American Council of the Blind et al v. Barnhart et al

Filing 307

ORDER REGARDING FORMAT OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AFTER BENCH TRIAL. Signed by Judge Alsup on September 22, 2009. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, a District of Columbia non-profit corporation, SCARLETT MILES, MARVELENA QUESADA, ARLENE DOHERTY, ALICE MARJORIE DONOVAN, BILLIE JEAN KEITH, GEORGE P. SMITH, MARY ANN ALEXANDER, and LAURA M. RUSSELL and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, in her official capacity, and SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendants. / No. C 05-04696 WHA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER REGARDING FORMAT OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AFTER BENCH TRIAL By NOON ON SEPTEMBER 29, both sides shall e-file proposed findings of fact, each identified by number. Each proposed finding should be concise and limited to one or two or (at most) three lines of text (exclusive of any block quotes from trial exhibits) followed by exact trial record cites fully supporting the proposed finding. The proposals should be at a level of specificity/generality so as to fit within the page limit set forth below. As a rule of thumb, less controverted subjects may be captured in more generalized proposed findings; more controversial subjects, however, usually require greater specificity and more proposed findings. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avoid argumentation and stick to the facts. Block quotes and record cites may be single-spaced (and indented) but otherwise the proposals should be double-spaced. Example: 1. When defendant went through the intersection of Hayes and Gough, the light was red in his direction. Jones at RT 97:13 Young at RT 15:1112 The same submission should also set forth each proposed conclusion of law. Each proposed conclusion of law must briefly identify the proposed findings of fact supporting the conclusion and the legal authority therefor (quoting the key language of said authority). The overall length of the submission must be 20 pages or less. By NOON ON OCTOBER 2, the opposing side must e-file and serve a response. The response must state, separately as to each proposed finding, whether the responding party agrees with the proposed finding and if not in full agreement, then the full extent to which, considering the duty of good faith and candor, the responding party admits the proposed finding. To the extent that the responding side objects in any respect to the proposed finding, it must state (i) the extent to which the opposition is based on a failure of the record cites to support the proposal (explaining why they do not support it) versus (ii) the extent to which they objection is based on contrary evidence (citing the contrary evidence) versus lack of credibility (citing relevant evidence). Example: 1. Agree that the light was red but the light had just United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 changed a split second before. Mack RT 42:1718 The submission shall similarly state the extent to which the responding party agrees with each conclusion of law proposed by the other side. If there is any disagreement, the responding side must state (i) the extent to which the disagreement is based on a failure of the supporting findings, (ii) the extent to which the disagreement is based on a failure of the cited authorities to support the conclusion, and (iii) the extent to which contrary authorities contradict the legal basis for the proposed conclusion. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The responding submission should reproduce each original finding or conclusion and then, immediately after each, supply the responsive information. It may not exceed twice overall number of pages used by the submission to which it responds. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 22, 2009. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?