(PC) Washington v. Spearman ( 2021 )

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 ANTWAIN WASHINGTON, Case No. 2:19-cv-00616-TLN-JDP (PC) 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND MODIFYING THE 15 M.E. SPEARMAN, et al., JUNE 11, 2020 DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights 19 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has determined that this case will benefit 20 from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. 21 Newman to conduct a settlement conference on April 8, 2021 at 9:00 a.m.1 The settlement 22 conference will be conducted by remote means, to be determined at a later date and time. The 23 Court will issue the necessary transportation order in due course. 24 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. 26 Newman on April 8, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. The settlement conference will be conducted 27 1 The court’s scheduling order currently requires the parties to file dispositive motions by 28 March 26, 2021. ECF Nos. 20, 24. The court extends that deadline to May 14, 2021, to allow the parties to participate in the April 8, 2021 settlement conference. 2 by remote means, to be determined at a later date and time. 3 2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding 4 settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.2 5 3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and damages. 6 The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear in 7 person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not 8 proceed and will be reset to another date. 9 4. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days 10 prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be delivered 11 to the court using the following email address: kjnorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff 12 shall mail his non-confidential settlement statement Attn: Magistrate Judge Kendall J. 13 Newman, USDC CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814 so that it 14 arrives at least seven (7) days prior to the settlement conference. The envelope shall 15 be marked “SETTLEMENT STATEMENT.” The date and time of the settlement 16 conference shall be prominently indicated on the settlement statement. If a party 17 desires to share additional confidential information with the court, they may do so 18 pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e). 19 2 While the exercise of its authority is subject to abuse of discretion review, “the district 20 court has the authority to order parties, including the federal government, to participate in mandatory settlement conferences . . . .” United States v. United States District Court for the 21 Northern Mariana Islands, 694 F.3d 1051, 1053, 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2012)(“the district court has 22 broad authority to compel participation in mandatory settlement conference[s].”). The term “full authority to settle” means that the individuals attending the mediation conference must be 23 authorized to fully explore settlement options and to agree at that time to any settlement terms acceptable to the parties. G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 24 (7th Cir. 1989), cited with approval in Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F.3d 1385, 1396 (9th Cir. 1993). The individual with full authority to settle must also have “unfettered discretion and 25 authority” to change the settlement position of the party, if appropriate. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l., 26 Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485-86 (D. Ariz. 2003), amended on recon. in part, Pitman v. Brinker Int’l., Inc., 2003 WL 23353478 (D. Ariz. 2003). The purpose behind requiring the attendance of a 27 person with full settlement authority is that the parties’ view of the case may be altered during the face to face conference. Pitman, 216 F.R.D. at 486. An authorization to settle for a limited dollar 28 amount or sum certain can be found not to comply with the requirement of full authority to settle. Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 596-97 (8th Cir. 2001). 1 2 5. Judge Newman or another representative from the court will be contacting the parties 3 either by telephone or in person, approximately two weeks prior to the settlement 4 conference, to ascertain each party’s expectations of the settlement conference. 5 6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation Office 6 at High Desert State Prison, via facsimile at (530) 251-5031. 7 7. The June 11, 2020 discovery and scheduling order is modified to extend the deadline 8 for filing dispositive motions to May 14, 2021. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 ( 4 ye — Dated: _ February 4, 2021 Q_—— 12 JEREMY D. PETERSON 43 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28