Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

McNAMEE v. ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF SACRAMENTO, 2:12-cv-03101-MCE-AC. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140916a17 Visitors: 11
Filed: Sep. 12, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 12, 2014
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge. 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
More

ORDER

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge.

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 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.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer