Byrd et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 95

ORDER Re Statement of Undisputed Material Facts. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 12/28/2012. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/28/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
JESSE J. BYRD, et al.,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiffs,

No. C 11-01742 DMR
ORDER RE STATEMENT OF
UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

v.
SF CITY & COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/

17
18
This court’s Standing Order regarding motions for summary judgment requires the parties to
19
file a joint statement of the material facts not in dispute by citations to admissible evidence. On
20
November 20, 2012, Defendants filed a motion requesting an extension of the filing deadline for
21
their forthcoming motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, leave to file a separate
22
statement of undisputed facts. [Docket No. 70.] Defendants’ request was based upon their
23
representation that due to delays caused by Plaintiffs there had been insufficient time for the parties
24
to meet and confer regarding a joint statement. By order that day, the court denied the request to
25
continue the filing deadline for the motion and granted Defendants leave to file a separate statement
26
of undisputed material facts with their motion. However, the court also ordered the parties to file a
27
28

1

joint statement of undisputed material facts by no later than the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their

2

opposition to Defendants’ motion. [Docket No. 71.]

3

Defendants filed their motion for partial summary judgment on November 21, 2012, along

4

with a separate statement of undisputed material facts. [Docket Nos. 72, 73 (“Defendants’

5

Statement of Facts”).] On December 5, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion [Docket

6

No. 86] but the parties did not file a joint statement of undisputed material facts, in violation of the

7

court’s November 20 order. On December 6, 2012, Defendants filed a declaration in which they

8

represented that the parties had not finished meeting and conferring regarding the joint statement,

9

despite the court’s December 5, 2012 deadline to file the statement. [Docket No. 87.] On December
11, 2012, Defendants filed an additional declaration regarding the parties’ meet and confer efforts

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

regarding the joint statement. [Docket No. 89.] Defendants attached an exhibit to the declaration

12

that counsel represented was a draft joint statement containing 19 facts upon which the parties had

13

reached agreement, but which Plaintiffs’ counsel had refused to permit Defendants to file based

14

upon a dispute as to the materiality of one fact. [Docket 98-2 (“Draft Joint Statement of Facts”).]

15

The parties are in direct violation of the court’s November 20, 2012 order and still have not

16

submitted a joint statement of undisputed material facts as required by this court’s Standing

17

Order and the November 20 order. The court has reviewed the parties’ motion papers as well as

18

Defendants’ Statement of Facts and the Draft Joint Statement of Facts. Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’

19

dispute as to the materiality of the facts, it appears that Plaintiffs are not disputing Defendants’

20

Statement of Facts nos. 1-9, 12-14, 17-34, and 37-51, as they did not submit any evidence to dispute

21

those facts. With respect to the Draft Joint Statement of Facts, it appears that the parties reached

22

agreement regarding facts 1-5 and 7-20. As to fact 6, it appears that the fact is undisputed, but that

23

the parties disagree as to whether the fact is material. The court will determine the materiality of

24

facts. Accordingly, the court will consider the following facts undisputed for purposes of

25

Defendants’ motion, unless either party submits an objection, with citations to admissible evidence,

26

by no later than December 31, 2012: Defendants’ Statement of Facts 1-9, 12-14, 17-34, 37-51, and

27

Draft Joint Statement of Facts 1-20.

28

2

the parties for their failure to comply with Standing Order and the November 20, 2012 order.

3

7

DONNA M. RYU
Ryu
United StatesDonna M.Judge
Magistrate
e

NO

8

RT

10
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

ER

H

9

Judg

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

R NIA

Dated: December 28, 2012

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

FO

6

UNIT
ED

5

S

IT IS SO ORDERED.

RT
U
O

4

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

LI

2

The court will take under submission the issue of whether sanctions should be imposed on

A

1

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C