Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00649/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00649-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOREN LAMONTE’ QUALLS,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF 

CALIFORNIA et al.,

 Defendants.

1:13-cv-00649 DLC-SMS

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

UNOPPOSED EX PARTE 

APPLICATION TO MODIFY 

SCHEDULING ORDER (Doc. 54)

Defendants Regents of the University of California, Robert Ochsner, Tom Hothem and Anne 

Zanzucchi (collectively, “Defendants”) have applied for an order modifying the Scheduling Order (Doc 

42), to vacate and reset the dates for the pre-trial conference, scheduled for October 27, 2015, and the 

trial, scheduled for December 8, 2015, pending the ruling of Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment (Doc. 46). Defendants state three reasons for this request: (1) the Court’s resources would be 

best used on ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment, instead of engaging in pre-trial preparations; 

(2) the parties will need additional time to prepare for trial following the Court’s ruling on the Motion 

for Summary Judgment; and (3) vacating the schedule would allow the parties an opportunity to 

participate in a settlement conference, originally scheduled for August 5, 2015. The Court is not 

persuaded by Defendants’ rationale and will deny the application for the reasons stated below. 

On September 23, 2015, United States District Judge Lawrence O’Neill issued an Order partially 

granting and partially denying Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. This satisfies Defendants’ 

first reason for vacating the trial dates. Next, Defendants’ concerns about the time needed to prepare for 

trial have been significantly alleviated by Judge O’Neil’s Order. This Order narrowed the issues for trial 

Case 1:13-cv-00649-DLC-SMS Document 56 Filed 10/05/15 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

2

by granting summary judgment on the defamation claim, leaving only Plaintiff’s Title VII claims. 

Because the only remaining issues for trial are Plaintiff’s Title VII claims, the Court is confident that the 

parties will have the necessary amount of time in the next two months to prepare for trial. Finally, the 

Court has contacted Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder and she has agreed to facilitate a settlement 

conference between the parties. The settlement conference is rescheduled for October 21, 2015, at 1:00 

p.m. As such, the Court will deny Defendants’ application for an order modifying the Scheduling Order. 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Defendants’ application for an order modifying the scheduling order (Doc 54) is DENIED.

Dated this 5

th day of October, 2015.

 

Case 1:13-cv-00649-DLC-SMS Document 56 Filed 10/05/15 Page 2 of 2