Donahoo v. Omni Hotels Management Corporation et al
ORDER denying 8 Ex Parte Motion for Rosemary Donahoo to Appear Telephonically at the Early Neutral Evaluation Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford on 8/9/2016. (kcm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.: 16cv1340 JLS (KSC)
OMNI HOTELS MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION, and DOES 1-10,
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE
MOTION TO APPEAR
TELEPHONICALLY AT ENE
On July 28, 2016, plaintiff filed an ex parte Motion requesting permission to attend
the August 31, 2016 Early Neutral Evaluation conference ("ENE") telephonically. [Doc.
No.8.] Plaintiff asserts that she resides in "Aztec, New Mexico and apart from the costs to
travel to California for the ENE, she is not physically fit to make the trip." Id. at 2. Plaintiff
asserts, inter alia, that she has limited mobility in her left ankle from the alleged injury and
has significant pain requiring assistance to preform physical activities. Id.
This Court has previously explained that all counsel and parties are required to
personally attend ENE conferences. [Doc. No.7.] "One of the purposes of requiring a
person with unlimited settlement authority to attend the conference is that the person's
view of the case may be altered during the face-to-face conference." Id. at 2, citing Pitman
v. Brinker Int'/, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485-86 (D. Ariz. 2003).
16cv1340 JLS (KSC)
Here, plaintiff has failed to provide adequate good cause for her request to appear
telephonically. Unsupported assertions from counsel regarding plaintiffs fitness to travel
and the "the risk ofphysical injury/exacerbation to [plaintiff] if she is required to personally
appear," are insufficient to establish good cause. Should plaintiff seek to renew the request
for a telephonic appearance, she must furnish a letter from a treating physician who has
evaluated plaintiff s condition within the past two months. The letter shall set forth, in
detail: (1) why plaintiff cannot travel by plane or car to the ENE conference; (2) what risks
of injury/exacerbation does plaintiff face ifshe travels by plane or car; (3) why the ascribed
risks are any greater than her daily activities; and, (4) why the risks associated with travel
cannot be mitigated through medical assistance devices such as a wheel chair.
Plaintiff filed the original Complaint in San Diego Superior Court in California,
which was removed to this Court on June 3, 2026. While she enjoys the benefits of
litigating in this District, she must also be prepared to comply with the corresponding rules
and responsibilities. Accordingly, the Joint Motion to appear telephonically at the August
31,2016 ENE is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 9, 2016
United States Magistrate Judge
16cvl340 JLS (KSC)
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?