Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document736 Filed08/18/10 Page1 of 4

1 COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC

Charles J. Cooper (DC Bar No. 248070)*
2 ccooper@cooperkirk.com
David H. Thompson (DC Bar No. 450503)*
3
dthompson@cooperkirk.com
4 Howard C. Nielson, Jr. (DC Bar No. 473018)*
hnielson@cooperkirk.com
5 Nicole J. Moss (DC Bar No. 472424)*
nmoss@cooperkirk.com
6 Peter A. Patterson (OH Bar No. 0080840)*
7 ppatterson@cooperkirk.com
1523 New Hampshire Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
8 Telephone: (202) 220-9600, Facsimile: (202) 220-9601

9 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO

Andrew P. Pugno (CA Bar No. 206587)
10 andrew@pugnolaw.com
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630
11 Telephone: (916) 608-3065, Facsimile: (916) 608-3066

12 ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND

Brian W. Raum (NY Bar No. 2856102)*
13 braum@telladf.org
James A. Campbell (OH Bar No. 0081501)*
14 jcampbell@telladf.org
15100 North 90th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
15 Telephone: (480) 444-0020, Facsimile: (480) 444-0028

16 ATTORNEYS FOR PROPOSED INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH,

GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, MARK A. JANSSON,
17 and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM – YES ON 8, A
PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL
18
* Admitted pro hac vice
19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
20 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

21 KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL

T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO,
22 CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS
23
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL
24 v. J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F.
GUTIERREZ, MARK A. JANSSON,
25 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official AND PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM’S
capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G. OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
26 BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Attorney SHORTEN TIME
General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his
27
official capacity as Director of the California
28 Department of Public Health and State Registrar of

DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document736 Filed08/18/10 Page2 of 4

1 Vital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her official

capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information
2 & Strategic Planning for the California Department
of Public Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his
3
official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County
4 of Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his official
capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for
5 the County of Los Angeles,
6 Defendants,
7 and
8 PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT,
9 MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, and MARK A.
JANSSON; and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM –
10 YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA
RENEWAL,
11
Defendant-Intervenors.
12

13
Additional Counsel for Defendant-Intervenors
14
ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND
15 Timothy Chandler (CA Bar No. 234325)
tchandler@telladf.org
16 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630
Telephone: (916) 932-2850, Facsimile: (916) 932-2851
17
Jordan W. Lorence (DC Bar No. 385022)*
18
jlorence@telladf.org
19 Austin R. Nimocks (TX Bar No. 24002695)*
animocks@telladf.org
20 801 G Street NW, Suite 509, Washington, D.C. 20001
Telephone: (202) 393-8690, Facsimile: (202) 347-3622
21
* Admitted pro hac vice
22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document736 Filed08/18/10 Page3 of 4

1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3(c) Defendants-Intervenors Hollingsworth, Knight,

2 Gutierrez, Jansson, and ProtectMarriage.com submit the following opposition to Plaintiffs’ and
3
Plaintiff-Intervenor’s1 Motion to Shorten Time.
4
On August 17, 2010 at 5:14 p.m. Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion seeking to shorten
5
Defendants-Intevenors’ time to respond to their motion to enlarge time to file a motion for
6

7 attorney’s fees and costs. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek an order shortening Defendants-Intervenors’

8 time to respond from 4 days to “no more than 24 hours.” Defendants-Intervenors oppose Plaintiffs’

9 motion to shorten time because they have failed to justify their request pursuant to the Local Rules.
10 Civil Local Rule 6-3 requires Plaintiffs to set forth, among other things, “the reasons for the
11
requested enlargement or shortening of time” and the “substantial harm or prejudice that would
12
occur if the court did not change the time.” See Civil Local Rule 6-3(a)(1) and (3). Neither
13
Plaintiffs’ motion nor the supporting declaration satisfies the requirements of the rule. The only
14

15 reason that Plaintiffs indentify is a claim that they will suffer “substantial prejudice” if the motion

16 to shorten time is not granted “because, in the event the Court were to deny Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiff-

17 Intervenor’s motion to enlarge time, Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor would likely not have
18 sufficient time to file their motion for attorney’s fees and related expenses.” See Declaration of
19
Enrique A. Monagas at 3 (emphasis added).
20
Plaintiffs have until August 26th to file their motion for attorney’s fees. To suggest that the
21
Plaintiffs would suffer “substantial prejudice” if the Defendant-Intervenors were permitted 4 days,
22

23 as provided by the rules, to respond to their motion to enlarge time is patently unreasonable.

24 Plaintiffs have demonstrated throughout this litigation a willingness and ability to allocate

25 extraordinary resources to this case. To represent that they would be in danger of not “having
26
sufficient time” to file a motion for attorney’s fees unless Defendant-Intervenors are provided “no
27
1
28 Movants will be referred to herein collectively as “Plaintiffs.”
1
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME
CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document736 Filed08/18/10 Page4 of 4

1 more than 24 hours” to respond to their motion to enlarge time is not credible.
2 To the extent Plaintiffs have concerns regarding time, it is their own doing. Plaintiffs
3
waited 6 days to file their motion to enlarge time to seek attorney’s fees. Now, Plaintiffs seek to
4
drastically shorten Defendant-Intervenors’ time to respond to that motion so that they have more
5
time to prepare an application for attorney’s fees in the event this Court does not grant their motion
6

7 to enlarge time. Such a burden shift is unwarranted.

8 Consequently, Defendant-Intervenors respectfully oppose Plaintiffs’ motion to shorten time

9 and request that they be afforded the full 4 days to respond.

10

11 DATED: August 18, 2010 ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND

12 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT,
13 MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, MARK A. JANSSON, AND
PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM – YES ON 8, A PROJECT
14 OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL

15 By: /s/ Brian W. Raum

16 Brian W. Raum

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
2
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME
CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document736-1 Filed08/18/10 Page1 of 4

1 COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC

Charles J. Cooper (DC Bar No. 248070)*
2 ccooper@cooperkirk.com
David H. Thompson (DC Bar No. 450503)*
3
dthompson@cooperkirk.com
4 Howard C. Nielson, Jr. (DC Bar No. 473018)*
hnielson@cooperkirk.com
5 Nicole J. Moss (DC Bar No. 472424)*
nmoss@cooperkirk.com
6 Peter A. Patterson (OH Bar No. 0080840)*
7 ppatterson@cooperkirk.com
1523 New Hampshire Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
8 Telephone: (202) 220-9600, Facsimile: (202) 220-9601

9 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO

Andrew P. Pugno (CA Bar No. 206587)
10 andrew@pugnolaw.com
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630
11 Telephone: (916) 608-3065, Facsimile: (916) 608-3066

12 ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND

Brian W. Raum (NY Bar No. 2856102)*
13 braum@telladf.org
James A. Campbell (OH Bar No. 0081501)*
14 jcampbell@telladf.org
15100 North 90th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
15 Telephone: (480) 444-0020, Facsimile: (480) 444-0028

16 ATTORNEYS FOR PROPOSED INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH,

GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, MARK A. JANSSON,
17 and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM – YES ON 8, A
PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL
18
* Admitted pro hac vice
19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
20 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

21 KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL

T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO,
22 CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF BRIAN W.
23
RAUM IN SUPPORT OF
24 v. DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL
25 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F.
capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G. GUTIERREZ, MARK A. JANSSON,
26 BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Attorney AND PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM’S
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his SHORTEN TIME
27
official capacity as Director of the California
28
DECLARATION OF BRIAN W. RAUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
SHORTEN TIME
CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document736-1 Filed08/18/10 Page2 of 4

1 Department of Public Health and State Registrar of

Vital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her official
2 capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information
& Strategic Planning for the California Department
3
of Public Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his
4 official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County
of Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his official
5 capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for
the County of Los Angeles,
6
Defendants,
7
and
8
PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS
9 DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J.
KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, and
10 MARK A. JANSSON, and
PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM – YES ON 8, A
11 PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL,
12 Defendant-Intervenors.
13

14
Additional Counsel for Defendant-Intervenors
15
ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND
16 Timothy Chandler (CA Bar No. 234325)
tchandler@telladf.org
17 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630
Telephone: (916) 932-2850, Facsimile: (916) 932-2851
18

19 Jordan W. Lorence (DC Bar No. 385022)*

jlorence@telladf.org
20 Austin R. Nimocks (TX Bar No. 24002695)*
animocks@telladf.org
21 801 G Street NW, Suite 509, Washington, D.C. 20001
Telephone: (202) 393-8690, Facsimile: (202) 347-3622
22

23 * Admitted pro hac vice

24

25

26

27

28
DECLARATION OF BRIAN W. RAUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
SHORTEN TIME
CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document736-1 Filed08/18/10 Page3 of 4

1 I, Brian W. Raum, declare as follows:

2 1. I am one of the attorneys of record for Defendant-Intervenors Dennis Hollingsworth,

3 Gail Knight, Martin Gutierrez, Mark Jansson, and ProtectMarriage.com (“Proponents”) in the
4
above-captioned matter and I make this declaration in opposition to Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-
5
Intervenors’ Motion to Shorten Time pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3.
6
2. On August 17, 2010 at 5:14 p.m. Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion seeking to shorten
7
Defendants-Intervenors’ time to respond to their motion to enlarge time to file a motion for
8

9 attorney’s fees and costs. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek an order shortening Defendants-Intervenors’

10 time to respond from 4 days to “no more than 24 hours.” Defendants-Intervenors oppose Plaintiffs’
11 motion to shorten time because they have failed to justify their request pursuant to the Local Rules.
12
3. Civil Local Rule 6-3 requires Plaintiffs to set forth, among other things, “the reasons
13
for the requested enlargement or shortening of time” and the “substantial harm or prejudice that
14
would occur if the court did not change the time.” See Civil Local Rule 6-3(a)(1) and (3).
15

16 4. Neither Plaintiffs’ motion nor the supporting declaration satisfies the requirements of

17 the rule. The only reason that Plaintiffs indentify is a claim that they will suffer “substantial

18 prejudice” if the motion to shorten time is not granted “because, in the event the Court were to
19 deny Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiff-Intervenor’s motion to enlarge time, Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor
20
would likely not have sufficient time to file their motion for attorney’s fees and related expenses.”
21
See Declaration of Enrique A. Monagas at 3 (emphasis added).
22

23 5. Plaintiffs have until August 26th to file their motion for attorney’s fees. To suggest that

24 the Plaintiffs would suffer “substantial prejudice” if the Defendant-Intervenors were permitted 4

25 days, as provided by the rules, to respond to their motion to enlarge time is patently unreasonable.
26
Plaintiffs have demonstrated throughout this litigation a willingness and ability to allocate
27
extraordinary resources to this case. To represent that they could be in danger of not “having
28
1
DECLARATION OF BRIAN W. RAUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
SHORTEN TIME
CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document736-1 Filed08/18/10 Page4 of 4

1 sufficient time” to file a motion for attorney’s fees unless Defendant-Intervenors are provided “no
2 more than 24 hours” to respond to their motion to enlarge time is not credible.
3
6. To the extent Plaintiffs have concerns regarding time, it is their own doing. Plaintiffs
4
waited 6 days to file their motion to extend time to seek attorney’s fees. Now, Plaintiffs seek to
5
drastically shorten Defendants-Intervenors’ time to respond to that motion so that they have more
6

7 time to prepare an application for attorney’s fees in the event this Court does not grant their motion

8 to enlarge time. Such a burden shift is unwarranted.

9 7. Consequently, Defendant-Intervenors respectfully oppose Plaintiffs’ motion to shorten

10 time and request that they be afforded the full 4 days to respond.
11
I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States, that these facts are true
12 and correct and that this Declaration is executed this eighteenth day of August, 2010, at
Scottsdale, Arizona.
13
DATED: August 18, 2010
14

15 /s/ Brian W. Raum

Brian W. Raum
16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
2
DECLARATION OF BRIAN W. RAUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
SHORTEN TIME
CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW