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