DAVIS v. RUNNELS, 2:05-cv-1898-JAM-EFB P. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20141014h36
Visitors: 7
Filed: Oct. 09, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 09, 2014
Summary: ORDER EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge. On July 24, 2014, the undersigned referred this case to Magistrate Judge Allison Claire to conduct a settlement conference at the U.S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom No. 26 on October 30, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. ECF No. 135. On October 2, 2014, plaintiff filed an ex parte motion requesting that the settlement conference be conducted via video conference. ECF No. 142. Defendants promptly filed an opposition. ECF No. 1
Summary: ORDER EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge. On July 24, 2014, the undersigned referred this case to Magistrate Judge Allison Claire to conduct a settlement conference at the U.S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom No. 26 on October 30, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. ECF No. 135. On October 2, 2014, plaintiff filed an ex parte motion requesting that the settlement conference be conducted via video conference. ECF No. 142. Defendants promptly filed an opposition. ECF No. 14..
More
ORDER
EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.
On July 24, 2014, the undersigned referred this case to Magistrate Judge Allison Claire to conduct a settlement conference at the U.S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom No. 26 on October 30, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. ECF No. 135. On October 2, 2014, plaintiff filed an ex parte motion requesting that the settlement conference be conducted via video conference. ECF No. 142. Defendants promptly filed an opposition. ECF No. 143.
Plaintiff's motion is based on his belief that a settlement conference in this case on October 26 will interfere with his preparation for his trial in another case at the U.S. District Court (No. 2:04-cv-0878). However, contrary to his belief that the settlement conference for this case is set for October 26, the settlement conference is actually set for October 30—three days after the start of trial in case No. 2:04-cv-0878. See ECF No. 135. Because a settlement conference on October 30 in this case will not interfere with plaintiff's preparation for trial in case No. 2:04-cv-0878, his motion is denied.
It is hereby ordered that plaintiff's motion to appear at the October 30, 2014 settlement conference via video-conference (ECF No. 142) is denied.
Source: Leagle
