Bonzani v. Shinseki et al

Filing 52

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/28/2013. Defendants shall file and serve Supplemental Brief addressing Exhibit 4 to Deposition of Dr. William Cahill no later than 2/11/2013. Plaintiff's Response, if any, shall be filed an d served within 14 days of service of defendants' Supplemental Brief. Due to additional Briefing and Court's schedule, Final Pretrial Conference is CONTINUED to 6/12/2013 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB). Jury Trial RE-SET for 9/10/2013 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB). Counsel are referred to Rule 16 32 Scheduling Order for instruction regarding Final Pretrial Conference. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

MATTHEW BONZANI,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

No. 2:11-cv-0007-EFB

vs.
ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans
Affairs; SCOTT HUNDAHL, M.D.

ORDER

14
Defendants.
15
16

/
This action is before the undersigned based on the consent of the parties. See Dckt. No.

17

18; see also E.D. Cal. L.R. 305; 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Defendants’ motion for summary judgment

18

was before the court on January 23, 2013. Joanne Delong appeared on behalf of plaintiff, and

19

Lynn Trinka Ernce of the United States Attorney’s Office appeared for defendants.

20

At the hearing, the court first addressed plaintiff’s Family and Medical Leave Act claim

21

against defendant Hundahl. Defendants argued that defendant Hundahl was entitled to summary

22

judgment because he did not have the requisite level of control over plaintiff’s employment to

23

constitute an “employer” under the governing statute. After hearing defendants’ arguments, the

24

court asked plaintiff’s counsel what evidence created a genuine dispute that defendant Hundahl

25

had the authority to hire and fire plaintiff. In response, counsel referenced an email sent by

26

defendant Hundahl that allegedly showed that it was his decision to not renew plaintiff’s
1

1

employment contract. Counsel explained that the email was attached as Exhibit 4 to the

2

Deposition of Dr. William Cahill.

3

Plaintiff’s opposition makes no reference to the email relied upon by plaintiff’s counsel

4

at the hearing. Further, the exhibits submitted with plaintiff’s opposition do not contain the

5

referenced email. Local Rule 260(b) provides that “[t]he opposing party shall be responsible for

6

the filing of all evidentiary documents cited in the opposing papers.” Local Rule 133(j)

7

provides:

8

Before or upon the filing of a document making reference to a deposition, counsel
relying on the deposition shall ensure that a courtesy hard copy of the entire
deposition so relied upon has been submitted to the Clerk for use in chambers.
Alternatively, counsel relying on a deposition may submit an electronic copy of
the deposition in lieu of the courtesy paper copy to the emailbox of the Judge or
Magistrate Judge and concurrently email or otherwise transmit the deposition to
all other parties. Neither hard copy nor electronic copy of the entire deposition
will become part of the official record of the action absent order of the Court.
Pertinent portions of the deposition intended to become part of the official record
shall be submitted as exhibits in support of a motion or otherwise.

9
10
11
12
13
14

The evidence plaintiff’s counsel wishes the court to consider was not cited in plaintiff’s

15

opposition, nor was it submitted as an exhibit. While a hard copy of the deposition was lodged

16

with the Clerk, this court has not ordered the Deposition of Dr. William Cahill to be part of the

17

official record. Accordingly, the evidence relied upon by plaintiff was not properly before the

18

court for consideration. Notwithstanding counsel’s failure to comply with the Local Rules, the

19

court will consider Exhibit 4 to the Deposition of Dr. William Cahill in deciding defendants’

20

motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s counsel is admonished that in the future she must

21

comply with the court’s local rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures.

22

Since defendants have not had an opportunity to address Exhibit 4 to the Deposition of

23

Dr. Williams, defendants shall submit supplemental briefing addressing this document’s impact,

24

if any, on their motion for summary judgment.

25

////

26

////
2

1

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

2

1. Defendants shall file and serve supplemental briefing addressing Exhibit 4 to the

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Deposition of Dr. William Cahill no later than February 11, 2013;
2. Plaintiff’s response, if any, shall be filed and served within 14 days of service of
defendants’ supplemental briefing;
3. Due to the additional briefing and the court’s schedule, the final pretrial conference is
continued from April 17, 2013, to Wednesday, June 12, 2013, at 10 a.m. in Courtroom No. 8;
4. Trial is reset to commence before the undersigned on Tuesday September 10, 2013, at
9:30 a.m. in Courtroom No. 8;
5. Counsel are referred to the Rule 16 scheduling order, Dckt. No. 32, for instruction

11

regarding the final pretrial conference.

12

DATED: January 28, 2013.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3