Watson et al v. County of Santa Clara et al

Filing 576

ORDER re further briefing on 535 MOTION for Attorney Fees (permitting defendants to respond to plaintiffs' itemization of services) (rmwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2013)

1
2
3

E-filed on:

8/29/13

4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12

TRACY WATSON, et al.,

13
14

Plaintiffs,

No. C-06-04029 RMW
ORDER RE FURTHER BRIEFING ON
ATTORNEYS’ FEES

v.
[Re: Dkt. No. 535

15
16

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18
19

In reviewing the briefing submitted by the parties with respect to the motion for attorneys’

20

fees sought by plaintiffs from defendant City of San Jose police officers William Hoyt and Craig

21

Blank, the court notes that defendants may not have had the opportunity to respond to the

22

itemization of services filed by plaintiffs and required by Civil Local Rule 54-5. The itemization

23

was filed on November 1, 2012 (Dkt. No. 544) which was the same date that the officers’ opposition

24

was filed (Dkt. No. 543). If the defendants wish to respond to plaintiffs’ itemization of services,

25

they must file their response on or before September 12, 2013. If defendants do respond, any reply

26

by plaintiffs must be filed by September 19, 2013.

27
28
ORDER RE ATTORNEYS’ FEES
No. C-06-04029 RMW
AG

1

DATED:

August 29, 2013

2
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER RE ATTORNEYS’ FEES
No. C-06-04029 RMW
AG

2