United States District Court Northern District of California

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document462 Filed01/14/10 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
Howard C. Nielson, Jr. (DC Bar No. 473018)*
4 hnielson@cooperkirk.com
Nicole J. Moss (DC Bar No. 472424)*
5 nmoss@cooperkirk.com
Jesse Panuccio (DC Bar No. 981634)*
6 jpanuccio@cooperkirk.com
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
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
16 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH,

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
20
KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL
21 T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO, CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
22 DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS
Plaintiffs, PROPOSITION 8 PROPONENTS
23 AND PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM’S
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, NOTICE OF MOTION TO SHORTEN
24 TIME TO HEAR MOTION TO
Plaintiff-Intervenor, EXCLUDE PROPOSED WITNESS
25 RYAN KENDALL
v.
26 Date: January 15, 2010
Time: 8:30 a.m.
27 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official Location: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor
capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G. Judge: Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker
28 BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Attorney
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME TO HEAR MOTION TO EXCLUDE PROPOSED WITNESS RYAN
KENDALL – CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
1 General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his

official capacity as Director of the California
2 Department of Public Health and State Registrar of
Vital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her official
3
capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information
4 & Strategic Planning for the California Department
of Public Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his
5 official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County
of Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his official
6 capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for
7 the County of Los Angeles,
8 Defendants,
9 and
10 PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS

DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J.
11 KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-
SHING WILLIAM TAM, and MARK A.
12 JANSSON; and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM –
YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA
13 RENEWAL,
14 Defendant-Intervenors.
15
16 Additional Counsel for Defendant-Intervenors
17
ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND
18 Timothy Chandler (CA Bar No. 234325)
tchandler@telladf.org
19 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630
Telephone: (916) 932-2850, Facsimile: (916) 932-2851
20
Jordan W. Lorence (DC Bar No. 385022)*
21 jlorence@telladf.org
Austin R. Nimocks (TX Bar No. 24002695)*
22 animocks@telladf.org
801 G Street NW, Suite 509, Washington, D.C. 20001
25
26
27
28
1 TO THE PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 15, 2010, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the
3 matter may be heard, before the Honorable Vaughn R. Walker, United States District Court for the
4 Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, Defendant-
5 Intervenors Proposition 8 Proponents Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez,
6 and Mark A. Jansson, and Proposition 8 Campaign Committee ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8, a
7 Project of California Renewal, will move this Court for an order shortening the time to hear their
8 Motion to Exclude.
9 Defendant-Intervenors respectfully request an order shortening time on the Motion to
10 Exclude.
11 ARGUMENT
12 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3, Defendant-Intervenors respectfully request the Court to
13 shorten time on their Motion to Exclude Proposed Witness Ryan Kendall. Defendant-Intervenors
14 ask that their Motion to Exclude be considered on January 15, 2010, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon
15 thereafter as reasonably possible. Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor have indicated that Mr. Kendall
16 will likely be called to testify on January 15, 2010; thus, time does not permit the usual briefing and
17 hearing schedule on the Motion to Exclude.
18 Prior to December 2009, Plaintiff-Intervenor had never disclosed Mr. Kendall as an
19 individual who might have information relevant to this case. And after Mr. Kendall’s name was
20 disclosed as a potential witness in this case, Plaintiff-Intervenor did not produce him for a
21 deposition until January 7, 2010, a mere two business days before trial. The last-minute nature of
22 Mr. Kendall’s involvement in this case necessitates shortening the time to hear the accompanying
23 request to exclude his testimony.
24 Defendant-Intervenors have notified the parties about this Motion to Shorten Time and have
25 sought their consent. All the other defendants and defendant-intervenors have indicated that they
26 do not oppose this Motion. Plaintiff-Intervenor, however, does not consent to shorten the time to
27 hear the Motion to Exclude. And as of the filing of this Motion, counsel for Plaintiffs had yet to
28 respond to Defendant-Intervenors’ request.

1
1 CONCLUSION
2 In conclusion, Defendant-Intervenors request that the Court grant this Motion to Shorten
3 Time.
5 Dated: January 14, 2010
6
COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC
7 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS
8 DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT,
MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, MARK A. JANSSON, AND
9 PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM – YES ON 8, A PROJECT
OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL
10
By: s/Charles J. Cooper
11 Charles J. Cooper
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document462-1 Filed01/14/10 Page1 of 5
Exhibit A





20
22 DECLARATION OF JAMES A.
Plaintiffs, CAMPBELL IN SUPPORT OF
23 MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME TO
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, HEAR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS
24 PROPOSITION 8 PROPONENTS
Plaintiff-Intervenor, AND PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM’S
25 MOTION TO EXCLUDE PROPOSED
v. WITNESS RYAN KENDALL
26
Date: January 15, 2010
27 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official Time: 8:30 a.m.
capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G. Location: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor
28 BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Attorney Judge: Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME TO HEAR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION TO

EXCLUDE PROPOSED WITNESS RYAN KENDALL – CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

3
8 Defendants,
9 and

13 RENEWAL,
15
17
20
25
26
27
28

1 I, James A. Campbell, attorney for Defendant-Intervenors Proposition 8 Proponents Dennis
2 Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Mark A. Jansson, and Proposition 8 Campaign
3 Committee ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal, have personal
4 knowledge of the facts in this declaration, and if called as a witness, I could and would competently
5 testify to these facts under oath:
6 1) Defendant-Intervenors Proposition 8 Proponents and ProtectMarriage.com’s Motion to
7 Exclude Ryan Kendall was filed on January 14, 2010.
8 2) Defendant-Intervenors seek the Court’s leave for a hearing on their Motion to Exclude
9 on January 15, 2010, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as reasonably possible.
10 3) Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor have indicated that Mr. Kendall will likely be called to
11 testify on January 15, 2010; thus, time does not permit the usual briefing and hearing schedule on
12 the Motion to Exclude.
13 4) I contacted via email counsel for all parties on January 14, 2010, and requested consent
14 to shorten time on the Motion to Exclude.
15 5) Counsel for the Alameda County Clerk-Recorder indicated that he does not oppose this
16 Motion.
17 6) Counsel for the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk indicated that he
18 does not oppose this Motion.
19 7) Counsel for Hak-Shing William Tam indicated that he does not oppose this Motion.
20 8) Counsel for the Administrative Defendants indicated that they do not oppose this
21 Motion.
22 9) Counsel for the Attorney General indicated that he does not oppose this Motion.
23 10) Counsel for Plaintiff-Intervenor indicated that the City and County of San Francisco
24 does not consent to this Motion.
25 11) As of the time of filing this motion, I had yet to receive a response from counsel for
26 Plaintiffs.
27 12) Under this Court’s standard briefing schedule, the Motion to Exclude would be set for
28 hearing following the testimony of Mr. Kendall in this case; thus, the harm suffered by not granting
1
1 this Motion to Shorten Time would be irreparable. This fact weighs heavily in favor of expediting
2 the Court’s consideration of this Motion.
3 13) Any prior time modifications in this case do not directly bear on the Court’s
4 consideration of this Motion.
5 14) It does not appear that the Motion to Shorten Time will have any effect on the schedule
6 for this case.
7 I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing
8 is true and correct.
10 Executed on January 14, 2010, at San Francisco, California.
11
12
s/James A. Campbell
13 James A. Campbell
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document462-2 Filed01/14/10 Page1 of 3





20
22 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING

Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS
23 PROPOSITION 8 PROPONENTS
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, AND PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM’S
24 MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME TO
Plaintiff-Intervenor, HEAR THE MOTION TO EXCLUDE
25 PROPOSED WITNESS RYAN
v. KENDALL
26
Date: January 15, 2010
27 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official Time: 8:30 a.m.
capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G. Location: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor
28 BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Attorney Judge: Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker
[PROPOSED] ORDER –
CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

3
8 Defendants,
9 and

13 RENEWAL,
15
17
20
25
26
27
28
1 Defendant-Intervenors Proposition 8 Official Proponents Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J.
2 Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, and Mark A. Jansson, and Proposition 8 Campaign Committee
3 ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal, have demonstrated that the Court
4 should shorten the time to hear Defendant-Intervenors’ Motion to Exclude Proposed Witness Ryan
5 Kendall. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant-Intervenors’ Motion to Shorten Time should be
6 GRANTED.
7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Court will hear Defendant-Intervenors’ Motion
8 to Exclude Proposed Witness Ryan Kendall on January 15, 2010.
10 Date:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11 CHIEF JUDGE VAUGHN R. WALKER
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1

United States District Court Northern District of California

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States District Court Northern District of California

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States District Court Northern District of California

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document462 Filed01/14/10 Page1 of 4

1 COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC

9 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO

12 ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND

16 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH,

18 * Admitted pro hac vice

19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1 General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his

10 PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS

16 Additional Counsel for Defendant-Intervenors

24 * Admitted pro hac vice

1 TO THE PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

5 Intervenors Proposition 8 Proponents Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez,

6 and Mark A. Jansson, and Proposition 8 Campaign Committee ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8, a

9 Defendant-Intervenors respectfully request an order shortening time on the Motion to

17 hearing schedule on the Motion to Exclude.

18 Prior to December 2009, Plaintiff-Intervenor had never disclosed Mr. Kendall as an

23 request to exclude his testimony.

28 respond to Defendant-Intervenors’ request.

5 Dated: January 14, 2010

1 COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC

9 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO

12 ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND

16 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH,

18 * Admitted pro hac vice

19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME TO HEAR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION TO

1 General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his

10 PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS

16 Additional Counsel for Defendant-Intervenors

24 * Admitted pro hac vice

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME TO HEAR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION TO

1 I, James A. Campbell, attorney for Defendant-Intervenors Proposition 8 Proponents Dennis

3 Committee ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal, have personal

5 testify to these facts under oath:

6 1) Defendant-Intervenors Proposition 8 Proponents and ProtectMarriage.com’s Motion to

7 Exclude Ryan Kendall was filed on January 14, 2010.

9 on January 15, 2010, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as reasonably possible.

12 the Motion to Exclude.

14 to shorten time on the Motion to Exclude.

18 does not oppose this Motion.

24 does not consent to this Motion.

2 the Court’s consideration of this Motion.

4 consideration of this Motion.

6 for this case.

8 is true and correct.

10 Executed on January 14, 2010, at San Francisco, California.

1 COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC

9 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO

12 ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND

16 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH,

18 * Admitted pro hac vice

19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

22 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING

1 General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his

10 PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS

16 Additional Counsel for Defendant-Intervenors

24 * Admitted pro hac vice