Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01401/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01401-3/pdf.json

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

---

P O R T E R * S C O T T

ATTORNEYS

350 UN IVER S IT Y AVE ., SUIT E 200

SAC R A M E N T O , CA 95825

T EL: 916. 929.1481

FAX: 916. 927.3706

www.porte rscott.com

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

EX PARTE APPLICATION AND DECLARATION OF COUNSEL TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT OF 

00518132.WPD DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

Terence J. Cassidy, SBN 099180

John R. Whitefleet, SBN 213301

350 University Ave., Suite 200

Sacramento, California 95825

TEL: 916.929.1481

FAX: 916.927.3706

Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT and SHERIFF LOU BLANAS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOCK McNEELY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COUNT Y O F S A C R A M ENTO;

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF LOU BLANAS as

an individual and in his official capacity; and

DOES 1 through 100, in their individual and

official capacities.

Defendants.

 /

DOCK McNEELY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COUNTY OF PLACER; PLACER COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; EDWARD

BONNER, individually and in his capacity as

Sheriff of Placer County; COUNTY OF

SACRAMENTO; SACRAMENTO COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF LOU

BLANAS individually and in his official capacity

as Sheriff of Sacramento County; and DOES 1

through 10,

Defendants.

 /

Case No.: 2:05-cv-01401-MCE-DAD master

file - (consolidated with Case No. 05-2549)

EX PARTE APPLICATION AND 

DECLARATION OF COUNSEL IN 

SUPPORT THEREOF TO EXTEND 

PAGE LIMITS FOR DEFENDANTS 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF LOU BLANAS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION; 

ORDER REGARDING PAGE 

EXTENSION

Date: August 3, 2007

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Ctrm: 3

Case 2:05-cv-01401-MCE -DAD Document 57 Filed 08/02/07 Page 1 of 4
P O R T E R * S C O T T

ATTORNEYS

350 UN IVER S IT Y AVE ., SUIT E 200

SAC R A M E N T O , CA 95825

T EL: 916. 929.1481

FAX: 916. 927.3706

www.porte rscott.com

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

Due to an apparent technical problem when the document was converted to PDF format, this 1

extended the pages to 28, including a blank page. Had this not occurred, the pages would have been

approximately 26.

EX PARTE APPLICATION AND DECLARATION OF COUNSEL TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT OF 

00518132.WPD DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION -iDefendants COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT, SHERIFF LOU BLANAS (hereinafter “Defendants”) hereby respectfully submit

this Ex Parte Application for permission to file Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities

in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication in excess of the twenty-page (20)

limit, as well as to file their Reply in excess of the fourteen (14) page limitation, as set by PreTrial

(Status) Scheduling Order dated January 11, 2006.

DECLARATION OF COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION

I, John R. Whitefleet, declare:

1. I am an attorney at law, licensed to practice in and before all of the courts of the State

of California and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, and am an

associate with Porter Scott, A Professional Corporation, Attorneys of Record for Defendants

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,

SHERIFF LOU BLANAS in the above-captioned matter.

2. On July 3, 2007, Defendants filed its Motion for Summary Judgment/adjudication

as to Plaintiff’s consolidated claims. The Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of its

Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication contains approximate twenty-six-pages of factual 1

background, law and substantive argument. In filing this document, Defendants inadvertently

neglected to seek a page extension over the twenty-page limit as set forth in the PreTrial (Status)

Scheduling Order dated January 11, 2006, prior to the filing of said motion. 

3. We respect the rules of the Court and any failure to move prior to filing of said

motion was inadvertent, and not intended to ignore the order of the court. The failure to request this

extension prior to the filing of the motion is regrettable and Defendants sincerely apologize for any

inconvenience this unintended oversight may have caused the Court and Plaintiff.

4. Defendants note that Case No. 05-1401 was consolidated with Case No. 05-2549 on

March 3, 2006, several months after the PreTrial (Status) Scheduling Order dated January 11, 2006

Case 2:05-cv-01401-MCE -DAD Document 57 Filed 08/02/07 Page 2 of 4
P O R T E R * S C O T T

ATTORNEYS

350 UN IVER S IT Y AVE ., SUIT E 200

SAC R A M E N T O , CA 95825

T EL: 916. 929.1481

FAX: 916. 927.3706

www.porte rscott.com

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

EX PARTE APPLICATION AND DECLARATION OF COUNSEL TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT OF 

00518132.WPD DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION -iiwas issued. 

5. Defendants have in good faith attempted to address the complicated issues raised in

this now consolidated action. These issues include Eleventh Amendment immunity, quasi-judicial

immunity, qualified immunity, supervisory liability and Monell-type liability as to several alleged

policies. Appropriate discussion of each issue raised required significant legal analysis of complex

issues, and as such it was impossible to properly address all the issues raised within the twenty-page

limitation. Accordingly, on behalf of Defendants, I respectfully request that the Court retroactively

grant Defendants leave to extend the page limitations and deem the Motion for Summary Judgment,

as filed, proper and acceptable. Alternatively, Defendants seek leave to file an amended motion to

comply with page limitation.

6. In addition, Defendants also request leave to file a Reply that exceeds the fourteen

page limitation. In this regard, Defendants’ Reply is approximately 16 pages, which includes not

a response to Plaintiff’s opposition to the issues enumerated above, but also out of an abundance of

precaution, and assuming the court considered such claims, to respond to several new claims

Plaintiff had not previously asserted in the consolidated complaints. As such, despite all good faith

efforts, it was necessary to exceed the fourteen page limitation. Accordingly, on behalf of

Defendants, I respectfully request that the Court grant Defendants leave to extend the page

limitations for the Reply to 16 pages.

I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the

foregoing is true and correct, and if called to testify as a witness in this matter I can and will testify

competently as to the matters of fact contained herein based upon my personal knowledge. 

Dated this 30th day of July 2007, at Sacramento, California.

By /s/ John R. Whitefleet 

John R. Whitefleet

Attorney for Defendants

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO

COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, SHERIFF

LOU BLANAS

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-01401-MCE -DAD Document 57 Filed 08/02/07 Page 3 of 4
P O R T E R * S C O T T

ATTORNEYS

350 UN IVER S IT Y AVE ., SUIT E 200

SAC R A M E N T O , CA 95825

T EL: 916. 929.1481

FAX: 916. 927.3706

www.porte rscott.com

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

EX PARTE APPLICATION AND DECLARATION OF COUNSEL TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT OF 

00518132.WPD DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION -iii-

 ORDER

This Ex Parte Application for permission to file a Memorandum of Points and Authorities

in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication, and Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition, in

excess of the page limitations set forth in the PreTrial (Status) Scheduling Order dated January 11,

2006, was filed by Defendants COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, SHERIFF LOU BLANAS and was entertained on an ex parte basis.

The Court has reviewed the motion and found good cause to grant Defendants’ requests for page

extensions. Therefore:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO,

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, SHERIFF LOU BLANAS’ Ex Parte

Application to extend the page limitations in its Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support

of Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication be granted and that the Court will consider

Defendants’ motion as filed.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Ex Parte Application to extend page limitations

in regard to their Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition is hereby granted and shall be limited to no more

than sixteen pages in length.

Dated: August 1, 2007

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01401-MCE -DAD Document 57 Filed 08/02/07 Page 4 of 4