Williams v. Veach et al

Filing 25

ORDER: Telephone Conference is set for 7/16/2014 at 10:00 AM, to be initiated by defendants' counsel, to address whether the plaintiff has provided the defendants with the documents described above, and, if so, the status of any settlement discussions, and/or whether the parties believe that ADR would be necessary or productive. Signed by Magistrate Judge Juliet E. Griffin on 5/2/14. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
RICKY WILLIAMS
v.
GREGORY VEACH; and STEVENS
TRANSPORT, INC.

)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3-13-1229

ORDER
Pursuant to the order entered April 15, 2014 (Docket Entry No. 24), counsel for the parties
called the Court on April 29, 2014, at which time the following matters were addressed:
1.

Plaintiff's counsel recounted the plaintiff's current medical status, and the fact that there

will be no further surgery. Therefore, the parties may be in a position to evaluate the potential for
settlement.
2.

Before considering whether ADR would be appropriate, the defendants want the

following documents from the plaintiff: (1) the plaintiff's IRS Form W-2s for the tax years for which
the plaintiff has provided copies of tax returns but without the W-2 forms; (2) documents relating to
income and loss of income from the plaintiff's self-employment; (3) authorization to obtain medical
records; and (4) the report from the examining neuropsychologist. In addition, defendants' counsel
indicated that they may want to take the plaintiff's deposition before participating in any ADR.
Plaintiff's counsel committed to providing defendants' counsel the requested documents as
soon as possible.
3.

Counsel for the parties shall convene another telephone conference call with the Court

on Wednesday, July 16, 2014, at 10:00 a.m., to be initiated by defendants' counsel, to address
whether the plaintiff has provided the defendants with the documents described above, and, if so, the
status of any settlement discussions, and/or whether the parties believe that ADR would be necessary
or productive.
It is so ORDERED.
JULIET GRIFFIN
United States Magistrate Judge