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

Filing 207

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 05/24/2011 granting 206 Request for page limitation extension. Plaintiffs shall be allowed to file an opposition to Union Pacific's Motion for Summary Judgment that exceeds the page limitation of 20 pages.(Waggoner, D)

1 Larry Lockshin (SBN 61926)
Jennifer Marsh (SBN 2724189)
2 LARRY LOCKSHIN, ESQ.
A LAW CORPORATION
3 555 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
4 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
5 Email:
[e-mail]
6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JEREMY GILMORE AND DANA GILMORE
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12

JEREMY GILMORE AND DANA
GILMORE,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

No. 2:09 CV 2180 KJM DAD

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

PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR
PAGE LIMITATION EXTENSION
FOR OPPOSITION TO UNION
PACIFIC’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER
THEREON
The Honorable Kimberly J. Mueller

Defendants.
TRIAL DATE: August 15, 2011

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiffs’ JEREMY and DANA GILMORE hereby request that the Court allow Plaintiffs
to file an opposition to Union pacific’s motion for summary judgment in this matter that exceeds
the page limitation of twenty (20) pages set forth in the Court’s Amended Pretrial Scheduling
Order dated March 18, 2011. There is good cause to allow Plaintiffs’ to file a supporting
memorandum in excess of the page limitation for the following reasons:
Union Pacific has filed a thirty (30) page motion for summary judgment, seeking
summary judgment and/or summary adjudication on all of Plaintiffs’ existing causes of action:

28
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PAGE LIMITATION EXTENSION FOR OPPOSITION TO UNION PACIFIC’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER THEREON

1

1 Plaintiff Jeremy Gilmore’s claim for personal injury under the Federal Employers Liability Act;
2 Jeremy’s claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, as stated in the California
3 Labor Code section 132(a) and pursuant to 49 U.S.C. section 20109; Dana’s claim for wrongful
4 termination in violation of public policy, based on her Constitutional right to privacy; Dana’s
5 retaliation claim; and Plaintiffs’ joint invasion of privacy claim. Plaintiffs are prepared to
6 oppose Union Pacific’s arguments, but cannot sufficiently nor adequately do so in only twenty
7 (20) pages.
8

Given the nature of the claims presented and the arguments set forth in Union Pacific’s

9 moving papers, Plaintiffs require more than twenty (20) pages to fully present their opposition
10 in their responsive memorandum. The arguments of Union Pacific raise issues of constitutional
11 dimensions including the separation of powers doctrine and also difficult preclusion/preemption
12 issues. These cannot be adequately addressed within the existing page limitation. Plaintiffs
13 believe they can adequately address all issues raised by Union Pacific in a memorandum of not
14 more than thirty (30) pages. Plaintiffs hereby request that the Court grant an extension of the
15 page limitation to thirty (30) pages, in light of the circumstances of the case and the issues
16 presented by Union Pacific’s moving papers.
17
18 Dated:

May 20, 2011

LARRY LOCKSHIN, ESQ.
A Law Corporation

19
20
By:
21
22

____/s/ Jennifer Marsh_______
Jennifer Marsh
Attorneys for Plaintiffs JEREMY
GILMORE AND DANA GILMORE

23
ORDER
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26 Dated: May 24, 2011.
27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PAGE LIMITATION EXTENSION FOR OPPOSITION TO UNION PACIFIC’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER THEREON

2