Robert Miska v. Engineering Automation & Design, Inc. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ROBERT MISKA, Case No. 1:20-cv-001183-AWI-BAM 9 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT ENGINEERING AUTOMATION & 10 v. DESIGN, INC. TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR 11 ENGINEERING AUTOMATION & DESIGN, INC., et al., THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH MAY 7, 12 2021 ORDER AND WHY THEY SHOULD Defendants. BE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN 13 SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS 14 DEADLINE: 10:45 A.M. 15 16 A settlement conference in this action is set for today at 11:00 a.m. before the 17 undersigned. (ECF No. 22.) Pursuant to the May 7, 2021 order setting the settlement 18 conference, the parties were required to submit a confidential settlement statement to the Court 19 seven days prior to the conference date. (Id. at 1.) The Court has timely received the 20 confidential statement from Plaintiff and Defendants Smith Seckman Reid, Inc. and Conagra 21 Brands, Inc., however, Defendant Engineering Automation & Design, Inc. submitted their 22 confidential settlement statement after the close of business on May 25, 2021, the day prior to the 23 settlement conference. 24 This Court spends considerable time preparing for settlement conference so as to make it 25 meaningful to the parties and results in a greater likelihood of settlement success. Settlement is 26 extremely important in this district where the judges have one of the highest caseloads per judge 27 in the United States. The settlement conference statement assists the Court in adequately 1 preparing for these matters. They are not pro forma. Further, the requirement that the settlement 2 statement be provided seven days prior to the conference is necessary to allow the court 3 sufficient time to prepare to discuss settlement with the parties. 4 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 5 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 6 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 7 control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 8 including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 9 2000). 10 Here, the parties were ordered to submit their confidential settlement statement seven 11 days prior to the settlement conference and Defendant Engineering Automation & Design, Inc. 12 failed to comply with the order, submitting their statement after the close of business on May 25, 13 2021. The Court did not receive the submission until the start of business on the day the 14 settlement conference was scheduled, depriving the court of sufficient time to prepare for the 15 settlement conference. 16 Defendant Engineering Automation & Design, Inc. shall be required to show cause why 17 sanctions should not issue for the failure to submit his confidential statement in compliance with 18 the May 7, 2021 order and why they should be allowed to participate in settlement discussions. 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Defendant Engineering Automation & Design, Inc. SHALL SHOW CAUSE IN 3 WRITING by 10:45 a.m. on May 26, 2021, why sanctions should not issue for 4 their failure to comply with the May 7, 2021 order to submit their confidential 5 settlement statement seven days prior to the settlement conference and why they 6 should be allowed to participate in settlement discussions; and 7 2. The failure to comply with this order will result in the issuance of sanctions. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA (e_ 10 | Dated: _ May 26, 2021 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28