California Forensic Medical Group Motion - Mohrbacher Et Al v. Alameda County Sheriffs Office Et Al

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 27 Filed 02/13/18 Page 1 of 4
1 Peter G. Bertling [S.B. #131602]

Jemma Parker Saunders [S.B. #227962]
2 Bertling Law Group, Inc.
15 West Carrillo Street, Suite 104
3 Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: 805-879-7558
4 Facsimile: 805-962-0722
Emails: peter@bertlinglawgroup.com
5 jemma@bertlinglawgroup.com
6 Attorneys for Defendant
CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, INC.
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 ALAMEDA COUNTY WOMEN
PRISONERS And Former Prisoners & Case No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD
11 Pregnant Prisoners, JAC JACLYN
12 MOHRBACHER, ERIN ELLIS,
DOMINIQUE JACKSON, CHRISTINA DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA
13 ZEPEDA, ALEXIS WAH, AND KELSEY
ERWIN, And JANE DOEs Nos, 1—X on FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP,
14 behalf of themselves and others similarly INC.’S MOTION TO ENLARGE
situated, as a Class, and Sub-class, TIME FOR HEARING AND
15 BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFFS’
Plaintiffs,
16 v. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
17
ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, [N.D. Local Rules 6-3]
18 GREGORY J. AHERN, BRETT M.
KETELES, TOM MADIGAN, T. POPE, T.
19
RUSSELL, D. SKOLDQVIST, LT.
20 HATTAWAY, SGT, CALAGARI, DEPUTY Current Motion Hearing Date:
DIVINE (#512), DEPUTY DEBRA March 8, 2018
21 FARMANIAN, DEPUTY WEATHERBEE
22 (#238), DEPUTY TANIA POPE, DEPUTY
WINSTEAD, DEPUTY CAINE, ALAMEDA Judge: Hon. James Donato
23 COUNTY and John & Jane DOEs, Nos. 1-50.
and CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL
24
GROUP, a corporation its Employees and
25 Sub-Contractors, and Rick & Ruth ROEs
Nos, 1-50,
26 Defendants.
27 3:18-cv-00050-JD
28 -1-
DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, INC.’S MOTION
TO ENLARGE TIME FOR HEARING AND BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [N.D. Local Rules 6-3]
1 Defendant, CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, INC (hereafter

2 “CFMG”), moves pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 6-3 for an enlargement of
3
time for briefing and hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction which is
4
currently set for March 8, 2018. CFMG respectfully requests that this Court continue the
5
6 hearing date for Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction until at least March 26,
7 2018; with opposition briefs due no earlier than March 14, 2018 and reply briefs due a
8
reasonable time thereafter.
9
I. Reasons for Requested Enlargement of Time
10
11 Plaintiffs’ have filed their Motion for Preliminary Injunction such that CFMG’s
12 response to the motion is due prior to its responsive pleading in this case, and well in
13 advance of any meaningful review and analysis of the critical issues presented with
14
plaintiffs’ motion. For a full and fair hearing, CFMG requires an enlargement of time to
15
brief and hear the issues presented by plaintiffs with their Motion for Preliminary
16
17 Injunction.
18 As set forth more fully in the accompanying declaration of Peter Bertling, to
19
properly brief and argue these issues, CFMG’s counsel requires review and analysis of
20
the pertinent records and medical records in this case, as well as the review and analysis
21
22
of the records by a qualified expert witness. See Declaration of Peter Bertling at ¶6.
23 Moreover, the parties have agreed that a protective order must be entered to produce the
24 relevant medical and other records in this case. As of this filing, the proposed protective
25
order is being circulated for comment and review, but no document production can occur
26
27 3:18-cv-00050-JD
28 -2-
1 until the order is entered. Therefore, having just been served with this matter on
2 February 2, 2018, and given the constraints with the protective order and the need for
3
review and expert review, preparing and filing an opposition within the requisite time
4
frame contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s local rules
5
6 is not possible. Declaration of Peter Bertling at ¶¶3-7.
7 As evidenced by the thread of emails attached to the accompanying declaration of
8
Peter Bertling, Defendant has been earnestly engaging in investigation and procedure to
9
expeditiously evaluate this matter, but the current motion schedule will not permit
10
11 CFMG to fairly evaluate the claims made by the motion and submit opposition.
12 II. Timing
13 No trial date is set in this matter. Indeed, CFMG has not yet formally appeared in
14
this case. As such, permitting Defendant a continuance on the briefing and hearing for
15
the motion for preliminary injunction should have no impact on this litigation or the
16
17 Court.
18 III. Prejudice
19
Defendant will suffer substantial prejudice if the motion to enlarge time is not
20
granted. Defendant should be allowed adequate time to oppose the motion for
21
22
preliminary injunction and address what are very serious allegations and requests for
23 relief that upon initial glance are well above the normal standard of care. Additionally,
24 Plaintiffs’ counsel does not have the benefit of the relevant information which must be
25
presented for a fair hearing on this Motion. Therefore, it is imperative that an
26
27 3:18-cv-00050-JD
28 -3-
1 enlargement of time be granted such that plaintiffs as well as this Court attain a full
2 breadth review of the serious allegations set forth in the motion.
3
IV. Meet and Confer Process with Plaintiffs
4
A meet and confer process has taken place with Plaintiffs’ counsel. See Declaration
5
6 of Peter Bertling at ¶¶1 to 7 and Exhibits A to D of the Declaration.
7 V. Plaintiffs’ Position
8
Plaintiffs’ counsel has agreed that CFMG’s request should be routinely granted, but
9
plaintiffs’ counsel was concerned about the urgency of issues set forth in the preliminary
10
11 injunction. See Declaration of Peter Bertling at Exhibit B. Plaintiffs’ counsel and
12 defense counsel have been unable to reach an accord on the appropriate briefing and
13 hearing schedule for this motion. CFMG contends having the motion hearing on March
14
8, 2018 with an opposition due date of February 21, 2018 would not allow CFMG’s
15
counsel sufficient time to respond to these very serious allegations.
16
17 Dated: February 13, 2018 Bertling Law Group, Inc.
18
19 /s/ Peter G. Bertling
Peter G. Bertling
20
Jemma Parker Saunders
22
CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL
GROUP, INC.
23
24
25
26
27 3:18-cv-00050-JD
28 -4-
Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 27-1 Filed 02/13/18 Page 1 of 32

Telephone: 805-879-7558
4 Facsimile: 805-962-0722
5 jemma@bertlinglawgroup.com
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CAxLIFORNIA
9
10
ALAMEDA COUNTY WOMEN Case No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD
PRISONERS And Former Prisoners &
MOHRBACHER, ERIN ELLIS,
12 DOMINIQUE JACKSON, CHRISTINA DECLARATION OF PETER G.
ZEPEDA, ALEXIS WAH, AND KELSEY BERTLING IN SUPPORT OF
13 ERWIN, And JANE DOEs Nos, 1—X on
behalf of themselves and others similarly DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA
14 situated, as a Class, and Sub-class, FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP,
Plaintiffs, INC.’S MOTION TO ENLARGE
15 v. TIME FOR HEARING AND
16 BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFFS’
ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S
17 OFFICE, GREGORY J. AHERN, BRETT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
M. KETELES, TOM MADIGAN, T. POPE, INJUNCTION
18
T. RUSSELL, D. SKOLDQVIST, LT.
19 HATTAWAY, SGT, CALAGARI, DEPUTY Current Motion Hearing Date:
DIVINE (#512), DEPUTY DEBRA March 8, 2018
20 FARMANIAN, DEPUTY WEATHERBEE
21 (#238), DEPUTY TANIA POPE, DEPUTY Judge: Hon. James Donato
WINSTEAD, DEPUTY CAINE,
22 ALAMEDA COUNTY and John & Jane
DOEs, Nos. 1-50. and CALIFORNIA
23
FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, a
24 corporation its Employees and Sub-
Contractors, and Rick & Ruth ROEs Nos, 1-
25 50,
26 Defendants.
27 3:18-cv-00050-JD
28 -1-
DECLARATION OF PETER G. BERTLING IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
CFMG’S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR HEARING AND BRIEFING ON
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
1 I, Peter G. Bertling, hereby declare and affirm as follows:

2 1. The matters within this declaration are based upon my own personal
3 knowledge and I can competently testify to these matters if I were called upon
4 to do so.
5 2. I am admitted to practice before the United States District Court, Northern
6 District of California. I am the attorney of record in the above-captioned
7 action for Defendant California Forensic Medical Group, Inc. (hereinafter
8 “CFMG”).
9 3. On February 1, 2018 counsel for plaintiff, Ms. Huang, emailed me a copy of
10 the First Amended Complaint in this matter and enquired whether I would
11 accept service on behalf of the newly-named defendant, CFMG. I sought
12 guidance from my client and responded on February 2, 2018 that I was
13 authorized to accept service on behalf of CFMG, with a service date of
14 February 2, 2018. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of
15 the email exchange between Ms. Huang and myself.
16 4. Based on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with a date of service of
17 February 2, 2018, CFMG’s responsive pleading to plaintiffs’ First Amended
18 Complaint is due on February 23, 2018.
19 5. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for preliminary injunction with an opposition
20 due date of February 21, 2018, two days prior to CFMG’s answer coming due.
21 6. Based on my knowledge and experience with matters such as these, the issues
22 raised as to CFMG in the context of plaintiff’s motion for preliminary
23 injunction are complex. To adequately and fairly oppose the motion on the
24 merits, I will need to review the pertinent medical and other records in this
25 case, and retain a qualified expert witness to do the same and provide the
26 Court with their declaratory opinions regarding their review. Based on my
27 3:18-cv-00050-JD
28 -2-
1 knowledge and experience with matters such as these, I anticipate I will

2 require until at least March 14, 2018, at a minimum, to adequately prepare and
3 file an opposition to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.
4 7. CFMG will suffer substantial prejudice if the motion to enlarge time is not
5 granted. Defendant should be allowed adequate time to oppose the motion for
6 preliminary injunction and address what are very serious allegations and
7 requests for relief that upon initial glance are well above the normal standard
8 of care. Additionally, plaintiffs did not name CFMG as a defendant until the
9 filing of the First Amended Complaint on February 1, 2018. Disallowing
10 CFMG to prepare an adequate defense to the motion would be prejudicial, and
11 conversely, the short delay in hearing the motion will not affect plaintiffs,
12 particularly given the representations and resulting minute order from the
13 January 8, 2018 hearing. See CM/ECF Document No. 16.
14 8. A meet and confer process has taken place with all counsel. Attached as
15 Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of an email authored by my colleague,
16 Jemma Saunders, on behalf of CFMG dated February 6, 2018 wherein Ms.
17 Saunders requested an enlargement of time for CFMG to oppose the motion
18 for preliminary injunction. Subsequently, through a string of e-mails, I
19 learned counsel for Alameda County was separately meeting with plaintiff’s
20 counsel on similar and additional issues, and counsel for Alameda County and
21 plaintiffs were meeting on February 7, 2018 for discussions. Ms. Saunders
22 then requested to add the items from her February 6, 2018 email to the agenda
23 for the February 7, 2018 conference. Please see Exhibit C for Ms. Saunders’
24 February 7, 2018 email reflecting our attendance at the conference and
25 agenda. Given I am more than 50 miles from Mr. Thomas’ office, Ms.
26 Saunders and I participated in the conference by telephone.
27 3:18-cv-00050-JD
28 -3-
1 9. During the call, Ms. Huang indicated she wanted to receive and review
2 pertinent medical records prior to determining whether she could stipulate to
3 an enlargement of time to brief and hear the Motion for Preliminary
4 Injunction. During the call, all parties agreed a protective order must be
5 entered prior to production of the records. As of the filing of this
6 Administrative Motion, that protective order is currently being circulated for
7 comment and revisions. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct
8 copy of the email to all counsel with the proposed protective order sent on
9 February 7, 2018.
10 10. Given these issues, at this time, the current motion hearing schedule
11 would not allow Defense counsel sufficient time to adequately and fairly
12 respond to these very serious allegations and provide the Court with relevant
13 opposing information up which to base these important decisions.
14
15 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the
16 United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 13th day of February,
17 2018, at Santa Barbara, California.
18
19 /s/ Peter G. Bertling______________
Peter G. Bertling
20
Declarant
21 Peter@bertlinglawgroup.com
22
23
24
25
26
27 3:18-cv-00050-JD
28 -4-

Telephone: 805-879-7558
4 Facsimile: 805-962-0722
5
jemma@bertlinglawgroup.com
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 ALAMEDA COUNTY WOMEN Case No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD
PRISONERS And Former Prisoners &
MOHRBACHER, ERIN ELLIS,
12 DOMINIQUE JACKSON, CHRISTINA [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
13 ZEPEDA, ALEXIS WAH, AND KELSEY DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA
ERWIN, And JANE DOEs Nos, 1—X on
behalf of themselves and others similarly FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP,
14
situated, as a Class, and Sub-class, INC.’S MOTION TO ENLARGE
15 TIME FOR HEARING AND
Plaintiffs, BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFFS’
16 v.
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
17 ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, INJUNCTION
18 GREGORY J. AHERN, BRETT M.
KETELES, TOM MADIGAN, T. POPE, T.
19 RUSSELL, D. SKOLDQVIST, LT. Current Motion Hearing Date:
HATTAWAY, SGT, CALAGARI, DEPUTY March 8, 2018
20
DIVINE (#512), DEPUTY DEBRA
21 FARMANIAN, DEPUTY WEATHERBEE Judge: Hon. James Donato
(#238), DEPUTY TANIA POPE, DEPUTY
22 WINSTEAD, DEPUTY CAINE, ALAMEDA
23 COUNTY and John & Jane DOEs, Nos. 1-50.
and CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL
24 GROUP, a corporation its Employees and
25
Sub-Contractors, and Rick & Ruth ROEs
Nos, 1-50,
26 Defendants.
27 3:18-cv-00050-JD
-1-
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA FORENSIC
MEDICAL GROUP, INC.’S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR HEARING
AND BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
1 This Court, having considered all of the moving and opposition documents which
2 have been filed, and good cause appearing therefore and pursuant to Northern District
3
Local Rule 6-3:
4
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
5
6 Defendant California Forensic Medical Group, Inc.’s motion to enlarge time for
7 briefing and hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED. The
8
new hearing date for Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction is ________________,
9
at 10:00 a.m. in Department ____ of the above-captioned Court.
10
11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the briefs submitted in opposition to Plaintiffs’
12 Motion for Preliminary Injunction be filed and served no later than ______________ and
13 any replies thereto be filed and served no later than __________________.
14
15
DATED: __________________ ___________________________________
16
Honorable James Donato
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 3:18-cv-00050-JD
-2-
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA FORENSIC
MEDICAL GROUP, INC.’S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR HEARING
AND BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

California Forensic Medical Group Motion - Mohrbacher Et Al v. Alameda County Sheriffs Office Et Al

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

California Forensic Medical Group Motion - Mohrbacher Et Al v. Alameda County Sheriffs Office Et Al

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 27 Filed 02/13/18 Page 1 of 4

1 Peter G. Bertling [S.B. #131602]

1 Defendant, CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, INC (hereafter

1 Peter G. Bertling [S.B. #131602]

1 I, Peter G. Bertling, hereby declare and affirm as follows:

1 knowledge and experience with matters such as these, I anticipate I will

1 Peter G. Bertling [S.B. #131602]

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi