Free Order - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-02952-WHA

Document 172

Filed 05/23/2008

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 DEL MAR SEAFOODS INC., Plaintiff, v. BARRY COHEN, CHRIS COHEN (a/k/a CHRISTINE COHEN), in personam, and F/V POINT LOMA, Official Number 515298, a 1968 steel-hulled, 126-gross ton, 70.8 foot long fishing vessel, her engines, tackle, furniture apparel, etc., in rem, and DOES 1­10, Defendant. / By TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2008, at 4:00 P.M., both sides shall e-file 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 may be single-spaced (and indented) but otherwise the proposals should be double-spaced. Example: ORDER REGARDING FORMAT OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AFTER BENCH TRIAL No. C 07-02952 WHA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Case 3:07-cv-02952-WHA

Document 172

Filed 05/23/2008

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4

1.

When defendant went through the intersection of

Hayes and Gough, the light was red in his direction. Jones at RT 97:1­3 Young at RT 15:11­12 The same submission should also set forth each proposed conclusion of law. Each

5 proposed conclusion of law must briefly identify the proposed findings of fact supporting the 6 conclusion and the legal authority therefor (quoting the key language of said authority). The 7 overall length of the submission must be 20 pages or less. 8 By MONDAY, JUNE 2, 2008, at 4:00 P.M., the opposing side must file and serve a 9 response. The response must state, separately as to each proposed finding, whether the 10 responding party agrees with the proposed finding and if not in full agreement, then the full

United States District Court

11 extent to which, considering the duty of good faith and candor, the responding party admits the
For the Northern District of California

12 proposed finding. To the extent that the responding side objects in any respect to the proposed 13 finding, it must state (i) the extent to which the opposition is based on a failure of the record 14 cites to support the proposal (explaining why they do not support it) versus (ii) the extent to 15 which the objection is based on contrary evidence (citing the contrary evidence) versus lack of 16 credibility (citing relevant evidence). Example: 17 1. 18 changed a split second before. 19 Mack RT 42:17­18 20 The submission shall similarly state the extent to which the responding party agrees with 21 each conclusion of law proposed by the other side. If there is any disagreement, the responding 22 side must state (i) the extent to which the disagreement is based on a failure of the supporting 23 findings, (ii) the extent to which the disagreement is based on a failure of the cited authorities to 24 support the conclusion, and (iii) the extent to which contrary authorities contradict the legal 25 basis for the proposed conclusion. 26 27 28 2 Agree that the light was red but the light had just

Case 3:07-cv-02952-WHA

Document 172

Filed 05/23/2008

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

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. All citation to facts must be to documents, declarations or testimony received in evidence at the evidentiary hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2008.

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3