Delconte v. County of Santa Clara et al

Filing 24

ORDER granting 23 MOTION for Extension of Time. Motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion to be filed by 10/12/2016. Plaintiff's opposition to this motion, if any, shall be filed forty-five days after Defendants' motion has been filed. Defendant's reply, if any, shall be filed within thirty days after the opposition has been filed. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 07/07/2015. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

ORRY P. KORB, County Counsel (S.B. #114399)
DAVID M. ROLLO, Deputy County Counsel (S.B. #111998)
MEGHAN F. LOISEL, Deputy County Counsel (S.B. #291400)
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL
70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, Ninth Floor
San Jose, California 95110-1770
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, SHERIFF
LAURIE SMITH, JOHN HIROKAWA, and
MARYANN BARRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
(SAN FRANCISCO)

8
9
10
11

CARLO ANTONIO DELCONTE,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,

15

No. 14-CV-5334 WHO
DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR A
MODIFICATION OF THE BRIEFING
SCHEDULE; DECLARATION OF DAVID
M. ROLLO; ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

COMES NOW Defendants the County of Santa Clara, Sheriff Laurie Smith, John Hirokawa,

18

and Maryann Barry who request a modification of the Order Denying Motion to Transfer; Setting

19

Briefing Schedule; Instructions to Parties (Dkt. No. 9) as follows:

20

PENDING ORDER

21

On or before July 13, 2015, defendants shall
file a dispositive motion, or notice regarding
22 such motion, regarding the claims raised in
the complaint.
23
24

PROPOSED ORDER
On or before October 12, 2015, defendants
shall file a dispositive motion, or notice
regarding such motion, regarding the claims
raised in the complaint.

Good cause exists for this motion. Plaintiff Carlo Delconte has made wide-reaching

25

allegations about County practices and his experiences while incarcerated; and Defendants need

26

more time to investigate these claims. Plaintiff raises five separate causes of action, including

27

constitutional claims, federal statutory claims, and state common law claims. Dkt. No. 1 at 7-14. He

28

names both the County and individual employees as defendants. Id. at 3-4. And his claims are
1

Defendants’ Request for a Modification of the Briefing Schedule;
Declaration of David M. Rollo; Order

14-CV-5334 WHO

1

based on three separate allegations: that another inmate attacked him, that he was placed in a holding

2

cell with the inmate who attacked him, and that he was released without necessary medication. Id. at

3

47.

4

Additionally, the Deputy County Counsel assigned to this case has had other legal deadlines

5

that prevented him from preparing a motion for summary judgment by July 13, 2015. See

6

Declaration of David Rollo Decl. at ¶¶2-5. Finally, this is Defendants’ first request for an extension

7

of time. Id. at ¶9.

8
9
10

For the reasons stated above, Defendants respectfully request that the Court modify its order
to grant a 90-day extension.
Respectfully submitted,

Dated: July 1, 2015

11

ORRY P. KORB
County Counsel

12
13
14

By:

15

/S/
DAVID M. ROLLO
Deputy County Counsel
Attorneys for Defendants
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, SHERIFF
LAURIE SMITH, JOHN HIROKAWA, and
MARYANN BARRY

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Defendants’ Request for a Modification of the Briefing Schedule;
Declaration of David M. Rollo; Order

14-CV-5334 WHO

1
2

DECLARATION OF DAVD M. ROLLO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST FOR A MODIFICATION OF THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE

3

I, David M. Rollo, declare as follows:

4

1. I am employed as a Deputy County Counsel for the County of Santa Clara and am

5

licensed to practice law before this court and all courts of the State of California. I am attorney of

6

record for Defendants herein.

7
8
9

2. On or about April 22, 2015, this case was transferred to me from another Deputy County
Counsel and I filed a Notice of Appearance on May 8, 2015.
3. Since that time, I have had limited time to review the pleadings and respond to various

10

outstanding discovery requests served by plaintiff. I am still in the process of determining the merits

11

and issues with regard to filing a summary judgment motion.

12

4. I have been assigned four other new matters during the May-June period in addition to

13

my pre-existing case load. In three of those matters, over 15 separate motions have been filed and I

14

prepared responses over the past thirty days.

15
16
17
18
19

5. I have been busy with discovery requests and the preparation of responses in other
matters as well during this period.
5. In addition to my normal workload I had previously scheduled vacation dates on from
May 22 through May 26, and from July 3 to July 12.
6. I will need approximately ninety more days from the originally scheduled date to review

20

plaintiff’s pleadings and evidence, the applicable case authority, any other available evidence; to

21

make a reasoned decision on the propriety of a summary judgment motion; and to prepare a motion.

22

9. In light of these scheduling issues, Defendants respectfully request that the scheduling

23

order be modified and that the date for Defendants to file their dispositive motion be extended to

24

October 12, 2015. There have been no other requests for modification of the briefing schedule by

25

Defendants.

26
27

I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct, and I executed this
Declaration on July 1, 2015 at San Jose, California.
By:

28

3

Defendants’ Request for a Modification of the Briefing Schedule;
Declaration of David M. Rollo; [Proposed] Order

/s/
DAVID M. ROLLO
14-CV-5334 WHO

ORDER

1
2
3
4

The Court has considered the Defendant’s request to modify the briefing schedule and makes
the following modification:
Defendant shall have until October 12, 2015 to file a motion for summary judgment or other

5

dispositive motion. Plaintiff’s opposition to this motion, if any, shall be filed forty-five days after

6

Defendants’ motion has been filed. Defendant’s reply, if any, shall be filed within thirty days after

7

the opposition has been filed. No other aspect of the Order Denying Motion to Transfer; Setting

8

Briefing Schedule; Instructions to Parties (Dkt. No. 9) is amended or modified.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

Dated: July 7, 2015

By:
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Court Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

Defendants’ Request for a Modification of the Briefing Schedule;
Declaration of David M. Rollo; Order

14-CV-5334 WHO