MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

H. BRUCE GUYTON, Magistrate Judge.

This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court, and Standing Order 13-02.

Now before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for Appointment of Mediator [Doc. 465 in Adkisson, 3:13-CV-505; Doc. 448 in Thompson, 3:13-CV-666; Doc. 428 in Cunningham, 3:14-CV-20; Doc. 360 in Rose, 3:15-CV-17; Doc. 368 in Wilkinson, 3:15-CV-274; Doc. 349 in Shelton, 3:15-CV-420; Doc. 348 in Church, 3:15-CV-460; Doc. 352 in Vanguilder, 3:15-CV-462; Doc. in Ivens, 3:16-CV-635; and Doc. 232 in Farrow, 3:16-CV-636], filed on March 14, 2019.1

Previously, on January 18, 2019, the Court found that this litigation is one that could benefit from mediation, and ordered the parties to mediate the case within one hundred fifty (150) days of the entry of the Order. [Doc. 459 at 5]. The Court subsequently granted an extension of time to file a joint proposal for the selection of a mediator. [Doc. 461].

In the present motion, the parties have submitted a joint proposal and request that the Court approve the appointment of Daniel J. Balhoff to serve as a mediator. [Doc. 465 at 2]. Although Mr. Balhoff is not a member of the Court's List of Approved Mediators, the parties submit that he is an experienced mediator in mass tort litigation, including cases regarding injuries alleged to have been caused by exposure to toxic substances. In support of their motion, the parties have submitted a copy of Mr. Balhoff's curriculum vitae and his statement in accordance with Local Rule 16.

Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Joint Proposal Regarding Selection of Mediator [Doc. 465] is GRANTED. In light of the parties' agreement, the Court approves the appointment of Mr. Balhoff to serve as a mediator in the present case. The parties are DIRECTED to mediate this litigation in good faith in accordance with the Court's original order referring the case to mediation on January 18, 2019. [Doc. 459].

IT IS SO ORDERED.