Perez et al v. John Muir Health

Filing 65

CORRECTED 64 ORDER Denying 63 MOTION TO FILE EXCESS PAGES. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 3/29/2016. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

MICHAEL D. BRUNO (SBN: 166805)
[e-mail]
HIEU TRAN (SBN: 280585)
[e-mail]
GORDON & REES LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
JOHN MUIR HEALTH
(erroneously sued herein as “John Muir Medical Center”)

8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

MARLENE PEREZ, an individual, and ROSA )
CERISANO, an individual,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
vs.
)
)
JOHN MUIR HEALTH, a California
)
corporation, JOHN MUIR MEDICAL
)
CENTER, an unknown business entity, and
)
DOES 1-20, et al
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

CASE NO. 15-01792 HSG
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO FILE
EXCESS PAGES FOR GOOD CAUSE

Trial Date: July 18, 2016
Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
Complaint Filed: April 21, 2015

21
22
23
24

TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS
OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Local Rule 7-11, Defendant John Muir Health

25

(“Defendant”), through its attorneys of record, hereby moves for Administrative Relief, after

26

having attempted to secure a stipulation from Plaintiffs Marlene Perez and Rosa Cerisano

27

(hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”). Defendant respectfully requests leave to file

28
1
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO FILE EXCESS PAGES FOR GOOD
CAUSE CASE NO. 15-01792 HSG

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

a single consolidated memorandum of law in support of its motion for summary judgment, or in
the alternative motion for summary adjudication, that exceeds the 25 page limit by five pages
based on the good cause set forth below:
Defendant’s deadline to file a dispositive motion is Thursday, March 31, 2016. Dkt. #51.
Northern District Local Rule 7-4(b) expressly limits briefs to 25 pages in length. Under
Local Rule 7-11, however, a party may move for miscellaneous administrative relief, including a
motion “to exceed otherwise applicable page limitations.”
This case involves two plaintiffs, who assert the following six causes of action:
retaliation, wrongful constructive discharge, and discrimination in violation of Title VII, the
ADA, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), and California common law.
Dkt. No. 60. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant unlawfully retaliated against them because
Plaintiffs testified in a sexual harassment action brought by Plaintiffs’ former co-worker, Ms.
Charlotte Reed, against a JMH supervisor, Mr. Charles Griffin. Id. ¶ 1. Plaintiffs worked for
Defendant in two different departments, and premised their claims on various alleged adverse
employment actions, including but not limited to, a “heavy” workload of difficult assignments,
poor performance reviews over a three year period, unwarranted disciplinary actions, ignored
complaints, and constructive discharge. Dkt. No. 60. Plaintiffs claim that they endured unlawful
treatment from at least two different supervisors (Andrea Lovejoy and Shanda Dellner) and
Defendant’s management team (Sara Monahan and Michelle Lopes). Id.
Although Defendant endeavors to keep its consolidated memorandum of law in support
of its motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative motion for summary adjudication,
concise and to the point, Defendant requires five additional pages to adequately provide detailed
factual background necessary to for the court’s analysis. See Declaration of Hieu Tran in
Support of Defendant’s Motion for Administrative Relief [“Tran Decl.”] at ¶8.
On March 22, 2016, Defendant’s counsel contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel (via telephone and
email) proposing that the parties stipulate to a joint request for Defendant to exceed the 25 page
limit on a motion for summary judgment. See Exhibit A to Tran Decl. at ¶4. Defendant’s

28
2
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO FILE EXCESS PAGES FOR GOOD
CAUSE CASE NO. 15-01792 HSG

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

proposal included a joint request for Plaintiffs to exceed the 25 page limit in opposition to
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Id. Defendant prepared a proposed joint stipulation
and included it in the email. Id. Plaintiffs did not respond. Tran Decl. at ¶5.
On March 24, 2016, Defendant’s counsel sent a follow up meet and confer email to
Plaintiffs’ counsel inquiring as to whether Plaintiffs would stipulate to a joint request to exceed
25 page limit. See Exhibit A to Tran Decl. at ¶6. Plaintiffs’ counsel did not respond to
Defendant’s request for stipulation and instead requested to meet and confer over a discovery
dispute the next day, Friday, March 25, 2016. Id.
To date, Defendant has not received a response from Plaintiff regarding its request for
stipulation. Tran Decl. at ¶7.
Accordingly, Defendant respectfully requests an order permitting it to file a consolidated
brief in support of its motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative motion for summary
adjudication, in excess of 5 pages, thus changing the maximum length of the brief from 25 pages
to 30 pages (exclusive of exhibits, attachments, declarations, table of contents, table of

15
authorities, and proof of service).
16
Dated: March 27, 2016

GORDON & REES LLP

17
18

By:

/S/ Hieu Tran
MICHAEL D. BRUNO
HIEU TRAN
Attorneys for Defendant
JOHN MUIR HEALTH

19
20

CORRECTED ORDER

21
22

Having considered the Defendant’s Motion for Administrative Relief to file a a

23

consolidated brief in support of its motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative motion

24

for summary adjudication, in excess of pages is DENIED.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
Dated: 3/29/2016
27

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

28
1099237/27401823v.1

3
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO FILE EXCESS PAGES FOR GOOD
CAUSE CASE NO. 15-01792 HSG