Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document171

Filed10/03/11 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 INTERVENOR BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY GROUPS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPERSEDING OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

26 27 28
PLAINTIFFS RESP. TO BLAGS REPLY ISO ITS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPERSEDING OPP. CASE NO. 3:10-CV-0257-JSW sf- 3052959

Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document171

Filed10/03/11 Page2 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 26 27 28

Although Local Rule 7-11 does not permit reply briefs in support of administrative motions, intervenor Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group ("BLAG") has now filed such a brief, proposing a new schedule not described in its opening brief and about which it has not conferred with plaintiff. Plaintiff therefore respectfully submits the following response to BLAGs proposal. Plaintiff has four objections to the new proposal submitted by BLAG. First, BLAG seeks to extend its deadline for the superseding opposition from October 11 to October 17, despite previously proposing an October 10 deadline in its meet and confer with plaintiff. BLAG offers no basis for this requested delay, particularly since it has had plaintiffs discovery since September 1, 2011. Second, despite previously agreeing to a three-week reply window when conferring with plaintiff, BLAG now proposes without explanation to shorten that window to two weeks. That is wholly inequitable when BLAG has had plaintiffs opening brief and the substantive evidence on which it plans to rely since July 2011. Third, BLAG proposes to permit itself to supplement its opposition with additional evidence, but suggests that plaintiff may not submit rebuttal evidence on reply. BLAG cites no authority for its view. (See Local Rule 7-1 (authorizing reply declarations).) Fourth, despite the Courts decision to consolidate the hearings on the motions to dismiss and summary judgment motion, BLAG now proposes to split the two hearings. As BLAG concedes, most of the legal arguments that underlie the two motions are the same. (Dkt. 170 at 4.) It does not make sense to have two hearings. Indeed, in conferring with plaintiff, BLAG agreed that there should be one consolidated hearing on all dispositive motions after all briefs from both sides have been submitted. BLAGs change of heart appears to be an ill-disguised attempt to have the merits of the arguments applicable to both motions evaluated before plaintiff has had a chance to submit her reply brief on the summary judgment motion. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Courts original determination to have a single consolidated hearing on all dispositive motions remain undisturbed, and that a single hearing be held on December 16,

PLAINTIFFS RESP. TO BLAGS REPLY ISO ITS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPERSEDING OPP. CASE NO. 3:10-CV-0257-JSW sf- 3052959

Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document171

Filed10/03/11 Page3 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 26 27 28

2011 (currently shown as the earliest available open date on the Courts calendar for cases with a terminal digit of 7) or earlier, after plaintiff files her reply brief.

Dated:

October 3, 2011

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC. By: /s/ Rita F. Lin Rita F. Lin Attorneys for Plaintiff KAREN GOLINSKI

PLAINTIFFS RESP. TO BLAGS REPLY ISO ITS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPERSEDING OPP. CASE NO. 3:10-CV-0257-JSW sf- 3052959