IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 13, 2012
JEANETTE LUCILLE FLOWERS, A.K.A. EVANGELIST KIMMONS, PLAINTIFF,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Presently before the court is the parties' Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order (Dkt. No. 27), which requests the following relief: (1) referral to the court's Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program ("VDRP"), see generally Local Rule 271; and (2) modification of the expert disclosure deadlines in the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order ("Scheduling Order"), in order to accommodate a referral to, and completion of, VDRP. The court does not approve the stipulation.
First, the court denies the parties' request for a referral to VDRP. VDRP is not available in this case because plaintiff is proceeding without counsel. Local Rule 271(a)(2)(ii). Nevertheless, the parties are not precluded from requesting a settlement conference. See Local Rule 271(a)(2). Accordingly, the parties may file a stipulation seeking a settlement conference conducted by a judge of this court. Unless otherwise requested by the parties, such a settlement conference shall be conducted by a judge of this court other than the undersigned. However, if the parties would prefer that the undersigned conduct the settlement conference, their stipulation must: (1) jointly request that the undersigned serve the settlement judge; and (2) include waivers of disqualification arising from the undersigned's participation in the settlement conference as the settlement judge.
Second, the court denies the parties' request for modification of the Scheduling Order because that request is tied to the now-rejected request for referral to VDRP. However, the parties may again request such modification of the Scheduling Order in a subsequently filed stipulation and proposed order.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order (Dkt. No. 27) is not approved.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.