Filed: Feb. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 24, 2015
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Allow Telephonic Meeting of Counsel and for Postponement of Mediation ( Doc. #102 ) filed on February 20, 2015. Pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(g), Defendant does not oppose the motion. This matter is now ripe for review. Pursuant to the Court's scheduling order, the parties are required to meet in person to discuss and prepare a Joint Final Pretrial Statement by February 27, 2014. ( See
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Allow Telephonic Meeting of Counsel and for Postponement of Mediation ( Doc. #102 ) filed on February 20, 2015. Pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(g), Defendant does not oppose the motion. This matter is now ripe for review. Pursuant to the Court's scheduling order, the parties are required to meet in person to discuss and prepare a Joint Final Pretrial Statement by February 27, 2014. ( See D..
More
ORDER1
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Allow Telephonic Meeting of Counsel and for Postponement of Mediation (Doc. #102) filed on February 20, 2015. Pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(g), Defendant does not oppose the motion. This matter is now ripe for review.
Pursuant to the Court's scheduling order, the parties are required to meet in person to discuss and prepare a Joint Final Pretrial Statement by February 27, 2014. (See Doc. #31). The parties wish to discuss and prepare this statement telephonically due to the attorneys' respective locations, Houston, Texas and Cincinnati, Ohio, and the great distance between them. The parties assert appearing in person to discuss and prepare the statement would not be practical or efficient. Moreover, the parties assert they have been able to successfully create joint pretrial orders and exchange exhibits and witness lists in at least three other MDL2 remanded cases similar to this instant action. Upon consideration, the Court finds due to the attorneys unique history they may discuss and prepare their Joint Final Pretrial Statement telephonically.
In addition, the parties state they are not optimistic about their upcoming mediation in light of their previous mediation efforts in the MDL. The parties prefer to hold a mediation only after the Court resolves the pending dispositive motions. Thereafter, the parties propose that they can then advise the Court as to whether mediation is desired. The Court is willing to amend the mediation deadline, but as mentioned orally over a year ago the Court is requiring mediation in this case.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
Plaintiff's Motion to Allow Telephonic Meeting of Counsel and for Postponement of Mediation (Doc. #102) is GRANTED in part. The parties may discuss and prepare the Joint Final Pretrial Statement telephonically. The mediation deadline is continued to April 17, 2015. Mediation remains required in this case and the deadline will not be continued again, despite any pending motion before the Court. The Clerk is directed to amend the schedule in the docket accordingly.
DONE and ORDERED.
