Rouser v. White, et al

Filing 415

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 4/14/09 ORDERING that the page limitation to Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is extended to 18 pages.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

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

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., State Bar No. 37100 Attorney General of California TRACY S. HENDRICKSON FIEL D. TIGNO Supervising Deputy Attorneys General JOSHUA C. IWRIN, State Bar No. 209437 JAMES E. FLYNN, State Bar No. 61139 Deputy Attorneys General 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Cates, Yates, Gomez, and White IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION

WILLIAM ROUSER,

2:93-cv-0767-LKK-GGH (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER AND STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION FOR MSJ REPLY BRIEF Date: April 20, 2009 Time: 9:00 a.m. Courtroom: Four Defendants. Judge Hon. Lawrence K. Karlton Trial Date August 11, 2009 Action Filed: May 7, 1993

v. THEO WHITE, et al.,

Defendants respectfully request leave to exceed the page limitation on their Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by three pages. This is necessitated by the complexity of the factual and legal issues set forth in defendants' motion for summary judgment and plaintiff's opposition thereto. Defendants' attorney contacted Plaintiffs' attorney Jenny Riggs, who said she had no opposition to Defendants' request to exceed the page limitation. /// 1
[PROP.] ORDER AND STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT. (2:93-cv-0767-LKK-GGH (PC))

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

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

Dated: April 13, 2009

Respectfully submitted, JONES DAY /s/ Jenny L. Riggs ____________________________________ JENNY L. RIGGS, ESQ. Attorney for Plaintiff EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of California /s/ James E. Flynn ____________________________________ JAMES E. FLYNN Deputy Attorney General Attorney for Defendants

IT IS SO ORDERED. Based on the complexity of the legal and factual issues raised in connection with defendants' summary judgment motion, and good cause appearing, the page limitation to Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby extended to 18 pages.

Dated: April 14, 2009.

2
[PROP.] ORDER AND STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT. (2:93-cv-0767-LKK-GGH (PC))

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com