Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

MOTION to Shorten Time re Motion to Exclude Testimony of Frank Schubert

N.D. Cal.January 24, 2010

09-CV-2292 VRW PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME 1 2 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 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP Theodore B. Olson, SBN 38137 tolson@gibsondunn.com Matthew D. McGill, pro hac vice Amir C. Tayrani, SBN 229609 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 955-8668, Facsimile: (202) 467-0539 Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., SBN 132009 tboutrous@gibsondunn.com Christopher D. Dusseault, SBN 177557 Ethan D. Dettmer, SBN 196046 Sarah E. Piepmeier, SBN 227094 Theane Evangelis Kapur, SBN 243570 Enrique A. Monagas, SBN 239087 333 S. Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7804, Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP David Boies, pro hac vice dboies@bsfllp.com 333 Main Street, Armonk, New York 10504 Telephone: (914) 749-8200, Facsimile: (914) 749-8300 Jeremy M. Goldman, SBN 218888 jgoldman@bsfllp.com Theodore H. Uno, SBN 248603 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900, Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (510) 874-1000, Facsimile: (510) 874-1460 Attorneys for Plaintiffs KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al., Plaintiffs, and CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants, and PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al., Defendant-Intervenors. CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF FRANK SCHUBERT Trial Date: January 11, 2010 Judge: Chief Judge Walker Location: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document519 Filed01/24/10 Page1 of 3 Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al Doc. 519 Dockets.Justia.com 09-CV-2292 VRW PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME 1 2 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 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT that pursuant to Local Rule 6-3 Plaintiffs will and hereby do move this Court for an Order shortening the time within which the Court may hear Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Testimony of Frank Schubert. This motion is based on this notice, the memorandum accompanying this notice, the accompanying Declaration of Amir C. Tayrani, all other papers on file with the Court, oral argument, and such other matters as may be presented in connection with the hearing. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES At 8:24 a.m. on January 24, 2010, Proponents notified Plaintiffs of their intention to call Frank Schubert as a trial witness on Tuesday, January 26. See E-mail from Nicole J. Moss to Enrique A. Monagas (Jan. 24, 2010), attached as Ex. A to the Declaration of Amir C. Tayrani in Support of Motion to Exclude Testimony of Frank Schubert. Later that day, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Exclude Mr. Schubert’s testimony. Because Mr. Schubert is scheduled to testify on January 26, the Court should consider and decide Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Testimony of Frank Schubert on an expedited basis. I. Substantial Prejudice Will Occur If Mr. Schubert Is Permitted To Testify. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(c) allows the court to order a motion to be heard on an accelerated basis “for good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(c)(1)(C). Moreover, Civil Local Rule 6-3(a)(3) provides that a court may shorten time if “substantial harm or prejudice . . . would occur if the Court did not change the time . . . .” Proponents did not notify Plaintiffs of their intention to call Mr. Schubert as a trial witness until the morning of January 24, 2010. That same day, Plaintiffs promptly filed their Motion to Exclude Testimony of Frank Schubert. As explained in that motion, Plaintiffs will be prejudiced if Mr. Schubert is permitted to testify because Plaintiffs have not had a meaningful opportunity to depose Mr. Schubert on the only topic on which he has been disclosed to testify. During his deposition, Mr. Schubert’s counsel directed him on 76 separate occasions not to answer questions about the “genesis, strategy, and execution of the ‘Yes on 8’ campaign”-the only subject for which Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document519 Filed01/24/10 Page2 of 3 09-CV-2292 VRW PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME 1 2 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 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 2 he has been disclosed. Plaintiffs therefore have little information regarding the content of Mr. Schubert’s potential testimony and will be unable to meaningfully prepare to cross-examine him. Given Mr. Schubert’s impending testimony, Plaintiffs request that the Court issue an order on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Testimony of Frank Schubert as soon as practicable. Respectfully submitted, DATED: January 24, 2010 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP Theodore B. Olson Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. Christopher D. Dusseault Ethan D. Dettmer Matthew D. McGill Amir C. Tayrani Sarah E. Piepmeier Theane Evangelis Kapur Rebecca Justice Lazarus Enrique A. Monagas By: /s/ Theodore B. Olson and BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP David Boies Jeremy M. Goldman Roseanne C. Baxter Richard J. Bettan Beko O. Richardson Theodore H. Uno Joshua I. Schiller Attorneys for Plaintiffs KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document519 Filed01/24/10 Page3 of 3