Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-03003/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-03003-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL RODMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAFEWAY INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 11-cv-03003-JST 

ORDER AMENDING CASE SCHEDULE

Re: ECF No. 243

Good cause appearing therefore, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the case deadlines are 

modified as follows:

Event Prior Deadline New Deadline

Motion to decertify the class 3/2/2015 3/2/2015

Opposition to motion to decertify 3/23/2015 3/23/2015

Close of fact discovery 3/27/2015 Deadline to complete 

discovery that was served 

prior to 3/27/15: April 24, 

2015

Deadline to complete mediation 3/27/2015 4/7/2015

Reply to opposition to motion to 

decertify 

4/6/2015 4/6/2015

Designation of experts 4/10/2015 5/8/1015

Hearing on motion to decertify 4/23/2015 4/23/2015

Rebuttal expert designation 4/24/2015 5/22/2015

Expert discovery deadline 5/6/2015 6/5/2015

Damages summary judgment motion 5/15/2015 6/19/2015

Damages SJ Opposition 5/29/2015 7/8/2015 

Damages summary judgment reply 6/5/2015 7/17/2015

Damages summary judgment 

hearing 

6/18/2015 7/30/2015

Pretrial conference statement 9/11/15 9/01/2015

Pretrial conference 9/11/2015 at 2:00 p.m. 9/11/2015 at 2:00 p.m.

Trial 10/5/2015 at 8:30 a.m. 10/5/2015 at 8:30 a.m. 

Estimate of trial length (in days) Five Five

Case 3:11-cv-03003-JST Document 246 Filed 03/24/15 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: March 24, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-03003-JST Document 246 Filed 03/24/15 Page 2 of 2