Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 34 Filed 11/20/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 305

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION GREGORY BOURKE, et al. Plaintiffs v. STEVE BESHEAR, et al. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE No. 3:13-CV-750 (JGH) Electronically filed

Defendants

JOINT MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER Come counsel for Defendants and counsel for Plaintiffs, and ask this Court to amend its scheduling order of October 17, 2013. [R. 24]. Such amendment is necessary due to the Second Amended Complaint, filed November 1, 2013, and entered November 15, 2013. [R. 30]. The Second Amended Complaint introduces new issues, namely the constitutionality of Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which may be addressed by necessary parties, such as the United States of America through the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The issue of the constitutionality of Section 2 of DOMA is relevant to the constitutionality of Section 233A of the Kentucky Constitution. Pursuant to Rule 5.1 of the Federal Civil Rules, the Attorney General of the United States was provided notice by the Plaintiffs regarding the constitutional challenge to Section 2 of DOMA. [R. 33]. The parties agree that: 1) the Second Amended Complaint integrates new legal issues into the action; 2) the Complaint is not required to be answered by Defendants until after the current deadline for filing dispositive motions; 3) Plaintiffs have new counsel that wish to take part in briefing of dispositive motions; 4) the DOJ, if it becomes a party to this action, should provide

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 34 Filed 11/20/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 306

its input on any scheduling order; and 5) the fundamental issues currently contemplated in this action are the legal issues of whether United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) requires the invalidation of Section 2 or DOMA or Section 233A of the Kentucky Constitution. As such, the parties ask that the existing briefing schedule be eliminated and a new briefing schedule be established after DOJ responds to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Constitutional Challenge and after a telephonic hearing of the parties.

Submitted this 20th day of November, 2013.

Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Clay A. Barkley Clay A. Barkley Brian T. Judy Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General 700 Capital Ave. Suite 118 Frankfort, KY 40601 502-696-5300 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS

2

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 34 Filed 11/20/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 307

Seen and Agreed: /s/ Laura E. Landenwich (with permission) Daniel J. Canon Laura E. Landenwich Louis Paz Winner Clay Daniel Walton Adams PLC 462 South Fourth Street Louisville, KY 40202 502-561-2005 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS /s/ Clay A. Barkley Clay A. Barkley Brian T. Judy Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General 700 Capital Ave. Suite 118 Frankfort, KY 40601 502-696-5300 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS

3

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 34 Filed 11/20/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 308

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING I hereby certify that on November 20th, 2013, the foregoing was filed with the clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to all parties.

/s/ Clay A. Barkley Clay A. Barkley

4

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 34-1 Filed 11/20/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 309

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION GREGORY BOURKE, et al. Plaintiffs v. STEVE BESHEAR, et al. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE No. 3:13-CV-750 (JGH) Electronically filed

Defendants

PROPOSED AGREED ORDER Counsel for Defendants and counsel for Plaintiffs have asked this Court to amend its scheduling order of October 17, 2013. [R. 24]. Such amendment is necessary due to the Second Amended Complaint, filed November 1, 2013, and entered November 15, 2013. [R. 30]. The Second Amended Complaint introduces new issues, namely the constitutionality of Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which may be addressed by necessary parties, such as the United States of America through the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The issue of the constitutionality of Section 2 of DOMA is relevant to the constitutionality of Section 233A of the Kentucky Constitution. Pursuant to Rule 5.1 of the Federal Civil Rules, the Attorney General of the United States was provided notice by the Plaintiffs regarding the constitutional challenge to Section 2 of DOMA. [R. 33]. The parties have agreed that: 1) the Second Amended Complaint integrates new legal issues into the action; 2) the Complaint is not required to be answered by Defendants until after the current deadline for filing dispositive motions; 3) Plaintiffs have new counsel that wish to take part in briefing of dispositive motions; 4) the DOJ, if it becomes a party to this action,

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 34-1 Filed 11/20/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 310

should provide its input on any scheduling order; and 5) the fundamental issues currently contemplated in this action are the legal issues of whether United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) requires the invalidation of Section 2 or DOMA or Section 233A of the Kentucky Constitution. As such, the Court ORDERS that the existing briefing schedule be eliminated and a new briefing schedule be established after DOJ responds to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Constitutional Challenge and after a telephonic hearing of the parties.

So Ordered this 20th day of November, 2013.

2

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 34-1 Filed 11/20/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 311

Seen and Agreed: /s/ Laura E. Landenwich (with permission) Daniel J. Canon Laura E. Landenwich Louis Paz Winner Clay Daniel Walton Adams PLC 462 South Fourth Street Louisville, KY 40202 502-561-2005 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS /s/ Clay A. Barkley Clay A. Barkley Brian T. Judy Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General 700 Capital Ave. Suite 118 Frankfort, KY 40601 502-696-5300 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS

3

Case 3:13-cv-00750-JGH Document 34-1 Filed 11/20/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 312

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING I hereby certify that on November 20th, 2013, the foregoing was filed with the clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to all parties.

/s/ Clay A. Barkley Clay A. Barkley

4

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful