Laughlin v. Mickell et al

Filing 26

ORDER RE TELEPHONIC APPEARANCES AT MEDIATION. Signed by Judge Laporte on 12/10/09. (edllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2009) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/10/2009: # 1 Certificate of service) (lmh, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California San Francisco Division LAUGHLIN, v. MICKELL, et al., Defendants. _____________________________________/ Plaintiff, No. C09-1685 RMW MED ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE BY DEFENDANT'S INSURER REPRESENTATIVE AND APPROVING REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE FOR DEFENDANTS RAY WELSH AND AARON GESTL AT MEDIATION Date: December 14, 2009 Mediator: Sharon O'Grady 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the request for defendant Sidney Mickell's insurer to attend the mediation in this matter by phone is DENIED. The insurer representative shall personally attend December 14, 2009, mediation before Sharon O'Grady. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the request for defendants Ray Welsh and Aaron Gestl to attend the mediation by phone is GRANTED. Mr. Welsh and Mr. Gestl shall be available to //// //// //// //// //// 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 For the Northern District of California participate by telephone at all times during the mediation, pursuant to ADR Local Rule 6-10. IT IS SO ORDERED. December 10, 2009 Dated By: Elizabeth D. Laporte United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C:\Documents and Settings\USDC\Local Settings\Temp\notes56FD74\Order re C09-1685 RMW (12-3-09).wpd 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT For the Northern District of California 28 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 1 REV 10-09 3

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?