Tandel v. County of Sacramento, et al

Filing 134

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 6/3/2014 GRANTING defendants' 132 Application to Exceed Page Limit. The supporting Points and Authorities for Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment may be up to 40 pages in length. Plaintiff's Opposition is subject to the same 40 page limitation.Defendants' Reply, should they choose to file one, may not exceed 20 pages. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

LONGYEAR, O’DEA & LAVRA, LLP
VAN LONGYEAR, CSB NO. 84189
PETER C. ZILAFF, CSB NO. 272658
3620 American River Drive, Suite 230
Sacramento, California 95864-5923
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Attorneys for Defendants County of Sacramento,
John McGinness, Ann Marie Boylan, Michael Sotak, M.D.,
Susan Kroner RN, Agnes R. Felicano NP, Glayol Sahba, M.D.,
Deputy John Wilson, Richard Bauer, M.D., Deputy Stephanie Jacoby,
Deputy Mark Medeiros, Deputy Mark Iwasa

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

SANDIPKUMAR TANDEL,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

vs.
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,
Defendants.

CASE NO. 2:11-cv-00353 MCE AC
[Consolidated with 2:09-cv-00842 MCE GGH]

DEFENDANTS’ APPLICATION FOR
AN ORDER GRANTING PERMISSION
TO EXCEED THE TWENTY PAGE
LIMIT FOR MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

13
14
15
16

Defendants County of Sacramento, John McGinness, Ann Marie Boylan, Michael Sotak,

17

M.D., Susan Kroner RN, Agnes R. Felicano NP, Glayol Sahba, M.D., Deputy John Wilson,

18

Richard Bauer, M.D., Deputy Stephanie Jacoby, Deputy Mark Medeiros, Deputy Mark Iwasa

19

hereby apply for an order granting permission to exceed the twenty page limit for their Motion

20

for Summary Judgment set forth in the Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order. Defendants require

21

more than the allowed number of pages in order to properly and adequately address and support

22

the Motion for Summary Judgment.

23
24
25
26

Plaintiff has brought this action against the County of Sacramento and eleven remaining
individual Defendants, including supervisors and members of the Sacramento Sheriff’s

1

Department and Main Jail medical staff. Plaintiff brings this action under various theories,

2

including the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act and state law claims. In addition, Plaintiff’s
remaining claims surround two separate incarcerations spanning several months that were
originally brought as separate actions.
In order to address the various issues and theories, the defendants must present evidence
and argue regarding several liability theories pertaining to:
1. Policies, practices and procedures within the Main Jail;
2. The encounters between the Plaintiff and the individual Defendants and other
Main Jail employees during the 2007 incarceration (February 2007 through May
20, 2007);
3. The encounters between the Plaintiff and the individual Defendants and other

15

Main Jail employees during the 2010 incarceration (March 23, 2010 through May

16

10, 2010).

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Because of the federal and state law claims alleged against multiple individual
Defendants and the County spanning two separate incarcerations, Defendants respectfully
request permission to file a Memorandum of Points and Authorities not to exceed forty (40)
pages in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment.
Date: May 28, 2014

LONGYEAR, O’DEA & LAVRA, LLP
By: /S/: Peter C. Zilaff
VAN LONGYEAR
PETER C. ZILAFF
Attorneys for Defendants County of
Sacramento, et al.

27
28
Defendants’ Application for an Order Granting Permission to Exceed the Twenty Page Limit for
Motion for Summary Judgment
Page 2

1
ORDER

2
3

In accordance with the foregoing application, and good cause appearing, the

4

supporting points and authorities for Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment may be

5

up to 40 pages in length. Plaintiff’s opposition is subject to the same 40 page limitation.

6

Defendants’ reply, should they choose to file one, may not exceed 20 pages.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

Dated: June 3, 2014

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants’ Application for an Order Granting Permission to Exceed the Twenty Page Limit for
Motion for Summary Judgment
Page 3