Citation. 871 F.2d 648, 1989 U.S. App. 13 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 8
Law Students: Don’t know your Studybuddy Pro login? Register here Brief Fact Summary.
Joseph Oat Corp. (Appellant) appeals from sanctions imposed by the district court for a violation of an order to send a principal of the corporation to the pretrial conference.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
A federal district court may sanction a litigant for failure to comply with an order to send a corporate representative to a pretrial conference.
Facts.
A federal magistrate judge ordered Appellant to send a corporate representative with authority to settle to a pretrial conference to discuss factual and legal issues and the possibility of settlement. No principal or corporate representative attended the conference. The court determined that the failure of Appellant to send a principal of the corporation to the pretrial conference violated the order. The district court imposed sanctions of $5,860.01, reflecting costs and attorneys’ fees, upon Appellant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f). Appellant appeals claiming the district court did not have the authority to order litigants represented by counsel to appear at the pretrial conference.
Issue.
May a federal district court order litigants to appear before it in person at a pretrial conference for the purpose of discussing the posture and settlement of the litigant’s case?
Held.
Yes. A district court may sanction a litigant for failing to comply with an order to appear before the court at a pretrial conference to discuss the posture and settlement of the case. Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the use of pretrial conferences to formulate and narrow the issues for trial. Pretrial settlement has been used as a device to alleviate overcrowded dockets. The language of Rule 16 does not provide any direction as to whether a court has authority to order litigants who are represented by counsel to appear for pretrial proceedings. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are to be liberally construed. Rule 16 is not used as a device to restrict the authority of the district judge in the conduct of pretrial conference. Therefore, allowing the district courts to order represented parties to appear at pretrial settlement conferences represents another application of a judge’s authority to preserve efficiency and integrity of judicial practice. The district court did not abuse its discretion to issue an order to attend a pretrial conference. Certain circumstances could arise in which requiring a corporate representative to appear at a pretrial settlement conference would be an abuse of discretion. Here, the facts and circumstances do not warrant such holding. Due to the high stakes of the case at hand, the burden of requiring a corporate representative to attend a principal settlement conference was not out of proportion to the benefits to be gained. Further, no objection was made to the magistrate’s order prior to the date of the pretrial conference. Appellant was left with only one course of action, he had to comply fully with the order. Thus, the district court did not exceed its authority and discretion to order a representative of Appellant to appear for pretrial settlements. Absent an abuse of discretion, there is no reason to disturb a district court’s imposition of sanctions for failure of a party to comply with a pretrial order. Therefore, Appellant violated the district court’s Order requiring it to have a corporate representative attend pretrial settlement negotiations and the court did not abuse its discretion by imposing sanctions on the Appellant for failure to do so.
Dissent.
The Dissent expressed concern that a district court judge’s zeal to settle cases may ignore the value of other people’s time. There are circumstances when an attorney can represent a party, and it is unnecessary to have a corporate representative. Rule 16 does not authorize a judge to require a represented party to attend a pretrial conference because the rule is clear that only unrepresented party litigants and attorneys may be required to appear. Many clients send their lawyer to negotiate in collective bargaining and merger talks, but is not less qualified to negotiate than a non-attorney representative. The majority decision compels persons who have committed no wrong to come to the court for the opportunity to receive a decision on the merits and then they are sanctioned for their actions.
Discussion.
The explosion of new settlement devices that has accompanied the Alternative Dispute Resolution movement has directed many courts to adopt other means of promoting settlement, other than such orders requiring settlement negotiations.
