Opinion
1:21-cv-01103-NONE-SAB
08-20-2021
JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. DERRAL ADAMS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER RE STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TIMOTHY BEACH TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO ADDRESS READINESS FOR SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND NEED FOR MOTION TO FILE PSEUDONYMOUSLY
(ECF No. 7)
On August 19, 2021, a stipulation was filed extending the time for Defendant Timothy Beach to file a responsive pleading until October 14, 2021, to allow for the investigation of the merits of the case. (ECF No. 7.) The Court finds good cause to approve the stipulated request. The scheduling conference is set in this matter for October 19, 2021 and the joint scheduling report is due one week prior. If the parties do not expect to be in a position to move forward with the scheduling conference, they shall file a joint request to continue the scheduling conference on or before the date the joint scheduling report is due. The parties shall also address the need for a motion to file pseudonymously in the scheduling report and be prepared to address such motion at the scheduling conference.
Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, and finding good cause, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant Timothy Beach shall file a pleading responsive to the complaint on or before October 14, 2021;
2. If the parties are not in a position to move forward with the October 19, 2021 scheduling conference, they shall file a joint request to continue the scheduling conference on or prior to the date the joint scheduling report is due; and
3. The parties shall address the need for a motion to file pseudonymous pleadings in the scheduling report.
Plaintiff did not file a motion to file pseudonymous pleadings in this action. The parties should be prepared to address this issue, and be prepared to set a filing date and briefing schedule for such motion, if opposed, or file an unopposed motion that satisfies the applicable legal standards. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(a); Doe v. Kamehameha Schools (“Kamehameha Schools”), 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010); Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp. (“Advanced Textile Corp.”), 214 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2000).
IT IS SO ORDERED.