
Director of Health Information & Strategic
3
Planning for the California Department of Public
4 Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his official
capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of
5 Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his official
capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for
6 the County of Los Angeles,
7
Defendants,
8
and
9
PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS
10 DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J.
KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-
11 SHING WILLIAM TAM, and MARK A.
JANSSON; and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM –
12 YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA
RENEWAL,
13
Defendant-Intervenors.
14
15
Additional Counsel for Defendant-Intervenors
16
17 ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND
Timothy Chandler (CA Bar No. 234325)
18 [email protected]
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630
19 Telephone: (916) 932-2850, Facsimile: (916) 932-2851
20 Jordan W. Lorence (DC Bar No. 385022)*
[email protected]
21 Austin R. Nimocks (TX Bar No. 24002695)*
[email protected]
22 801 G Street NW, Suite 509, Washington, D.C. 20001
Telephone: (202) 393-8690, Facsimile: (202) 347-3622
23
* Admitted pro hac vice
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE
CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document208 Filed09/25/09 Page3 of 4
1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11, Defendant-Intervenors (“Proponents”) respectfully seek
2 the Court’s leave to file a reply in support of their motion for summary judgment motion that is
3
longer than the fifteen pages normally allotted by local rule. See Civ. L.R. 7-2(b). Specifically,
4
Proponents respectfully submit that an expanded page limit of twenty-five pages is warranted by
5
the nature of the issues presented in this case, and request the Court’s leave to file a motion of that
6
7 length. While Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor have declined to stipulate to this proposed page
8 limit, they have indicated that they do not intend to make a submission opposing it. The other
9 parties to this case, with the exception of the County of Los Angeles who has not yet responded,
10 have either indicated that they take no position on this motion or have no objection.
11
As Proponents have previously noted, this case is of momentous importance: at stake is
12
the future of the venerable and vitally important social institution of marriage. Indeed, although
13
Plaintiffs directly challenge only Proposition 8, the joint response brief filed by Plaintiffs and
14
15 Plaintiff-Intervenor acknowledges that under the theories they advance, the laws of every other
16 State defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and likely the federal definition of
17 marriage, are likewise unconstitutional. See Doc # 202 at 27, 28. In keeping with the importance
18 of this case, the issues raised in Proponents’ summary judgment motion and addressed in
19
Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiff-Intervenor’s response in opposition are multitude and complex. In
20
recognition of these facts, the Court has previously granted leave to file briefs in excess of the
21
normal page limitations. Further, Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor have addressed not only the
22
23 issues raised by Proponents, but have also raised additional questions regarding the weight to be
24 given to the views and admissions of the State Attorney General (which admissions Proponents
25 first received as an attachment in support of Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiff-Intervenor’s response),1
26
1
27 In an email serving the State Attorney General’s responses to Plaintiffs’ requests for
admissions today, counsel for the Attorney General indicated that her attempt to serve
28 these responses on the afternoon of September 23 was unsuccessful due to a glitch in her
(Continued)
1
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE
CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document208 Filed09/25/09 Page4 of 4
1 whether certain statements of legislative fact by the California Supreme Court in the Marriage
2 Cases are binding in this litigation, the meaning and adequacy of Proponents’ responses to
3
Plaintiffs’ requests for admissions and other discovery requests, and the application of Fed. R.
4
Civ. P. 56(f) to a case such as this one that turns on issues of legislative fact.
5
For these reasons, Proponents respectfully request that this motion be granted.
6
7 Dated: September 25, 2009
8 COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS-INTERVENORS
9 DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT,
MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-SHING WILLIAM
10 TAM, MARK A. JANSSON, AND
PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM – YES ON 8, A PROJECT
11 OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL
12
By: /s/ Charles J. Cooper
13 Charles J. Cooper
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
(Cont’d)
28 email address book.
