City of Oakland v. SSA Terminals, LLC et al

Filing 111

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers Denying 110 Fourth Stipulation (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/29/2012)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 6 7 CITY OF OAKLAND, a Municipal Corporation, Acting By and Through Its Board of Port Commissioners, Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant, 8 9 10 11 Case No.: 11-01446-YGR ORDER REGARDING FOURTH STIPULATION FURTHER AMENDING TRIAL-RELATED DATES v. SSA TERMINALS, LLC, et al., Defendants-Counterclaimants. Northern District of California United States District Court 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The Court has received the parties’ Fourth Stipulation Further Amending Trial-Related Dates. (Dkt. No. 110.) The Court does not have any available dates in the three months following the currently-scheduled January 14, 2013 trial date. The parties’ request for a trial continuance and to extend the close of discovery is hereby DENIED. If the parties would like a trial continuance, the Court encourages them to consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge who can guarantee their desired trial date. Counsel are ordered to discuss this option with their clients, and then the parties shall meet and confer regarding same. The Court will accept requests for assignment to a specific magistrate judge or magistrate judges. When the parties meet and confer, the parties also must discuss the parties’ availabilities for alternate trial dates. The parties’ request to extend the deadline for responsive reports to rebuttal experts until December 7, 2012 is GRANTED. The Case Management Conference on November 19, 2012 will proceed as scheduled. This Order terminates Dkt. No. 110. IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 28 Dated: October 29, 2012 _________________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?