Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-01504/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-01504-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

Case No. C 13-01504 MEJ 1

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 

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669

City Attorney 

ELIZABETH SALVESON, State Bar #83788 Chief Labor Attorney 

RAFAL OFIERSKI, State Bar #194798

Deputy City Attorney 

Fox Plaza 

1390 Market Street, Fifth Floor 

San Francisco, California 94102-5408 

Telephone: (415) 554-4244 

Facsimile: (415) 554-4248 

E-Mail: rafal.ofierski@sfgov.org 

Attorneys for Defendants 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PATRICK J. TOBIN, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, POLICE CHIEF 

GREGORY P. SUHR, JOHN MURPHY, 

KEVIN CASHMAN, Deputy Chief JAMES 

DUDLEY, and DOES 1-40, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. C 13-01504 MEJ 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO’S 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM CASE 

MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE; [PROPOSED] 

ORDER 

Defendants City and County of San Francisco, Gregory Suhr, John Murphy, Kevin Cashman 

and James Dudley (collectively “the City”) respectfully move, under Local Rule 7-11, for an order 

modifying the initial case management order, which the Court issued on July 8, 2013 (Docket No. 10). 

I. THE REQUESTED RELIEF 

The City seeks extensions of the discovery cut-off and the deadline for hearing dispositive 

motions. The discovery cut-off is now January 28, and the dispositive motion hearing deadline is 

February 27, 2014. The City seeks extensions of the discovery cut-off to March 28 (59-day extension) 

Amended Order

Case 3:13-cv-01504-MEJ Document 25 Filed 01/06/14 Page 1 of 5
Case No. C 13-01504 MEJ 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 

and the motion hearing deadline to April 25, 2014 (57-day extension). The City does not seek a 

continuance of the current trial date of August 18, 2014. 

II. THE CIRCUMSTANCES SUPPORTING THE REQUEST 

The City seeks the extensions for two reasons. 

First, the City will require additional time to obtain discovery from Plaintiff, and most likely 

will need the Court’s intervention in that regard. The City anticipated completing discovery in 

December 2013 and preparing a motion for summary adjudication in early January 2014. (R. Ofierski 

Dec. ¶ 2 (concurrently filed).) However, despite repeated requests, Plaintiff did not produce his initial 

disclosures until November 18, or nearly five months after they were due. (Id.) Plaintiff also failed to 

respond at all to interrogatories the City served on October 11. When the City first inquired about the 

responses, Plaintiff claimed that he had never received the interrogatories. The City then re-served the 

interrogatories on November 18, and requested that Plaintiff provide his responses by December 9. 

On December 12, having received nothing, the City informed Plaintiff that if he did not provide the 

responses by December 20, or more than a month they were first due, the City will have to ask the 

Court to intervene. As of the date of this filing, Plaintiff did not even acknowledge the City’s 

communications. (Id.) Given Plaintiff’s complete non-responsiveness and the likelihood that the City 

will require the Court’s assistance in obtaining complete and meaningful interrogatory responses, the 

City likely will require an additional period of about 60 days to complete its discovery. 

Second, in the past 30 days the City’s counsel has had to devote a substantial amount of time to 

significant, unanticipated and unavoidable work commitments, including: (1) preparing for a 

December 4 oral argument in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Ambat v. CCSF, a complex case 

concerning City jail staffing policies; and (2) preparing a response to an unfair labor practice charge, 

filed by two City employee unions on November 21 with the California Public Employment Relations 

Board, which presents complex legal issues concerning the City’s collective bargaining obligations. 

(R. Ofierski Dec. ¶ 3.) The unanticipated workload has greatly limited the amount of time available 

to the City’s counsel to work on compelling Plaintiff to respond to discovery, preparing for Plaintiff’s 

deposition, and drafting the City’s motion for summary adjudication. (Id.) 

 

Case 3:13-cv-01504-MEJ Document 25 Filed 01/06/14 Page 2 of 5
Case No. C 13-01504 MEJ 3

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 

III. THE CITY’S REQUEST FOR STIPULATION 

In its last communication regarding the overdue interrogatory responses, the City asked 

Plaintiff to stipulate to a 60-day extension of the dispositive motion hearing deadline, based on the 

mutual need to complete discovery. The City believes that Plaintiff likewise will require additional 

time to do so, since to date he has not sought any discovery from the City, and it is unlikely that all 

such discovery could be commenced and completed within the approximately month (excluding the 

holidays) that remains under the initial case management order. (R. Ofierski Dec. ¶ 2.) The City 

asked Plaintiff to respond by end of the following day, December 13. As of the date of this filing. the 

City has received no response from Plaintiff. (Id.) 

IV. CONCLUSION 

The City respectfully requests that the Court modify the initial case management order as 

requested by the City, based on the City’s need for additional time to obtain discovery from Plaintiff 

and prepare the City’s motion for summary adjudication. 

Dated: December 16, 2013 DENNIS J. HERRERA 

 City Attorney 

 ELIZABETH S. SALVESON 

 Chief Labor Attorney 

 RAFAL OFIERSKI 

 Deputy City Attorney 

 By: /s/ Rafal Ofierski 

 RAFAL OFIERSKI 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL. 

Case 3:13-cv-01504-MEJ Document 25 Filed 01/06/14 Page 3 of 5
Case No. C 13-01504 MEJ 4

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 

 [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Defendants City and County of San Francisco, Gregory Suhr, John Murphy, Kevin Cashman 

and James Dudley filed a motion for an order modifying the Court’s initial case management order. 

Good cause appearing, the Court hereby grants the motion. Accordingly, the case management order 

is modified as follows: 

(1) The discovery cut-off is extended from January 28 to March 28, 2014; and 

(2) The deadline for hearing dispositive motions is extended from February 27 to April 25, 

 2014. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _______________________ _______________________________ 

 MARIA ELENA JAMES 

 MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Dated: DENNIS J. HERRERA 

 City Attorney 

 ELIZABETH S. SALVESON 

 Chief Labor Attorney 

 RAFAL OFIERSKI 

 Deputy City Attorney 

By: /s/ Rafal Ofierski 

 RAFAL OFIERSKI 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

1/6/2014 24 The filing hearing date for dispositive motions is set for May 29, 2014. Amended 

Case 3:13-cv-01504-MEJ Document 25 Filed 01/06/14 Page 4 of 5
Case No. C 13-01504 MEJ 5

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 

 GREGORY P. SUHR, KEVIN CASHMAN, 

 JAMES DUDLEY AND JOHN MURPHY 

Case 3:13-cv-01504-MEJ Document 25 Filed 01/06/14 Page 5 of 5