3:10-cv-00257 #169
-
Upload
equality-case-files -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of 3:10-cv-00257 #169
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
1/50
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 RESPONSE TO BLAGS MOTION FOR LEAVE
CASE
NO
.3:10-
CV-0257-JSW
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. SOMMER (pro hac vice)[email protected] L. BORELLI (CA SBN 216961)
[email protected] 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 PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT, and JOHN BERRY, Directorof the United States Office of PersonnelManagement, in his official capacity,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:10-cv-0257-JSW
PLAINTIFF KAREN GOLINSKISRESPONSE TO BIPARTISANLEGAL ADVISORY GROUPSMOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILESUPERSEDING OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFFS SUMMARYJUDGMENT MOTION, ANDREQUEST FOR ANY NEWHEARING DATE TO BE SET FORDECEMBER 16, 2011 OR EARLIER
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169 Filed09/30/11 Page1 of 3
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
2/50
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 RESPONSE TO BLAGS MOTION FOR LEAVE
CASE NO.3:10-CV-0257-JSW
1
Plaintiff Karen Golinski respectfully submits the following response to Intervenor
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Groups (BLAGs) motion for leave to submit further briefing.
Plaintiff submits this response in order to propose measures to minimize the delay caused by
BLAGs belated request.
On Friday, September 23, 2011, BLAG informed plaintiff that it proposed to submit a
superseding opposition brief on October 10, 2011. (Borelli Decl. 4, Ex. A.) That proposal
came at the eleventh hour. (Borelli Decl. 5.) Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment was
originally noticed for September 16, 2011, and is set to be heard on October 21, 2011. Plaintiff
originally filed her motion on July 1, 2011. BLAG has had that brief for over three months.
BLAG makes much of the parties exchange of written discovery. However, BLAG has
had plaintiffs discovery responses since September 1, 2011. (Borelli Decl. 3.) Moreover,
plaintiff suspects that the materials that BLAG plans to introduce in its opposition brief are not
from that discovery, which principally concerned plaintiffs standing to bring this action and the
validity of her marriage. Instead, based on a review of BLAGs summary judgment opposition
papers filed in Windsor v. United States, No. 1:10-cv-08435-BSJ-JCF (S.D.N.Y.) and Pedersen
v. Office of Personnel Management, No. 3:10-cv-01750-VLB (D. Conn.), plaintiff suspects that
the principal new evidence that BLAG plans to introduce here is the deposition testimony of
plaintiffs experts. (Borelli Decl. 5.) Those depositions were taken inJune andJuly, prior to
the due date of BLAGs existing opposition brief. (Id.) Discovery in Windsorclosed on July
11, 2011. (See Dkt. 121, Ex. B (attaching Windsorscheduling order).) BLAG has no legitimate
reason to have delayed its submission forthree monthsto incorporate those materials.
Nonetheless, in order to permit a full airing of the issues, plaintiff informed BLAG that
she was willing to accede to BLAGs belated filing of a new brief, provided that plaintiff has a
fair opportunity to respond and that the hearing date for all pending dispositive motions would
be moved appropriately. (Borelli Decl. 6, Ex. B.) Because one of plaintiffs experts is out of
the country until October 20, 2011, and that expert may be needed to provide rebuttal testimony,
plaintiff stated that she would need until November 1, 2011 to file her reply brief, if BLAG files
its new opposition brief on October 11, 2011. Although this briefing schedule creates a
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169 Filed09/30/11 Page2 of 3
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
3/50
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 RESPONSE TO BLAGS MOTION FOR LEAVE
CASE
NO
.3:10-
CV-0257-JSW
2
significant disparity, as BLAG will have had plaintiffs brief for over three months, while
plaintiff will have only three weeks to reply, plaintiff is willing to tolerate that disparity in order
to move this matter promptly to resolution. (Id.) BLAG agreed to that proposal, but when the
parties disagreed as to the form of the filing BLAG changed its position, indicating that it would
only move for leave to file its superseding brief without proposing the parties agreed briefing
dates. (Borelli Decl. 7-14, Exs. C-J.)
Plaintiff is anxious to have this matter proceed to a merits determination. Her spouse
remains underinsured and continues to forgo preventive care. This case was filed almost two
years ago, in January 2010. The operative complaint has been on file for six months, since
April 2011. In order to permit the case to move forward, plaintiff respectfully requests that:
(1) BLAGs new opposition brief be due on October 11, 2011, and plaintiffs reply brief be due
on November 1, 2011, as the parties had agreed, and (2) that the hearing currently set for
October 21, 2011, on the motions to dismiss and plaintiffs motion for summary judgment be
continued to a date on or before December 16, 2011 (currently shown as the earliest available
open date on the Courts calendar for cases with a terminal digit of 7).
Dated: September 30, 2011 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE ANDEDUCATION FUND, INC.
By: /s/ Tara BorelliTara Borelli
Attorneys for PlaintiffKAREN GOLINSKI
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169 Filed09/30/11 Page3 of 3
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
4/50
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
DECLARATION OF TARA BORELLI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO BLAGS MOTION
CASE
NO
.3:10-
CV-0257-JSW
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. SOMMER (pro hac vice)[email protected] L. BORELLI (CA SBN 216961)
[email protected] 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 PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT, and JOHN BERRY, Directorof the United States Office of PersonnelManagement, in his official capacity,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:10-cv-0257-JSW
DECLARATION OF TARA BORELLIIN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFKAREN GOLINSKIS RESPONSE TOBIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORYGROUPS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE SUPERSEDING OPPOSITIONTO PLAINTIFFS SUMMARYJUDGMENT MOTION, ANDREQUEST FOR ANY NEWHEARING DATE TO BE SET FORDECEMBER 16, 2011 OR EARLIER
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-1 Filed09/30/11 Page1 of 4
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
5/50
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
DECLARATION OF TARA BORELLI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO BLAGS MOTION
CASE NO.3:10-CV-0257-JSW
1
I, Tara Borelli, hereby declare and state as follows:
1. I am a staff attorney with Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., andco-counsel of record for plaintiff Karen Golinski. I am licensed to practice law in the State of
California and am admitted to practice before this Court. I make this declaration of my own
personal knowledge and, if called as a witness, could and would testify competently to the matters
stated herein.
2. Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment was originally noticed for September 16,2011, and is set to be heard on October 21, 2011. Plaintiff originally filed her motion on July 1,
2011.
3. BLAG has had plaintiffs discovery responses since September 1, 2011.4. On Friday, September 23, 2011, counsel for Intervenor Bipartisan Legal Advisory
Group (BLAG), Christopher Bartolomucci, sent an email to counsel for plaintiff and defendants
indicating BLAGs intent to seek leave to file a superseding opposition to plaintiffs motion for
summary judgment. Mr. Bartolomucci stated that BLAG would be prepared to file its brief by
October 10, 2011. A true and correct copy of Mr. Bartolomuccis email is attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
5. Rita Lin, co-counsel for plaintiff, responded on Monday, September 26, 2011,communicating frustration with BLAGs long delay in making this request. Based on a review of
the summary judgment opposition papers BLAG has filed in Windsor v. United States, No. 1:10-
cv-08435-BSJ-JCF (S.D.N.Y.) and Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, No. 3:10-cv-
01750-VLB (D. Conn.), both of which are similar to each other and rely significantly on the
deposition testimony of plaintiffs experts in Windsor, plaintiff suspects that the principal new
evidence that BLAG plans to introduce here is that deposition testimony. Those depositions were
taken in June andJuly, prior to the due date of BLAGs existing opposition brief. Discovery in
Windsorclosed on July 11, 2011.
6. Nonetheless, Ms. Lin communicated in her September 26, 2011 email responsethat plaintiff would agree to BLAGs request to file a superseding motion for summary judgment
opposition on the condition that plaintiff would have adequate time to file a superseding reply
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-1 Filed09/30/11 Page2 of 4
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
6/50
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
DECLARATION OF TARA BORELLI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO BLAGS MOTION
CASE
NO
.3:10-
CV-0257-JSW
2
brief. Ms. Lin proposed that BLAG file by October 11, 2011 since October 10, 2011 is a court
holiday. As the plaintiffs did in Windsorand Pedersen, plaintiff anticipates a need to supplement
her reply with rebuttal testimony from her experts. Because one of plaintiffs experts, who likely
will be needed for such testimony, is abroad until October 20, 2011, plaintiff had no choice but to
suggest that she file her reply by November 1, 2011. A true and correct copy of this September
26, 2011 email from Ms. Lin is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
7. The following day, on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 Mr. Bartolomucci indicatedthat BLAG was amenable to plaintiffs suggestions and that he would draft a motion accordingly.
A true and correct copy of Mr. Bartolomuccis email is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
8. Hearing nothing further by Wednesday, September 28, 2011, Ms. Lin contactedBLAGs counsel, Mr. Bartolomucci, again. A true and correct copy of Ms. Lins email is
attached hereto as Exhibit D.
9. Mr. Bartolomucci responded on Wednesday, September 28, 2011 indicating thathe was preparing a draft stipulation. A true and correct copy of Mr. Bartolomuccis email is
attached hereto as Exhibit E.
10. Ms. Lin responded the same day requesting that BLAGs filing be styled as anunopposed motion. A true and correct copy of this email is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
11. Despite Ms. Lins request, Mr. Bartolomucci sent a draft stipulation. A true andcorrect copy of Mr. Bartolomuccis email is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
12. Ms. Lin responded the same day, reiterating her request that BLAG style the filingas an unopposed motion, to avoid the misleading impression that the parties jointly are requesting
further briefing when in fact plaintiff is simply accommodating BLAGs desire to do so. A true
and correct copy of Ms. Lins email is attached hereto as Exhibit H.
13. Hearing no response by Thursday, September 29, 2011, Ms. Lin emailed Mr.Bartolomucci again to request a draft of the unopposed motion by 3 p.m. Eastern Time on
September 30, 2011. A true and correct copy of this email is attached hereto as Exhibit I.
14. Mr. Bartolomucci responded on September 30, 2011, stating that because theparties could not agree on a stipulation, BLAG has decided to simply file a motion seeking leave
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-1 Filed09/30/11 Page3 of 4
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
7/50
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
DECLARATION OF TARA BORELLI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO BLAGS MOTION
CASE
NO
.3:10-
CV-0257-JSW
3
to file a superseding opposition to plaintiffs motion for summary judgment without specifying
any dates for that brief or plaintiffs response. Mr. Bartolomucci indicated that he would say that
BLAG was prepared to file its brief before the current October 21, 2011 hearing date, despite
plaintiffs clear indication in prior correspondence that fairness requires that she be permitted to
file a superseding reply, and her experts travel schedule would not make that possible before the
October 21, 2011 hearing. A true and correct copy of Mr. Bartolomuccis September 30, 2011
email is attached hereto as Exhibit J.
15. Ms. Lin responded on September 30, 2011 to Mr. Bartolomucci indicating that themotion could not be filed as unopposed without including the briefing dates previously agreed
upon by plaintiff and BLAG. A true and correct copy of that email is attached hereto as Exhibit
K.
16. Counsel for Defendants, Christopher Hall, confirmed for plaintiff by email onSeptember 30, 2011 that defendants take no position as to these issues. A true and correct copy
of Mr. Halls email is attached hereto as Exhibit L.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 30th day of September, 2011, in Los Angeles, California.
/s/ Tara BorelliTara Borelli
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-1 Filed09/30/11 Page4 of 4
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
8/50
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
CASE
NO
.3:10-
CV-0257-JSW
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. SOMMER (pro hac vice)[email protected] L. BORELLI (CA SBN 216961)
[email protected] 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 PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT, and JOHN BERRY, Directorof the United States Office of PersonnelManagement, in his official capacity,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:10-cv-0257-JSW
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-2 Filed09/30/11 Page1 of 2
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
9/50
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
CASE NO.3:10-CV-0257-JSW
1
After consideration of Intervenor Bipartisan Legal Advisory Groups (BLAGs)
Motion for Leave to File Superseding Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment
(Dkt. 168), the papers filed by plaintiff Karen Golinski in response thereto, and all other matters
presented to the Court, and good cause so appearing, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
BLAG may file a superseding opposition to plaintiffs motion for summary judgment no
later than October 11, 2011. Plaintiff may file a superseding reply in support of her motion for
summary judgment no later than November 1, 2011. The hearing on all pending motions in this
matter shall be continued to December 16, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: __________________, 2011 _____________________________________The Honorable Jeffrey S. WhiteUnited States District Judge
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-2 Filed09/30/11 Page2 of 2
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
10/50
EXHIBIT A
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-3 Filed09/30/11 Page1 of 2
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
11/50
"ChristopherBartolomucci"09/23/201105:25PM
To: ,"Lin,RitaF.",
cc:Subject: Golinski
DearCounsel:
Nowthatallpartieshavehadtheopportunitytoengageindiscovery,theHouseintendstomovethe
districtcourtforleavetofileasupersedingoppositiontoplaintiff'smotionforsummaryjudgment an
oppositionthatwilladdressthemeritsofplaintiff'smotionforsummaryjudgment.
TheHouseispreparedtofileitssupersedingoppositiontwoweeksfromthis comingMonday.Pleaselet
meknowifPlaintiffortheDepartmentofJusticewouldopposesuchafiling.Ifthereisnoopposition,
theHouseintendstofileamotionwiththedistrictcourtearlynextweekindicatingthattheHousewill
fileitssupersedingoppositiontwoweeksfromthiscomingMonday.
IfthereisoppositiontotheHouse'smotionforleave,wewillaskthedistrictcourtforleavetofilea
supersedingopposition
two
weeks
after
the
district
court
grants
leave,
assuming
it
does
so.
Manythanks,
ChrisBartolomucci
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-3 Filed09/30/11 Page2 of 2
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
12/50
EXHIBIT B
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-4 Filed09/30/11 Page1 of 3
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
13/50
"Lin, Rita F."09/26/201102:44PM
To: "ChristopherBartolomucci"cc: [email protected],[email protected]
Subject: RE:Golinski
Chris:
BLAG has had plaintiff's discovery responses since September 1. Also, I assume that most of thematerials with which BLAG plans to supplement are from the depositions in Windsor, where discoveryclosed in July, prior to the submission of BLAG's opposition briefs. We are having difficulty seeing whyBLAG waited until now to file a superseding opposition. That said, in order to permit a full airing of theissues, we are willing to stipulate to the filing of such an opposition, on two conditions.
First, we would need the opportunity to respond to BLAG's further summary judgment opposition with afurther reply brief, including to supplement the record with BLAG's recent discovery responses. At leastone of plaintiff's experts will be out of the country until October 20. In light of the fact that she may beneeded to provide rebuttal evidence on reply, depending on the content of BLAG's opposition brief, wewould need the deadline for the reply brief to provide sufficient time following her return to obtain thattestimony. We would therefore propose that plaintiffs have three weeks to respond to BLAG's oppositionbrief. We think that this offer should be more than fair in light of the fact that BLAG has had our opening
brief since July 1, and thus has had over three months to prepare a substantive opposition. By our count,that would mean BLAG's opposition would be due on October 11 (since October 10 is a holiday), and ourreply would be due on November 1.
Second, the hearing on both the motion to dismiss and the motion for summary judgment should berescheduled for a time after November 1, at the court's convenience.
Please let us know how you would like to proceed.
Rita
Rita Lin | Morrison & Foerster LLP425 Market Street | San Francisco, California 94105Tel. (415) 268-7466 | Fax (415) 268-7522
From: Christopher Bartolomucci [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 5:25 PMTo: [email protected]; Lin, Rita F.; [email protected]
Subject: Golinski
DearCounsel:
Nowthatallpartieshavehadtheopportunitytoengageindiscovery,theHouseintendstomovethe
districtcourtforleavetofileasupersedingoppositiontoplaintiff'smotionforsummaryjudgment an
oppositionthatwilladdressthemeritsofplaintiff'smotionforsummaryjudgment.
TheHouseispreparedtofileitssupersedingoppositiontwoweeksfromthis comingMonday.Pleaselet
meknowifPlaintiffortheDepartmentofJusticewouldopposesuchafiling.Ifthereisnoopposition,
theHouseintendstofileamotionwiththedistrictcourtearlynextweekindicatingthattheHousewill
fileitssupersedingoppositiontwoweeksfromthiscomingMonday.
IfthereisoppositiontotheHouse'smotionforleave,wewillaskthedistrictcourtforleavetofilea
supersedingoppositiontwoweeksafterthedistrictcourtgrantsleave,assumingitdoesso.
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-4 Filed09/30/11 Page2 of 3
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
14/50
Manythanks,
ChrisBartolomucci
---------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with
requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice
concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including
any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the
purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing
or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.For information
about this legend, go
tohttp://www.mofo.com/Circular230/==========================================
==================================This message contains information which may
be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the
addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any informationcontained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by
reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the
message.---------------------------------------------------------------------
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-4 Filed09/30/11 Page3 of 3
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
15/50
EXHIBIT C
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-5 Filed09/30/11 Page1 of 3
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
16/50
"ChristopherBartolomucci"09/27/201111:41AM
To: "Lin,RitaF."cc: ,
Subject: RE:Golinski
Thankyou,
Rita.
The
House
is
amenable
to
your
requests.
We
will
draft
amotion
for
leave.
ChrisDoestheDepartmenthaveanyviews?
From: Lin, Rita F. [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 5:44 PMTo: Christopher BartolomucciCc: [email protected]; [email protected]: RE: Golinski
Chris:
BLAG has had plaintiff's discovery responses since September 1. Also, I assume that most of thematerials with which BLAG plans to supplement are from the depositions in Windsor, where discoveryclosed in July, prior to the submission of BLAG's opposition briefs. We are having difficulty seeing whyBLAG waited until now to file a superseding opposition. That said, in order to permit a full airing of theissues, we are willing to stipulate to the filing of such an opposition, on two conditions.
First, we would need the opportunity to respond to BLAG's further summary judgment opposition with afurther reply brief, including to supplement the record with BLAG's recent discovery responses. At leastone of plaintiff's experts will be out of the country until October 20. In light of the fact that she may beneeded to provide rebuttal evidence on reply, depending on the content of BLAG's opposition brief, wewould need the deadline for the reply brief to provide sufficient time following her return to obtain thattestimony. We would therefore propose that plaintiffs have three weeks to respond to BLAG's oppositionbrief. We think that this offer should be more than fair in light of the fact that BLAG has had our opening
brief since July 1, and thus has had over three months to prepare a substantive opposition. By our count,that would mean BLAG's opposition would be due on October 11 (since October 10 is a holiday), and ourreply would be due on November 1.
Second, the hearing on both the motion to dismiss and the motion for summary judgment should berescheduled for a time after November 1, at the court's convenience.
Please let us know how you would like to proceed.
Rita
Rita Lin | Morrison & Foerster LLP425 Market Street | San Francisco, California 94105
Tel. (415) 268-7466 | Fax (415) 268-7522
From: Christopher Bartolomucci [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 5:25 PMTo: [email protected]; Lin, Rita F.; [email protected]: Golinski
DearCounsel:
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-5 Filed09/30/11 Page2 of 3
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
17/50
Nowthatallpartieshavehadtheopportunitytoengageindiscovery,theHouseintendstomovethe
districtcourtforleavetofileasupersedingoppositiontoplaintiff'smotionforsummaryjudgment an
oppositionthatwilladdressthemeritsofplaintiff'smotionforsummaryjudgment.
TheHouseispreparedtofileitssupersedingoppositiontwoweeksfromthis comingMonday.Pleaselet
meknowifPlaintiffortheDepartmentofJusticewouldopposesuchafiling.Ifthereisnoopposition,
theHouseintendstofileamotionwiththedistrictcourtearlynextweekindicatingthattheHousewill
fileitssupersedingoppositiontwoweeksfromthiscomingMonday.
IfthereisoppositiontotheHouse'smotionforleave,wewillaskthedistrictcourtforleavetofilea
supersedingoppositiontwoweeksafterthedistrictcourtgrantsleave,assumingitdoesso.
Manythanks,
ChrisBartolomucci
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs
you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this
communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used,
and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or
(ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed
herein.
For information about this legend, go to
http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/
=====================================================================
=======
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the
addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to
anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the
message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-5 Filed09/30/11 Page3 of 3
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
18/50
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
19/50
"Lin, Rita F."09/28/201111:34AM
To: "ChristopherBartolomucci"cc: [email protected],"Hall,Christopher(CIV)"
Subject: RE:Golinski
Chris,
Just wanted to check in about this. Are you planning to file today? I will be out of the office on Friday, sowould appreciate it if you could file today or early tomorrow, so that I can look at your filing and respondpromptly. It would seem to be to the advantage of all parties to get this in front of Judge White soonerrather than later.
Best,Rita
From: Hall, Christopher (CIV) [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 11:58 AMTo: Christopher Bartolomucci; Lin, Rita F.Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Golinski
Chris
YoucanrepresenttotheCourtthatDefendantstakenopositionastoBLAGsmotion.
Thanks,
Chris
From: Christopher Bartolomucci [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 2:40 PMTo: Lin, Rita F.
Cc: [email protected]; Hall, Christopher (CIV)
Subject: RE: Golinski
Thankyou,Rita. TheHouseisamenabletoyourrequests. Wewilldraftamotionforleave.
ChrisDoestheDepartmenthaveanyviews?
From: Lin, Rita F. [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 5:44 PMTo: Christopher BartolomucciCc: [email protected]; [email protected]: RE: Golinski
Chris:
BLAG has had plaintiff's discovery responses since September 1. Also, I assume that most of thematerials with which BLAG plans to supplement are from the depositions in Windsor, where discoveryclosed in July, prior to the submission of BLAG's opposition briefs. We are having difficulty seeing whyBLAG waited until now to file a superseding opposition. That said, in order to permit a full airing of theissues, we are willing to stipulate to the filing of such an opposition, on two conditions.
First, we would need the opportunity to respond to BLAG's further summary judgment opposition with a
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-6 Filed09/30/11 Page2 of 4
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
20/50
further reply brief, including to supplement the record with BLAG's recent discovery responses. At leastone of plaintiff's experts will be out of the country until October 20. In light of the fact that she may beneeded to provide rebuttal evidence on reply, depending on the content of BLAG's opposition brief, wewould need the deadline for the reply brief to provide sufficient time following her return to obtain thattestimony. We would therefore propose that plaintiffs have three weeks to respond to BLAG's oppositionbrief. We think that this offer should be more than fair in light of the fact that BLAG has had our openingbrief since July 1, and thus has had over three months to prepare a substantive opposition. By our count,that would mean BLAG's opposition would be due on October 11 (since October 10 is a holiday), and ourreply would be due on November 1.
Second, the hearing on both the motion to dismiss and the motion for summary judgment should berescheduled for a time after November 1, at the court's convenience.
Please let us know how you would like to proceed.
Rita
Rita Lin | Morrison & Foerster LLP425 Market Street | San Francisco, California 94105
Tel. (415) 268-7466 | Fax (415) 268-7522
From: Christopher Bartolomucci [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 5:25 PMTo: [email protected]; Lin, Rita F.; [email protected]: Golinski
DearCounsel:
Nowthatallpartieshavehadtheopportunitytoengageindiscovery,theHouseintendstomovethe
districtcourtforleavetofileasupersedingoppositiontoplaintiff'smotionforsummaryjudgment an
oppositionthatwilladdressthemeritsofplaintiff'smotionforsummaryjudgment.
TheHouseispreparedtofileitssupersedingoppositiontwoweeksfromthis comingMonday.Pleaselet
meknowifPlaintiffortheDepartmentofJusticewouldopposesuchafiling.Ifthereisnoopposition,
theHouseintendstofileamotionwiththedistrictcourtearlynextweekindicatingthattheHousewill
fileitssupersedingoppositiontwoweeksfromthiscomingMonday.
IfthereisoppositiontotheHouse'smotionforleave,wewillaskthedistrictcourtforleavetofilea
supersedingoppositiontwoweeksafterthedistrictcourtgrantsleave,assumingitdoesso.
Manythanks,
ChrisBartolomucci
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs
you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this
communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used,
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-6 Filed09/30/11 Page3 of 4
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
21/50
and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or
(ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed
herein.
