United States District Court Northern District of California
United States District Court Northern District of California
United States District Court Northern District of California
3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT that pursuant to Local Rule 6-3 Plaintiffs will and hereby
4 do move this Court for an Order shortening the time within which the Court may hear Plaintiffs’
6 This motion is based on this notice, the memorandum accompanying this notice, the
7 accompanying Declaration of Amir C. Tayrani, all other papers on file with the Court, oral argument,
8 and such other matters as may be presented in connection with the hearing.
10 At 8:24 a.m. on January 24, 2010, Proponents notified Plaintiffs of their intention to call
11 Frank Schubert as a trial witness on Tuesday, January 26. See E-mail from Nicole J. Moss to Enrique
12 A. Monagas (Jan. 24, 2010), attached as Ex. A to the Declaration of Amir C. Tayrani in Support of
13 Motion to Exclude Testimony of Frank Schubert. Later that day, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Exclude
14 Mr. Schubert’s testimony. Because Mr. Schubert is scheduled to testify on January 26, the Court
15 should consider and decide Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Testimony of Frank Schubert on an
16 expedited basis.
19 accelerated basis “for good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(c)(1)(C). Moreover, Civil Local Rule 6-3(a)(3)
20 provides that a court may shorten time if “substantial harm or prejudice . . . would occur if the Court
22 Proponents did not notify Plaintiffs of their intention to call Mr. Schubert as a trial witness
23 until the morning of January 24, 2010. That same day, Plaintiffs promptly filed their Motion to
24 Exclude Testimony of Frank Schubert. As explained in that motion, Plaintiffs will be prejudiced if
25 Mr. Schubert is permitted to testify because Plaintiffs have not had a meaningful opportunity to
26 depose Mr. Schubert on the only topic on which he has been disclosed to testify. During his
27 deposition, Mr. Schubert’s counsel directed him on 76 separate occasions not to answer questions
28 about the “genesis, strategy, and execution of the ‘Yes on 8’ campaign”—the only subject for which
1 he has been disclosed. Plaintiffs therefore have little information regarding the content of Mr.
2 Schubert’s potential testimony and will be unable to meaningfully prepare to cross-examine him.
3 Given Mr. Schubert’s impending testimony, Plaintiffs request that the Court issue an order on
5 Respectfully submitted,
6 DATED: January 24, 2010 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
Theodore B. Olson
7 Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr.
Christopher D. Dusseault
8 Ethan D. Dettmer
Matthew D. McGill
9 Amir C. Tayrani
Sarah E. Piepmeier
10 Theane Evangelis Kapur
Rebecca Justice Lazarus
11 Enrique A. Monagas
12
By: /s/
13 Theodore B. Olson
14 and
15 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
David Boies
16 Jeremy M. Goldman
Roseanne C. Baxter
17 Richard J. Bettan
Beko O. Richardson
18 Theodore H. Uno
Joshua I. Schiller
19
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
20 KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER,
PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9 3. On January 24, 2010, I sent an e-mail to Nicole J. Moss, counsel for Proponents,
10
requesting that Proponents agree to a shortened schedule for deciding Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude
11
Testimony of Frank Schubert.
12
4. I did not receive a response from counsel for Proponents.
13
5. I am aware of three previous time modifications docketed in this case by order or
14
15 stipulation. A stipulation was granted to extend time for the Administration Defendants to serve and
16 file their Answer to the Complaint in Intervention. Doc # 170. The parties also entered into a joint
17 stipulation to extend pretrial filing deadlines. Doc # 266. The Court also granted Plaintiffs’ motion
18
to shorten time for response to an administrative motion to seal documents. Doc # 438.
19
6. Given the ongoing trial proceedings, I do not believe that the requested time
20
modification would have any effect on the schedule for this case.
21
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 24th
22
24
By: /s/
25 Amir C. Tayrani
26
27
28
2 Pursuant to General Order No. 45 of the Northern District of California, I attest that
3 concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from each of the other signatories to this
4 document.
5 By: /s/
Theodore B. Olson
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 On January 24, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Shorten Time for Plaintiffs’ Motion to
2 Exclude the Testimony of Frank Schubert. After full consideration of all moving and opposing
3 documents, the Court’s record and file in this matter, and the arguments of counsel, and good cause
4 appearing, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Shorten Time for Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude the Testimony of
5 Frank Schubert is GRANTED.
6 IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8 Date:
9
_____________________________________
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11 CHIEF JUDGE VAUGHN WALKER
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28