Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College et al

Filing 559

MOTION for Leave to File Response to the United States' Statement of Interest by President and Fellows of Harvard College. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Response)(Waxman, Seth)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
BOSTON DIVISION
STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD
COLLEGE (HARVARD CORPORATION),

Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-14176-ADB

Defendant.

HARVARD’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO
THE UNITED STATES’ STATEMENT OF INTEREST
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(b)(3), Harvard respectfully requests leave to file the attached
Supplemental Memorandum in Response to the United States’ Statement of Interest (Dkt. 497).
Harvard seeks leave to file its response consistent with the Court’s statements at the April
10, 2018 status conference at which the schedule for summary judgment briefing was discussed.
At that hearing, counsel for SFFA raised the concern that, because amicus filings in opposition to
each party’s summary-judgment motion would be due on the same date as the parties’ replies in
support of their motions, the parties might have no opportunity to address to amicus arguments.
Tr. 20:4-7 (Dkt. 402) (“MR. CONSOVOY: [W]e want to have a chance to respond to the amicus
who are opposing our motion, because it will be due the same day, we won’t see their briefs
when we file our reply.”). The Court responded: “You can supplement if you want.” Tr. 20:15.
SFFA’s counsel happily agreed. Tr. 20:16 (“MR. CONSOVOY: Okay, that sounds great.”).

1

SFFA has now indicated that it opposes Harvard’s supplemental filing and intends to
submit a response to this motion. That position is perplexing, in light of the fact that the Court
invited supplemental filings at SFFA’s request.
In the interest of minimizing the Court’s burden, Harvard has focused its proposed
response on those arguments in the government’s brief that are not merely redundant to SFFA’s,
or that most seriously misconstrue the law or the record. Harvard respectfully submits that its
response to those arguments will assist the Court’s consideration of this matter. It therefore
requests that the attached brief be filed.
Respectfully submitted,
William F. Lee (BBO #291960)
Felicia H. Ellsworth (BBO #665232)
Andrew S. Dulberg (BBO #675405)
Elizabeth Mooney (BBO #679522)
Sarah R. Frazier (BBO #681656)
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Dated: September 26, 2018

/s/ Seth P. Waxman
Seth P. Waxman (pro hac vice)
Paul R.Q. Wolfson (pro hac vice)
Danielle Conley (pro hac vice)
Brittany Amadi (pro hac vice)
Daniel Winik (pro hac vice)
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
1875 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Debo P. Adegbile (pro hac vice)
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
7 World Trade Center
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Defendant President and
Fellows of Harvard College

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a), counsel for Harvard conferred with counsel for Plaintiff.
Plaintiff opposes this motion and intends to file a response.
/s/ Seth P. Waxman
Seth P. Waxman
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this document filed through the CM/ECF system will be sent
electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing.
/s/ Seth P. Waxman
Seth P. Waxman