Rodman v. Safeway, Inc.

Filing 246

ORDER AMENDING CASE SCHEDULE re 243 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Amend Scheduling Order filed by Safeway Inc. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on March 24, 2015. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/24/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MICHAEL RODMAN,

Case No. 11-cv-03003-JST

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER AMENDING CASE SCHEDULE

9
10

Re: ECF No. 243

SAFEWAY INC.,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Good cause appearing therefore, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the case deadlines are
modified as follows:

14
15
16

Event
Motion to decertify the class
Opposition to motion to decertify
Close of fact discovery

Prior Deadline
3/2/2015
3/23/2015
3/27/2015

Deadline to complete mediation
Reply to opposition to motion to
decertify
Designation of experts
Hearing on motion to decertify
Rebuttal expert designation
Expert discovery deadline
Damages summary judgment motion
Damages SJ Opposition
Damages summary judgment reply
Damages summary judgment
hearing
Pretrial conference statement
Pretrial conference
Trial
Estimate of trial length (in days)

3/27/2015
4/6/2015

New Deadline
3/2/2015
3/23/2015
Deadline to complete
discovery that was served
prior to 3/27/15: April 24,
2015
4/7/2015
4/6/2015

4/10/2015
4/23/2015
4/24/2015
5/6/2015
5/15/2015
5/29/2015
6/5/2015
6/18/2015

5/8/1015
4/23/2015
5/22/2015
6/5/2015
6/19/2015
7/8/2015
7/17/2015
7/30/2015

9/11/15
9/11/2015 at 2:00 p.m.
10/5/2015 at 8:30 a.m.
Five

9/01/2015
9/11/2015 at 2:00 p.m.
10/5/2015 at 8:30 a.m.
Five

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Although the Court notes that the parties have expressed some concern that the trial date

2

may need to be continued in light of the amended date of the summary judgment hearing, the

3

Court believes the trial date should remain feasible even under the amended schedule. Trial dates

4

set by this Court should be regarded as firm. Requests for continuance are disfavored. The Court

5

will not consider any event subsequently scheduled by a party, party-controlled witness, expert or

6

attorney that conflicts with the above trial date as good cause to grant a continuance. The Court

7

will not consider the pendency of settlement discussions as good cause to grant a continuance.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: March 24, 2015
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2