Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

MARTIN v. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, 2:14-cv-1632 MCE DAD. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20150306728 Visitors: 12
Filed: Mar. 05, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 05, 2015
Summary: ORDER GREGORY G. HOLLOWS , Magistrate Judge . The parties and counsel met in settlement conference today before the undersigned. The parties agreed to explore a process which might lead to settlement of this case. However, this potential process requires some investigation into the logistics of such a process. In order to facilitate this investigation, the parties agreed to suspend litigation activity with the possible exception of the presently filed motion for protective order. (That moti
More

ORDER

The parties and counsel met in settlement conference today before the undersigned. The parties agreed to explore a process which might lead to settlement of this case. However, this potential process requires some investigation into the logistics of such a process. In order to facilitate this investigation, the parties agreed to suspend litigation activity with the possible exception of the presently filed motion for protective order. (That motion was rescheduled to be heard on March 27, 2015 before the undersigned conferred with Judge Drozd).

The suspension of litigation activity shall expire in sixty (60) days from the date of this order. In order to accommodate this suspension, Judge England has determined to extend the current discovery cutoff by ninety (90) days, and has issued a minute order to that effect. If the parties agree, the presently scheduled motion for protective order may be vacated without prejudice to its refiling. In the event that no agreement is reached concerning vacating of the motion, it shall be heard on March 27 and the parties shall file their Joint Statement in accordance with the Local Rules. No other litigation activity is contemplated during the 60 day suspension period.

At any time during this 60 day period, the parties may contact the undersigned for further settlement conference scheduling. In the event that the settlement process discussed above is not feasible, litigation activity may resume without further order of the court at the expiration of the sixty day period.

If no contact with the undersigned is made for further settlement conference, the parties shall file a concise statement reporting on the status of the potential settlement process at the expiration of the 60 day period.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer