Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00054/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00054-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (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

ANGELA ALIOTO (SBN 130328)

STEVEN L. ROBINSON (SBN 116146)

LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH L. ALIOTO 

AND ANGELA ALIOTO

700 Montgomery Street

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 434-8700

Facsimile: (415) 438-4638

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

BRIAN W. ENOS

Assistant United States Attorney

United States Courthouse

2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4401

Fresno, California 93721

Telephone: (559) 497-4000

Facsimile: (559) 497-4099

Attorneys for Defendant John W. Snow, Secretary 

of United States Department of Treasury

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH ROBINSON, Et al, )

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

JOHN W. SNOW, SECRETARY, )

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF )

TREASURY, )

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:05-cv-01258-LJO-NEW (WMW)

STIPULATION TO (1) EXCEED

COURT’S PAGE LIMITS IMPOSED IN

STANDING ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S

PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS, AND

(2) EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE RE

SAME; ORDER

Plaintiffs Kenneth Robinson, Tony Hawkins, Rudy Jackson,

Percy McIntosh, Nicole Williams, Tyrone Watson, Norman Alston and

Rick Spight (“plaintiffs”) and defendant John W. Snow

(“defendant”), through their counsel of record in this action,

stipulate as follows:

Case 1:11-cv-00054-LJO -SKO Document 69 Filed 10/02/07 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

2

WHEREAS, this is a multiple-plaintiff case alleging claims

of employment discrimination and retaliation.

WHEREAS, plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint alleges in

excess of 50 collective claims of employment discrimination

and/or retaliation against defendant;

WHEREAS, defendant has neared completing a motion to dismiss

the majority of plaintiffs’ claims on grounds including but not

limited to failure to exhaust administrative remedies;

WHEREAS, the parties are cognizant of this Court’s Standing

Order regarding page limits, which provides in pertinent part: 

“[u]nless prior leave of Court is obtained seven days

before the filing date, all moving and opposition

briefs or legal memorandum in civil cases shall not

exceed 25 pages. Reply briefs filed by moving parties

shall not exceed 10 pages. Briefs that exceed the page

limitations or are sought to be filed without leave may

not be considered. If combined supporting papers or

opposition papers exceed 25 pages, the parties are

required to submit a complete set of all papers to

chambers, properly tabbed and fastened and prominently

labeled COURTESY COPY.”

WHEREAS, defendant’s draft motion, which is nearly complete,

presently exceeds 30 pages in length, even though written in

Times New Roman font. This is largely due to its incorporating

an underlying draft declaration from the Internal Revenue Service

that itself will approximate 25 pages in length by the time it is

finalized. Defendant advises the Court that this declaration’s

volume derives from its addressing multiple claims alleged by

each of this action’s eight separate plaintiffs. 

THEREFORE, the parties believe it is in the best interest of

all parties and in the interests of justice generally, that (1)

the Court’s Standing Order regarding page limits relevant to the

Case 1:11-cv-00054-LJO -SKO Document 69 Filed 10/02/07 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

3

above-described motion be lifted, and (2) the parties’ briefing

schedule be extended beyond the normal time limits set forth in

Local Rule 78-230, as set forth below: 

1. The parties may file moving and opposition briefs

regarding the above motion which may be up to forty (40) pages in

length;

2. The defendant may file a reply brief regarding the

above motion which may be up to fifteen (15) pages in length;

3. Plaintiffs may have an additional ten (10) days by

which to file their opposition brief regarding the above motion,

in addition to the time provided in Local Rule 78-230(c); and 

4. Defendant may have an additional seven (7) days by

which to file his reply brief regarding the above motion, in

addition to the time provided in Local Rule 78-230(d).

///

Dated: October 1, 2007 Respectfully submitted,

THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH L.

ALIOTO & ANGELA ALIOTO

 

(As auth. 10/1/07)

 /s/ Steven L. Robinson 

By: Steven L. Robinson

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated: October 1, 2007 McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

By: /s/ Brian W. Enos 

BRIAN W. ENOS

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Attorneys for Defendant

///

Case 1:11-cv-00054-LJO -SKO Document 69 Filed 10/02/07 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

4

ORDER

This Court GRANTS the parties their stipulated extended

briefing schedule and page limits on the condition that the

parties’ papers are clear, concise, succinct and not

unnecessarily repetitive. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00054-LJO -SKO Document 69 Filed 10/02/07 Page 4 of 4