WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. v. iValue InfoSolutions Pvt. Ltd.

Filing 49

ORDER by Hon. Brian A Tsuchida. The Court has been tasked with determining whether both parties' signatures are necessary to effectuate the settlement agreement. In short, the issue put to the Court is essentially one of contract formation. The parties are thus entitled to an evidentiary hearing. The Court therefore ORDERS:1. The parties shall each advise the Court on the record no later than August 3, 2017 whether they wish to request an evidentiary hearing, or prefer that the Court draw all necessary factual conclusions based on the evidentiary record to date; and 2. No later than August 3, 2017, the parties shall propose a stipulated amended case management schedule for all remaining pretrial a nd trial dates, including the discovery completion date of July 31, 2017. See Dkts. 25 , 38 .3. The Court RESERVES ruling on the parties motions to seal until the time it rules on the pending Motion to Enforce Settlement. The parties are cautioned the Court is inclined to preserve the public right to access any court records associated with any evidentiary hearing.(AE)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11

ORDER

v.
IVALUE INFOSOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,
Defendant.

12
13

CASE NO. C15-1697-BAT

This matter comes before the Court on defendant iValue Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd.’s

14

(“defendant”) Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, filed under seal pending the Court’s

15

consideration of concomitant motions to seal. See SEALED Dkt. 30; see also Dkts. 26, 31, 34.

16

The matter is fully briefed. See SEALED Dkts. 29, 30, 32, 35-37. In opposing the motion,

17

plaintiff Watchguard Technologies, Inc. (“plaintiff”) contends the terms of the proposed

18

agreement show the parties did not intend for it to become effective until both parties had signed

19

it, which has not yet occurred. SEALED Dkt. 32; see also Dkt. 48.

20

A trial court may “summarily enforce . . . a settlement agreement entered into by the

21

litigants” while the litigation is pending. In re City Equities Anaheim, Ltd., 22 F.3d 954, 957

22

(9th Cir. 1994). Nevertheless, the court may only do so when the settlement agreement is

23

“complete.” Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1987). Thus, where material facts

ORDER - 1

1

concerning the existence or terms of an agreement to settle are in dispute, the court must hold an

2

evidentiary hearing to resolve such issues. Id. at 890.

3

The Court has been tasked with determining whether both parties’ signatures are

4

necessary to effectuate the settlement agreement. In short, the issue put to the Court is

5

essentially one of contract formation. The parties are thus entitled to an evidentiary hearing. See

6

id. The Court therefore ORDERS:

7
8
9
10

1.
The parties shall each advise the Court on the record no later than August 3, 2017
whether they wish to request an evidentiary hearing, or prefer that the Court draw all
necessary factual conclusions based on the evidentiary record to date; and
2.
No later than August 3, 2017, the parties shall propose a stipulated amended case
management schedule for all remaining pretrial and trial dates, including the discovery
completion date of July 31, 2017. See Dkts. 25, 38.

11
12
13

3.
The Court RESERVES ruling on the parties’ motions to seal until the time it
rules on the pending Motion to Enforce Settlement. The parties are cautioned the Court
is inclined to preserve the public right to access any court records associated with any
evidentiary hearing.

14
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to all counsel of record.
15
DATED this 31st day of July, 2017.
16

A

17

BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23

ORDER - 2