ODonnell v. Harris County, Texas et al

Filing 47

ORDER entered: regarding mediation issued raised by the court and setting response deadline to respond.(Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MARANDA LYNN ODONNELL,
On behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

August 29, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-16-1414

ORDER
TO ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD:
As the parties know well, the claims and issues before the court in this case are not unique
to Harris County. Since 2013, similar cases have been filed in federal courts around the country.
While these cases are at different stages, a significant number have settled through consent decrees
that present common elements. See, e.g., Jones v. City of Clanton, 2015 WL 5387219 (M.D. Ala.
2015); Cooper v. City of Dothan, No. 14-425 (M.D. Ala. 2015); Cleveland v. City of Montgomery,
No. 13-732 (M.D. Ala. 2013); Pierce v. The City of Velda City, No. 15-570 (E.D. Mo. 2015).
These cases raise a question for this case. Is mediation in advance of the preliminary
injunction hearing likely to be beneficial? The first opportunity would appear to be shortly after the
deadlines for amending, notifying the court whether present or new counsel will represent any newly
added parties, and probably the answer date have all passed. If the parties believe that mediation,
particularly in that time frame, may be helpful, each side must propose the names of three mediators,
stating whether they are agreed to or not, and proposing a deadline for the mediation in advance of
the preliminary injunction hearing.

The court would like a response to these questions from each side no later than Friday,
September 2, by 5:00 p.m., filed with CM/ECF and in an email to Lisa Eddins.
In response to the question counsel for the defendants raised by earlier email: September 2,
2016, is the deadline for newly added parties to state in writing whether they will retain Gardere to
defend them or whether they will retain separate counsel. This filing must be made by 5:00 p.m.
The newly added parties need not state who will represent them, but only whether it will be the
present counsel for the defendants or new counsel. If new counsel will be added, their appearance
can be made when the answer is filed.

SIGNED on August 29, 2016, at Houston, Texas.

______________________________________
Lee H. Rosenthal
United States District Judge