Roe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANE ROE, Case No. 1:22-cv-01574-JLT-SAB

Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

CONTINUE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

v. (ECF Nos. 17, 27) GREG RODRIGUEZ, et al., Defendants.

16 I. INTRODUCTION Currently before the Court is Defendant Michael Pallares’s (“Defendant” or “Pallares”) motion to continue the initial scheduling conference and related dates. (ECF No. 27.) Plaintiff opposed the motion. (ECF No. 30.) While Defendant did not initially set this motion for hearing, having considered the moving papers and the Court’s file, the Court finds this matter suitable for decision without oral argument and the parties will not be required to appear for a hearing on the motion. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g). For the reasons explained herein, the Court shall deny the motion. /// /// /// II. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Jane Roe1 (“Plaintiff”)…