For information about this legend, go to
http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/
=====================================================================
=======
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the
addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to
anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the
message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with
requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice
concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including
any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the
purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing
or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.For information
about this legend, go
tohttp://www.mofo.com/Circular230/==========================================
==================================This message contains information which may
be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the
addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any informationcontained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by
reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the
message.---------------------------------------------------------------------
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-6 Filed09/30/11 Page4 of 4
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
22/50
EXHIBIT E
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-7 Filed09/30/11 Page1 of 4
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
23/50
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
24/50
Chris:
BLAG has had plaintiff's discovery responses since September 1. Also, I assume that most of thematerials with which BLAG plans to supplement are from the depositions in Windsor, where discoveryclosed in July, prior to the submission of BLAG's opposition briefs. We are having difficulty seeing why
BLAG waited until now to file a superseding opposition. That said, in order to permit a full airing of theissues, we are willing to stipulate to the filing of such an opposition, on two conditions.
First, we would need the opportunity to respond to BLAG's further summary judgment opposition with afurther reply brief, including to supplement the record with BLAG's recent discovery responses. At leastone of plaintiff's experts will be out of the country until October 20. In light of the fact that she may beneeded to provide rebuttal evidence on reply, depending on the content of BLAG's opposition brief, wewould need the deadline for the reply brief to provide sufficient time following her return to obtain thattestimony. We would therefore propose that plaintiffs have three weeks to respond to BLAG's oppositionbrief. We think that this offer should be more than fair in light of the fact that BLAG has had our openingbrief since July 1, and thus has had over three months to prepare a substantive opposition. By our count,that would mean BLAG's opposition would be due on October 11 (since October 10 is a holiday), and ourreply would be due on November 1.
Second, the hearing on both the motion to dismiss and the motion for summary judgment should berescheduled for a time after November 1, at the court's convenience.
Please let us know how you would like to proceed.
Rita
Rita Lin | Morrison & Foerster LLP425 Market Street | San Francisco, California 94105Tel. (415) 268-7466 | Fax (415) 268-7522
From: Christopher Bartolomucci [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 5:25 PMTo: [email protected]; Lin, Rita F.; [email protected]
Subject: Golinski
DearCounsel:
Nowthatallpartieshavehadtheopportunitytoengageindiscovery,theHouseintendstomovethe
districtcourtforleavetofileasupersedingoppositiontoplaintiff'smotionforsummaryjudgment an
oppositionthatwilladdressthemeritsofplaintiff'smotionforsummaryjudgment.
TheHouseispreparedtofileitssupersedingoppositiontwoweeksfromthis comingMonday.Pleaselet
meknowifPlaintiffortheDepartmentofJusticewouldopposesuchafiling.Ifthereisnoopposition,
theHouseintendstofileamotionwiththedistrictcourtearlynextweekindicatingthattheHousewill
fileitssupersedingoppositiontwoweeksfromthiscomingMonday.
IfthereisoppositiontotheHouse'smotionforleave,wewillaskthedistrictcourtforleavetofilea
supersedingoppositiontwoweeksafterthedistrictcourtgrantsleave,assumingitdoesso.
Manythanks,
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-7 Filed09/30/11 Page3 of 4
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
25/50
ChrisBartolomucci
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informsyou that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this
communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used,
and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or
(ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed
herein.
For information about this legend, go to
http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/
=====================================================================
=======
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the
addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to
anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the
message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informsyou that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this
communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used,
and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or
(ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed
herein.
For information about this legend, go to
http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/
=====================================================================
=======
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the
addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to
anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the
message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-7 Filed09/30/11 Page4 of 4
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
26/50
EXHIBIT F
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-8 Filed09/30/11 Page1 of 5
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
27/50
"Lin, Rita F."09/28/201112:11PM
To: "ChristopherBartolomucci"cc: [email protected],"Hall,Christopher(CIV)"
Subject: RE:Golinski
Thanks. I didn't realize that. I suspect we may have trouble agreeing on joint stipulation language. Wecan discuss, but I think it may be better to just style it as an unopposed motion, to which we can respond
promptly with a statement of non-opposition.
From: Christopher Bartolomucci [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:05 PMTo: Lin, Rita F.Cc: [email protected]; Hall, Christopher (CIV)
Subject: RE: Golinski
Rita,wearedraftingthisasajointstipulation,whichIwillsendtoyouforreviewtoday.
From: Lin, Rita F. [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 2:33 PMTo: Christopher Bartolomucci
Cc: [email protected]; Hall, Christopher (CIV)Subject: RE: Golinski
Chris,
Just wanted to check in about this. Are you planning to file today? I will be out of the office on Friday, sowould appreciate it if you could file today or early tomorrow, so that I can look at your filing and respondpromptly. It would seem to be to the advantage of all parties to get this in front of Judge White soonerrather than later.
Best,Rita
From: Hall, Christopher (CIV) [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 11:58 AMTo: Christopher Bartolomucci; Lin, Rita F.Cc: [email protected]: RE: Golinski
Chris
YoucanrepresenttotheCourtthatDefendantstakenopositionastoBLAGsmotion.
Thanks,
Chris
From: Christopher Bartolomucci [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 2:40 PMTo: Lin, Rita F.Cc: [email protected]; Hall, Christopher (CIV)Subject: RE: Golinski
Thankyou,Rita. TheHouseisamenabletoyourrequests. Wewilldraftamotionforleave.
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-8 Filed09/30/11 Page2 of 5
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
28/50
ChrisDoestheDepartmenthaveanyviews?
From: Lin, Rita F. [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 5:44 PMTo: Christopher Bartolomucci
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]: RE: Golinski
Chris:
BLAG has had plaintiff's discovery responses since September 1. Also, I assume that most of thematerials with which BLAG plans to supplement are from the depositions in Windsor, where discoveryclosed in July, prior to the submission of BLAG's opposition briefs. We are having difficulty seeing whyBLAG waited until now to file a superseding opposition. That said, in order to permit a full airing of theissues, we are willing to stipulate to the filing of such an opposition, on two conditions.
