From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brewster v. City of San Francisco

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Sep 10, 2021
4:20-cv-03254-HSG (N.D. Cal. Sep. 10, 2021)

Opinion

4:20-cv-03254-HSG

09-10-2021

CENIOUS BREWSTER, Plaintiff, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, STEPHEN TILTON, JAMES M. SHANNON, DANIEL T. MILLS, ANTHONI NGUYEN, OMAR PRADO, and JORDAN SENG, Defendants.

DAN SIEGEL, EMILYROSE JOHNS, ANDREW CHAN KIM, SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA, Attorneys for Plaintiff CENIOUS BREWSTER


DAN SIEGEL, EMILYROSE JOHNS, ANDREW CHAN KIM, SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA, Attorneys for Plaintiff CENIOUS BREWSTER

PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND ORDER (AS MODIFIED) TO FILE CORRECTED JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT

Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. United States District Judge.

On September 7, 2021, counsel for defendants, Ms. Meredith Osborn, emailed counsel for plaintiff, Mr. Chan Kim, at 12:04 p.m. requesting that he insert his portions to the Joint Pretrial Statement and return it back to her by 3 p.m. (Email Correspondence attached to Declaration of Andrew Chan Kim in Support of Plaintiffs Administrative Motion to File Corrected Joint Pretrial Statement, ¶ 2).

Mr. Kim emailed Ms. Osborn at 4:46 p.m. with his edits, which included identifying Khalid Barrow and Augustin Garcia under plaintiff's list of witnesses. Id.

Ms. Osborn emailed Mr. Kim at 6:26 p.m. stating, "I have accepted your changes in the attached version and made a few additions to Defendants' sections only. The only change I did not accept was the addition of the word 'allegedly' in the statement of undisputed facts." Id.

Mr. Kim added plaintiff's list of exhibits he had inadvertently left out and agreed to remove the word "allegedly." Id. At 7:36 p.m., Mr. Kim gave Ms. Osborn his permission to file. Id.

On September 8, 2021, Mr. Kim noticed that Ms. Osborn had omitted Mr. Kim's inclusion of Mr. Barrow and Mr. Garcia from his list of witnesses. Id. He emailed Ms. Osborn at 1:48 p.m. asking if she would agree to amend the statement to include them. Id.

Ms. Osborn requested a phone call with Mr. Kim and Ms. EmilyRose Johns. Id. Following the call, Mr. Kim emailed Ms. Osborn again, noting what she had said about accepting his changes except for the word "allegedly," and asking if she would stipulate to filing an amended pretrial statement. Id. The next day, Ms. Osborn declined to stipulate. Id.

To be sure, Mr. Kim should have reviewed the pretrial statement before he gave Ms. Osborn his permission to file it. Nonetheless, he relied on her word.

Accordingly, Mr. Kim seeks to file a corrected Joint Pretrial Statement, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, which contains no changes other than the inclusion of Mr. Barrow and Mr. Garcia to plaintiff's list of witnesses.

ORDER

Good cause appearing, the motion is GRANTED. Counsel is directed to e-file the Joint Pretrial Statement which contains no changes other than the inclusion of Mr. Barrow and Mr. Garcia' to plaintiff s list of witnesses on the docket forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Brewster v. City of San Francisco

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Sep 10, 2021
4:20-cv-03254-HSG (N.D. Cal. Sep. 10, 2021)
Case details for

Brewster v. City of San Francisco

Case Details

Full title:CENIOUS BREWSTER, Plaintiff, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, STEPHEN…

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Sep 10, 2021

Citations

4:20-cv-03254-HSG (N.D. Cal. Sep. 10, 2021)