Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document104 Filed05/04/11 Page1 of 5

1 MICHAEL F. HERTZ
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
2 MELINDA HAAG
United States Attorney
3 ARTHUR R. GOLDBERG
Assistant Branch Director
4 CHRISTOPHER R. HALL
Trial Attorney
5 United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
6
P.O. Box 883
7 Washington, D.C. 20044
Telephone: (202) 514-4778
8 Facsimile: (202) 616-8470
Email: Christopher.Hall@usdoj.gov
9
Attorneys for Defendants
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
OAKLAND DIVISION
13
KAREN GOLINSKI )
14 ) No. C 3:10-00257-JSW
Plaintiff, )
15 )
v. ) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ENLARGE
16 ) TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S
THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF ) SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
17 PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, et al. )
)
18 Defendants. )
)
19 ____________________________________ )
20
Defendants, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby move the Court for an
21
enlargement of time of seventy-five days in which to respond to Plaintiff’s Second Amended
22
Complaint, from May 4, 2011, through and including July 18, 2011. In support of this Motion,
23
Defendants respectfully submit the following:
24
1. On April 14, 2011, pursuant to the Court’s March 16, 2011 Order Granting
25
Motion to Dismiss and Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Docket No. 98], Plaintiff
26
filed her Second Amended Complaint [Docket No. 102]. Pursuant to the Court’s March 16
27
Order, Defendants’ response to the Second Amended Complaint is due on May 4, 2011.
28

Defendants’ Motion to Enlarge Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint

3:10cv257-JSW
 Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document104 Filed05/04/11 Page2 of 5

1 2. Plaintiff filed her original Complaint on January 20, 2010 [Docket No. 1].
2 Neither her original Complaint nor her First Amended Complaint, filed on March 8, 2010
3 [Docket No. 30], asserted a claim challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of
4 Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7. See generally Order of March 16 at 5-6 (noting that the
5 constitutionality of DOMA is “not directly challenged in this case”); id. at 11-12 (“grant[ing]
6 Plaintiff leave to amend [her complaint] to attempt to plead a claim that the Court may
7 legitimately address.”).
8 3. In contrast to Plaintiff’s prior two Complaints, Plaintiff’s Second Amended
9 Complaint now includes a claim challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA. Pl.’s
10 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 72; see also id., Prayer for Relief. Thus, the constitutionality of Section 3 of
11 DOMA is now directly at issue for the first time in this action, approximately fifteen months after
12 it was originally filed.
13 4. On February 23, 2011, approximately seven weeks before Plaintiff filed her
14 Second Amended Complaint, the Attorney General announced that the Executive Branch
15 believes that Section 3 of DOMA is properly subject to heightened constitutional scrutiny and is
16 unconstitutional under that standard. Pursuant to that determination, the Department of Justice
17 will not defend DOMA in pending litigation, but, as the Attorney General has previously stated,
18 is interested in providing Congress a full and fair opportunity to participate in cases, including
19 this matter, challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA.
20 5. In light of the Attorney General’s determination, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory
21 Group of the United States House of Representatives (“BLAG”) moved on this date to intervene
22 in this action to defend the constitutionality of DOMA [Docket No. 103]. Defendants have not
23 yet responded to BLAG’s motion in this case. Likewise, Plaintiff has not yet responded to that
24 motion.
25 6. Pursuant to L.Civ.R. 6-3(a)(1) and (3), the requested enlargement of seventy-five
26 days is necessary to permit BLAG and its outside counsel a sufficient opportunity to effectively
27 address the issue of DOMA’s constitutionality and to prevent substantial harm to its interests.
28 Declaration of Kerry W. Kircher, May 4, 2011, at ¶¶ 5-15 (“Kircher Decl.”) (Attachment A). In

Defendants’ Motion to Enlarge Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint

3:10cv257-JSW 2
 Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document104 Filed05/04/11 Page3 of 5

1 particular, BLAG is “the only federal government entity that is in a position to formulate and
2 articulate to [this Court] arguments that the statute is constitutional [].” Id. ¶ 13. The ability of
3 BLAG and its outside counsel to present such arguments here is constrained by the numerous
4 other matters in which BLAG must intervene to defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of
5 DOMA, id. ¶ 5, and the fact that BLAG only became involved in DOMA-related litigation on
6 March 9, 2011, when it formally determined that it “would defend Section III of DOMA in civil
7 actions in which the statute’s constitutionality has been, or might be, challenged[,]” and
8 instructed the General Counsel of the House of Representatives to coordinate that legal defense
9 and retain outside counsel to conduct such defense. Id. ¶ 3.1
10 7. The logistical constraints upon BLAG’s time and resources, and those of its
11 outside counsel, are significant. In addition to this matter, BLAG has already moved to intervene
12 in three other cases where the constitutionality of Section 3 is challenged: Windsor v. United
13 States, No. 1:10-cv-8435 (S.D.N.Y.); Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, No. 3:10-cv-
14 01750 (D. Conn.); and Dragovich v. Dep’t of Treasury, No. 4:10-cv-01564 (N.D. Cal.). Id. ¶ 6.
15 In Dragovich, the plaintiffs are opposing BLAG’s motion to intervene, which will necessitate
16 collateral litigation on that issue before BLAG is even able to present substantive arguments as to
17 the constitutionality of DOMA. Id. In Windsor, the court has scheduled a status conference for
18 May 9, 2011, at which time the plaintiffs are expected to request the court to require BLAG to
19 file a motion to dismiss by May 25, 2011. Id.
20 8. In addition to those district court actions, BLAG anticipates that it will move to
21 intervene in the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in the consolidated matters of Gill v. Office
22 of Personnel Management, No. 10-2207 (1st Cir.); Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United
23 States Dep’t of Health and Human Services, et al., No. 10-2204 (1st Cir.); and Hara v. Office of
24
25 1
The House General Counsel retained the law firm of King & Spalding to represent BLAG on
April 14, 2001. Kircher Decl. ¶ 4. Pursuant to that retainer, Paul Clement, then a partner at King
26
& Spalding, was to be the lead attorney. Id. However, King & Spalding determined to withdraw
27 from its representation of BLAG on April 25, 2011, and Mr. Clement subsequently resigned from
the firm. Id. Mr. Clement subsequently became a Partner with Bancroft PLLC; the House
28 General Counsel has retained that firm to represent BLAG in these matters. Id.

Defendants’ Motion to Enlarge Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint

3:10cv257-JSW 3
 Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document104 Filed05/04/11 Page4 of 5

1 Personnel Management, No. 10-2214 (1st Cir.). Id. ¶ 7.

2 9. Further, BLAG anticipates that it will soon move to intervene in five pending
3 immigration and bankruptcy cases where the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA is directly
4 at issue. Id. ¶¶ 8-9. Although BLAG has not yet moved to intervene in those matters, once it has
5 done so, it will face existing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 deadlines on May 31 and June 17, 2011, in two
6 pending cases and a June 17, 2011 substantive hearing date in a third. Id. ¶¶ 8-9, 11.
7 10. Each of the six attorneys in the Office of the General Counsel to the House of
8 Representatives are and will continue to be responsible for numerous on-going matters other than
9 DOMA litigation, and none will be able to devote his or her full time to work on this or other
10 DOMA matters during the next four to six weeks. Id. ¶ 12.
11 11. Likewise, the outside counsel retained by BLAG to represent it in this and other
12 DOMA matters, Paul Clement and two other attorneys with the law firm of Bancroft PLLC, are
13 and remain responsible for significant on-going matters other than DOMA litigation. Id. ¶ 12.
14 For example, in addition to his work in this and other DOMA-related matters, Mr. Clement has
15 four oral arguments before the United States Courts of Appeals in the next five weeks, including
16 an en banc oral argument before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on May
17 23, 2011. Id.
18 12. Pursuant to Local Civil Rules 6-1 and 6-3(a), undersigned counsel made
19 significant but ultimately unsuccessful efforts to reach agreement with Plaintiff’s counsel as to a
20 stipulated order that would permit a sufficient opportunity for BLAG to effectively address the
21 constitutionality of DOMA, if its motion to intervene is granted. Declaration of Christopher R.
22 Hall, May 4, 2011, at ¶ 4 (“Hall Decl.”) (Attachment B). In particular, between April 28 and
23 May 3, 2011, undersigned counsel initiated multiple telephone conversations and electronic mail
24 exchanges with Plaintiff’s counsel seeking such a stipulated order; those efforts involved several
25 offers by Defendants to compromise, but ultimately they proved unsuccessful. Id. Ultimately,
26 after the parties failed to reach an agreement on May 3, id., Defendants were forced to file the
27 instant motion.
28 13. If granted, this would be the fourth time modification in this action, and the

Defendants’ Motion to Enlarge Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint

3:10cv257-JSW 4
 Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document104 Filed05/04/11 Page5 of 5

1 second requested by Defendants. Hall Decl. ¶ 5. One of the previous three modifications was
2 entered by the Clerk of the Court sua sponte [Docket No. 62]. Id. The other modification – the
3 enlargement of a briefing schedule and rescheduling of a hearing date – was granted in response
4 to Plaintiff’s request, as to which Plaintiff did not confer beforehand with Defendants, but which
5 Defendants subsequently did not oppose [Docket Nos. 77-80]. Id.
6 14. The requested enlargement would have no effect on the schedule for this case, as
7 there is no schedule in place and, in any event, the parties anticipate that the case will be resolved
8 through dispositive motions. Id. ¶ 6.
9 Dated: May 4, 2011
10 Respectfully Submitted,
11 MICHAEL F. HERTZ
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
12
MELINDA HAAG
13 United States Attorney
14 ARTHUR R. GOLDBERG
Assistant Branch Director
15
/s/ Christopher R. Hall
16 CHRISTOPHER R. HALL
D.C. Bar No. 468827
17 Trial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice
18 Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
P.O. Box 883
19 Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 514-4778 (telephone)
20 (202) 616-8470 (fax)
21 Attorneys for Defendants
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendants’ Motion to Enlarge Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint

3:10cv257-JSW 5
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document104-1 Filed05/04/11 Page1 of 7

Attachment A
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document104-1 Filed05/04/11 Page2 of 7

Attachment A
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document104-1 Filed05/04/11 Page3 of 7

Attachment A
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document104-1 Filed05/04/11 Page4 of 7

Attachment A
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document104-1 Filed05/04/11 Page5 of 7

Attachment A
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document104-1 Filed05/04/11 Page6 of 7

Attachment A
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document104-1 Filed05/04/11 Page7 of 7

Attachment A
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document104-2 Filed05/04/11 Page1 of 3

Attachment B
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document104-2 Filed05/04/11 Page2 of 3

Attachment B
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document104-2 Filed05/04/11 Page3 of 3

Attachment B
 Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document104-3 Filed05/04/11 Page1 of 2

1 MICHAEL F. HERTZ
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
2 MELINDA HAAG
United States Attorney
3 ARTHUR R. GOLDBERG
Assistant Branch Director
4 CHRISTOPHER R. HALL
Trial Attorney
5 United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
6
P.O. Box 883
7 Washington, D.C. 20044
Telephone: (202) 514-4778
8 Facsimile: (202) 616-8470
Email: Christopher.Hall@usdoj.gov
9
Attorneys for Defendants
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
OAKLAND DIVISION
13
KAREN GOLINSKI )
14 ) No. C 4:10-00257-SBA
Plaintiff, )
15 )
v. ) [PROPOSED] ORDER
16 )
THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF )
17 PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT and )
JOHN BERRY, Director of the Office of )
18 Personnel Management, in his official )
capacity )
19 )
Defendants. )
20 )
____________________________________ )
21
22 Upon consideration of Defendants’ Motion to Enlarge Time to Respond to
23 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, and any opposition thereto, the Court hereby
24 GRANTS Defendants’ motion and orders that the time to respond to Plaintiff’s Second
25 Amended Complaint be enlarged through and including July 18, 2011.
26 IT IS SO ORDERED.
27
28
 Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document104-3 Filed05/04/11 Page2 of 2

1 Dated: __________ _______________________________

Hon. JEFFREY S. WHITE
2 United States District Judge
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

[Proposed] Order
4:10cv257-JSW