CATHY SEIBEL, District Judge.
A conference was held in the captioned case today, May 3, 2013. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, did not appear, nor did he contact the Court in advance to request an adjournment. At the conference, I set the following schedule for pretrial activity: the Joint Pretrial Order is due by July 3, 2013; any contemplated motions in limine are due on July 12, 2013, with responses thereto due by July 19, 2013; proposed voir dire questions and proposed jury instructions are due by July 19, 2013; and the case is on 48-hours notice for trial as of July 22, 2013 (meaning that I can set a trial date for as early as July 24, 2013 giving the parties at least 48-hours notice). At the conference, I also advised that if both parties consent to trial before a Magistrate Judge, a Magistrate Judge will be able to give the parties a firm trial date.
Plaintiff is ordered to provide the Court, in writing, by the close of business on May 10, 2013, with the following information:
§ An explanation as to why Plaintiff did not attend the conference at its scheduled time;
§ Whether or not Plaintiff has been able to retain counsel in this case;
§ If Plaintiff has not been able to retain counsel in this case, whether he wants the Court to attempt to find him pro bono counsel; and
§ A phone number and email address where Plaintiff can be reached.
Plaintiff's response can be sent to the Court by hand delivery to the Clerk's Office, by U.S. mail, or by facsimile (XXX-XXX-XXXX). In the event that Plaintiff cannot provide the required information by these means within the set time period, Plaintiff may ...