Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04058/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04058-8/pdf.json

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

RONPAK, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-04058-JST 

SCHEDULING ORDER

The Court hereby sets the following case deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 16 and Civil Local Rule 16-10:

Event Deadline

Deadline to add parties or amend the pleadings March 2, 2015

Fact discovery cut-off July 15, 2015

Expert disclosures August 14, 2015

Expert rebuttal August 28, 2015

Expert discovery cut-off September 18, 2015

Deadline to file dispositive motions December 10, 2015

Pretrial conference statement due March 29, 2016

Pretrial conference April 8, 2016 at 2:00 

p.m.

Trial May 2, 2016 at 8:30 

a.m.

Estimate of trial length (in days) 10 days

Case 3:14-cv-04058-JST Document 37 Filed 02/18/15 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

Counsel may not modify these dates without leave of court. The parties shall comply with 

the Court’s standing orders, which are available at cand.uscourts.gov/jstorders.

The parties must take all necessary steps to conduct discovery, compel discovery, hire 

counsel, retain experts, and manage their calendars so that they can complete discovery in a timely 

manner and appear at trial on the noticed and scheduled dates. All counsel must arrange their 

calendars to accommodate these dates, or arrange to substitute or associate in counsel who can. 

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, partycontrolled 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.

Dated: February 18, 2015

_______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04058-JST Document 37 Filed 02/18/15 Page 2 of 2