Carlin v. Wong

Filing 56

ORDER approving briefing schedule in 10/21/11 letter (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2011)

LAW OFFICES OF

UNIT
ED

VED
APPRO

NO

u
Judge S

RT
U
O

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

October 21, 2011

on

san Illst

Re: Carlin v. Wong, No. C 06-4145 (PR) SI

A

H

ER

LI

RT

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Northern District of California
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA

R NIA

POST OFFICE BOX 337
BOLINAS, CA 94924
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
EMAIL: [e-mail]

S

MARGARET LITTLEFIELD

MICHAEL SATRIS

FO

ASSOCIATE COUNSEL

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

To the Honorable Clerk:
By minute order filed September 27, 2011 (Doc. 53), the Court set a
briefing schedule for respondent to file a motion to dismiss in this case as
follows: motion due by October 7, 2011; opposition due by October 28,
2011; reply to opposition due by November 4, 2011. The Court set a hearing
date of November 18, 2011.
Respondent filed his motion to dismiss on October 5, 2011 (Doc. 54),
with the scheduled hearing date of November 18, 2011, on the motion.
Apparently, the automatic e-filing system then supplied its own dates for
subsequent briefing: opposition due on October 19, 2011, with any reply
due by October 26, 2011.
On October 19, 2011, I spoke with a Clerk of the Court to point out the
discrepancy. I was informed I should e-file a letter explaining that the
briefing schedule for respondent’s motion to dismiss had previously been
set by the Court, and was different than the schedule automatically
generated by the ECF system.
Respectfully,
/s/ Margaret Littlefield
Margaret Littlefield
Attorney for Petitioner
James Carlin