Pryor v. City of Clearlake et al

Filing 49

ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on December 7, 2011. (cwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2011)

1
2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

SEAN PRYOR,

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF CLEARLAKE, a governmental
entity; CARL MILLER,
individually, and in his capacity
as a police officer for the City
of Clearlake and acting sergeant;
ALAN WADE McCLAIN, individually
and in his capacity as Chief of
Police for the City of Clearlake;
CRAIG CLAUSEN, individually and
in his capacity as Police
Lieutenant for the City of
Clearlake; MICHAEL RAY,
individually, and in his capacity
as a police officer for the City
of Clearlake; and DOES 1-50,
individually, and in their
capacity as police officers for
the City of Clearlake,

No. C 11-0954 CW
ORDER GRANTING IN
PART DEFENDANTS'
REQUEST FOR
CLARIFICATION
(Docket No. 48)

Defendants.
________________________________/

19
20

The Court has received Defendants' December 6, 2011 letter

21

requesting clarification of the Court's November 21, 2011 order

22

granting the ex parte Application of Defendants Carl Miller,

23

Michael Ray, Craig Clausen and Allan Wade McClain to Exceed Page

24

Limit on Consolidated Motion for Summary Adjudication.1

25

Defendants are advised that normally requests for
clarification are submitted pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11, in
the form of a motion for administrative relief. However, given
the approaching deadline, the Court will consider Defendants'
request.

26
27
28

1

The June

1

9, 2011 case management order was intended to require that all

2

issues on behalf of all Defendants be contained in one motion of

3

twenty-five pages or less.

4

the first footnote in the November 21, 2011 application, in which

5

Defendants' intention to file two motions is evident, and thus did

6

not correct Defendants' misunderstanding.

7

Unfortunately, the Court overlooked

Accordingly, the Court clarifies that all Defendants in this

8

action shall file a single joint motion for summary judgment on or

9

before December 12, 2011.

The Court will allow up to fifty pages

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

for this motion if necessary.

11

the number of pages in Defendants' brief, shall be filed on or

12

before December 20, 2011.

13

brief on or before December 27, 2011.

14

set for January 12, 2012.

15

The opposition brief, not to exceed

Defendants may file a twenty page reply
A hearing on the motion is

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Dated: December 7, 2011

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2