You are on page 1of 7

Case 1:13-cv-00631-SS Document 42 Filed 12/30/13 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION CHRISTOPHER DANIEL McNOSKY, and SVEN STRICKER, Plaintiffs, v. TEXAS GOVERNOR RICK PERRY, et al Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-CV-0631 SS

STATE DEFENDANTS OPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
_____________________________________________________________________________

TO THE HONORABLE SAM SPARKS: State Defendants Texas Governor Rick Perry and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, in their official capacities only, pursuant to Rule 56(f), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, request the Court grant an extension of time in which to respond and object to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and would show as follows: Pursuant to Local Court Rule CV-7(e)(2) of the Western District of Texas, State Defendants response to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is due on January 6, 2014. State Defendants request that this Court allow an extension of time to respond and object to Plaintiffs summary judgment until such time as can be set in a Scheduling Order entered in this case following the January 9th hearing. As shown below, that hearing is expected to have major impact on those deadlines.
Defendants Opposed Motion for Extension of Time Page 1

Case 1:13-cv-00631-SS Document 42 Filed 12/30/13 Page 2 of 5

In support of State Defendants extension request, they would show that pursuant to Rule 42(a) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants filed a motion for consolidation of the three pending same-sex marriage cases due to common questions of fact and law, convenience of the parties, witnesses, etc. The hearing on that motion for consolidation is set for 2pm, January 9, 2014, and the outcome of that hearing could mean new common deadlines for pleadings and dispositive motions for all three consolidated cases. As a result, it would not be efficient to take them one at a time as would occur here if the motion for extension is not granted. Otherwise, this defeats the purpose of consolidation. Second, Plaintiffs served their Motion for Summary Judgment on December 23, 2013 (Dkt.# 37). They had already filed an application for preliminary injunction (Dkt# 18) to which State Defendants have already responded (Dkt# 39). There is a preliminary injunction hearing set for 2pm January 9th which is the focus of the State Defendants current litigation efforts, including the possibility of entering Joint Stipulations of law and fact with the Plaintiffs. As a result, Defendants are unable to prepare for both injunction hearing and summary judgment response simultaneously with adequate preparation time for both matters. Defendants move this Court to defer the response time as requested pursuant to Rule 56(f) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure since Defendants have inadequate time to prepare.

Defendants Opposed Motion for Extension of Time Page 2

Case 1:13-cv-00631-SS Document 42 Filed 12/30/13 Page 3 of 5

Third, the State Defendants twenty (20) day response time pursuant to Local Court Rule CV-7(e)(2) of the Western District of Texas, falls within two major holidays, viz., Christmas and New Years Day, with attendant staff vacations previously scheduled. This January 6, 2014 response date is not reasonable and adequate for the State Defendants to fully respond to a summary judgment, and should be extended so that all three cases move at the same pace. This request for an extension is made not for delay but for purposes of justice. WHEREFORE, State Defendants request the Court to grant an extension of time to respond to the summary judgment on such date this Court ultimately selects as the Scheduling Order deadline.

Respectfully Submitted, GREG ABBOTT Attorney General of Texas DANIEL T. HODGE First Assistant Attorney General JONATHAN F. MITCHELL Solicitor General MICHAEL P. MURPHY Assistant Solicitor General Texas Bar No. 24051097

Defendants Opposed Motion for Extension of Time Page 3

Case 1:13-cv-00631-SS Document 42 Filed 12/30/13 Page 4 of 5

/s/ William T. Deane WILLIAM T. DEANE Assistant Attorney General Texas Bar No. 05692500 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059) Austin, Texas 78711-2548 Tel.: (512) 936-2995 Fax: (512) 474-2697 michaelp.murphy@texasattorneygeneral.gov bill.deane@texasattorneygeneral.gov ATTORNEYS FOR STATE DEFENDANTS CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that he emailed Plaintiffs in the McNosky case on Monday, December 23, 2013, to confer about the subject matter of the instant motion. Plaintiffs responded by email that they are opposed to this motion. The County attorney for Co-Defendant has not yet responded to my request. /s/ William T. Deane WILLIAM T. DEANE Assistant Attorney General

Defendants Opposed Motion for Extension of Time Page 4

Case 1:13-cv-00631-SS Document 42 Filed 12/30/13 Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 30, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to: Mr. Christopher Daniel McNosky 5108 Pleasant Run Colleyville, Texas 76034 Mr. Sven Stricker 3047 Bent Tree Ct Bedford, Texas 76021 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Mr. Russell A. Friemel Assistant District Attorney Tarrant County Criminal District Attorneys Office Civil Division 401 West Belknap Street, 9th Floor Fort Worth, Texas 76196-0401 Attorney for Defendant Garcia /s/ William T. Deane WILLIAM T. DEANE Assistant Attorney General

Defendants Opposed Motion for Extension of Time Page 5

Case 1:13-cv-00631-SS Document 42-1 Filed 12/30/13 Page 1 of 1

Case 1:13-cv-00631-SS Document 42-2 Filed 12/30/13 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN CHRISTOPHER DANIEL McNOSKY, and SVEN STRICKER, Plaintiffs, v. TEXAS GOVERNOR RICK PERRY, et al Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-CV-0631 SS

ORDER The Court has before it Defendants Opposed Motion For Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. Having considered the Motion, the Court is of the opinion it should be GRANTED. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants shall have an indefinite extension until further Order from this Court to schedule a response to and objections to the Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. SIGNED this _____ day of January, 2014.

____________________________________ THE HONORABLE SAM SPARKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE