Guerrero v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation et al

Filing 242

ORDER REGARDING FORMAT OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AFTER BENCH TRIAL. Signed by Judge Alsup on 6/22/2015. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 VICTOR GUERRERO, 9 Plaintiff, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 No. C 13-05671 WHA v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; STATE PERSONNEL BOARD; et al., ORDER REGARDING FORMAT OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AFTER BENCH TRIAL Defendants. 14 / 15 16 By JUNE 26, 2015 AT NOON, all sides shall file and serve by email proposed findings of 17 fact, each identified by number. Each proposed finding should be concise and limited to one or 18 two or (at most) three lines of text (exclusive of any block quotes from trial exhibits) followed 19 by exact trial record cites fully supporting the proposed finding. The proposals should be at a 20 level of specificity/generality so as to fit within the page limit set forth below. As a rule of 21 thumb, less controverted subjects may be captured in more generalized proposed findings; more 22 controversial subjects, however, usually require greater specificity and more proposed findings. 23 Block quotes and record cites may be single-spaced (and indented) but otherwise the proposals 24 should be double-spaced. Example: 25 1. 26 Gough, the light was red in his direction. 27 28 When defendant went through the intersection of Hayes and Jones at RT 97:1–3 Young at RT 15:11–12 The same submission should also set forth each proposed conclusion of law. Each proposed conclusion of law must briefly identify the proposed findings of fact supporting the 1 conclusion and the legal authority therefor (quoting the key language of said authority). The 2 overall length of the submission must be TWENTY-FIVE PAGES OR LESS. 3 By JULY 13 AT NOON, the opposing side must file and serve by email a response. The agrees with the proposed finding and if not in full agreement, then the full extent to which, 6 considering the duty of good faith and candor, the responding party admits the proposed 7 finding. To the extent that the responding side objects in any respect to the proposed finding, it 8 must state (i) the extent to which the opposition is based on a failure of the record cites to 9 support the proposal (explaining why they do not support it) and (ii) the extent to which the 10 objection is based on contrary evidence (citing the contrary evidence) or lack of credibility 11 For the Northern District of California response must state, separately as to each proposed finding, whether the responding party 5 United States District Court 4 (citing relevant evidence). Example: 12 1. Agree that the light was red but the light had just changed a 13 split second before. Mack RT 42:17–18 14 15 The submission shall similarly state the extent to which the responding party agrees with 16 each conclusion of law proposed by the other side. If there is any disagreement, the responding 17 side must state (i) the extent to which the disagreement is based on a failure of the supporting 18 findings, (ii) the extent to which the disagreement is based on a failure of the cited authorities to 19 support the conclusion, and (iii) the extent to which contrary authorities contradict the legal 20 basis for the proposed conclusion. 21 The responding submission should reproduce each original finding or conclusion and 22 then, immediately after each, supply the responsive information. It may not exceed twice the 23 overall number of pages used by the submission to which it responds. 24 Please do not ask for an extension. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 28 Dated: June 22, 2015. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?