IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 27, 2013
CATHY JONES-RILEY, AN INDIVIDUAL, PLAINTIFF,
HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY, A CORPORATION; MARGO WATSON, AN INDIVIDUAL, DEFENDANTS.*FN1
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Senior United States District Judge
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."
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.