Maseru v. University Of Cincinnati

Filing 85

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ATTEND THE FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE REMOTELY (DOC. 84 ): The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to establish good cause for why he should attend the Final Pretrial Conference remotely. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Attend the Final Pretrial Conference Remotely (Doc. 84 ) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Matthew W. McFarland on 10/04/2022. (kaf)

Case: 1:18-cv-00106-MWM-KLL Doc #: 85 Filed: 10/04/22 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 1304

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI

NOBLE MASERU,

Case No. 1:18-cv-106
Plaintiff,

Judge Matthew W. McFarland

V.

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ATTEND THE FINAL
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE REMOTELY (DOC. 84)

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Attend the Final
Pretrial Conference Remotely (Doc 84). The Final Pretrial Conference is scheduled for
October 5, 2022 at 10:00 AM. On October 4, 2022, only a day before the Final Pretrial
Conference, Plaintiff filed this motion seeking leave from the Court to attend the Final
Pretrial Conference remotely due to Plaintiff experiencing vertigo and suffering from
dizziness. The filing of this motion occurred after the Court had already denied the same
request via email.
The Court would note that its Standing Order states that "[a]ttorneys must bring
the party, principal, or agent with full settlement authority to the Final Pretrial
Conference." (See Standing Order Regarding Procedures in Civil Cases.) Additionally,
the Court informed each parties' counsel that all parties must be present at the Final
Pretrial Conference.

Case: 1:18-cv-00106-MWM-KLL Doc #: 85 Filed: 10/04/22 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 1305

The Standing Order places the burden to bring the party bringing the action on
the attorneys. The Court appreciates that Plaintiff is uncomfortable driving, but the
motion makes no attempt to acknowledge alternative means of ensuring that the Plaintiff
is present for the Final Pretrial Conference. This matter has been pending for almost five
years. The Court has reserved several dates on its busy trial calendar to ensure that this
matter proceeds to justice and resolution. The Final Pretrial Conference was scheduled in
April 2022. Plaintiff and his counsel have had ample time to make travel arrangements.
Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to establish good cause for why he should
attend the Final Pretrial Conference remotely. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to
Attend the Final Pretrial Conference Remotely (Doc. 84) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

By:1{~,/VC-1if}JJ
JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND

2