Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02833/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02833-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

ORDER (No.10-cv-02833-LB)

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

BRENDA HILL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, 

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 10-cv-02833-LB

ORDER

Re: ECF No. 253

The court previously entered an order describing the process to resolve the fees dispute. (See

Order, ECF No. 236.1) It then issued an order describing the additional parameters for the motion 

(such as supporting declarations) and setting January 7, 2016, as the last day for Mr. Friedman to 

file his motion. (See ECF No. 249.) The court also defined a strategy for raising scheduling 

disputes, including a joint submission with a chart to raise differences about schedules. (See id.). 

Mr. Friedman then filed an administrative motion to extend the time to file his brief until February 

4, 2016. (See ECF No. 253.) In quick order, the plaintiffs opposed it, Mr. Friedman replied, and 

the plaintiffs replied. (See ECF Nos. 254, 256, 257.) The court now orders the following. 

First, for good cause, it grants Mr. Friedman’s motion, which extends the time period to file 

 1 Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pin cites are to the ECF-generated page 

numbers at the tops of the documents.

Case 3:10-cv-02833-LB Document 261 Filed 01/29/16 Page 1 of 2
2

10-cv-02833-LB

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the brief until February 4, 2016. This triggers the following schedule under the local rules: the 

opposition is due February 18, 2016, the reply is due February 25, 2016, and the hearing will be 

March 10, 2016, at 9:30 a.m. The court’s prior reference to the “holidays” was meant to shield the 

plaintiffs’ schedule, not be a sword to oppose any continuance, no matter what the ground. 

Second, the court of course will consider any “ancillary issues” that the parties raise. (See Mr. 

Friedman’s Administrative Motion, ECF No. 23 at 4-5).That said, it considered its approach 

thoroughly in the prior orders, and the parties should not expect any deviation from it.

Third, the court reiterates its prior order at ECF No. 249 that any requests to change the 

schedule must be joint. The court also refines its process for raising scheduling disputes as 

follows. Before filing a request, the parties must meet and confer at least by telephone if other 

means do not resolve the dispute. The format for the joint submission is as follows. The title must 

be “Joint Submission Re Schedule Dispute” (or the equivalent), and the first line must contain an 

attestation that the parties complied with the meet-and-confer process. The paragraphs that follow 

must be as follows: 1) the requesting party’s reason for a change in no more than 250 words; 2) 

the opposing party’s opposition in no more than 250 words; 3) the requesting party’s reply to the 

opposition in no more than 100 words; 4) the chart in ECF No. 249; and 5) the parties’ signatures 

followed by a proposed order in the form of, “The court imposes the schedule in the chart. It is so 

ordered.” If the court wants a more detailed explanation, it will ask for it. Also, if the parties really 

cannot navigate filing a joint request, the requesting party may prepare the draft joint request and 

email it to the opposing party. Within two business days, the opposing party must insert its section 

and email it back. Within one business day, the requesting party will e-file the request. 

Finally, the filings at ECF Nos. 253, 254, 256, and 257 created unnecessary work, caused 

delay, violated the court’s order at ECF No. 249, and are not consistent with the district court’s 

civility guidelines and the undersigned’s own approach to resolving disputes. See 

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/professional_conduct_guidelines. The parties can do better.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02833-LB Document 261 Filed 01/29/16 Page 2 of 2