Opinion
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Terence J. Cassidy, SBN 099180 John R. Whitefleet, SBN 213301 Sacramento, California, Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT and SHERIFF LOU BLANAS.
EX PARTE APPLICATION AND DECLARATION OF COUNSEL IN SUPPORT THEREOF TO EXTEND PAGE LIMITS FOR DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF LOU BLANAS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION; ORDER REGARDING PAGE EXTENSION.
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge.
Defendants COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, SHERIFF LOU BLANAS (hereinafter "Defendants") hereby respectfully submit this Ex Parte Application for permission to file Defendant's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication in excess of the twenty-page (20) limit, as well as to file their Reply in excess of the fourteen (14) page limitation, as set by PreTrial (Status) Scheduling Order dated January 11, 2006.
DECLARATION OF COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION
I, John R. Whitefleet, declare:
1. I am an attorney at law, licensed to practice in and before all of the courts of the State of California and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, and am an associate with Porter Scott, A Professional Corporation, Attorneys of Record for Defendants COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, SHERIFF LOU BLANAS in the above-captioned matter.
2. On July 3, 2007, Defendants filed its Motion for Summary Judgment/adjudication as to Plaintiff's consolidated claims. The Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication contains approximate twenty-six-pages of factual background, law and substantive argument. In filing this document, Defendants inadvertently neglected to seek a page extension over the twenty-page limit as set forth in the PreTrial (Status) Scheduling Order dated January 11, 2006, prior to the filing of said motion.
Due to an apparent technical problem when the document was converted to PDF format, this extended the pages to 28, including a blank page. Had this not occurred, the pages would have been approximately 26.
3. We respect the rules of the Court and any failure to move prior to filing of said motion was inadvertent, and not intended to ignore the order of the court. The failure to request this extension prior to the filing of the motion is regrettable and Defendants sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this unintended oversight may have caused the Court and Plaintiff.
4. Defendants note that Case No. 05-1401 was consolidated with Case No. 05-2549 on March 3, 2006, several months after the PreTrial (Status) Scheduling Order dated January 11, 2006 was issued.
5. Defendants have in good faith attempted to address the complicated issues raised in this now consolidated action. These issues include Eleventh Amendment immunity, quasi-judicial immunity, qualified immunity, supervisory liability and Monell-type liability as to several alleged policies. Appropriate discussion of each issue raised required significant legal analysis of complex issues, and as such it was impossible to properly address all the issues raised within the twenty-page limitation. Accordingly, on behalf of Defendants, I respectfully request that the Court retroactively grant Defendants leave to extend the page limitations and deem the Motion for Summary Judgment, as filed, proper and acceptable. Alternatively, Defendants seek leave to file an amended motion to comply with page limitation.
6. In addition, Defendants also request leave to file a Reply that exceeds the fourteen page limitation. In this regard, Defendants' Reply is approximately 16 pages, which includes not a response to Plaintiff's opposition to the issues enumerated above, but also out of an abundance of precaution, and assuming the court considered such claims, to respond to several new claims Plaintiff had not previously asserted in the consolidated complaints. As such, despite all good faith efforts, it was necessary to exceed the fourteen page limitation. Accordingly, on behalf of Defendants, I respectfully request that the Court grant Defendants leave to extend the page limitations for the Reply to 16 pages.
I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and if called to testify as a witness in this matter I can and will testify competently as to the matters of fact contained herein based upon my personal knowledge.
ORDER
This Ex Parte Application for permission to file a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication, and Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition, in excess of the page limitations set forth in the PreTrial (Status) Scheduling Order dated January 11, 2006, was filed by Defendants COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, SHERIFF LOU BLANAS and was entertained on an ex parte basis.
The Court has reviewed the motion and found good cause to grant Defendants' requests for page extensions. Therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, SHERIFF LOU BLANAS' Ex Parte Application to extend the page limitations in its Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication be granted and that the Court will consider Defendants' motion as filed.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Ex Parte Application to extend page limitations in regard to their Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition is hereby granted and shall be limited to no more than sixteen pages in length.