First, we would need the opportunity to respond to BLAG's further summary judgment opposition with a
further reply brief, including to supplement the record with BLAG's recent discovery responses. At leastone of plaintiff's experts will be out of the country until October 20. In light of the fact that she may beneeded to provide rebuttal evidence on reply, depending on the content of BLAG's opposition brief, wewould need the deadline for the reply brief to provide sufficient time following her return to obtain thattestimony. We would therefore propose that plaintiffs have three weeks to respond to BLAG's oppositionbrief. We think that this offer should be more than fair in light of the fact that BLAG has had our openingbrief since July 1, and thus has had over three months to prepare a substantive opposition. By our count,that would mean BLAG's opposition would be due on October 11 (since October 10 is a holiday), and ourreply would be due on November 1.
Second, the hearing on both the motion to dismiss and the motion for summary judgment should berescheduled for a time after November 1, at the court's convenience.
Please let us know how you would like to proceed.Rita
Rita Lin | Morrison & Foerster LLP425 Market Street | San Francisco, California 94105Tel. (415) 268-7466 | Fax (415) 268-7522
From: Christopher Bartolomucci [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 5:25 PMTo: [email protected]; Lin, Rita F.; [email protected]: Golinski
DearCounsel:
Nowthatallpartieshavehadtheopportunitytoengageindiscovery,theHouseintendstomovethe
districtcourtforleavetofileasupersedingoppositiontoplaintiff'smotionforsummaryjudgment an
oppositionthatwilladdressthemeritsofplaintiff'smotionforsummaryjudgment.
TheHouseispreparedtofileitssupersedingoppositiontwoweeksfromthis comingMonday.Pleaselet
meknowifPlaintiffortheDepartmentofJusticewouldopposesuchafiling.Ifthereisnoopposition,
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-8 Filed09/30/11 Page3 of 5
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
29/50
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
30/50
=======
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the
addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to
anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the
message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with
requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice
concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including
any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the
purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing
or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.For information
about this legend, go
tohttp://www.mofo.com/Circular230/============================================================================This message contains information which may
be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the
addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information
contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by
reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the
message.---------------------------------------------------------------------
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-8 Filed09/30/11 Page5 of 5
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
31/50
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
32/50
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
33/50
EXHIBIT H
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-10 Filed09/30/11 Page1 of 2
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
34/50
"Lin, Rita F."09/28/201103:28PM
To: "ChristopherBartolomucci",[email protected]
cc: [email protected]: RE:DraftStipulation
Chris:
Thanks for sending this over. We've discussed and would prefer to dothis as an unopposed motion. Doing this as a stipulation creates theinaccurate impression that this is a joint request to put in morebriefing. In reality, this additional round of briefing is somethingthat BLAG wants and plaintiff is willing to accommodate, provided she
has an adequate opportunity to respond and the hearing for both motionsis rescheduled appropriately.
If you convert this to a motion for leave, and send us a copy, I will behappy to review it promptly and (assuming it looks fine) give youpermission to represent that we do not oppose it.
Best,Rita
-----Original Message-----From: Christopher Bartolomucci [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 2:04 PMTo: Lin, Rita F.; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]: Draft Stipulation
Rita, here is the stipulationthat we drafted. We are happy to talk about the language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster
LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal taxissues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), suchadvice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for thepurpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction ormatter addressed herein.
For information about this legend, go tohttp://www.mofo.com/Circular230/
============================================================================
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged.Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), youmay not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information
contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, pleaseadvise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-10 Filed09/30/11 Page2 of 2
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
35/50
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
36/50
"Lin, Rita F."09/29/201104:28PM
To: "ChristopherBartolomucci"cc: "Dresser,GregoryP.","Jones,AaronD."
,"Hall,Christopher(CIV)",[email protected]
Subject: RE:DraftStipulation
Chris:
We have not seen the draft motion for leave today, though we did seeyour supplemental filing. We are very concerned that if your motion forleave does not get on file tomorrow, the judge will not be able to acton the motion prior to your proposed brief due date, thus resulting in
further delay and prejudicing our client. If this continues to dragout, we will be forced to oppose your motion based on that prejudice.As it stands now, Judge White's calendar is very full between now andthe end of the year. We do not want to have to push this hearing untilnext February, when his calendar next opens up.
Could you send the draft by 3pm ET tomorrow? As I will be out of the
office (as I noted earlier in the week), please be sure to cc GregDresser and Aaron Jones, in addition to Tara Borelli. That will ensure
that we will be able to respond to your draft motion promptly.
Best,Rita
Rita Lin | Morrison & Foerster LLP425 Market Street | San Francisco, California 94105Tel. (415) 268-7466 | Fax (415) 268-7522
-----Original Message-----
From: Lin, Rita F. [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 6:28 PMTo: Christopher Bartolomucci; [email protected]: Hall, Christopher (CIV)Subject: RE: Draft Stipulation
Chris:
Thanks for sending this over. We've discussed and would prefer to dothis as an unopposed motion. Doing this as a stipulation creates theinaccurate impression that this is a joint request to put in morebriefing. In reality, this additional round of briefing is somethingthat BLAG wants and plaintiff is willing to accommodate, provided shehas an adequate opportunity to respond and the hearing for both motions
is rescheduled appropriately.
If you convert this to a motion for leave, and send us a copy, I will behappy to review it promptly and (assuming it looks fine) give you
permission to represent that we do not oppose it.
Best,
Rita
-----Original Message-----From: Christopher Bartolomucci [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 2:04 PMTo: Lin, Rita F.; [email protected]
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-11 Filed09/30/11 Page2 of 3
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
37/50
Subject: Draft Stipulation
Rita, here is the stipulation
that we drafted. We are happy to talk about the language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison &Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S.Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any
attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, andcannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under theInternal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending toanother party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
For information about this legend, go tohttp://www.mofo.com/Circular230/
============================================================================
This message contains information which may be confidential andprivileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for
the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the messageor any information contained in the message. If you have received themessage in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com,and delete the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & FoersterLLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal taxissues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), suchadvice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the
purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction ormatter addressed herein.
For information about this legend, go tohttp://www.mofo.com/Circular230/
============================================================================
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged.Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), youmay not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any informationcontained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please
advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-11 Filed09/30/11 Page3 of 3
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
38/50
EXHIBIT J
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-12 Filed09/30/11 Page1 of 4
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
39/50
"ChristopherBartolomucci"09/30/201110:44AM
To: "Lin,RitaF."cc: "Dresser,GregoryP.","Jones,AaronD."
