Buster v. Mechanics Bank Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan et al

Filing 128

ORDER RE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT. Signed by Judge Alsup on 5/24/2017. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 STEVEN K. BUSTER, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 No. C 16-01146 WHA v. ORDER RE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT MECHANICS BANK, et al., Defendants. / 15 16 By JUNE 1 AT NOON, each side shall file and serve by email proposed findings of fact. 17 Each proposed finding should be concise, identified by number, and limited to one or two or (at 18 most) three lines of text (exclusive of any block quotes from trial exhibits) followed by exact 19 trial record cites fully supporting the proposed finding. The proposals should be at a level of 20 specificity or generality so as to fit within the page limit set forth below. As a rule of thumb, 21 less controverted subjects may be captured in more generalized proposed findings; more 22 controversial subjects, however, usually require greater specificity and more proposed findings. 23 Block quotes and record cites may be single-spaced (and indented) but otherwise the proposals 24 should be double-spaced. For 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 1 The same submission should also set forth proposed conclusions of law. Each proposed 2 conclusion of law must briefly identify the proposed findings of fact supporting the conclusion 3 and the legal authority therefor (quoting the key language of said authority). The overall length 4 of the submission must be 30 PAGES OR LESS. 5 By JUNE 5 AT NOON, the opposing side must file and serve by email a response that full agreement, then the full extent to which, considering the duty of good faith and candor, the 8 responding party admits the proposed finding. To the extent that the responding side objects in 9 any respect to the proposed finding, it must state (i) the extent to which the opposition is based 10 on a failure of the record cites to support the proposal (explaining why they do not support it) 11 For the Northern District of California states, separately as to each proposed finding, whether the responding party agrees and if not in 7 United States District Court 6 and (ii) the extent to which the objection is based on contrary evidence (citing the contrary 12 evidence) or lack of credibility (citing relevant evidence). For example: 13 1. 14 split second before. 15 Agree that the light was red but the light had just changed a Mack RT 42:17–18 16 The submission shall similarly state the extent to which the responding party agrees with 17 each conclusion of law proposed by the other side. If there is any disagreement, the responding 18 side must state (i) the extent to which the disagreement is based on a failure of the supporting 19 findings, (ii) the extent to which the disagreement is based on a failure of the cited authorities to 20 support the conclusion, and (iii) the extent to which contrary authorities contradict the legal 21 basis for the proposed conclusion. The responding submission should reproduce each original 22 finding or conclusion and then, immediately after each, supply the responsive information. It 23 may not exceed twice the 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: May 24, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?