ORDER RE: MOTION FOR ORDER REFERRING CASE TO ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

ROBERT E. BLACKBURN, District Judge.

The matter before me is plaintiff's Motion for Order Referring Case to Alternative Dispute Resolution Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.6 and for Stay [#157],1 filed November 16, 2015. Although defendants oppose the motion, I exercise my prerogative under D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d) and rule on the motion without awaiting the benefit of a response. I grant the motion insofar as it seeks court-ordered ADR, but deny the request to continue the stay of this already overly protracted litigation.

This case is but one of three related federal lawsuits which plaintiff has filed in this district. Also pending before various state courts are seven additional lawsuits involving the same or related state defendants. Counsel for plaintiff has entered a limited appearance to attempt to effectuate a global resolution of all these claims. However, counsel represents that her attempts to negotiate a settlement of these matters has not proved fruitful. She therefore requests that the court order defendants to participate in ADR before the magistrate judge.

Admittedly, it is unclear whether negotiations will be productive in this case, especially in light of defendants' opposition to this motion. Nevertheless, after due consultation with the magistrate judge, and with her consent, the court concludes that plaintiff's request for court-facilitated ADR should be granted. The parties heretofore have not engaged in any discussions of this nature, and thus it certainly cannot hurt to attempt to negotiate a resolution.

However, the court declines plaintiff's invitation to further continue the stay in this case. This matter is set for trial on February 22, 2016. Defendants previously filed a motion for summary judgment (see Motion for Summary Judgment [#130], filed June 12, 2015), which was denied without prejudice in light of the then existing stay in this case (see Order Adopting Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [#143], filed July 30, 2015). The court assumes that defendants continue to believe that the arguments raised in their motion have traction and will wish to urge them again should negotiations fail. This case has already been pending on the court's docket for nearly three years. It is time to move forward. The court sees no reason why efforts to resolve this lawsuit should not be undertaken on both fronts.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That plaintiff's Motion for Order Referring Case to Alternative Dispute Resolution Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.6 and for Stay [#157], filed November 16, 2015, is granted in part and denied in part, as follows:

2. That this case is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix to conduct alternative dispute resolution proceedings as soon as is practicable given the demands of her own calendar and with due consideration of the date of the trial in this matter.