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

Filing 212

PROPOSED ORDER re #210 Motion to Modify Scheduling Order by Department of Elections - City and County of San Francisco. (Givner, Jonathan) Modified on 4/28/2010 (Owen, K).

Download PDF
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: (415) 554-4705 Facsimile: (415) 554-4745 E-Mail: mollie.lee@sfgov.org 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. [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING SCHEDULING ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINES Case No. 2:09-CV-00058-MCE-DAD [Proposed] Order Modifying Pretrial Scheduling Order CASE NO. 2:09-CV-00058-MCE-DAD 1 n:\govlit\li2010\090774\00625179.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: (916) 445-8226 Facsimile: (916) 324-5567 Zackery.Morazzini@doj.ca.gov 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: (916) 322-55660 Facsimile: (916) 327-2026 Lwoodlock@fppc.ca.gov Counsel for Defendants Members of the Fair Political Practices Commission [Proposed] Order Modifying Pretrial Scheduling Order CASE NO. 2:09-CV-00058-MCE-DAD 2 n:\govlit\li2010\090774\00625179.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 On May 15, 2009, the Court issued a Pretrial Scheduling Order setting deadlines for discovery, dispositive motions and trial in this matter. After reviewing all papers on file in connection with Defendants' motion to modify the May 15, 2009 scheduling order, and all other relevant papers in the file in this matter, the Court concludes that there is good cause to modify the order. Accordingly, the Court's May 15, 2009 scheduling order is hereby modified to provide the following amended deadlines: · · Non-expert discovery shall be complete by July 13, 2010; The parties shall exchange expert witness disclosures by September 13, 2010, and shall exchange supplemental expert disclosures 20 days thereafter; · · · The Court will hear dispositive motions no later than November 15, 2010; The parties shall file a joint pretrial conference statement by March 7, 2011; The parties shall file any evidentiary or procedural motions by March 7, 2011, any oppositions to those motions by March 14, 2011, and any reply by March 21, 2011; · · · The parties shall file trial briefs by March 14, 2011; The Court shall hold its final pretrial hearing on March 28, 2011; and Trial shall commence on May 9, 2011. All other provisions of the Court's May 15, 2009 order shall continue to apply. It is so ORDERED this _______ day of _______________, 2010. ___________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE [Proposed] Order Modifying Pretrial Scheduling Order CASE NO. 2:09-CV-00058-MCE-DAD 3 n:\govlit\li2010\090774\00625179.doc

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?