Nalducci v. Secretary of the Army et al

Filing 91

BRIEFING ORDER: That by no later than 05/18/09, Plaintiff may file a surreply re 89 Supplemental Declaration in Support. The motion hearing set for 05/19/09 is VACATED. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 5/12/09. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2009) Modified on 5/14/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 ROBERT NALDUCCI, 7 8 vs. Plaintiff, Case No: CV 06-7702 SBA ORDER RE FURTHER BRIEFING UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION 9 PETER GEREN, Secretary of the Army, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: May 12, 2009 ____________________________ Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong United States District Judge Defendant's motion for summary judgment currently is set for hearing for May 19, 2009. On May 8, 2009, Defendant filed a Supplemental Declaration of Melissa K. Brown in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. (See L.R. 7-3(d) (reply papers due at least 14 days prior to the hearing date).) In the supplemental declaration, Defendant makes additional arguments in support of his summary judgment motion based on the deposition of Dr. Lennart Suther, which was taken on May 4, 2009. In fairness to Plaintiff, the Court will allow Plaintiff to file a surreply that addresses only the issues raised in the supplemental declaration. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT by no later than May 18, 2009, Plaintiff may file a surreply, no longer than two pages, that addresses the issues presented in Defendant's supplemental declaration (Docket 89). The motion hearing scheduled for May 19, 2009 is VACATED. The Court will notify the parties in the event argument on the motion is necessary. However, the Court, pursuant to its discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b), may resolve the motion based on the papers submitted. Defendant.

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?