LYON v. UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 13-cv-05878 EMC. (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20151216a73
Filed: Dec. 15, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 15, 2015
Summary: SECOND JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING PAGE LIMITS FOR BRIEFING ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, EXPERT DISCOVERY CUT-OFF; [PROPOSED] ORDER CLASS ACTION EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . The Parties to this action hereby file this Second Joint Stipulation for an order to seek: • Expansion of the page limits for the Parties' cross motions for summary judgment. The Parties previously stipulated to, and the Court granted, Plaintiff up to 40 pages for its Motion for Partial Summary Judgmen
Summary: SECOND JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING PAGE LIMITS FOR BRIEFING ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, EXPERT DISCOVERY CUT-OFF; [PROPOSED] ORDER CLASS ACTION EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . The Parties to this action hereby file this Second Joint Stipulation for an order to seek: • Expansion of the page limits for the Parties' cross motions for summary judgment. The Parties previously stipulated to, and the Court granted, Plaintiff up to 40 pages for its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment..
More
SECOND JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING PAGE LIMITS FOR BRIEFING ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, EXPERT DISCOVERY CUT-OFF; [PROPOSED] ORDER CLASS ACTION
EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.
The Parties to this action hereby file this Second Joint Stipulation for an order to seek:
• Expansion of the page limits for the Parties' cross motions for summary judgment. The Parties previously stipulated to, and the Court granted, Plaintiff up to 40 pages for its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Defendants up to 50 pages for its Opposition and Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 109, 110.) The Parties have been diligently drafting their briefs, but due to the factual and legal complexities involved in these motions, have determined that each side will need up to an additional ten (10) pages to fully address the issues. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek leave to file an opening brief of up to 50 pages and Defendants seek leave to file an opposition and cross-motion brief of up to 60 pages.
•Expansion of the time period for filing declarations in support of administrative motions to seal. Under Civil L.R. 79-5(d), a party who has designated material as confidential ("Designating Party") has four days after the filing and service of an Administrative Motion to file a declaration supporting the sealing of material that the party has designated as confidential. Based on the timing of Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the anticipated volume of material, and the necessity for third-parties to provide supporting declarations, the parties seek an additional six (6) days for any Designating Party to file supporting declarations. Accordingly, Designating Party declarations would be due on or before Monday, December 28, 2015.
• Extending expert discovery by an additional eight (8) days. The parties have been diligently conducting expert discovery. However, given the schedule of the parties over the holidays, the parties have been unable to arrange one final expert deposition prior to the December 31, 2016 cut-off set by the Second Amended Case Management Order (Dkt. No. 96). Accordingly, the parties seek an eight (8) day extension of the expert discovery time period through January 8, 2016.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
