Burt v. Cogent Communications, Inc.Burt v. Cogent Communications, Inc.
ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Before the Court is Defendant Cogent Communications, Inc.‘s Motion for Clarification and Incorporated Memorandum of Law. Doc. No. 40. Upon review, the motion is DENIED without prejudice for failure to comply with the conferral requirements of Local Rule 3.01(g)(3). That said, to the extent Defendant is concerned about being forced to mediate twice, the Court clarifies that the mediation referral at Doc. No. 39 is a ministerial docket entry by the Clerk‘s Office, does not mandate early mediation, and does not duplicate or otherwise impact the deadlines set forth in the Case Management and Scheduling Order (“CMSO“) (Doc. No. 37). In all other respects, the motion (Doc. No. 40) is DENIED without prejudice.
To the extent Defendant is concerned that complying with a lawful Court Order would somehow waive its arbitration rights, the Court does not so hold. Rather, the Court requires these Certificates/Statements in order to ascertain whether any conflicts exist such that the Court would have to recuse from the case pursuant to
LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE