Tobin v. City & County of San Francisco Police Department et al

Filing 25

AMENDED ORDER: Setting deadline for filing dispositive motions for 4/24/14; hearing date for dispositive motions for 5/29/2014. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 1/6/2014. (mejlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669
City Attorney
ELIZABETH SALVESON, State Bar #83788
Chief Labor Attorney
RAFAL OFIERSKI, State Bar #194798
Deputy City Attorney
Fox Plaza
1390 Market Street, Fifth Floor
San Francisco, California 94102-5408
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
E-Mail:
[e-mail]

7
8

Attorneys for Defendants
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL.

9
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

PATRICK J. TOBIN,

14

Plaintiff,

15

vs.

16
17
18

Case No. C 13-01504 MEJ
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO’S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM CASE
MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE; [PROPOSED]
ORDER Amended Order

CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
POLICE DEPARTMENT, POLICE CHIEF
GREGORY P. SUHR, JOHN MURPHY,
KEVIN CASHMAN, Deputy Chief JAMES
DUDLEY, and DOES 1-40,
Defendants.

19
20
21

Defendants City and County of San Francisco, Gregory Suhr, John Murphy, Kevin Cashman

22
23

and James Dudley (collectively “the City”) respectfully move, under Local Rule 7-11, for an order

24

modifying the initial case management order, which the Court issued on July 8, 2013 (Docket No. 10).

25

I.

THE REQUESTED RELIEF

26

The City seeks extensions of the discovery cut-off and the deadline for hearing dispositive

27

motions. The discovery cut-off is now January 28, and the dispositive motion hearing deadline is

28

February 27, 2014. The City seeks extensions of the discovery cut-off to March 28 (59-day extension)
Case No. C 13-01504 MEJ

1

1

and the motion hearing deadline to April 25, 2014 (57-day extension). The City does not seek a

2

continuance of the current trial date of August 18, 2014.

3

II.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES SUPPORTING THE REQUEST

4

The City seeks the extensions for two reasons.

5

First, the City will require additional time to obtain discovery from Plaintiff, and most likely

6

will need the Court’s intervention in that regard. The City anticipated completing discovery in

7

December 2013 and preparing a motion for summary adjudication in early January 2014. (R. Ofierski

8

Dec. ¶ 2 (concurrently filed).) However, despite repeated requests, Plaintiff did not produce his initial

9

disclosures until November 18, or nearly five months after they were due. (Id.) Plaintiff also failed to

10

respond at all to interrogatories the City served on October 11. When the City first inquired about the

11

responses, Plaintiff claimed that he had never received the interrogatories. The City then re-served the

12

interrogatories on November 18, and requested that Plaintiff provide his responses by December 9.

13

On December 12, having received nothing, the City informed Plaintiff that if he did not provide the

14

responses by December 20, or more than a month they were first due, the City will have to ask the

15

Court to intervene. As of the date of this filing, Plaintiff did not even acknowledge the City’s

16

communications. (Id.) Given Plaintiff’s complete non-responsiveness and the likelihood that the City

17

will require the Court’s assistance in obtaining complete and meaningful interrogatory responses, the

18

City likely will require an additional period of about 60 days to complete its discovery.

19

Second, in the past 30 days the City’s counsel has had to devote a substantial amount of time to

20

significant, unanticipated and unavoidable work commitments, including: (1) preparing for a

21

December 4 oral argument in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Ambat v. CCSF, a complex case

22

concerning City jail staffing policies; and (2) preparing a response to an unfair labor practice charge,

23

filed by two City employee unions on November 21 with the California Public Employment Relations

24

Board, which presents complex legal issues concerning the City’s collective bargaining obligations.

25

(R. Ofierski Dec. ¶ 3.) The unanticipated workload has greatly limited the amount of time available

26

to the City’s counsel to work on compelling Plaintiff to respond to discovery, preparing for Plaintiff’s

27

deposition, and drafting the City’s motion for summary adjudication. (Id.)

28
Case No. C 13-01504 MEJ

2

1

III.

THE CITY’S REQUEST FOR STIPULATION
In its last communication regarding the overdue interrogatory responses, the City asked

2
3

Plaintiff to stipulate to a 60-day extension of the dispositive motion hearing deadline, based on the

4

mutual need to complete discovery. The City believes that Plaintiff likewise will require additional

5

time to do so, since to date he has not sought any discovery from the City, and it is unlikely that all

6

such discovery could be commenced and completed within the approximately month (excluding the

7

holidays) that remains under the initial case management order. (R. Ofierski Dec. ¶ 2.) The City

8

asked Plaintiff to respond by end of the following day, December 13. As of the date of this filing. the

9

City has received no response from Plaintiff. (Id.)

10
11

IV.

CONCLUSION
The City respectfully requests that the Court modify the initial case management order as

12

requested by the City, based on the City’s need for additional time to obtain discovery from Plaintiff

13

and prepare the City’s motion for summary adjudication.

14
15
16

Dated: December 16, 2013

17
18
19

DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney
ELIZABETH S. SALVESON
Chief Labor Attorney
RAFAL OFIERSKI
Deputy City Attorney
By:
/s/ Rafal Ofierski
RAFAL OFIERSKI

20

Attorneys for Defendants
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. C 13-01504 MEJ

3

Amended
[PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2

Defendants City and County of San Francisco, Gregory Suhr, John Murphy, Kevin Cashman

3

and James Dudley filed a motion for an order modifying the Court’s initial case management order.

4

Good cause appearing, the Court hereby grants the motion. Accordingly, the case management order

5

is modified as follows:

6

(1)

7

(2)

The discovery cut-off is extended from January 28 to March 28, 2014; and
24
filing
The deadline for hearing dispositive motions is extended from February 27 to April 25,
2014.

8

The hearing date for dispositive motions is set for May 29, 2014.

SO ORDERED.

9
10
11

Dated: _______________________
1/6/2014

12

_______________________________
MARIA ELENA JAMES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Dated:

DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney
ELIZABETH S. SALVESON
Chief Labor Attorney
RAFAL OFIERSKI
Deputy City Attorney

22
23
24
25
By:

26
27

/s/ Rafal Ofierski
RAFAL OFIERSKI
Attorneys for Defendants
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

28
Case No. C 13-01504 MEJ

4

GREGORY P. SUHR, KEVIN CASHMAN,
JAMES DUDLEY AND JOHN MURPHY

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
Case No. C 13-01504 MEJ

5