UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
January 5, 2010
TIM GALLI, PLAINTIFF,
PITTSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, BARBARA WILSON AND PERCY MCGEE, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Jeffrey S. White United States District Judge
JOINT STIPULATION ON CASE SCHEDULING AND ORDER THEREON
SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS COURT, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE TO THE FOLLOWING:
1. On October 9, 2009, the parties agreed to stipulate to various matters, including a Case Management Conference on January 8, 2009, telephonically, subject to the Court's approval.
2. On October 10, 2009, the Court Ordered that a Case Management Conference will be held, in person, on January 8, 2009.
3. Plaintiff was unavailable in person on January 8, 2009, the prior date set for the Case Management Conference. The parties agreed, and the Court approved the agreement, to hold the Initial Case Management Conference on January 29, 2010, in person.
4. On December 11, 2009, all parties, through their respective counsel of record, engaged in the Rule 26 conference telephonically to discuss those items required by Rule 26(f) including initial disclosures, early settlement, ADR process selection, and a discovery plan for the above-referenced matter.
5. On December 18, 2009, all parties, through their respective counsel of record, engaged in a follow-up teleconference to further discuss a discovery plan for the above-referenced matter.
6. As part of the outcome of those two teleconferences and follow up correspondence between the parties' counsel, the parties agreed to submit the instant matter to alternate dispute resolution (specifically Early Neutral Evaluation ("ENE")) to attempt to resolve the matter, if possible, in advance of the Case Management Conference.
7. Counsel for Defendants determined, through contact with the Court's ENE program, The Employment Law Group, P.C. Ph: 202.331.2883 * Fax: 202.261. NW, Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20006 that, with enough advanced notice, it may be possible to schedule ENE prior to the Case Management Conference.
8. Discovery is ongoing, notwithstanding the delay in the Case Management Conference.
9. Plaintiff has now determined that he has a scheduling conflict with January 29, 2010, the current date of the Initial Case Management Conference. 19
10. Accordingly, to accommodate Plaintiff's scheduling conflict and to allow for ENE and potential early resolution if possible, the parties request to extend the Case Management Conference to Friday, March 26, 2010.
DATED: December 29, 2009
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to the above Stipulation of the parties, that the case schedule be amended as outlined above.
The case management conference is CONTINUED to March 26, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. A joint case management conference statement shall be filed by March 19, 2010.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.