Mkrtchyan v. Sacramento County et al

Filing 68

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 4/14/22 GRANTING 67 Defendants' motion for administrative relief and permits Defendants' to file a five (5) page limit extension to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants& #039; Motion for Summary Judgment shall not exceed 25 pages. Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to file a five (5) page limit extension in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. No increase will be made as to the Reply page limit. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

Carl L. Fessenden, SBN 161494
Matthew W. Gross, SBN 324007
350 University Ave., Suite 200
Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO,
SCOTT R. JONES, GRANT NUGENT, DEPUTY DOMINGUEZ,
DEPUTY YANG, DEPUTY GROUT, DEPUTY MEIER and NANCY GALLAGHER

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

ARAM MKRTCHYAN,
Plaintiff,

PORTER | SCOTT

350 University Ave., Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

v.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA,
a county government and the operator of the
Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department and
its Correctional Health Services Division; and
the following persons as individuals and in
their capacity as officials, employees or
contractors of Sacramento County; R.
SCOTT JONES; GRANT NUGENT;
DEPUTY DOMINGUEZ; DEPUTY YANG;
DEPUTY GROUT; DEPUTY MEIER, and
DOES 1-40, inclusive,

CASE NO. 2:17-cv-02366 TLN-KJN
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF
REQUESTING LEAVE FOR PAGE
LIMIT INCREASE TO MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER
Complaint Filed: 11/12/2017

Defendants.
___________________________________/

23
24
25
26
27
28
1
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF REQUESTING LEAVE FOR PAGE LIMIT
INCREASE TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER

{02678332.DOCX}

1

Defendants COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SCOTT R. JONES, GRANT NUGENT,

2

DEPUTY DOMINGUEZ, DEPUTY YANG, DEPUTY GROUT, DEPUTY MEIER and NANCY

3

GALLAGHER (“Defendants”) file this motion for administrative relief and seek leave from the

4

Court to file a five (5) page limit extension to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

5
6

Eastern District Local Rule 233 sets for the procedure for filing a motion for administrative
relief:

12

(1) must be labeled as a motion for administrative relief;
(2) may not exceed 5 pages (excluding declarations and exhibits);
(3) must set forth specifically the action requested, the reasons supporting the request, and
relevant background information (such as a description of any similar relief that has
previously been granted);
(4) must be accompanied by a proposed order;
(5) must include a statement setting forth the position of all parties affected by the motion,
or a statement explaining why such position could not be ascertained; and
(6) if manually filed, must be delivered with all attachments on all parties on the same day
the motion is filed.

13

Furthermore, this Court’s Standing Orders set for the requirements for seeking a page limit

7
8
9
10

PORTER | SCOTT

350 University Ave., Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

11

14

extension when filing a Motion for Summary Judgement.

15

Defendants seek a five (5) page extension to file Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

16

because Plaintiff’s operative complaint contains 12 separate claims for relief—many of which are

17

asserted against 7 Defendants in total. The claims against the individual Defendants involve separate

18

and distinct actions over multiple months and Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment will need

19

to address each of the separate claims and distinct actions from each of the Defendants. To

20

sufficiently address the claims against each Defendant within the Motion for Summary Judgment,

21

Defendants need an additional five page extension (for a total of 25 pages) to file the Motion for

22

Summary Judgment. This is the first time Defendants’ have requested such relief.

23

The parties had a phone call prior to the filing of the motion and agree to a page limit

24

extension as long as Plaintiff is provided 25 pages to provide an Opposition to the Motion for

25

Summary Judgment. The parties also discussed Plaintiff’s filing his own separate Motion for

26

Summary Judgment. Finally, the parties agreed to use the June 2, 2022 hearing date for each parties

27

Motion for Summary Judgment.

28

Dated: April 14, 2022

PORTER SCOTT

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

2
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF REQUESTING LEAVE FOR PAGE LIMIT
INCREASE TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER

{02678332.DOCX}

1
2

/s/ Matthew Gross
______________________________
Carl L. Fessenden
Matthew W. Gross
Attorneys for Defendants

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

PORTER | SCOTT

350 University Ave., Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF REQUESTING LEAVE FOR PAGE LIMIT
INCREASE TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER

{02678332.DOCX}

1

ORDER

2

This Court hereby GRANTS Defendants COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SCOTT R.

3

JONES, GRANT NUGENT, DEPUTY DOMINGUEZ, DEPUTY YANG, DEPUTY GROUT,

4

DEPUTY MEIER and NANCY GALLAGHER (“Defendants”) motion for administrative relief and

5

permits Defendants to file a five (5) page limit extension to Defendants’ Motion for Summary

6

Judgment. Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment shall not exceed 25 pages. Plaintiff will be

7

provided an opportunity to file a five (5) page limit extension in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion

8

for Summary Judgment. No increase will be made as to the Reply page limit.

9
10

Dated: 4/14/2022

11

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

PORTER | SCOTT

350 University Ave., Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF REQUESTING LEAVE FOR PAGE LIMIT
INCREASE TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER

{02678332.DOCX}