Rieger v. General Dynamics

Filing 18

ORDER - the Court NOTES that the properly-named Defendant here is General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. All future filings, by both sides, shall reference this party name. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J Newman on 02/06/14. (pb1) Modified text for clarity on 2/6/2014 (tt).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
JOSEPH M. RIEGER,
Plaintiff,

Case No.: 3:13-cv-402

vs.
GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Judge Walter H. Rice
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

Defendant.
ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff was previously directed to amend his complaint in order to correctly
identify the Defendant named in the case caption. See doc. 15. During the preliminary pretrial
conference held with Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant on January 29, 2014, Plaintiff agreed
that the name he had given Defendant in his complaint (“General Dynamics”) was not the correct
name for that corporate entity.
Accordingly, the Court NOTES that the properly-named Defendant here is “General
Dynamics Information Technology, Inc.” All future filings, by both sides, shall reference this
party name. As both sides are now in agreement as to the properly-named Defendant, the Court
RESCINDS its prior Order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff shall,
however, name “General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc.” in all future filings with this
Court and in his discovery requests.
This case shall proceed as “Joseph M. Reiger, Plaintiff, versus General Dynamics
Information Technology, Inc., Defendant.” The Clerk shall so AMEND the docket sheet.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 6, 2014

s/ Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge