Case 3:10-cv-01750-VLB Document 101

Filed 09/14/11 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ___________________________________________ JOANNE PEDERSEN & ANN MEITZEN, ) GERALD V. PASSARO II, ) LYNDA DEFORGE & RAQUEL ARDIN, ) JANET GELLER & JOANNE MARQUIS, ) SUZANNE & GERALDINE ARTIS, ) BRADLEY KLEINERMAN & JAMES GEHRE, and ) DAMON SAVOY & JOHN WEISS, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, ) TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER, in his official capacity ) as the Secretary of the Treasury, and ) HILDA L. SOLIS, in her official capacity as the ) Secretary of Labor, ) MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, in his official capacity ) as the Commissioner of the Social Security ) Administration, ) UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, ) JOHN E. POTTER, in his official capacity as ) The Postmaster General of the United States of ) America, ) DOUGLAS H. SHULMAN, in his official ) capacity as the Commissioner of Internal ) Revenue, ) ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., in his official capacity ) as the United States Attorney General, ) JOHN WALSH, in his official capacity as Acting ) Comptroller of the Currency, and ) THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________________)

CIVIL ACTION No. 3:10 CV 1750 (VLB)

PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF 22 PAGES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 3:10-cv-01750-VLB Document 101

Filed 09/14/11 Page 2 of 5

In accordance with Local Rule 7, the Plaintiffs hereby respectfully request leave to file a Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment of 22 pages rather than the 10 pages normally allotted under Local Rule 7(d). In support of their motion, the Plaintiffs state as follows: 1. Under the Courts Scheduling Order for this case, the Plaintiffs are

lodging and filing today a reply in support of their motion for summary judgment (including expert rebuttal declarations) (if any) and an opposition to the Houses motion to dismiss . (Scheduling Order, p. 2). 2. The Plaintiffs are responding to 97 pages of combined briefing filed

by the intervenor, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (the House) on August 15, 2011 in opposition to the Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and in support of the Houses Motion to Dismiss. See Dkt. Nos. 82 and 85. 3. The issues presented by Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment

(Dkt. No. 60) and the Houses Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 85) are heavily intertwined, as both concern the same fundamental questions regarding the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Indeed, the Houses two memoranda of law, filed August 15, 2011, frequently cross-reference one another and incorporate material from one another because the issues raised therein overlap heavily. 4. Plaintiffs had previously requested leave of court to consolidate their

Opposition to the Houses Motion to Dismiss and Reply in Support of Summary Judgment, as well as an extension to use 65 pages, rather than the normallyallotted 56 pages, for the consolidated brief (Dkt. No. 91). The Court on

Case 3:10-cv-01750-VLB Document 101

Filed 09/14/11 Page 3 of 5

September 13, 2011 directed Plaintiffs to file separate briefs, but did not address Plaintiffs request for additional pages (Dkt. No. 92). 5. The Plaintiffs Opposition to the Houses Motion to Dismiss, being

filed today, is 41 pages long 5 pages fewer than allowed under Local Rule 7(a)(2) and this Courts Chambers Practices. 6. The Plaintiffs Reply Memorandum in Support of their Motion for

Summary Judgment, being filed today, is 22 pages long 12 pages longer than allotted under Local Rule 7(d). 7. In combination, Plaintiffs are filing a total of 63 pages of briefing on

the two closely-related motions, which is 7 pages more than the 56 pages the Local Rules would normally permit and 2 pages fewer than Plaintiffs had previously requested. Plaintiffs now request leave for these additional pages, nothing that: a. Plaintiffs have utilized fewer than the normally-allotted pages on their concurrent, heavily-overlapping Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Houses Motion to Dismiss; b. Plaintiffs and the Houses respective cross-motions raise an issue of first impression in this Circuit the application of heightened scrutiny to classifications based on sexual orientation on which the Court could benefit from thorough briefing; c. the Court previously granted the House leave for additional pages (up to 106 pages) in its briefing in the memoranda of law to which Plaintiffs are responding, as well as leave to divide the allotted pages among the

Case 3:10-cv-01750-VLB Document 101

Filed 09/14/11 Page 4 of 5

Houses two concurrent memoranda of law as the House saw fit (Dkt. No. 79); d. the House has raised a large number of evidentiary objections to Plaintiffs summary judgment evidence in their Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss, responding to which effectively exhausts Plaintiffs normally-allotted pages for their reply brief before reaching the merits; and e. While Plaintiffs have made every effort to be brief and direct, addressing these issues fully requires exposition. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs request leave to file a Reply Memorandum of Law In Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment of 22 pages. Alternatively, the Plaintiffs request a reasonable extension of time for the Plaintiffs to file a Reply Memorandum of Law of whatever length the Court allows. Respectfully submitted, Joanne Pedersen & Ann Meitzen Gerald V. Passaro, II Raquel Ardin & Lynda Deforge Janet Geller & Joanne Marquis Suzanne & Geraldine Artis Bradley Kleinerman & James Gehre And Damon Savoy & John Weiss

By their attorneys,

Case 3:10-cv-01750-VLB Document 101

Filed 09/14/11 Page 5 of 5

HORTON, SHIELDS & KNOX Kenneth J. Bartschi, #ct17225 kbartschi@hortonshieldsknox.com Karen Dowd, #ct09857 kdowd@hortonshieldsknox.com 90 Gillett St. Hartford, CT 06105 Telephone (860) 522-8338 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

SULLIVAN & WORCESTER LLP David J. Nagle, #ct28508 dnagle@sandw.com Richard L. Jones, #ct28506 rjones@sandw.com One Post Office Square Boston, MA 02109 Telephone (617) 338-2800 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Suzanne & Geraldine Artis, Bradley Kleinerman & James Gehre

GAY & LESBIAN ADVOCATES & DEFENDERS Gary D. Buseck, #ct28461 gbuseck@glad.org Mary L. Bonauto, #ct28455 mbonauto@glad.org Vickie L. Henry, #ct28628 vhenry@glad.org Janson Wu, #ct 28462 jwu@glad.org 30 Winter Street, Suite 800 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone (617) 426-1350 Attorneys for Plaintiffs JENNER & BLOCK LLP Paul M. Smith (of counsel) psmith@jenner.com Luke C. Platzer (of counsel) lplatzer@jenner.com Daniel I. Weiner (of counsel) dweiner@jenner.com Matthew J. Dunne (of counsel) mdunne@jenner.com 1099 New York Ave, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone (202) 639-6060 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

DATED: September 14, 2011 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as nonregistered participants on September 14, 2011. /s/ Gary D. Buseck Gary D. Buseck