Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-03101/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-03101-1/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

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KOLLEEN McNAMEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF 

SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-03101-MCE-AC

ORDER

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s ex parte Application to Modify the 

Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order (“PTSO”) entered in this case on July 25, 2013. 

ECF No. 42; see ECF No. 12. On August 29, 2014, Defendants Marion Bishop, Patrick 

O’Neill, and Ann Marie Faires filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which is set for 

hearing on October 30, 2014. ECF No. 40. On September 4, 2014, Defendant Roman 

Catholic Diocese of Sacramento also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to be heard 

on October 30, 2014. ECF No. 41. Pursuant to the PTSO, Plaintiff’s Oppositions to the 

pending Motions for Summary Judgment must be filed by September 25, 2014, and 

Defendants’ Replies must be filed by October 9, 2014. Plaintiff seeks to modify the 

PTSO to allow an additional four days for Plaintiff to file Oppositions and for 

///

Case 2:12-cv-03101-MCE-AC Document 43 Filed 09/15/14 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

Defendants to file Replies. Ex Parte Application, ECF No. 42. Plaintiff’s Application is 

currently unopposed.

Under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the PTSO may be 

modified only for good cause and with the Court’s consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 

Here, Plaintiff diligently requested modification of the PTSO the day after Defendant 

Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento filed its Motion. Moreover, Defendants will not 

be prejudiced by the slight modification requested by Plaintiff because Defendants will 

receive the same amount of additional time to file their Replies that Plaintiff will receive 

to file her Oppositions. 

Accordingly:

1. Plaintiff’s ex parte Application for Modification of the Amended Pretrial 

Scheduling Order, ECF No. 42, is GRANTED as set forth in this Order;

2. Plaintiff’s Oppositions to Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment shall be 

filed by September 29, 2014;

3. Defendants’ Replies shall be filed by October 17, 2014; and

4. All other provisions of the PTSO remain in full force.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2014

Case 2:12-cv-03101-MCE-AC Document 43 Filed 09/15/14 Page 2 of 2