Case: 11-17255

10/13/2011

ID: 7927642

DktEntry: 11-1

Page: 1 of 3

NO. 11-17255 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KRISTIN PERRY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr. et al., Defendants, and DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al., Defendant-Intervenors-Appellants. Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of California Civil Case No. 09-CV-2292 JW (Honorable James Ware) APPELLANTS UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATIONS Andrew P. Pugno LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100 Folsom, California 95630 (916) 608-3065; (916) 608-3066 Fax Brian W. Raum James A. Campbell ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND 15100 North 90th Street Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 (480) 444-0020; (480) 444-0028 Fax Charles J. Cooper David H. Thompson Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Peter A. Patterson COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC 1523 New Hampshire Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 220-9600; (202) 220-9601 Fax

Attorneys for Appellants

Case: 11-17255

10/13/2011

ID: 7927642

DktEntry: 11-1

Page: 2 of 3

Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 32-2, Appellants respectfully seek the Courts leave to file a Reply in support of their Emergency Motion For Stay Pending Appeal in excess of the ten pages provided by rule. See Fed. R. App. P. 27(d)(2). Specifically, Appellants respectfully request the Courts leave to file a Reply of no more than 20 pages in length. Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Intervenor City and County of San Francisco, and Proposed Intervenor Media Coalition have collectively filed 52 pages of briefing opposing Appellants motion (20, 12, and 20 pages, respectively). Appellants request to file a Reply not to exceed 20 pages in length is eminently reasonable in light of this extensive briefing opposing their motion. Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Intervenor City and County of San Francisco, Proposed Intervenor Media Coalition, and the parties to this litigation that have not participated in this appeal, through their respective counsel, have all informed counsel for Appellants that they will not oppose this Motion to Exceed Page Limitations. For these reasons, the Court should grant Appellants request to file a Reply not to exceed 20 pages in length.

Dated: October 13, 2011

Respectfully submitted, s/ Charles J. Cooper Charles J. Cooper Attorney for Appellants 1

Case: 11-17255

10/13/2011

ID: 7927642

DktEntry: 11-1

Page: 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system on October 13, 2011. I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system.

s/ Charles J. Cooper Charles J. Cooper

Case: 11-17255

10/13/2011

ID: 7927642

DktEntry: 11-2

Page: 1 of 3

NO. 11-17255 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KRISTIN PERRY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr. et al., Defendants, and DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al., Defendant-Intervenors-Appellants. Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of California Civil Case No. 09-CV-2292 JW (Honorable James Ware) DECLARATION OF PETER A. PATTERSON Andrew P. Pugno LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100 Folsom, California 95630 (916) 608-3065; (916) 608-3066 Fax Brian W. Raum James A. Campbell ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND 15100 North 90th Street Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 (480) 444-0020; (480) 444-0028 Fax Charles J. Cooper David H. Thompson Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Peter A. Patterson COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC 1523 New Hampshire Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 220-9600; (202) 220-9601 Fax

Attorneys for Appellants

Case: 11-17255

10/13/2011

ID: 7927642

DktEntry: 11-2

Page: 2 of 3

I, Peter A. Patterson, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney at the law firm of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, and I am one of the attorneys for Appellants Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Mark A. Jansson, and ProtectMarriage.com. I make this declaration in support of Appellants Motion to Exceed Page Limitations. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein. 2. Appellants request an expanded page limit of 20 pages. Plaintiffs, PlaintiffIntervenor City and County of San Francisco, and Proposed Intervenor Media Coalition have collectively filed 52 pages of briefing opposing Appellants motion (20, 12, and 20 pages, respectively). 3. Appellants request to file a Reply not to exceed 20 pages in length is eminently reasonable in light of their need to respond to the arguments raised in this extensive briefing opposing their motion. 4. Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Intervenor City and County of San Francisco, Proposed Intervenor Media Coalition, and the parties to this litigation that have not participated in this appeal, through their respective counsel, have all informed counsel for Appellants that they will not oppose this Motion to Exceed Page Limitations.

Case: 11-17255

10/13/2011

ID: 7927642

DktEntry: 11-2

Page: 3 of 3

I declare, under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe United States, that these
facts are true and correct and that this Declaration is executed this 13th day of October

2011 in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Peter A. Patterson