Boyton v. Federal Correction Institution Dublin

Filing 33

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 3/4/13 ORDERING that the parties shall confer in person or via telephone and file a joint status report on or before 3/20/13. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

PEGGY BOYNTON,
No. 2:11-cv-623-MCE-EFB PS
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

vs.
FEDERAL CORRECTION INSTITUTION
DUBLIN,

ORDER

14
15
16

Defendant.
_________________________________/
This case, in which plaintiff is once again proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned

17

pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see

18

also Dckt. No. 29 (granting plaintiff’s counsel Ronald W. Carter’s motion to withdraw). On

19

February 28, 2013, defendant’s counsel filed a request for a status conference indicating that in

20

October 2012, plaintiff, through her then attorney Carter, and defendant consented to the

21

Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program (“VDRP”),1 Dckt. No. 22; that on November 7, 2012, a

22

VDRP neutral was appointed, Dckt. No. 24; and that now that plaintiff is proceeding pro se,

23

defense counsel’s attempts to communicate with her to move forward with the VDRP process

24
1

25
26

As a result, the court referred the case to VDRP, ordered that the VDRP process be
completed within 60 days of the selected Neutral’s notification of his or her willingness to serve as
Neutral for the action, and stayed the pretrial schedule issued in the action until the VDRP session
is concluded. Dckt. No. 23.
1

1

and schedule a mediation have been unsuccessful. Dckt. No. 32. Therefore, defendant “requests

2

that a status conference be ordered to determine whether VDRP is still viable or to reset pretrial

3

schedule dates so that the case can proceed forward.” Id. at 2.

4

In light of defendant’s filing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1. The parties shall meet and confer in person or via telephone on or before March 20,

6

2013 to discuss whether all parties still consent to VDRP and, if so, to schedule a mediation. If

7

one or both of the parties no longer consents to VDRP, the parties shall discuss whether any

8

modifications should be made to the court’s March 27, 2012 pretrial scheduling order, Dckt. No.

9

21.

10
11

2. Also on or before March 20, 2013, the parties shall file a joint status report2
indicating:

12

a. Whether the parties continue to consent to VDRP;

13

b. If the parties continue to consent to VDRP, when a mediation will be

14

conducted;
c. If one or both parties withdraws its consent to VDRP, what modifications, if

15
16

any, should be made to the court’s March 27, 2012 pretrial scheduling order; and
d. Any other outstanding issues that must be resolved by the court.

17
18

3. All parties are admonished that a failure to comply with this order may result in the

19

imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute and/or for

20

failure to comply with this court’s orders and local rules.

21

SO ORDERED.

22

Dated: March 4, 2013.

23
24
25
2

26

If the parties are unable to file a joint status report, each party shall file a status report
addressing the matters set forth herein and explaining why a joint status report could not be filed.
2