Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 179

Memorandum in Opposition City and County of San Francisco's Opposition to Defendant-Intervenors' Motion for Administrative Leave to Exceed Page Limitations filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Flynn, Ronald) (Filed on 9/10/2009)

Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al Doc. 179 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document179 Filed09/10/09 Page1 of 4 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 DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669 City Attorney THERESE M. STEWART, State Bar #104930 Chief Deputy City Attorney DANNY CHOU, State Bar #180240 Chief of Complex and Special Litigation RONALD P. FLYNN, State Bar #184186 VINCE CHHABRIA, State Bar #208557 ERIN BERNSTEIN, State Bar #231539 CHRISTINE VAN AKEN, State Bar #241755 MOLLIE M. LEE, State Bar #251404 Deputy City Attorneys City Hall, Room 234 One Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, California 94102-4682 Telephone: (415) 554-4708 Facsimile: (415) 554-4699 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO, Plaintiffs, vs. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G. BROWN JR., in his official capacity as Attorney General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health and State Registrar of Vital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health; PATRICK O'CONNELL, in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his official capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles, Defendants, CCSF Opp to Motion re Excess Pages CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW Dockets.Justia.com Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATIONS Trial Date: Jan. 11, 2009 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document179 Filed09/10/09 Page2 of 4 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 CCSF Opp to Motion re Excess Pages CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW and PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAKSHING WILLIAM TAM, and MARK A. JANSSON; and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL, Defendant-Intervenors. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Plaintiff-Intervenor vs. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G. BROWN JR., in his official capacity as Attorney General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health and State Registrar of Vital Statistics; and LINETTE SCOTT, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health, Defendants. Plaintiff-Intervenor the City and County of San Francisco joins in the opposition of Plaintiffs Perry et al. to the Motion of the Yes On 8 Defendant-Intervenors for leave to file a 98-page brief in support of a motion for summary judgment. The City agrees with the Perry Plaintiffs that such a brief is excessive even in light of the importance of the issues in this case, and further that the DefendantIntervenors failed to follow the Court's Local Rules in dealing with this matter. Counsel for the City offered to stipulate to a more modest extension of the page limit and to a brief extension of time in order for Defendant-Intervenors to reduce the size of their brief accordingly, but DefendantIntervenors was not interested in that offer. See Declaration of Therese M. Stewart filed herewith. For these reasons, the City respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendant-Intervenors' Motion to file the brief submitted, and hold that the motion is untimely or, in the alternative, require them to file 1 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document179 Filed09/10/09 Page3 of 4 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 a motion that meets the Court's page limit requirements by the close of business on Monday, September 14 and extend Plaintiffs' time for filing opposition by three court days. Dated: September 10, 2009 DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney THERESE M. STEWART Chief Deputy City Attorney DANNY CHOU CHIEF OF COMPLEX & SPECIAL LITIGATION RONALD P. FLYNN VINCE CHHABRIA ERIN BERNSTEIN CHRISTINE VAN AKEN MOLLIE M. LEE Deputy City Attorneys By: /s/ THERESE M. STEWART Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO CCSF Opp to Motion re Excess Pages CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW 2 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document179 Filed09/10/09 Page4 of 4 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 Pursuant to General Order 45, X(B), I hereby attest that the concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from single signatory, Therese M. Stewart. Dated: September 10, 2009 By: /s/ RONALD P. FLYNN Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO CCSF Opp to Motion re Excess Pages CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW 3