You are on page 1of 12

Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document168

Filed09/30/11 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

PAUL D. CLEMENT (DC Bar 433215) pclement@bancroftpllc.com H. CHRISTOPHER BARTOLOMUCCI (DC Bar 453423) cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com CONOR B. DUGAN (MI Bar P66901) cdugan@bancroftpllc.com NICHOLAS J. NELSON (MD Bar) nnelson@bancroftpllc.com BANCROFT PLLC 1919 M Street, Northwest, Suite 470 Washington, District of Columbia 20036 Telephone: 202-234-0090 Facsimile: 202-234-2806 OF COUNSEL: KERRY W. KIRCHER (DC Bar 386816) Kerry.Kircher@mail.house.gov CHRISTINE DAVENPORT (NJ Bar) Christine.Davenport@mail.house.gov KATHERINE E. MCCARRON (DC Bar 486335) Katherine.McCarron@mail.house.gov WILLIAM PITTARD (DC Bar 482949) William.Pittard@mail.house.gov KIRSTEN W. KONAR (DC Bar 979176) Kirsten.Konar@mail.house.gov OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL U.S. House of Representatives 219 Cannon House Office Building Washington, District of Columbia 20515 Telephone: 202-225-9700 Facsimile: 202-226-1360 Attorneys for Intervenor-Defendant the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives

HOUSES MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPERSEDING OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CASE NO. 3:10-CV-0257-JSW

Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document168

Filed09/30/11 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 KAREN GOLINSKI,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL ) MANAGEMENT, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________)

Case No. 3:10-cv-0257-JSW

HOUSES MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPERSEDING OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Intervenor-Defendant the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (the House) respectfully requests leave to file a superseding opposition to Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. See Pl.s Notice of Mot. and Mot. for Summ. J.; Mem. of P. & A. (July 1, 2011) (ECF No. 142). The House states its reasons for this motion in an accompanying memorandum in support. A proposed order is attached, as is the declaration required by Local Rule 7-11(a). Plaintiff opposes this motion. The executive branch defendants take no position on the motion.

1 HOUSES MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPERSEDING OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CASE NO. 3:10-CV-0257-JSW

Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document168

Filed09/30/11 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 OF COUNSEL:

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul D. Clement Paul D. Clement H. Christopher Bartolomucci Conor B. Dugan Nicholas J. Nelson BANCROFT PLLC1 1919 M Street, Northwest, Suite 470 Washington, District of Columbia 20036 Telephone: (202) 234-0090 Facsimile: (202) 234-2806 Counsel for the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives

Kerry W. Kircher, General Counsel Christine Davenport, Senior Assistant Counsel Katherine E. McCarron, Assistant Counsel William Pittard, Assistant Counsel Kirsten W. Konar, Assistant Counsel OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL U.S. House of Representatives 219 Cannon House Office Building Washington, District of Columbia 20515 Telephone: (202) 225-9700 Facsimile: (202) 226-1360 September 30, 2011

Kerry W. Kircher, as the ECF filer of this document, attests that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from signatories Paul D. Clement, H. Christopher Bartolomucci, Conor B. Dugan, and Nicholas J. Nelson. 2 HOUSES MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPERSEDING OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CASE NO. 3:10-CV-0257-JSW

Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document168-1

Filed09/30/11 Page1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

PAUL D. CLEMENT (DC Bar 433215) pclement@bancroftpllc.com H. CHRISTOPHER BARTOLOMUCCI (DC Bar 453423) cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com CONOR B. DUGAN (MI Bar P66901) cdugan@bancroftpllc.com NICHOLAS J. NELSON (MD Bar) nnelson@bancroftpllc.com BANCROFT PLLC 1919 M Street, Northwest, Suite 470 Washington, District of Columbia 20036 Telephone: 202-234-0090 Facsimile: 202-234-2806 OF COUNSEL: KERRY W. KIRCHER (DC Bar 386816) Kerry.Kircher@mail.house.gov CHRISTINE DAVENPORT (NJ Bar) Christine.Davenport@mail.house.gov KATHERINE E. MCCARRON (DC Bar 486335) Katherine.McCarron@mail.house.gov WILLIAM PITTARD (DC Bar 482949) William.Pittard@mail.house.gov KIRSTEN W. KONAR (DC Bar 979176) Kirsten.Konar@mail.house.gov OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL U.S. House of Representatives 219 Cannon House Office Building Washington, District of Columbia 20515 Telephone: 202-225-9700 Facsimile: 202-226-1360 Attorneys for Intervenor-Defendant the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives

HOUSE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPERSEDING OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTCASE NO. 3:10-CV-0257-JSW

Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document168-1

Filed09/30/11 Page2 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 KAREN GOLINSKI,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL ) MANAGEMENT, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________)

Case No. 3:10-cv-0257-JSW

HOUSES MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPERSEDING OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On July 1, 2011, less than a month after the House intervened in this case, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment See Pl.s Notice of Mot. & Mot. for Summ. J.; Mem. of P. & A. (July 1, 2011) (ECF No. 142). At the time Plaintiff so moved, the House had not taken any written discovery and was still in the process of deposing Plaintiffs five expert witnesses. The House therefore viewed Plaintiffs summary judgment motion as premature, and this Court apparently agreed. See [House] Partial Oppn to Pl.s Administrative Mots. (June 13, 2011) (ECF No. 127) at 4 of 7 (noting that, while rules permit Plaintiff to file summary judgment motion at time of her choosing, rules also require denial or holding in abeyance of summary judgment motion filed before necessary discovery, as here); Order (June 15, 2011) (ECF No. 128) (denying as premature Plaintiffs request to consolidate her motion to dismiss and summary judgment briefing). Because of the state of discovery and the prematurity of Plaintiffs summary judgment motion, the House could not file a substantive response and, instead, responded pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) by asking the Court to deny Plaintiffs motion as premature or, in the alternative, hold it in abeyance. See [Houses] Oppn to Pl.s Mot. for Summ. J. (July 15, 2011) (ECF No. 149). 2 HOUSES MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPERSEDING OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTCASE NO. 3:10-CV-0257-JSW

Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document168-1

Filed09/30/11 Page3 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

The House explained that the depositions of three of Plaintiffs experts occurred after the filing of Plaintiffs summary judgment motion, and that the House did not have the transcripts of those depositions. See id. at 3, 5. The House also indicated that it intended to serve written discovery requests on Plaintiff. See id. at 6. The House served those requests on July 29, 2011, and Plaintiff served objections and responses to the Houses requests and produced documents on September 1, 2011. On August 12, 2011, Plaintiff served written discovery requests of her own on the House and on the executive branch defendants. The executive branch defendants and the House served their objections and responses to those requests on September 14 and 15, 2011, respectively. On September 29, 2011, the House produced documents to Plaintiff. Accordingly, at this point, discovery appears to be complete, and the House is now in a position to file a substantive, and superseding, response to Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Because the hearing date on Plaintiffs motion for summary judgmentas well as the Houses motion to dismissis October 21, 2011, see Order (Aug. 11, 2011) (ECF No. 159), the House is prepared to file its superseding opposition in time to permit both motions to be heard on that date. For all these reasons, the Houses motion for leave to file a superseding opposition to Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment should be granted.

3 HOUSES MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPERSEDING OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTCASE NO. 3:10-CV-0257-JSW

Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document168-1

Filed09/30/11 Page4 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 OF COUNSEL:

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul D. Clement Paul D. Clement H. Christopher Bartolomucci Conor B. Dugan Nicholas J. Nelson BANCROFT PLLC1 1919 M Street, Northwest, Suite 470 Washington, District of Columbia 20036 Telephone: (202) 234-0090 Facsimile: (202) 234-2806 Counsel for the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives

Kerry W. Kircher, General Counsel Christine Davenport, Senior Assistant Counsel Katherine E. McCarron, Assistant Counsel William Pittard, Assistant Counsel Kirsten W. Konar, Assistant Counsel OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL U.S. House of Representatives 219 Cannon House Office Building Washington, District of Columbia 20515 Telephone: (202) 225-9700 Facsimile: (202) 226-1360 September 30, 2011

Kerry W. Kircher, as the ECF filer of this document, attests that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from signatories Paul D. Clement, H. Christopher Bartolomucci, Conor B. Dugan, and Nicholas J. Nelson. 4 HOUSES MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPERSEDING OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTCASE NO. 3:10-CV-0257-JSW

Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document168-2

Filed09/30/11 Page1 of 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Dated: ___________ KAREN GOLINSKI,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL ) MANAGEMENT, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________)

Case No. 3:10-cv-0257-JSW

[PROPOSED] ORDER

UPON CONSIDERATION OF Intervenor-Defendant the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (the House)s Motion for Leave to File Superseding Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (the Houses Motion), any opposition thereto, and the entire record herein, the Court hereby GRANTS the Houses Motion, and further orders that The House may file a substantive opposition to Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (July 1, 2011) (ECF No. 142). The House shall do so on or before the following date: _________________. IT IS SO ORDERED. ___________________________________ HONORABLE JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

[PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 3:10-cv-0257-JSW

Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document168-3

Filed09/30/11 Page1 of 4

Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document168-3

Filed09/30/11 Page2 of 4

Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document168-3

Filed09/30/11 Page3 of 4

Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document168-3

Filed09/30/11 Page4 of 4