Neuroth et al v. Mendocino County et al

Filing 322

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND THE PAGE LIMIT FOR COUNTY DEFENDANTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, AND WITHDRAWAL OF RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 7/16/18. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/16/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Anne L. Keck, SBN 136315
KECK LAW OFFICES
418 B Street, Suite 206
Santa Rosa, California 95401
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

John W. Patton, Jr., Pro Hac Vice
Stephen R. Niemeyer, SBN 203162
Kathleen M. Kunkle, SBN 222800
Kathryn R. Vaughan, Pro Hac Vice
PATTON & RYAN LLC
330 North Wabash Ave., Suite 3800
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Emails: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Attorneys for Defendants the
County of Mendocino and
Mendocino County SheriffCoroner Thomas Allman,
Capt. Timothy Pearce, Lorrie Knapp,
Frank Masterson, Craig Bernardi,
Michael Grant, Jeanette Holum,
Robert Page, & Christine De Los Santos

9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
JAMES NEUROTH, et al.,
Case No. 3:15-CV-03226-RS

12
Plaintiffs,

STIPULATION FOR ORDER TO
EXTEND THE PAGE LIMIT FOR
COUNTY DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN
SUPPORT OF THEIR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT MOTION, AND
WITHDRAWAL OF RELATED
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION;
[PROPOSED] ORDER

13
v.
14
MENDOCINO COUNTY, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18

This Stipulation is submitted on behalf of Plaintiff James Neuroth (“Plaintiff”) and

19
20

Defendants the County of Mendocino, Mendocino County Sheriff Thomas Allman, Sheriff’s Captain

21

Timothy Pearce, and current/former Sheriff’s Deputies Lorrie Knapp, Frank Masterson, Craig

22

Bernardi, Michael Grant, Jeanette Holum, Robert Page, and Christine De Los Santos (collectively,

23

“County Defendants”). Through this Stipulation, County Defendants request the Court to enter an

24

order extending the page limit for their Reply brief in support of their Motion for Summary

25

Judgment by 5 pages, from the 15 pages as allowed under Local Rule 7-4(b) to a total of 20 pages.

26

Plaintiff has no objection to this request, and the parties believe that good cause supports the

27

requested order, as set forth below.

28

///
Stipulation for Order to Extend the Page Limit
for County Defendants’ Reply, etc.

U.S.D.C. No. 3:15-cv-03226-RS
1

1
2

RECITALS
A.

On May 24, 2018, County Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment

3

[Dkt. No. 265] on behalf of ten separate defendants, seeking summary judgment on seven causes of

4

action (including about seventeen different sub-claims) Plaintiff asserted against them in his Fourth

5

Amended Complaint. Pursuant to this Court’s order of May 7, 2018 [Dkt. No. 253], the

6

memorandum of points and authorities in support of that motion was 35 pages long.

7

B.

On July 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed his combined Opposition to all motions for summary

8

judgment, including County Defendants’, under seal and in connection with his Administrative

9

Motion to File Documents Under Seal, et al. (Dkt. No. 304.) Also pursuant to this Court’s order of

10

May 7, 2018 [Dkt. No. 253], the memorandum of points and authorities in support of Plaintiff’s

11

Opposition was 80 pages long.

12

C.

County Defendants’ Reply in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment is due

13

to be filed on July 19, 2018. (See Dkt. No. 249.) County Defendants have informed Plaintiff that,

14

given the sheer number of issues and the volumes of arguments Plaintiff submitted in his Opposition,

15

County Defendants have determined that they need an extension of their Reply brief to 20 pages to

16

adequately respond. Specifically, County Defendants believe that the normal 15-page limit simply

17

does not provide them with sufficient space to explain their arguments and evidentiary objections,

18

and conforming to that limit will prevent them from fully presenting the necessary issues to the

19

Court. County Defendants submit that while a 20-page Reply brief will still be a tight fit for all of

20

the issues they must address therein, they will work to ensure arguments are clear and succinct.

21

D.

On July 13, 2018, County Defendants filed a Motion for Administrative Relief

22

requesting the 20-page extension for their Reply brief. (Dkt. No. 320.) In light of Plaintiff’s

23

agreement to stipulate to that relief, County Defendants hereby withdraw that Administrative

24

Motion.

25
26

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff and County Defendants, through their respective counsel,
stipulate and agree as follows:

27
28
Stipulation for Order to Extend the Page Limit
for County Defendants’ Reply, etc.

U.S.D.C. No. 3:15-cv-03226-RS
2

1
2
3
4

AGREEMENT
1.

The parties request entry of an order extending the page limit for County Defendants’

Reply brief in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment to 20 pages.
2.

In light of this stipulation, County Defendants withdraw their Motion for

5

Administrative Relief to Extend Page Limit of Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary

6

judgment. (Dkt. No. 320.)

7

3.

Nothing in this Stipulation and request for order is intended to modify the other

8

matters addressed in any Court order unless expressly identified herein, nor does it preclude the

9

parties from seeking additional relief from this Court.

10

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

11
12

Keck Law Offices

13

/s/ Anne L. Keck
Anne L. Keck
Attorneys for County Defendants

14

Haddad & Sherwin LLP

15

Dated: July 13, 2018

Dated: July 13, 2018

By:

By:

/s/ Michael J. Haddad
Michael J. Haddad
Attorneys for Plaintiff

16
17
18

* Approval in the filing of this document has been obtained from all signatories.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Stipulation for Order to Extend the Page Limit
for County Defendants’ Reply, etc.

U.S.D.C. No. 3:15-cv-03226-RS
3

1
ORDER
2

The parties’ foregoing stipulation is approved, and with good cause appearing therefor,

3
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
4
1.

The page limit for County Defendants’ Reply brief in support of their Motion for

5
Summary Judgment shall be extended to 20 pages.
6
2.

County Defendants’ Motion for Administrative Relief to Extend Page Limit of Reply

7
Brief in Support of Motion for Summary judgment [Dkt. No. 320] is hereby deemed withdrawn.
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
10

Date: _____________
7/16/18

____________________________________
HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Court Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Stipulation for Order to Extend the Page Limit
for County Defendants’ Reply, etc.

U.S.D.C. No. 3:15-cv-03226-RS
4