Vaughn v. Potter

Filing 40

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Request to Continue Settlement Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on 11/1/2010. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/1/2010)

Download PDF
Vaughn v. Potter Doc. 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General, Defendant. ___________________________________/ ROCHELLE VAUGHN, Plaintiff, v. JOHN E. POTTER, Defendant. ___________________________________/ ROCHELLE VAUGHN, Plaintiff, No. C-09-5746 SI (EMC) RELATED TO No. C-10-0748 SI (EMC) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (Docket No. 39, C-09-5746) (Docket No. 28, C10-0748) The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's written request to continue the November 2, 2010 Settlement Conference, filed on November 1, 2010. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's request to continue the Settlement Conference but GRANTS Plaintiff's request to be excused from personally attending the Settlement Conference. At the very least, Plaintiff shall be made available by telephone during the November 2, 2010 Settlement Conference, unless Plaintiff provides this Court with a licensed medical doctor's note informing the Court that Plaintiff cannot be available by telephone for the duration of the November 2, 2010 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Settlement Conference. The doctor's note shall be faxed to Judge Chen's chambers at 415-522-4200 before 4:00 p.m. (Pacific time), November 1, 2010, and should not be filed with the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 1, 2010 EDWARD M. CHEN United States Magistrate Judge United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?