UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 11, 2011
NOKIA, INC. DEFENDANT(S).
The opinion of the court was delivered by: United States District Judge The Honorable Edward J. Davila
IT IS SO ORDERED
AS MODIFIED A
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS
Counsel report that they have met and conferred regarding ADR and have reached the following stipulation pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-8 and ADR L.R. 3-5:
The parties agree to participate in the following ADR process:
q Non-binding Arbitration (ADR L.R. 4) q Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) (ADR L.R. 5)
n[ ] Mediation (ADR L.R. 6)
(Note: Parties who believe that an early settlement conference with a Magistrate Judge is appreciably more likely to meet their needs than any other form of ADR, must participate in an ADR phone conference and may not file this form. They must instead file a Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference. See Civil Local Rule 16-8 and ADR L.R. 3-5)
E Private ADR (please identify process and provider) Private Mediation with Michael Loeb, Esq.
The parties agree to hold the ADR session by:
E the presumptive deadline (The deadline is 90 days from the date of the order referring the case to an ADR process unless otherwise ordered.)
other requested deadline
Pursuant to the Stipulation above, the captioned matter is hereby referred to:
[ n ] Non-binding Arbitration
Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE)
[ ] Mediation
q Private ADR
Deadline for ADR session
n 90 days from the date of this order. q other
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.