Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02488/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02488-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

27

28 

190805.1 -1- 

WILKE,FLEURY,HOFFELT,

GOULD &BIRNEY,LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAC RAMENTO APPLICATION FOR AND (PROPOSED) ORDER ALLOWING FILING OF SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION

WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD & BIRNEY, LLP 

ROBERT F. TYLER (SBN 063055) 

400 Capitol Mall, Twenty-Second Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: (916) 441-2430 

Facsimile: (916) 442-6664 

Attorneys for Defendants 

JUDITH JOHNSON, R.N., CHERYL PAIZIS, D.O., 

HENRY ISHIBASHI, LCSW, and NANCY HARNETT, 

MSW 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Estate of MOHAMMAD REZA 

ABDOLLAHI, deceased, by and through 

SINA ABDOLLAHI (a minor through his 

mother and guardian ad litem Parvin 

Ganji), as successor in interest; SINA 

ABDOLLAHI, Individually; Estate of 

JAKE SUMMERS, deceased, by and 

through is mother DENISE HOFF 

(conservatee, by and through her guardian 

ad litem Judy Carver), as successor in 

interest; DENISE HOFF, individually; 

JULIEN PROVENCHER, SR., 

individually; JEAN THURSTON, 

individually; Estate of JOSE ELIZAR 

ARAMBULA, deceased, by and through 

ELIAS ARAMBULA and ANDREW 

ARAMBULA, minors through their mother 

and guardian ad litem Irma Rodriguez, as 

successors in interest; ELIAS 

ARAMBULA and ANDREW 

ARAMBULA, Individually; and 

SOCORRO ARAMBULA, Individually, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; et al. 

Defendants. 

No. CIV.S - 02-2488 FCD JFM 

(Consolidated Cases) 

APPLICATION FOR RELIEF AND 

ORDER ALLOWING FILING OF 

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF 

JUDITH JOHNSON, IN SUPPORT OF 

MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

BY JUDITH JOHNSON, R.N. AND NANCY 

HARNETT, MSW (FRCP 60(b)) 

Date: November 18, 2005 

Time: 10:00 a.m. 

Courtroom: 2 

Second Amended Consolidated 

Complaint Filed: July 15, 2005 

Discovery Cutoff: June 1, 2005 

Trial Date: June 6, 2006 

 

 

Case 2:02-cv-02488-FCD-JFM Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 1 of 5
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 

190805.1 -2- 

WILKE,FLEURY,HOFFELT,

GOULD &BIRNEY,LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAC RAMENTO APPLICATION FOR AND (PROPOSED) ORDER ALLOWING FILING OF SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION

Defendants Judith Johnson and Nancy Harnett, hereby apply to this Court, for its Order, 

allowing them to late file the Supplemental Declaration of Judith Johnson in Support of their 

Pending Motions for Summary Judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). 

The basis upon which said motion is being made is that moving defendants’ failure to 

previously file a declaration addressing the subject matter contained in this supplemental 

declaration was due to surprise and/or excusable negligent and that an Order allowing the filing 

and consideration of same within the presently pending motions does justice. Said application is 

based upon the following points and authorities, as well as the Declaration of Robert F. Tyler in 

support thereof. 

Dated: November 4, 2005 WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, 

GOULD & BIRNEY, LLP 

By: //ROBERT F. TYLER// 

ROBERT F. TYLER 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

JUDITH JOHNSON, R.N., CHERYL 

PAIZIS, D.O., HENRY ISHIBASHI, LCSW, 

and NANCY HARNETT, MSW 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 

FROM RELIEF TO LATE FILE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF JUDITH 

JOHNSON IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY 

DEFENDANTS JOHNSON AND HARNETT

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that on motion and upon such terms as are 

just, the Court may relieve a party from a proceeding for “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or 

excusable neglect.” In the present action, these moving defendants filed their motions for 

summary judgment on July 29, 2005. Prior to that time, plaintiffs, in the course of lengthy 

discovery, had made no mention of whatsoever of any contention that defendant Harnett had 

previously been derelict with regard to any inmate other than inmate Arambula, much less that 

defendant Johnson should have taken any action with regard to same.

1

 

 1

A portion of the problem obviously adheres in the truncated timeframe in which defendant Harnett found herself. 

Thus, defendant Harnett was only brought into this litigation essentially after the close of discovery, and in fact, filed 

her answer to the present complaint only after she had had to filed her summary judgment motion. Clearly, her 

discovery rights were completely abrogated in these circumstances. In fairness to plaintiffs, by depriving defendant 

Harnett of the ability to discover the contentions being made against her, plaintiffs were never called to outline same 

as to her. In like manner, since the Nesemann memo was produced to them by defendant County only after discovery 

was already closed, plaintiffs may well have been excused from their duty to supplement their prior discovery 

responses as to defendant Johnson under FRCP 26. 

Case 2:02-cv-02488-FCD-JFM Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 2 of 5
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 

190805.1 -3- 

WILKE,FLEURY,HOFFELT,

GOULD &BIRNEY,LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAC RAMENTO APPLICATION FOR AND (PROPOSED) ORDER ALLOWING FILING OF SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION

In their opposition to those presently pending motions by these defendants, plaintiffs lay 

great reliance upon a memo from one Sgt. Nesemann, that contained in a 2605 page document 

physical production of documents made by defendant County after the close of discovery some 

weeks before the defendants’ summary judgment motions were filed. Simply put, these 

defendants’ review of these documents did not take place until after the present summary 

judgment motions had been filed, and plaintiffs first raised Sgt. Nesemann’s memo as an issue. 

As noted above, plaintiffs never raised this as an issue prior to that, for as noted, Ms. Harnett was 

never afforded an opportunity to make discovery of plaintiffs’ contentions against her due to the 

timing of this litigation, while plaintiffs failed to raise it via supplementation to their responses to 

defendant Johnson’s discovery either. Of course, a supplementation of those responses under 

Rule 26e would have obviated the situation. While plaintiffs will ostensibly that they had no duty 

to supplement their prior answers due to the close of discovery before they were afforded the 

documents containing Sgt. Nesemann’s memo, the point remains that, due to no fault of their 

own, these moving defendants were completely “sandbagged”. Such more than constitutes a 

compelling basis for a finding of “surprise” and excusable neglect under FRCP 60(b). 

Conversely, absolutely no prejudice will be visited upon plaintiffs by allowing defendants 

to adduce the supplemental declaration of Judith Johnson, while the interests of justice will be 

directly advanced thereby. Thus, plaintiffs are attempting to assert a “gotcha” by reason of a selfserving memorandum issued by a custody sergeant regarding an inmate whose care is not at issue 

herein. As the supplemental declaration of Judith Johnson demonstrates, plaintiffs’ attempt to use 

same to cast aspersions upon Ms. Harnett and Ms. Johnson is totally misplaced, for the records of 

the inmate referred to in Sgt. Nesemann’s memo irrefutably demonstrate that Ms. Harnett acted 

totally appropriately in the circumstances. Given this, plaintiffs have not only surprised 

defendants with a “stealth” issue, but that issue is itself a total “red herring” which would only 

have the ultimate effect of misleading the court in the circumstances. Given this, it is quite clear 

that defendants Harnett and Johnson should be given relief to file the Supplemental Declaration 

of Judith Johnson, nunc pro tunc, as if that declaration were filed along with their original papers 

in support of their pending motions. 

Case 2:02-cv-02488-FCD-JFM Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 3 of 5
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 

190805.1 -4- 

WILKE,FLEURY,HOFFELT,

GOULD &BIRNEY,LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAC RAMENTO APPLICATION FOR AND (PROPOSED) ORDER ALLOWING FILING OF SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION

DATED: November 4, 2005 WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, 

GOULD & BIRNEY, LLP 

By: //ROBERT F. TYLER// 

ROBERT F. TYLER 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

JUDITH JOHNSON, R.N., CHERYL 

PAIZIS, D.O., HENRY ISHIBASHI, LCSW, 

and NANCY HARNETT, MSW 

DECLARATION OF ROBERT F. TYLER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FROM RELIEF 

FROM DEFAULT

I, Robert F. Tyler, do hereby declare: 

1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice in the Courts of the State of 

California and before this Court. I am attorney for defendants Henry Ishibashi, LCSW, Nancy 

Harnett, MSW and Judith Johnson, R.N., herein. 

2. When these litigations were first filed, I served contention interrogatories upon 

plaintiffs requesting that they provide various information, including their theories of liability 

against defendants Johnson and Ishibashi. No where referred to in plaintiffs’ answers was 

anything regarding a memorandum by one Sgt. Nesemann, concerning inmate M. 

3. Plaintiffs never supplemented any of those interrogatory responses. 

4. I was never able to serve contention interrogatories on behalf of defendant Harnett 

upon plaintiffs, in that defendant Nancy Harnett was only added into this litigation six weeks after 

discovery had already closed. 

5. Up to the point at which plaintiffs ultimately filed their opposition to my clients’ 

motions for summary judgment, I had never been aware of the memorandum from Sgt. Nesemann 

concerning inmate M. contained in one of defendant County’s document productions in June. 

Immediately after I became aware of same, I requested that inmate M.’s records be provided to 

me, so that I could ascertain the validity of Sgt. Nesemann’s assertions. As those records 

themselves show, Sgt. Nesemann’s assertions, at least as they would relate to the actions of 

defendant Harnett, are totally without merit. 

Case 2:02-cv-02488-FCD-JFM Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 4 of 5
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 

190805.1 -5- 

WILKE,FLEURY,HOFFELT,

GOULD &BIRNEY,LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAC RAMENTO APPLICATION FOR AND (PROPOSED) ORDER ALLOWING FILING OF SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION

6. To allow plaintiffs to herein assert that Sgt. Nesemann made a valid complaint 

against Ms. Harnett in the context of inmate M.’s care would do a disservice to the Court, and 

would cause an unjustified misprision of justice as to both of my clients. Because of this, I 

believe in good faith that the present motion is properly brought, so as to place a true and 

complete record before the Court before it rules upon my clients’ presently pending motions for 

summary judgment. 

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and of my own 

knowledge, and that if called, I could competently testify to the above. 

Executed this 2nd day of November, 2005, at Sacramento, California. 

 //ROBERT F. TYLER// 

 ROBERT F. TYLER 

ORDER 

Based upon the foregoing Application for Relief, and good cause appearing, it is hereby 

ordered that the Supplemental Declaration of Judith Johnson, attached hereto, be filed and 

considered herein. 

Dated: November 2, 2005 

 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

 FRANK C. DAMRELL JR. 

 U.S. District Judge 

 

Case 2:02-cv-02488-FCD-JFM Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 5 of 5