Opinion
Christopher H. Whelan, Esq. (SBN 080823), CHRISTOPHER H. WHELAN, INC., Gold River, California, Attorney for Plaintiff, LINDA K. DESROSIERS.
JACKSON LEWIS LLP, ROBERT J. SCHNACK (SBN 191987), JERRY J. DESCHLER JR. (SBN 215691), Sacramento, California, Attorneys for Defendants, THE HARTFORD aka HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO. and HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.
STIPULATION AND JOINT APPLICATION TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL PAGES FOR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER THEREON
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Judge.
Pursuant to paragraph VI of the Court's Pretrial Scheduling Order dated November 30, 2009, and for good cause shown, Plaintiff Linda K. Desrosiers ("Plaintiff") and Defendants The Hartford aka Hartford Fire Ins. Co. and Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (collectively hereinafter "Defendants"), through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and jointly request that the Court grant relief from the page limit of twenty pages for initial moving papers and opposition papers, and the page limit of ten pages for reply papers in connection with Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, which will be heard on or about November 15, 2012. Specifically, Plaintiff and Defendants (the "Parties") stipulate and request that the page limits be increased as set forth below.
GOOD CAUSE EXISTS ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:
(1) Plaintiff's Complaint alleges the following five causes of action, plus a claim for punitive damages, all of which Defendants seek to have summarily adjudicated: (1) disability discrimination; (2) failure to accommodate; (3) failure to engage in interactive process; (4) retaliation; and (5) failure to prevent and remedy discrimination.
(2) Defendant has multiple defenses to Plaintiff's claims and, therefore, will have twelve separate issues to brief in its motion for summary judgment.
(3) Plaintiff and her treating physicians requested eight separate, specific accommodations for her medical condition, and Hartford suggested several additional accommodations. Each of these requires separate legal analysis, and several of these accommodations has its own separate body of case law analyzing whether such an accommodation is reasonable, which must be set forth in Defendants' motion.
(4) The nature of a claim for failure to engage in the interactive process to determine reasonable accommodations for a disability necessarily involves analysis of communications between the parties. Here, the interactive process regarding Plaintiff began in July 2006 and ended in July 2007 when Plaintiff finally resigned. Plaintiff's 30-page summary, email communications produced by the parties, and other documents set forth literally dozens of communications between the parties over that one-year period as part of the interactive process.
(5) Defendants have worked diligently to condense their legal and factual analysis of Plaintiff's claims in their memorandum of points and authorities in support of their motion for summary judgment. After extensive condensing and editing, Defendants' memorandum of points and authorities is twenty-eight pages long. Defendants do not believe they can adequately present grounds for dismissing Plaintiff's claims in less than twenty-eight pages. Plaintiff similarly believes she may need approximately twenty-eight pages to argue in opposition to Defendants' motion.
BASED ON THE FOREGOING, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS:
The page limits for the Parties' memoranda of points and authorities relating to Defendants' motion for summary judgment should be increased as follows:
Alternatively, the Parties request that the Court grant a page limitation in whatever additional amount as the Court sees fit to grant.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
ORDER
Having reviewed the parties' stipulation, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
The page limits for the Parties' memoranda of points and authorities relating to Defendants' motion for summary judgment should be increased as follows: