Opinion
No. C 10-1772 MEJ
11-10-2011
MIRSAD HAJRO, Plaintiff, v. ROBIN BARRETT, San Francisco Field Office; et al.
Respectfully submitted, MELINDA HAAG United States Attorney MELANIE L. PROCTOR ILA C. DEISS Assistant United States Attorneys Attorneys for Defendants
MELINDA HAAG, CSBN 132612
United States Attorney
JOANN M. SWANSON, CSBN 88143
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Civil Division
ILA C. DEISS, NY SBN 3052909
MELANIE L. PROCTOR, CSBN 228971
Assistant United States Attorneys
Attorneys for Defendants
DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR LEAVE
TO FILE OBJECTIONS (Elec. Dkt. Nos.
50 and 51); PROPOSED ORDER
Defendants hereby oppose Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to File Objections to Defendants' Revised Disputed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Elec. Dkt. Nos. 50 and 51. First, Plaintiff's motions are not in compliance with Civ. L.R. 7-11 because they are not accompanied by a stipulation or a declaration explaining why a stipulation could not be obtained. Civ. L.R. 7-11(a).
Second, the proper vehicle for filing oppositional findings of fact to Defendants' findings of fact would have been through filing revised findings of fact, pursuant to the Court's minute order. Elec. Dkt. No. 45. Although Plaintiff did not file revised findings of fact on November 9, 2011, Defendants have no objection to Plaintiff filing his revised findings of fact and conclusions of law out of time.
Respectfully submitted,
MELINDA HAAG
United States Attorney
MELANIE L. PROCTOR
ILA C. DEISS
Assistant United States Attorneys
Attorneys for Defendants
PROPOSED ORDER
Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to File Objections (Elec. Dkt. Nos. 50 and 51) are hereby DENIED. Plaintiff shall have until 4:00 p.m. on Monday, November 14, 2011, to file revised findings of fact and conclusions of law. This disposes of Elec. Dkt. Nos. 50 and 51.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Judge Maria-Elena James