Padilla v. Beard et al

Filing 119

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/21/16 ORDERING that Plaintiff's ex parte application to appear at the May 2, 2016 settlement conference via videoconference (ECF No. 118 ) is DENIED. Plaintiff and his counsel shall appear at the May 2, 2016 settlement conference before the undersigned in person. (Becknal, R)

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 request to permit both him and his counsel

18

to appear at the settlement conference before the undersigned currently set for May 2, 2016, via

19

remote videoconference. (ECF No. 118.) Plaintiff filed this request pursuant to the

20

undersigned’s March 31, 2016 order permitting plaintiff to file such a request provided that he

21

“provide good cause for why [his] attendance via video would be beneficial to[his] participation

22

in that proceeding and why that means of attendance would not unduly hinder the settlement

23

process.” (ECF No. 113 at 4.) For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff’s request is denied.

24

Plaintiff contends that good cause exists for permitting his appearance via

25

videoconference because attendance at the settlement conference via such remote means would

26

appropriately accommodate his psychiatric disability, therefore enhancing plaintiff’s ability to

27

meaningfully participate in the settlement process. More specifically, plaintiff argues that he is

28

now housed in a residential treatment program in Ventura County and that having a consistent
1

1

environment during his treatment there will assist in the stabilization and improvement of his

2

mental condition. Plaintiff asserts that travel from Ventura County to Sacramento to attend the

3

settlement conference in person would jeopardize this stabilization and would likely prove

4

detrimental to the parties’ efforts to resolve this case.

5

Plaintiff also contends that his counsel’s attendance via video conference would be

6

beneficial because it would allow him and his counsel to easily and confidentially consult prior to

7

and throughout the conference. He also asserts that it would allow his counsel to more easily

8

provide appropriate legal assistance because she would be better able to readily assess plaintiff’s

9

physical and mental state and determine whether breaks will be needed to accommodate

10

plaintiff’s mental condition. Finally, plaintiff contends that his counsel’s presence with him via

11

videoconference would give his counsel a greater ability to address any logistical issues that may

12

arise.

13

Plaintiff represents that defendants’ counsel has expressed a willingness to stipulate to

14

plaintiff’s appearance via videoconference, but not with regard to plaintiff’s counsel’s appearance

15

via that means. However, defendants’ counsel also expressed that defendants will not formally

16

object to or otherwise oppose plaintiff’s request.

17

As an initial matter, the undersigned notes that the previous order permitting plaintiff to

18

file a request to appear at the settlement conference via videoconference pertained to plaintiff’s

19

attendance only; that order did not permit plaintiff to make a similar request with regard to his

20

counsel. (See ECF No. 113.) Accordingly, plaintiff’s request is denied insofar as it relates to his

21

counsel’s attendance via videoconference. While the undersigned acknowledges the potential

22

advantages plaintiff asserts with regard to having his counsel in the same physical location as

23

him, such arguments are moot because the undersigned also finds that plaintiff fails to provide

24

good cause for his own attendance via videoconference for the reasons discussed below.

25

First, while plaintiff notes that consistency of environment is a factor in his treatment at

26

his new care facility, he also represents that his facility only requires new treatment program

27

residents to not leave the facility except for medical appointments for the first two weeks. Based

28

on plaintiff’s representations, he will have been a resident of that facility for a period greater than
2

1

two weeks by May 2, 2016, thus indicating that plaintiff’s travel to and attendance at the

2

settlement conference may not impede his treatment progress to the degree plaintiff asserts.

3

Furthermore, as the undersigned has noted in previous orders, plaintiff’s in-person attendance at

4

the settlement conference would assist in the settlement process to a degree that his availability by

5

remote means would not. Furthermore, because plaintiff’s counsel must attend in-person,

6

plaintiff’s attendance via remote means would cause additional logistical difficulties regarding his

7

counsel’s ability to confidentially consult with him, monitor his physical and mental state, and

8

generally provide appropriate legal assistance. In short, the undersigned finds that the benefit of

9

plaintiff’s in-person attendance outweighs the potential burden plaintiff demonstrates with regard

10

to the potential impact on his mental health treatment. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request is denied.

11

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1. Plaintiff’s ex parte application to appear at the May 2, 2016 settlement conference via

13
14
15
16
17

videoconference (ECF No. 118) is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff and his counsel shall appear at the May 2, 2016 settlement conference before
the undersigned in person.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 21, 2016

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3