IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 27, 2009
GARRISON S. JOHNSON PLAINTIFF,
W.J. SULLIVAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Arthur Alarcón United States Circuit Judge Sitting by Designation
On April 17, 2009, the parties filed a joint notice stipulating that they would like this Court to refer this matter to mediation. (Doc. 197). This Court conducted a telephonic conference on April 24, 2009 to consider the parties' joint motion to permit them to participate in a mediation proceeding without completing discovery pursuant to this Court's order. The Court informed counsel that it would not vacate the present scheduling order regarding discovery, and refer this matter to a Magistrate Judge for a mediation proceeding, unless counsel for both sides could persuade this Court that they now had completed sufficient discovery to enable them to assist a mediator in guiding them to a successful settlement of this dispute. Counsel were informed that this Court would not burden an overworked Magistrate Judge with additional duties if a settlement could not be reached because counsel had not completed discovery.
Counsel for both sides represented to this Court that they believe they have already completed a sufficient amount of discovery of all the pertinent facts necessary to assist a mediator in helping them to resolve this dispute without further discovery or a trial.
As the parties have advised the Court that mediation would be both productive and appropriate in this case, this matter is REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin for mediation. The parties are advised that Magistrate Judge Austin is prepared to proceed with mediation in this case on May 11, 12 or 14, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. The parties are instructed to consult with Magistrate Judge Austin for further details surrounding his mediation procedures.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.