Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02833/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02833-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

JEREMY L. FRIEDMAN

CA Bar No. 142659

Law Office of Jeremy L. Friedman

2801 Sylhowe Road

Oakland, CA 94602

Telephone: (510) 530-9060

Facsimile: (510) 530-9087

Fee Claimant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRENDA HILL, et al., 

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

KAISER FOUNDATION

HEALTH PLAN, INC; et al., 

 Defendants.

_____________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:10-cv-2833LB

Joint Submission re Schedule Dispute

Undersigned counsel certify they exchanged email communications and discussed

this scheduling dispute by telephone, but were unable to reach an agreement. 

REQUEST FOR SCHEDULING CHANGE

Jim Sturdevant – an expert retained by Friedman in this fee dispute – requires

additional time to complete his review of sealed records, to confer with Friedman and to

draft a reply declaration. Mr. Sturdevant signed the acknowledgment attached to the

Court’s July 19, 2016, protective order (Docket Item No. 312), and was provided with

sealed records on that same day. While the expert was able to begin his review of

documents immediately, he was required to travel out of state on July 21, and he

continued to work remotely on Friday, July 22, and over the weekend. During that time

period, however, technical problems with internet service have prevented Mr. Sturdevant

from being able to complete his work in connection with this case.

Attorney Friedman is unable to prepare his reply brief until his expert has

completed his review. Friedman has diligently followed up on every step associated with

getting the protective order, and following through on its requirements. As of Monday,

 ORDER

Case 3:10-cv-02833-LB Document 315 Filed 07/28/16 Page 1 of 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

July 25, Friedman has had limited, non-substantive communications with his expert,

relating to the need for additional time. He believes he could complete his draft of the

reply within one or two days after receipt of Mr. Sturdevant’s reply declaration. He

hopes that technical problems will be overcome, and that Mr. Sturdevant will be able to

complete his work on a reply declaration within the next three days.

Rather than multiple submissions on this scheduling issue, Friedman suggests the

Court extend the time for filing the reply brief by one week, or until Monday, August 1. 

This should not cause a change to the current hearing date of August 18, 2016.

PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR SCHEDULING CHANGE

Plaintiffs strongly object to any further extension of the deadline for Attorney

Friedman to file a Reply brief. Attorney Friedman has already sought and received six

extensions of time to file his pleadings in connection with this fee dispute. This extension,

if granted, would be the sixth extension Mr. Friedman would have received to extend the

deadlines for the filing of his attorneys fee motion against his own clients. This new

requested extension would not only extend the deadline for Mr. Friedman to file his

Reply, but would also again delay the August 18, 2016 hearing date tentatively set by this

Court for the hearing. Plaintiffs have been subjected to these delays for too long. 

Plaintiffs deserve an end to these protracted proceedings which have continued to cost

them both time and financial resources. Attorney Friedman did not ask for this new sixth

extension until after the time to file a Reply had already past. Thus, it is Plaintiffs'

position that Attorney Friedman has waived his right to file a Reply.

REPLY

As of July 27, Mr. Sturdevant is near completion of his review, and has been

preparing a reply declaration; but Friedman has not yet received a draft. Fee opponents

do not explain why this delay will impact the hearing date, but Friedman would not object

to an extension. Nor do they explain how they would be impacted in time or financial

resources if Strudevant is given the time he needs. It is not correct this request is late. 

Emails and phone calls, along with a draft joint submission, were made to Mr. Lunski on

Joint Submission re Scheduling Dispute – page 2

Case 3:10-cv-02833-LB Document 315 Filed 07/28/16 Page 2 of 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

July 25, but counsel did not provide his response for this joint submission until

Wednesday, July 27. In addition, on July 25 Friedman filed the expert acknowledgment

noting this process was underway.

CHART WITH PROPOSED DATES AND PARTIES’ POSITION

 Friedman’s Disputing Pl.’s

Case Event Proposal Proposal Court Order

Reply August 1, 2016 July 25, 2016

Hearing August 18, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: July 27, 2016 JEREMY L. FRIEDMAN

 By: /s/Jeremy L. Friedman Jeremy L. Friedman

Fee Claimant 

Dated: July 27, 2016 LUNSKI & STIMPERT LLP

 By: /s/Ron U. Lunski 

Ron U. Lunski

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Medhanie Berhe,

Patsy Hardy, Michelle Mike, Wilma Joyce

Jennings and Rena Harrison Thomas

Joint Submission re Scheduling Dispute – page 3

August 1, 2016

August 18, 2016 at 

11:00 a.m.

Case 3:10-cv-02833-LB Document 315 Filed 07/28/16 Page 3 of 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 court imposes the schedule in the chart. 

It is so ordered.

Dated: ______________, 2016

_______________________________

United States Magistrate Judge

Joint Submission re Scheduling Dispute – page 4

July 27

Case 3:10-cv-02833-LB Document 315 Filed 07/28/16 Page 4 of 4