Hechavarria v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 87

NOTICE AND ORDER VACATING AND RESETTING HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, AND ORDER RE MOTION PROCEDURES. Previously-noticed hearing date of 10/15/2010 on Defendants' Motion for Sanctions 70 has been reset before Magistrate Judge Ryu for 11/17/2010 at 1:30 PM, Courtroom 4, 3rd Fl., Oakland. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 9/28/2010. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2010)

Download PDF
Hechavarria v. City and County of San Francisco et al Doc. 87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California ROGELIO HECHAVARRIA, Plaintiff, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al. Defendants. _____________________________________/ No. C-10-00525-CRB (DMR) NOTICE AND ORDER VACATING AND RESETTING HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, AND ORDER RE MOTION PROCEDURES 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD: The above matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu for all discovery purposes. Please be advised that the previously-noticed hearing date of October 15, 2010 for Defendants' Motion for Sanctions and Civil Contempt for Plaintiff's Violation of Protective Order ("Motion for Sanctions," see Docket No. 70), which was filed before the District Court prior to this referral, has been VACATED. The hearing on the Motion for Sanctions has been reset to November 17, 2010 at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 4, 3rd Floor, U.S. District Court, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California 94612. The opposition has already been filed; any reply brief must be filed by no later than October 8, 2010. 1. Parties shall comply with the procedures in this order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Northern District of California's Local Rules, General Orders, and General Standing Orders. Local rules, general orders, general standing orders, and a summary of the general Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 orders' electronic filing requirements (including the procedures for emailing proposed orders to chambers) are available at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov (click "Rules" link on left side). The parties' failure to comply with any of the rules or orders may be a ground for sanctions. 2. All filings of documents relating to motions referred to Magistrate Judge Ryu shall list the civil case number and the district court judge's initials followed by the designation "(DMR)." 3. Under Civil L.R. 5-1(b), parties must lodge an extra paper copy of any filing and mark it as a copy for "Chambers." Chambers copies shall be printed on three-hole punch paper (including all exhibits) and submitted to the Oakland Clerk's Office in an envelope clearly marked with the case number,"Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu," and "Chambers Copy." In a case subject to electronic filing, chambers copies must be submitted by the close of the next court day following the day the papers are filed electronically. Any proposed stipulation or proposed order in a case subject to electronic filing shall be submitted by email to dmrpo@cand.uscourts.gov as a word processing format attachment on the same day that the document is e-filed. This address is to be used only for proposed orders unless otherwise directed by the Court. 4. Parties may not file documents or portions of documents under seal without first 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 obtaining a written Court order. Parties seeking to file documents or portions of documents under seal must fully comply with Civil L.R. 79-5. UNIT ED ISTRIC ES D TC AT T RT U O S IT IS SO ORDERED. RN DONNA M. RYU F C UniteD I S T R IMagistrate Judge d States C T O E 2 A LI FO Dated: September 28, 2010 on Judge D yu na M. R R NIA O IT IS S ED ORDER 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?