(PC) Bullard v. St. Andra ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 EFREN DANIELLE BULLARD, Case No. 1:17-cv-0328-NONE-HBK (PC) 13 ORDER DENYING AND GRANTING Plaintiff, INAPRT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 14 EXCUSE DEFENDANTS FROM 15 v. ATTENDING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 16 (Doc. No. 103). 17 BENSON, et al., 18 Defendants. 19 20 Pending before the Court is a Motion to Excuse Defendants from Attending the Settlement 21 Conference, and supporting declaration from attorney Sloan, filed January 28, 2021. (See Doc. No. 22 103, Motion; Doc. No. 103-1, Decl. Sloan). 23 A settlement conference is currently scheduled to occur on March 25, 2021. See Doc. No. 24 101. Defendants note that the court’s order setting the settlement conference requires the three 25 individual defendants to attend the conference, unless the court otherwise permits in advance to 26 have a party not to attend. Motion at 1 (citing Doc. No. 101). Defendants correctly submit that 27 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(1) provides the Court may require individual defendants attend pre-trial 28 1 conferences and settlement conferences, but further point out that historically in the Eastern District 2 of California individual defendants have not attended prisoner settlement conferences because the 3 individual defendants are not necessary for effective settlement negotiations. Id. at 3 (emphasis 4 added); see also Dec. Sloan at 1-2. Nor are the individual defendants’ presence required to have 5 an effective settlement agreement. Id. Additionally, defendants note that the CDCR is responsible 6 for paying any settlement sums, alleviating the need for the individual defendants to be present, or 7 to authorize settlement. Motion at 1-2; see also Decl. Sloan at 1-2. Based on the foregoing 8 defendants request to be excused. Motion at 3 (citing United States v. U.S. Dist. Court for Northern 9 Mariana Islands, 694 F.3d at 1061 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding district court abused its discretion when 10 requiring person with full settlement authority to attend pretrial conference where settlement was 11 discussed). 12 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Northern Marianna Islands ultimately agreed with the 13 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to find where there has been no record of dilatory or evasive tactics 14 by either party that the district court “should take a ‘practical approach’ to determine whether to 15 require the government to send a representative with full settlement authority to a pretrial 16 conference and should consider less drastic steps before doing so,” considering whether a 17 representative may be effectively available during a settlement conference without physical 18 attendance.) Id. at 1061. The court is sensitive to defendant’s position that the individual 19 defendants have not historically been required to attend settlement conferences in prisoner cases in 20 the Eastern District of California. However, United States v. U.S. Dist. Court for Northern Mariana 21 Islands supports this court’s decision to require certain if the defendants attend the settlement 22 conference by zoom. Unlike Marianna Islands, the instant case has been pending for four years. 23 Also, a prior settlement conference in this case before another magistrate judge already resulted in 24 an impasse. See docket; see also Doc. No. 59 (settlement conference), Doc. No. 63 (writ for 25 prisoner plaintiff transport); Doc. No. 65 (noting impasse from settlement). This court believes that 26 the parties’ view of the case may be altered during a face-to-face conference, albeit by zoom due 27 to the covid-19 pandemic, and other courts have agreed with this view. See generally Pitman v. 28 Brinker Intern, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 486 (D. Az. July 8, 2003) (requesting representative with full 1 | settlement authority, not capped authority and the parties to attend); Bartholomew vy. Burger King 2 | Corp., Case No. 11-00613 -JMS-BMK, 2014 WL 7419854 *2 (D. Hawaii, Dec. 30, 2014). The 3 | court finds the benefits of bringing the parties to the table so-to-speak on zoom for a settlement 4 | conference outweigh the burden and is practical. Having reviewed the record, the court finds 5 | having the ability to speak to defendants Kister-Cooper and Benson necessary for the court to be 6 | able to effectively and accurately mediate any settlement of this matter. The court will excuse 7 | defendant David’s attendance from the March 25, 2021 settlement conference. 8 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 9 Defendants’ Motion to Excuse Defendants from Attending Settlement Conference (Doc. No. 10 | 103) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant David is excused from appearing 11 | at the March 25, 2021 settlement conference. Defendants Kister-Cooper and Benson are required 12 || to appear by zoom for the March 25, 2021 settlement conference. It is the court’s preference that 13 | defendants Kister-Cooper and Benson appear by zoom, but the court will permit their attendance 14 | telephonically if zoom is physically not available. Counsel should contact chambers (kdunbar- 15 | kari@caed.uscourts.gov) at least 24 hours before the scheduled settlement conference if either 16 || defendant Kister-Cooper or Benson will not be appearing by zoom. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 17, 2021 Me Bore Zaskth 20 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28