A&C Catalysts, Inc. v. Raymat Materials, Inc.

Filing 91

ORDER REGARDING FORMAT OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AFTER BENCH TRIAL. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 17, 2014. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

A&C CATALYSTS, INC.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,

No. C 14-04122 WHA

v.
RAYMAT MATERIALS, INC.,

ORDER REGARDING FORMAT
OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF
FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW AFTER BENCH TRIAL

Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff.

14

/

15
16

By DECEMBER 23, 2014 AT NOON, both sides shall file and serve by email proposed

17

findings of fact, each identified by number. Each proposed finding should be concise and

18

limited to one or two or (at most) three lines of text (exclusive of any block quotes from trial

19

exhibits) followed by exact trial record cites fully supporting the proposed finding. The

20

proposals should be at a level of specificity/generality so as to fit within the page limit set forth

21

below. As a rule of thumb, less controverted subjects may be captured in more generalized

22

proposed findings; more controversial subjects, however, usually require greater specificity and

23

more proposed findings. Block quotes and record cites may be single-spaced (and indented) but

24

otherwise the proposals 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 TEN PAGES OR LESS.

3

By DECEMBER 29 AT NOON, the opposing side must file and serve by email a response.

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

The 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: December 17, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2