Galli v. Pittsburg Unified School District

Filing 98

ORDER re 94 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Declaration of Tim Galli in Support of Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and VACATING Hearing. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 17, 2011. (jswlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

TIM GALLI,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

No. C 09-03775 JSW

Plaintiff,
v.
PITTSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
BARBARA WILSON and PERCY MCGEE,

ORDER REQUIRING
ADDITIONAL BRIEFING

13
Defendants.
14
/
15
16

In the course of briefing the pending motions to dismiss, it appears that Plaintiff Tim

17

Galli has changed his sworn testimony by seeking to file an amended declaration and amended

18

briefing on important facts underlying the allegation that Plaintiff was denied due process under

19

the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court shall not and cannot re-create the record, but, for the

20

purposes of the pending motions, must address whether the true and accurate record contains

21

issues of disputed material fact. Because of the state of the briefing and Plaintiff’s attempt to

22

change his testimony, the Court requires re-briefing of the due process issue.

23

The parties are required to re-brief the issue of whether judgment is appropriate in favor

24

of Defendants on their motion for summary judgment on the alleged deprivation of Plaintiff’s

25

Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. Defendants shall move for summary judgment on

26

the issue by no later than June 3, 2011 (in no more than 15 pages); Plaintiff shall oppose (in no

27

more than 15 pages) by no later than June 17, 2011; and Defendants shall submit a reply (of no

28

1

more than 10 pages) by no later than June 24, 2011.1 The parties shall submit admissible

2

documentary evidence of the important dates in conjunction with Defendants’ re-briefed motion

3

on the due process allegations.

4

The parties do not have to re-brief issues related to Plaintiff’s motion for summary

5

judgment and do not have to re-brief the portion of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment

6

on the First Amendment allegations. The hearing date of May 20, 2011 is HEREBY

7

VACATED. The Court shall address all legal issues in one final order on the cross-motions for

8

summary judgment, once finally briefed.

9
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Dated: May 17, 2011
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

1
For the most part, Defendants may resubmit their earlier moving papers with regard
to the due process allegations. Plaintiff should explain his change in testimony in his
opposition. Defendants shall have the full opportunity to respond in their reply. The Court
shall set a hearing date by further order, only if necessary.

2