Weiss v. City of Santa Rosa Police Department et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01639

ORDER RE:BRIEFING ON OUTSTANDING MOTIONS re {{148}} MOTION for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment filed by Tom Schwedhelm, Andrew Romero, John Deadman, Kaiden Kemp, City of Santa Rosa Police Department, AND [1 45] MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Patrick C. Gillette, Tom Schwedhelm, Andrew Romero, John Deadman, Kaiden Kemp, City of Santa Rosa Police Department. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 8/30/18.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 TERRY L WEISS, CASE NO. 15-cv-01639-YGR 7 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: BRIEFING ON OUTSTANDING 8 vs. MOTIONS 9 CITY OF SANTA ROSA POLICE Dkt. Nos. 145, 148 DEPARTMENT, ET AL., 10 Defendants. 11 12 The Court has received plaintiff's response to the City Defendants' motion for summary Northern District of California United States District Court 13 judgment. (See Dkt. Nos. 163 ("Opp. Pt. 1"), 163-1 ("Opp. Pt. 2") and corresponding exhibits.) 14 Therein, plaintiff indicates that she "will be upgrading her answers and completing new ones 15 weekly until fully answered, or if the Court order[s] [p]laintiff to stop." (Opp. Pt. 1 at 2:19–20.) 16 In light of the numerous extensions the Court has provided to plaintiff throughout the 17 course of the litigation and plaintiff's failure to meet various deadlines, including the August 1, 18 2018 deadline to file the instant response (which was originally set for July 2, 2018), and for the 19 sake of preserving judicial economy and avoiding further prejudice to the City Defendants, the 20 Court will not permit plaintiff to file additional responses on a weekly basis. However, in the 21 interest of justice and given the procedural posture of the case, the Court ORDERS as follows: 22 Plaintiff may make only one additional update to her current response, which was filed 23 on August 27, 2018. Such udpate must be postmarked by no later than Tuesday, September 4, 24 2018 and must be no longer than 25 pages in 12-point font and double spaced. As a point of 25 reference, Part 1 of plaintiff's response appears to comport with these font size and spacing 26 requirements (see Opp. Pt. 1), but Part 2 does not (see Opp. Pt. 2). To the extent plaintiff also 27 opposes the City Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 145), her arguments 28 in opposition to that motion must be included in this filing and not in a separate filing. This is a 1 reasonable accommodation to plaintiff, who is reminded that this district's Civil Local Rules 2 provide for page limitations which plaintiff has far exceeded. Nonetheless, the Court finds this 3 accommodation to be appropriate under the circumstances. 4 In addition, the City Defendants shall be allowed to file a single reply to plaintiff's 5 response, including the aforementioned update, within 14 days after her update is filed. To the 6 extent required in order to address arguments pertaining to both their motion for judgment on the 7 pleadings and motion for summary judgment, the City Defendants are afforded an additional 10 8 pages for their reply. See Civil Local Rule 7-3. For clarity, the City Defendants should address 9 therein, inter alia, their position on plaintiff's allegations of excessive force relating to the 10 Comcast incident. (See Dkt. No. 76 at 28 ¶ 50; see also Opp. Pt. 2 at 8:28–9:3.) Further, given 11 plaintiff's lack of counsel and the Court's independent duty to evaluate the case fairly, the City 12 Defendants are ORDERED to file, by no later than Friday, September 7, 2018, a complete copy of Northern District of California United States District Court 13 the transcript of plaintiff's March 29, 2018 deposition, including all exhibits. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: August 30, 2018 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2