Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02631/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02631-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bottling Group, LLC
Defendant
Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company
Defendant
Steven A. Troie
Plaintiff

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN A. TROIE,

Plaintiff,

v.

PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, et 

al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-2631-MCE-KJN (PS)

ORDER

Presently before the court is defendant Bottling Group, LLC’s (“defendant”) request to 

appear telephonically at the initial scheduling conference before the undersigned currently 

scheduled in this matter for April 28, 2016. (ECF No. 12.) Defendant asserts that the court 

should grant its request because its counsel is located in Los Angeles, therefore requiring a long 

trip to attend the initial scheduling conference in person. (Id.) 

While defendant’s counsel’s remote proximity to the court is a factor in favor of granting 

defendant’s request, the undersigned finds that other circumstances militate in favor of having 

defendant’s counsel appear at the initial scheduling conference in person and outweigh the burden 

the required travel would impose. In particular, defendant has filed its own status report that does 

not appear to have been drafted with any input by plaintiff, thus indicating that having both 

parties physically present at the status conference would be beneficial to devising the details of a 

Case 2:15-cv-02631-MCE-KJN Document 15 Filed 04/22/16 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

pretrial schedule that are mutually workable for both parties and the court. Furthermore, 

defendant’s status report proposes a rather detailed discovery plan. (See ECF No. 13 at 4.) Given 

plaintiff’s pro se status, the undersigned finds that having both parties physically present would 

ensure that plaintiff is better informed of how the pretrial proceedings in this matter will be 

conducted and will ease and potetntially expedite the administration of that process. Finally, the 

most recent amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 indicates a preference for having 

the court and the parties engage in direct simultaneous communication during a scheduling 

conference, thus creating a greater desirability for having the conference conducted with all 

parties appearing in person. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s note for 2015 

amendment (“A scheduling conference is more effective if the court and parties engage in direct 

simultaneous communication.”).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s request for telephonic 

appearance (ECF No. 12) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-02631-MCE-KJN Document 15 Filed 04/22/16 Page 2 of 2