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

CHIRON CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SOURCECF INC., SOURCECF CLINICAL

RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C.,

MAXOR NATIONAL PHARMACY SERVICES

CORPORATION d/b/a IV SOLUTIONS,

FOUNDATION CARE L.L.C., and

PHARMACEUTICAL SPECIALTIES, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-01938 WHA

ORDER REGARDING

FORMAT OF PROPOSED

FINDINGS OF FACT AND

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

AFTER BENCH TRIAL

By noon on the second court day following the close of evidence, both sides shall file

and serve by fax and/or same-day delivery proposed findings of fact, each identified by number. 

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

Case 3:05-cv-01938-WHA Document 111 Filed 04/18/06 Page 1 of 3
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

may 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

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

overall length of the submission must be 25 pages or less. 

Within TWO CALENDAR DAYS after such service of the foregoing, the opposing side

must file and serve by fax and/or same-day delivery 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) versus (ii) the extent to which they 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. 

Case 3:05-cv-01938-WHA Document 111 Filed 04/18/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

The responding submission should reproduce each original finding or conclusion and

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 18, 2006. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-01938-WHA Document 111 Filed 04/18/06 Page 3 of 3