Opinion
2:19-cv-00482-MCE-AC
09-03-2021
WILLIAM BERNAL AND CELIA BERNAL Plaintiffs, v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF SCOTT JONES, SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF DEPUTY COUCH, SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF DEPUTY WINKEL, SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF DEPUTY KENNEDY, SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF DEPUTY SUTTER, SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF DEPUTY CHHLANG, SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF DEPUTY BLISS, SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF DEPUTY QUACKENBUSH, SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF DEPUTIES JOHN DOES #1 THROUGH 20, RANCHO CORDOVA POLICE DEPARTMENT, RANCHO CORDOVA POLICE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES JOHN DOES #21 THROUGH 40, FOLSOM POLICE DEPARTMENT, FOLSOM POLICE OFFICER BRADSHAW, FOLSOM POLICE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES JOHN DOES #41 THROUGH 60, Defendants.
LONGYEAR & LAVRA, LLP Van Longyear, CSB No. 84189 Nicole M. Cahill, CSB No. 287165 Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO (erroneously sued as Sacramento County Sheriff's Department), SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF SCOTT JONES, DEPUTY COUCH, DEPUTY WINKEL, DEPUTY KENNEDY, DEPUTY SUTTER, DEPUTY CHHLANG, DEPUTY BLISS, AND DEPUTY QUACKENBUSH
LONGYEAR & LAVRA, LLP Van Longyear, CSB No. 84189 Nicole M. Cahill, CSB No. 287165 Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO (erroneously sued as Sacramento County Sheriff's Department), SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF SCOTT JONES, DEPUTY COUCH, DEPUTY WINKEL, DEPUTY KENNEDY, DEPUTY SUTTER, DEPUTY CHHLANG, DEPUTY BLISS, AND DEPUTY QUACKENBUSH
DEFENDANTS' REQUEST TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT REGARDING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR ADJUDICATION AND ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendants COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO (erroneously sued as Sacramento County Sheriff's Department), SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF SCOTT JONES, DEPUTY COUCH, DEPUTY WINKEL, DEPUTY KENNEDY, DEPUTY SUTTER, DEPUTY CHHLANG, DEPUTY BLISS, AND DEPUTY QUACKENBUSH hereby apply for an order granting permission to exceed the twenty-page limit prescribed in the Court's Scheduling Order dated March 18, 2019 (ECF 4) for their Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication.
This matter is proceeding before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire and District Judge Morrison England. In accordance with Judge England's standing information and Scheduling Order, a twenty-page limit is placed on all initial moving papers and oppositions, with replies limited to ten pages. A party seeking to exceed the page limit is required to be made in writing setting forth all reasons to exceed the page limit within seven days of the filing of the motion. Good cause exists to exceed the page limitation because Defendants' motion for summary judgment must address twelve claims made against nine separate defendants.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs, Celia and William Bernal, proceed on their First Amended Complaint alleging various constitutional violations, including excessive force, false arrest, as well as related state law claims. (ECF No. 11.) The current deadline for dispositive motions is December 2, 2021. (ECF Nos. 4, 22.) No. trial date has been set. (ECF No. 4.) Defendants intend to file their dispositive motion well in advance of the set deadline.
ARGUMENT
During the course of preparation of the motion, it has become apparent that more than twenty pages is required in order to sufficiently address all arguments in the motion. Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint alleges twelve causes of action against nine separate defendants. (ECF No. 11.) Each Plaintiff and Defendant played different roles and require separate argument and analysis in the motion. Therefore, while all individual defendants and the Plaintiffs were involved in the same interaction, the parties are not similarly situated as each's actions relative to the two Plaintiffs are different. In addition, qualified immunity arguments with respect to each individual defendant will be required.
Defendants' counsel has attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiffs' counsel as to an agreement for a page limit increase. (Declaration of Nicole Cahill (“Cahill Decl.”) ¶¶ 2, 3.) Plaintiffs' counsel does not object to an increase to thirty pages for moving papers. (Cahill Decl. ¶ 3.) Defendants also do not object to allowing Plaintiffs thirty (30) pages in opposition. (Cahill Decl. ¶ 3.) The parties did not agree on an extension for reply. (Cahill Decl. ¶ 4.) Defendants therefore request that they be allowed up to thirty (30) pages for moving papers and fifteen (15) pages for reply. Defendants do not object to Plaintiffs being allotted thirty (30) pages for opposition.
ORDER
Defendants by and through counsel have filed a Request to Exceed Page Limit Regarding Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication (ECF No. 23). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' request is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.