D R F. L Iso P ' R 'SO - C N - 3:10 - 0257-JSW sf-3023625

Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document155
Filed07/22/11 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
DECLARATION OF RITA F. LIN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY GROUPS OPPOSITION TO HER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Date: Time: Dept.: Judge: September 16, 2011 9:00 a.m. Courtroom 11 Hon. Jeffrey S. White
26 27 28
DECLARATION OF RITA F. LIN ISO PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO BLAGS OPP. TO MSJ CASE NO. 3:10-CV-0257-JSW sf-3023625
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, RITA F. LIN, declare as follows: 1. I am an associate at the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP, which is counsel of
record for plaintiff. I am licensed to practice law in the State of California. 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. To date, plaintiffs 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,
counsel for Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), and Christopher Hall, counsel for defendants, to meet and confer regarding the schedule proposed by BLAG in its summary judgment opposition. I noted that plaintiff did not think any further discovery was shown to be necessary, but proposed to meet and confer in order to allow the Court to have the parties positions in the event it decided to permit further discovery. A true and correct copy of that email is attached as Exhibit A. 4. Mr. Bartolomucci emailed me on July 21, 2011, stating that BLAG would agree to
the revisions plaintiff requested to BLAGs proposed schedule if plaintiff withdrew her motion for summary judgment. A true and correct copy of that email is attached as Exhibit B. 5. I responded by email to Mr. Bartolomucci later that day stating that plaintiff would
not withdraw her summary judgment motion because further discovery had not been shown to be necessary, but asked again what, if anything, plaintiff should represent to the Court regarding BLAGs position on the revised scheduling order. A true and correct copy of that email is attached as Exhibit C. 6. Mr. Bartolomucci responded by email on July 22, 2011, that BLAG would stand
by its original proposed schedule. A true and correct copy of that email is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 7. Mr. Hall stated to me by email that he was in the process of reviewing plaintiffs
proposal with defendants. As of this filing, I have not received an answer from Mr. Hall regarding defendants position on the proposal.
DECLARATION OF RITA F. LIN ISO PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO BLAGS OPP. TO MSJ CASE NO. 3:10-CV-0257-JSW sf-3023625
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
8.
As noted above, plaintiff does not believe that BLAG has articulated any specific
facts on which further discovery is necessary to oppose plaintiffs summary judgment motion. However, if such discovery is nonetheless permitted, plaintiff proposes certain revisions to BLAGs proposed scheduling order in order to permit plaintiff to resubmit her summary judgment brief to account for what happens in discovery, if anything. For the Courts convenience, plaintiffs proposed revised scheduling order (which also appears as a portion of the email in Exhibit A) is separately attached hereto as Exhibit E. 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.
/s/ Rita F. Lin Rita F. Lin
DECLARATION OF RITA F. LIN ISO PLAINTIFFS MSJ REPLY TO BLAG CASE NO. 3:10-CV-0257-JSW sf-3023625
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document155-1
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Lin, Rita F. Tuesday, July 19, 2011 12:29 AM 'Christopher Bartolomucci'; christopher.hall@usdoj.gov TBorelli@lambdalegal.org Golinski: proposed summary judgment schedule
Attachments: Golinski proposed order re MSJ scheduling - 1.DOC Chris and Chris, We wanted to touch base with you about the proposed summary judgment schedule attached to BLAG's summary judgment opposition brief. We don't think any further discovery has been shown to be necessary. To allow things to move forward quickly if the Court disagrees, however, we wanted to meet and confer with you regarding the schedule BLAG proposed. If the Court believes additional discovery to be necessary, we would be amenable to the schedule proposed, with the revisions reflected in the attached proposed order. As you can imagine, we will want to re-file our motion for summary judgment to account for what happens in discovery. To accommodate that, we have suggested some modification of the expert deadlines and the close of discovery. We also added a stipulation regarding the depositions of the experts. Please let me know if you are agreeable to our revisions. We would like to be able to represent your position to the Court in our filing on Friday. Best, Rita Rita Lin | Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street | San Francisco, California 94105 Tel. (415) 268-7466 | Fax (415) 268-7522
From: Sent: To: Cc: Christopher Bartolomucci [cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com] Thursday, July 21, 2011 11:12 AM Hall, Christopher (CIV); Lin, Rita F. TBorelli@lambdalegal.org
Subject: RE: Golinski: proposed summary judgment schedule
Rita, TheHouseiswillingtoagreetoyourproposedscheduleifyouagreetowithdrawyourmotionfor summaryjudgmentbytheendofthisweek. Thanks, ChrisB.

From: Hall, Christopher (CIV) [mailto:Christopher.Hall@usdoj.gov] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 1:31 AM To: Christopher Bartolomucci; Lin, Rita F. Cc: TBorelli@lambdalegal.org Subject: RE: Golinski: proposed summary judgment schedule
Rita Iwasoutofpockettodayandnotabletotakealookatyourproposal.Iwillaimtodosotomorrow. Regards, Chris

From: Christopher Bartolomucci [mailto:cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 10:25 AM To: Lin, Rita F.; Hall, Christopher (CIV) Cc: TBorelli@lambdalegal.org Subject: RE: Golinski: proposed summary judgment schedule We will review what you have circulated. Thanks.
From: Lin, Rita F. [mailto:RLin@mofo.com] Sent: Tue 7/19/2011 3:29 AM To: Christopher Bartolomucci; christopher.hall@usdoj.gov Cc: TBorelli@lambdalegal.org Subject: Golinski: proposed summary judgment schedule Chris and Chris, We wanted to touch base with you about the proposed summary judgment schedule attached to BLAG's summary judgment opposition brief. We don't think any further discovery has been shown to be necessary. To allow things to move forward quickly if the Court disagrees, however, we wanted to meet and confer with you regarding the schedule BLAG proposed. If the Court believes additional discovery to be necessary, we would be amenable to the schedule proposed, with the revisions reflected in the attached proposed order. As you can imagine, we will want to re-file our motion for summary judgment to account for what happens in discovery. To accommodate that, we have suggested some modification of the expert deadlines and the close of discovery. We also added a stipulation regarding the depositions of the experts. Please let me know if you are agreeable to our revisions. We would like to be able to represent your position to the Court in our filing on Friday.
Best, Rita
Rita Lin | Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street | San Francisco, California 94105 Tel. (415) 268-7466 | Fax (415) 268-7522
--------------------------------------------------------------------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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sent: To: Cc: Chris, Lin, Rita F. Thursday, July 21, 2011 4:42 PM 'Christopher Bartolomucci'; 'Hall, Christopher (CIV)' 'TBorelli@lambdalegal.org'
We believe further discovery has not been shown to be necessary, so we will not be withdrawing our summary judgment motion. As I noted in my email, we are presenting this schedule only to allow things to move forward quickly if the Court disagrees. Please let me know what, if anything, we should represent to the Court about your position on the schedule. Thanks, Rita
From: Christopher Bartolomucci [mailto:cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com] Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 11:12 AM To: Hall, Christopher (CIV); Lin, Rita F. Cc: TBorelli@lambdalegal.org Subject: RE: Golinski: proposed summary judgment schedule


From: Christopher Bartolomucci [mailto:cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 10:25 AM To: Lin, Rita F.; Hall, Christopher (CIV) Cc: TBorelli@lambdalegal.org Subject: RE: Golinski: proposed summary judgment schedule We will review what you have circulated. Thanks.
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document155-3 From: Lin, Rita F. [mailto:RLin@mofo.com] Sent: Tue 7/19/2011 3:29 AM To: Christopher Bartolomucci; christopher.hall@usdoj.gov Cc: TBorelli@lambdalegal.org Subject: Golinski: proposed summary judgment schedule
Chris and Chris,
We wanted to touch base with you about the proposed summary judgment schedule attached to BLAG's summary judgment opposition brief. We don't think any further discovery has been shown to be necessary. To allow things to move forward quickly if the Court disagrees, however, we wanted to meet and confer with you regarding the schedule BLAG proposed. If the Court believes additional discovery to be necessary, we would be amenable to the schedule proposed, with the revisions reflected in the attached proposed order. As you can imagine, we will want to re-file our motion for summary judgment to account for what happens in discovery. To accommodate that, we have suggested some modification of the expert deadlines and the close of discovery. We also added a stipulation regarding the depositions of the experts. Please let me know if you are agreeable to our revisions. We would like to be able to represent your position to the Court in our filing on Friday. Best, Rita Rita Lin | Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street | San Francisco, California 94105 Tel. (415) 268-7466 | Fax (415) 268-7522
--------------------------------------------------------------------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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sent: To: Cc: Christopher Bartolomucci [cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com] Friday, July 22, 2011 12:29 PM Lin, Rita F.; Hall, Christopher (CIV) TBorelli@lambdalegal.org
Westandbyourproposedschedule.
From: Lin, Rita F. [mailto:RLin@mofo.com] Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 7:42 PM To: Christopher Bartolomucci; Hall, Christopher (CIV) Cc: TBorelli@lambdalegal.org Subject: RE: Golinski: proposed summary judgment schedule Chris, We believe further discovery has not been shown to be necessary, so we will not be withdrawing our summary judgment motion. As I noted in my email, we are presenting this schedule only to allow things to move forward quickly if the Court disagrees. Please let me know what, if anything, we should represent to the Court about your position on the schedule. Thanks, Rita
From: Christopher Bartolomucci [mailto:cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com] Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 11:12 AM To: Hall, Christopher (CIV); Lin, Rita F. Cc: TBorelli@lambdalegal.org Subject: RE: Golinski: proposed summary judgment schedule


From: Christopher Bartolomucci [mailto:cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com]
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document155-4 Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 10:25 AM To: Lin, Rita F.; Hall, Christopher (CIV) Cc: TBorelli@lambdalegal.org Subject: RE: Golinski: proposed summary judgment schedule
We will review what you have circulated. Thanks.
From: Lin, Rita F. [mailto:RLin@mofo.com] Sent: Tue 7/19/2011 3:29 AM To: Christopher Bartolomucci; christopher.hall@usdoj.gov Cc: TBorelli@lambdalegal.org Subject: Golinski: proposed summary judgment schedule Chris and Chris, We wanted to touch base with you about the proposed summary judgment schedule attached to BLAG's summary judgment opposition brief. We don't think any further discovery has been shown to be necessary. To allow things to move forward quickly if the Court disagrees, however, we wanted to meet and confer with you regarding the schedule BLAG proposed. If the Court believes additional discovery to be necessary, we would be amenable to the schedule proposed, with the revisions reflected in the attached proposed order. As you can imagine, we will want to re-file our motion for summary judgment to account for what happens in discovery. To accommodate that, we have suggested some modification of the expert deadlines and the close of discovery. We also added a stipulation regarding the depositions of the experts. Please let me know if you are agreeable to our revisions. We would like to be able to represent your position to the Court in our filing on Friday. Best, Rita Rita Lin | Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street | San Francisco, California 94105 Tel. (415) 268-7466 | Fax (415) 268-7522
--------------------------------------------------------------------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.
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, Defendant.
Case No.
3:10-cv-0257-JSW
[PROPOSED] ORDER SCHEDULING DISCOVERY AND BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
26 27 28
[PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER CASE NO. 3:10-CV-0257-JSW sf-3021755
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document155-5 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 2011; 2011;
It is hereby ORDERED that the following schedule is established to govern discovery in this matter and briefing on Plaintiff Karen Golinskis (plaintiff) motion for summary judgment: 1. Defendant-Intervenor, The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives (the House) and plaintiff (collectively, the parties), shall exchange all written requests for discovery (including document requests, interrogatories and requests for admission 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 already identified her experts); 3. The House shall serve its expert reports (if any) on or before August 22, 2011 (plaintiff has already served her expert reports); 4. Plaintiff may take depositions of the Houses experts (if any) beginning on August 23,
5. All fact and expert discovery shall be completed by September 15, 2011; 6. Plaintiff shall file a renewed motion for summary judgment on or before September 30,
6. The House shall file its opposition to plaintiffs 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. United States, No. 10-cv-8435 (S.D.N.Y.) and Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, No. 310-cv-1750 (D. Conn.), who are the same five experts designated by the plaintiff, are admissible in this case. Plaintiffs experts shall not be re-deposed in this case without leave of Court. 9. A hearing on plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is set for November ____, 2011, at ______ a.m.
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document155-5 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 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _____________, 2011.
The Honorable Jeffrey S. White United States District Judge

D R F. L Iso P ' R 'SO - C N - 3:10 - 0257-JSW sf-3023625

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

D R F. L Iso P ' R 'SO - C N - 3:10 - 0257-JSW sf-3023625

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document155

/s/ Rita F. Lin Rita F. Lin

Subject: RE: Golinski: proposed summary judgment schedule

Rita, TheHouseiswillingtoagreetoyourproposedscheduleifyouagreetowithdrawyourmotionfor summaryjudgmentbytheendofthisweek. Thanks, ChrisB.

Rita Iwasoutofpockettodayandnotabletotakealookatyourproposal.Iwillaimtodosotomorrow. Regards, Chris

Subject: RE: Golinski: proposed summary judgment schedule

Rita, TheHouseiswillingtoagreetoyourproposedscheduleifyouagreetowithdrawyourmotionfor summaryjudgmentbytheendofthisweek. Thanks, ChrisB.

Rita Iwasoutofpockettodayandnotabletotakealookatyourproposal.Iwillaimtodosotomorrow. Regards, Chris

Subject: RE: Golinski: proposed summary judgment schedule

Rita, TheHouseiswillingtoagreetoyourproposedscheduleifyouagreetowithdrawyourmotionfor summaryjudgmentbytheendofthisweek. Thanks, ChrisB.

Rita Iwasoutofpockettodayandnotabletotakealookatyourproposal.Iwillaimtodosotomorrow. Regards, Chris

Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document155-5 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 2011; 2011;

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

Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document155-5 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 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _____________, 2011.

The Honorable Jeffrey S. White United States District Judge

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

You might also like