U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. University College of Chapman University et al

Filing 32

ORDER RE: ATTENDANCE AT ADR SESSION. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D Laporte on 11/28/2012. (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 Northern District of California 6 San Francisco Division 7 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, No. C 11-4845 LB 8 Plaintiff, 9 10 v. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY, et al., 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 Defendants. _____________________________________/ ORDER RE: ATTENDANCE AT ADR SESSION Date: Mediator: December 7, 2012 Jody LeWitter 13 In considering plaintiff’s request to excuse the party representative from attending in person 14 the hybrid ENE/mediation ADR session on December 7, 2012, before Jody LeWitter, the court must 15 first correct plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to interpret correctly the attendance requirements of ADR 16 Local Rules 5-10 and 6-10. Subsections (a) and (b) of those rules must be read together, as the rules 17 require the attendance of both a party representative under Subsection (a) and of counsel under 18 Subsection (b). Counsel incorrectly reads the Subsections as providing an “either/or” option. 19 Nonetheless, based on the personal circumstances of the party representative, the court finds 20 that plaintiff has met the hardship requirement set forth in ADR L.R. 5-10(d) and 6-10(d). IT IS 21 HEREBY ORDERED, therefore, that the request to excuse Charging Party David Branham from 22 appearing in person at the December 7, 2012, hybrid ENE/mediation before Jody LeWitter is 23 GRANTED. Mr. Branham shall be available at all times to participate in the ADR session in 24 accordance with ADR Local Rules 5-10(f) and 6-10(f). 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 28 November 28, 2012 Dated By: Elizabeth D. Laporte United States Magistrate Judge

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?