Case No.

12-17668
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BEVERLY SEVCIK, et al. ,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
GOVERNOR BRIAN SANDOVAL, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
COALITION FOR THE PROTECTION OF MARRIAGE,
Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee.
On Appeal from the United States District Court
For the District of Nevada
Case No. 2:12-CV-00578-RCJ-PAL
The Honorable Robert C. Jones, District Judge
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES' JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE RESPONSE BRIEFS and SUPPORTING DECLARATION
Monte Neil Stewart
Stewart Taylor & Morris
PLLC
12550 W. Explorer Drive,
Suite 100
Boise, ID 83713
Tel: (208) 345-3333
For Coalition for the
Protection of Marriage
Catherine Cortez Masto
Attorney General
C. Wayne Howle
Solicitor General
100 North Carson Street
Ca1son City, NV 89701
Tel: (775) 684-1227
For Governor Sandoval
Neil A. Rombardo
District Attorney
Randal R. Munn
Chief Deputy District A tty
885 E. Musser Street,
Suite 2030
Carson City, NV 89701
Tel: (775) 887-2010
For Clerk-Recorder Glover
Case: 12-17668 12/04/2013 ID: 8888706 DktEntry: 104 Page: 1 of 9
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Rule 27 ofthe Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rule 31-2.2(b) of
the Rules of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the three Defendants-Appellees- Governor
Sandoval, Clerk-Recorder Glover, and the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage- respectfully
move this Court for a 30-day extension of time to file their response briefs, which are currently
due on December 18, 2013.
We respectfully submit that the requested extension is justified by the facts that:
Our response briefs will be responding to the Plaintiffs-Appellants' 26,500-word opening
brief and therefore addressing a variety of complex social and legal issues;
Seventeen amicus curiae briefs (totaling 109,540 words) have been filed in support of the
Plaintiffs-Appellants, which we will have to analyze as we fashion our response briefs to
ensure that all important arguments are addressed;
Work on our response briefs was affected by the Thanksgiving holiday and will be
affected by the onset of the December holidays;
Because this case will determine the constitutionality of Nevada's marriage laws, it is one
of profound public importance and merits most careful work; and
The Plaintiffs-Appellants will not be prejudiced as shown by their counsel's statement to
us that "Plaintiffs consent to defendants' request for 30 additional days to file their
answering briefs."
(The facts set forth in this Motion, beyond those appearing in already filed documents,
are supported by the attached Declaration of Monte Neil Stewart, counsel for the Coalition.)
2
Case: 12-17668 12/04/2013 ID: 8888706 DktEntry: 104 Page: 2 of 9
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs-Appellants filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on
AprillO, 2012, seeking a declaration that their exclusion from marriage based on their sexual
orientation and their sex violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs-Appellants sought to
permanently enjoin Defendants-Appellees Govemor Brian Sandoval and three county clerks, all
named in their official capacity, from denying same-sex couples (i) access to marriage, or (ii) for
those couples who validly have married in another jurisdiction, recognition of their marriages.
The Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, a Nevada advocacy group that campaigned for the
passage ofNevada's state constitutional amendment preserving Nevada's definition of marriage,
was permitted to intervene as a Defendant-Intervenor.
On November 26, 2012, the District Court granted in part a motion to dismiss, granted
summary judgment for Defendants, and denied Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, thus
upholding Nevada's marriage laws defining marriage. Plaintiffs-Appellants noticed this appeal
on December 3, 2012.
This case reached this Court in a posture similar to and at about the same time as the
Hawai'i same-sex marriage case, Jackson v. Abercrombie, No. 12-16995. Plaintiffs-Appellants
filed a motion on December 11, 2012, asking the Court to ( 1) assign this case and Jackson to the
same merits panel and set them for argument on the same day; (2) conform briefmg in this case
to the schedule in Jackson; and (3) deem any amicus brief filed in either case as having been
filed in both. (Dkt. 7.) On December 12, 2012, the Clerk issued an order construing Plaintiffs-
Appellants' request as a motion to assign this case and Jackson to the same merits panel. (Dkt.
