Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
12
and
13
14
15
v.
16
18
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
11
17
No. CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS
Defendants.
19
20
of Independent IA Authority (Doc. 1724) and Defendants response thereto (Doc. 1727).
21
22
As Defendants point out and Plaintiffs concede, Plaintiffs request is not timely.
23
Thus, the parties should come to the hearing on July 8 in compliance with the Courts
24
25
The Court appreciates Plaintiffs observation that giving the Court the opportunity
26
to choose between only two candidates for any one position may be too limiting in light
27
of the various attributes of the various candidates. Nevertheless, the Court previously
28
indicated to the parties that if the procedure does not produce candidates acceptable to
the Court, the Court reserves the right to appoint persons of its own choosing. (Doc.
1717 at 2.) Each party will thus submit to the Court only one candidate for each position.
Should the Court find neither candidate acceptable, the Court will not and does not feel
bound in any way, other than selecting qualified and neutral candidates, in exercising its
own selection. Thus, having been unaware of the vetoes as exercised by the parties, the
Court, in exercising its discretion, may designate a candidate that had been vetoed by
one of the parties. If it does so, that veto will not affect the selection.
If, in light of that, the parties wish to further discuss the selection procedure at the
July 8 hearing, they should nevertheless come to it having selected their candidates for
10
each of the two positions to be filled, having disclosed those candidates to the other side,
11
and having determined and informed the other side which candidates they would strike
12
and in what order they would strike them. Absent further order of the Court, no party
13
should disclose to the Court which side selected which candidates, or the identity of any
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-