Freitag v. CDC, et al

Filing 653

ORDER Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting extension of time re: #648 Defendant's Motion to Terminate Injunction; ORDER of Referral. Opposition to motion due 08/27/12. Reply due 09/07/12. All discovery disputes are Referred to Magistrate Judge Corley. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2012)

1
2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6

DEANNA L. FREITAG,

7
8
9

Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION
OF TIME RE: DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO TERMINATE
INJUNCTION; ORDER OF
REFERRAL

Defendants.
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

NO. C00-2278 TEH

12
13

Defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) has

14 filed a motion to terminate the injunction or, alternatively, to modify the injunction15 monitoring process. Plaintiff Deanna Freitag has requested an extension in the briefing and
16 hearing schedule, which the CDCR opposes. The Court GRANTS Freitag’s request as
17 discussed below.
18

Freitag’s counsel has been monitoring the injunctive relief in this case since 2004, and

19 the Court generally agrees with the CDCR that the injunction does not contemplate
20 additional discovery. Freitag’s counsel requests additional time “to evaluate whether there is
21 significant evidence of non-compliance that would support the Court’s decision to continue
22 or modify the injunction,” Pl.’s Admin. Mot. to Enlarge Time at 2, but the CDCR makes the
23 legitimate point that it is the monitoring process itself that should reveal any problems with
24 the injunctive relief. The CDCR further correctly observes that it may be duplicative and
25 unnecessary to have yet another associate attorney bring herself up to speed on this case
26

Nonetheless, the Court will not dictate how Freitag’s counsel should manage her

27 caseload or allocate her resources. However, any time spent opposing the CDCR’s motion
28 will not be automatically compensable as monitoring fees, and Freitag’s counsel will bear the

1 burden of demonstrating entitlement to any fees and costs she might claim for opposing the
2 motion, including any time spent by an associate attorney.
3

The following shall be the schedule on the CDCR’s pending motion:

4

1. Freitag shall file her opposition or statement of non-opposition on or before

5 August 27, 2012.
6

2. The CDCR shall file its reply on or before September 7, 2012.

7

3. The hearing shall occur on September 24, 2012, at 10:00 AM.

8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all discovery disputes in this case are referred to

9 Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley.

11 IT IS SO ORDERED.
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13 Dated: 06/06/12
14

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2