Golinski v. United States Office of Personnel Management

Filing 155

Declaration of Rita F. Lin in Support of 154 Reply to Opposition/Response, Of Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group's Opposition To Her Motiobn For Summary Judgment filed byKaren Golinski. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Related document(s) 154 ) (Lin, Rita) (Filed on 7/22/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

JAMES R. MCGUIRE (CA SBN 189275)
[e-mail]
GREGORY P. DRESSER (CA SBN 136532)
[e-mail]
RITA F. LIN (CA SBN 236220)
[e-mail]
AARON D. JONES (CA SBN 248246)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.268.7522
JON W. DAVIDSON (CA SBN 89301)
[e-mail]
SUSAN L. SOMMER (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
TARA L. BORELLI (CA SBN 216961)
[e-mail]
LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC.
3325 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1300
Los Angeles, California 90010-1729
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 213.351.6050
Attorneys for Plaintiff
KAREN GOLINSKI

15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

19
20

KAREN GOLINSKI,
Plaintiff,

21
22
23
24

Case No.

v.
UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT, and JOHN BERRY, Director
of the United States Office of Personnel
Management, in his official capacity,

25
Defendants.
26

3:10-cv-0257-JSW

DECLARATION OF RITA F. LIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S
REPLY TO BIPARTISAN LEGAL
ADVISORY GROUP’S
OPPOSITION TO HER MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Date:
Time:
Dept.:
Judge:

27
28
DECLARATION OF RITA F. LIN ISO PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO BLAG’S OPP. TO MSJ
CASE NO. 3:10-CV-0257-JSW
sf-3023625

September 16, 2011
9:00 a.m.
Courtroom 11
Hon. Jeffrey S. White

1

I, RITA F. LIN, declare as follows:

2

1.

I am an associate at the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP, which is counsel of

3

record for plaintiff. I am licensed to practice law in the State of California. I make this

4

declaration of my own personal knowledge, and if called as a witness could and would testify

5

competently to the matters stated herein.

6
7
8

2.

To date, plaintiff’s counsel has not received service of any written discovery from

Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group.
3.

Early in the morning on July 19, 2011, I emailed Christopher Bartolomucci,

9

counsel for Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (“BLAG”), and Christopher Hall, counsel for

10

defendants, to meet and confer regarding the schedule proposed by BLAG in its summary

11

judgment opposition. I noted that plaintiff did not think any further discovery was shown to be

12

necessary, but proposed to meet and confer in order to allow the Court to have the parties’

13

positions in the event it decided to permit further discovery. A true and correct copy of that email

14

is attached as Exhibit A.

15

4.

Mr. Bartolomucci emailed me on July 21, 2011, stating that BLAG would agree to

16

the revisions plaintiff requested to BLAG’s proposed schedule if plaintiff withdrew her motion

17

for summary judgment. A true and correct copy of that email is attached as Exhibit B.

18

5.

I responded by email to Mr. Bartolomucci later that day stating that plaintiff would

19

not withdraw her summary judgment motion because further discovery had not been shown to be

20

necessary, but asked again what, if anything, plaintiff should represent to the Court regarding

21

BLAG’s position on the revised scheduling order. A true and correct copy of that email is

22

attached as Exhibit C.

23

6.

Mr. Bartolomucci responded by email on July 22, 2011, that BLAG would stand

24

by its original proposed schedule. A true and correct copy of that email is attached hereto as

25

Exhibit D.

26

7.

Mr. Hall stated to me by email that he was in the process of reviewing plaintiff’s

27

proposal with defendants. As of this filing, I have not received an answer from Mr. Hall

28

regarding defendants’ position on the proposal.
DECLARATION OF RITA F. LIN ISO PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO BLAG’S OPP. TO MSJ
CASE NO. 3:10-CV-0257-JSW
sf-3023625

1

1

8.

As noted above, plaintiff does not believe that BLAG has articulated any specific

2

facts on which further discovery is necessary to oppose plaintiff’s summary judgment motion.

3

However, if such discovery is nonetheless permitted, plaintiff proposes certain revisions to

4

BLAG’s proposed scheduling order in order to permit plaintiff to resubmit her summary

5

judgment brief to account for what happens in discovery, if anything. For the Court’s

6

convenience, plaintiff’s proposed revised scheduling order (which also appears as a portion of the

7

email in Exhibit A) is separately attached hereto as Exhibit E.

8
9
10

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed this 22nd day of July, 2011, at San Francisco, California.

11
12

/s/ Rita F. Lin
Rita F. Lin

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF RITA F. LIN ISO PLAINTIFF’S MSJ REPLY TO BLAG
CASE NO. 3:10-CV-0257-JSW
sf-3023625

2