Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-02278/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-02278-4/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEANNA L. FREITAG,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C00-2278 TEH 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

INTERIM ATTORNEYS’ FEES

AND ORDER SETTING

BRIEFING SCHEDULES

As the Court orally ordered at the April 16, 2007 hearing and case management

conference, Plaintiff’s motion for interim attorneys’ fees and costs is GRANTED IN PART

as to Plaintiff’s entitlement to such an award. Absent any agreement by the parties as to an

appropriate amount of the interim award, the Court will determine a reasonable amount after

reviewing the parties’ supplemental papers, to be filed as follows: Plaintiff’s supplemental

declarations due on or before April 30, 2007; Defendants’ response due on or before

May 14, 2007; and Plaintiff’s reply due on or before May 21, 2007. This matter will be

deemed submitted on the papers unless otherwise ordered.

The Court also set the following schedule for briefing on the issues remanded by the

Ninth Circuit on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims: Plaintiff’s moving papers

due on or before April 23, 2007; Defendants’ opposition due on or before May 7, 2007; and

Plaintiff’s reply due on or before May 14, 2007. Unless otherwise ordered, the hearing on

the remanded issues shall be held on Monday, June 4, 2007, at 10:00 AM.

Finally, the Court clarifies that it is willing to refer this matter – on either the interim

attorneys’ fees, the remanded issues, or both – for a further settlement conference if both

Case 3:00-cv-02278-TEH Document 491 Filed 04/17/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

parties can agree that a further settlement conference might be productive. The parties may

ask for a referral back to Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James, or they may jointly request a

referral to any other magistrate judge in San Francisco.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 04/17/07 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:00-cv-02278-TEH Document 491 Filed 04/17/07 Page 2 of 2