Opinion
Civil Action No. 09-cv-02736-CMA-BNB.
October 12, 2010
ORDER
This matter arises on a Letter [Doc. # 44, filed 10/6/2010] addressed to me and filed with the Clerk of the Court (the "Letter"). The Clerk improperly designated the Letter as a motion for clarification despite the plaintiff's failure to comply with (1) D.C.COLO.LCivR 10.1 concerning the format of papers presented for filing, and (2) D.C.COLO.LCivR 5.1G requiring proof of service on all opposing parties.
Notwithstanding these deficiencies, the plaintiff requests an explanation for why the settlement conference set for October 7, 2010, was vacated.
The minute order [Doc. # 43, filed 10/4/2010] vacating the settlement conference incorrectly states that it was vacated because the plaintiff failed to file a confidential settlement statement. Instead, I vacated the settlement conference after reviewing the confidential settlement letters submitted by both sides, seeing that the parties' settlement positions are extremely far apart, and determining that in view of those positions holding a settlement conference at this time would be a waste of resources.
IT IS ORDERED that the Letter [Doc. # 44] is construed as a motion for clarification and is GRANTED. The minute order [Doc. # 43] vacating the settlement conference is corrected and clarified as set forth above.
Dated October 12, 2010.