UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 22, 2011
LUXPRO CORPORATION PLAINTIFF(S),
APPLE INC. DEFENDANT(S).
The opinion of the court was delivered by: United States District Judge Jeffery S. White
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:
Non-binding Arbitration (ADR L.R. 4)
Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) (ADR L.R. 5) 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)
Private ADR (please identify process and Private mediation; provider to be provider) determined at later date.
The parties agree to hold the ADR session by: the presumptive deadline (The deadline is 90 days from the date of the order referring the case to an ADR process unless otherwise ordered.)
The parties agree that the mediation should take place in approximately March 2012 and will meet and other requested deadline confer in advance to agree on a specific date.
I, Penelope A. Preovolos, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this Stipulation. In compliance with General Order No. 45 X.B., I hereby attest that Corey McGaha has concurred in this filing.
Penelope A. Preovolos
Pursuant to the Stipulation above, the captioned matter is hereby referred to:
Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) Mediation Private ADR Deadline for ADR session 90 days from the date of this order.
Approximately March 2012; the parties shall meet other and confer in advance to agree on a specific date.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.