Tom v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company

Filing 111

ORDER RE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT. Signed by Judge Alsup on 1/30/2017. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2017)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

ARLENE TOM,
Plaintiff,

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12
13

No. C 16-01067 WHA

v.
ORDER RE PROPOSED
FINDINGS OF FACT

HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
/

14
15

By FEBRUARY 6 AT NOON, both sides shall file and serve by email proposed findings of

16

fact, each identified by number. Each proposed finding should be concise and limited to one or

17

two or (at most) three lines of text (exclusive of any block quotes from trial exhibits) followed

18

by exact trial record cites fully supporting the proposed finding. The proposals should be at a

19

level of specificity/generality so as to fit within the page limit set forth below. As a rule of

20

thumb, less controverted subjects may be captured in more generalized proposed findings; more

21

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

22

Block quotes and record cites may be single-spaced (and indented) but otherwise the proposals

23

should be double-spaced. Example:

24

1.

25

Gough, the light was red in his direction.

26
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 20 PAGES OR LESS.

The response must state, separately as to each proposed finding, whether the responding party

5

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

By FEBRUARY 9 AT NOON, the opposing side must file and serve by email a response.

4

United States District Court

3

(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

Dated: January 30, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2