V'Guara Inc. v. Steve Dec et al

Filing 240

ORDER that 239 Joint Motion for Leave to Appear Telephonically is DENIED. With respect to Plaintiff's medical condition, the parties shall file a status report on February 5, 2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 1/22/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
MIREK WIERZBOWSKI,
9
Plaintiff(s),
10
v.
11
STEVE DEC,
12
Defendant(s).
13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:13-cv-00076-JAD-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 239)

14

A settlement conference is set in this case for February 21, 2018. Docket No. 237. All parties

15

are required to appear in person for that settlement conference, and any request for an exception to that

16

attendance requirement was due by November 29, 2017. See id. at 1-2. Nearly two months after that

17

deadline, on January 19, 2018, the parties filed an untimely stipulation for Plaintiff and Defendant to

18

both appear telephonically. Docket No. 239. The motion is DENIED.

19

First, Plaintiff indicates that his medical treatment in Poland and the cost of travel from Poland

20

warrant his appearance by telephone. Id. at 2. While the Court takes seriously travel limitations arising

21

out of a litigant’s medical condition, Plaintiff chose to file suit in this forum and is expected to be

22

available for proceedings here absent a showing well beyond what has been made in the pending

23

stipulation. See Mansel v. Celebrity Coaches of Am., Inc., 2013 WL 6844720, at *1 (D. Nev. Dec. 20,

24

2013) (noting general rule that an out-of-state plaintiff must submit to an independent medical

25

examination in the forum absent a strong showing that he cannot travel for medical reasons); see also

26

Goldstein v. MGM Resorts Int’l, 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 139823 (D. Nev. Oct. 7, 2016) (denying motion

27

to appear telephonically at settlement conference despite alleged travel restrictions). As to the costs

28

associated with attending the settlement conference, that concern is not sufficient reason to justify a

1

telephonic appearance by a party given the Court’s experience that settlement conferences are

2

significantly more productive with personal attendance.

3

Second, Defendant indicates that his scheduling conflict with being out of the country and the

4

costs associated with travel warrant his appearance by telephone. Docket No. 239 at 2. With respect to

5

the apparent scheduling conflict, this settlement conference has been scheduled for two months and that

6

apparent scheduling conflict is not good cause to reschedule the settlement conference. Cf. Hologram

7

USA, Inc. v. Pulse Evolution Corp., 2015 WL 5165390, at *4 (D. Nev. Sept. 3, 2015) (imposing

8

sanctions for non-attendance at settlement conference based on late-notice of business travel conflict).

9

As for the travel costs involved, the Court finds such reason insufficient to avoid personal attendance

10

for the reason specified above.

11

In short, the pending stipulation is hereby DENIED.1 With respect to Plaintiff’s medical

12

condition, the parties shall file a status report on February 5, 2018. To the extent Plaintiff continues to

13

assert a medical inability to travel to this forum, he shall submit competent evidence to that effect, cf.

14

Mansel, 2013 WL 6844720, at *1-2, and the parties shall submit five alternative dates before April 10,

15

2018 (trial), on which all required participants are available to personally attend the settlement

16

conference, cf. Goldstein, 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 139823, at *7-8 (setting settlement conference for day

17

before trial as Plaintiff would be required to personally attend trial). Of course, the parties are also free

18

to engage in their own settlement discussions at any time, and the Court will vacate the settlement

19

conference in the event a settlement is reached without further court involvement.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

DATED: January 22, 2018

22

______________________________________
Nancy J. Koppe
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Although not entirely clear, it appears that Defendant’s lead counsel does not intend to appear for
the settlement conference. See Docket No. 239 at 2 (“Local counsel for Mr. Wierzbowski and Mr. Dec will
be present”). The Court has ordered all trial counsel to appear, Docket No. 237 at 1 (ordering personal
appearance by “[a]ll counsel of record who will be participating in the trial”), and Mr. Terrell has given no
indication that he will not be participating in trial, contra Docket No. 236 (stipulation to extend trial-related
dates signed by Mr. Terrell). Mr. Terrell shall appear in person as ordered.
2