Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 88

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 85 MOTION to Shorten Time filed byPaul T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Related document(s) 85 ) (Olson, Theodore) (Filed on 7/9/2009)

Download PDF
Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al Doc. 88 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document88 Filed07/09/09 Page1 of 3 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 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP Theodore B. Olson, SBN 38137 tolson@gibsondunn.com Matthew D. McGill, pro hac vice Amir C. Tayrani, SBN 229609 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 955-8668, Facsimile: (202) 467-0539 Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., SBN 132009 tboutrous@gibsondunn.com Christopher D. Dusseault, SBN 177557 Ethan D. Dettmer, SBN 196046 Sarah E. Piepmeier, SBN 227094 Theane Evangelis Kapur, SBN 243570 Enrique A. Monagas, SBN 239087 333 S. Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7804, Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP David Boies, pro hac vice dboies@bsfllp.com Theodore H. Uno, SBN 248603 333 Main Street, Armonk, New York 10504 Telephone: (914) 749-8200, Facsimile: (914) 749-8300 Attorneys for Plaintiffs KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO 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 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. CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED INTERVENORS' MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME Date: September 3, 2009 Time: 10:00 a.m. Judge: Chief Judge Walker Location: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor 09-CV-2292 VRW PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED INTERVENORS' MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME Dockets.Justia.com Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document88 Filed07/09/09 Page2 of 3 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 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP On July 8, 2009, proposed intervenors Our Family Coalition, Lavender Seniors of the East Bay, and Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (collectively "Proposed Intervenors"), filed a motion to intervene as party plaintiffs, together with a motion to shorten the time in which the motion to intervene is heard. In the motion to shorten time, Proposed Intervenors urge the Court to require the parties to respond to their motion by July 14, 2009, and to hold a hearing on their motion to intervene on July 17, 2009. Plaintiffs oppose the motion to shorten time and offer the following alternative in the interests of efficiency and judicial economy.1 In addition to the instant motion, Plaintiffs received on June 27, 2009, the motion of Campaign for California Families to intervene as a defendant (though it does not appear on the Court's electronic docket). Moreover, on July 9, 2009, the City and County of San Francisco notified counsel for Plaintiffs that it may also file a motion to intervene as a plaintiff in this litigation in the coming days. It is likely that there exist numerous other individuals, associations, entities, and municipalities that wish to intervene in this action. Because seriatim litigation of proliferating motions to intervene will consume significant resources of both the parties and the Court, Plaintiffs respectfully suggest that the Court deny Proposed Intervenors' motion to expedite and instead issue an order setting a deadline of July 24, 2009, for all interested persons to file their motions to intervene in this action. Such a deadline will permit the parties to respond to those motions in an omnibus fashion, and permit the Court to consider them at the already-scheduled August 19, 2009 hearing, thereby promoting efficiency and conserving judicial resources. It would also ensure that all parties to the litigation are determined at the outset of these proceedings. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny Proposed Intervenors' motion to shorten time, and issue an order setting a deadline of July 24, 2009 for all interested persons to file their motions to intervene, and setting forth a briefing calendar that enables the Court to consider the motions at the case management conference currently scheduled on August 19, 2009. /// /// 1 Plaintiffs will file a separate response to Proposed Intervenors' motion to intervene. 1 09-CV-2292 VRW PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED INTERVENORS' MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document88 Filed07/09/09 Page3 of 3 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 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP DATED: July 9, 2009 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP By: and /s/ Theodore B. Olson BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP David Boies Attorneys for Plaintiffs KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO 2 09-CV-2292 VRW PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED INTERVENORS' MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME