B.O.L.T. et al v. City of Rancho Cordova et al

Filing 22

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 10/16/2014 ORDERING Status Pretrial Scheduling Conference Reset for 11/10/2014 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr.; a further joint status report shall be filed no later than 14 days prior to the Status Conference. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

B.O.L.T., an unincorporated
association of motorcycle
riders and enthusiasts; MARK
TEMPLE, an individual; NOREEN
MCNULTY, an individual;
WARREN PEARL, an individual;
LYLE DUVAUCHELLE, an
individual; GLENN OSBORN, an
individual; JEFFREY RABE, an
individual; DAVID ZALITSKIY,
an individual; WILLIAM
LANGHORNE, an individual;
THOMAS BELL, an individual;
ROBERT BALTHORPE II, an
individual,

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

No. 2:14-cv-01588-GEB-DAD
ORDER CONTINUING STATUS
(PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE

Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, a
political subdivision of the
state of California; COUNTY
OF SACRAMENTO, a political
subdivision of the state of
California; RANCHO CORDOVA
POLICE DEPARTMENT, an
independent legal agency of
the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO and
the CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA;
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT; MICHAEL GOOLD, in
his official capacity as the
Chief of Police of the CITY
OF RANCHO CORDOVA; RANCHO
CORDOVA POLICE TRAFFIC
SERGEANT G. LANE, in his
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

individual and official
capacity as Supervisor of the
Traffic Division; SCOTT R.
JONES, in his official
capacity as the SHERIFF of
the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO;
RANCHO CORDOVA POLICE OFFICER
S. CARRDOZZO (badge number
480); RANCHO CORDOVA POLICE
OFFICER M. JAMES (badge
number 507); RANCHO CORDOVA
POLICE OFFICER S. PADGETT
(badge number 1174),

8

Defendants.

9
10

Plaintiffs state in the Joint Status Report (“JSR”)

11

filed October 14, 2014, that they “anticipate filing an Amended

12

and

13

statement fails to comply with Plaintiffs’ obligation under Rule

14

16

15

amendment would be sought.

Supplemental

to

provide

16

Complaint.”

meaningful

(JSR

3:4,

information

on

ECF

No.

when

18.)

the

This

referenced

21

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.

22

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

23

(internal quotation marks omitted).

17
18
19
20

Therefore, the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference

24
25

scheduled

for

hearing

on

October

26

November 10, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. A further joint status report

27

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

28

Status Conference, in which Plaintiff shall provide additional
2

27,

2014,

is

continued

to

1

information concerning the referenced amendment.

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 16, 2014

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
3