3:10-cv-00257 #169

Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169
Filed09/30/11 Page1 of 3
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
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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
KAREN GOLINSKI, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, and JOHN BERRY, Director of the United States Office of Personnel Management, in his official capacity, Defendants.
Case No.
3:10-cv-0257-JSW
PLAINTIFF KAREN GOLINSKIS RESPONSE TO BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY GROUPS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPERSEDING OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, AND REQUEST FOR ANY NEW HEARING DATE TO BE SET FOR DECEMBER 16, 2011 OR EARLIER
26 27 28
PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO BLAGS MOTION FOR LEAVE CASE NO. 3:10-CV-0257-JSW
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
Plaintiff Karen Golinski respectfully submits the following response to Intervenor Bipartisan Legal Advisory Groups (BLAGs) motion for leave to submit further briefing. Plaintiff submits this response in order to propose measures to minimize the delay caused by BLAGs belated request. On Friday, September 23, 2011, BLAG informed plaintiff that it proposed to submit a superseding opposition brief on October 10, 2011. (Borelli Decl. 4, Ex. A.) That proposal came at the eleventh hour. (Borelli Decl. 5.) Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment was originally noticed for September 16, 2011, and is set to be heard on October 21, 2011. Plaintiff originally filed her motion on July 1, 2011. BLAG has had that brief for over three months. BLAG makes much of the parties exchange of written discovery. However, BLAG has had plaintiffs discovery responses since September 1, 2011. (Borelli Decl. 3.) Moreover, plaintiff suspects that the materials that BLAG plans to introduce in its opposition brief are not from that discovery, which principally concerned plaintiffs standing to bring this action and the validity of her marriage. Instead, based on a review of BLAGs summary judgment opposition papers filed in Windsor v. United States, No. 1:10-cv-08435-BSJ-JCF (S.D.N.Y.) and Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, No. 3:10-cv-01750-VLB (D. Conn.), plaintiff suspects that the principal new evidence that BLAG plans to introduce here is the deposition testimony of plaintiffs experts. (Borelli Decl. 5.) Those depositions were taken in June and July, prior to the due date of BLAGs existing opposition brief. (Id.) Discovery in Windsor closed on July 11, 2011. (See Dkt. 121, Ex. B (attaching Windsor scheduling order).) BLAG has no legitimate reason to have delayed its submission for three months to incorporate those materials. Nonetheless, in order to permit a full airing of the issues, plaintiff informed BLAG that she was willing to accede to BLAGs belated filing of a new brief, provided that plaintiff has a fair opportunity to respond and that the hearing date for all pending dispositive motions would be moved appropriately. (Borelli Decl. 6, Ex. B.) Because one of plaintiffs experts is out of the country until October 20, 2011, and that expert may be needed to provide rebuttal testimony, plaintiff stated that she would need until November 1, 2011 to file her reply brief, if BLAG files its new opposition brief on October 11, 2011. Although this briefing schedule creates a
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
significant disparity, as BLAG will have had plaintiffs brief for over three months, while plaintiff will have only three weeks to reply, plaintiff is willing to tolerate that disparity in order to move this matter promptly to resolution. (Id.) BLAG agreed to that proposal, but when the parties disagreed as to the form of the filing BLAG changed its position, indicating that it would only move for leave to file its superseding brief without proposing the parties agreed briefing dates. (Borelli Decl. 7-14, Exs. C-J.) Plaintiff is anxious to have this matter proceed to a merits determination. Her spouse remains underinsured and continues to forgo preventive care. This case was filed almost two years ago, in January 2010. The operative complaint has been on file for six months, since April 2011. In order to permit the case to move forward, plaintiff respectfully requests that: (1) BLAGs new opposition brief be due on October 11, 2011, and plaintiffs reply brief be due on November 1, 2011, as the parties had agreed, and (2) that the hearing currently set for October 21, 2011, on the motions to dismiss and plaintiffs motion for summary judgment be continued to a date on or before December 16, 2011 (currently shown as the earliest available open date on the Courts calendar for cases with a terminal digit of 7). Dated: September 30, 2011 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC. By: /s/ Tara Borelli Tara Borelli Attorneys for Plaintiff KAREN GOLINSKI
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169-1
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
Case No.
3:10-cv-0257-JSW
26 27 28
DECLARATION OF TARA BORELLI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF KAREN GOLINSKIS RESPONSE TO BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY GROUPS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPERSEDING OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, AND REQUEST FOR ANY NEW HEARING DATE TO BE SET FOR DECEMBER 16, 2011 OR EARLIER
DECLARATION OF TARA BORELLI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO BLAGS MOTION CASE NO. 3:10-CV-0257-JSW
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
I, Tara Borelli, hereby declare and state as follows: 1. I am a staff attorney with Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., and
co-counsel of record for plaintiff Karen Golinski. I am licensed to practice law in the State of California and am admitted to practice before this Court. I make this declaration of my own personal knowledge and, if called as a witness, could and would testify competently to the matters stated herein. 2. Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment was originally noticed for September 16,
2011, and is set to be heard on October 21, 2011. Plaintiff originally filed her motion on July 1, 2011. 3. 4. BLAG has had plaintiffs discovery responses since September 1, 2011. On Friday, September 23, 2011, counsel for Intervenor Bipartisan Legal Advisory
Group (BLAG), Christopher Bartolomucci, sent an email to counsel for plaintiff and defendants indicating BLAGs intent to seek leave to file a superseding opposition to plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Mr. Bartolomucci stated that BLAG would be prepared to file its brief by October 10, 2011. A true and correct copy of Mr. Bartolomuccis email is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 5. Rita Lin, co-counsel for plaintiff, responded on Monday, September 26, 2011,
communicating frustration with BLAGs long delay in making this request. Based on a review of the summary judgment opposition papers BLAG has filed in Windsor v. United States, No. 1:10cv-08435-BSJ-JCF (S.D.N.Y.) and Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, No. 3:10-cv01750-VLB (D. Conn.), both of which are similar to each other and rely significantly on the deposition testimony of plaintiffs experts in Windsor, plaintiff suspects that the principal new evidence that BLAG plans to introduce here is that deposition testimony. Those depositions were taken in June and July, prior to the due date of BLAGs existing opposition brief. Discovery in Windsor closed on July 11, 2011. 6. Nonetheless, Ms. Lin communicated in her September 26, 2011 email response
that plaintiff would agree to BLAGs request to file a superseding motion for summary judgment opposition on the condition that plaintiff would have adequate time to file a superseding reply
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
brief. Ms. Lin proposed that BLAG file by October 11, 2011 since October 10, 2011 is a court holiday. As the plaintiffs did in Windsor and Pedersen, plaintiff anticipates a need to supplement her reply with rebuttal testimony from her experts. Because one of plaintiffs experts, who likely will be needed for such testimony, is abroad until October 20, 2011, plaintiff had no choice but to suggest that she file her reply by November 1, 2011. A true and correct copy of this September 26, 2011 email from Ms. Lin is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 7. The following day, on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 Mr. Bartolomucci indicated
that BLAG was amenable to plaintiffs suggestions and that he would draft a motion accordingly. A true and correct copy of Mr. Bartolomuccis email is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 8. Hearing nothing further by Wednesday, September 28, 2011, Ms. Lin contacted
BLAGs counsel, Mr. Bartolomucci, again. A true and correct copy of Ms. Lins email is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 9. Mr. Bartolomucci responded on Wednesday, September 28, 2011 indicating that
he was preparing a draft stipulation. A true and correct copy of Mr. Bartolomuccis email is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 10. Ms. Lin responded the same day requesting that BLAGs filing be styled as an
unopposed motion. A true and correct copy of this email is attached hereto as Exhibit F. 11. Despite Ms. Lins request, Mr. Bartolomucci sent a draft stipulation. A true and
correct copy of Mr. Bartolomuccis email is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 12. Ms. Lin responded the same day, reiterating her request that BLAG style the filing
as an unopposed motion, to avoid the misleading impression that the parties jointly are requesting further briefing when in fact plaintiff is simply accommodating BLAGs desire to do so. A true and correct copy of Ms. Lins email is attached hereto as Exhibit H. 13. Hearing no response by Thursday, September 29, 2011, Ms. Lin emailed Mr.
Bartolomucci again to request a draft of the unopposed motion by 3 p.m. Eastern Time on September 30, 2011. A true and correct copy of this email is attached hereto as Exhibit I. 14. Mr. Bartolomucci responded on September 30, 2011, stating that because the
parties could not agree on a stipulation, BLAG has decided to simply file a motion seeking leave
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
to file a superseding opposition to plaintiffs motion for summary judgment without specifying any dates for that brief or plaintiffs response. Mr. Bartolomucci indicated that he would say that BLAG was prepared to file its brief before the current October 21, 2011 hearing date, despite plaintiffs clear indication in prior correspondence that fairness requires that she be permitted to file a superseding reply, and her experts travel schedule would not make that possible before the October 21, 2011 hearing. A true and correct copy of Mr. Bartolomuccis September 30, 2011 email is attached hereto as Exhibit J. 15. Ms. Lin responded on September 30, 2011 to Mr. Bartolomucci indicating that the
motion could not be filed as unopposed without including the briefing dates previously agreed upon by plaintiff and BLAG. A true and correct copy of that email is attached hereto as Exhibit K. 16. Counsel for Defendants, Christopher Hall, confirmed for plaintiff by email on
September 30, 2011 that defendants take no position as to these issues. A true and correct copy of Mr. Halls email is attached hereto as Exhibit L. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 30th day of September, 2011, in Los Angeles, California.
/s/ Tara Borelli Tara Borelli
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
Case No.
3:10-cv-0257-JSW
[PROPOSED] ORDER
26 27 28
[PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 3:10-CV-0257-JSW
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
After consideration of Intervenor Bipartisan Legal Advisory Groups (BLAGs) Motion for Leave to File Superseding Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 168), the papers filed by plaintiff Karen Golinski in response thereto, and all other matters presented to the Court, and good cause so appearing, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: BLAG may file a superseding opposition to plaintiffs motion for summary judgment no later than October 11, 2011. Plaintiff may file a superseding reply in support of her motion for summary judgment no later than November 1, 2011. The hearing on all pending motions in this matter shall be continued to December 16, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: __________________, 2011 _____________________________________ The Honorable Jeffrey S. White United States District Judge
[PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 3:10-CV-0257-JSW
EXHIBIT A
"Christopher Bartolomucci" <cbartolomucci@bancro ftpllc.com> 09/23/2011 05:25 PM
To: <TBorelli@lambdalegal.org>, "Lin, Rita F." <RLin@mofo.com>, <Christopher.Hall@usdoj.gov> cc: Subject: Golinski
DearCounsel: Nowthatallpartieshavehadtheopportunitytoengageindiscovery,theHouseintendstomovethe districtcourtforleavetofileasupersedingoppositiontoplaintiff'smotionforsummaryjudgmentan oppositionthatwilladdressthemeritsofplaintiff'smotionforsummaryjudgment. TheHouseispreparedtofileitssupersedingoppositiontwoweeksfromthiscomingMonday.Pleaselet meknowifPlaintiffortheDepartmentofJusticewouldopposesuchafiling.Ifthereisnoopposition, theHouseintendstofileamotionwiththedistrictcourtearlynextweekindicatingthattheHousewill fileitssupersedingoppositiontwoweeksfromthiscomingMonday. IfthereisoppositiontotheHouse'smotionforleave,wewillaskthedistrictcourtforleavetofilea supersedingoppositiontwoweeksafterthedistrictcourtgrantsleave,assumingitdoesso. Manythanks, ChrisBartolomucci
EXHIBIT B
"Lin, Rita F." <RLin@mofo.com> 09/26/2011 02:44 PM
To: "Christopher Bartolomucci" <cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com> cc: TBorelli@lambdalegal.org, Christopher.Hall@usdoj.gov Subject: RE: Golinski
Chris: BLAG has had plaintiff's discovery responses since September 1. Also, I assume that most of the materials with which BLAG plans to supplement are from the depositions in Windsor, where discovery closed in July, prior to the submission of BLAG's opposition briefs. We are having difficulty seeing why BLAG waited until now to file a superseding opposition. That said, in order to permit a full airing of the issues, we are willing to stipulate to the filing of such an opposition, on two conditions. First, we would need the opportunity to respond to BLAG's further summary judgment opposition with a further reply brief, including to supplement the record with BLAG's recent discovery responses. At least one of plaintiff's experts will be out of the country until October 20. In light of the fact that she may be needed to provide rebuttal evidence on reply, depending on the content of BLAG's opposition brief, we would need the deadline for the reply brief to provide sufficient time following her return to obtain that testimony. We would therefore propose that plaintiffs have three weeks to respond to BLAG's opposition brief. We think that this offer should be more than fair in light of the fact that BLAG has had our opening brief since July 1, and thus has had over three months to prepare a substantive opposition. By our count, that would mean BLAG's opposition would be due on October 11 (since October 10 is a holiday), and our reply would be due on November 1. Second, the hearing on both the motion to dismiss and the motion for summary judgment should be rescheduled for a time after November 1, at the court's convenience. Please let us know how you would like to proceed. Rita Rita Lin | Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street | San Francisco, California 94105 Tel. (415) 268-7466 | Fax (415) 268-7522 From: Christopher Bartolomucci [mailto:cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 5:25 PM To: TBorelli@lambdalegal.org; Lin, Rita F.; Christopher.Hall@usdoj.gov Subject: Golinski
DearCounsel: Nowthatallpartieshavehadtheopportunitytoengageindiscovery,theHouseintendstomovethe districtcourtforleavetofileasupersedingoppositiontoplaintiff'smotionforsummaryjudgmentan oppositionthatwilladdressthemeritsofplaintiff'smotionforsummaryjudgment. TheHouseispreparedtofileitssupersedingoppositiontwoweeksfromthiscomingMonday.Pleaselet meknowifPlaintiffortheDepartmentofJusticewouldopposesuchafiling.Ifthereisnoopposition, theHouseintendstofileamotionwiththedistrictcourtearlynextweekindicatingthattheHousewill fileitssupersedingoppositiontwoweeksfromthiscomingMonday. IfthereisoppositiontotheHouse'smotionforleave,wewillaskthedistrictcourtforleavetofilea supersedingoppositiontwoweeksafterthedistrictcourtgrantsleave,assumingitdoesso.
Manythanks, ChrisBartolomucci
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.For information about this legend, go tohttp://www.mofo.com/Circular230/========================================== ==================================This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message.---------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT C
"Christopher Bartolomucci" <cbartolomucci@bancro ftpllc.com> 09/27/2011 11:41 AM
To: "Lin, Rita F." <RLin@mofo.com> cc: <TBorelli@lambdalegal.org>, <Christopher.Hall@usdoj.gov> Subject: RE: Golinski
Thankyou,Rita.TheHouseisamenabletoyourrequests.Wewilldraftamotionforleave. ChrisDoestheDepartmenthaveanyviews?
From: Lin, Rita F. [mailto:RLin@mofo.com] Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 5:44 PM To: Christopher Bartolomucci Cc: TBorelli@lambdalegal.org; Christopher.Hall@usdoj.gov Subject: RE: Golinski
DearCounsel:
Nowthatallpartieshavehadtheopportunitytoengageindiscovery,theHouseintendstomovethe districtcourtforleavetofileasupersedingoppositiontoplaintiff'smotionforsummaryjudgmentan oppositionthatwilladdressthemeritsofplaintiff'smotionforsummaryjudgment. TheHouseispreparedtofileitssupersedingoppositiontwoweeksfromthiscomingMonday.Pleaselet meknowifPlaintiffortheDepartmentofJusticewouldopposesuchafiling.Ifthereisnoopposition, theHouseintendstofileamotionwiththedistrictcourtearlynextweekindicatingthattheHousewill fileitssupersedingoppositiontwoweeksfromthiscomingMonday. IfthereisoppositiontotheHouse'smotionforleave,wewillaskthedistrictcourtforleavetofilea supersedingoppositiontwoweeksafterthedistrictcourtgrantsleave,assumingitdoesso. Manythanks, ChrisBartolomucci
--------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. For information about this legend, go to http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/ ===================================================================== ======= This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT D
"Lin, Rita F." <RLin@mofo.com> 09/28/2011 11:34 AM
To: "Christopher Bartolomucci" <cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com> cc: TBorelli@lambdalegal.org, "Hall, Christopher (CIV)" <Christopher.Hall@usdoj.gov> Subject: RE: Golinski
Chris, Just wanted to check in about this. Are you planning to file today? I will be out of the office on Friday, so would appreciate it if you could file today or early tomorrow, so that I can look at your filing and respond promptly. It would seem to be to the advantage of all parties to get this in front of Judge White sooner rather than later. Best, Rita From: Hall, Christopher (CIV) [mailto:Christopher.Hall@usdoj.gov] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 11:58 AM To: Christopher Bartolomucci; Lin, Rita F. Cc: TBorelli@lambdalegal.org Subject: RE: Golinski
Chris YoucanrepresenttotheCourtthatDefendantstakenopositionastoBLAGsmotion. Thanks, Chris

