Judge in Bostic v. Rainey Rejects Defendant's Effort to Delay Hearing

As ordered by District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen last Thursday, both Defendant George E. Schaefer, III, Clerk of the Norfolk Circuit Court, and Michele B. McQuigg, Clerk of the Prince William County Clerk ofCircuit Court, filed there responses to the change of position filing submitted by the Office of the Attorney General of Virginia last Thursday.  Schaefer is represented by Bob McDonnell's former law firm.  McQuigg, is represented by the grossly misnamed Alliance Defending Freedom, formerly the Alliance Defense Fund, an ultra-far right Christofascist organization.    McQuigg's counsel sought (i) to adopt the adopt the Motion for Summary Judgment formerly filed on behalf of Defendant Janet M. Rainey, State Registrar of Vital Records, by Ken Cuccinelli as Virginia Attorney General, and (ii) to secure a delay of the hearing scheduled for January 30, 2014, and permission to file a 30 page brief not later than February 6, 2014.  One might say that the Court went ballistic in respect to this latter delaying tactic.  Here are excrpts from the Order entered today:

Intervenor is permitted to adopt the Motion (ECF No. 38) and briefing (ECF Nos. 44 and 65) as requested.

This Court notes, however, that the intervention into this action was permitted after the Court fulfilled its obligation to determine "whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties' rights." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3). The intervention was permitted after Intervenor offered to take no steps to delay the adjudication of the pending motions. Reply Br. Supp. Mot. Intervene at 8-9, ECF No. 88 ("Clerk McQuigg affirms that while both of the motions for summary judgment that she joined remain pending, she will not file additional motions or otherwise take steps to delay the prompt resolution of those
motions."). By that offer, this Court was assured that the intervention would not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties' rights.

The Court is dismayed at Intervener's subsequent arguments regarding her request to adopt the desired motion and briefing. Counsel contended that if the adoption were not allowed, Intervenor should be entitled to file her own dispositive motion. Counsel also objected to the Court's decision to allow Intervenor to file only an expedited five-page response to the recent Memorandum from the Office of the Attorney General, asserting that this somehow violated the "governing rules" that are applicable to the filing of responses to pending motions. Counsel asserted that if the requested adoption of briefing were disallowed, Intervenor should be given until February 6, 2014 to file a thirty-page "response" to the Memorandum from the Office of the Attorney General. Counsel then asserted that the hearing to resolve the original parties' motions should be postponed.

Counsel's proposed "remedies" sought in the event that adoption was denied misinterpret the application of "governing rules" (the Attorney General has not filed a pending motion that necessitates a response). Worse, these proposed "remedies" fly in the face of counsel's prior vow to take no steps to delay the adjudication of the original parties' pending motions, the significance of which was clearly stated in this Court's Order allowing intervention. Intervenor is advised that permission to adopt the motion and briefing as requested is granted despite these disingenuous arguments.