Sheehan v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 23

ORDER re 22 Amended MOTION Administrative re 19 Joint MOTION to Continue JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND MODIFY PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER filed by Katherine Holder, City and County of San Francisco, Kimberly Reynolds, H eather Fong, Motions terminated: 19 Joint MOTION to Continue Motions due by 1/20/2011. Motion Hearing set for 2/25/2011 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Pretrial Conference set for 3/25/2011 02:30 PM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Jury Trial set for 4/25/2011 08:30 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 6/25/2010. (be, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/29/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669 City Attorney JOANNE HOEPER, State Bar #114961 Chief Trial Deputy BLAKE P. LOEBS, State Bar #145790 Chief of Civil Rights Litigation Fox Plaza 1390 Market Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, California 94102-5408 Telephone: (415) 554-3868 Facsimile: (415) 554-3837 E-Mail: blake.loebs@sfgov.org Attorneys for Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TERESA SHEEHAN, Plaintiff, vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation; HEATHER FONG, in her capacity as Chief of Police for the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; KIMBERLY REYNOLDS, individually, and in her capacity as a police officer for the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; KATHERINE HOLDER, individually and in her capacity as a police officer for the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; and, San Francisco police officers DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants. AMENDED JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND MODIFY PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER No hearing date set pursuant to Local Rule 7-11 Trial Date: November 29, 2010 Case No. C09-03889 CRB INTRODUCTION This motion amends the administrative motion filed yesterday which contained erroneous dates for the closure of fact discovery and expert disclosure. All parties to this action are jointly requesting that the trial date of this matter be continued from November 29, 2010 to April 25, 2011 to allow for, Amended Administrative Motion to Continue Trial CASE NO. C09-03889 CRB 1 n:\lit\li2010\090175\00636412.doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 among other things, the paternity leave of Defendants' attorney, Blake Loebs, which will expire on February 11, 2011. The parties have previously made a motion to continue this matter to June 2011, which was denied. In denying the motion, the Court, however, informed Defendants that it would entertain a more modest request. After extensive meeting and conferring and successfully continuing the trial of another matter to allow room for this trial, the parties respectfully request that the trial of this matter be continued to April 25, 2011. PROCEDURAL HISTORY/REQUEST On or about May17, 2010, all parties in this matter jointly requested that the trial date be moved from November 29, 2010 to June 2011. We made this request for a variety of reasons, which included the fact that the trial had been set to occur within six months of the initial CMC, the parties have not been able to conduct the extensive discovery necessary to prepare this case for trial and that Defendants' attorney is expecting his first child in October and will be out on paternity leave until February 11, 2010.1 (Loeb Decl. 2.) On May 2, 2010, at a CMC on a different matter, the Court informed Defendants that it was going to deny the request to continue the trial in Sheehan because the parties were asking for too much additional time, but that because of Defendants attorney's paternity leave it would entertain a more modest request. Shortly after the May 2, 2010 CMC, the Court formally denied the parties' request to continue the trial to June 2010. (Loebs Decl. 3.) At the Court's invitation, both parties are now jointly requesting that the trial date be moved to April 25, 2011. It has been exceptionally difficult for the parties to find any time before June in which Plaintiff's counsel could try this case because of his busy trial calendar. After extensive meeting and conferring and with the cooperation of the attorney in another matter, Plaintiff's counsel recently persuade a federal judge in a different matter to move a trial that had been previously scheduled for April 25, 2011 to accommodate a continuance in this matter. (Nisenbaum Decl. 2; Loebs Decl. 4.) The City and County of San Francisco has a three month paternity leave policy. Mr. Loebs, however, is in the process of determining whether he will be able take a fourth month. If successful, his leave would expire February 11, 2010. (Loebs Decl. 2.) Amended Administrative Motion to Continue Trial CASE NO. C09-03889 CRB 1 2 n:\lit\li2010\090175\00636412.doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The parties also propose the following pre-trial schedule: Close of Fact Discovery: Expert Disclosure: Deadline to Notice Dispositive Motion: October 8, 2010 December 19, 2010 January 20, 2011 Deadline for Hearing Dispositive Motions: February 25, 2011 Rebuttal Expert Disclosure: Close of Expert Discovery: Pretrial conference: Trial: Dated: June 24, 2010 DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney JOANNE HOEPER Chief Trial Deputy BLAKE P. LOEBS Chief of Civil Rights Litigation By: /s/ Blake P. Loebs BLAKE P. LOEBS Attorneys for Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO January 20, 2011 February 18, 2011 March 25, 2011 April, 25, 2011 Dated: June 24, 2010 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS By: /s/ Benjamin Nisenbaum BENJAMIN NISENBAUM Attorneys for Plaintiff TERESA SHEEHAN Pursuant to General Order 45, X.B., the filer of this document attests that he has received the concurrence of this signatory to file this document. Amended Administrative Motion to Continue Trial CASE NO. C09-03889 CRB 3 n:\lit\li2010\090175\00636412.doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 25, 2010 [PROPOSED] ORDER Pursuant to the parties' joint administrative motion, the Court finds good cause to modify its Pre-Trial Conference Order. All dates in this action previously set are hereby vacated. The Court orders the following deadlines and trial date in this action: Close of Fact: Expert Disclosure: Deadline to Notice Dispositive Motion: October 8, 2010 December 19, 2010 January 20, 2011 Deadline for Hearing Dispositive Motions: February 25, 2011 Rebuttal Expert Disclosure: Close of Expert Discovery: Pretrial conference: Trial: January 20, 2011 February 18, 2011 March 25, 2011 April, 25, 2011 UNIT ED 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Amended Administrative Motion to Continue Trial CASE NO. C09-03889 CRB THE HONORABLE CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ED S S DISTRICT TE C TA RT U O ER N F D IS T IC T O R 4 A C n:\lit\li2010\090175\00636412.doc LI FO har Judge C les R. B reyer R NIA OO IT IS S RDER NO RT H

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?