Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document122

Filed06/08/11 Page1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

JAMES R. McGUIRE (CA SBN 189275) JMcGuire@mofo.com GREGORY P. DRESSER (CA SBN 136532) GDresser@mofo.com RITA F. LIN (CA SBN 236220) RLin@mofo.com AARON D. JONES (CA SBN 248246) AJones@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: 415.268.7000 Facsimile: 415.268.7522 JON W. DAVIDSON (CA SBN 89301) JDavidson@lambdalegal.org TARA L. BORELLI (CA SBN 216961) TBorelli@lambdalegal.org LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC. 3325 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1300 Los Angeles, California 90010-1729 Telephone: 213.382.7600 Facsimile: 213.351.6050 Attorneys for Plaintiff KAREN GOLINSKI UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

KAREN GOLINSKI, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, and JOHN BERRY, Director of the United States Office of Personnel Management, in his official capacity, Defendants.

Case No.

3:10-cv-0257-JSW

DECLARATION OF RITA F. LIN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF KAREN GOLINSKI'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION REGARDING OPPOSITIONS TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND ANTICIPATED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

25 26 27 28
LIN DECL. ISO PLAINTIFFS ADMIN MOT. RE MOT. TO DISMISS AND ANTICIPATED MOT. FOR SUM. JUDGMT. CASE NO. 3:10-cv-0257-JSW sf-3004733

Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document122

Filed06/08/11 Page2 of 2

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

I, RITA F. LIN, hereby declare and state as follows: 1. I am an associate at the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP, which is co-counsel

of record for plaintiff Karen Golinski. I am licensed to practice law in the State of California and am admitted to practice before this Court. I make this declaration of my own personal knowledge, and, if called as a witness, could and would testify competently to the matters stated herein. 2. On June 7, 2011, my co-counsel Tara Borelli, of Lambda Legal, and I held a

conference call with Christopher Hall, counsel for defendants, and Christopher Bartolomucci, counsel for Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) concerning a potential schedule for discovery and briefing on plaintiffs anticipated motion for summary judgment. On that call, I stated that it might make sense for plaintiff to seek the relief at issue in plaintiffs administrative motion filed herewith. Later that afternoon, I emailed Mr. Hall and Mr. Bartolomucci confirming that plaintiff sought such relief and asking if they would be willing to stipulate to it. A true and correct copy of that email is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. Mr. Bartolomucci and I exchanged further emails today regarding BLAGs

position on plaintiffs request. Though we were able to reach agreement that plaintiffs deadline to oppose the motions to dismiss be extended by one week, we were not able to reach agreement on the remaining issues. A true and correct copy of that email trail is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 4. declaration. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 8th day of June, 2011, at San Francisco, California. /s/ Rita F. Lin Rita F. Lin I have not received a response from Mr. Hall as of the time of the signing of this

LIN DECL. ISO PLAINTIFFS ADMIN MOT. RE MOT. TO DISMISS AND ANTICIPATED MOT. FOR SUM. JUDGMT. CASE NO. 3:10-cv-0257-JSW sf-3004733

Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document122-1

Filed06/08/11 Page1 of 5

EXHIBIT A

Golinski: proposed schedule Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document122-1 Fogel, Janie L.

From: Sent: To: Cc: Lin, Rita F. June 07, 2011 6:07 PM 'Hall, Christopher (CIV)'; 'Christopher Bartolomucci' 'TBorelli@lambdalegal.org'

Page 1 of 4 Filed06/08/11 Page2 of 5

Subject: RE: Golinski: proposed schedule Chris and Chris, Following up on our call, we understand that you may not have a response for us until late this week or early next week on the scheduling and expert issues below. As I previewed for you in our call today, in light of our impending motion to dismiss opposition deadline next Friday, we'd like to request the following from the Court as soon as possible: To extend the deadline for plaintiff to respond to the motion to dismiss by one week to June 24, 2011, in light of the length of BLAG's brief. To permit plaintiff to file a single consolidated brief that would oppose both motions to dismiss (from DOJ and BLAG) and would support plaintiff's anticipated motion for summary judgment, rather than submit three separate briefs on those motions. Ordinarily, if we were to submit three separate briefs, we would have 15 pages per brief. We would request that the page limit on the consolidated brief be 45 pages. We would note for the Court that the parties are in the process of discussing scheduling issues that could result in a request for further changes, but that in light of the impending motion to dismiss opposition deadline, we wanted to submit this request now. Please let us know by 5pm ET tomorrow whether you'd be willing to stipulate to that. If you don't know or the answer is no, that's fine; we will get our motion on file, and you can respond as you see appropriate. Just want to be able to accurately represent your position to the Court. Thanks, Rita

From: Lin, Rita F. Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:29 AM To: 'Hall, Christopher (CIV)'; 'Christopher Bartolomucci' Cc: 'TBorelli@lambdalegal.org' Subject: RE: Golinski: proposed schedule Hi Chris, Thanks for the response. We will not be participating in any depositions of plaintiffs' experts in Windsor and have discussed that fact with the plaintiffs' attorneys there. As for BLAG's experts in Windsor, if any, let's discuss on the phone today. Generally, we don't have any desire to participate in those depositions unless they have something to say that is particular to the facts of our case that would not be covered in Windsor. I understand that BLAG will be identifying its experts in Windsor today, so it may be easier to discuss this in concrete terms once we have that information available. I think we should be able to work something out on this one way or another. As for changes in the Windsor schedule, how about we just agree to meet and confer again if the Windsor schedule changes in a way that impacts this case? If it does, we can submit a revised joint proposal to the Court. And, if for some reason we can't agree, one party could always move the Court to alter the

6/8/2011

Golinski: proposed schedule Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document122-1

Page 2 of 4 Filed06/08/11 Page3 of 5

schedule due to the changes in Windsor. Have you heard anything suggesting that the WIndsor schedule is going to change for some reason? We have not. Rita

From: Hall, Christopher (CIV) [mailto:Christopher.Hall@usdoj.gov] Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 8:23 AM To: Lin, Rita F.; Christopher Bartolomucci Cc: TBorelli@lambdalegal.org Subject: RE: Golinski: proposed schedule

Rita Thanksforyoursummarybelow.Weneedacoupleofpointsofclarification,though.Specifically,wewanttoensurethatwe arereceivingthecomprehensivepictureastothetermsofcounselsunderstandingwithcounselinWindsorandPedersen regardingtheuseoftheWindsorandPedersenexpertshere,andwecertainlywanttoavoidanyproblemsdowntheroadfor thepartiesinallcasesinthatrespect. MyunderstandingfromthePaulWeissattorneysinWindsoristhattheyhaveexpresslyconditionedtheirwillingnesstohave theseexpertreportsintroducedinGolinskion:(1)BLAGsagreementnottotakedepositionsoftheseexpertsinGolinski(as opposedtotakingdepositionsinWindsorandPederson);and(2)agreementbyPlaintiffscounselherenottoparticipatein thosedepositionsinanypartycapacity.Yoursummaryalludestopoint(1)below,soitseemstomovetowardclearingupwhatI incorrectlyunderstoodtobethecaselastweek,butIneedtomakecertainIamtotallyclearontheseconditionsbeforewe moveforward. Inthesameregard,bothschedulingoptionsidentifiedbelowexpresslysynctotheexpertscheduleenteredinWindsor.Given yourreferencetotheWindsorschedule,whatdoyouhaveinmindshouldthatscheduleneedtobealteredtoaccommodate eithertheexpertsorthepartiesneedsinWindsor? Thanks, Chris
From: Lin, Rita F. [mailto:RLin@mofo.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 3:23 AM To: Hall, Christopher (CIV); Christopher Bartolomucci Cc: TBorelli@lambdalegal.org Subject: Golinski: proposed schedule

Chris and Christopher, We look forward to talking to you. In anticipation of our call, here are some thoughts about proposed scheduling options for your review. As I think Tara communicated to Chris, we're planning to move for summary judgment, likely in connection with our opposition to the motion to dismiss. If we did that, under the local rules, our understanding is that the default briefing schedule would be as follows: June 3 June 17 June 17 June 24 BLAG's MTD Plaintiffs' MTD oppositions and MSJ opening brief DOJ's response to BLAG's MTD, if any BLAG's MTD reply

6/8/2011

Golinski: proposed schedule Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document122-1

Page 3 of 4 Filed06/08/11 Page4 of 5

July 1 July 8 August 5

BLAG's MSJ opposition Plaintiffs' MSJ reply Hearing on MTD and MSJ

We think it would be worthwhile to discuss whether the parties want to modify this schedule to better coordinate the two motions and also to accommodate potential depositions that BLAG might want to take of the experts we anticipate employing in our summary judgment motion. To streamline things, we wanted to propose the following possibilities for your consideration with an eye toward working something out that we can jointly propose to Judge White. One question is whether the parties would prefer to have discovery completed first, or whether we should proceed simultaneously with the summary judgment briefing and discovery at the same time. We're open to either, and have proposed options below. Our sense is that discovery first (i.e., Option #2) may work better, but we are open to discussing further. Experts For plaintiffs' experts that submitted reports in Windsor, expert reports and depositions from Windsor can be used in this action. That will prevent the parties from having to take and defend multiple depositions. We've spoken to the plaintiffs' counsel in Windsor, and they are fine with that arrangement. We are in the process of conferring with the experts to make sure they would be fine with it as well, and should have that finalized shortly. We do not anticipate any additional experts on the topics already covered by the Windsor experts. However, we are currently considering an expert on a topic not covered in Windsor. That expert would submit an expert report and be available for deposition, as in the ordinary course. We should discuss how you'd like to proceed regarding any experts that BLAG plans to use.

Modified Scheduling Option #1: Further briefing and discovery to be completed simultaneously June 3 BLAG's MTD -- 30 pages June 24 Plaintiffs' opposition to both MTDs, and MSJ opening brief -- consolidated brief of 45 pages June 24 Plaintiffs' expert reports due June 24 DOJ's response to BLAG's MTD, if any July 1 BLAG to provide expert reports of any experts it wishes to use July 11 Close of expert discovery in Windsor. Depositions of plaintiffs' experts to be completed. July 22 BLAG's MSJ opposition and MTD replies due -- consolidated brief of 45 pages July 29 Depositions of BLAG's experts to be completed. Aug 12 Plaintiffs' MSJ reply -- 30 pages Sept 9 Hearing on MTD and MSJ Modified Scheduling Option #2: Discovery to be completed prior to further briefing June 3 BLAG's MTD -- 30 pages June 17 Plaintiffs to serve expert reports for any experts used in this case that will also be used in Windsor June 24 BLAG to serve expert reports for any experts used in this case that will also be used in Windsor July 1 Plaintiffs to serve expert reports for any additional experts not used in Windsor and provide deposition dates July 8 July 11 July 22 August 5 August 5 Sept 2 Sept 23 Oct 14 BLAG to serve expert reports for any additional experts not used in Windsor and provide deposition dates Expert discovery in Windsor closes. Depositions of any experts used in Windsor to be completed. Depositions of any experts not used in Windsor to be completed Plaintiffs' opposition to both MTDs, and MSJ opening brief -- consolidated brief of 45 pages DOJ's response to BLAG's MTD, if any BLAG's MSJ opposition and MTD replies due -- consolidated brief of 45 pages Plaintiffs' MSJ reply -- 30 pages Hearing on MTD and MSJ

6/8/2011

Golinski: proposed schedule Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document122-1

Page 4 of 4 Filed06/08/11 Page5 of 5

Rita Lin | Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street | San Francisco, California 94105 Tel. (415) 268-7466 | Fax (415) 268-7522

--------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. For information about this legend, go to http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/ ============================================================================ This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message. ---------------------------------------------------------------------

6/8/2011

Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document122-2

Filed06/08/11 Page1 of 7

EXHIBIT B

Golinski: proposed schedule Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document122-2 Fogel, Janie L.

From: Sent: To: Cc: Christopher Bartolomucci [cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com] June 08, 2011 12:48 PM Lin, Rita F.; christopher.hall@usdoj.gov TBorelli@lambdalegal.org

Page 1 of 6 Filed06/08/11 Page2 of 7

Subject: RE: Golinski: proposed schedule

Thankyouforthat,Rita.Withrespecttothemotionyousaidyouplantofiletoday: 1)TheHousedoesnotopposeyourrequestforaoneweekextensionoftimetofileanoppositiontoour motiontodismiss,solongasyouinturnwillnotopposeasimilarrequestbytheHouseforanadditional weekinwhichtofileitsreplybrief.Pleaseletmeknowifyouagreetothat. 2)TheHousewouldnotopposearequestforleavetofilea30pageoppositiontotheHousesmotionto dismissandDOJsmotiontodismiss. 3)TheHouseopposestheremainderofyourmotion.TheHouseopposesyourrequestfora consolidatedbrieftotheextentthatitwouldbeasummaryjudgmentbrief,becauseamotionfor summaryjudgmentisprematureatthistime,onlydaysaftertheHousehasbeengrantedleaveto intervene.TheHouseopposesyourrequestfora45pagebrief,becauseourviewisthatyour oppositionshouldbelimitedtoopposingourmotiontodismissandDOJs. ChrisB.
From: Lin, Rita F. [mailto:RLin@mofo.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 12:28 AM To: Christopher Bartolomucci; christopher.hall@usdoj.gov Cc: TBorelli@lambdalegal.org Subject: Re: Golinski: proposed schedule Chris, I think we have a misunderstanding. I fully appreciate that you have institutional clients and need time to decide if the proposed schedule and expert discovery makes sense. It is fine for you to take a few days to figure out if you agree with that proposal. What I am suggesting is simply what I mentioned on the call: in order to address the immediate deadline that is coming up, I'd like to ask the Court for a one-week extension on our opposition brief and authorization to file a consolidated brief. That way, we can work out the rest of the schedule and the arrangement about experts later without the immediate pressure of the impending deadline. So, we are still very much interested in your view of the schedule and expert arrangement that we proposed. Hope that clears things up. I would note that, when BLAG approached us about stipulating to an overlength brief late last Thursday, we agreed to a stipulation on a very short time frame in order to accommodate your impending deadline. We hope you will extend us the same professional courtesy. Rita

From: Christopher Bartolomucci <cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com> To: Lin, Rita F.; Christopher.Hall@usdoj.gov <Christopher.Hall@usdoj.gov> Cc: TBorelli@lambdalegal.org <TBorelli@lambdalegal.org> Sent: Tue Jun 07 18:46:53 2011 Subject: Re: Golinski: proposed schedule

6/8/2011

Golinski: proposed schedule Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document122-2

Page 2 of 6 Filed06/08/11 Page3 of 7

Rita,Iamquitesurprisedbythis.Youcirculateddetailedproposedschedulesyesterdayandsetupacallfortoday.ChrisHalland Imadeourselvesavailableforthatcallonfairlyshortnotice.Onthecall,yourequestedourviewsontheproposedschedules.As youknow,ChrisandIhaveinstitutionalclientsthatwemustconsultwithbeforewecanacceptorotherwiserespondtoyour proposedschedules.IsaidthatIwouldconsultwithmyclientandrespondassoonaspossible.Ididnotsayitwouldbe"latethis weekorearlynextweek."Now,justafewhoursafterourcallandwithoutgivingusanytimetotalktoourclientsaboutyour proposedschedulesyoutellusthatyouplantofileamotion,andaskustostateapositiononyourmotionbyadeadlineof5 pmtomorrow.Iassumefromthisthatyouarenolongerinterestedinmyclient'sviewsontheproposedschedules.

From: Lin, Rita F. [mailto:RLin@mofo.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 09:07 PM To: Hall, Christopher (CIV) <Christopher.Hall@usdoj.gov>; Christopher Bartolomucci Cc: TBorelli@lambdalegal.org <TBorelli@lambdalegal.org> Subject: RE: Golinski: proposed schedule Chris and Chris, Following up on our call, we understand that you may not have a response for us until late this week or early next week on the scheduling and expert issues below. As I previewed for you in our call today, in light of our impending motion to dismiss opposition deadline next Friday, we'd like to request the following from the Court as soon as possible: To extend the deadline for plaintiff to respond to the motion to dismiss by one week to June 24, 2011, in light of the length of BLAG's brief. To permit plaintiff to file a single consolidated brief that would oppose both motions to dismiss (from DOJ and BLAG) and would support plaintiff's anticipated motion for summary judgment, rather than submit three separate briefs on those motions. Ordinarily, if we were to submit three separate briefs, we would have 15 pages per brief. We would request that the page limit on the consolidated brief be 45 pages. We would note for the Court that the parties are in the process of discussing scheduling issues that could result in a request for further changes, but that in light of the impending motion to dismiss opposition deadline, we wanted to submit this request now. Please let us know by 5pm ET tomorrow whether you'd be willing to stipulate to that. If you don't know or the answer is no, that's fine; we will get our motion on file, and you can respond as you see appropriate. Just want to be able to accurately represent your position to the Court. Thanks, Rita

From: Lin, Rita F. Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:29 AM To: 'Hall, Christopher (CIV)'; 'Christopher Bartolomucci' Cc: 'TBorelli@lambdalegal.org' Subject: RE: Golinski: proposed schedule Hi Chris, Thanks for the response. We will not be participating in any depositions of plaintiffs' experts in Windsor and have discussed that fact with the plaintiffs' attorneys there. As for BLAG's experts in Windsor, if any, let's discuss on the phone today. Generally, we don't have any desire to participate in those depositions unless they have something to say that is particular to the facts of our case that would not be covered in Windsor. I understand that BLAG will be identifying its experts in Windsor today, so it may be easier to discuss this in concrete terms once we have that information available. I think we should be able to work something out on this one way or another.

6/8/2011

Golinski: proposed schedule Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document122-2

Page 3 of 6 Filed06/08/11 Page4 of 7

As for changes in the Windsor schedule, how about we just agree to meet and confer again if the Windsor schedule changes in a way that impacts this case? If it does, we can submit a revised joint proposal to the Court. And, if for some reason we can't agree, one party could always move the Court to alter the schedule due to the changes in Windsor. Have you heard anything suggesting that the WIndsor schedule is going to change for some reason? We have not. Rita

From: Hall, Christopher (CIV) [mailto:Christopher.Hall@usdoj.gov] Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 8:23 AM To: Lin, Rita F.; Christopher Bartolomucci Cc: TBorelli@lambdalegal.org Subject: RE: Golinski: proposed schedule

Rita Thanksforyoursummarybelow.Weneedacoupleofpointsofclarification,though.Specifically,wewanttoensurethatwe arereceivingthecomprehensivepictureastothetermsofcounselsunderstandingwithcounselinWindsorandPedersen regardingtheuseoftheWindsorandPedersenexpertshere,andwecertainlywanttoavoidanyproblemsdowntheroadfor thepartiesinallcasesinthatrespect. MyunderstandingfromthePaulWeissattorneysinWindsoristhattheyhaveexpresslyconditionedtheirwillingnesstohave theseexpertreportsintroducedinGolinskion:(1)BLAGsagreementnottotakedepositionsoftheseexpertsinGolinski(as opposedtotakingdepositionsinWindsorandPederson);and(2)agreementbyPlaintiffscounselherenottoparticipatein thosedepositionsinanypartycapacity.Yoursummaryalludestopoint(1)below,soitseemstomovetowardclearingupwhatI incorrectlyunderstoodtobethecaselastweek,butIneedtomakecertainIamtotallyclearontheseconditionsbeforewe moveforward. Inthesameregard,bothschedulingoptionsidentifiedbelowexpresslysynctotheexpertscheduleenteredinWindsor.Given yourreferencetotheWindsorschedule,whatdoyouhaveinmindshouldthatscheduleneedtobealteredtoaccommodate eithertheexpertsorthepartiesneedsinWindsor? Thanks, Chris
From: Lin, Rita F. [mailto:RLin@mofo.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 3:23 AM To: Hall, Christopher (CIV); Christopher Bartolomucci Cc: TBorelli@lambdalegal.org Subject: Golinski: proposed schedule

Chris and Christopher, We look forward to talking to you. In anticipation of our call, here are some thoughts about proposed scheduling options for your review. As I think Tara communicated to Chris, we're planning to move for summary judgment, likely in connection with our opposition to the motion to dismiss. If we did that, under the local rules, our understanding is that the default briefing schedule would be as follows: June 3 June 17 BLAG's MTD Plaintiffs' MTD oppositions and MSJ opening brief

6/8/2011

Golinski: proposed schedule Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document122-2

Page 4 of 6 Filed06/08/11 Page5 of 7

June 17 June 24 July 1 July 8 August 5

DOJ's response to BLAG's MTD, if any BLAG's MTD reply BLAG's MSJ opposition Plaintiffs' MSJ reply Hearing on MTD and MSJ

We think it would be worthwhile to discuss whether the parties want to modify this schedule to better coordinate the two motions and also to accommodate potential depositions that BLAG might want to take of the experts we anticipate employing in our summary judgment motion. To streamline things, we wanted to propose the following possibilities for your consideration with an eye toward working something out that we can jointly propose to Judge White. One question is whether the parties would prefer to have discovery completed first, or whether we should proceed simultaneously with the summary judgment briefing and discovery at the same time. We're open to either, and have proposed options below. Our sense is that discovery first (i.e., Option #2) may work better, but we are open to discussing further. Experts For plaintiffs' experts that submitted reports in Windsor, expert reports and depositions from Windsor can be used in this action. That will prevent the parties from having to take and defend multiple depositions. We've spoken to the plaintiffs' counsel in Windsor, and they are fine with that arrangement. We are in the process of conferring with the experts to make sure they would be fine with it as well, and should have that finalized shortly. We do not anticipate any additional experts on the topics already covered by the Windsor experts. However, we are currently considering an expert on a topic not covered in Windsor. That expert would submit an expert report and be available for deposition, as in the ordinary course. We should discuss how you'd like to proceed regarding any experts that BLAG plans to use.

Modified Scheduling Option #1: Further briefing and discovery to be completed simultaneously June 3 BLAG's MTD -- 30 pages June 24 Plaintiffs' opposition to both MTDs, and MSJ opening brief -- consolidated brief of 45 pages June 24 Plaintiffs' expert reports due June 24 DOJ's response to BLAG's MTD, if any July 1 BLAG to provide expert reports of any experts it wishes to use July 11 Close of expert discovery in Windsor. Depositions of plaintiffs' experts to be completed. July 22 BLAG's MSJ opposition and MTD replies due -- consolidated brief of 45 pages July 29 Depositions of BLAG's experts to be completed. Aug 12 Plaintiffs' MSJ reply -- 30 pages Sept 9 Hearing on MTD and MSJ Modified Scheduling Option #2: Discovery to be completed prior to further briefing June 3 BLAG's MTD -- 30 pages June 17 Plaintiffs to serve expert reports for any experts used in this case that will also be used in Windsor June 24 BLAG to serve expert reports for any experts used in this case that will also be used in Windsor July 1 Plaintiffs to serve expert reports for any additional experts not used in Windsor and provide deposition dates July 8 July 11 July 22 August 5 August 5 Sept 2 Sept 23 Oct 14 BLAG to serve expert reports for any additional experts not used in Windsor and provide deposition dates Expert discovery in Windsor closes. Depositions of any experts used in Windsor to be completed. Depositions of any experts not used in Windsor to be completed Plaintiffs' opposition to both MTDs, and MSJ opening brief -- consolidated brief of 45 pages DOJ's response to BLAG's MTD, if any BLAG's MSJ opposition and MTD replies due -- consolidated brief of 45 pages Plaintiffs' MSJ reply -- 30 pages Hearing on MTD and MSJ

6/8/2011

Golinski: proposed schedule Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document122-2

Page 5 of 6 Filed06/08/11 Page6 of 7

Rita Lin | Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street | San Francisco, California 94105 Tel. (415) 268-7466 | Fax (415) 268-7522

--------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. For information about this legend, go to http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/ ============================================================================ This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. For information about this legend, go to http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/ ============================================================================ This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the

6/8/2011

Golinski: proposed schedule Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document122-2

Page 6 of 6 Filed06/08/11 Page7 of 7

Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. For information about this legend, go to http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/ ============================================================================ This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message. ---------------------------------------------------------------------

6/8/2011