Case: 09-80173 02/12/2010 Page: 1 of 4

ID: 7231169 DktEntry: 39-1

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE MATTER OF KAREN GOLINSKI, et ux., No. 09-80173

KAREN GOLINSKIS REPORT REGARDING DEVELOPMENTS IN DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDING, GOLINSKI V. OPM, NO. 10-CV-00257 (SBA)

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP James R. McGuire Gregory P. Dresser Rita F. Lin Grace Y. Park 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: 415.268.7000 Facsimile: 415.268.7522 Email: JMcGuire@mofo.com LAMBDA LEGAL, Western Regional Office Jennifer C. Pizer 3325 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1300 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1729 Telephone: 213.382.7600 Facsimile: 213.351.6050 Email: JPizer@lambdalegal.org Attorneys for Karen Golinski

pa-1385408

Case: 09-80173 02/12/2010 Page: 2 of 4

ID: 7231169 DktEntry: 39-1

Pursuant to the Judicial Councils February 1, 2010 Order requiring that the parties to this proceeding inform the Council of any developments in Golinski [v.
OPM], No. 10-cv-00257-SBA, that bear on the propriety of this stay, Karen

Golinski states as follows. As previously reported, on January 20, 2010, Ms. Golinski filed suit against OPM in the Northern District of California. On January 26, Ms. Golinski filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. That motion was initially scheduled for hearing on June 15, the earliest date available on Judge Armstrongs regular civil calendar. On January 27, Ms. Golinski filed an ex parte application seeking to shorten the time for hearing to February 23. On February 11, the Court denied Ms. Golinskis application. Noting, however, that the Court was sensitive to Plaintiff's concerns and the import of the underlying issues, Judge Armstrong set an expedited briefing schedule requiring OPM to submit its opposition on March 2, and Ms. Golinski to submit any reply on March 9. The June 15, hearing date remains unchanged, but the Court stated that it may, in its discretion, decide the matter on the pleadings or accelerate the hearing at a later date should an opening in the Court's currently full calendar become available. (Id.) A true and correct copy of District Courts February 11 Order is attached to this Report as Exhibit A.

pa-1385408

Case: 09-80173 02/12/2010 Page: 3 of 4

ID: 7231169 DktEntry: 39-1

Dated: February 12, 2010

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP LAMBDA LEGAL By: /s/ James R. McGuire James R. McGuire Attorneys for Karen Golinski

2
pa-1385408

Case: 09-80173 02/12/2010 Page: 4 of 4

ID: 7231169 DktEntry: 39-1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 12, 2010, I filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit:
KAREN GOLINSKIS REPORT REGARDING DEVELOPMENTS IN DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDING, GOLINSKI V. OPM, NO. 10-CV-00257 (SBA)

I further certify that I have mailed the foregoing document by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Elaine Kaplan, Esq. General Counsel Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street NW Washington, D.C. 20415 Charlotte G. Peddicord Office of Human Resources Assistant Director Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building One Columbus Circle, N.E, Room 5-500 Washington, DC 20544 Joseph P Russoniello, Esq. Office of the U.S. Attorney 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 11th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 Roger G. Wilson, Esq. Blue Cross/ Blue Shield Association Senior Vice President, General Counsel 225 N. Michigan Ave Chicago, IL 60601 William Breskin, Esq. Blue Cross/ Blue Shield Association Chief Washington Counsel 1310 G Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 /s/ Janie Fogel Janie Fogel
1
sf-2775152

Case: 09-80173 02/12/2010 Page: 1 of 3

ID: 7231169 DktEntry: 39-2

Case: 09-80173 02/12/2010 Document22 Filed02/11/10 DktEntry: 39-2 Case4:10-cv-00257-SBA Page: 2 of 3 ID: 7231169 Page1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 KAREN GOLINSKI, 7 8 vs. Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF KAREN GOLINSKI'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR NOTICE AND HEARING FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Case No: C 10-0257 SBA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

9 UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, 10 Defendant. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Karen Golinski's Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time for Notice and Hearing Motion for Preliminary Injunction.1 (Docket No. 13.) Plaintiff, a staff attorney with the Ninth Circuit, has filed the instant action seeking a preliminary injunction and an order of mandamus against the Office of Personnel Management that would allow her to enroll her same-sex spouse in her family health care plan. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3(a)(3), a motion to shorten time must identify "the substantial harm or prejudice that would occur if the Court did not change the time." In the instant case, Plaintiff specifically describes the harm as the daily "risk and related anxiety that her spouse will become ill or suffer an injury for which necessary treatment will not be fully insured or which will incur devastating costs." (Mot. at 2:7-9.) Plaintiff's anxiety is therefore predicated upon the

23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant filed an opposition to the instant motion on February 2, 2010 (Docket No. 17) and Plaintiff a reply on February 3, 2010 (Docket No. 20).
1

possibility that her spouse may require treatment that may not be covered by her current health insurance plan.

Case: 09-80173 02/12/2010 Document22 Filed02/11/10 DktEntry: 39-2 Case4:10-cv-00257-SBA Page: 3 of 3 ID: 7231169 Page2 of 2

1 2 3 4

The Court is sensitive to Plaintiff's concerns and the import of the underlying issues. However, given the tenuous nature of the harm at this juncture, the Court does not find this sufficient to warrant expediting the hearing on Plaintiff's motion ahead of other parties who similarly suffer the anxiety of a potential unfavorable turn of events.

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Hearing Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-

Notwithstanding the above, the Court will set an expedited briefing schedule and may, in its discretion, decide the matter on the pleadings or accelerate the hearing at a later date should an opening in the Court's currently full calendar become available. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff Karen Golinski's Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time for Notice and

2. Defendant is to file a response to Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction on or before March 2, 2010. 3. Plaintiff may file a reply on or before March 9, 2010. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/10/10

____________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge