Harris v. City of Kent ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 WILLIAM L HARRIS, Case No. C20-1045 RSM-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL 8 MEDIATION CITY OF KENT, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to compel mediation. 12 Dkt. 97. This matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Mathews, 13 Sec’y of H.E.W. v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Local Rule 14 MJR 4(a)(4). For the reasons set forth herein, plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 15 Plaintiff brings this motion requesting that the Court order the parties to engage 16 in mediation before a Court appointed mediator. Dkt. 97. Plaintiff indicates that the 17 parties previously discussed participating in mediation, but have not reached an 18 agreement on whether mediation would be beneficial. Dkt. 97. Plaintiff states that he 19 requested that defendants attend mediation and the defendants have refused. Dkt. 97. 20 Defendants have opposed plaintiff’s motion. Dkt. 98. Defendants indicate that the 21 parties discussed potential alternative dispute resolution. Dkt. 98. Defendants also 22 expressed that the parties have reached an impasse in settlement discussions, but plan 23 to conduct a settlement conference. Dkt. 98. 24 1 Participation in alternative dispute resolution is voluntary unless the Court orders 2 the parties to participate. LCR 39.1(a)(4). The local rules grant the Court the authority to 3 require mediation when doing so would yield “significant benefits.” Chung v. Wash. 4 Interscholastic Activities Ass’n, No. 19-5730-RSM, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43023 at * 3 5 (W.D. Wash., March 8, 2021). However, the Court can waive mediation requirements 6 when mediation would not be fruitful. Id. 7 Here, it appears that the parties do not concur with each other about whether 8 mediation would be beneficial. Additionally, the parties indicate they have participated in 9 several rounds of settlement negotiations and anticipate future settlement negotiations. 10 Accordingly, under LCR 39.1(a)(4), court-ordered mediation at this time (over 11 defendants’ objection) would not yield significant benefits. 12 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion to compel mediation 13 (Dkt. 97). 14 Dated this 24th day of November, 2021. 15 16 A 17 Theresa L. Fricke 18 United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24