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)

Download PDF
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

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?