Reyes et al v. Horel et al

Filing 126

STIPULATION AND ORDER 123 Continuing: 1. Deadline to Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment; and 2. Related Deadlines. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh for Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 1/24/12. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2012)

1 BRUCE L. SIMON (Bar No. 96241)
[e-mail]
2 WILLIAM J. NEWSOM (Bar No. 267643)
[e-mail]
3 PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW & PENNY, LLP
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
4 San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone: [phone]
5 Facsimile: [phone]
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff
REUBEN JOSEPH REYES
7
KAMALA D. HARRIS
8 Attorney General of California
JAY C. RUSSELL
9 Supervising Deputy Attorney General
MICHAEL J. QUINN
10 Deputy Attorney General
State Bar No. 209542
11 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
12 Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
13 E-mail: [e-mail]
14 Attorneys for Defendants
FISCHER, HARRISON, HOREL, TERRY, CHADWICK, and BERKLER
15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

18
19 REUBEN JOSEPH REYES,
Plaintiff,

20
vs.

21

22 ROBERT A. HOREL, et al.,
Defendants.

23
24

CASE NO. C 08-4561 RMW (PR)
STIPULATION AND []
ORDER CONTINUING:
1. DEADLINE TO REPLY TO
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS' RENEWED MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND
2. RELATED DEADLINES
[Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12]

25

Honorable Ronald M. Whyte

26
27
28
835991.1

C 08-4561 RMW (PR)

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER CONTINUING DEADLINE TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

1.

The following stipulation requests that the deadline for filing a reply to

2 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, currently set for
3 January 17, 2012, be extended by two days to January 19, 2012, and that all related deadlines be
4 continued accordingly.
5
STIPULATION
Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, Plaintiff Reuben Reyes and Defendants

6
7
8

Horel, Terry, Chadwick, Harrison, Fischer, and Berkler, by and through their respective counsel,

9

stipulate and request as follows:

10
1.

11

WHEREAS, on January 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to

12

Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 120), setting the deadline for a

13

reply to the opposition as January 17, 2012, per local rule 7-3(c);

14
2.

15

WHEREAS, counsel for Defendants is in the process of preparing a reply to

16

the opposition, but requires several additional days in order to respond to the lengthy opposition,

17

which consists of 25 pages of text and several declarations;

18
3.

19

WHEREAS, with respect to Civil L.R. 6-2(a)(1), the parties have conferred

20

regarding particular reasons an extension of the deadline is mutually-agreeable, including that

21

Defendants are in the process of preparing the reply but require a short extension of time to

22

complete it;

23
4.

24

WHEREAS, with respect to Civil L.R. 6-2(a)(2), the previous time

25

modifications in this action include: a) Defendants’ motion to change time for filing a dispositive

26

motion, which was granted by this Court on April 15, 2009 (Docket No. 21); b) a second motion

27

to change time filed by Defendants in order to enable Defendant Chadwick to join Defendants

28

Horel, Berkler, Harrison, and Fischer’s Motion for Summary Judgment, granted by this Court on
835991.1

1

C 08-4561 RMW (PR)

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER CONTINUING DEADLINE TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1 August 25, 2009 (Docket No. 65).); c) a Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Continuing: 1. Non2 Expert Discovery Cut-Off; and 2. Related Deadlines (Docket No. 104), filed May 27, 2011; d) a
3 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Continuing: 1. Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off; and 2. Related
4 Deadlines (Docket No. 105), filed June 30, 2011; e) a Stipulation and [Proposed] Order
5 Continuing: 1. Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off; and 2. Related Deadlines (Docket No. 110), filed
6 October 12, 2011; Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Continuing Deadline to Respond to
7 Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 119); and
8
5.

9

WHEREAS, with respect to Civil L.R. 6-2(a)(3), a two day continuance of

10 the deadline to complete the reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants' Renewed Motion for
11 Summary Judgment and related deadlines will not at this stage have a significant effect on the
12 overall schedule for this case;
13
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND REQUESTED that the

14

15 Court continue the deadline to reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Renewed Motion for
16 Summary Judgment to January 19, 2012, and continue all related deadlines accordingly.
17
E-FILING ATTESTATION

18
19

By his signature below, and pursuant to General Order 45, counsel for Defendants

20

21 attests that counsel for all parties whose electronic signatures appear below have concurred in the
22 filing of this Stipulation.
23
24 Dated: January 13, 2012
25

By:

/s/ William J. Newsom
PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW & PENNY, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff REUBEN JOSEPH REYES

26
27
28
835991.1

2

C 08-4561 RMW (PR)

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER CONTINUING DEADLINE TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1 Dated: January 13, 2012
2

By:

/s/ Michael J. Quinn
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants FISCHER, HARRISON,
HOREL, TERRY, CHADWICK, and BERKLER

3
4
5

ORDER

6
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

ER

11

oh

A

cy H. K

R NIA

Judge Lu

H

Dated:

ED

ORDER

FO

RT

10

NO

9

IT IS SO

LI

UNIT
ED

8

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

S

7

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Court Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
835991.1

3

C 08-4561 RMW (PR)

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER CONTINUING DEADLINE TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT