Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00007/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00007-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 28:794 Rehabilitation Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW BONZANI,

Plaintiff, No. 2:11-cv-0007-EFB 

vs.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans ORDER

Affairs; SCOTT HUNDAHL, M.D.

Defendants. 

 /

This action is before the undersigned based on the consent of the parties. See Dckt. No.

18; see also E.D. Cal. L.R. 305; 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Defendants’ motion for summary judgment

was before the court on January 23, 2013. Joanne Delong appeared on behalf of plaintiff, and

Lynn Trinka Ernce of the United States Attorney’s Office appeared for defendants. 

At the hearing, the court first addressed plaintiff’s Family and Medical Leave Act claim

against defendant Hundahl. Defendants argued that defendant Hundahl was entitled to summary

judgment because he did not have the requisite level of control over plaintiff’s employment to

constitute an “employer” under the governing statute. After hearing defendants’ arguments, the

court asked plaintiff’s counsel what evidence created a genuine dispute that defendant Hundahl

had the authority to hire and fire plaintiff. In response, counsel referenced an email sent by

defendant Hundahl that allegedly showed that it was his decision to not renew plaintiff’s

1

Case 2:11-cv-00007-EFB Document 52 Filed 01/28/13 Page 1 of 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

employment contract. Counsel explained that the email was attached as Exhibit 4 to the

Deposition of Dr. William Cahill.

Plaintiff’s opposition makes no reference to the email relied upon by plaintiff’s counsel

at the hearing. Further, the exhibits submitted with plaintiff’s opposition do not contain the

referenced email. Local Rule 260(b) provides that “[t]he opposing party shall be responsible for

the filing of all evidentiary documents cited in the opposing papers.” Local Rule 133(j)

provides:

Before or upon the filing of a document making reference to a deposition, counsel

relying on the deposition shall ensure that a courtesy hard copy of the entire

deposition so relied upon has been submitted to the Clerk for use in chambers. 

Alternatively, counsel relying on a deposition may submit an electronic copy of

the deposition in lieu of the courtesy paper copy to the emailbox of the Judge or

Magistrate Judge and concurrently email or otherwise transmit the deposition to

all other parties. Neither hard copy nor electronic copy of the entire deposition

will become part of the official record of the action absent order of the Court. 

Pertinent portions of the deposition intended to become part of the official record

shall be submitted as exhibits in support of a motion or otherwise.

The evidence plaintiff’s counsel wishes the court to consider was not cited in plaintiff’s

opposition, nor was it submitted as an exhibit. While a hard copy of the deposition was lodged

with the Clerk, this court has not ordered the Deposition of Dr. William Cahill to be part of the

official record. Accordingly, the evidence relied upon by plaintiff was not properly before the

court for consideration. Notwithstanding counsel’s failure to comply with the Local Rules, the

court will consider Exhibit 4 to the Deposition of Dr. William Cahill in deciding defendants’

motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s counsel is admonished that in the future she must

comply with the court’s local rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. 

Since defendants have not had an opportunity to address Exhibit 4 to the Deposition of

Dr. Williams, defendants shall submit supplemental briefing addressing this document’s impact,

if any, on their motion for summary judgment. 

////

////

2

Case 2:11-cv-00007-EFB Document 52 Filed 01/28/13 Page 2 of 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

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Defendants shall file and serve supplemental briefing addressing Exhibit 4 to the

Deposition of Dr. William Cahill no later than February 11, 2013; 

2. Plaintiff’s response, if any, shall be filed and served within 14 days of service of

defendants’ supplemental briefing;

3. Due to the additional briefing and the court’s schedule, the final pretrial conference is

continued from April 17, 2013, to Wednesday, June 12, 2013, at 10 a.m. in Courtroom No. 8; 

4. Trial is reset to commence before the undersigned on Tuesday September 10, 2013, at

9:30 a.m. in Courtroom No. 8;

5. Counsel are referred to the Rule 16 scheduling order, Dckt. No. 32, for instruction

regarding the final pretrial conference.

DATED: January 28, 2013.

3

Case 2:11-cv-00007-EFB Document 52 Filed 01/28/13 Page 3 of 3