Warren v. City of Chico ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BOBBY WARREN, et al., No. 2:21–cv–640–MCE–KJN 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. 14 CITY OF CHICO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 In July 2021, the assigned district judge in this matter referred the parties to the 18 undersigned for a settlement conference. (ECF No. 103.) Thereafter, the court set a settlement 19 conference, and issued a number of ancillary orders related to those proceedings. (ECF No. 111.) 20 One of these ancillary orders concerned the confidentiality of all information exchanged between 21 the parties in furtherance of settlement. (Id. (“The Settlement Conference is confidential and not 22 open for public attendance.”).) Further, at the start of the August 30 conference, the undersigned 23 verbally reminded the parties of their continuing obligations of confidentiality, and admonished 24 that any information shared in furtherance of settlement is to remain confidential. This 25 admonishment was repeated at the September 10 conference, and at that conference counsel for 26 defendant confirmed that the confidentiality obligations were relayed to the members of the city 27 council. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f) (authorizing a court to “issue any just orders, including those 28 authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii), if a party or its attorney . . . fails to . . . obey a pretrial 1 | order’; see also Aloe Vera of Am. v. United States, 376 F.3d 960, 964-65 (9th Cir. 2004) □□□□ 2 || federal courts are vested with inherent powers enabling them to manage their cases and 3 || courtrooms effectively and to ensure obedience to their orders. ... As a function of this power, 4 | courts can... award attorney’s fees and assess fines.”). 5 Despite these warnings, it was brought to the court’s attention that a member of city 6 || council appeared on a local radio program airing certain specifics of the parties’ positions as 7 || discussed during the settlement conferences, as well as disparaging the parties as a result of those 8 | positions.! Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within seven days of the date of this 9 || order, defendants shall show cause why significant monetary sanctions should not issue against 10 || the City and/or the specific councilperson for this violation. 11 || Dated: September 13, 2021 Aectl Aharon 13 KENDALL J. NE wart. 640 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 | See “Morning News Interviews” by Scott Michaels, posted September 9", 2021, at 12:00a.m.: 27 || “Chico Councilman Sean Morgan breaks down the New ordinance just passed by the Council and if the Judge will approve to lift the Restraining Order as both sides meet with the Magistrate 28 || judge Friday Sep 10.” Available at: https://kpay.com/podcasts/morning-show.