Dodd v. Matthews

Filing 63

ORDER: Defendant Thomas Dodd's request to participate in mediation telephonically 62 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 7/1/2013. (LRM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
BRIAN DODD,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:12-cv-2054-T-33TGW

KELLY MATTHEWS, ET AL.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to the
untitled document filed by Defendant Thomas Dodd on June
28, 2013. (Doc. # 62). Buried in Defendant Dodd’s filing is
a

request

that

the

Court

allow

Defendant

participate in mediation telephonically.

Dodd

to

For the reasons

below, to the extent that the filed document is a motion
requesting

leave

to

participate

in

mediation

telephonically, the motion is denied.
Discussion
As a threshold matter, Defendant Dodd is advised that
each

request

for

relief

should

be

filed

as

a

separate

motion, each containing a concise statement of the precise
relief requested, a statement of the basis for the request,
and

a

memorandum

of

legal

authority

in

support

of

the

request, in accordance with the Local Rules of this Court.

See

Local

Rule

3.01

(a),

M.D.

Fla.

Furthermore,

before

filing a motion – unless it is specifically exempted by the
Local Rules – a moving party must confer with the opposing
party in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised
by the motion. See Local Rule 3.01(g), M.D. Fla. Pro se
parties are subject to the same laws and rules of court as
a litigant represented by counsel, including the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the Middle
District of Florida. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837
(11th Cir. 1989).
Regarding

Defendant

Dodd’s

request

that

the

Court

allow him to participate in mediation telephonically, the
Court

has

articulated

its

in-person

requirement

for

mediation in several of its Orders in this case: “[A]ll
counsel, parties, corporate representatives, and any other
required
mediation

claims

professionals

conference

with

full

shall

be

authority

present
to

at

the

negotiate

a

settlement. The Court does not allow mediation by telephone
or video conference. Personal attendance is required. See
Local Rule 9.05(c).” (Doc. ## 47 at 11, 55 at 2, 57 at 3).

2

Defendant Dodd states that traveling to Florida would
be a “difficult physical and financial hardship.” (Doc. #
62 at 6). Although the Court will consider requests to
participate in mediation via telephone if a party shows
that he or she is unable to participate in person due to a
demonstrable physical disability – and although the Court
has agreed to consider such a request if it is filed in
this action (see Doc. # 61) – the fact that Defendant Dodd
is in a different location than the mediation conference is
an insufficient reason to allow telephonic appearance at
the mediation conference.
Parties
conferences

have
in

been

person

required
under

to

harsher

attend

mediation

circumstances.

See

Pecoraro v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., No. 1:07-cv-777LTS-RHW, 2008 WL 3842912, *1 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 13, 2008)
(“This Court has denied other requests based on hardship,
including one in which the Plaintiff lived in Bartlesville,
Oklahoma,

had

limited

financial

means

to

travel

to

Mississippi for the mediation, was disabled to the point of
being legally blind, did not have a driver’s license, and
her means of travel were limited.”). Further, at least one

3

court

has

procure

imposed

the

sanctions

personal

for

attendance

a
of

party’s
a

failure

person

with

to

full

settlement authority at a mediation conference. See Falcon
Farms

v.

R.D.P.

Floral,

Inc.,

No.

07-23077-civ-

Ungaro/Simonton, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62119, at *6 (S.D.
Fla. Aug. 14, 2008).
Court annexed mediation is a valuable tool for the
parties to utilize in settling their disputes. While the
Court

understands

the

importance

of

keeping

litigation

costs down, a meaningful settlement discussion would be the
best way to minimize costs. This Court requires personal
attendance

at

mediation

strongly

believes

effective

when

that

conferences
mediation

attended

because

this

conferences

personally,

Court

are

rather

most
than

telephonically.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Defendant
mediation

Thomas

Dodd’s

telephonically

request

(Doc.

#

to
62)

participate
is

in

DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this
1st day of July, 2013.

4

Copies:

All Counsel and Parties of Record

5