Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 617

MOTION [ADMINISTRATIVE] to Set Hearing Date of March 5 or March 16, 2010 Re Objections to Judge Joseph Spero's March 5, 2010 Order re #614 Objection, filed by ACLU Foundation of Northern California, Equality California, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Whittemore, Lauren) (Filed on 3/11/2010)

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document617

Filed03/11/10 Page1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
FENWICK & WEST LLP
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW S A N FR A N C I S C O

LYNN H. PASAHOW (CSB NO. 054283) [e-mail] CAROLYN CHANG (CSB NO. 217933) [e-mail] LESLIE KRAMER (CSB NO. 253313) [e-mail] LAUREN WHITTEMORE (CSB NO. 255432) [e-mail] FENWICK & WEST LLP 555 California Street, Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Third-Party Equality California (Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al., Plaintiffs, and CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants, and PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al., Defendant-Intervenors. Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW EQUALITY CALIFORNIA AND NO ON PROPOSITION 8, CAMPAIGN FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY: A PROJECT OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA'S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF Trial: January 11, 2010 Judge: Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker Location: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
EQCA AND ACLU'S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document617

Filed03/11/10 Page2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
FENWICK & WEST LLP
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW S A N FR A N C I S C O

TO THE PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Local Rule 7-11, before The Honorable Vaughn R. Walker, United States District Court, Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, Equality California ("EQCA") and No on Proposition 8, Campaign for Marriage Equality, A Project of the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") (collectively "Objectors") will and do hereby move the Court for administrative relief. EQCA and ACLU request the Court set a hearing on Objectors' and Defendants-Intervenors' objections to Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero's March 5, 2010 Order on March 16, or in the alternative, on March 23. On March 5, 2010, Magistrate Judge Spero granted, to the extent specified in a written opinion (Doc # 610), the motion of Defendants-Intervenors ("Proponents") to compel Objectors to produce certain documents on a rolling basis with production to be completed by March 31. Proponents did not agree to a stay of the Order, but Proponents and Objectors have agreed to an expedited schedule for the filing and briefing of objections which both sides intend to file to that Order. See Stipulated Request for Order Shortening Time. Pursuant to that agreed-upon schedule, Objectors have today filed their objections. Proponents have agreed to file their opposition to those objections as well as their own objections to Magistrate Judge Spero's Order on March 15 and Objectors will file any opposition to Proponents' objections not later than March 17. The Objectors would ask that the Court set this matter for hearing on either March 18 or 19. However, it appears that the Court may not be available on either of those dates. If that is true, then Objectors are willing to waive conditionally the filing of any written response to Proponents' objections, and to hold a hearing on March 16. By "conditionally," Objectors mean that they would like to reserve the right to request an opportunity to file a further written response to Proponents' March 15 objections following the hearing. Alternatively, Objectors request that the hearing be set for March 23 and that the stipulated briefing schedule, as described above, be maintained. Proponents have agreed to a March 16 or March 23 hearing date. See Stipulated Request for Order Shortening Time.
EQCA AND ACLU'S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1

CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document617

Filed03/11/10 Page3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
FENWICK & WEST LLP
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW S A N FR A N C I S C O

In the event the Court does not grant Objectors' request to vacate the Magistrate Judge's March 5 Order, Objectors will promptly seek a stay pending appeal of that Order from this Court. In the interim, Objectors do not intend to produce documents for the obvious reason that were they to do so, it would render moot their objections. Since it is our hope that this matter will be promptly heard and resolved, we do not intend to file a formal motion for an interim stay of the Magistrate Judge's Order pending hearing of our objections unless the Court wishes us to do so. Wherefore, Objectors request that the Court set a hearing either for March 16 or March 23, 2010.

Dated: March 11, 2010

FENWICK & WEST LLP

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
EQCA AND ACLU'S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

By: /s/ Lauren Whittemore Lauren Whittemore Attorneys for Third Party, Equality California

STEPHEN V. BOMSE JUSTIN M. ARAGON Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP ALAN L. SCHLOSSER ELIZABETH O. GILL ACLU Foundation Of Northern California Attorneys for No on Proposition 8, Campaign for Marriage Equality: A Project of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

2

CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW