Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01902/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01902-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO FURTHER CONTINUE DATES—No. C-07-01902 RMW

MAG

E-filed on: 4/29/08

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RAFAEL DIAZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAFEWAY INC.; UNITED FOOD &

COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION, and

DOES ONE through TWENTY,

Defendants.

No. C-07-01902 RMW

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO

FURTHER CONTINUE DATES

On April 21, 2008, the court received a letter from pro se plaintiff Rafael Diaz asking that the

court "push out the schedule for another 30 days." Defendants opposed Diaz's motion. The court

has previously continued the discovery, pre-trial or trial dates in this matter. By its order dated

February 22, 2008, it continued the scheduling dates in this case as follows:

Fact discovery cutoff: April 25, 2008

Disclosure of experts: April 25, 2008

Disclosure of rebuttal experts: May 9, 2008

Expert discovery cutoff: June 5, 2008

Last hearing date for dispositive motions: July 25, 2008

Pretrial conference: August 21, 2008

Trial: September 15, 2008

Case 5:07-cv-01902-RMW Document 89 Filed 04/29/08 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 The last hearing date for dispositive motions means that the parties must, if they wish to file a

motion seeking summary judgment or other motion seeking a dispositive ruling, file a motion at

least 35 days prior to the date specified. The pretrial date is the date the parties will meet with the

court to discuss the trial. The parties should review the court's Standing Order re: Pretrial

Preparation and file the required documents by the deadlines set forth therein. The court's standing

order is at

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/judges.nsf/08bd2b2251fca57b88256d48005fd22c?OpenView.

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO FURTHER CONTINUE DATES—No. C-07-01902 RMW

MAG

2

The order stated: "The court notes that it will not extend these dates again absent a showing of good

cause other than a need for Diaz to obtain an attorney." 

Diaz asks for the continuance because his deposition with Safeway on February 28, 2008

"brought up a lot of bad feelings and memories from the past" and he had an "emotional breakdown"

requiring him to meet with his psychiatrist and eventually leading him to step down temporarily

from his management position at his current employment when he returned to work on April 1,

2008. He asserts that during his breakdown he was unable to talk to people and "lost almost four

weeks in gathering information." He also asks the court for clarification regarding what he is

permitted to do with respect to discovery, and what the deadlines specified above mean.

The court is not permitted to provide the parties with legal advice, but it can clarify that,

absent order of the court, the fact discovery cutoff means that additional discovery may not be taken

after the specified date. By the deadline for "disclosure of experts," the parties must reveal to one

another the expert witnesses they intend to rely upon in support of their positions and provide a

written report including all opinions the expert witness will express in compliance with Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). The deadline for "disclosure of rebuttal experts" is the date by which

each side must have disclosed experts that will rebut the testimony of the other side's experts,

including a rebuttal report. "Expert discovery cutoff" is the deadline by which the parties must have

collected all information from the experts by way of written discovery or depositions.1

 Any

extension of these dates requires an order of the court.

The court denies Diaz's request for a 30-day continuance. While the court is sympathetic to

Diaz's circumstances, he must take responsibility for the litigation that he has initiated. While the

court understands that recalling the facts leading to the action may bring up bad feelings, it is

incumbent upon the plaintiff to diligently prosecute this matter. These bad feelings and the ensuing

Case 5:07-cv-01902-RMW Document 89 Filed 04/29/08 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO FURTHER CONTINUE DATES—No. C-07-01902 RMW

MAG

3

time off of work do not constitute good cause, particularly because plaintiff provides no explanation

for why he was unable to conduct the necessary discovery since returning to work. Further, the

court has already granted numerous extensions to give plaintiff time to secure counsel. It is not

inclined to grant another continuance unless plaintiff can show good cause or he has secured

counsel. 

However, because the court did not rule on plaintiff's request until after the April 25, 2008

deadlines for fact discovery and disclosure of experts, it will extend those deadlines until May 2,

2008 and the date for disclosure of rebuttal reports by one week to May 16, 2008. All other

deadlines will remain as set in the court's prior order as set forth above. In sum, the scheduling dates

are now: 

Fact discovery cutoff: May 2, 2008

Disclosure of experts and reports: May 2, 2008

Disclosure of rebuttal experts and reports: May 16, 2008

Expert discovery cutoff: June 5, 2008

Last hearing date for dispositive motions: July 25, 2008

Pretrial conference: August 21, 2008

Trial: September 15, 2008

DATED: 4/29/08

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-01902-RMW Document 89 Filed 04/29/08 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO FURTHER CONTINUE DATES—No. C-07-01902 RMW

MAG

4

A copy of this order was mailed on 4/29/08 to:

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

Rafael Diaz

835 Sylandale Avenue 

San Jose, CA 95111 

PRO SE

Counsel for Defendants:

Mark John Rogers

Dillingham & Murphy LLP

225 Bush Street, Sixth Floor

San Francisco, CA 94104

email: mjr@dillinghammurphy.com 

William F. Murphy

Dillingham & Murphy LLP

225 Bush Street, Sixth Floor

San Francisco, CA 94104

email: wfm@dillinghammurphy.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this order to co-counsel, as necessary.

Dated: 4/29/08 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:07-cv-01902-RMW Document 89 Filed 04/29/08 Page 4 of 4