Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse

Case: Windsor v. United States

1:10-cv-08435 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Filed Date: Nov. 9, 2010

Closed Date: May 30, 2014

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is the case in which, on June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court held the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, because it stigmatizes same sex couples and violates the Equal Protection Clause. On November 9, 2010, a woman serving as the executor of the estate of her late same-sex spouse filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 26 U.S.C. § 7422 against the United States in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff, represented by the national and state AC…

This is the case in which, on June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court held the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, because it stigmatizes same sex couples and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

On November 9, 2010, a woman serving as the executor of the estate of her late same-sex spouse filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 26 U.S.C. § 7422 against the United States in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff, represented by the national and state ACLU and by private counsel, asked the court for injunctive and monetary relief, alleging a violation of equal protection. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that operation of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to require her to pay federal estate tax, a tax from which opposite-sex spouses are exempt, on the estate of her same-sex spouse violated the equal protection component of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The plaintiff first met her late spouse in 1963, in New York City, and entered into a committed relationship with her shortly thereafter. On 1993, the couple registered as domestic partners in New York City, and in 2007, with the late spouse's health failing, the couple decided to marry in Canada, where same-sex marriage was legal. In 2009, plaintiff's late-spouse passed away, and plaintiff was forced to pay $363,053 in federal estate tax, because under DOMA she did not qualify for the unqualified marital deduction. Plaintiff decided to commence a suit seeking to enjoin DOMA and to receive a refund of the tax she had been made to pay under it.

On February 25, 2011, the Department of Justice, representing the defendant, notified the court that it had come to the conclusion that DOMA is unconstitutional and that it would thus cease defending it. In response, on April 18, 2011, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives (BLAG) moved to intervene in defense of the act, and the Court (Magistrate Judge James C. Francis) granted its motion on June 2, 2011.

On June 24, 2011, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and on August 1, BLAG moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint.

On June 6, 2012, the Court (Judge Barbara S. Jones) addressed both motions, denying BLAG's motion to dismiss and granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Windsor v. United States, No. 1:10-cv-08435, 2012 WL 2019716 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2012). The Court found as a threshold matter that plaintiff had standing to pursue the suit because the State of New York recognized same-sex marriages legally conducted in other jurisdictions in 2009, and thus plaintiff's Canadian marriage was recognized under New York law. It went on to find that there was no rational basis for Section 3 of DOMA, and declared that section unconstitutional and awarded plaintiff the $363,053 refund she sought.

BLAG appealed the District Court's decision to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on June 8, 2012, and the Department of Justice appealed on June 14. The plaintiff filed a motion to expedite the appeal, and on June 22, 2012 the Court of Appeals granted the motion and scheduled oral argument for the week of September 24, 2012.

On July 16, 2012, the plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court before judgment in the Court of Appeals, citing her age and failing health and the number of other petitions before the Court on the same issue (e.g. Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives v. Gill , No. 12-13 [PB-MA-0006], Department of Health & Human Services v. Massachusetts, No. 12-15 [PB-MA-0005], Office of Personnel Management v. Golinski, No. 12-16 [PB-CA-0031]) as considerations.

On October 18, 2012, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment in a 2-to-1 decision. Windsor v. United States, No. 12-2335 (2d Cir. Oct. 18, 2012). The majority, in an opinion penned by Chief Judge Dennis G. Jacobs, held that classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to intermediate scrutiny, and that Section 3 of DOMA could not withstand that standard of review. They declined to address whether Section 3 would pass muster under a lower standard. Judge Chester J. Straub, in dissent, would have held that rational basis review was the appropriate level of scrutiny and that DOMA passed it.

On December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court granted certiorari review, ordering briefing on the questions (1) whether DOMA was constitutional, under the Equal Protection Clause, (2) whether the Executive Branch's agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to decide this case; and (3) whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives has Article III standing in this case. Argument is scheduled for March 27, 2013. On December 11, the Supreme Court appointed Vicki Jackson, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School, as an amicus curiae to argue questions (2) and (3).

(On December 27, BLAG sought certiorari in its own right to ensure that the Supreme Court can still rule on Section 3 of DOMA in the event that the Supreme Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to rule due to the DOJ's agreement with the 2nd Circuit.)

On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court held that the case was justiciable, and struck down DOMA as an affront to the Equal Protection rights of same-sex couples. Justice Kennedy wrote for the 5-person majority, and explained:

"The Constitution's guarantee of equality 'must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot' justify disparate treatment of that group. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 534-535 (1973). In determining whether a law is motived by animproper animus or purpose, '[d]iscriminations of an unusual character'" especially require careful consideration. Supra, at 19 (quoting Romer, supra, at 633). DOMA cannot survive under these principles." "DOMA's principal effect is to identify a subset of state sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality."

The Court emphasized that it was NOT holding that states had to allow same-sex marriages: "This opinion and its holding are confined to . . . lawful marriages," it said.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote separately to emphasize that the decision rested on federalism principles, and did not entail the unconstitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage. Justice Scalia wrote separately (joined by Justice Thomas and by the Chief Justice in part) to opine that the Court lacked Article III jurisdiction over the case, and that DOMA was constitutional. Justice Alito wrote separately (joined on the merits by Justice Thomas), taking the position that "BLAG" (the House Republicans) had standing, and that DOMA was constitutional.

On May 30, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an order affirming the District Court's judgment.

show full summary

Summary Authors

Claire Lally (2/8/2015)

PA Department of Health v. Hanes, Pennsylvania state trial court (2013)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4348332/parties/windsor-v-united-states/

Judge(s)

Alito, Samuel A. Jr. (District of Columbia)

Francis, James C. IV (New York)

Jacobs, Dennis G. (New York)

Jones, Barbara S. (New York)

Kennedy, Anthony McLeod (District of Columbia)

Roberts, John Glover Jr. (District of Columbia)

Scalia, Antonin (District of Columbia)

Straub, Chester J. (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Alvare, Helen (Virginia)

Block, Joshua A (New York)

Judge(s)

Alito, Samuel A. Jr. (District of Columbia)

Francis, James C. IV (New York)

Jacobs, Dennis G. (New York)

Jones, Barbara S. (New York)

Kennedy, Anthony McLeod (District of Columbia)

Roberts, John Glover Jr. (District of Columbia)

Scalia, Antonin (District of Columbia)

Straub, Chester J. (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Alvare, Helen (Virginia)

Block, Joshua A (New York)

Cooper, Leslie (New York)

Delery, Stuart F. (District of Columbia)

Deutsch, Ruthanne M. (District of Columbia)

Ehrlich, A. Joshua (New York)

Eisenberg, Arthur (New York)

Esseks, James Dixon (New York)

Fink, Julie Eden (New York)

Fisher, Jeffrey L. (California)

Flentje, August E. (District of Columbia)

Gilbert, Helen L (District of Columbia)

Goodman, Melissa (New York)

Hirose, Mariko (New York)

Jackson, Vicki (District of Columbia)

Janghorbani, Jaren (New York)

Kaplan, Roberta Ann (New York)

Karlan, Pamela S. (New York)

Karteron, Alexis (New York)

Kelly, Colin S. (New York)

Millett, Patricia A. (District of Columbia)

Rieman, Walter (New York)

Saxe, Rose A. (New York)

Shah, Pratik A. (District of Columbia)

Shapiro, Steven R. (New York)

Singer, Michael Jay (District of Columbia)

Small, Michael C. (District of Columbia)

Srinivasan, Srikanth (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Lin, Jean (District of Columbia)

Other Attorney(s)

Barbur, Peter T. (New York)

Bartolomucci, H. Christopher (District of Columbia)

Bellows, Laura G. (Illinois)

Berner, Nicole (District of Columbia)

Boccuzzi, Carmine Daniel (New York)

Boddie, Elise C. (New York)

Boyle, David C. (California)

Bradley, Gerard V. (Indiana)

Brenner, Anita Susan (California)

Broyles, Dean Robert (California)

Brunstad, G. Eric Jr. (Connecticut)

Burke, Paul C. (Utah)

Carmichael, Holly L. (California)

Cirillo, Richard A. (New York)

Clement, Paul D. (District of Columbia)

Codell, David C. (California)

Connors, Catherine (Maine)

Davenport, Christine (District of Columbia)

Davis, Nicholas Shea (New York)

Dellinger, Walter (District of Columbia)

Dewart, Deborah Jane (North Carolina)

Dugan, Conor Brendan (District of Columbia)

Duncan, William C. (Utah)

Durham, W. Cole (Utah)

Eastman, John C. (California)

Eidsmoe, John A. (Alabama)

Englert, Roy T. Jr. (District of Columbia)

Ferrara, Peter J. (Virginia)

Fitschen, Steven W. (Virginia)

Franklin, Jonathan S. (District of Columbia)

George, Robert P. (West Virginia)

Hallward-Driemeier, Douglas Harry (District of Columbia)

Heller, Simon (New York)

Hileman, Elizabeth L. (Maryland)

Hunter, Nan C. (District of Columbia)

Joseph, Lawrence J (District of Columbia)

Keating, Katherine (California)

Keetch, Von G. (Utah)

Kircher, Kerry W. (District of Columbia)

Laycock, Douglas (Virginia)

Lewis, R. Bradley (Louisiana)

Lewis [inactive], Robert Bradley (Louisiana)

LiMandri, Charles Salvatore (California)

Lindblom, Marjorie P. (New York)

Linton, Paul Benjamin (Illinois)

Long, Robert A. Jr. (District of Columbia)

Man, Christopher (District of Columbia)

Mauck, John W. (Illinois)

McGill, Lori Alvino (District of Columbia)

McGinley, Michael H. (District of Columbia)

McNamara, Robert J. (Virginia)

Moon, Jeffrey Hunter (District of Columbia)

Morrison, Alan B. (District of Columbia)

Moses, Michael F. (District of Columbia)

Nelles, Sharon L. (New York)

Nelson, Nicholas J. (District of Columbia)

Nemetz, Miriam R. (District of Columbia)

O'Donnell, Nicholas M. (Massachusetts)

Pafford, Abram J. (District of Columbia)

Phelps, Margie J. (Kansas)

Phillips, Carter G (District of Columbia)

Picarello, Anthony R Jr (District of Columbia)

Pincus, Andrew J. (District of Columbia)

Pittard, William (District of Columbia)

Potter, Trevor (District of Columbia)

Rassbach, Eric C (District of Columbia)

Rhee, Christopher S. (District of Columbia)

Rosen, Sanford Jay (California)

Roumel, Eleni M. (District of Columbia)

Russell, Kevin K. (District of Columbia)

Schwartz, Dovid Zechariah (New York)

Segroves, James Frederick (District of Columbia)

Sekulow, Jay Alan (District of Columbia)

Sheehan, William F. (District of Columbia)

Smith, Paul M. (District of Columbia)

Staver, Mathew D. (Florida)

Stern, Michael L. (Virginia)

Stetson, Catherine E. (District of Columbia)

Stewart, Monte N. (Idaho)

Tatelman, Todd B. (District of Columbia)

Taylor, A. Lavar (California)

Titus, Herbert W. (Virginia)

Trachtman, Jeffery S (New York)

Tringali, Joseph (New York)

