Local Rule LR2-106. Priorities for resolving scheduling conflicts.

A. Scheduling priorities. Scheduling conflicts between or within the various courts (i.e., children’s court, civil court, criminal court, and domestic relations court) shall be resolved using the following order of priorities: (1) all matters given preference by statute or Supreme Court rule; (2) trials and hearings on the merits, with jury trials taking precedence over non-jury trials; (3) children’s court cases, with the oldest case generally taking precedence; (4) criminal court cases, with the following factors all being considered to determine priority: (a) age of the case; (b) whether the defendant is or is not in custody; (c) whether a defendant is being detained pending trial on the case; and (d) whether a continuance has previously been granted. (5) domestic relations court cases, with the oldest case generally taking precedence but child related issues taking precedence over all other issues; (6) civil court cases; (7) all other matters. B. Court-appointed hearing officers. Trials, hearings, or conferences scheduled by a court-appointed hearing officer (arbitrator, settlement facilitator, special master, etc.) shall be given the same priority as those set by a judge. C. Scheduling conflicts. Scheduling conflicts which are not resolved under Paragraph A of this rule or by the assigned judges shall be resolved by the presiding judge(s). If the presiding judge(s) cannot resolve the conflict, the matter may be referred to the chief judge.