Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01835/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01835-37/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IRMA B. SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION 

and SYDNEY SMYTH,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01835-SAB

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF 

IN EXCESS OF TWENTY-FIVE PAGES

(ECF No. 254)

On July 6, 2015, the Court granted in part Defendants’ request to file an oversize brief for 

their motion for a new trial. On July 10, 2015, Defendants filed a thirty-five page memorandum 

of points and authorities in support of their motion for a new trial. The motion generally argued 

that there was no evidence to support the verdict or damages at trial. While Defendants set forth 

arguments regarding the testimony at trial, no transcripts were provided to support the 

arguments. Accordingly, the Court ordered Defendants to file supplemental briefing specifying 

the specific testimony that supported their arguments. 

On November 5, 2015, Defendants filed an application for leave to file a supplemental 

memorandum in excess of twenty-five pages. The briefing which is currently due is merely for 

Defendants to provide citations to the record which support their arguments in the memorandum 

filed on July 10, 2015. The Court finds that there is no justification for a supplemental 

Case 1:12-cv-01835-SAB Document 255 Filed 11/06/15 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

memorandum in excess of twenty five pages. If Defendants choose to file a supplemental brief, 

it may not exceed ten pages in length. 

If Defendants wish to file an amended points and authorities in support of the motion for 

new trial, the Court will disregard the points and authorities filed July 10, 2015 and consider only 

the amended memorandum. In that instance, Defendants’ may file a thirty-five page brief. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ application to file an oversize 

brief is DENIED, and Defendants’ supplemental brief may not exceed ten-pages in length.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 6, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01835-SAB Document 255 Filed 11/06/15 Page 2 of 2