Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 208

MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Martin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal, Hak-Shing William Tam. Motion Hearing set for 10/14/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Nicole Jo Moss)(Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 9/25/2009)

Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al Doc. 208 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document208 Filed09/25/09 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 COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC Charles J. Cooper (DC Bar No. 248070)* ccooper@cooperkirk.com David H. Thompson (DC Bar No. 450503)* dthompson@cooperkirk.com Howard C. Nielson, Jr. (DC Bar No. 473018)* hnielson@cooperkirk.com Nicole J. Moss nmoss@cooperkirk.com (DC Bar No. 472424) Jesse Panuccio jpanuccio@cooperkirk.com (DC Bar No. 981634) Peter A. Patterson (Ohio Bar No. 0080840)* ppatterson@cooperkirk.com 1523 New Hampshire Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 220-9600, Facsimile: (202) 220-9601 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO Andrew P. Pugno (CA Bar No. 206587) andrew@pugnolaw.com 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630 Telephone: (916) 608-3065, Facsimile: (916) 608-3066 ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND Brian W. Raum (NY Bar No. 2856102)* braum@telladf.org James A. Campbell (OH Bar No. 0081501)* jcampbell@telladf.org 15100 North 90th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 Telephone: (480) 444-0020, Facsimile: (480) 444-0028 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM, MARK A. JANSSON, and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL * Admitted pro hac vice UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO, Plaintiffs, v. 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 CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATIONS Date: October 14, 2009 Time: 10:00 a.m. Judge: Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker Location: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW Dockets.Justia.com Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document208 Filed09/25/09 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 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, 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. Additional Counsel for Defendant-Intervenors ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND Timothy Chandler (CA Bar No. 234325) tchandler@telladf.org 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630 Telephone: (916) 932-2850, Facsimile: (916) 932-2851 Jordan W. Lorence (DC Bar No. 385022)* jlorence@telladf.org Austin R. Nimocks (TX Bar No. 24002695)* animocks@telladf.org 801 G Street NW, Suite 509, Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: (202) 393-8690, Facsimile: (202) 347-3622 * Admitted pro hac vice 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 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 Civil Local Rule 7-11, Defendant-Intervenors ("Proponents") respectfully seek the Court's leave to file a reply in support of their motion for summary judgment motion that is longer than the fifteen pages normally allotted by local rule. See Civ. L.R. 7-2(b). Specifically, Proponents respectfully submit that an expanded page limit of twenty-five pages is warranted by the nature of the issues presented in this case, and request the Court's leave to file a motion of that length. While Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor have declined to stipulate to this proposed page limit, they have indicated that they do not intend to make a submission opposing it. The other parties to this case, with the exception of the County of Los Angeles who has not yet responded, have either indicated that they take no position on this motion or have no objection. As Proponents have previously noted, this case is of momentous importance: at stake is the future of the venerable and vitally important social institution of marriage. Indeed, although Plaintiffs directly challenge only Proposition 8, the joint response brief filed by Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor acknowledges that under the theories they advance, the laws of every other State defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and likely the federal definition of marriage, are likewise unconstitutional. See Doc # 202 at 27, 28. In keeping with the importance of this case, the issues raised in Proponents' summary judgment motion and addressed in Plaintiffs' and Plaintiff-Intervenor's response in opposition are multitude and complex. In recognition of these facts, the Court has previously granted leave to file briefs in excess of the normal page limitations. Further, Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor have addressed not only the issues raised by Proponents, but have also raised additional questions regarding the weight to be given to the views and admissions of the State Attorney General (which admissions Proponents first received as an attachment in support of Plaintiffs' and Plaintiff-Intervenor's response),1 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 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 1 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document208 Filed09/25/09 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 whether certain statements of legislative fact by the California Supreme Court in the Marriage Cases are binding in this litigation, the meaning and adequacy of Proponents' responses to Plaintiffs' requests for admissions and other discovery requests, and the application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) to a case such as this one that turns on issues of legislative fact. For these reasons, Proponents respectfully request that this motion be granted. Dated: September 25, 2009 COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS-INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM, MARK A. JANSSON, AND PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL By: /s/ Charles J. Cooper Charles J. Cooper (Cont'd) email address book. 2 DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW