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
kari@caed.uscourts.gov) 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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?