Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 742

MOTION for Extension of Time to File A Bill of Costs filed by City and County of San Francisco, Paul T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit of Enrique A. Monagas, #2 Proposed Order)(Monagas, Enrique) (Filed on 8/20/2010)

Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Doc. 742 Att. 1

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
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP Theodore B. Olson, SBN 38137 [e-mail] Matthew D. McGill, pro hac vice 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: [phone] Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., SBN 132009 [e-mail] Christopher D. Dusseault, SBN 177557 Ethan D. Dettmer, SBN 196046 333 S. Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: [phone] BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP David Boies, pro hac vice [e-mail] 333 Main Street, Armonk, New York 10504 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: [phone] Jeremy M. Goldman, SBN 218888 [e-mail] 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900, Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiffs KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO Dennis J. Herrera, SBN 139669 Therese M. Stewart, SBN 104930 Danny Chou, SBN 180240 One Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, California 94102-4682 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 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.
09-CV-2292 VRW DECLARATION OF ENRIQUE A. MONAGAS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR'S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME
Dockets.Justia.com

CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW DECLARATION OF ENRIQUE A. MONAGAS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' AND PLAINTIFFINTERVENOR'S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO FILE A BILL OF COSTS

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
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

I, Enrique A. Monagas, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. I am an associate at the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, counsel of record for Plaintiffs Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo ("Plaintiffs"). I make this declaration in support of Plaintiffs' and Plaintiff-Intervenor's motion to enlarge time. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify hereto. 2. This Court entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law on August 4, Doc #708, and entered a permanent injunction on August 12, Doc #728. Since that time, the parties have been expeditiously briefing Defendant-Intervenors' motion to stay this Court's decision pending appeal. 3. Civil Local Rule 54-1 provides prevailing parties with 14 days after the entry of judgment in which to file a bill of costs. In a case such as this one, however, where the parties took numerous depositions and called witnesses for multiple weeks of trial, the preparation of a bill of costs--and any opposition thereto--is likely to be unusually time-consuming. 4. On August 16, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered that Proponents' appeal from this Court's decision be expedited pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 and entered the following briefing schedule: the opening brief is due September 17, 2010; the answering brief is due October 18, 2010; and the reply brief is due November 1, 2010. Under the current schedule, any bill of costs must be prepared and submitted at the same time that the expedited appeal on the merits is proceeding. 5. Enlarging the time to file a bill of costs would enable the parties to commit their full litigation resources to the appeal at this time. In short, enlarging the time to file a bill of costs will not prejudice any party and will indeed avoid unnecessary burden to the parties and the Court while the parties address the appeal on the merits and will promote judicial economy. Should the Court be inclined to grant the motion to enlarge time with respect to a motion for attorney's fees, granting the enlargement of time as to a bill of costs would promote judicial economy as it would allow the Court to consider these similar issues concurrently.

2
09-CV-2292 VRW DECLARATION OF ENRIQUE A. MONAGAS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR'S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME

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
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

6. Due to the exigencies of the situation, Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor have not contacted the other parties seeking a stipulation to this motion to enlarge time to file a bill of costs. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor contend that their previously-filed motion to enlarge time, Doc #729, encompassed the present request, and file the present motion in an abundance of caution and for avoidance of doubt. As to the previous motion, Plaintiffs' counsel contacted all parties involved in an attempt to obtain a stipulation to enlarge time. Defendants Arnold Schwarzenegger, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Mark B. Horton, Linette Scott, Patrick O'Connell, and Dean C. Logan have all agreed to enlarging the time. Counsel for Hak-Shing William Tam did not respond to Plaintiffs' counsel's inquiry. Only Defendant-Intervenors 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") have not agreed to the extension. 7. True and correct copies of the e-mails exchanged between the parties regarding a motion to enlarge time are attached as Exhibits A-F to the declaration in support of the previously-filed motion, Docs ##729, 730. 8. I am aware of four previous time modifications in this case, two by Court order, see Doc #170, Doc #710, and two by stipulation, see Doc #266, Doc #615. 9. The requested time modification would not affect the schedule of this case. I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States, that these facts are true and correct and that this Declaration is executed this 20th day of August 2010 at San Francisco, California. /s/ Enrique A. Monagas Enrique A. Monagas

3
09-CV-2292 VRW DECLARATION OF ENRIQUE A. MONAGAS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR'S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME