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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 JAMES R. MCGUIRE (CA SBN 189275) JMcGuire@mofo.com GREGORY P. DRESSER (CA SBN 136532) GDresser@mofo.com RITA F. LIN (CA SBN 236220) RLin@mofo.com AARON D. JONES (CA SBN 248246) AJones@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: 415.268.7000 Facsimile: 415.268.7522 JON W. DAVIDSON (CA SBN 89301) JDavidson@lambdalegal.org SUSAN L. SOMMER (pro hac vice) SSommer@lambdalegal.org TARA L. BORELLI (CA SBN 216961) TBorelli@lambdalegal.org LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC. 3325 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1300 Los Angeles, California 90010-1729 Telephone: 213.382.7600 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

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?