IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 14, 2012
OTILIA SULLIVAN, PLAINTIFF,
THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, AND PHH CORPORATION GROUP EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN, DEFENDANTS.*FN1
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Senior United States District Judge
The status (pretrial scheduling) conference scheduled for August 20, 2012, is vacated since the parties' Joint Status Report filed on August 6, 2012 ("JSR"), indicates that the following Order should issue.
DISMISSAL OF DOE DEFENDANTS
Since Plaintiff has not justified Doe defendants remaining in this action, Does 1-300 are dismissed. See Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference filed May 2, 2012, at 2 n.2 (indicating that if justification for "Doe" defendant allegations not provided Doe defendants would be dismissed).
SERVICE, JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES, AMENDMENT No further service, joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted, except with leave of Court for good cause shown.
SERVICE/LODGING OF ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD Defendants state in the JSR that they "agree to provide a copy of the Administrative Record to Plaintiff's counsel on or before August 7, 2012." (JSR 6:27-7:1.) Therefore, if Defendants have not provided Plaintiff with a copy of the Administrative Record by the date this Order is filed, Defendants shall do so no later than August 24, 2012.
Further, Defendants shall lodge the Administrative Record in accordance with Local Rule 138(b) on or before August 24, 2012.
FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE
A status conference is scheduled to commence at 9:00 a.m. on September 17, 2012. A further joint status report shall be filed fourteen (14) days before the status conference, in which the parties shall address all pertinent subjects set forth in Local Rule 240(a) and propose a briefing schedule regarding Plaintiff's arguments that she is entitled to conduct limited discovery "on the issue of whether a conflict of interest by Prudential impacted its decision on Plaintiff's claim[.]" (JSR 3:5-6.)
IT IS SO ORDERED