Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03383/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03383-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

LAW 

OFFICE OF 

DENNIS 

CUNNINGHAM

San Francisco, Ca 

BEN ROSENFELD (State Bar #203845)

Law Office of Dennis Cunningham 

115 1⁄2 Bartlett Street 

San Francisco, CA 94110 

Telephone: 415/285-8091 

Facsimile: 415/285-8092 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669

City Attorney 

JOANNE HOEPER, State Bar #114961 

Chief Trial Attorney 

BLAKE P. LOEBS, State Bar #145790

Deputy City Attorneys 

1390 Market Street, 6th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94102-5408 

Telephone: (415) 554-3868 

Facsimile: (415) 554-3837 

Attorneys for Defendants 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JESSICA BATES, et al., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. C-05-3383-SI 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CONTINUING DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS 

FILING DEADLINE FROM MARCH 23, 2007

TO APRIL 20, 2007 

No Trial Date Set 

 For the reasons set forth below, the parties, through their undersigned counsel, hereby 

jointly request that the Court continue the dispositive motion filing deadline, currently set for 

March 23, 2007, to April 20, 2007. 

Case 3:05-cv-03383-SI Document 39 Filed 03/14/2007 Page 1 of 3
 Case 3:05-cv-03383-SI Document 40 Filed 03/16/07 Page 1 of 3
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

LAW 

OFFICE OF 

DENNIS 

CUNNINGHAM

San Francisco, Ca 

 The parties have been working diligently for months to complete the task of exchanging 

sufficient discovery to enable the Court to make a qualified immunity determination upon 

defendants’ motion for summary judgment. This has been no small task in a case involving 

sixteen plaintiffs, and tens of defendants, each of whom of course has individual rights, and also 

involving many hours of video evidence to examine. 

 Along the way, the parties, through their counsel, have also worked diligently to narrow 

their factual disputes through a series of stipulations. The most recent stipulation, attached to the 

Joint Case Management Conference Statement filed on November 14, 2007, provided that 

plaintiffs would prepare a proposed Third Amended Complaint, whose factual averments 

defendants could rely on, as if verified, for the purpose of filing or opposing any dispositive 

motions. Concomitantly, in order to make such amendments to the Complaint, plaintiffs relied 

on defendants to identify various deputies from still images which plaintiffs distilled from the 

video. The goal was to allege in the Complaint, with as much factual specificity as possible, who 

did what to whom. By extension, the goal was also to present the case in a form which made it 

amenable to the Court’s analysis under qualified immunity principles. 

 This process has required extensive time, and meeting and conferring – more than either 

party had anticipated. Moreover, when plaintiffs set out to isolate identifiable still images from 

the video, they had no idea whether they would be asking defendants to identify deputies who 

had already been named in the case, or ones who had not. For their part, defendants hoped and 

anticipated that plaintiffs would be seeking to identify deputies who had already been named in 

the case, not new ones. 

 This part of the process is now complete, as of March 8, 2007, when plaintiffs submitted 

their proposed Third Amended Complaint to defendants, filling in the names and the facts, 

according to their best efforts. However, it has also resulted in the naming of 14 new defendants 

(as well as the deletion of five defendants, in addition to those plaintiffs had dismissed 

previously), giving defendants just two weeks (until March 23, 2007), to obtain declarations 

from the potential new defendants and file motions – an unmanageable task in that time frame. 

Case 3:05-cv-03383-SI Document 39 Filed 03/14/2007 Page 2 of 3
 Case 3:05-cv-03383-SI Document 40 Filed 03/16/07 Page 2 of 3
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

LAW 

OFFICE OF 

DENNIS 

CUNNINGHAM

San Francisco, Ca 

 As discussed above, the parties did not, and could not, know that these efforts would 

result in the naming of new potential defendants, or how many, before they undertook this 

process. But because the process has yielded these new names, defendants will need time to 

interview and obtain declarations from these newly named deputies, in deference to their 

individual rights, in order to present a summary judgment motion. In order to allow defendants 

sufficient time to undertake this additional work, the parties hereby jointly request a further one 

month extension of the dispositive motion hearing date.1

 As no dates in this case beyond the dispositive motion hearing date have been set, this 

request for time will not adversely impact any scheduling. 

 For all the reasons stated above, the parties, through their undersigned counsel, hereby 

jointly request that the Court continue the dispositive motion filing deadline, currently set for 

March 23, 2007, to April 20, 2007, so that the matter will be heard on May 25, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

DATED: March 14, 2007 

By: s/ - Ben Rosenfeld 

BEN ROSENFELD, Esq. 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

DATED: March 14, 2007 

By: /s/ - Blake P. Loebs 

BLAKE P. LOEBS, DCA 

Attorney for Defendants 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED: 

Dated:_______________________ _________________________________ 

HON. SUSAN ILLSTON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

1

 Defendants need time to further review plaintiffs’ proposed Third Amended Complaint, 

and to interview the newly named deputies, before deciding whether or not to oppose plaintiffs’ 

filing of it. Plaintiff is withholding filing of it, or seeking leave to do so, pending defendants’ 

evaluation and pronouncement on whether or not they will oppose. But as discussed above, the 

parties have already stipulated and agreed that defendants may rely on plaintiffs’ assertions of 

fact, as recited in the proposed Third Amended Complaint, irrespective of whether defendants 

oppose, or do not oppose, plaintiffs’ filing of it. 

Case 3:05-cv-03383-SI Document 39 Filed 03/14/2007 Page 3 of 3
 Case 3:05-cv-03383-SI Document 40 Filed 03/16/07 Page 3 of 3