Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 736

Memorandum in Opposition re #732 MOTION to Shorten Time filed byMartin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit of Brian W. Raum in Support of Defendant-Intervenors' Opposition to Motion to Shorten Time)(Raum, Brian) (Filed on 8/18/2010)

Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Doc. 736

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

COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC Charles J. Cooper (DC Bar No. 248070)* [e-mail] David H. Thompson (DC Bar No. 450503)* [e-mail] Howard C. Nielson, Jr. (DC Bar No. 473018)* [e-mail] Nicole J. Moss (DC Bar No. 472424)* [e-mail] Peter A. Patterson (OH Bar No. 0080840)* [e-mail] 1523 New Hampshire Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: [phone] LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO Andrew P. Pugno (CA Bar No. 206587) [e-mail] 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: [phone] ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND Brian W. Raum (NY Bar No. 2856102)* [e-mail] James A. Campbell (OH Bar No. 0081501)* [e-mail] 15100 North 90th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: [phone] ATTORNEYS FOR PROPOSED INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, MARK A. JANSSON, and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM ­ YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL * Admitted pro hac vice 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

CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, MARK A. JANSSON, AND PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

Dockets.Justia.com

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

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, and PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, and MARK A. JANSSON; and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM ­ YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL, Defendant-Intervenors.

Additional Counsel for Defendant-Intervenors ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND Timothy Chandler (CA Bar No. 234325) [e-mail] 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: [phone] Jordan W. Lorence (DC Bar No. 385022)* [e-mail] Austin R. Nimocks (TX Bar No. 24002695)* [e-mail] 801 G Street NW, Suite 509, Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: [phone] * Admitted pro hac vice

DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

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
1

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3(c) Defendants-Intervenors Hollingsworth, Knight, Gutierrez, Jansson, and ProtectMarriage.com submit the following opposition to Plaintiffs' and Plaintiff-Intervenor's1 Motion to Shorten Time. On August 17, 2010 at 5:14 p.m. Plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion seeking to shorten Defendants-Intevenors' time to respond to their motion to enlarge time to file a motion for attorney's fees and costs. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek an order shortening Defendants-Intervenors' time to respond from 4 days to "no more than 24 hours." Defendants-Intervenors oppose Plaintiffs' motion to shorten time because they have failed to justify their request pursuant to the Local Rules. Civil Local Rule 6-3 requires Plaintiffs to set forth, among other things, "the reasons for the requested enlargement or shortening of time" and the "substantial harm or prejudice that would occur if the court did not change the time." See Civil Local Rule 6-3(a)(1) and (3). Neither Plaintiffs' motion nor the supporting declaration satisfies the requirements of the rule. The only reason that Plaintiffs indentify is a claim that they will suffer "substantial prejudice" if the motion to shorten time is not granted "because, in the event the Court were to deny Plaintiffs' and PlaintiffIntervenor's motion to enlarge time, Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor would likely not have sufficient time to file their motion for attorney's fees and related expenses." See Declaration of Enrique A. Monagas at 3 (emphasis added).

Plaintiffs have until August 26th to file their motion for attorney's fees. To suggest that the Plaintiffs would suffer "substantial prejudice" if the Defendant-Intervenors were permitted 4 days, as provided by the rules, to respond to their motion to enlarge time is patently unreasonable. Plaintiffs have demonstrated throughout this litigation a willingness and ability to allocate extraordinary resources to this case. To represent that they would be in danger of not "having sufficient time" to file a motion for attorney's fees unless Defendant-Intervenors are provided "no Movants will be referred to herein collectively as "Plaintiffs."
1 DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

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

more than 24 hours" to respond to their motion to enlarge time is not credible. To the extent Plaintiffs have concerns regarding time, it is their own doing. Plaintiffs waited 6 days to file their motion to enlarge time to seek attorney's fees. Now, Plaintiffs seek to drastically shorten Defendant-Intervenors' time to respond to that motion so that they have more time to prepare an application for attorney's fees in the event this Court does not grant their motion to enlarge time. Such a burden shift is unwarranted. Consequently, Defendant-Intervenors respectfully oppose Plaintiffs' motion to shorten time and request that they be afforded the full 4 days to respond.

DATED: August 18, 2010

ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, MARK A. JANSSON, AND PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM ­ YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL By: /s/ Brian W. Raum Brian W. Raum

2 DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW