Opinion
1:23-cv-01174-JLT-SAB
09-06-2023
JANE DOE #4, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER RE: STIPULATION SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE NEWMAN AND STAYING ACTION PENDING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (ECF NO. 11)
On June 6, 2023, Plaintiff Jane Doe #4 initiated this civil rights action against Defendants Greg Rodriguez, Michael Pallares, the State of California, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). (ECF No. 1.) No Defendants have appeared in this action yet. On September 6, 2023, a stipulated agreement between the Plaintiff, and counsel for Defendants Michael Pallares, the State of California, and the CDCR, was filed, agreeing to set an early in-person settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Newman on October 3-4, 2023, and to stay proceedings in the meantime. (ECF No. 11.) The stipulating parties indicate Defendant Rodriguez has not yet been served and will not be represented by the same counsel as the other Defendants. (Id. at 2 n.1.) The Court finds good cause to grant the stipulated request, for all of the proffered reasons concerning this case and the four other related matters that are set for a settlement conference on the same dates.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. A settlement conference is SET to be held in this matter on October 3 and/or October 4, 2023, before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman;
2. Further orders concerning the individualized setting of the four related matters on the two reserved dates, and concerning specific procedures for conducting the four settlement conferences on the two dates, will be issued by Magistrate Judge Newman;
3. This action is STAYED, including the date for filing responsive pleadings and all party and non-party discovery, pending the October 2023 settlement conference;
4. The parties may informally exchange information to facilitate settlement and may seek a protective order for that purpose; and
5. In the event the matter does not settle, within seven (7) days of the settlement conference, the parties shall submit proposed dates for the setting of any responsive pleading deadlines, and proposed date for a scheduling conference.
A scheduling conference was set in this matter before the previously assigned Magistrate Judge, however, following reassignment, no scheduling conference is currently set in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.