3:10-cv-00257 #121

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)[email protected] P. DRESSER (CA SBN 136532)[email protected] F. LIN (CA SBN 236220)[email protected] D. JONES (CA SBN 248246)[email protected]& FOERSTER LLP425 Market StreetSan Francisco, California 94105-2482Telephone: 415.268.7000Facsimile: 415.268.7522

JON W. DAVIDSON (CA SBN 89301)[email protected] L. BORELLI (CA SBN 216961)[email protected] 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


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


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


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



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


8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #121

9/20


8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #121

10/20

EXHIBIT B


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


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


8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #121

18/20


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)[email protected] P. DRESSER (CA SBN 136532)[email protected] F. LIN (CA SBN 236220)[email protected] D. JONES (CA SBN 248246)[email protected]& FOERSTER LLP425 Market StreetSan Francisco, California 94105-2482Telephone: 415.268.7000Facsimile: 415.268.7522

JON W. DAVIDSON (CA SBN 89301)[email protected] L. BORELLI (CA SBN 216961)[email protected] LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC.

3325 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1300Los Angeles, California 90010-1729Telephone: 213.382.7600Facsimile: 213.351.6050


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


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


3:10-cv-00257 #121

Documents

Transcript of 3:10-cv-00257 #121