Filed: Dec. 30, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 30, 2019
Summary: ORDER AMENDING SPECIAL BRIEFING SCHEDULE RE: PENDING DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL MOTIONS [Doc. No. 70] MICHAEL M. ANELLO , District Judge . Upon due consideration, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants' request to modify the current dispositive pretrial motion briefing schedule. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 1. Defendants' replies in support of their summary judgment motions and their opposition to Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment are due on or before Febr
Summary: ORDER AMENDING SPECIAL BRIEFING SCHEDULE RE: PENDING DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL MOTIONS [Doc. No. 70] MICHAEL M. ANELLO , District Judge . Upon due consideration, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants' request to modify the current dispositive pretrial motion briefing schedule. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 1. Defendants' replies in support of their summary judgment motions and their opposition to Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment are due on or before Febru..
More
ORDER AMENDING SPECIAL BRIEFING SCHEDULE RE: PENDING DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL MOTIONS
[Doc. No. 70]
MICHAEL M. ANELLO, District Judge.
Upon due consideration, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants' request to modify the current dispositive pretrial motion briefing schedule. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:
1. Defendants' replies in support of their summary judgment motions and their opposition to Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment are due on or before February 3, 2020;
2. Plaintiffs' reply in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment is due on or before February 24, 2020;
3. The motion hearing previously scheduled on February 14, 2020 is VACATED and RESET for March 6, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 3D. Upon the completion of briefing and prior to the scheduled motion hearing, the Court will determine whether the decisional process would be significantly aided by oral argument and notify the parties accordingly.
4. The deputy-defendants may file a combined reply in support of their summary judgment motion and opposition to Plaintiffs' cross-motion up to forty (40) pages in length; and
5. Defendants County of San Diego and William Gore may file a reply in support of their summary judgment motion up to fifteen (15) pages in length.
All other related deadlines and requirements are to remain as previously set. See Doc. No. 39.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
