Switch Communications Group L.L.C. et al v. Ballard

Filing 87

ORDER Granting 83 Motion to Compel Settlement Conference. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the clerk's office assign the matter to a magistrate judge to conduct a settlement conference. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 12/6/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - cc: Magistrate Judge Foley's chambers - EDS)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8

SWITCH COMMUNICATIONS
GROUP LLC, et al.,

2:11-CV-285 JCM (GWF)

9
Plaintiffs,

10
11

v.

12

DAVID MICHAEL BALLARD, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

ORDER

16

Presently before the court is defendant David Michael Ballard’s motion to compel settlement

17

conference. (Doc. #83). Plaintiffs Switch Communications Group LLC and Switch Business

18

Solutions LLC (collectively, “Switch”) have filed an opposition (doc. #85) to which Ballard has

19

replied (doc. #86).

20

Pursuant to Local Rule 16-5, this court has the discretion to set a case for settlement

21

conference at any time. Switch is amenable to a future non-binding settlement conference, but feels

22

that holding such a conference at this stage in the proceedings is premature. Switch argues that its

23

experts should have an opportunity to review Ballard’s data center plans and Switch should be

24

afforded an opportunity to file a motion seeking leave to amend its complaint prior to any settlement

25

conference taking place.

26

During the hearing on the motion to dismiss, Ballard requested a settlement conference and

27

this court informed him to make a motion and it will be considered. The crux of Ballard’s position

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

is that because he has not yet designed the data center at issue, if Switch can inform him of the trade

2

secrets they believe are being misappropriated, it may be possible for him to design around those

3

issues.

4

This court agrees with Ballard’s assessments and does not see why Switch’s objections would

5

render a settlement conference at this stage futile. If the parties can agree as to what trade secrets

6

are at issue, and how any misappropriation can be averted, then the need for an amended complaint

7

is likely eliminated and any additional discovery not required. The parties are focused on harms that

8

may occur in the future, not harms that have already occurred. A settlement conference, conducted

9

in good faith, will enable the parties to find common ground ex ante and possibly eliminate the risk

10

of future harm that Switch fears.

11

Accordingly,

12

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Ballard’s motion to

13
14

compel settlement conference (doc. #83) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the clerk’s office assign the matter to a magistrate judge

15

to conduct a settlement conference.

16

DATED December 6, 2011.

17
18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-