Schumacher et al v. FRANK et al

Filing 72

ORDER granting 71 Joint Motion for Status Conference. The summary judgment deadline is stricken and discovery is stayed. The parties shall begin mediation promptly and report to the court once a month beginning on or before 7/19/2010. The trial date remains in place. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 6/18/2010. (lak),(ps)

IN TH E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE W E S T E R N DISTRICT OF W I S C O N S I N

M A T T H E W R. SCHUM A C H E R P la in tiff, v. M A T T H E W FRANK, et al. D e fe n d a n t s . 0 8 -cv -2 2 8 -slc AM EN D ED SCHEDULING ORDER

SHAUN M A T Z P la in tiff, v. M A T T H E W FRANK, et al. D e fe n d a n t s . 0 8 -cv -4 9 1 -slc

SHAUN M A T Z P la in tiff, v. M A T T H E W FRANK, et al. D e fe n d a n t s . 0 9 -cv -6 5 3 -slc

On June 18, 2010, the court held a telephonic hearing on the parties' joint motions for a statu s conference, dkt. 71 in 08-cv-228, dkt. 67 in 08-cv-491 and dkt. 17 in 09-cv-653. All parties w e r e represented by counsel. Essentially, the request boiled down to suspending the schedule in t h e s e three cases in order to allow the parties to attempt mediation. The state supports this request b eca u se it characterizes the possibility of settlement as "substantial," but due to limited resources it cannot simultaneously mediate and litigate these lawsuits. The state characterized mediation as a more efficient use of scarce public resources. Plaintiffs are willing to attempt mediation but r ep or ted that it would difficult and expensive to attempt mediation while also conducting discovery, m otion s practice and preparing for trial. Without committing to a particular deadline, both sides p red ic ted that mediation could be conducted relatively quickly. A s I told the parties at the hearing, the court remains concerned with the age of these cases a n d it views the currently-scheduled series of November, 2010 jury trials as a more certain method

th an mediation to resolve these lawsuits. Nonetheless, in light of the parties' representations, the to ta lity of circumstances suggests that Rule 1 is best served by striking the summary judgment s ch e d u le and staying discovery so that the parties may attempt mediation promptly, diligently and in good faith. I am maintaining all three trial dates as placeholders, although the court will, for good c au se shown, give the parties some breathing room if mediation is not successful. S o that the court stays in the loop, the parties must file a joint letter to the court every m o n t h , beginning on or about July 19, 2010, briefly reporting what mediation activities have o c cu r red , what is scheduled to occur and a terse assessment whether mediation remains useful and pro m isin g. The parties must not report any substantive settlement information so that the court rem ain walled off from the process.

ORDER It is ORDERED that in each of these three cases: (1) The motion for a status conference is GRANTED. (2 ) The summary judgment deadline is STRICKEN and discovery is STAYED. (3 ) The parties shall begin mediation promptly and report to the court once a month. (4 ) The trial date remain in place.

Entered this 18th day of June, 2010. B Y THE COURT: /s / S T E P H E N L. CROCKER M a g is tr a te Judge

2