From: Christopher Bartolomucci [mailto:cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 2:40 PM To: Lin, Rita F. Cc: TBorelli@lambdalegal.org; Hall, Christopher (CIV) Subject: RE: Golinski
Chris: BLAG has had plaintiff's discovery responses since September 1. Also, I assume that most of the materials with which BLAG plans to supplement are from the depositions in Windsor, where discovery closed in July, prior to the submission of BLAG's opposition briefs. We are having difficulty seeing why BLAG waited until now to file a superseding opposition. That said, in order to permit a full airing of the issues, we are willing to stipulate to the filing of such an opposition, on two conditions. First, we would need the opportunity to respond to BLAG's further summary judgment opposition with a
further reply brief, including to supplement the record with BLAG's recent discovery responses. At least one of plaintiff's experts will be out of the country until October 20. In light of the fact that she may be needed to provide rebuttal evidence on reply, depending on the content of BLAG's opposition brief, we would need the deadline for the reply brief to provide sufficient time following her return to obtain that testimony. We would therefore propose that plaintiffs have three weeks to respond to BLAG's opposition brief. We think that this offer should be more than fair in light of the fact that BLAG has had our opening brief since July 1, and thus has had over three months to prepare a substantive opposition. By our count, that would mean BLAG's opposition would be due on October 11 (since October 10 is a holiday), and our reply would be due on November 1. Second, the hearing on both the motion to dismiss and the motion for summary judgment should be rescheduled for a time after November 1, at the court's convenience. Please let us know how you would like to proceed. Rita Rita Lin | Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street | San Francisco, California 94105 Tel. (415) 268-7466 | Fax (415) 268-7522 From: Christopher Bartolomucci [mailto:cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 5:25 PM To: TBorelli@lambdalegal.org; Lin, Rita F.; Christopher.Hall@usdoj.gov Subject: Golinski
DearCounsel: Nowthatallpartieshavehadtheopportunitytoengageindiscovery,theHouseintendstomovethe districtcourtforleavetofileasupersedingoppositiontoplaintiff'smotionforsummaryjudgmentan oppositionthatwilladdressthemeritsofplaintiff'smotionforsummaryjudgment. TheHouseispreparedtofileitssupersedingoppositiontwoweeksfromthiscomingMonday.Pleaselet meknowifPlaintiffortheDepartmentofJusticewouldopposesuchafiling.Ifthereisnoopposition, theHouseintendstofileamotionwiththedistrictcourtearlynextweekindicatingthattheHousewill fileitssupersedingoppositiontwoweeksfromthiscomingMonday. IfthereisoppositiontotheHouse'smotionforleave,wewillaskthedistrictcourtforleavetofilea supersedingoppositiontwoweeksafterthedistrictcourtgrantsleave,assumingitdoesso. Manythanks, ChrisBartolomucci
--------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used,
and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. For information about this legend, go to http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/ ===================================================================== ======= This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.For information about this legend, go tohttp://www.mofo.com/Circular230/========================================== ==================================This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message.---------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT E
To: "Lin, Rita F." <RLin@mofo.com> cc: <TBorelli@lambdalegal.org>, "Hall, Christopher (CIV)" <Christopher.Hall@usdoj.gov> Subject: RE: Golinski
Rita,wearedraftingthisasajointstipulation,whichIwillsendtoyouforreviewtoday.
From: Lin, Rita F. [mailto:RLin@mofo.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 2:33 PM To: Christopher Bartolomucci Cc: TBorelli@lambdalegal.org; Hall, Christopher (CIV) Subject: RE: Golinski

DearCounsel: Nowthatallpartieshavehadtheopportunitytoengageindiscovery,theHouseintendstomovethe districtcourtforleavetofileasupersedingoppositiontoplaintiff'smotionforsummaryjudgmentan oppositionthatwilladdressthemeritsofplaintiff'smotionforsummaryjudgment. TheHouseispreparedtofileitssupersedingoppositiontwoweeksfromthiscomingMonday.Pleaselet meknowifPlaintiffortheDepartmentofJusticewouldopposesuchafiling.Ifthereisnoopposition, theHouseintendstofileamotionwiththedistrictcourtearlynextweekindicatingthattheHousewill fileitssupersedingoppositiontwoweeksfromthiscomingMonday. IfthereisoppositiontotheHouse'smotionforleave,wewillaskthedistrictcourtforleavetofilea supersedingoppositiontwoweeksafterthedistrictcourtgrantsleave,assumingitdoesso. Manythanks,
ChrisBartolomucci
EXHIBIT F
To: "Christopher Bartolomucci" <cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com> cc: TBorelli@lambdalegal.org, "Hall, Christopher (CIV)" <Christopher.Hall@usdoj.gov> Subject: RE: Golinski
Thanks. I didn't realize that. I suspect we may have trouble agreeing on joint stipulation language. We can discuss, but I think it may be better to just style it as an unopposed motion, to which we can respond promptly with a statement of non-opposition. From: Christopher Bartolomucci [mailto:cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:05 PM To: Lin, Rita F. Cc: TBorelli@lambdalegal.org; Hall, Christopher (CIV) Subject: RE: Golinski
Rita,wearedraftingthisasajointstipulation,whichIwillsendtoyouforreviewtoday.
From: Lin, Rita F. [mailto:RLin@mofo.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 2:33 PM To: Christopher Bartolomucci Cc: TBorelli@lambdalegal.org; Hall, Christopher (CIV) Subject: RE: Golinski

Thankyou,Rita.TheHouseisamenabletoyourrequests.Wewilldraftamotionforleave.
ChrisDoestheDepartmenthaveanyviews?
DearCounsel: Nowthatallpartieshavehadtheopportunitytoengageindiscovery,theHouseintendstomovethe districtcourtforleavetofileasupersedingoppositiontoplaintiff'smotionforsummaryjudgmentan oppositionthatwilladdressthemeritsofplaintiff'smotionforsummaryjudgment. TheHouseispreparedtofileitssupersedingoppositiontwoweeksfromthiscomingMonday.Pleaselet meknowifPlaintiffortheDepartmentofJusticewouldopposesuchafiling.Ifthereisnoopposition,
theHouseintendstofileamotionwiththedistrictcourtearlynextweekindicatingthattheHousewill fileitssupersedingoppositiontwoweeksfromthiscomingMonday. IfthereisoppositiontotheHouse'smotionforleave,wewillaskthedistrictcourtforleavetofilea supersedingoppositiontwoweeksafterthedistrictcourtgrantsleave,assumingitdoesso. Manythanks, ChrisBartolomucci
--------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. For information about this legend, go to http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/ =====================================================================
======= This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.For information about this legend, go tohttp://www.mofo.com/Circular230/========================================== ==================================This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message.---------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT G
To: <RLin@mofo.com>, <tborelli@lambdalegal.org> cc: <Christopher.Hall@usdoj.gov> Subject: Draft Stipulation
<<Joint Stipulation in Golinski.doc>> Rita, here is the stipulation that we drafted. We are happy to talk about the language.
EXHIBIT H
To: "Christopher Bartolomucci" <cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com>, tborelli@lambdalegal.org cc: Christopher.Hall@usdoj.gov Subject: RE: Draft Stipulation
Chris: Thanks for sending this over. We've discussed and would prefer to do this as an unopposed motion. Doing this as a stipulation creates the inaccurate impression that this is a joint request to put in more briefing. In reality, this additional round of briefing is something that BLAG wants and plaintiff is willing to accommodate, provided she has an adequate opportunity to respond and the hearing for both motions is rescheduled appropriately. If you convert this to a motion for leave, and send us a copy, I will be happy to review it promptly and (assuming it looks fine) give you permission to represent that we do not oppose it. Best, Rita -----Original Message----From: Christopher Bartolomucci [mailto:cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 2:04 PM To: Lin, Rita F.; tborelli@lambdalegal.org Cc: Christopher.Hall@usdoj.gov Subject: Draft Stipulation <<Joint Stipulation in Golinski.doc>> Rita, here is the stipulation that we drafted. We are happy to talk about the language. --------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. For information about this legend, go to http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/ ============================================================================ This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT I
To: "Christopher Bartolomucci" <cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com> cc: "Dresser, Gregory P." <GDresser@mofo.com>, "Jones, Aaron D." <AJones@mofo.com>, "Hall, Christopher (CIV)" <Christopher.Hall@usdoj.gov>, tborelli@lambdalegal.org Subject: RE: Draft Stipulation
Chris: We have not seen the draft motion for leave today, though we did see your supplemental filing. We are very concerned that if your motion for leave does not get on file tomorrow, the judge will not be able to act on the motion prior to your proposed brief due date, thus resulting in further delay and prejudicing our client. If this continues to drag out, we will be forced to oppose your motion based on that prejudice. As it stands now, Judge White's calendar is very full between now and the end of the year. We do not want to have to push this hearing until next February, when his calendar next opens up. Could you send the draft by 3pm ET tomorrow? As I will be out of the office (as I noted earlier in the week), please be sure to cc Greg Dresser and Aaron Jones, in addition to Tara Borelli. That will ensure that we will be able to respond to your draft motion promptly. Best, Rita Rita Lin | Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street | San Francisco, California 94105 Tel. (415) 268-7466 | Fax (415) 268-7522 -----Original Message----From: Lin, Rita F. [mailto:RLin@mofo.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 6:28 PM To: Christopher Bartolomucci; tborelli@lambdalegal.org Cc: Hall, Christopher (CIV) Subject: RE: Draft Stipulation Chris: Thanks for sending this over. We've discussed and would prefer to do this as an unopposed motion. Doing this as a stipulation creates the inaccurate impression that this is a joint request to put in more briefing. In reality, this additional round of briefing is something that BLAG wants and plaintiff is willing to accommodate, provided she has an adequate opportunity to respond and the hearing for both motions is rescheduled appropriately. If you convert this to a motion for leave, and send us a copy, I will be happy to review it promptly and (assuming it looks fine) give you permission to represent that we do not oppose it. Best, Rita -----Original Message----From: Christopher Bartolomucci [mailto:cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 2:04 PM To: Lin, Rita F.; tborelli@lambdalegal.org Cc: Christopher.Hall@usdoj.gov
Subject: Draft Stipulation <<Joint Stipulation in Golinski.doc>> Rita, here is the stipulation that we drafted. We are happy to talk about the language. --------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. For information about this legend, go to http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/ ======================================================================== ==== This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. For information about this legend, go to http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/ ============================================================================ This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT J
"Christopher Bartolomucci" <cbartolomucci@bancro ftpllc.com> 09/30/2011 10:44 AM
To: "Lin, Rita F." <RLin@mofo.com> cc: "Dresser, Gregory P." <GDresser@mofo.com>, "Jones, Aaron D." <AJones@mofo.com>, "Hall, Christopher (CIV)" <Christopher.Hall@usdoj.gov>, <tborelli@lambdalegal.org> Subject: RE: Draft Stipulation
Rita -- Since we can't do this by joint stipulation, the House has decided to file a motion that simply seeks leave to file a substantive opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment without specifying a due date for the opposition. The proposed order will let the court decide when that opposition would be due. The House will say that it is prepared to file its opposition in time for the court to proceed with the October 21 hearing, but the House will not affirmatively ask the court either to move or keep the hearing date. If the House can represent that Plaintiff does not oppose this motion, please let me know. Chris H. -- I assume that DOJ takes no position, but please let me know if I am wrong about that. Many thanks, Chris B. -----Original Message----From: Lin, Rita F. [mailto:RLin@mofo.com] Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 7:29 PM To: Christopher Bartolomucci Cc: Dresser, Gregory P.; Jones, Aaron D.; Hall, Christopher (CIV); tborelli@lambdalegal.org Subject: RE: Draft Stipulation Chris: We have not seen the draft motion for leave today, though we did see your supplemental filing. We are very concerned that if your motion for leave does not get on file tomorrow, the judge will not be able to act on the motion prior to your proposed brief due date, thus resulting in further delay and prejudicing our client. If this continues to drag out, we will be forced to oppose your motion based on that prejudice. As it stands now, Judge White's calendar is very full between now and the end of the year. We do not want to have to push this hearing until next February, when his calendar next opens up. Could you send the draft by 3pm ET tomorrow? As I will be out of the office (as I noted earlier in the week), please be sure to cc Greg Dresser and Aaron Jones, in addition to Tara Borelli. That will ensure that we will be able to respond to your draft motion promptly. Best, Rita Rita Lin | Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street | San Francisco, California 94105 Tel. (415) 268-7466 | Fax (415) 268-7522 -----Original Message-----
From: Lin, Rita F. [mailto:RLin@mofo.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 6:28 PM To: Christopher Bartolomucci; tborelli@lambdalegal.org Cc: Hall, Christopher (CIV) Subject: RE: Draft Stipulation Chris: Thanks for sending this over. We've discussed and would prefer to do this as an unopposed motion. Doing this as a stipulation creates the inaccurate impression that this is a joint request to put in more briefing. In reality, this additional round of briefing is something that BLAG wants and plaintiff is willing to accommodate, provided she has an adequate opportunity to respond and the hearing for both motions is rescheduled appropriately. If you convert this to a motion for leave, and send us a copy, I will be happy to review it promptly and (assuming it looks fine) give you permission to represent that we do not oppose it. Best, Rita -----Original Message----From: Christopher Bartolomucci [mailto:cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 2:04 PM To: Lin, Rita F.; tborelli@lambdalegal.org Cc: Christopher.Hall@usdoj.gov Subject: Draft Stipulation <<Joint Stipulation in Golinski.doc>> Rita, here is the stipulation that we drafted. We are happy to talk about the language. --------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. For information about this legend, go to http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/ ======================================================================== ==== This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. For information about this legend, go to http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/ ======================================================================== ==== This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT K
To: cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com cc: "Dresser, Gregory P." <GDresser@mofo.com>, "Jones, Aaron D." <AJones@mofo.com>, christopher.hall@usdoj.gov, TBorelli@lambdalegal.org Subject: Re: Draft Stipulation
Chris: Without a date for the opposition or provision for a reply, we cannot agree to have your request filed as an unopposed motion. As I noted in my email, we need to resolve this quickly, as Judge White's calendar is filling quickly. Please confirm that you will be filing your motion today. If we do not see a filing by 7pm ET, we will assume that you do not plan to file, and will file our own affirmative request to the court later today. Chris H -- I too understand from your emails that DOJ takes no position, but let us know if we are wrong. Best, Rita ----- Original Message ----From: Christopher Bartolomucci <cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com> To: Lin, Rita F. Cc: Dresser, Gregory P.; Jones, Aaron D.; Hall, Christopher (CIV) <Christopher.Hall@usdoj.gov>; tborelli@lambdalegal.org <tborelli@lambdalegal.org> Sent: Fri Sep 30 10:44:05 2011 Subject: RE: Draft Stipulation Rita -- Since we can't do this by joint stipulation, the House has decided to file a motion that simply seeks leave to file a substantive opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment without specifying a due date for the opposition. The proposed order will let the court decide when that opposition would be due. The House will say that it is prepared to file its opposition in time for the court to proceed with the October 21 hearing, but the House will not affirmatively ask the court either to move or keep the hearing date. If the House can represent that Plaintiff does not oppose this motion, please let me know. Chris H. -- I assume that DOJ takes no position, but please let me know if I am wrong about that. Many thanks, Chris B.
-----Original Message----From: Lin, Rita F. [mailto:RLin@mofo.com] Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 7:29 PM To: Christopher Bartolomucci Cc: Dresser, Gregory P.; Jones, Aaron D.; Hall, Christopher (CIV); tborelli@lambdalegal.org Subject: RE: Draft Stipulation
Chris: We have not seen the draft motion for leave today, though we did see your supplemental filing. We are very concerned that if your motion for leave does not get on file tomorrow, the judge will not be able to act on the motion prior to your proposed brief due date, thus resulting in further delay and prejudicing our client. If this continues to drag out, we will be forced to oppose your motion based on that prejudice. As it stands now, Judge White's calendar is very full between now and the end of the year. We do not want to have to push this hearing until next February, when his calendar next opens up. Could you send the draft by 3pm ET tomorrow? As I will be out of the office (as I noted earlier in the week), please be sure to cc Greg Dresser and Aaron Jones, in addition to Tara Borelli. That will ensure that we will be able to respond to your draft motion promptly. Best, Rita Rita Lin | Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street | San Francisco, California 94105 Tel. (415) 268-7466 | Fax (415) 268-7522
-----Original Message----From: Lin, Rita F. [mailto:RLin@mofo.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 6:28 PM To: Christopher Bartolomucci; tborelli@lambdalegal.org Cc: Hall, Christopher (CIV) Subject: RE: Draft Stipulation Chris: Thanks for sending this over. We've discussed and would prefer to do this as an unopposed motion. Doing this as a stipulation creates the inaccurate impression that this is a joint request to put in more briefing. In reality, this additional round of briefing is something that BLAG wants and plaintiff is willing to accommodate, provided she has an adequate opportunity to respond and the hearing for both motions is rescheduled appropriately. If you convert this to a motion for leave, and send us a copy, I will be happy to review it promptly and (assuming it looks fine) give you permission to represent that we do not oppose it. Best, Rita -----Original Message----From: Christopher Bartolomucci [mailto:cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 2:04 PM To: Lin, Rita F.; tborelli@lambdalegal.org Cc: Christopher.Hall@usdoj.gov Subject: Draft Stipulation
<<Joint Stipulation in Golinski.doc>> Rita, here is the stipulation that we drafted. We are happy to talk about the language.
--------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. For information about this legend, go to http://www mofo.com/Circular230/ ======================================================================== ==== This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. For information about this legend, go to http://www mofo.com/Circular230/ ======================================================================== ==== This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. For information about this legend, go to http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/ ===================================================================== ======= This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT L
"Hall, Christopher (CIV)" <Christopher.Hall@usdo j.gov> 09/30/2011 01:55 PM
To: "Christopher Bartolomucci" <cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com>, "Lin, Rita F." <RLin@mofo.com> cc: "Dresser, Gregory P." <GDresser@mofo.com>, "Jones, Aaron D." <AJones@mofo.com>, <tborelli@lambdalegal.org> Subject: RE: Draft Stipulation
Chris -Consistent with your assumption, the Department takes no position as to the motion and requested relief described in your e-mail. Regards, Chris -----Original Message----From: Christopher Bartolomucci [mailto:cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com] Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 1:44 PM To: Lin, Rita F. Cc: Dresser, Gregory P.; Jones, Aaron D.; Hall, Christopher (CIV); tborelli@lambdalegal.org Subject: RE: Draft Stipulation Rita -- Since we can't do this by joint stipulation, the House has decided to file a motion that simply seeks leave to file a substantive opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment without specifying a due date for the opposition. The proposed order will let the court decide when that opposition would be due. The House will say that it is prepared to file its opposition in time for the court to proceed with the October 21 hearing, but the House will not affirmatively ask the court either to move or keep the hearing date. If the House can represent that Plaintiff does not oppose this motion, please let me know. Chris H. -- I assume that DOJ takes no position, but please let me know if I am wrong about that. Many thanks, Chris B. -----Original Message----From: Lin, Rita F. [mailto:RLin@mofo.com] Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 7:29 PM To: Christopher Bartolomucci Cc: Dresser, Gregory P.; Jones, Aaron D.; Hall, Christopher (CIV); tborelli@lambdalegal.org Subject: RE: Draft Stipulation Chris: We have not seen the draft motion for leave today, though we did see your supplemental filing. We are very concerned that if your motion for leave does not get on file tomorrow, the judge will not be able to act on the motion prior to your proposed brief due date, thus resulting in further delay and prejudicing our client. If this continues to drag out, we will be forced to oppose your motion based on that prejudice. As it stands now, Judge White's calendar is very full between now and the end of the year. We do not want to have to push this hearing until next February, when his calendar next opens up.
Could you send the draft by 3pm ET tomorrow? As I will be out of the office (as I noted earlier in the week), please be sure to cc Greg Dresser and Aaron Jones, in addition to Tara Borelli. That will ensure that we will be able to respond to your draft motion promptly. Best, Rita Rita Lin | Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street | San Francisco, California 94105 Tel. (415) 268-7466 | Fax (415) 268-7522 -----Original Message----From: Lin, Rita F. [mailto:RLin@mofo.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 6:28 PM To: Christopher Bartolomucci; tborelli@lambdalegal.org Cc: Hall, Christopher (CIV) Subject: RE: Draft Stipulation Chris: Thanks for sending this over. We've discussed and would prefer to do this as an unopposed motion. Doing this as a stipulation creates the inaccurate impression that this is a joint request to put in more briefing. In reality, this additional round of briefing is something that BLAG wants and plaintiff is willing to accommodate, provided she has an adequate opportunity to respond and the hearing for both motions is rescheduled appropriately. If you convert this to a motion for leave, and send us a copy, I will be happy to review it promptly and (assuming it looks fine) give you permission to represent that we do not oppose it. Best, Rita -----Original Message----From: Christopher Bartolomucci [mailto:cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 2:04 PM To: Lin, Rita F.; tborelli@lambdalegal.org Cc: Christopher.Hall@usdoj.gov Subject: Draft Stipulation <<Joint Stipulation in Golinski.doc>> Rita, here is the stipulation that we drafted. We are happy to talk about the language. --------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. For information about this legend, go to http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/
======================================================================== ==== This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. For information about this legend, go to http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/ ======================================================================== ==== This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message. ---------------------------------------------------------------------

3:10-cv-00257 #169

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

3:10-cv-00257 #169

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document169

PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO BLAGS MOTION FOR LEAVE CASE NO. 3:10-CV-0257-JSW

/s/ Tara Borelli Tara Borelli

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

"Christopher Bartolomucci" <cbartolomucci@bancro ftpllc.com> 09/23/2011 05:25 PM

"Lin, Rita F." <RLin@mofo.com> 09/26/2011 02:44 PM

"Christopher Bartolomucci" <cbartolomucci@bancro ftpllc.com> 09/27/2011 11:41 AM

"Lin, Rita F." <RLin@mofo.com> 09/28/2011 11:34 AM

Chris YoucanrepresenttotheCourtthatDefendantstakenopositionastoBLAGsmotion. Thanks, Chris

"Christopher Bartolomucci" <cbartolomucci@bancro ftpllc.com> 09/28/2011 12:06 PM

Chris YoucanrepresenttotheCourtthatDefendantstakenopositionastoBLAGsmotion. Thanks, Chris

"Lin, Rita F." <RLin@mofo.com> 09/28/2011 12:11 PM

Chris YoucanrepresenttotheCourtthatDefendantstakenopositionastoBLAGsmotion. Thanks, Chris

"Christopher Bartolomucci" <cbartolomucci@bancro ftpllc.com> 09/28/2011 02:04 PM

To: <RLin@mofo.com>, <tborelli@lambdalegal.org> cc: <Christopher.Hall@usdoj.gov> Subject: Draft Stipulation

"Lin, Rita F." <RLin@mofo.com> 09/28/2011 03:28 PM

"Lin, Rita F." <RLin@mofo.com> 09/29/2011 04:28 PM

"Christopher Bartolomucci" <cbartolomucci@bancro ftpllc.com> 09/30/2011 10:44 AM

"Lin, Rita F." <RLin@mofo.com> 09/30/2011 01:55 PM

"Hall, Christopher (CIV)" <Christopher.Hall@usdo j.gov> 09/30/2011 01:55 PM

S-ar putea să vă placă și