2
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE
CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document208-1 Filed09/25/09 Page1 of 3
1 COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC
Charles J. Cooper (DC Bar No. 248070)*
2 [email protected]
David H. Thompson (DC Bar No. 450503)*
3 [email protected]
Howard C. Nielson, Jr. (DC Bar No. 473018)*
4 [email protected]
Nicole J. Moss
5 [email protected] (DC Bar No. 472424)
Jesse Panuccio
6 [email protected] (DC Bar No. 981634)
Peter A. Patterson (Ohio Bar No. 0080840)*
7 [email protected]
1523 New Hampshire Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
8 Telephone: (202) 220-9600, Facsimile: (202) 220-9601
9 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO
Andrew P. Pugno (CA Bar No. 206587)
10 [email protected]
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630
11 Telephone: (916) 608-3065, Facsimile: (916) 608-3066
12 ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND
Brian W. Raum (NY Bar No. 2856102)*
13 [email protected]
James A. Campbell (OH Bar No. 0081501)*
14 [email protected]
15100 North 90th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
15 Telephone: (480) 444-0020, Facsimile: (480) 444-0028
16 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH,
GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM,
17 MARK A. JANSSON, and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM – YES ON 8, A
PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL
18
* Admitted pro hac vice
19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
20 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
21 KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER,
PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J.
22 ZARRILLO, CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
23 DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF
Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’
24 MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
v. LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE
25 LIMITATIONS
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official
26 capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND Date: October 14, 2009
Time: 10:00 a.m.
27 G. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Judge: Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker
Attorney General of California; MARK B. Location: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor
28 HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE
CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document208-1 Filed09/25/09 Page2 of 3
1 the California Department of Public Health and
State Registrar of Vital Statistics; LINETTE
2 SCOTT, in her official capacity as Deputy
Director of Health Information & Strategic
3
Planning for the California Department of Public
4 Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his official
capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of
5 Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his official
capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for
6 the County of Los Angeles,
7
Defendants,
8
and
9
PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS
10 DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J.
KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-
11 SHING WILLIAM TAM, and MARK A.
JANSSON; and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM –
12 YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA
RENEWAL,
13
Defendant-Intervenors.
14
15
Additional Counsel for Defendant-Intervenors
16
17 ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND
Timothy Chandler (CA Bar No. 234325)
18 [email protected]
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630
19 Telephone: (916) 932-2850, Facsimile: (916) 932-2851
20 Jordan W. Lorence (DC Bar No. 385022)*
[email protected]
21 Austin R. Nimocks (TX Bar No. 24002695)*
[email protected]
22 801 G Street NW, Suite 509, Washington, D.C. 20001
Telephone: (202) 393-8690, Facsimile: (202) 347-3622
23
* Admitted pro hac vice
24
I Nicole Jo Moss, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11(a), declare as follows in support of
25
Defendant-Intervenors’ (“the Proponents”) Motion to Exceed Pages Limitations.
26
1. I am an attorney in the law firm of Cooper & Kirk, P.L.L.C., counsel of record for the
27
28 Defendant-Intervenors in the above captioned matter. On September 24, 2009, I reached out by
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE
CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document208-1 Filed09/25/09 Page3 of 3
1 phone and email to the other parties in this case in an effort to reach a stipulated agreement
2 regarding the additional ten pages requested in Proponents’ Motion to Exceed Page Limits with
3
respect to Proponents’ reply brief in support of their motion for summary judgment.
4
2. Counsel for the Administration Defendants and counsel for the Attorney General had no
5
objection to this request. Counsel for the Alameda County Clerk-Recorder informed me they had
6
7 no position, hence no objection to Proponents’ Motion. As of the filing of this Motion, I have not
8 heard back from counsel for Los Angeles County.
9 3. I also spoke with Therese Stewart, counsel for the City and County of San Francisco,
10 who indicated she was authorized to speak for both her client and for Plaintiffs. Ms. Stewart
11
informed me that while Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor will not stipulate to the additional pages
12
being requested, they will not file an opposition.
13
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this
14
15 Declaration was executed in North Carolina on September 25, 2009.
16
17 ____________________________________
18 Nicole Jo Moss, Esq.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE
CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