Underwood, Barbara L. (New York)

Verrilli, Donald B. Jr. (District of Columbia)

Waggoner, Kristen Kellie (Washington)

Walker, Mary Beth (District of Columbia)

Wardle, Lynn Dennis (Utah)

Willett, Sabin (Massachusetts)

Wolfson, Paul R. Q. (Illinois)

Wolinsky, Marc (New York)

Wydra, Elizabeth B. (District of Columbia)

Zoeller, Gregory F. (Indiana)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Brown, John Robert (Louisiana)

Kaye, Joshua D. (New York)

Attorney Contact Information via CourtListener

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

	Document
0:12-00307	Docket United States v. Windsor Supreme Court of the United States	June 26, 2013	June 26, 2013 Docket
1:10-cv-08435	Docket [PACER]	May 30, 2014	May 30, 2014 Docket
9 1:10-cv-08435	Amended Complaint	Feb. 2, 2011	Feb. 2, 2011 Complaint
93 1:10-cv-08435	Order [Denying Defendants' Motions to Dimiss and Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment] 833 F.Supp.2d 394, 2012 WL 2019716	June 6, 2012	June 6, 2012 Order/Opinion
12-00063	[Plaintiff's] Petition for Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment Supreme Court of the United States	July 16, 2012	July 16, 2012 Pleading / Motion / Brief
12-00063	[United States'] Petition for Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment United States v. Windsor U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit	Aug. 31, 2012	Aug. 31, 2012 Pleading / Motion / Brief
12-00063	[BLAG's] Brief in Opposition [to Plaintiff's Petition for Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment] U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit	Aug. 31, 2012	Aug. 31, 2012 Pleading / Motion / Brief
12-00063	[Plaintiff's] Reply in Support of Petition for Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment New York state appellate court	Sept. 5, 2012	Sept. 5, 2012 Pleading / Motion / Brief
0:12-00307	[Plaintiff's] Response in Support of Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment United States v. Windsor Supreme Court of the United States	Oct. 10, 2012	Oct. 10, 2012 Pleading / Motion / Brief
12-02335 12-02435	[Second Circuit] Opinion [Affirming the District Court's Judgment] U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 699 F.3d 169	Oct. 18, 2012	Oct. 18, 2012 Order/Opinion

show / hide documents

Resources

Title	Description		External URL Date / External URL
Oyez: Windsor v. United States Chicago Kent College of Law	Information about the Supreme Court oral argument and decision in Windsor v. United States, including a recording and transcript of the oral argument. This was the case in which the Court held that …		http://www.oyez.org/...

show / hide resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4348332/windsor-v-united-states/

Last updated Aug. 8, 2022, 3 a.m.

Change selected docket

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT against The United States Of America. (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 920552)Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor.(ama) (Entered: 11/09/2010)	Nov. 9, 2010	Nov. 9, 2010 PACER
2	SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED Summons and Complaint served. The United States Of America served on 11/9/2010, answer due 1/8/2011. Service was accepted by Calvin Coleman, Legal Technician. Service was made by Certified Mail. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Kaplan, Roberta) (Entered: 11/10/2010)	Nov. 10, 2010	Nov. 10, 2010 PACER
3	ORDER REFERRING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Order that case be referred to the Clerk of Court for assignment to a Magistrate Judge for General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement). Referred to Magistrate Judge James C. Francis. (Signed by Judge Barbara S. Jones on 11/23/10) (djc) (Entered: 11/23/2010)	Nov. 23, 2010	Nov. 23, 2010 PACER
4	NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Jean Lin on behalf of The United States Of America (Lin, Jean) (Entered: 12/02/2010)	Dec. 2, 2010	Dec. 2, 2010 PACER
5	NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Alexis Brie Karteron on behalf of Edith Schlain Windsor. New Address: New York Civil Liberties Union, 125 Broad Street, 19th Floor, New York, NY, US 10004, 212-607-3300. (Karteron, Alexis) (Entered: 12/02/2010)	Dec. 2, 2010	Dec. 2, 2010 PACER
6	ORDER: By February 9, 2011 the defendant shall serve and file its motion to dismiss. Plaintiff shall answer the motion by March 11, 2011 and shall make any cross-motion for summary judgment. By March 25, 2011, defendant shall submit its reply on its motion to dismiss and submit any application to stay plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. If defendant does not apply for a stay, it shall answer plaintiff's motion for summary judgment by April 8, 2011. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis on 12/3/2010) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (jpo) Modified on 1/5/2011 (jpo). (Entered: 12/03/2010)	Dec. 3, 2010	Dec. 3, 2010 PACER
7	NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Melissa Goodman on behalf of Edith Schlain Windsor (Goodman, Melissa) (Entered: 12/28/2010)	Dec. 28, 2010	Dec. 28, 2010 RECAP
8	SCHEDULING ORDER: This Court's December 3, 2010 Order is revised as follow: By March 11, 2011, the defendant shall serve and file its motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Sha11 answer the motion by April 11, 2011 and shall make any cross-motion for summary judgment. By April 25, 2011, defendant shall submit its reply on its motion to dismiss and submit any application to stay plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. If defendant does not apply for a stay, it shall answer plaintiff's motion for summary judgment by May 9, 2011. (Motions due by 3/11/2011. Cross Motions due by 4/11/2011. Responses due by 4/11/2011)(Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis on 1/26/11) (djc) (Entered: 01/28/2011)	Jan. 28, 2011	Jan. 28, 2011 PACER
9	AMENDED COMPLAINT amending 1 Complaint against The United States Of America.Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. Related document: 1 Complaint filed by Edith Schlain Windsor.(mbe) (Entered: 02/03/2011)	Feb. 2, 2011	Feb. 2, 2011 RECAP
10	NOTICE of Notice to the Court by Defendant the United States of America (with attachments). Document filed by The United States Of America. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment, # 2 Attachment)(Lin, Jean) (Entered: 02/25/2011) 1 Attachment View on PACER 2 Attachment View on PACER	Feb. 25, 2011	Feb. 25, 2011 PACER
11	ORDER that: 1) Congress, should it wish to intervene in this matter, shall do so by April 18, 2011 by motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 24(a), consistent with 28 U.S.C. §530D; and 2) Counsel for the plaintiff, the Department of Justice, and any Congressional intervenor shall appear on May 9, 2011 at 9:30 am for a conference with the Court to discuss how this case should proceed in light of the President's decision, as announced by the Attorney General on February 23, 2011, that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), 1 U.S.C. § 7 as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. SO ORDERED. (Status Conference set for 5/9/2011 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge James C. Francis) (Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis on 3/15/2011) (lnl) (Entered: 03/15/2011)	March 15, 2011	March 15, 2011 RECAP
12	MOTION to Intervene a party defendant in this matter for the limited purpose of litigating the constitutionality of Section III of the Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7.. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Attachments: # 1 proposed order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Clement, Paul) (Entered: 04/18/2011) 1 proposed order View on PACER 2 Certificate of Service View on PACER	April 18, 2011	April 18, 2011 RECAP
13	MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 12 MOTION to Intervene a party defendant in this matter for the limited purpose of litigating the constitutionality of Section III of the Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7. MOTION to Intervene a party defendant in this matter for the limited purpose of litigating the constitutionality of Section III of the Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7.. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Clement, Paul) (Entered: 04/18/2011) 1 Exhibit 1 View on PACER 2 Certificate of Service View on PACER	April 18, 2011	April 18, 2011 RECAP
14	MOTION for Paul D. Clement, Richard A. Cirillo and the law firm of King & Spalding LLP to Withdraw as Attorney. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. Return Date set for 5/25/2011 at 09:30 AM. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Cirillo, Richard) (Entered: 04/25/2011) 1 Certificate of Service View on PACER	April 25, 2011	April 25, 2011 RECAP
15	DECLARATION of Richard A. Cirillo in Support re: 14 MOTION for Paul D. Clement, Richard A. Cirillo and the law firm of King & Spalding LLP to Withdraw as Attorney.. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Cirillo, Richard) (Entered: 04/25/2011)	April 25, 2011	April 25, 2011 RECAP
16	STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL: that Bancroft PLLC is hereby substituted for King & Spalding LLP as counsel in this action for intervenor Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. Motions terminated: 14 MOTION for Paul D. Clement, Richard A. Cirillo and the law firm of King & Spalding LLP to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis on 4/26/2011) (tro) (Entered: 04/29/2011)	April 26, 2011	April 26, 2011 RECAP
17	NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Conor Dugan on behalf of Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives (Dugan, Conor) (Entered: 05/02/2011)	May 2, 2011	May 2, 2011 PACER
18	NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Conor Dugan on behalf of Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives (Dugan, Conor) (Entered: 05/02/2011)	May 2, 2011	May 2, 2011 PACER
19	NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by H Christopher Bartolomucci on behalf of Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives (Bartolomucci, H) (Entered: 05/02/2011)	May 2, 2011	May 2, 2011 PACER
20	RESPONSE to Motion re: 12 MOTION to Intervene a party defendant in this matter for the limited purpose of litigating the constitutionality of Section III of the Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7. MOTION to Intervene a party defendant in this matter for the limited purpose of litigating the constitutionality of Section III of the Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7.. Document filed by The United States Of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lin, Jean) (Entered: 05/05/2011) 1 Text of Proposed Order View on PACER	May 5, 2011	May 5, 2011 RECAP
21	NOTICE of Notice of Intent to File Reply re: 20 Response to Motion,, 12 MOTION to Intervene a party defendant in this matter for the limited purpose of litigating the constitutionality of Section III of the Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7. MOTION to Intervene a party defendant in this matter for the limited purpose of litigating the constitutionality of Section III of the Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7.. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 05/05/2011)	May 5, 2011	May 5, 2011 PACER
22	REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER: Plaintiff's summary judgment Motions due by 7/15/2011 (unless the House has not identified any experts pursuant to paragraphs 5 and 6 above, in which case plaintiff's motion for summary judgment shall be filed on or before June 24, 2011); Responses due by 8/15/2011; Replies due by 9/2/2011. All fact and Expert Discovery due by 7/11/2011. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis on 5/11/11). (djc) (Entered: 05/11/2011)	May 11, 2011	May 11, 2011 RECAP
23	REPLY to Response to Motion re: 12 MOTION to Intervene a party defendant in this matter for the limited purpose of litigating the constitutionality of Section III of the Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7. MOTION to Intervene a party defendant in this matter for the limited purpose of litigating the constitutionality of Section III of the Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7.. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 05/12/2011)	May 12, 2011	May 12, 2011 RECAP
24	NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Melissa Goodman on behalf of Edith Schlain Windsor. New Address: NYCLU, 125 Broad St, 19th Floor, New York, NY, USA 10004, 212.607.3300. (Goodman, Melissa) (Entered: 05/12/2011)	May 12, 2011	May 12, 2011 PACER
25	STIPULATION AND ORDER GOVERNING PROTECTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material...This order may be modified by further order of the Court. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis on 5/26/11) (cd) (Entered: 05/27/2011)	May 27, 2011	May 27, 2011 RECAP
26	MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 12 Motion to Intervene as a party defendant. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis on 6/2/11); Copies mailed by Chambers. (djc) (Entered: 06/02/2011)	June 2, 2011	June 2, 2011 PACER
27	ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV from Roberta A. Kaplan dated 6/9/2011 re: Counsel for the Plaintiff writes to provide the Court with an update concerning the schedule in the above-captioned matter and to request permission to file an initial moving brief of up to 45 pages. ENDORSEMENT: Application granted. (Signed by Judge Barbara S. Jones on 6/13/2011) (ab) (Entered: 06/13/2011)	June 13, 2011	June 13, 2011 PACER
28	MOTION for Summary Judgment. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor.(Ehrlich, Andrew) (Entered: 06/24/2011)	June 24, 2011	June 24, 2011 PACER
29	MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Ehrlich, Andrew) (Entered: 06/24/2011)	June 24, 2011	June 24, 2011 RECAP
30	AFFIDAVIT of Andrew J. Ehrlich in Support re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8)(Ehrlich, Andrew) (Entered: 06/24/2011) 1 Exhibit 1 View on PACER 2 Exhibit 2 View on PACER 3 Exhibit 3 View on PACER 4 Exhibit 4 View on PACER 5 Exhibit 5 View on PACER 6 Exhibit 6 View on PACER 7 Exhibit 7 View on PACER 8 Exhibit 8 View on PACER	June 24, 2011	June 24, 2011 PACER
31	AFFIDAVIT of Edith Schlain Windsor in Support re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L)(Ehrlich, Andrew) (Entered: 06/24/2011) 1 Exhibit A View on PACER 2 Exhibit B View on PACER 3 Exhibit C View on PACER 4 Exhibit D View on PACER 5 Exhibit E View on PACER 6 Exhibit F View on PACER 7 Exhibit G View on PACER 8 Exhibit H View on PACER 9 Exhibit I View on PACER 10 Exhibit J View on PACER 11 Exhibit K View on PACER 12 Exhibit L View on PACER	June 24, 2011	June 24, 2011 PACER
32	AFFIDAVIT of Letitia Anne Peplau, Ph.D. in Support re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Ehrlich, Andrew) (Entered: 06/24/2011)	June 24, 2011	June 24, 2011 PACER
33	AFFIDAVIT of Nancy F. Cott, Ph.D. in Support re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Ehrlich, Andrew) (Entered: 06/24/2011)	June 24, 2011	June 24, 2011 PACER
34	AFFIDAVIT of Michael Lamb, Ph.D. in Support re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Ehrlich, Andrew) (Entered: 06/24/2011)	June 24, 2011	June 24, 2011 PACER
35	AFFIDAVIT of George Chauncey, Ph.D. in Support re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Ehrlich, Andrew) (Entered: 06/24/2011)	June 24, 2011	June 24, 2011 PACER
36	AFFIDAVIT of Gary Segura, Ph.D. in Support re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Ehrlich, Andrew) (Entered: 06/24/2011)	June 24, 2011	June 24, 2011 PACER
37	RULE 56.1 STATEMENT. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Ehrlich, Andrew) (Entered: 06/24/2011)	June 24, 2011	June 24, 2011 RECAP
42	ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Barbara S. Jones and Magistrate Judge James C. Francis from Conor B. Dugan dated 7/26/11 re: counsel for Defendant-Intervenor the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives respectfully writes to request permission to file briefs totaling 70 pages for our opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and in support of our separate motion to dismiss, to be apportioned as necessary. ENDORSEMENT: Application granted. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Barbara S. Jones on 7/26/11) (pl) Modified on 7/27/2011 (pl). (Entered: 07/27/2011)	July 26, 2011	July 26, 2011 PACER
38	FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - MOTION for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae of New York State in Support of Plaintiff. Document filed by New York State. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in Support, # 2 Proposed Brief)(Heller, Simon) Modified on 7/26/2011 (ldi). (Entered: 07/26/2011) 1 Memorandum of Law in Support View on PACER 2 Proposed Brief View on PACER	July 26, 2011	July 26, 2011 PACER
39	FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 38 MOTION for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae of New York State in Support of Plaintiff. Document filed by New York State. (Heller, Simon) Modified on 7/27/2011 (ldi). (Entered: 07/26/2011)	July 26, 2011	July 26, 2011 RECAP
40	CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File amicus curiae brief in support of the Plaintiff. Document filed by New York State. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Brief)(Heller, Simon) (Entered: 07/27/2011) 1 Proposed Brief View on RECAP	July 27, 2011	July 27, 2011 PACER
41	MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 40 CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File amicus curiae brief in support of the Plaintiff.. Document filed by New York State. (Heller, Simon) (Entered: 07/27/2011)	July 27, 2011	July 27, 2011 RECAP
43	MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons listed herein, the plaintiff's letter motion to compel is granted to the extent that BLAG shall answer Interrogatories 1 and 3 and RFA no. 1 by August 1, 2011. In all other respects, the motion is denied. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis on 7/28/2011) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (mro) (Entered: 07/28/2011)	July 28, 2011	July 28, 2011 RECAP
44	Letter addressed to Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV from Julie E. Fink dated 7/19/2011 re: It has come to our attention that the incorrect documents were inadvertently included as Exhibits A and B to plaintiff's July 18 letter motion to compel. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor.(lmb) (Entered: 07/29/2011)	July 29, 2011	July 29, 2011 PACER
45	Letter addressed to Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV from Roberta A. Kaplan dated 7/18/2011 re: We respectfully submit this letter in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 to compel responses to certain of the interrogatories and requests for admission that we propounded on party-defendant, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives ("BLAG"). Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor.(lmb) (Entered: 07/29/2011)	July 29, 2011	July 29, 2011 PACER
46	Letter addressed to Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV from Paul D. Clement dated 7/25/2011 re: The House respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion to compel further discovery responses. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives.(lmb) (Entered: 07/29/2011)	July 29, 2011	July 29, 2011 PACER
47	Letter addressed to Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV from Roberta A. Kaplan dated 7/25/2011 re: Because, in their letter dated July 25, 2011 (the "July 25 letter"), the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives ("BLAG") adds little to their initial objections refusing to respond in substance to Mr. Windsor's discovery requests, this reply will be brief. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant her motion to compel. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor.(lmb) (Entered: 07/29/2011)	July 29, 2011	July 29, 2011 PACER
48	NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Kerry William Kircher on behalf of Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives (Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 08/01/2011)	Aug. 1, 2011	Aug. 1, 2011 PACER
49	MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint. Document filed by The United States Of America.(Lin, Jean) (Entered: 08/01/2011)	Aug. 1, 2011	Aug. 1, 2011 RECAP
50	MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 08/01/2011)	Aug. 1, 2011	Aug. 1, 2011 RECAP
51	RULE 56.1 STATEMENT. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 08/01/2011)	Aug. 1, 2011	Aug. 1, 2011 RECAP
52	MOTION to Dismiss. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives.(Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 08/01/2011)	Aug. 1, 2011	Aug. 1, 2011 PACER
53	MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 52 MOTION to Dismiss.. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 08/01/2011) 1 Exhibit A View on PACER 2 Exhibit B View on PACER	Aug. 1, 2011	Aug. 1, 2011 PACER
54	DECLARATION of Conor B. Dugan in Opposition re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 08/01/2011)	Aug. 1, 2011	Aug. 1, 2011 PACER
55	FILING ERROR - ELECTRONIC FILING FOR NON-ECF DOCUMENT - DECLARATION of Dugan Exhibit A in Opposition re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Kircher, Kerry) Modified on 8/2/2011 (db). (Entered: 08/01/2011)	Aug. 1, 2011	Aug. 1, 2011 PACER
56	FILING ERROR - ELECTRONIC FILING FOR NON-ECF DOCUMENT - DECLARATION of Dugan Exhibit B in Opposition re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Kircher, Kerry) Modified on 8/2/2011 (db). (Entered: 08/01/2011)	Aug. 1, 2011	Aug. 1, 2011 PACER
57	FILING ERROR - ELECTRONIC FILING FOR NON-ECF DOCUMENT - DECLARATION of Dugan Exhibit C in Opposition re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Kircher, Kerry) Modified on 8/2/2011 (db). (Entered: 08/01/2011)	Aug. 1, 2011	Aug. 1, 2011 PACER
58	FILING ERROR - ELECTRONIC FILING FOR NON-ECF DOCUMENT - DECLARATION of Dugan Exhibit D in Opposition re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Kircher, Kerry) Modified on 8/2/2011 (db). (Entered: 08/01/2011)	Aug. 1, 2011	Aug. 1, 2011 PACER
59	FILING ERROR - ELECTRONIC FILING FOR NON-ECF DOCUMENT - DECLARATION of Dugan Exhibit E-1 in Opposition re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Kircher, Kerry) Modified on 8/2/2011 (db). (Entered: 08/01/2011)	Aug. 1, 2011	Aug. 1, 2011 PACER
60	FILING ERROR - ELECTRONIC FILING FOR NON-ECF DOCUMENT - DECLARATION of Dugan Exhibit E-2 in Opposition re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Kircher, Kerry) Modified on 8/2/2011 (db). (Entered: 08/01/2011)	Aug. 1, 2011	Aug. 1, 2011 PACER
61	FILING ERROR - ELECTRONIC FILING FOR NON-ECF DOCUMENT - DECLARATION of Dugan Exhibit F in Opposition re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Kircher, Kerry) Modified on 8/3/2011 (db). (Entered: 08/02/2011)	Aug. 1, 2011	Aug. 1, 2011 PACER
62	DECLARATION of Conor B. Dugan in Opposition re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E (part 1), # 6 Exhibit E (part 2), # 7 Exhibit F)(Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 08/02/2011) 1 Exhibit A View on PACER 2 Exhibit B View on PACER 3 Exhibit C View on PACER 4 Exhibit D View on PACER 5 Exhibit E (part 1) View on PACER 6 Exhibit E (part 2) View on PACER 7 Exhibit F View on PACER	Aug. 2, 2011	Aug. 2, 2011 PACER