,"Hall,Christopher(CIV)",
Subject: RE:DraftStipulation
Rita -- Since we can't do this by joint stipulation, the House hasdecided to file a motion that simply seeks leave to file a substantiveopposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment without specifying
a due date for the opposition. The proposed order will let the courtdecide when that opposition would be due. The House will say that it isprepared to file its opposition in time for the court to proceed withthe October 21 hearing, but the House will not affirmatively ask thecourt either to move or keep the hearing date. If the House canrepresent that Plaintiff does not oppose this motion, please let me
know.
Chris H. -- I assume that DOJ takes no position, but please let me knowif I am wrong about that.
Many thanks,
Chris B.
-----Original Message-----From: Lin, Rita F. [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 7:29 PMTo: Christopher Bartolomucci
Cc: Dresser, Gregory P.; Jones, Aaron D.; Hall, Christopher (CIV);[email protected]: RE: Draft Stipulation
Chris:
We have not seen the draft motion for leave today, though we did seeyour supplemental filing. We are very concerned that if your motion forleave does not get on file tomorrow, the judge will not be able to acton the motion prior to your proposed brief due date, thus resulting infurther delay and prejudicing our client. If this continues to dragout, we will be forced to oppose your motion based on that prejudice.As it stands now, Judge White's calendar is very full between now andthe end of the year. We do not want to have to push this hearing until
next February, when his calendar next opens up.
Could you send the draft by 3pm ET tomorrow? As I will be out of theoffice (as I noted earlier in the week), please be sure to cc GregDresser and Aaron Jones, in addition to Tara Borelli. That will ensurethat we will be able to respond to your draft motion promptly.
Best,RitaRita Lin | Morrison & Foerster LLP425 Market Street | San Francisco, California 94105 Tel. (415) 268-7466| Fax (415) 268-7522
-----Original Message-----
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-12 Filed09/30/11 Page2 of 4
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
40/50
From: Lin, Rita F. [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 6:28 PMTo: Christopher Bartolomucci; [email protected]
Cc: Hall, Christopher (CIV)Subject: RE: Draft Stipulation
Chris:
Thanks for sending this over. We've discussed and would prefer to dothis as an unopposed motion. Doing this as a stipulation creates the
inaccurate impression that this is a joint request to put in morebriefing. In reality, this additional round of briefing is somethingthat BLAG wants and plaintiff is willing to accommodate, provided shehas an adequate opportunity to respond and the hearing for both motionsis rescheduled appropriately.
If you convert this to a motion for leave, and send us a copy, I will be
happy to review it promptly and (assuming it looks fine) give youpermission to represent that we do not oppose it.
Best,
Rita
-----Original Message-----From: Christopher Bartolomucci [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 2:04 PMTo: Lin, Rita F.; [email protected]: [email protected]: Draft Stipulation
Rita, here is the stipulationthat we drafted. We are happy to talk about the language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison &Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S.
Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including anyattachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, andcannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under theInternal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending toanother party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
For information about this legend, go to
http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/
============================================================================
This message contains information which may be confidential and
privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive forthe addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the messageor any information contained in the message. If you have received themessage in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com,and delete the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-12 Filed09/30/11 Page3 of 4
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
41/50
---------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison &Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S.
Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including anyattachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, andcannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under theInternal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
For information about this legend, go to
http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/
============================================================================
This message contains information which may be confidential andprivileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for
the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the messageor any information contained in the message. If you have received themessage in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com,and delete the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-12 Filed09/30/11 Page4 of 4
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
42/50
EXHIBIT K
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-13 Filed09/30/11 Page1 of 5
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
43/50
"Lin, Rita F."09/30/201101:55PM
To: [email protected]: "Dresser,GregoryP.","Jones,AaronD."
,[email protected],[email protected]
Subject: Re:DraftStipulation
Chris:
Without a date for the opposition or provision for a reply , we cannot agree to have your request filed as an
unopposed motion.
As I noted in my email, we need to resolve this quickly, as Judge White's calendar is filling quickly. Please confirm
that you will be filing your motion today. If we do not see a filing by 7pm ET, we will assume that you do not plan
to file, and will file our own affirmative request to the court later today.
Chris H -- I too understand from your emails that DOJ takes no position, but let us know if we are wrong.
Best,
Rita
----- Original Message -----From: Christopher Bartolomucci
To: Lin, Rita F.
Cc: Dresser, Gregory P.; Jones, Aaron D.; Hall, Christopher (CIV) ;
Sent: Fri Sep 30 10:44:05 2011
Subject: RE: Draft Stipulation
Rita -- Since we can't do this by joint stipulation, the House has
decided to file a motion that simply seeks leave to file a substantive
opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment without specifying
a due date for the opposition. The proposed order will let the court
decide when that opposition would be due. The House will say that it is
prepared to file its opposition in time for the court to proceed withthe October 21 hearing, but the House will not affirmatively ask the
court either to move or keep the hearing date. If the House can
represent that Plaintiff does not oppose this motion, please let me
know.
Chris H. -- I assume that DOJ takes no position, but please let me know
if I am wrong about that.
Many thanks,
Chris B.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lin, Rita F. [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 7:29 PM
To: Christopher Bartolomucci
Cc: Dresser, Gregory P.; Jones, Aaron D.; Hall, Christopher (CIV);
Subject: RE: Draft Stipulation
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-13 Filed09/30/11 Page2 of 5
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
44/50
Chris:
We have not seen the draft motion for leave today, though we did see
your supplemental filing. We are very concerned that if your motion for
leave does not get on file tomorrow, the judge will not be able to act
on the motion prior to your proposed brief due date , thus resulting in
further delay and prejudicing our client. If this continues to dragout, we will be forced to oppose your motion based on that prejudice.
As it stands now, Judge White's calendar is very full between now and
the end of the year. We do not want to have to push this hearing until
next February, when his calendar next opens up.
Could you send the draft by 3pm ET tomorrow? As I will be out of the
office (as I noted earlier in the week), please be sure to cc Greg
Dresser and Aaron Jones, in addition to Tara Borelli. That will ensure
that we will be able to respond to your draft motion promptly.
Best,
Rita
Rita Lin | Morrison & Foerster LLP
425 Market Street | San Francisco, California 94105 Tel. (415) 268-7466
| Fax (415) 268-7522
-----Original Message-----
From: Lin, Rita F. [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 6:28 PM
To: Christopher Bartolomucci; [email protected]
Cc: Hall, Christopher (CIV)
Subject: RE: Draft Stipulation
Chris:
Thanks for sending this over. We've discussed and would prefer to do
this as an unopposed motion. Doing this as a stipulation creates the
inaccurate impression that this is a joint request to put in more
briefing. In reality, this additional round of briefing is something
that BLAG wants and plaintiff is willing to accommodate, provided she
has an adequate opportunity to respond and the hearing for both motions
is rescheduled appropriately.
If you convert this to a motion for leave, and send us a copy, I will be
happy to review it promptly and (assuming it looks fine) give you
permission to represent that we do not oppose it.
Best,
Rita
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Bartolomucci [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 2:04 PM
To: Lin, Rita F.; [email protected]
Subject: Draft Stipulation
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-13 Filed09/30/11 Page3 of 5
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
45/50
Rita, here is the stipulation
that we drafted. We are happy to talk about the language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison &Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S.
Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any
attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
For information about this legend, go to
http://www mofo.com/Circular230/
========================================================================
====
This message contains information which may be confidential and
privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for
the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message
or any information contained in the message. If you have received the
message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com,
and delete the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison &
Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S.
Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any
attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
For information about this legend, go to
http://www mofo.com/Circular230/
========================================================================
====
This message contains information which may be confidential and
privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for
the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message
or any information contained in the message. If you have received the
message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com,
and delete the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-13 Filed09/30/11 Page4 of 5
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
46/50
---------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with
requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice
concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including
any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the
purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketingor recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. For information
about this legend, go to http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/
=====================================================================
======= This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless
you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or
disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have
received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete
the message. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-13 Filed09/30/11 Page5 of 5
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
47/50
EXHIBIT L
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-14 Filed09/30/11 Page1 of 4
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
48/50
"Hall, Christopher (CIV)"09/30/201101:55PM
To: "ChristopherBartolomucci","Lin,RitaF."
cc: "Dresser,GregoryP.","Jones,AaronD.",
Subject: RE:DraftStipulation
Chris --
Consistent with your assumption, the Department takes no position as tothe motion and requested relief described in your e-mail.
Regards,
Chris
-----Original Message-----From: Christopher Bartolomucci [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 1:44 PMTo: Lin, Rita F.Cc: Dresser, Gregory P.; Jones, Aaron D.; Hall, Christopher (CIV);
[email protected]: RE: Draft Stipulation
Rita -- Since we can't do this by joint stipulation, the House hasdecided to file a motion that simply seeks leave to file a substantiveopposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment without specifyinga due date for the opposition. The proposed order will let the court
decide when that opposition would be due. The House will say that it isprepared to file its opposition in time for the court to proceed withthe October 21 hearing, but the House will not affirmatively ask thecourt either to move or keep the hearing date. If the House canrepresent that Plaintiff does not oppose this motion, please let meknow.
Chris H. -- I assume that DOJ takes no position, but please let me knowif I am wrong about that.
Many thanks,
Chris B.
-----Original Message-----From: Lin, Rita F. [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 7:29 PMTo: Christopher BartolomucciCc: Dresser, Gregory P.; Jones, Aaron D.; Hall, Christopher (CIV);
[email protected]: RE: Draft Stipulation
Chris:
We have not seen the draft motion for leave today, though we did seeyour supplemental filing. We are very concerned that if your motion for
leave does not get on file tomorrow, the judge will not be able to acton the motion prior to your proposed brief due date, thus resulting infurther delay and prejudicing our client. If this continues to dragout, we will be forced to oppose your motion based on that prejudice.As it stands now, Judge White's calendar is very full between now andthe end of the year. We do not want to have to push this hearing untilnext February, when his calendar next opens up.
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-14 Filed09/30/11 Page2 of 4
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
49/50
Could you send the draft by 3pm ET tomorrow? As I will be out of theoffice (as I noted earlier in the week), please be sure to cc Greg
Dresser and Aaron Jones, in addition to Tara Borelli. That will ensurethat we will be able to respond to your draft motion promptly.
Best,
RitaRita Lin | Morrison & Foerster LLP
425 Market Street | San Francisco, California 94105 Tel. (415) 268-7466| Fax (415) 268-7522
-----Original Message-----From: Lin, Rita F. [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 6:28 PM
To: Christopher Bartolomucci; [email protected]: Hall, Christopher (CIV)Subject: RE: Draft Stipulation
Chris:
Thanks for sending this over. We've discussed and would prefer to dothis as an unopposed motion. Doing this as a stipulation creates theinaccurate impression that this is a joint request to put in morebriefing. In reality, this additional round of briefing is somethingthat BLAG wants and plaintiff is willing to accommodate, provided shehas an adequate opportunity to respond and the hearing for both motionsis rescheduled appropriately.
If you convert this to a motion for leave, and send us a copy, I will behappy to review it promptly and (assuming it looks fine) give youpermission to represent that we do not oppose it.
Best,Rita
-----Original Message-----From: Christopher Bartolomucci [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 2:04 PMTo: Lin, Rita F.; [email protected]: [email protected]: Draft Stipulation
Rita, here is the stipulationthat we drafted. We are happy to talk about the language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison &Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S.Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including anyattachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, andcannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under theInternal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending toanother party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
For information about this legend, go tohttp://www.mofo.com/Circular230/
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-14 Filed09/30/11 Page3 of 4
-
8/3/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #169
50/50
============================================================================
This message contains information which may be confidential andprivileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive forthe addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message
or any information contained in the message. If you have received themessage in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com,and delete the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison &
Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S.Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including anyattachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, andcannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending toanother party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
For information about this legend, go tohttp://www.mofo.com/Circular230/
============================================================================
This message contains information which may be confidential andprivileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive forthe addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the messageor any information contained in the message. If you have received themessage in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com,and delete the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-14 Filed09/30/11 Page4 of 4