ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal et al v. Bowen et al

Filing 166

MOTION to SHORTEN TIME for Hearing on Rule 56(f) Motion by Timothy Hodson, Eugene Huguenin, Jr, Robert Leidigh, Ray Remy, Debra Bowen, Edmund G. Brown, Jr, Ross Johnson. (Attachments: #1 Declaration Morazzini)(Morazzini, Zackery)

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

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., State Bar No. 37100 Attorney General of California DOUGLAS J. WOODS, State Bar No. 161531 Supervising Deputy Attorney General ZACKERY P. MORAZZINI, State Bar No. 204237 Deputy Attorney General 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State; Edmund G. Brown Jr., California Attorney General SCOTT HALLABRIN, General Counsel, SBN: 076662 LAWRENCE T. WOODLOCK, SBN: 137676 Fair Political Practices Commission 428 J Street, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Members of the Fair Political Practices Commission IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM, et al.,

2:09-cv-00058-MCE-DAD

v.

Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF ZACKERY P. MORAZZINI Date: TBD Time: TBD Courtroom: 7, 14th Floor

DEBRA BOWEN, SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

The Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr. Trial Date: March 14, 2011 Defendants. Action Filed: January 7, 2009

1
Morazzini Declaration (2:09-cv-00058-MCE-DAD)

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

I, Zackery P. Morazzini, counsel of record for the State Defendants in this matter, make the following declaration in support of the State Defendants ex parte Application to Shorten Time to be Heard on Rule 56(f) Motion: 1. I am a resident of the State of California, over 18 years of age, and make this declaration based upon personal knowledge and belief. 2. On June 5, 2009, I contacted Scott Bieniek, counsel of record for Plaintiffs in this matter, by telephone, requesting that he stipulate to shortening time on the State Defendants' rule 56(f) motion. Mr. Bieniek stated that he had no objection to shortening time on the hearing to a date no later than June 19, 2009. I further informed him that I would be filing this ex parte application on June 5, 2009. 3. Plaintiffs have noticed their Motion for Summary Judgment for hearing on August 13, 2009. 4. The State Defendants' opposition to such motion would be due 17 days prior to the hearing (July 27, 2009) pursuant to local rule. 5. The State Defendants have not had sufficient opportunity to engage in discovery regarding the complex issues presented in this matter. Pursuant to the Joint Status Report, agreed to and executed by all parties to this action and filed with the Court on March 6, 2009 [docket no. 95], Plaintiffs agreed to a discovery period running for no less than six months, ending no sooner than October 1, 2009. See Docket 95, ¶ (f)(2). 6. Through the Pretrial Scheduling Order [Docket no. 96], the Court extended the discovery period to May 14, 2010. See Docket 96, ¶ IV. 7. As will be set forth more fully in their rule 56(f) motion, the State Defendants believe that they cannot adequately oppose Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment absent discovery, including extensive review of Plaintiffs' multiple post-election reports which are not due to be filed until July 31, 2009, and the possible retention of expert witnesses. Therefore, the State Defendants will be filing a rule 56(f) motion immediately in response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. 2
Morazzini Declaration (2:09-cv-00058-MCE-DAD)

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

8.

Given the upcoming hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, and the date for the State Defendants' opposition thereto, the State Defendants do not have sufficient time to notice a rule 56(f) motion under the local rules, and obtain resolution of said motion, without being prejudiced with regard to otherwise opposing Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment.

9.

The State Defendants believe that a hearing date on their rule 56(f) motion of no later than June 19, 2009, would provide them with sufficient time to obtain a ruling on their rule 56(f) motion without being prejudiced with regard to otherwise opposing Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 5, 2009. /s/ Zackery P. Morazzini Zackery P. Morazzini

3
Morazzini Declaration (2:09-cv-00058-MCE-DAD)