Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01632/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01632-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
County of San Joaquin
Defendant
Marilyn Martin
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARILYN MARTIN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-cv-1632 MCE DAD 

ORDER 

 The parties and counsel met in settlement conference today before the undersigned. The 

parties agreed to explore a process which might lead to settlement of this case. However, this 

potential process requires some investigation into the logistics of such a process. In order to 

facilitate this investigation, the parties agreed to suspend litigation activity with the possible 

exception of the presently filed motion for protective order. (That motion was rescheduled to be 

heard on March 27, 2015 before the undersigned conferred with Judge Drozd). 

 The suspension of litigation activity shall expire in sixty (60) days from the date of this 

order. In order to accommodate this suspension, Judge England has determined to extend the 

current discovery cutoff by ninety (90) days, and has issued a minute order to that effect. If the 

parties agree, the presently scheduled motion for protective order may be vacated without 

prejudice to its refiling. In the event that no agreement is reached concerning vacating of the 

motion, it shall be heard on March 27 and the parties shall file their Joint Statement in accordance 

Case 2:14-cv-01632-MCE-CKD Document 16 Filed 03/05/15 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

with the Local Rules. No other litigation activity is contemplated during the 60 day suspension 

period. 

 At any time during this 60 day period, the parties may contact the undersigned for further 

settlement conference scheduling. In the event that the settlement process discussed above is not 

feasible, litigation activity may resume without further order of the court at the expiration of the 

sixty day period. 

 If no contact with the undersigned is made for further settlement conference, the parties 

shall file a concise statement reporting on the status of the potential settlement process at the 

expiration of the 60 day period. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED 

Dated: March 5, 2015 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:14-cv-01632-MCE-CKD Document 16 Filed 03/05/15 Page 2 of 2