Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00125/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00125-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hewlett Packard Company
Defendant
Cathy Jones-Riley
Plaintiff
Margo Watson
Defendant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CATHY JONES-RILEY, an

individual,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY, a

corporation; MARGO WATSON, an

individual, 

 Defendants.*

________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2:13-cv-00125-GEB-EFB

ORDER CONTINUING STATUS

(PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)

CONFERENCE

The Joint Status Report filed March 11, 2013 (“JSR”) reveals

this case is not ready to be scheduled. 

Plaintiff states in the JSR that she “anticipates amending her

Complaint following resolution of the EEOC’s investigation into [her]

allegations . . . to include a cause of action for discrimination under

Title VII.” (JSR 2:3-5, ECF No. 8.) However, Plaintiff provides no

information concerning when she intends to seek the referenced

amendment. “Parties anticipating possible amendments . . . have an

unflagging obligation to alert the Rule 16 scheduling judge of the . . .

timing of such anticipated amendments in their status reports so that

the judge can consider whether such amendments may properly be sought

solely under the Rule 15(a) standard, and whether structuring discovery

pertinent to the parties’ decision whether to amend is feasible.”

The caption has been amended according to the Dismissal of Doe *

Defendants portion of this Order.

1

Case 2:13-cv-00125-TLN-EFB Document 12 Filed 03/28/13 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

Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999)

(internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, the Status (Pretrial

Scheduling) Conference scheduled for hearing on April 1, 2013, is

continued to April 15, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. A further joint status report

shall be filed no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the Status

Conference.

Further, Does 1 through 20 are dismissed since Plaintiff has

not justified Does remaining in this action. See Order Setting Status

(Pretrial Scheduling) Conference filed January 23, 2013, at 2 n.2

(indicating that if justification for “Doe” defendant allegations not

provided Doe defendants would be dismissed).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2013

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

Senior United States District Judge

2

Case 2:13-cv-00125-TLN-EFB Document 12 Filed 03/28/13 Page 2 of 2