Corona v. Knowles et al

Filing 151

ORDER re Stipulation Regarding Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 142 ), Signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/27/2012. The July 27, 2012 motion hearing is VACATED. (Arellano, S.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP
WARREN E. GEORGE (SBN 53588)
[e-mail]
MANU PRADHAN (SBN 253026)
[e-mail]
EDWARD A. ANDREWS (SBN 268479)
[e-mail]
COURTNEY E. SMITH (SBN 273598)
[e-mail]
Three Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, CA 94111-4067
Telephone:
415.393.2000
Facsimile:
415.393.2286
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Maria del Rosario Corona and Andres Santana
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

FRESNO DIVISION

12
13
14
15
16
17

CORONA, et al.,
v.

Plaintiffs,

KNOWLES, et al.,
Defendants.

18
19

Case No. 1:08-CV-00237-LJO-DLB
STIPULATION REGARDING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER
(Note Court uses own language)
TRIAL:
February 26, 2013
TIME:
8:30 a.m.
COURTROOM: 4

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

STIPULATION RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER
A/74995313.2/0999997-0000929376

1

STIPULATION

2

The parties request a three-week continuance of the hearing on Defendants’ motion for

3

summary judgment. The motion is set to be heard on July 27, 2012. Dkt. # 142. The parties

4

propose a hearing date of August 17, 2012, with briefing dates based on that schedule. The

5

deadline for hearing dispositive motions is not until November 5, 2012. Dkt. # 129.

6

Good cause supports the parties’ request. Defendants have moved to dismiss all of

7

Plaintiffs’ claims, arguing that Defendants acted reasonably and pursuant to CDCR policies.

8

E.g., Dkt. # 142-1 at 6. The discovery cutoff had not yet elapsed when Defendants filed their

9

motion, however, and Plaintiffs’ deposition of a 30(b)(6) witness regarding those same policies

10

is set to occur on July 2.1 This Court has clearly recognized the relevance of the policies. E.g.,

11

Dkt. # 149 at 3 (“Defendants argue that the CDCR policies are not relevant because Plaintiffs’

12

claims relate to KVSP’s policies. This argument is without merit, as there can be little doubt that

13

CDCR’s policies influenced KVSP’s supplemental policy.”). Thus, Plaintiffs believe that the

14

evidence from the deposition is likely to play an important role in their opposition. The parties

15

agree that a three-week extension should give Plaintiffs sufficient time to analyze the transcript,

16

conduct any necessary follow-up, and prepare their opposition.

17

An extension is also warranted based on the schedule for expert disclosures. Disclosures

18

will occur on July 17. Dkt. # 129. However, July 17 is just two business days after the current

19

deadline for the opposition, and Plaintiffs’ opposition will rely on expert declarations. Plaintiffs

20

wish to manage the burden on their experts, and believe under the circumstances that it would be

21

more appropriate to allow their experts to first prepare their disclosures, and then, turn to the

22

specifics of Defendants’ motion. Defendants agree that the requested extension strikes an

23

appropriate balance.

24
25
26

1

Two motions to compel had to be resolved before the deposition could occur. See Dkt. # 124
(ordering deposition), Dkt. # 149 (ordering production of documents to be used at deposition).

1
STIPULATION RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER
A/74995313.2/0999997-0000929376

1

Finally, there is good cause because the requested extension is relatively short in duration.

2

All parties wish to efficiently resolve the matter, and previous extensions regarding this motion

3

have not been requested. As noted, the deadline for hearing dispositive motions is not until

4

November 5, 2012. Dkt. # 129. Thus, the proposed schedule has no effect on any other Court-

5

ordered deadlines in this case.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Accordingly, the parties request that the Court order the following schedule, or such other
dates as are convenient for the Court:
Event

Current Schedule

Proposed Schedule

Expert Disclosures

July 17, 2012

July 17, 2012

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion For Summary
Judgment

July 13, 2012

August 3, 2012

Reply In Support Of Defendants’
Motion For Summary Judgment

July 20, 2012

August 10, 2012

Hearing re Defendants’ Motion
For Summary Judgment

July 27, 2012
(10:00 a.m)

August 17, 2012
(10:00 a.m)

16
17

DATED: June 26, 2012

BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP

18
19

By:

20

/s/
Manu Pradhan
Attorney for Plaintiffs

21
22

DATED: June 26, 2012

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

23
24

By:

/s/
Kelli Hammond
Attorney for Defendants

25
26
2

STIPULATION RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER
A/74995313.2/0999997-0000929376

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

ORDER
Based on the parties’ stipulation, this Court:
1. VACATES the July 27, 2012 hearing on defendants’ summary judgment motion;
2. ORDERS plaintiffs, no later than August 3, 2012, to file and serve summary judgment
opposition papers;
3. ORDERS defendants, no later than August 10, 2012, to file and serve summary
judgment reply papers; and
4. LIMITS plaintiffs’ opposition points and authorities to 25 pages and defendants’ reply
points and authorities to 10 pages.

10

Pursuant to its practice, this Court will consider defendants’ summary judgment

11

motion on the record without a hearing.

12
13
14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 27, 2012

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

66h44d

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
STIPULATION RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER
A/74995313.2/0999997-0000929376