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

SERVICE EMPLOYEES

INTERNATIONAL UNION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SAL ROSELLI, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-00404 WHA

ORDER REGARDING FORMAT

OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF

FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF

LAW AFTER BENCH TRIAL

By NOON ON APRIL 13, 2010, both sides shall file and serve proposed findings of fact,

each identified by number with request to the bench trial issues. Each proposed finding should

be concise and limited to one or two or (at most) three lines of text (exclusive of any block

quotes from trial exhibits) followed by exact trial record cites fully supporting the proposed

finding. The proposals should be at a level of specificity/generality so as to fit within the page

limit set forth below. As a rule of thumb, less controverted subjects may be captured in more

generalized proposed findings; more controversial subjects, however, usually require greater

specificity and more proposed findings. Block quotes and record cites may be single-spaced

(and indented) but otherwise the proposals should be double-spaced. Example: 

1. When defendant went through the intersection of

Hayes and Gough, the light was red in his direction. 

Jones at RT 97:1–3

Young at RT 15:11–12

The same submission should also set forth each proposed conclusion of law. Each

proposed conclusion of law must briefly identify the proposed findings of fact supporting the

Case 3:09-cv-00404-WHA Document 619 Filed 04/09/10 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

conclusion and the legal authority therefor (quoting the key language of said authority). The

overall length of the submission must be 10 pages or less. 

Within THREE CALENDAR DAYS after such service of the foregoing, and by NOON, the

opposing side must file and serve a response. The response must state, separately as to each

proposed finding, whether the responding party agrees with the proposed finding and if not in

full agreement, then the full extent to which, considering the duty of good faith and candor, the

responding party admits the proposed finding. To the extent that the responding side objects in

any respect to the proposed finding, it must state (i) the extent to which the opposition is based

on a failure of the record cites to support the proposal (explaining why they do not support it)

and (ii) the extent to which the objection is based on contrary evidence (citing the contrary

evidence) or lack of credibility (citing relevant evidence). Example: 

1. Agree that the light was red but the light had just

changed a split second before. 

Mack RT 42:17–18

The submission shall similarly state the extent to which the responding party agrees with

each conclusion of law proposed by the other side. If there is any disagreement, the responding

side must state (i) the extent to which the disagreement is based on a failure of the supporting

findings, (ii) the extent to which the disagreement is based on a failure of the cited authorities to

support the conclusion, and (iii) the extent to which contrary authorities contradict the legal

basis for the proposed conclusion. 

The responding submission should reproduce each original finding or conclusion and

then, immediately after each, supply the responsive information. It may not exceed twice the

overall number of pages used by the submission to which it responds. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00404-WHA Document 619 Filed 04/09/10 Page 2 of 2