Padilla v. Beard et al

Filing 113

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/31/2016 GRANTING 109 Plaintiff's ex parte application to continue the 4/1/2016 settlement conference is GRANTED; the 4/1/2016 settlement conference is VACATED; Counsel for the parties sh all meet and confer to determine several mutually agreed upon dates in early May 2016 as proposed dates on which to hold the continued settlement conference; by no later than 4/8/2016, counsel for the parties shall contact the undersigned's cour troom deputy with their agreed upon proposed dates and a final date for the continued settlement conference will be set via minute order at that time; the parties may file a request for plaintiff's appearance at the settlement conference via video conference.(Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JERMAINE PADILLA,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-1118-KJM-CKD

Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Presently before the court is plaintiff’s ex parte application to continue the settlement

18

conference before the undersigned scheduled in this action for April 1, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. (ECF

19

No. 109.) Defendants filed a response noting that defendants do not object to plaintiff’s request

20

provided that the court grant a continuance of no more than one to two weeks. (ECF No. 110.)

21

Plaintiff submitted the present application in response to the court’s March 30, 2016 order

22

denying plaintiff’s previous motion to excuse him from making an in person appearance at the

23

April 1, 2016 settlement conference. (ECF No. 108.) In that order, the undersigned noted that

24

plaintiff may file a request to continue the settlement conference provided that he submit

25

“medical documentation evidencing whether plaintiff will likely be able to stabilize his mental

26

condition such that he could engage in in-person settlement negotiations at a later time, and, if so,

27

how long plaintiff will likely need to reach a sufficiently stabilized mental state.” (Id. at 3.)

28

While plaintiff did not provide the requested medical documentation with his application, he
1

1

included a declaration by his counsel, Lori Rifkin, which indicates that his counsel spoke with a

2

member of plaintiff’s mental health care team who stated “that it is difficult to predict the

3

timeline for plaintiff’s stabilization” and that it was doubtful that medical documentation of

4

plaintiff’s mental state could be provided before the currently-scheduled settlement conference

5

date. (ECF No. 109-1, Decl. of Lori Rifkin ¶ 5.) Subsequent to his application, plaintiff filed a

6

supplemental declaration by Lori Rifkin containing a letter from one of plaintiff’s physicians

7

opining that the current state of plaintiff’s mental health prevents him from “participat[ing] in any

8

court room setting or represent[ing] his own interests.” (ECF No. 112 at 4.) In light of these

9

declarations and the short notice on which plaintiff had to provide the ordered documentation, the

10

undersigned finds that the requirements of the March 30, 2016 order have been substantially

11

satisfied. Moreover, after reviewing plaintiff’s application and defendants’ response, and in light

12

of defendants’ apparent lack of objection to continuing the settlement conference to a later date,

13

the undersigned finds that good cause exists to continue the April, 1, 2016 settlement conference.

14

Accordingly, plaintiff’s application is granted.

15

Plaintiff’s application does not contain any suggested dates for when the continued

16

settlement conference is to occur. However, defendants assert that the continuance should be

17

limited to no more than one to two weeks due to the fact that the expert discovery deadline in this

18

matter is currently set for April 19, 2016, and depositions of certain experts have already been

19

scheduled to occur in early-to-mid April in order to avoid expenses related to that discovery if the

20

parties reach settlement of this action on April 1, 2016. (ECF No. 110.) Defendants represent

21

that plaintiff’s counsel has agreed to continue the expert depositions to a later date in April 2016,

22

but that a continuance of more than a couple of weeks would require the parties to schedule those

23

depositions prior to the settlement conference date, thus leading to potentially needless expense if

24

the case were to settle.

25

The undersigned is sensitive to the fact that the parties may have to incur additional

26

discovery-related costs, potentially unnecessarily, if the expert depositions were to take place

27

prior to the settlement conference. However, the undersigned must also weigh the interest in

28

plaintiff receiving adequate time to receive the mental health care apparently necessary for
2

1

plaintiff to directly engage in the settlement process, as well as the undersigned’s own availability

2

to conduct the settlement conference. After taking all of these factors into consideration, the

3

undersigned determines that the continued settlement conference date will need to be scheduled

4

beyond the timeline asserted by defendants. Accordingly, counsel for the parties are directed to

5

meet and confer to determine several mutually agreed upon dates in early May 2016 as proposed

6

dates on which to hold the continued settlement conference.1 By no later than April 8, 2016,

7

counsel for the parties shall contact the undersigned’s courtroom deputy with their proposed dates

8

and a final date for the continued settlement conference will be scheduled via minute order at that

9

time.

10

Plaintiff indicates in his motion and in the attached declaration that counsel for both

11

parties are willing to have plaintiff appear by via video conference at the continued settlement

12

conference.2 While the undersigned has expressed the opinion that plaintiff’s in-person

13

appearance at the settlement conference would be preferable, the possibility of plaintiff’s

14

attendance via video conference is not ruled out at this juncture. The parties are informed that

15

they may file a request for plaintiff’s appearance at the settlement conference via video

16

conference that provides good cause for why plaintiff’s attendance via video would be beneficial

17

to plaintiff’s participation in that proceeding and why that means of attendance would not unduly

18

hinder the settlement process.

19

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

20

1. Plaintiff’s ex parte application to continue the April 1, 2016 settlement conference

21

(ECF No. 109) is GRANTED.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2. The April 1, 2016 settlement conference is VACATED.
1

If the parties are concerned about the need to conduct further discovery before the continued
settlement conference date in order to meet the deadlines set forth in the pretrial scheduling order,
they may file a request to modify the scheduling order with the presiding district judge to extend
the expert discovery and other pretrial deadlines in order to allow the parties time to conduct their
proposed discovery, if necessary, after the date of the continued settlement conference.
2

Defendants note in their response to plaintiff’s application that they “offer no opinion on the
manner in which [p]laintiff appears at and participates in the settlement conference.” (ECF No.
110 at 2.)
3

1

3. Counsel for the parties shall meet and confer to determine several mutually agreed

2

upon dates in early May 2016 as proposed dates on which to hold the continued

3

settlement conference. By no later than April 8, 2016, counsel for the parties shall

4

contact the undersigned’s courtroom deputy with their agreed upon proposed dates and

5

a final date for the continued settlement conference will be set via minute order at that

6

time.

7

4. The parties may file a request for plaintiff’s appearance at the settlement conference

8

via video conference. Such a request shall provide good cause for why plaintiff’s

9

attendance via video would be beneficial to plaintiff’s participation in that proceeding

10
11
12

and why that means of attendance would not unduly hinder the settlement process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 31, 2016

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4