Gilmore et al v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al.,

Filing 197

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/22/2011 GRANTING 196 Request for Page Limitation Extention. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

STEPHANIE L. QUINN, ESQ. [SBN: 216655]
NAISHA COVARRUBIAS, ESQ. [SBN: 239499]
MURPHY, CAMPBELL, GUTHRIE & ALLISTON
8801 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 230
Sacramento, CA 95826
General:
916-400-2300
Facsimile: 916-400-2311
ADRIAN L. RANDOLPH, ESQ. [SBN: 133577]
MICHAEL L. JOHNSON, ESQ. [SBN: 88884]
BRIAN W. PLUMMER, ESQ. [SBN: 240210]
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
Law Department
10031 Foothills Boulevard, Suite 200
Roseville, CA 95747
General:
[phone]
Direct:
[phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

12
13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15
16

JEREMY GILMORE AND DANA
GILMORE,

17
18

Case No. 2:09-02180-KJM-DAD

Plaintiffs
v.

19
20
21
22
23

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,
DENNIS MAGURES, JOHN PARKER,
CAROLYN M. WILL, ANDREW RIBBING
and LEO MARIN and DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive,

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR
PAGE LIMITATION EXTENSION
FOR MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT/SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION; ORDER
THEREON

Defendants.

24
25

Defendant UNION PACIIC RAILROAD COMPANY (“UNION PACIIC”) hereby

26

requests that the Court allow Defendant to file a motion for summary judgment/

27

summary adjudication in this matter that exceeds the page limitation of twenty

28

-1DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR PAGE LIMITATION INCREASE FOR MSJ/MSA; ORDER THERETO

1

(20) pages, which is set forth in the Court’s Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order

2

dated March 18, 2011.

3

supporting memorandum in excess of the page limitation for the following

4

reasons:

There is good cause to allow Defendant to file a

5

Numerous distinct and complex claims against Defendant Union Pacific

6

remain as follows: Plaintiff JEREMY GILMORE asserts claims under the

7

Federal Employers Liability Act for personal injury; wrongful discharge in

8

violation of California Labor Code § 132(a), 49 U.S.C. § 20109, and the public

9

policy of California; and invasion of privacy. Plaintiff DANA GILMORE asserts

10

claims for wrongful discharge for assertion of constitutional right of privacy;

11

FEHA retaliation for opposing practices and policies that penalized the status

12

of marriage and violated her duties of loyalty and confidentiality to her

13

husband; and invasion of privacy. Each of these claims involves complicated

14

legal and factual issues that Defendant needs to present to the Court by way of

15

summary judgment / summary adjudication motion.

16

Given the numerous claims presented by both Plaintiffs Dana and Jeremy

17

Gilmore’s complaint and the legal and factual matters at issue in this case,

18

Defendant cannot adequately address the issues to be presented to the Court by

19

way of a summary judgment motion in a memorandum which is limited to

20

twenty (20) pages. Defendant believes that it can adequately address the issues

21

in a memorandum not exceeding thirty (30) pages and hereby requests that the

22

//

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

-2DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR PAGE LIMITATION INCREASE FOR MSJ/MSA; ORDER THERETO

1

Court grant a page limitation increase, given the circumstances of this case.

2

Dated: April 21, 2011

3
4

MURPHY, CAMPBELL, GUTHRIE &
ALLISTON
By

5
6

/s/ Naisha Covarrubias
NAISHA COVARRUBIAS
STEPHANIE L. QUINN
Attorneys for Defendant
Union Pacific Railroad Co.

7
8
9
10

ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 22, 2011.

11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR PAGE LIMITATION INCREASE FOR MSJ/MSA; ORDER THERETO