Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02576/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02576-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Erma J. Alaniz
Plaintiff
Robert M. Peppercorn
Defendant
Robert M. Peppercorn, M.D., Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

MURPHY AUSTIN ADAMS SCHOENFELD LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

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 

- 1 - 

DENNIS R. MURPHY, SBN 051215 

MARY E. FARRELL, SBN 172050 

BRIAN S. CRONE, SBN 191731 

MURPHY AUSTIN ADAMS SCHOENFELD LLP 

304 S Street (95814-6906) 

Post Office Box 1319 

Sacramento, California 95812-1319 

Telephone: (916) 446-2300 

Facsimile: (916) 503-4000 

Email: dmurphy@murphyaustin.com

Email: mfarrell@murphyaustin.com

Attorneys for Defendants 

ROBERT M. PEPPERCORN, M.D., INC. and 

ROBERT M. PEPPERCORN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ERMA J. ALANIZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ROBERT M. PEPPERCORN, M.D., INC. 

and ROBERT M. PEPPERCORN, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 05-CV-02576-MCE-DAD 

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

FROM PAGE LIMIT; DECLARATION OF 

DENNIS R. MURPHY IN SUPPORT 

THEREOF; ORDER 

Judge: Honorable Morrison C. England, 

Jr. 

Defendants Robert M. Peppercorn, M.D., Inc. and Robert M. Peppercorn (“defendants”) 

respectfully request relief from the 20-page motion limit set forth in the Court’s February 28, 

2006 Pre-Trial Scheduling Order in order to file their joint motion for summary judgment, which 

defendants currently expect will exceed the 20 page limit. As set forth in the Declaration of 

Dennis R. Murphy, defendants submit this request because there are seven causes of action in 

plaintiff’s complaint, two separate defendants, and more than 12 fact witnesses that will be 

addressed in the defendants’ motion. Rather than submit two separate motions, one for each 

defendant, defendants would prefer to submit one joint motion. 

Plaintiff’s complaint asserts seven causes of action. Plaintiff asserts claims under 

Case 2:05-cv-02576-MCE -DAD Document 22 Filed 11/03/06 Page 1 of 4
MURPHY AUSTIN ADAMS SCHOENFELD LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

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 - 

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (plaintiff’s causes of action one through four) and 

Title VII (plaintiff’s causes of action five through seven). Defendants will be required to 

separately argue that summary adjudication as to each cause of action is appropriate by applying 

California legal authority to the FEHA causes of action and federal authority to the Title VII 

causes of action. Defendants require additional pages to analyze the claims under the differing 

legal authority. 

In addition to the extensive legal analysis that defendants must submit, there are a large 

number of fact witnesses to address. In her Initial Disclosures, plaintiff disclosed the identity of 

27 fact witnesses. Thereafter, during the discovery phase of this case, the parties took 12 

depositions, including multiple days of plaintiff and defendant Robert Peppercorn’s depositions. 

For the foregoing reasons, defendants respectfully request that the Court relieve 

defendants from the 20 page limit and permit defendants to file a joint motion for summary 

judgment, or in the alternative, motion for summary adjudication not to exceed 40 pages. 

Dated: October 30 , 2006 MURPHY AUSTIN ADAMS SCHOENFELD LLP 

By: /s/ Dennis R. Murphy 

DENNIS R. MURPHY 

MARY E. FARRELL 

Attorneys for Defendants 

ROBERT M. PEPPERCORN, M.D., INC. and 

ROBERT M. PEPPERCORN 

Case 2:05-cv-02576-MCE -DAD Document 22 Filed 11/03/06 Page 2 of 4
MURPHY AUSTIN ADAMS SCHOENFELD LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

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 

- 3 - 

DECLARATION OF DENNIS R. MURPHY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

FOR RELIEF FROM PAGE LIMIT 

I, Dennis R. Murphy, hereby declare: 

1. I am an attorney, duly licensed and practicing in the State of California and 

authorized to practice before the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. I am 

a partner with Murphy Austin Adams Schoenfeld LLP, attorneys for Robert M. Peppercorn, 

M.D., Inc. and Robert M. Peppercorn, defendants in the above-entitled action. 

2. This declaration is filed in support of defendants’ request to file their Joint Motion 

for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues in 

excess of the 20-page limit set forth in the Court’s February 28, 2006 Scheduling Order. I have 

personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and if called to testify, I could and would 

competently testify thereto. 

3. Plaintiff has asserted claims in her complaint against two defendants: Robert M. 

Peppercorn, M.D., Inc. and Robert M. Peppercorn (as an individual). Some of the causes of 

action are only asserted against the corporation and others are asserted against both parties. I will 

be filing a Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary 

Adjudication of Issues on behalf of both defendants. Because the facts are common to both 

defendants, I will be filing one joint motion rather than two separate motions, which necessarily 

increases the number of pages in the motion. 

4. Plaintiff’s complaint asserts seven separate causes of action. In general, this case 

involves plaintiff’s claims of sexual harassment and sexual discrimination based on claims of 

sexual favortisim. Plaintiff asserts four different claims under California’s Fair Employment and 

Housing Act and three claims under Title VII. In seeking summary judgment and/or summary 

adjudication, I must analyze separate legal authority for the FEHA and Title VII claims. 

5. In addition to the complex legal issues presented by plaintiff’s claims, there are a 

large number of factual issues that must be addressed in the motion. Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures 

identified 27 potential witnesses. There were 12 depositions taken during the discovery phase of 

this case, including multiple days for plaintiff and Dr. Peppercorn. Accordingly, assembling the 

Case 2:05-cv-02576-MCE -DAD Document 22 Filed 11/03/06 Page 3 of 4
MURPHY AUSTIN ADAMS SCHOENFELD LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

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 

- 4 - 

material facts from these 12 depositions has taken a substantial amount of pages. 

6. Although we have already spent time editing, we have been unable to reduce the 

page limit to less than 40 pages without substantially and detrimentally affecting the content. We 

will continue to edit the motion and will attempt to reduce the page numbers. I believe that 

defendants may be prejudiced if the page limit is not extended. 

7. As a result, defendants respectfully request relief from the 20 page limit set forth 

in the Court’s Pre-Trial Scheduling Order and requests to file a memorandum of points and 

authorities of no more than 40 pages. I believe that under the circumstances, this is the number of 

pages that will be reasonably necessary to properly brief and discuss the issues presented by the 

subject motion. 

8. My office contacted plaintiff’s attorneys, Alan Adelman and Elizabeth Mancl, to 

request their agreement to our request for relief from the page limit. Mr. Adelman indicated to 

Brian Crone of my office that on behalf of the plaintiff he had no objection to the Court granting 

defendants a 5-10 page extension of the page limit but that he felt that anything beyond a 10 page 

extension would be excessive and unwarranted. 

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

foregoing is true and correct and that I executed this declaration on the 30th day of October, 2006 

at Sacramento, California. 

/s/ Dennis R. Murphy 

Dennis R. Murphy 

The request to exceed twenty (20) pages is granted to the extent that plaintiff and 

defendant are each permitted to file papers not to exceed thirty (30) pages in length. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 3, 2006 

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-02576-MCE -DAD Document 22 Filed 11/03/06 Page 4 of 4