Perez et al v. John Muir Health

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01792

CORRECTED {{64}} ORDER Denying {{63}} MOTION TO FILE EXCESS PAGES. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 3/29/2016.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 MICHAEL D. BRUNO (SBN: 166805) MBRUNO@GORDONREES.COM 2 HIEU TRAN (SBN: 280585) HTRAN@GORDONREES.COM 3 GORDON & REES LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 4 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 986-5900 5 Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 6 Attorneys for Defendant JOHN MUIR HEALTH 7 (erroneously sued herein as "John Muir Medical Center") 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARLENE PEREZ, an individual, and ROSA) CASE NO. 15-01792 HSG 12 CERISANO, an individual,)) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR 13 ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO FILE) Plaintiff,) EXCESS PAGES FOR GOOD CAUSE 14) 15) vs.) 16)) 17 JOHN MUIR HEALTH, a California) corporation, JOHN MUIR MEDICAL) 18 CENTER, an unknown business entity, and) DOES 1-20, et al) Trial Date: July 18, 2016 19)) Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 20 Defendants.)) Complaint Filed: April 21, 2015 21 22 TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS 23 OF RECORD: 24 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Local Rule 7-11, Defendant John Muir Health 25 ("Defendant"), through its attorneys of record, hereby moves for Administrative Relief, after 26 having attempted to secure a stipulation from Plaintiffs Marlene Perez and Rosa Cerisano 27 (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs"). Defendant respectfully requests leave to file 28 1 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO FILE EXCESS PAGES FOR GOOD CAUSE CASE NO. 15-01792 HSG 1 a single consolidated memorandum of law in support of its motion for summary judgment, or in 2 the alternative motion for summary adjudication, that exceeds the 25 page limit by five pages 3 based on the good cause set forth below: 4 Defendant's deadline to file a dispositive motion is Thursday, March 31, 2016. Dkt. #51. 5 Northern District Local Rule 7-4(b) expressly limits briefs to 25 pages in length. Under 6 Local Rule 7-11, however, a party may move for miscellaneous administrative relief, including a 7 motion "to exceed otherwise applicable page limitations." 8 This case involves two plaintiffs, who assert the following six causes of action: 9 retaliation, wrongful constructive discharge, and discrimination in violation of Title VII, the 10 ADA, California's Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), and California common law. 11 Dkt. No. 60. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant unlawfully retaliated against them because 12 Plaintiffs testified in a sexual harassment action brought by Plaintiffs' former co-worker, Ms. 13 Charlotte Reed, against a JMH supervisor, Mr. Charles Griffin. Id. ¶ 1. Plaintiffs worked for 14 Defendant in two different departments, and premised their claims on various alleged adverse 15 employment actions, including but not limited to, a "heavy" workload of difficult assignments, 16 poor performance reviews over a three year period, unwarranted disciplinary actions, ignored 17 complaints, and constructive discharge. Dkt. No. 60. Plaintiffs claim that they endured unlawful 18 treatment from at least two different supervisors (Andrea Lovejoy and Shanda Dellner) and 19 Defendant's management team (Sara Monahan and Michelle Lopes). Id. 20 Although Defendant endeavors to keep its consolidated memorandum of law in support 21 of its motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative motion for summary adjudication, 22 concise and to the point, Defendant requires five additional pages to adequately provide detailed 23 factual background necessary to for the court's analysis. See Declaration of Hieu Tran in 24 Support of Defendant's Motion for Administrative Relief ["Tran Decl."] at ¶8. 25 On March 22, 2016, Defendant's counsel contacted Plaintiffs' counsel (via telephone and 26 email) proposing that the parties stipulate to a joint request for Defendant to exceed the 25 page 27 limit on a motion for summary judgment. See Exhibit A to Tran Decl. at ¶4. Defendant's 28 2 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO FILE EXCESS PAGES FOR GOOD CAUSE CASE NO. 15-01792 HSG 1 proposal included a joint request for Plaintiffs to exceed the 25 page limit in opposition to 2 Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Id. Defendant prepared a proposed joint stipulation 3 and included it in the email. Id. Plaintiffs did not respond. Tran Decl. at ¶5. 4 On March 24, 2016, Defendant's counsel sent a follow up meet and confer email to 5 Plaintiffs' counsel inquiring as to whether Plaintiffs would stipulate to a joint request to exceed 6 25 page limit. See Exhibit A to Tran Decl. at ¶6. Plaintiffs' counsel did not respond to 7 Defendant's request for stipulation and instead requested to meet and confer over a discovery 8 dispute the next day, Friday, March 25, 2016. Id. 9 To date, Defendant has not received a response from Plaintiff regarding its request for 10 stipulation. Tran Decl. at ¶7. 11 Accordingly, Defendant respectfully requests an order permitting it to file a consolidated 12 brief in support of its motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative motion for summary 13 adjudication, in excess of 5 pages, thus changing the maximum length of the brief from 25 pages 14 to 30 pages (exclusive of exhibits, attachments, declarations, table of contents, table of 15 authorities, and proof of service). 16 Dated: March 27, 2016 GORDON & REES LLP 17 18 By: /S/ Hieu Tran MICHAEL D. BRUNO 19 HIEU TRAN Attorneys for Defendant 20 JOHN MUIR HEALTH 21 CORRECTED ORDER 22 Having considered the Defendant's Motion for Administrative Relief to file a a 23 consolidated brief in support of its motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative motion 24 for summary adjudication, in excess of pages is DENIED. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: 3/29/2016 27 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 28 1099237/27401823v.1 3 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO FILE EXCESS PAGES FOR GOOD CAUSE CASE NO. 15-01792 HSG