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
Defendant.
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER
CASE NO. 3:10-CV-0257-JSW
sf-3021755

3:10-cv-0257-JSW

[PROPOSED] ORDER SCHEDULING
DISCOVERY AND BRIEFING ON
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1
It is hereby ORDERED that the following schedule is established to govern discovery in

2
3

this matter and briefing on Plaintiff Karen Golinski’s (“plaintiff”) motion for summary judgment:

4

1. Defendant-Intervenor, The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of

5

Representatives (“the House”) and plaintiff (collectively, “the parties”), shall exchange all written

6

requests for discovery (including document requests, interrogatories and requests for admission

7

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 33, 34, and 36) on or before August 12, 2011;
2. The House shall identify its experts (if any) on or before August 15, 2011 (plaintiff has

8
9

already identified her experts);
3. The House shall serve its expert reports (if any) on or before August 22, 2011 (plaintiff

10
11

has already served her expert reports);
4. Plaintiff may take depositions of the House’s experts (if any) beginning on August 23,

12
13

2011;

14

5. All fact and expert discovery shall be completed by September 15, 2011;

15

6. Plaintiff shall file a renewed motion for summary judgment on or before September 30,

16
17
18
19
20
21

2011;
6. The House shall file its opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on or
before October 14, 2011;
7. Plaintiff may submit a reply in support of her motion for summary judgment on or
before October 28, 2011;
8. The parties hereby stipulate that the depositions of the expert witnesses in Windsor v.

22

United States, No. 10-cv-8435 (S.D.N.Y.) and Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, No.

23

310-cv-1750 (D. Conn.), who are the same five experts designated by the plaintiff, are admissible

24

in this case. Plaintiff’s experts shall not be re-deposed in this case without leave of Court.

25
26

9. A hearing on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is set for November ____, 2011,
at ______ a.m.

27
28

[PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER
CASE NO. 3:10-CV-0257-JSW
sf-3021755

1

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

Dated: _____________, 2011.

4

The Honorable Jeffrey S. White
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

[PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER
CASE NO. 3:10-CV-0257-JSW
sf-3021755

2