Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05031/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05031-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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. All parties have consented to my jurisdiction,

including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(c) for all proceedings.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MACARIA PEREZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOHN MCNAMEE, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-5031 BZ

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL

RELATED TRIAL DATES

Plaintiffs’ motion to continue the trial date and reset

trial related deadlines was heard on August 1, 2007.1 IT IS

ORDERED as follows:

1. In light of the difficulties in securing travel

documents for plaintiff Macaria Perez, and hearing no

opposition, the request to continue the trial date is GRANTED.

This Court’s Order Scheduling Jury Trial, dated February 6,

2007, is modified as follows: 

///

Case 3:06-cv-05031-BZ Document 103 Filed 08/03/07 Page 1 of 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

2 The parties agreed at hearing that the date for

filing Daubert motions should be continued into December. By

the terms of my Order Scheduling Jury Trial, the resetting of

the pre-trial conference necessarily resets the dates for

filing Daubert motions and all other papers and documents tied

to the date of the pretrial conference. 

2

1. Trial Date: Monday, 1/07/2008, 10 days, 

at 8:30 a.m.

 Pretrial Conference: Tuesday, 12/18/2007,

at 3:00 p.m.

2. Plaintiffs’ motion to reset the trial-related

deadlines is DENIED because plaintiffs have failed to

demonstrate good cause to modify the discovery deadlines and

other pre-trial dates. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). To the

extent that plaintiffs’ motion relies on the need to

supplement or complete their expert discovery, the issue is

dealt with in a separate Order on defendant Morbark, Inc.’s

motion to exclude expert testimony. The Court’s February 6

Order Scheduling Jury Trial, as supplemented by the March 2,

2007 stipulation staggering expert discovery, otherwise

remains in full force and effect.2

 

Dated: August 3, 2007

Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\PEREZ\Order Continue Trial Date.wpd

Case 3:06-cv-05031-BZ Document 103 Filed 08/03/07 Page 2 of 2