Heid et al v. Aderholt et al

Filing 100

ORDER granting 99 Plaintiffs' MOTION to Vacate the parties' mediation previously set for March 2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers on 2/6/24. (sem)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
RAY SCOTT HEID, et al.,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:20-cv-901
Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

v.
LT. TODD ADERHOLT, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
On January 22, 2024, the Clerk of Court issued a Notice advising the parties that this case
had been identified as ready for a mediation conference in March 2024. (ECF No. 98.) That
Notice directed counsel to confer concerning the readiness of this case for a settlement
conference, and if all counsel agreed that a mediation should not be scheduled, then the Notice
instructed counsel to send an email to the Clerk by no later than 4:00pm EST on February 1,
2024, to advise the Court of that fact. (Id.) The Clerk’s Notice expressly set forth that this
procedure, and this deadline, was established “[i]n order to avoid the administrative costs
associated with vacating a case after it has been set.” (Id.)
Counsel in this case did not send an email to the Clerk by the deadline, so on February 2,
2024 the Court designated a mediator. But then, on February 5, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to
Vacate March Mediation, submitting that “[b]oth parties agree that it would not be a good use of
judicial resources to attempt a mediation as both parties believe it would not be fruitful.” (ECF
No. 99.)

1 

The Court does not appreciate Plaintiffs’ filing, because the parties did not comply with
the Clerk’s Notice – they either failed to confer in a timely manner as instructed, failed to timely
notify the Clerk by the February 1, 2024 deadline as instructed, or both.1 While the Clerk’s
Notice states that “[n]othing . . . is intended to preclude a timely motion to vacate or continue a
settlement conference, should the grounds for such motion become apparent only after the
case is set for a settlement conference on a specific date and time,” the subject Motion only
arises out of counsel’s noncompliance with the Clerk’s Notice. (ECF No. 98 (emphasis added).)
Accordingly, the subject Motion has resulted in exactly the type of wasted time and resources
(by both the Court and the mediator) which the Clerk’s Notice was expressly designed to
prevent.
Those issues notwithstanding, the Court will generously construe the subject Motion as
having established good cause. Accordingly, the subject Motion (ECF No. 99) is GRANTED.
The parties’ mediation previously set for March 2024 is hereby VACATED. Any future
failures to comply with Court notices or Orders will not be met with such generosity.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: February 6, 2024

/s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers
ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

The Court notes that this is not the first time the parties have missed a deadline in this action
since Plaintiffs retained counsel. (See ECF No. 95 (“No dispositive motions were filed by the
December 1, 2023 deadline”).)
2