United States District Court, N.D. California
Submission re Schedule Dispute
L. FRIEDMAN Law Office of Jeremy L. Friedman Fee Claimant
& STIMPERT LLP Ron U. Lunski Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Medhanie Berhe, Patsy Hardy, Michelle Mike, Wilma Joyce
Jennings and Rena Harrison Thomas
counsel certify they exchanged email communications and
discussed this scheduling dispute by telephone, but were
unable to reach an agreement.
FOR SCHEDULING CHANGE
Sturdevant - an expert retained by Friedman in this fee
dispute - requires additional time to complete his review of
sealed records, to confer with Friedman and to draft a reply
declaration. Mr. Sturdevant signed the acknowledgment
attached to the Court’s July 19, 2016, protective order
(Docket Item No. 312), and was provided with sealed records
on that same day. While the expert was able to begin his
review of documents immediately, he was required to travel
out of state on July 21, and he continued to work remotely on
Friday, July 22, and over the weekend. During that time
period, however, technical problems with internet service
have prevented Mr. Sturdevant from being able to complete his
work in connection with this case.
Friedman is unable to prepare his reply brief until his
expert has completed his review. Friedman has diligently
followed up on every step associated with getting the
protective order, and following through on its requirements.
As of Monday, July 25, Friedman has had limited,
non-substantive communications with his expert, relating to
the need for additional time. He believes he could complete
his draft of the reply within one or two days after receipt
of Mr. Sturdevant’s reply declaration. He hopes that
technical problems will be overcome, and that Mr. Sturdevant
will be able to complete his work on a reply declaration
within the next three days.
than multiple submissions on this scheduling issue, Friedman
suggests the Court extend the time for filing the reply brief
by one week, or until Monday, August 1. This should not cause
a change to the current hearing date of August 18, 2016.
OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR SCHEDULING CHANGE
strongly object to any further extension of the deadline for
Attorney Friedman to file a Reply brief. Attorney Friedman
has already sought and received six extensions of time to
file his pleadings in connection with this fee dispute. This
extension, if granted, would be the sixth extension Mr.
Friedman would have received to extend the deadlines for the
filing of his attorneys fee motion against his own clients.
This new requested extension would not only extend the
deadline for Mr. Friedman to file his Reply, but would also
again delay the August 18, 2016 hearing date tentatively set
by this Court for the hearing. Plaintiffs have been subjected
to these delays for too long. Plaintiffs deserve an end to
these protracted proceedings which have continued to cost
them both time and financial resources. Attorney Friedman did
not ask for this new sixth extension until after the time to
file a Reply had already past. Thus, it is Plaintiffs'
position that Attorney Friedman has waived his right to file
July 27, Mr. Sturdevant is near completion of his review, and
has been preparing a reply declaration; but Friedman has not
yet received a draft. Fee opponents do not explain why this
delay will impact the hearing date, but Friedman would not
object to an extension. Nor do they explain how they would be
impacted in time or financial resources if Strudevant is
given the time he needs. It is not correct this request is
late. Emails and phone calls, along with a draft joint
submission, were made to Mr. Lunski on July 25, but counsel
did not provide his response for this joint submission until
Wednesday, July 27. In addition, on July 25 Friedman filed
the expert acknowledgment noting this process was underway.
WITH PROPOSED DATES AND PARTIES’ POSITION
Disputing Pl.’s Proposal
August 1, 2016
July 25, 2016
August 1, 2016
August 18, 2016
August 18, 2016 at 11.00 a.m.