From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Givens v. Newsom

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 3, 2022
2:20-cv-00852-JAM-CKD (E.D. Cal. Jun. 3, 2022)

Opinion

2:20-cv-00852-JAM-CKD

06-03-2022

RON GIVENS, an individual; CHRISTINE BISH, an individual, Plaintiffs v. GAVIN NEWSOM, in his capacity as Governor of California; ROB BONTA, in his capacity as Attorney General of California; AMANDA RAY, in her capacity as Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol; and TOMAS ARAGON, in his capacity as State Public Health Officer, [1] Defendants

ROB BONTA Attorney General of California PAMELA J. HOLMES MARK R. BECKINGTON Supervising Deputy Attorneys General JAMES W. WALTER, STATE BAR NO. 173481 Deputy Attorneys General Attorneys for Defendants California Governor Gavin Newsom, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, California Highway Patrol Commissioner Amanda Ray, and California State Public Health Officer Tomas Aragon, all sued in their official capacities


Action Filed: April 27, 2020

ROB BONTA

Attorney General of California

PAMELA J. HOLMES

MARK R. BECKINGTON

Supervising Deputy Attorneys General

JAMES W. WALTER, STATE BAR NO. 173481

Deputy Attorneys General

Attorneys for Defendants California Governor Gavin Newsom, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, California Highway Patrol Commissioner Amanda Ray, and California State Public Health Officer Tomas Aragon, all sued in their official capacities

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF REGARDING OPPOSITION AND CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[CIVIL L.R. 233]

JOHN A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 1

In accordance with Civil Local Rule 233, Defendants Governor Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Rob Bonta, California Highway Patrol Commissioner Amanda Ray, and Public Health Officer Tomas Aragon respectfully request that the Court accept their opposition and crossmotion for summary judgment and supporting memorandum, ECF 101, as if it had been timely filed and terminate a duplicative docket entry, ECF 96, filed in error.

On May 31, 2022, Defendants intended to file electronically an opposition and crossmotion for summary judgment and supporting memorandum. Through inadvertence, instead of submitting the opposition and cross-motion and supporting memorandum, Defendants filed two identical copies of deposition excerpts submitted in support of the opposition and cross-motion. See ECF 96, 99. On June 3, 2022, having realized the error, Defendants filed a copy of the opposition and cross-motion that it intended to file on May 31. ECF 101. Defendants respectfully request that the Court (1) accept the opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment and supporting memorandum as if they had been timely filed; (2) terminate the docket entry associated with the deposition excerpts originally filed at ECF 96, which is an identical copy of the deposition excerpts filed at ECF 99; and (3) update the docket entries for ECF 97, 98, 99, and 100 to reflect that they are filed in support of the opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment subsequently filed at ECF 101. 2

Defendants have contacted Plaintiff Ron Givens and Christine Bish to ascertain their position on this motion. Plaintiffs confirmed that they do not object to the requested relief. Further, Defendants timely served a copy of the opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment and supporting memorandum upon Plaintiffs by email on May 31, 2022. Accordingly, Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by the requested administrative relief. 3

ORDER

The Court grants the following administrative relief requested by Defendants:

1. The Court shall accept the opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment and supporting memorandum filed by Defendants on June 3, 2022, ECF 101, as if it had been timely filed on May 31, 2022;

2. The courtroom clerk shall terminate the docket entry associated with the deposition excerpts filed in error at ECF 96; and

3. The courtroom clerk shall update the references to items ECF 97, 98, 99, and 100 as having been filed in support of the opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment subsequently filed at ECF 101.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 4


Summaries of

Givens v. Newsom

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 3, 2022
2:20-cv-00852-JAM-CKD (E.D. Cal. Jun. 3, 2022)
Case details for

Givens v. Newsom

Case Details

Full title:RON GIVENS, an individual; CHRISTINE BISH, an individual, Plaintiffs v…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 3, 2022

Citations

2:20-cv-00852-JAM-CKD (E.D. Cal. Jun. 3, 2022)