63	MEMO ENDORSED: granting 40 Motion for Leave to File Brief for the state of New York as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Plaintiff. ENDORSEMENT: Motion granted. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis on 8/3/2011) (mbe) (Entered: 08/03/2011)	Aug. 3, 2011	Aug. 3, 2011 RECAP
64	ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Barbara S. Jones and Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV from Jean Lin dated 8/5/2011 re: Counsel for the Defendant writes to request that they be permitted to file a brief of up to 35 pages. ENDORSEMENT: Application granted. (Signed by Judge Barbara S. Jones on 8/5/2011) (ab) (Entered: 08/05/2011)	Aug. 5, 2011	Aug. 5, 2011 PACER
65	MOTION to Strike Documents Referenced by Defendant-Intervenor in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor.(Kaplan, Roberta) (Entered: 08/10/2011)	Aug. 10, 2011	Aug. 10, 2011 PACER
66	MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 65 MOTION to Strike Documents Referenced by Defendant-Intervenor in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Kaplan, Roberta) (Entered: 08/10/2011)	Aug. 10, 2011	Aug. 10, 2011 PACER
67	AFFIDAVIT of Roberta A. Kaplan in Support re: 65 MOTION to Strike Documents Referenced by Defendant-Intervenor in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Kaplan, Roberta) (Entered: 08/10/2011) 1 Exhibit A View on PACER 2 Exhibit B View on PACER 3 Exhibit C View on PACER	Aug. 10, 2011	Aug. 10, 2011 PACER
68	ORDER: BLAG is directed to file its opposition to Plaintiff's motion to strike on or before August 19, 2011. Plaintiff's reply, if any, is due no later than August 23, 2011. Pending resolution of the motion to strike, Plaintiff's deadline for filing a reply brief in support of her motion for summary judgment is adjourned. The Court will decide the motion to strike promptly and will issue a date for submission of Plaintiff's reply in accordance with that decision. Plaintiff may file an opposition to BLAG's motion to dismiss of up to 35 pages; the deadline for submission of this opposition remains August 19, 2011. Plaintiff's request to file a reply in support of her motion for summary judgment of up to 25 pages will be decided along with the Court's resolution of the motion to strike. Set Deadlines/Hearing as to 65 MOTION to Strike Documents Referenced by Defendant-Intervenor in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment:( Responses due by 8/19/2011, Replies due by 8/23/2011.) (Signed by Judge Barbara S. Jones on 8/15/2011) (mro) Modified on 8/16/2011 (mro). (Entered: 08/15/2011)	Aug. 15, 2011	Aug. 15, 2011 PACER
69	RESPONSE in Opposition re: 65 MOTION to Strike Documents Referenced by Defendant-Intervenor in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 08/19/2011) 1 Exhibit A View on PACER 2 Exhibit B View on PACER	Aug. 19, 2011	Aug. 19, 2011 PACER
70	MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 52 MOTION to Dismiss.. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Kaplan, Roberta) (Entered: 08/19/2011)	Aug. 19, 2011	Aug. 19, 2011 PACER
71	RESPONSE to Motion re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by The United States Of America. (Lin, Jean) (Entered: 08/19/2011)	Aug. 19, 2011	Aug. 19, 2011 PACER
72	RESPONSE to Motion re: 52 MOTION to Dismiss. (Same Filing As ECF No. 71). Document filed by The United States Of America. (Lin, Jean) (Entered: 08/19/2011)	Aug. 19, 2011	Aug. 19, 2011 RECAP
73	REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 65 MOTION to Strike Documents Referenced by Defendant-Intervenor in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Kaplan, Roberta) (Entered: 08/22/2011)	Aug. 22, 2011	Aug. 22, 2011 PACER
74	DECLARATION of Lisa M. Diamond in Support re: 65 MOTION to Strike Documents Referenced by Defendant-Intervenor in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Kaplan, Roberta) (Entered: 08/22/2011)	Aug. 22, 2011	Aug. 22, 2011 PACER
75	ORDER denying 65 Motion to Strike. Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Strike filed August 10, 2011. After review of the submissions of both parties, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED. However, the Court finds that the submission of additional evidence by Plaintiff regarding the topics discussed in the motion to strike would be helpful in deciding the pending motion for summary judgment. Therefore, Plaintiff's alternative request to submit "additional affidavits and rebuttal evidence" is GRANTED. Plaintiff's request to file a reply brief of up to 30 pages is GRANTED. Plaintiff's reply is due on or before September 16, 2011. (Signed by Judge Barbara S. Jones on 8/29/2011) (js) (Entered: 08/30/2011)	Aug. 29, 2011	Aug. 29, 2011 PACER
76	MOTION for Clarification., MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages., MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives.(Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 09/02/2011)	Sept. 2, 2011	Sept. 2, 2011 PACER
77	MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 76 MOTION for Clarification. MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages. MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply.. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 09/02/2011)	Sept. 2, 2011	Sept. 2, 2011 RECAP
78	MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 76 MOTION for Clarification. MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages. MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply.. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Kaplan, Roberta) (Entered: 09/06/2011)	Sept. 6, 2011	Sept. 6, 2011 PACER
79	ORDER terminating 76 Motion ; granting 76 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; denying 76 Motion for Leave to File Document. The Court considers Defendant's filing of a motion to address this issue unnecessary; in the future, a simple letter by mail or fax requesting clarification would suffice. Defendant's motion in the alternative to extend the deadline is DENIED. The deadline for Defendant's reply remains 9/9/2011. Defendant's request for an extension of the page limit for its reply in support of their motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Defendant may file a reply brief of up to seventeen pages. As to Defendant's request for leave to file a surreply, the Court denies the request as premature. As the Plaintiff's reply has not yet been filed, the Court cannot now determine whether any "new or unexpected" arguments or issues will be raised that would necessitate a surreply. Defendant may renew its request after the reply brief is submitted if new issues are raised in Plaintiff's reply. (Signed by Judge Barbara S. Jones on 9/6/2011) (tro) (Entered: 09/07/2011)	Sept. 6, 2011	Sept. 6, 2011 PACER
80	REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 52 MOTION to Dismiss.. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 09/09/2011)	Sept. 9, 2011	Sept. 9, 2011 RECAP
81	REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Kaplan, Roberta) (Entered: 09/15/2011)	Sept. 15, 2011	Sept. 15, 2011 PACER
82	DECLARATION of Roberta A. Kaplan in Support re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Kaplan, Roberta) (Entered: 09/15/2011) 1 Exhibit A View on PACER 2 Exhibit B View on PACER 3 Exhibit C View on PACER 4 Exhibit D View on PACER 5 Exhibit E View on PACER	Sept. 15, 2011	Sept. 15, 2011 PACER
83	REPLY AFFIDAVIT of Edith Schlain Windsor in Support re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Kaplan, Roberta) (Entered: 09/15/2011)	Sept. 15, 2011	Sept. 15, 2011 RECAP
84	REPLY AFFIDAVIT of Anne Peplau, Ph.D. in Support re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Kaplan, Roberta) (Entered: 09/15/2011)	Sept. 15, 2011	Sept. 15, 2011 PACER
85	REPLY AFFIDAVIT of Michael Lamb, Ph.D. in Support re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Kaplan, Roberta) (Entered: 09/15/2011)	Sept. 15, 2011	Sept. 15, 2011 PACER
86	DECLARATION of Lisa M. Diamond in Support re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Kaplan, Roberta) (Entered: 09/15/2011)	Sept. 15, 2011	Sept. 15, 2011 PACER
87	MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives.(Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 09/20/2011)	Sept. 20, 2011	Sept. 20, 2011 RECAP
88	MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 87 MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply.. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 09/20/2011)	Sept. 20, 2011	Sept. 20, 2011 PACER
89	ORDER: Any response to Defendant's motion for leave to file a sur-reply in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment may be submitted by letter brief. (Signed by Judge Barbara S. Jones on 9/21/2011) (jfe) (Entered: 09/21/2011)	Sept. 21, 2011	Sept. 21, 2011 PACER
90	ORDER denying 87 Motion for Leave to File Document. After review of both parties' submissions, Intervenor-Defendant's Motion is DENIED. (Signed by Judge Barbara S. Jones on 10/18/2011) (ft) (Entered: 10/18/2011)	Oct. 18, 2011	Oct. 18, 2011 PACER
91	NOTICE of Recent Decisions re: 50 Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion, 53 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 10/20/2011) 1 Exhibit A View on PACER 2 Exhibit B View on PACER	Oct. 20, 2011	Oct. 20, 2011 PACER
92	RESPONSE re: 91 Notice (Other), Notice (Other). Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Kaplan, Roberta) (Entered: 10/21/2011)	Oct. 21, 2011	Oct. 21, 2011 PACER
93	ORDER granting 28 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 49 Motion to Dismiss; denying 52 Motion to Dismiss. CONCLUSION: For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Defendant-Intervenor's motion to dismiss is DENIED. The Court delcares that section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. Section 7, is unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is awarded judgment in the amount of $363,053.00, plus interest and costs allowed by law. Each party shall bear their own costs and fees. This case is CLOSED. The clerk of the court is directed to terminate the motions at docket numbers 28, 49, and 52. (Signed by Judge Barbara S. Jones on 6/6/2012) (bw) Modified on 6/7/2012 (ml). (Entered: 06/06/2012)	June 6, 2012	June 6, 2012 RECAP
94	CLERK'S JUDGMENT # 12,0973 That for the reasons stated in the Court's Order dated June 6, 2012, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted and Defendant-Intervenor's motion to dismiss is denied; the Court declares that section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. § 7, is unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiff; Plaintiff is awarded judgment in the amount of $363,053.00, plus interest and costs allowed by law; each party shall bear their own costs and fees; accordingly, the case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 6/7/12) (Attachments: # 1 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL)(ml) (Entered: 06/07/2012) 1 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL View on RECAP	June 7, 2012	June 7, 2012 RECAP
95	NOTICE OF APPEAL from 93 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion to Dismiss,,,,,,, 94 Clerk's Judgment,,. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. Form C and Form D are due within 14 days to the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 06/08/2012) 1 Exhibit A View on PACER 2 Exhibit B View on PACER	June 8, 2012	June 8, 2012 RECAP
96	FILING ERROR - NO ORDER SELECTED FOR APPEAL - NOTICE OF APPEAL. Document filed by The United States Of America. Form C and Form D are due within 14 days to the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. (Lin, Jean) Modified on 6/14/2012 (tp). (Entered: 06/14/2012)	June 14, 2012	June 14, 2012 RECAP
97	CORRECTED NOTICE OF APPEAL re: 96 Notice of Appeal, 93 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion to Dismiss,,,,,,, 94 Clerk's Judgment,,. Document filed by The United States Of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Judgment, # 2 Exhibit Order)(Lin, Jean) (Entered: 06/14/2012) 1 Exhibit Judgment View on RECAP 2 Exhibit Order View on RECAP	June 14, 2012	June 14, 2012 RECAP
98	Letter addressed to Judge Barbara S. Jones from Roberta A. Kaplan dated 5/31/2012 re: We write on behalf of plaintiff Edie Windsor to bring to the Court's attention the decision issued earlier today by the Unites States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit holding that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") is unconstitutional in a case that presents substantially similar facts and raises overlapping legal issues as the above-captioned matter Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor.(ama) (Entered: 08/07/2012)	Aug. 7, 2012	Aug. 7, 2012 PACER
99	Letter addressed to Judge Barbara S. Jones from Roberta A. Kaplan dated 5/29/2012 re: We write on behalf of plaintiff Edie Windsor to bring to the Court's attention a decision issued last week by Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California holding that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") is unconstitutional in a case that presents substantially similar facts and raises similar legal issues as the above-captioned matter currently pending before Your Honor. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor.(ama) (Entered: 08/07/2012)	Aug. 7, 2012	Aug. 7, 2012 PACER
100	Letter addressed to Judge Barbara S. Jones from Roberta A. Kaplan dated 5/29/2012 re: We write to follow up on our March 28 letter, in which we enclosed the Motion to Consolidate and Expedite Appeals filed by the United States Department of Justice in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the Golinski case (the "DOJ Br."). For many of the same reasons stated in the DOJ's motion to expedite in Golinski, Ms. Windsor respectfully requests that this Court issue a decision on her pending motion for summary judgment (and defendant-intervenor's motion to dismiss) as promptly as possible. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor.(ama) (Entered: 08/07/2012)	Aug. 7, 2012	Aug. 7, 2012 PACER