Larios v. Lunardi, et al

Filing 41

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 9/30/19 ORDERING that Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment shall not exceed 35 pages, and a reply brief shall not exceed 20, and Plaintiff's opposition brief shall not exceed 35 pages.(Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

XAVIER BECERRA, State Bar No. 118517
Attorney General of California
KRISTIN M. DAILY, State Bar No. 186103
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
WILLIAM H. DOWNER, State Bar No. 257644
Deputy Attorney 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 Scott Lunardi, Kyle Foster
and Robert Jones

9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13

TIMOTHY LARIOS,

2:15-cv-02451-MCE-CMK
Plaintiff, STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER
EXTENDING PAGE LIMITS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEFS AND
ORDER THEREON

14
v.

15
16

SCOTT LUNARDI, ET AL.,

17

Judge:
Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr.
Trial Date:
None set.
Defendants. Action Filed: November 24, 2015

18
19
20

The Defendants and Plaintiff (the parties) in the above-captioned case stipulate and agree as

21

follows:

22

1.

Defendants in this action plan to file a Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the

23

alternative, Motion for Summary Adjudication by October 7, 2019. This case involves two

24

causes of action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California Civil Code § 52.1 asserted

25

against three individual defendants, Scott Lunardi, Kyle Foster, and Robert Jones. The central

26

question in this case is whether Defendants violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States

27

Constitution by inspecting Plaintiff Timothy Larios’s cell phone without obtaining a warrant.

28

1
Stipulated Request for Order Extending Page Limits for Summary Judgment Briefs
and Order Thereon (2:15-cv-02451-MCE-CMK)

1

2.

This Court’s standing order has a page limit for points and authorities of twenty pages

2

on all initial moving papers, twenty pages on oppositions, and ten pages for replies. The same

3

order requires that request for page limit increases must be made in writing with a proposed order

4

setting forth any and all reasons for an increase in page limit at least seven days prior to the filing

5

of the motion.

6

3.

Defendants Scott Lunardi, Kyle Foster, and Robert Jones are preparing to move for

7

summary judgment. Although there are three individual defendants in the instant action, there is

8

overlap in the claims asserted against them. It would be inefficient and a waste of judicial

9

resources for Defendants to file three separate motions for summary judgment because the

10

motions would be needlessly repetitive. Accordingly, Defendants plan to consolidate their

11

respective arguments and evidence supporting summary judgment under one motion for summary

12

judgment. However, Defendants cannot adequately present their arguments and evidence, which

13

will need to detail a six month internal affairs investigation, within the twenty page limitation

14

imposed by this Court. Defendants anticipate that consolidating their arguments and evidence

15

supporting summary judgment under one motion—while maximizing efficiency and preservation

16

of judicial and state resources—will, however, necessitate an increase in the page limitation

17

imposed by this Court.

18

4.

In light of the nature of the issues that must be addressed in this motion, the number

19

of parties, and the volume of material facts that must be adduced in the motion, the parties agree

20

there is good cause to extend the page limits for the parties’ briefs. The parties agree Defendants

21

may file a combined Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Motion for

22

Summary Judgment not to exceed thirty-five pages, and a reply brief not to exceed twenty pages.

23

The parties agree Plaintiff may file an opposition brief not to exceed thirty-five pages.

24

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the

25

parties, subject to the Court’s approval, that:

26

///

27

///

28

2
Stipulated Request for Order Extending Page Limits for Summary Judgment Briefs
and Order Thereon (2:15-cv-02451-MCE-CMK)

1

Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Motion for

2

Summary Judgment shall not exceed thirty-five pages, and a reply brief shall not exceed twenty

3

pages, and Plaintiff’s opposition brief shall not exceed thirty-five pages.

4
5

Dated: September 27, 2019

Respectfully submitted,
XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
KRISTIN M. DAILY
Supervising Deputy Attorney General

6
7
8
9

/s/ William H. Downer

10

WILLIAM H. DOWNER
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants

11
12
13
14

Dated: September 27, 2019

MICHAEL ACKERMAN
Michael Ackerman Law Office
ANTHONY BOSKOVICH
The Law Offices of Anthony Boskovich

15
16
17

/s/ Michael Ackerman, as authorized on
9/27/19

18

MICHAEL ACKERMAN
Attorneys for Plaintiff

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 30, 2019

23
24
25
26
27
28

3
Stipulated Request for Order Extending Page Limits for Summary Judgment Briefs
and Order Thereon (2:15-cv-02451-MCE-CMK)