Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03226/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03226-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

Stipulation for Order to Extend the Page Limit 

for County Defendants’ Reply, etc. U.S.D.C. No. 3:15-cv-03226-RS 

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

Anne L. Keck, SBN 136315 John W. Patton, Jr., Pro Hac Vice

KECK LAW OFFICES Stephen R. Niemeyer, SBN 203162 

418 B Street, Suite 206 Kathleen M. Kunkle, SBN 222800 

Santa Rosa, California 95401 Kathryn R. Vaughan, Pro Hac Vice

Telephone: (707) 595-4185 PATTON & RYAN LLC 

Facsimile: (707) 657-7715 330 North Wabash Ave., Suite 3800 

Email: akeck@public-law.org Chicago, Illinois 60611 

 Telephone: (312) 261-5160 

Attorneys for Defendants the Facsimile: (312) 261-5161 

County of Mendocino and Emails: jpatton@pattonryan.com 

Mendocino County Sheriff- sniemeyer@pattonryan.com 

Coroner Thomas Allman, kkunckle@pattonryan.com 

Capt. Timothy Pearce, Lorrie Knapp, kvaughan@pattonryan.com 

Frank Masterson, Craig Bernardi, 

Michael Grant, Jeanette Holum, 

Robert Page, & Christine De Los Santos 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES NEUROTH, et al.,

 Plaintiffs, 

 v.

MENDOCINO COUNTY, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 3:15-CV-03226-RS 

STIPULATION FOR ORDER TO 

EXTEND THE PAGE LIMIT FOR 

COUNTY DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN 

SUPPORT OF THEIR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT MOTION, AND 

WITHDRAWAL OF RELATED 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION; 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

 This Stipulation is submitted on behalf of Plaintiff James Neuroth (“Plaintiff”) and 

Defendants the County of Mendocino, Mendocino County Sheriff Thomas Allman, Sheriff’s Captain 

Timothy Pearce, and current/former Sheriff’s Deputies Lorrie Knapp, Frank Masterson, Craig 

Bernardi, Michael Grant, Jeanette Holum, Robert Page, and Christine De Los Santos (collectively, 

“County Defendants”). Through this Stipulation, County Defendants request the Court to enter an 

order extending the page limit for their Reply brief in support of their Motion for Summary 

Judgment by 5 pages, from the 15 pages as allowed under Local Rule 7-4(b) to a total of 20 pages. 

Plaintiff has no objection to this request, and the parties believe that good cause supports the 

requested order, as set forth below. 

/// 

Case 3:15-cv-03226-RS Document 322 Filed 07/16/18 Page 1 of 4
Stipulation for Order to Extend the Page Limit 

for County Defendants’ Reply, etc. U.S.D.C. No. 3:15-cv-03226-RS 

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

RECITALS 

 A. On May 24, 2018, County Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment 

[Dkt. No. 265] on behalf of ten separate defendants, seeking summary judgment on seven causes of 

action (including about seventeen different sub-claims) Plaintiff asserted against them in his Fourth 

Amended Complaint. Pursuant to this Court’s order of May 7, 2018 [Dkt. No. 253], the 

memorandum of points and authorities in support of that motion was 35 pages long. 

 B. On July 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed his combined Opposition to all motions for summary 

judgment, including County Defendants’, under seal and in connection with his Administrative 

Motion to File Documents Under Seal, et al. (Dkt. No. 304.) Also pursuant to this Court’s order of 

May 7, 2018 [Dkt. No. 253], the memorandum of points and authorities in support of Plaintiff’s 

Opposition was 80 pages long. 

 C. County Defendants’ Reply in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment is due 

to be filed on July 19, 2018. (See Dkt. No. 249.) County Defendants have informed Plaintiff that, 

given the sheer number of issues and the volumes of arguments Plaintiff submitted in his Opposition, 

County Defendants have determined that they need an extension of their Reply brief to 20 pages to 

adequately respond. Specifically, County Defendants believe that the normal 15-page limit simply 

does not provide them with sufficient space to explain their arguments and evidentiary objections, 

and conforming to that limit will prevent them from fully presenting the necessary issues to the 

Court. County Defendants submit that while a 20-page Reply brief will still be a tight fit for all of 

the issues they must address therein, they will work to ensure arguments are clear and succinct. 

 D. On July 13, 2018, County Defendants filed a Motion for Administrative Relief 

requesting the 20-page extension for their Reply brief. (Dkt. No. 320.) In light of Plaintiff’s 

agreement to stipulate to that relief, County Defendants hereby withdraw that Administrative 

Motion. 

 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff and County Defendants, through their respective counsel, 

stipulate and agree as follows: 

Case 3:15-cv-03226-RS Document 322 Filed 07/16/18 Page 2 of 4
Stipulation for Order to Extend the Page Limit 

for County Defendants’ Reply, etc. U.S.D.C. No. 3:15-cv-03226-RS 

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

AGREEMENT 

 1. The parties request entry of an order extending the page limit for County Defendants’

Reply brief in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment to 20 pages. 

 2. In light of this stipulation, County Defendants withdraw their Motion for 

Administrative Relief to Extend Page Limit of Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary 

judgment. (Dkt. No. 320.) 

 3. Nothing in this Stipulation and request for order is intended to modify the other 

matters addressed in any Court order unless expressly identified herein, nor does it preclude the 

parties from seeking additional relief from this Court. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

 Keck Law Offices 

Dated: July 13, 2018 By: /s/ Anne L. Keck

 Anne L. Keck 

 Attorneys for County Defendants 

 Haddad & Sherwin LLP 

Dated: July 13, 2018 By: /s/ Michael J. Haddad 

 Michael J. Haddad 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

* Approval in the filing of this document has been obtained from all signatories. 

Case 3:15-cv-03226-RS Document 322 Filed 07/16/18 Page 3 of 4
Stipulation for Order to Extend the Page Limit 

for County Defendants’ Reply, etc. U.S.D.C. No. 3:15-cv-03226-RS 

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

ORDER 

 The parties’ foregoing stipulation is approved, and with good cause appearing therefor, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

 1. The page limit for County Defendants’ Reply brief in support of their Motion for 

Summary Judgment shall be extended to 20 pages. 

 2. County Defendants’ Motion for Administrative Relief to Extend Page Limit of Reply 

Brief in Support of Motion for Summary judgment [Dkt. No. 320] is hereby deemed withdrawn. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: _____________ ____________________________________ 

 HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG 

 United States District Court Judge 

7/16/18

Case 3:15-cv-03226-RS Document 322 Filed 07/16/18 Page 4 of 4