Filed: Feb. 29, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 29, 2016
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, Jr. , District Judge . This cause is before the Court on the Agreed Joint Motion for Relief from Participation in Mediation (Doc. 59), filed February 18, 2016. The parties to this action jointly request relief from mandatory mediation, at least until the Court has ruled on their dispositive motions. ( Id. ) They represent that mediation would be futile and create unnecessary expense because they each maintain their respective contradicting stances as to the outcome of
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, Jr. , District Judge . This cause is before the Court on the Agreed Joint Motion for Relief from Participation in Mediation (Doc. 59), filed February 18, 2016. The parties to this action jointly request relief from mandatory mediation, at least until the Court has ruled on their dispositive motions. ( Id. ) They represent that mediation would be futile and create unnecessary expense because they each maintain their respective contradicting stances as to the outcome of t..
More
ORDER
ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge.
This cause is before the Court on the Agreed Joint Motion for Relief from Participation in Mediation (Doc. 59), filed February 18, 2016.
The parties to this action jointly request relief from mandatory mediation, at least until the Court has ruled on their dispositive motions. (Id.) They represent that mediation would be futile and create unnecessary expense because they each maintain their respective contradicting stances as to the outcome of the case. (Id.) Multiple factors compel the Court's denial of the Motion.
First, the fact that the parties have diametrically opposing views of the proper outcome of the case hardly makes them unique. To grant the Motion on this ground would permit parties to request relief from mediation simply for being parties on opposite sides of the litigation, and would effectively eviscerate the Court's mediation program. See Local Rule 9.01(b). Second, the parties have yet to even file dispositive motions. Third, the cost and time required to develop the record and brief issues for dispositive motions will far outweigh the cost and time required to participate in mediation. Fourth, while the legal issues are unresolved, the parties may recognize a legitimate business or practical reason to strike an accommodation. Fifth, the participation of an experienced mediator early in the litigation process—even where unsuccessful—can sharpen the parties' focus on the center of the dispute and identify areas of general agreement.
At this juncture, the parties are in the best position to take proactive steps to remove the uncertainty of litigation and to candidly assess the strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions. Thus, mediation is warranted.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Agreed Joint Motion for Relief from Participation in Mediation (Doc. 59) is DENIED. The parties are required to participate in the mandatory mediation as required by the Court's Case Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. 36).
DONE AND ORDERED.
