Sizemore v. Pacific Gas & Electric Retirement Plan et al

Filing 49

ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER BRIEFING by Hon. William Alsup granting in part and denying in part 47 Motion document.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

No. C 13-00169 WHA

RUBEN SIZEMORE,
Plaintiff,

ORDER REQUESTING
FURTHER BRIEFING

v.

16

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
RETIREMENT PLAN and EMPLOYEE
BENEFIT COMMITTEE OF THE
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
RETIREMENT PLAN,

17

Defendants.

15

18
19

/
At a hearing on defendants’ motion for summary judgment, plaintiff contended for the

20

first time that the standard of review should be de novo due to an improper delegation of

21

authority by a member of the PG&E appeals committee, Mr. Hyun Park, to another PG&E

22

employee, Mr. Sanford Hartman. A subsequent order granted defendants’ administrative motion

23

for supplemental briefing on this issue. In connection with this supplemental briefing,

24

defendants produced new documents to plaintiff.

25

Contrary to what was said at the hearing, plaintiff now concedes that his argument

26

regarding Mr. Hartman was incorrect (Dkt. No. 45 at 1). Based on the newly-produced

27

documents, however, plaintiff raises another new argument regarding the standard of review.

28

Plaintiff now argues that Mr. Park was not properly serving on the appeals committee, and
therefore had no authority to delegate to Mr. Hartman.

1

Plaintiff complains that defendants have once again failed to produce a relevant

2

document necessary to analyze this new issue: a June 21, 2006 resolution. Because there has

3

not yet been any formal discovery in this matter, the basis for plaintiff’s complaint is that

4

defendants failed to identify this document in their initial or supplemental disclosures. Plaintiff,

5

however, refused to stipulate to allowing the 2006 resolution into the record.

6

Defendants argue that the 2006 resolution establishes that Mr. Park was in fact a proper

7

member of the appeals committee and have filed an administrative motion to add the 2006

8

resolution to the record. Defendants explain that they failed to produce the document because its

9

substance was referenced in a footnote of another document already in the record, and up until
plaintiff’s most recent submission, defendants “did not see the need for further authentication of

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

the June 21, 2006 Resolution” (Dkt. No. 47 at 2).

12

Defendants’ request to submit the 2006 resolution is GRANTED. Defendants shall submit

13

the 2006 resolution, a declaration authenticating it, and up to two pages of argument relating to

14

the 2006 resolution by JUNE 18 AT NOON. Plaintiff may file a response not to exceed four pages

15

by JUNE 20 AT NOON. At this point, the summary judgment briefing will be closed; no new

16

arguments will be permitted.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: June 17, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2