Bullard v. St. Andra et al

Filing 108

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 103 Motion to Excuse Defendants from Attending Settlement Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 03/17/2021. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

EFREN DANIELLE BULLARD,

13
14
15

v.

Case No. 1:17-cv-0328-NONE-HBK (PC)
ORDER DENYING AND GRANTING
Plaintiff, INAPRT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
EXCUSE DEFENDANTS FROM
ATTENDING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE

16
(Doc. No. 103).
17
18

BENSON, et al.,
Defendants.

19
20

Pending before the Court is a Motion to Excuse Defendants from Attending the Settlement

21

Conference, and supporting declaration from attorney Sloan, filed January 28, 2021. (See Doc. No.

22

103, Motion; Doc. No. 103-1, Decl. Sloan).

23

A settlement conference is currently scheduled to occur on March 25, 2021. See Doc. No.

24

101. Defendants note that the court’s order setting the settlement conference requires the three

25

individual defendants to attend the conference, unless the court otherwise permits in advance to

26

have a party not to attend. Motion at 1 (citing Doc. No. 101). Defendants correctly submit that

27

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(1) provides the Court may require individual defendants attend pre-trial

28
1

1

conferences and settlement conferences, but further point out that historically in the Eastern District

2

of California individual defendants have not attended prisoner settlement conferences because the

3

individual defendants are not necessary for effective settlement negotiations. Id. at 3 (emphasis

4

added); see also Dec. Sloan at 1-2. Nor are the individual defendants’ presence required to have

5

an effective settlement agreement. Id. Additionally, defendants note that the CDCR is responsible

6

for paying any settlement sums, alleviating the need for the individual defendants to be present, or

7

to authorize settlement. Motion at 1-2; see also Decl. Sloan at 1-2. Based on the foregoing

8

defendants request to be excused. Motion at 3 (citing United States v. U.S. Dist. Court for Northern

9

Mariana Islands, 694 F.3d at 1061 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding district court abused its discretion when

10

requiring person with full settlement authority to attend pretrial conference where settlement was

11

discussed).

12

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Northern Marianna Islands ultimately agreed with the

13

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to find where there has been no record of dilatory or evasive tactics

14

by either party that the district court “should take a ‘practical approach’ to determine whether to

15

require the government to send a representative with full settlement authority to a pretrial

16

conference and should consider less drastic steps before doing so,” considering whether a

17

representative may be effectively available during a settlement conference without physical

18

attendance.) Id. at 1061. The court is sensitive to defendant’s position that the individual

19

defendants have not historically been required to attend settlement conferences in prisoner cases in

20

the Eastern District of California. However, United States v. U.S. Dist. Court for Northern Mariana

21

Islands supports this court’s decision to require certain if the defendants attend the settlement

22

conference by zoom. Unlike Marianna Islands, the instant case has been pending for four years.

23

Also, a prior settlement conference in this case before another magistrate judge already resulted in

24

an impasse. See docket; see also Doc. No. 59 (settlement conference), Doc. No. 63 (writ for

25

prisoner plaintiff transport); Doc. No. 65 (noting impasse from settlement). This court believes that

26

the parties’ view of the case may be altered during a face-to-face conference, albeit by zoom due

27

to the covid-19 pandemic, and other courts have agreed with this view. See generally Pitman v.

28

Brinker Intern, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 486 (D. Az. July 8, 2003) (requesting representative with full
2

1

settlement authority, not capped authority and the parties to attend); Bartholomew v. Burger King

2

Corp., Case No. 11-00613 -JMS-BMK, 2014 WL 7419854 *2 (D. Hawaii, Dec. 30, 2014). The

3

court finds the benefits of bringing the parties to the table so-to-speak on zoom for a settlement

4

conference outweigh the burden and is practical. Having reviewed the record, the court finds

5

having the ability to speak to defendants Kister-Cooper and Benson necessary for the court to be

6

able to effectively and accurately mediate any settlement of this matter. The court will excuse

7

defendant David’s attendance from the March 25, 2021 settlement conference.

8

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

9

Defendants’ Motion to Excuse Defendants from Attending Settlement Conference (Doc. No.

10

103) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant David is excused from appearing

11

at the March 25, 2021 settlement conference. Defendants Kister-Cooper and Benson are required

12

to appear by zoom for the March 25, 2021 settlement conference. It is the court’s preference that

13

defendants Kister-Cooper and Benson appear by zoom, but the court will permit their attendance

14

telephonically if zoom is physically not available. Counsel should contact chambers (kdunbar-

15

[e-mail]) at least 24 hours before the scheduled settlement conference if either

16

defendant Kister-Cooper or Benson will not be appearing by zoom.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
Dated:

March 17, 2021

20

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3