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

PLAINTIFFS ADMIN MOT. RE MOT. TO DISMISS AND ANTICIPATED MOT. FOR SUM. JUDGMT.
CASE NO. 3:10-cv-0257-JSW

sf- 2991955
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
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 GOLINSKI'S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
REGARDING OPPOSITIONS TO
MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND
ANTICIPATED MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121 Filed06/08/11 Page1 of 4
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

PLAINTIFFS ADMIN MOT. RE MOT. TO DISMISS AND ANTICIPATED MOT. FOR SUM. JUDGMT.
CASE NO. 3:10-cv-0257-JSW

sf- 2991955
1

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-11, plaintiff Karen Golinski respectfully submits the following
motion for administrative relief regarding plaintiffs oppositions to the motions to dismiss filed by
defendants and by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) and plaintiffs anticipated
motion for summary judgment.
On June 3, 2011, BLAG filed an overlength motion to dismiss of 30 pages, as authorized
by the Court pursuant to stipulation of the parties. On the same day, defendants also filed their
own motion to dismiss. Due to the recent change in Local Rule 7-3, which went into effect on
June 3, 2011, plaintiffs oppositions to both motions to dismiss are now due June 17, 2011.
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the deadline to oppose the motions to dismiss be extended by
one week to June 24, 2011, in order to permit plaintiff sufficient time to address the lengthy brief
filed by BLAG, which is twice as long as ordinarily permitted pursuant to this Courts standing
order. BLAG has stated that it does not oppose this request, so long as it too is provided an
additional week for its reply brief (a request to which plaintiff has no objection). Plaintiff notes
that the motions to dismiss are scheduled to be heard on August 5, 2011, so extending the
opposition and reply deadlines by one week will not affect the hearing date and will still permit
the motion to be fully briefed four weeks prior to the hearing date.
In addition, plaintiff anticipates filing a motion for summary judgment at the same time as
her oppositions to the motions to dismiss. In order to avoid repetitive and duplicative briefing,
plaintiff respectfully requests leave to file a single consolidated memorandum of points and
authorities of no more than forty-five pages opposing both motions to dismiss and supporting
plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff notes that, if plaintiff were to file three
separate briefs as to each of those motions instead of a single consolidated brief, plaintiff would
have fifteen pages for each brief, for a total of forty-five pages. Plaintiff further submits that the
requested length is reasonable in light of the thirty-page brief submitted by BLAG on its motion
to dismiss, in addition to the separate three-page brief filed by defendants.
The parties are in the process of meeting and conferring regarding a potential schedule for
discovery in connection with plaintiffs anticipated summary judgment motion, with which
plaintiff intends to submit expert testimony. It is therefore possible that the parties may need to
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121 Filed06/08/11 Page2 of 4
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

PLAINTIFFS ADMIN MOT. RE MOT. TO DISMISS AND ANTICIPATED MOT. FOR SUM. JUDGMT.
CASE NO. 3:10-cv-0257-JSW

sf- 2991955
2

approach the Court again regarding scheduling issues. However, defendants and BLAG do not
anticipate being able to respond to plaintiff regarding her scheduling proposals until late this
week or early next week. Due to the impending deadline on plaintiffs oppositions to the motions
to dismiss, plaintiff therefore submits the above request for administrative relief.
BLAG has stated that it does not object to permitting plaintiffs to file a thirty-page brief in
opposition to the two motions to dismiss, but that it opposes consolidation of such a brief with
plaintiffs summary judgment motion because it believes any summary judgment motion to be
premature. That response is puzzling. Rule 56 expressly authorizes a summary judgment
motion at any time prior to the close of discovery, and permits BLAG to oppose such a motion as
premature only if it can identify specific facts on which discovery is necessary.
1
Accordingly, the
issue is not whether plaintiff may file a summary judgment motion now, which the rules plainly
permit, but whether she must file two repetitive briefs or may proceed on one consolidated brief.
2
In any event, it makes eminent sense to proceed with the motions to dismiss and plaintiffs
cross-motion for summary judgment simultaneously rather than in seriatim, since the issues will
be almost identical. That is exactly the approach taken in numerous other DOMA actions,
including those in which BLAG recently intervened. See Gill v. Office of Personnel
Management, No. 1:09-cv-10309, ECF No. 46 (D. Mass.)(scheduling order authorizing briefing
of defendants motion to dismiss and plaintiffs cross-motion for summary judgment at the same
time) (attached as Ex. A); Windsor v. United States, No. 1:10-cv-08435-BSJ -JCF, ECF No. 22
(S.D.N.Y.) (same) (attached as Ex. B); Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, No. 310 CV
1750 (VLB), ECF No. 54 (D. Conn.) (same) (attached as Ex. C). Moreover, proceeding on cross-
motions permits the case to be resolved, in favor of one side or the other, in one fell swoop.


1
The parties ongoing meet and confer regarding a proposed schedule for briefing and
discovery on plaintiffs summary judgment motion is intended to avoid unnecessary motions
practice on precisely this issue.
2
Furthermore, although BLAG does not object to plaintiff filing a single consolidated
opposition to the two motions to dismiss, BLAG agreed to just thirty pages for such a brief. (Lin
Dec. Ex. B.) This limit would place plaintiff at a distinct disadvantage in light of the fact that she
must respond to the thirty-page motion filed by BLAG in addition to the separate three-page
motion filed by defendants.
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121 Filed06/08/11 Page3 of 4
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

PLAINTIFFS ADMIN MOT. RE MOT. TO DISMISS AND ANTICIPATED MOT. FOR SUM. JUDGMT.
CASE NO. 3:10-cv-0257-JSW

sf- 2991955
3

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit over sixteen months ago, and originally sought insurance for her wife
over two and half years ago. Her spouse remains without adequate health insurance. There is no
reason why she should have to wait to bring her dispositive motion.
Plaintiff therefore respectfully requests that the deadline to oppose the motions to dismiss
be extended by one week and that she be permitted to file a single consolidated brief of no longer
than forty-five pages opposing both motions to dismiss and supporting her anticipated motion for
summary judgment.
Dated: June 8, 2011 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND
EDUCATION FUND, INC.
By: /s/ Rita F. Lin
Rita F. Lin
Attorneys for Plaintiff
KAREN GOLINSKI
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121 Filed06/08/11 Page4 of 4
EXHIBIT A
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121-1 Filed06/08/11 Page1 of 5
Case 1:09-cv-10309-JLT Document 46 Filed 11/23/09 Page 1 of 4 Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121-1 Filed06/08/11 Page2 of 5
Case 1:09-cv-10309-JLT Document 46 Filed 11/23/09 Page 2 of 4 Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121-1 Filed06/08/11 Page3 of 5
Case 1:09-cv-10309-JLT Document 46 Filed 11/23/09 Page 3 of 4 Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121-1 Filed06/08/11 Page4 of 5
Case 1:09-cv-10309-JLT Document 46 Filed 11/23/09 Page 4 of 4 Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121-1 Filed06/08/11 Page5 of 5
EXHIBIT B
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121-2 Filed06/08/11 Page1 of 3
1
05'10/2011 TUE 17:27 FAX 202 416 0262 BANCROFT ASSOCIATES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
EDITH SCHLAIN WINDSOR,
Plaintiff,
v,
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
10 Civ. 8435 (BSJ) (JCF)
idl005/006
0 0
tTl
V c
r [/)
0 0
tTl

n n
u
n [/)
tTl
c
-J
[/)
""r1
"7'
:::::; ..;;..
>-<
V
r
I (1
..
tTl
/" "'. tTl
L.
.-<
-J tI
n
X
:.v
r



"T1
-r
:L
tTl
0
"
REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER
After a conference with the parties on May 9, 2011, and consideration of the
arguments of counsel, the Court hereby orders as fo]Jows:
1. Plaintiff Edith Schlain Windsor ("plaintiff"), defendant, the United
States of America represented by the Department of Justice (the "DOr'), and proposed
Defendant-Intervenor, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of
Representatives ("the House") (collectively, "the parties"), shall exchange initial
disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) on or before May 13,2011;
2. Plaintiff shall serve her expert reports and provide dates for the
depositions of her experts on or before May 20,2011;
3. If the House chooses, it may take the depositions of plaintiff's
experts beginning on May 23,2011;
4, The parties shall exchange all 'Written requests for discovery
(including document requests, interrogatories and requests for admission pursuant to Fed.
R. eiv. P. 26, 33, 36) on or before June 3,
5. The House shall identify its experts (if any) on or before June 7,
2011;
6. The House shall serve its expert reports (if any) on or before June
17,2011;
7. Plaintiff may take depositions of the House's experts (if any)
beginning on June 20, 2011;
8. All fact and expert discovery shall be completed by July 11, 20 f 1;
Case 1:10-cv-08435-BSJ -JCF Document 22 Filed 05/11/11 Page 1 of 2 Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121-2 Filed06/08/11 Page2 of 3
05/10/2011 TUE 17:28 FAX 202 416 0262 BANCROFT ASSOCIATES r.tI006/006
9. Plaintiff shall file a motion for summary judgment on or before
July 15, 2011 (unless the House has not identified any experts pursuant to paragraphs 5
and 6 above, in which case plaintiff's motion for summary judgment shall be filed on or
before June 24,2011);
10. The House shall file its opposition to plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment and a motion to dismiss (if any) on or before August 15,2011 (unless
the House has not identified experts pursuant to paragraphs 5 and 6 above, in which case
the House shall file its opposition to plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and a
motion to dismiss (if any) on or before August 1,2011);
11. Plaintiff shall file a reply in support of her motion for summary
judgment (including expert rebuttal declarations) (if any) and an opposition to the
House's motion to dismiss (if any) and DOJ shall file a brief, if any, on or before
September 2, 2011 (unless the House has not identified experts pursuant to paragraphs 5
and 6 above, in which case plaintiff shall file a reply in support of her motion for
summary judgment (including expert rebuttal declarations) (if any) and an opposition to
the House's motion to dismiss (if any) and DO] shall file a brief, if any, on or before
August 19,2011); and
12. The House shall file its reply in support of its motion to dismiss (if
any) on or before September 23, 2011 (unless the House has not identified experts
pursuant to paragraphs 5 and 6 above, in which case the House shall file its reply in
support of its motion to dismiss (if any) on or before September 9,2011).
SO ORDERED.
S C. FRANCIS IV
ED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated: New York, New York
May Jl, 2011
2
Case 1:10-cv-08435-BSJ -JCF Document 22 Filed 05/11/11 Page 2 of 2 Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121-2 Filed06/08/11 Page3 of 3
EXHIBIT C
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121-3 Filed06/08/11 Page1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT


JOANNE PEDERSEN & ANN MEITZEN, et al., :
Plaintiffs, :
:
v. : CIVIL ACTION NO.
: 3:10-CV-1750 (VLB)
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, et al., :
Defendants. : May 27, 2011


SCHEDULING ORDER
After consideration of the submissions by the parties, the Court orders as
follows:
1. The Plaintiffs, the Defendants and the Defendant-Intervenor, the Bipartisan
Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (the
House) (collectively the parties), shall exchange initial disclosures pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) on or before May 27, 2011.
2. As the parties have advised the Court that they have agreed to coordinate
expert discovery and depositions (if any) in this case and in the case of Windsor
v. United States of America, 10 Civ. 8435 (S.D.N.Y.) (BSJ)(JCF) so that any expert
reports and any expert depositions may be used in both cases, the parties shall
follow Paragraphs 2-3 and 5-7 of the Revised Scheduling Order of May 11, 2011,
entered in Windsor (attached as Exhibit A).
3. The parties shall exchange all written requests for discovery (including
document requests, interrogatories and requests for admissions pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26, 33 and 36) on or before June 8, 2011.
4. All fact and expert discovery shall be complete by July 11, 2011.
Case 3:10-cv-01750-VLB Document 54 Filed 05/27/11 Page 1 of 2 Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121-3 Filed06/08/11 Page2 of 6
5. Plaintiffs shall file a motion for summary judgment on or before July 15, 2011.
6. The House shall file its opposition to Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment
and a motion to dismiss (if any) on or before August 15, 2011.
7. Plaintiffs shall file a reply in support of their motion for summary judgment
(including expert rebuttal declarations) (if any) and an opposition to the Houses
motion to dismiss (if any) and DOJ shall file a brief, if any, on or before
September 14, 2011.
8. The House shall file its reply in support of its motion to dismiss (if any) on or
before October 5, 2011.

SO ORDERED.

_______/s/______________
Vanessa L. Bryant
United States District Judge


Dated at Hartford, Connecticut: May 27, 2011.
Case 3:10-cv-01750-VLB Document 54 Filed 05/27/11 Page 2 of 2 Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121-3 Filed06/08/11 Page3 of 6
Case 3:10-cv-01750-VLB Document 54-1 Filed 05/27/11 Page 1 of 3 Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121-3 Filed06/08/11 Page4 of 6
Case 3:10-cv-01750-VLB Document 54-1 Filed 05/27/11 Page 2 of 3 Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121-3 Filed06/08/11 Page5 of 6
Case 3:10-cv-01750-VLB Document 54-1 Filed 05/27/11 Page 3 of 3 Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121-3 Filed06/08/11 Page6 of 6
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

PROPOSED ORDER RE ADMIN MOT. RE MOT. TO DISMISS AND ANTICIPATED MOT. FOR SUM. JUDGMT.
CASE NO. 3:10-cv-0257-JSW

sf-3004731
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
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
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF KAREN GOLINSKI'S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
REGARDING OPPOSITIONS TO
MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND
ANTICIPATED MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121-4 Filed06/08/11 Page1 of 2
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

PROPOSED ORDER RE ADMIN MOT. RE MOT. TO DISMISS AND ANTICIPATED MOT. FOR SUM. JUDGMT.
CASE NO. 3:10-cv-0257-JSW

sf-3004731
1

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11, and good cause so appearing, Plaintiffs Administrative
Motion Regarding Oppositions to Motions to Dismiss and Anticipated Motion for Summary
Judgment is hereby GRANTED.
Plaintiffs deadline to oppose the motions to dismiss filed by the Bipartisan Legal
Advisory Group (BLAG) and defendants is hereby extended by one week to June 24, 2011.
BLAGs and defendants deadline to file reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss is also
extended by one additional week to July 8, 2011.
Plaintiff is hereby granted leave to file a single consolidated memorandum of points and
authorities of no longer than forty-five pages opposing to both motions to dismiss and supporting
plaintiffs anticipated motion for summary judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: _____________, 2011.

The Honorable Jeffrey S. White
United States District Judge
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document121-4 Filed06/08/11 Page2 of 2