Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-05770/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-05770-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

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

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF REBECCA R. HULL

[Case No. C 08-05770 MMC (MEJ)] -1-

Michelle L. Roberts - CA STATE BAR NO. 239092

Cassie Springer-Sullivan - CA STATE BAR NO. 221506

SPRINGER-SULLIVAN & ROBERTS LLP

410 - 12th Street, Suite 325

Oakland, CA 94607

Telephone: (510) 992-6130

Facsimile: (510) 280-7564

E-mail: css@ssrlawgroup.com

mlr@ssrlawgroup.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN FRANCISCO

HANNA ZEWDU,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CITIGROUP LONG TERM DISABILITY

PLAN,

Defendant.

 

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C 08-05770 MMC (MEJ)

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO

THE LATE-FILED DECLARATION

OF REBECCA R. HULL IN

SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION OF

CITIGROUP LONG TERM

DISABILITY PLAN

Date: January 14, 2010

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Place: Courtroom B, 15 Floor th

Hon. Maria-Elena James

Plaintiff objects to the filing of the Declaration of Rebecca R. Hull, Docket Entry # 51 for the

following reasons:

1. Defendant filed the Declaration of Rebecca R. Hull without court approval in 

violation of Civil Local Rule 7-3(d), which states in pertinent part, “once a reply is filed, no additional

memoranda, papers or letters may be filed without prior Court approval.” Defendant did not seek court

approval nor did counsel for Defendant seek any stipulation from Plaintiff’s counsel before unilaterally

filing the declaration. 

2. Ms. Hull’s claim that Ms. Sullivan’s physical location prevented her from faxing her 

signature is disingenuous at best. The Sullivan Declaration was said to be executed in Mt. Prospect, IL.

Coincidentally, MetLife’s office, and presumably Ms. Sullivan’s workplace, is located at 1660

Feehanville Drive, Mt Prospect, IL 60056-6014. As Plaintiff noted in her Reply brief, Ms. Sullivan

Case3:08-cv-05770-MMC Document52 Filed01/06/10 Page1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

DENIED

Judge Maria-Elena James

Case 3:08-cv-05770-MMC Document 53 Filed 01/07/10 Page 1 of 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

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF REBECCA R. HULL

[Case No. C 08-05770 MMC (MEJ)] -2-

provided Ms. Hull with a declaration for another ERISA case involving a different disability plan. See

Reply at p. 1, FN 1. That declaration was also signed in Mt Prospect, IL, a location from where Ms.

Sullivan was previously able to provide Defendant’s counsel with her signature. In this day and age of

advance technological developments, it is hard to believe that Ms. Sullivan did not have access to a fax

machine or scanner in the same location as her workplace for a large insurance company, but yet she was

able to communicate her authority to file the declaration to Ms. Hull in California. 

3. Rebecca Hull’s “explanation” for the late filing does not remedy Defendant’s 

violation of the ECF General Order, which states in pertinent part,

The filer shall attest that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from each

of the other signatories, or from the single signatory (in the case, e.g., of a declaration) which

shall serve in lieu of their signature(s) on the document.

ECF General Order XB. Ms. Hull could have very easily filed her attestation on December 24, 2009 but

chose not to do so. Only after Plaintiff raised in the issue in her Reply brief did Defendant seek to obtain

an actual signature from Ms. Sullivan.

4. Ms. Hulls’ claim that Ms. Sullivan’s physical location prevented her from faxing the 

signature is hearsay and lacks foundation. Because of the suspect nature of the late-produced signature,

Plaintiff requests that the Court order Defendant to produce all of the communications between

Defendant’s counsel and Ms. Sullivan regarding her declaration.

For these reasons, Plaintiff requests that the Court sustain Plaintiff’s objection and strike the

Declaration of Rebecca R. Hull filed on January 6, 2010 and the Declaration of Laura Sullivan.

Dated: January 6, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

Springer-Sullivan & Roberts LLP

By: /s/Michelle L. Roberts 

Michelle L. Roberts

Case 3:08-cv-05770-MMC Document 53 Filed 01/07/10 Page 2 of 2 Case3:08-cv-05770-MMC Document52 Filed01/06/10 Page2 of 2