Taylor et al v. County of Calaveras, et al

Filing 84

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's Ex Parte 82 Application for Order Permitting Filing Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in Excess of 25 Pages signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 7/16/2020. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MICHAEL SCOTT TAYLOR, et al.,

10
11

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ EX
PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER
PERMITTING FILING MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN
EXCESS OF 25 PAGES

Plaintiffs,

8
9

Case No. 1:18-cv-00760-BAM

v.
COUNTY OF CALAVERAS, et al.,
Defendants.

(Doc. No. 82)

12
13

Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs Michael Scott Taylor and Lori Melville’s

14 (“Plaintiffs”) ex parte application for leave to file a brief in support of their motion for partial
15 summary judgment in excess of twenty-five (25) pages. (Doc. No. 82.)
16

This action arises out of a June 24, 2017 contact between three Calaveras County

17 Sheriff’s Department deputies and Plaintiffs following Plaintiffs’ neighbors call for service of a
gunshot too close to the neighbor’s dwelling. (See Doc. No. 82 at 1.) In support of the
18
application, counsel for Plaintiffs filed a declaration explaining that Plaintiffs have prepared a
19
motion for partial summary judgment regarding alleged violations of Plaintiff Michael Scott
20
Taylor’s First and Fourth Amendment rights and Plaintiff Lori Melville’s Fourth Amendment
21
rights during the June 24, 2017 contact as well as state law claims for false arrest/false
22
imprisonment and violation of the Bane Act. (Id. at 2.) As part of the motion, Plaintiffs address
23
issues regarding their home’s curtilage, the legality of entry upon Plaintiffs’ property, exigency,
24
emergency, consent, “knock and talk” exceptions to the warrant requirement, probable cause
25
for Mr. Taylor’s arrest, and qualified immunity, among other topics. (Id.) Plaintiffs represent
26 that their statement of undisputed material facts includes one hundred and thirty-six (136) facts
27 and the motion presently totals thirty-five (35) pages. (Id.)
28

1

1

Plaintiffs request leave to file a brief not to exceed thirty-five pages in support of their

2 motion for partial summary judgment. (Doc. No. 83 at 3.) According to the application,
3 Defendants’ counsel has indicated that he has no opposition to the request. (Id. at 3.)
4

Having considered Plaintiffs’ request, and in light of the representation that Defendants

5 do not oppose the application, the Court will grant Plaintiffs leave to file a brief in excess of
thirty-five pages. The brief shall contain a detailed table of contents. However, Plaintiffs are
6
reminded of their obligation to meet and confer with Defendants prior to filing their motion in
7
order to, among other things, narrow the issues for review by the Court and arrive at a joint
8
statement of undisputed facts. (See Doc. No. 32 at 3-4.)
9
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
10
1.
Plaintiffs’ ex parte application (Doc. No. 82) seeking leave to file a brief in
11
support of their motion for partial summary judgment in excess of twenty-five (25) pages is
12
GRANTED; and
13
2.
Plaintiffs’ brief in support of their motion for partial summary judgment shall not
14 exceed thirty-five (35) pages.
15
16 IT IS SO ORDERED.
17

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

July 16, 2020

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2