Smith v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 135

ORDER, signed by District Judge Susan R. Bolton on 1/7/15: Plaintiff's Motion for Referral into the VDRP is DENIED; Defendants' filing due no later than Friday, January 16, 2015. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

FRESNO DIVISION

9
10

Michael Lenoir Smith,
Plaintiff,

11
12

ORDER

v.

13

No. 07-cv-1547 SRB (PC)

Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

Plaintiff moves to have the Court refer the case to the Eastern District of

16

California’s Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program (“VDRP”) (Doc. 133), a program

17

that allows “participants to take advantage of a wide variety of alternative dispute

18

resolution methods[, including] . . . mediation, negotiation, early neutral evaluation, and

19

settlement facilitation” before one of the other judges in the district. L.R. 271(a)(1).

20

Although parties, individually or collectively, may request referral to the VDRP at any

21

time, “[t]he Court may enter an order of reference only if all parties voluntarily agree to

22

the proposed reference.” L.R. 271(b)(4). Defendants have not responded to the Motion to

23

either object to or agree to referral into the VDRP. The Court will not grant the Motion as

24

unopposed because even if Defendants have technically consented to the Court granting

25

the Motion by not responding, it would make little practical sense to summarily refer the

26

parties into the VDRP only have Defendants withdraw from the program immediately.

27

Moreover, there are certain requirements imposed on the parties before the VDRP

28

selection process can occur, including a meet-and-confer process in which “the parties

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

must confer about (A) whether the parties are willing to participate in the VDRP; and (B)
when the VDRP session, if any, should be held.” L.R. 271(d). Although Plaintiff believes
the parties can reach an amicable resolution of the case based on conversations he has
had with one of Defendants’ attorneys in the discovery process, there is nothing in the
record to suggest that the parties specifically discussed the case being referred to the
VDRP. The Court denies the pending Motion, but orders Defendants to file a status
update explaining why they would object to referral into the VDRP or, if they are willing
to consent to VDRP referral, to file an appropriate stipulation. This filing is due no later
than Friday, January 16, 2015.

10
11

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for referral into the VDRP (Doc.
133).

12
13
14
15

IT IS ORDERED instructing Defendants to file a status update explaining why
they would object to referral into the VDRP or, if they are willing to consent to VDRP
referral, an appropriate stipulation. This filing is due no later than Friday, January 16,
2015.

16
17

Dated this 7th day of January, 2015.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-