Seoane v. Lexisnexis Risk Data Management, Inc et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying 11 Motion to Expedite Early Neutral Evaluation Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr on 5/26/2011. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mtb)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

STEVEN M. SEOANE, an Individual,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
LEXISNEXIS RISK DATA
)
MANAGEMENT, INC., a Florida
)
Corporation; LEXISNEXIS RISK
)
SOLUTIONS FL, INC., a Minnesota
)
Corporation; LEXISNEXIS RISK
)
SOLUTIONS BUREAU, LLC, a Delaware
)
Corporation; and LEXISNEXIS RISK DATA )
RETRIEVAL SERVICES, LLC, a Georgia
)
)
Corporation,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)

Civil No. 11cv0908 L (WMc)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR AN EARLY NEUTRAL
EVALUATION CONFERENCE

Background
On May 20, 2011, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion requesting an expedited Early Neutral
Evaluation Conference (“ENE”) under Civil Local Rule 16.1(c)(1). [Doc. No. 11.] Defendants filed a
response to the motion on May 23, 2011, and an amended response to the motion on May 24, 2011.
[Doc. Nos. 14 & 15.] Defendants also filed a motion to dismiss on May 24, 2011. [Doc. No. 16.] The
Court has not yet ordered an ENE because the Defendants have not filed an Answer.
Additionally, the parties are currently litigating similar issues in a Florida state court.

28
1

11cv0908 L (WMc)

1
2

Plaintiff’s Argument
Plaintiff has requested an ENE before the filing of the answer in this matter or shortly thereafter.

3

Plaintiff argues that an expedited ENE will permit early settlement discussions and an expedited

4

scheduling order, if needed. [Doc. No. 11, pg. 2.] Plaintiff asserts that this ex parte application is

5

necessary to protect his rights as a California resident and employee. Id. Plaintiff further asserts that

6

“[t]his case presents a paradigm for the application of Civil Local Rule 16.1( c)(1).” Plaintiff does not

7

cite any case law to support this assertion.

8
9

Defendant’s Argument
Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s ex parte application for the following reasons: (1) the California

10

litigation is duplicative of the Florida litigation, (2) the parties have already engaged in settlement

11

discussions, (3) various dispositive motions have been filed or will be filed shortly, and (4) the

12

Defendants have not yet filed an answer. [See Doc. No. 15.]

13
14

Legal Standard For Ordering An Expedited ENE
In this District, Magistrate Judges typically conduct ENEs within forty-five days of the filing of

15

an answer. See Local Civil Rule 16.1(c)(1); see Yang v. DTS Financial Group, 570 F.Supp.2d 1257,

16

1261 (S.D.Cal. 2008). However, Local Civil Rule 16(c)(1) provides that counsel for either party may

17

make a request, in writing, to the judicial officer in charge of discovery, to conduct an ENE conference

18

before an answer has been filed. Upon such a request, the Magistrate Judge will examine the circum-

19

stances of the case and the reasons asserted for the request, and determine whether an expedited ENE

20

would reduce the expense and delay of litigation. See Local Civil Rule 16(c)(1).

21
22

Granting Plaintiff’s Motion Would Not Reduce Expense or Delay
Plaintiff has failed to specify why conducting an ENE before Defendants file an answer will

23

reduce the expense and delay of litigation. Rather, it appears to the Court, that scheduling an ENE

24

before Defendants file an answer would increase costs without any corresponding benefit to the parties.

25

Engaged in similar litigation in Florida, the parties would certainly duplicate their efforts and costs if the

26

Court ordered the parties to appear at an expedited ENE in California.

27
28

Furthermore, conducting an ENE before the Defendant file answers could delay resolution of the
case. Local Civil Rule 16.1(c)(1)(a) provides that “the judicial officer and the parties shall discuss the
claims and defenses and seek to settle the case” at an ENE conference. In order to effectively and
2

11cv0908 L (WMc)

1

efficiently discuss the claims and defenses in this matter, the parties must have the opportunity to

2

finalize the pleadings, which includes having an operative complaint on file that identifies the claims at

3

issue as well as an answer that lists all applicable defenses. Here, the Defendants have not filed an

4

answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. Furthermore, ordering the Defendants to participate in an expedited

5

ENE despite their unwillingness to do so would likely increase costs and delay. Therefore, the Court

6

finds that it cannot conduct a meaningful discussion of the claims and defenses in this case until the

7

Defendants file an answer.

8

Conclusion

9

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Request for an expedited Early Neutral Evaluation

10

Conference is DENIED.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 26, 2011

12
13

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.
U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court

14

Copy to:

15

HONORABLE M. JAMES LORENZ, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

11cv0908 L (WMc)