8.) On January 7, 2013, the Clerk granted Plaintiffs-Appellants' motion to have the cases heard
before the same merits panel. (Dkt. 11.) Based on the Supreme Court' s grant of certiorari in
3
Case: 12-17668 12/04/2013 ID: 8888706 DktEntry: 104 Page: 3 of 9
United States v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675 (2013), and Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S.Ct. 2652
(20 13), the Clerk stayed both this case and Jackson Wltil April 1, 2013, and set the due date for
opening briefs for May 1, 2013. (Dkt. 11.) On January 24,2013, the Clerk issued an order
providing that amicus curiae briefs could be filed jointly in both cases. (Dkt. 12.)
A party in Jackson renewed its request for a stay in both Jackson and this case on March
19,2013. (Dkt. 27, No. 12-16995). The Clerk granted the request on March 26,2013, staying
both cases until July 18,2013, and setting August 19, 2013 as the due date for opening briefs.
(Dkt. 13.) On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court issued decisions in Windsor and Hollingsworth.
Parties in both this case and Jackson submitted streamlined 30-day extension requests for
opening briefs, and the Clerk extended the due date in both cases to September 18, 2013. (Dkt.
15; Dkt. 30, 32, No. 12-16995.)
On August 20, 2013, the Plaintiffs-Appellants in Jackson and Governor Abercrombie
moved the Court for a 30-day extension for opening briefs in both Jackson and this case. (Dkt.
33, No. 12-16995.) The request was based on the likelihood that the Hawai ' i legislature might
convene for a special session to consider legislation that would allow same-sex couples to marry
in the state and thereby moot the appeal in Jackson. (!d. at 1, 4.) As the motion indicated, all
parties in Jackson and this case had been consulted for their positions on the request for
additional time in both cases, and no party objected. (Id. at 5-6.) On August 21, 2013, the Clerk
extended the deadline for opening briefs in Jackson to October 18, 2013. (Dkt. 34, No. 12-
16995.) Plaintiffs-Appellants' counsel in this case received clarification from the Clerk's Office
the same day that the extension request must be filed in this case as well and accordingly
4
Case: 12-17668 12/04/2013 ID: 8888706 DktEntry: 104 Page: 4 of 9
submitted a motion for a parallel extension of their opening brief due date to October 18, 2013.
The Clerk entered an order granting that motion. (Dkt. 18.)
1
On October 18) 2013, filed their 26,500-word opening brief. (Dkt.
20-3.) By October 25,2013, seventeen amici curiae had filed briefs in their support, totaling
some 109,540 words. (Dkt 21, 22,24-32, 36-41.)
Appellees made their respective streamlined requests for a 30-day extension
on November 5 and 6, 2013. (Dkt. 96, 98, 100.) The Clerk granted those (Dkt. 97, 99, 102),
resulting in the current December 18, 2013, deadline for the response briefs.
ARGUMENT AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF
This case is of large public importance and, consequently, is the subject of an
extraordinarily large opening brief(26,500 words) and seventeen amicus curiae briefs totaling
109,540 words. The issues extend beyond bare issues oflegal doctrine to a wide range of public
policies and social concerns. To adequately address the issues and arguments massively briefed
on the Appellants' side, the Defendants-Appellees need more time. The additional
time is warranted because, in a case of this nature, the response briefs should be built on a careful
analysis of the wide range of important arguments advanced by the other side, and this Court will
be much better served if the response briefs are of that nature.
In this context, we note three important facts. One, the Defendants-Appellees' briefing
time was adversely impacted by the Thanksgiving holiday and will be adversely impacted by the
onset of the December holidays. Two, even with the requested extension, there will still be a
1
Because of new Hawai'i legislation, the Clerk of this Court on November 26,2013, entered an
order giving the Jackson appellants 21 days to "move for voluntary dismissal ... or show cause
why [the appeal] should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction," i.e., because of mootness.
(Dkt. 117.)
5
Case: 12-17668 12/04/2013 ID: 8888706 DktEntry: 104 Page: 5 of 9
large disparity in the brief-writing time made available to each side; the time from the filing of
the docketing statement until the filing of the opening brief and the supporting amicus curiae
briefs was more than ten months, while the time from the filing of the opening brief to the
requested January 17, 2014, filing deadline for the response briefs is three months. Three, as
detailed in the next section, Plaintiffs-Appellants do not object to the requested extension.
OPPOSING COUNSEL'S POSITION
On Monday, December 2, 2013, the Coalition's counsel (Mr. Stewart) spoke by
telephone with the Plaintiffs-Appellants' counsel (Ms. Borelli) and requested her clients'
position on the proposed extension of time. By e-mail on Tuesday, December 3, 2013, Ms.
Borelli responded: "Plaintiffs consent to defendants' request for 30 additional days to file their
answering briefs, on the understanding that defendants will not seek any further extension for
their answering briefs absent exigent circumstances."
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendants-Appellees respectfully request that this Court
grant them 30 additional days to file their response briefs, up to and including Friday, January
17, 2014.
DATE: December 4, 2013
Monte Neil Stewart
Stewart Taylor & Morris
PLLC
12550 W. Explorer Drive,
Suite 100
Boise, ID 83713
Tel: (208) 345-3333
For Coalition for the
Protection of Marriage
Respectfully submitted,
Catherine Cortez Masto
Attorney General
C. Wayne Howle
Solicitor General
100 North Carson Street
Carson City, NV 89701
Tel: (775) 684-1227
For Governor Brian
Sandoval
6
Neil A. Rombardo
District Attorney
Randal R. Munn
Chief Deputy District
Attorney
885 E. Musser Stleet,
Suite 2030
Carson City, NV 89701
Tel: (775) 887-2010
For Alan Glover, Carson
City Clerk-Recorder
Case: 12-17668 12/04/2013 ID: 8888706 DktEntry: 104 Page: 6 of 9
DECLARATION OF MONTE NEIL STEWART
I. Monte Neil Stewart, testify under penalty of perjury and of my own personal
knowledge that:
1. I am a lawyer admitted to practice before this Court and the courts of the states of
California, Nevada, Idaho, and Utah; a member of the Boise, Idaho law firm of Stewart
Taylor & Morris PLLC; and lead counsel for Defendant-Appellee Coalition for the
Protection of Marriage. I provide this Declaration in support of the joint motion of all
Defendants-Appellees for an extension of time for the filing of the response briefs.
2. By consultation among defense counsel (Mr. Howle for Governor Sandoval, Mr. Munn
for Clerk-Recorder Glover, and me), we have determined a pressing need for an
additional 30 days for the preparation and filing of the response briefs, that is, until
January 17, 2014. This need arises from the realities that:
a. This case is of large public importance and, consequently, is the subject of an
extraordinarily large opening brief (26,500 words) and seventeen amicus curiae
briefs totaling 109,540 words. The issues extend beyond bare issues of legal
doctrine to a wide range of public policies and social concerns. To adequately
address the issues and arguments massively briefed on the Plaintiffs-Appellants'
side, the Defendants-Appellees need more time. We believe that additional time
is warranted because, in a case of this nature, the response briefs should be built
on a careful analysis of the wide range of important arguments advanced by the
other side, and, again in our view, this Court will be much better served if the
response briefs are of that nature.
Case: 12-17668 12/04/2013 ID: 8888706 DktEntry: 104 Page: 7 of 9
b. The Defendants-Appellees' briefing time was adversely impacted by the
Thanksgiving holiday and will be adversely impacted by the onset of the
December holidays.
3. On Monday, December 2, 2013, I spoke by telephone with the Plaintiffs-Appellants'
counsel (Tara Borelli) and requested her clients' position on the proposed extension of
time. By e-mail on Tuesday, December 3, 2013, Ms. Borelli responded: "Plaintiffs
consent to defendants' request for 30 additional days to file their answering briefs, on the
understanding that defendants will not seek any further extension for their answering
briefs absent exigent circwnstances."
Date: December 4, 2013
Monte Neil Stewart
Case: 12-17668 12/04/2013 ID: 8888706 DktEntry: 104 Page: 8 of 9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CMIECF system on
December 4, 2013.
Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the appellate
CM/ECF system.
s/ Monte N. Stewart
Case: 12-17668 12/04/2013 ID: 8888706 DktEntry: 104 Page: 9 of 9