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

Filing 207

MOTION to SHORTEN TIME for Hearing on Defendants' Motion to Modify Scheduling Order to Extend Deadlines by Department of Elections - City and County of San Francisco. Attorney Givner, Jonathan added. (Givner, Jonathan)

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 WAYNE SNODGRASS, State Bar # 148137 JON GIVNER, State Bar # 208000 ANDREW SHEN, State Bar # 232499 MOLLIE LEE, State Bar # 251404 Deputy City Attorneys One Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place City Hall, Room 234 San Francisco, California 94102-4682 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] E-Mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Department of Elections - City and County of San Francisco and Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco (Additional Counsel on next page)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION ProtectMarriage.com, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Debra Bowen, et al., Defendants. APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME TO HEAR DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINES Case No. 2:09-CV-00058-MCE-DAD

Application to Shorten Time CASE NO. 2:09-CV-00058-MCE-DAD

1

n:\govlit\li2010\090774\00625061.doc

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 # 37100 Attorney General of California ZACKERY P. MORAZZINI, State Bar # 204237 Supervising Deputy Attorney General 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P. O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] Counsel for Defendants Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State, and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., California Attorney General SCOTT HALLABRIN, State Bar # 76662 General Counsel LAWRENCE T. WOODLOCK, State Bar # 137676 Senior Commission Counsel Fair Political Practices Commission 428 J Street, Suite 620 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] Counsel for Defendants Members of the Fair Political Practices Commission

Application to Shorten Time CASE NO. 2:09-CV-00058-MCE-DAD

2

n:\govlit\li2010\090774\00625061.doc

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 Local Rule 144, Defendants City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis J. Herrera, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr., and the members of the Fair Political Practices Commission (collectively "Defendants") hereby apply to the Court to shorten time for consideration of Defendants' motion to modify the Court's scheduling order, filed concurrently herewith. Defendants state in support thereof: Concurrently with this motion, Defendants are filing a motion to modify the Court's May 15, 2009 scheduling order. Under the Court's current scheduling order, all non-expert discovery in this case must be complete by May 14, 2010. But as described in Defendants' motion, Defendants have not been able to complete discovery despite diligent efforts. Defendants anticipate that the parties will file a joint statement in the next several days to resolve a significant dispute regarding the sufficiency of Plaintiffs' responses to Defendants' discovery requests. See Lee Decl. ¶ 4. Defendants believe that the dispute might not be resolved before the May 14 deadline. Moreover, Defendants have noticed five depositions ­ two individual depositions and three organizational depositions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) ­ and Plaintiffs have indicated that those witnesses will not be available to testify until two weeks after the discovery deadline. See id. ¶ 2. Because the non-expert discovery deadline is now less than three weeks away, Defendants seek an order shortening time so that the Court can resolve the outstanding timing questions before the deadline passes. Without an order shortening time, the Court will not have the opportunity to consider Defendants' motion to modify the scheduling order until after the discovery deadline passes. Defendants did not seek an order modifying the discovery deadlines earlier because the need for a modification of the scheduling order became apparent only recently. Plaintiffs responded to Defendants' discovery requests on March 23 and only informed Defendants of their witnesses' unavailability for depositions on April 19. See id. ¶ 2. Despite the looming deadline, the unresolved discovery disagreements and the unavailability of critical witnesses, Plaintiffs oppose Defendants' proposed modification of the scheduling order and will not stipulate to the issuance of an order /// ///

Application to Shorten Time CASE NO. 2:09-CV-00058-MCE-DAD

3

n:\govlit\li2010\090774\00625061.doc

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

shortening time. See id. ¶ 3. To allow the resolution of these questions before the expiration of the discovery period, Defendants request that the Court consider their motion on shortened time.

Dated: April 27, 2010 By /s/Jonathan Givner JONATHAN GIVNER Attorney for Defendants Department of Elections ­ City and County of San Francisco and Dennis J. Herrera

Application to Shorten Time CASE NO. 2:09-CV-00058-MCE-DAD

4

n:\govlit\li2010\090774\00625061.doc