Kimbrell v. Twitter Inc.

Filing 25

ORDER Re 23 Administrative Motion by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JODY DIANE KIMBRELL,

9

v.

10

TWITTER INC.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 18-cv-04144-PJH

Plaintiff,

8

ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO CONTINUE CMC
Re: Dkt. No. 23

Defendant.

12
13

On September 28, 2018, defendant Twitter Inc. filed its administrative motion to

14

continue the Initial Case Management Conference and related deadlines. Plaintiff Jody

15

Kimbrell timely opposed that motion on October 1, 2018.

16

This court’s initial scheduling order, issued on July 11, 2018, set the Initial CMC for

17

October 25, 2018. Dkt. 2. The same order requires the parties to meet and confer

18

regarding discovery and ADR by October 4, 2018. Id. It also requires the parties to file

19

their ADR certification by the same date. Id.

20

Defendant contends that these CMC-related deadlines should be continued until

21

after the court rules on defendant’s motion to dismiss, which defendant anticipates filing

22

on October 9, 2018. In one sense, defendant’s request is not unusual. This court

23
24
25
26
27
28

frequently vacates initial CMCs and related deadlines until after it resolves any pending
motions to dismiss. Here, however, there is no motion to dismiss pending. Defendant’s
request is instead based on its “anticipated” motion to dismiss. For that reason, the court
DENIES defendant’s motion without prejudice.
In light of defendant’s deadline to answer occurring after the October 4, 2018
deadline discussed above, the court CONTINUES the October 4, 2018 deadline to

1

October 11, 2018. If defendant files a motion to dismiss on or before October 9, 2018,

2

then the court will vacate the Initial CMC and all related deadlines pending resolution of

3

that motion.

4

There is also a second motion pending before this court: Plaintiff’s motion to

5

compel. That motion, filed on September 26, 2018, seeks an order compelling defendant

6

to comply with its meet and confer obligations, as set forth in this court’s July 11, 2018

7

order. Specifically, plaintiff asserts that defendant failed to respond to plaintiff’s attempts

8

to meet and confer prior to the October 4, 2018 deadline. Plaintiff’s motion is untimely.

9

The October 4, 2018 deadline has not yet passed. Accordingly, the court takes plaintiff’s

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

motion off calendar and VACATES the related briefing schedule until after the Initial CMC
date and related deadlines are settled and, if appropriate, have passed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 1, 2018
__________________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2