1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Randolph

Cregger & 25

Chalfant

26

1

STIPULATION RE REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO SET SUBSEQUENT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, ETC.

RANDOLPH, CREGGER & CHALFANT LLP

THOMAS A. CREGGER, State Bar No. 124402

STEPHANIE L. QUINN, State Bar No. 216655

1030 G Street

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 443-4443

Facsimile: (916) 443-2124

Attorneys for Defendant/Counter-Defendant

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID CHAD GLOW,

Plaintiff,

vs.

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,

HOWARD REDMOND, an individual, and Does 1

through 20, inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

AND RELATED COUNTER-CLAIM

 /

No. C 05 01933 MMC

STIPULATION RE REQUEST

FOR ADMINISTRATIVE

RELIEF TO SET SUBSEQUENT

CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE RE SETTING

OF TRIAL DATE

[LOCAL RULES 7-11, 16-10(c);

STANDING ORDER 6]

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between the parties through their counsel as follows:

1. This matter was set for trial to commence on January 14, 2008. The setting took

place during a conference call between the Court and counsel on September 19, 2007.

2. At the time of the telephone conference, counsel for UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

COMPANY, Thomas A. Cregger, informed the Court and opposing counsel that the January 14

date posed a potential conflict with a trial already scheduled in the Eastern District of California,

Darden, et al. v. County of Sacramento, et al., which was set to commence on January 7, 2008, and

;

ORDER SCHEDULING CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE;

VACATING PRETRIAL AND

TRIAL DATES

Case 3:05-cv-01933-MMC Document 115 Filed 12/05/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Randolph

Cregger & 25

Chalfant

26

2

STIPULATION RE REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO SET SUBSEQUENT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, ETC.

run for approximately 15 court days. At that time, the Eastern District had not indicated whether

or not the trial date was firm. The Court directed defense counsel to inform the Court and opposing

counsel upon learning of the status of the Darden trial.

3. On November 30, 2007, counsel for UNION PACIFIC was informed by Judge

Morrison England’s courtroom deputy that the January 7 trial date was confirmed. Counsel was

further informed that Judge England had no other trials set to commence that day.

4. Based on the above, and the conflict with the January 7, 2008 trial date and the

current date set for this matter, the parties request that the Court schedule a subsequent Case

Management Conference for the purpose of setting a trial date and that the parties be allowed to

appear by telephone.

Dated: December 4, 2007 RANDOLPH CREGGER & CHALFANT LLP

 /s/ Thomas A. Cregger

THOMAS A. CREGGER

Attorneys for Defendant UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

COMPANY

Dated: December 4, 2007 GANONG & WYATT, LLP

 /s/ Philip W. Ganong

PHILIP W. GANONG

Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID CHAD GLOW

Case 3:05-cv-01933-MMC Document 115 Filed 12/05/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Randolph

Cregger & 25

Chalfant

26

3

STIPULATION RE REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO SET SUBSEQUENT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, ETC.

ORDER

Good cause appearing, and pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the Court orders that

[a subsequent Case Management Conference be held at ,

, 2007] [the Court will schedule with the parties a subsequent Case Management

Conference]. At said conference, the issue of a new trial date will be addressed. The parties may

appear by telephone.

PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HON. MAXINE M. CHESNEY

U. S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

N:\Open\10\2036 Glow\stip re cmc-trial cont.wpd

on December 14, 2007 at 10:30 a.m.

December 5, 2007

The January 8, 2008 pretrial conference date and January 14, 2008 trial date

are hereby VACATED.

Case 3:05-cv-01933-MMC Document 115 Filed 12/05/07 Page 3 of 3