James T. Clark v. Stapleton Corporation, a Corporation Dba Stapleton Ladder Co., and R.E.L. Products, Inc., a Corporation

Tenth Circuit

James T. Clark v. Stapleton Corporation, a Corporation Dba Stapleton Ladder Co., and R.E.L. Products, Inc., a Corporation

957 F.2d 745, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 1980, 1992 WL 25603

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 14, 1992

Docket91-3263,

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 957 F.2d 745 (James T. Clark v. Stapleton Corporation, a Corporation Dba Stapleton Ladder Co., and R.E.L. Products, Inc., a Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James T. Clark v. Stapleton Corporation, a Corporation Dba Stapleton Ladder Co., and R.E.L. Products, Inc., a Corporation, 957 F.2d 745, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 1980, 1992 WL 25603 (10th Cir. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant has filed an objection to a motion for an extension of time filed by appel-lee. In the objection, counsel for appellant recounts remarks made by opposing counsel at a settlement conference held, pursuant to 10th Cir.R. 33.1. This disclosure violates our rule that "... statements and comments made during a conference shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed to the court ... by counsel_” 10th Cir.R. 33.1.

We agree with the Second Circuit that the guarantee of confidentiality is essential to the proper functioning of an appellate settlement conference program. Lake Utopia Paper v. Connelly Containers, 608 F.2d 928, 930 (2d Cir.1979). We also agree that revealing statements or comments made at a settlement conference is a serious breach of confidentiality. Id. For our conference program to be successful, participants must trust that matters discussed at a conference will not be revealed to the judges. Counsel for appellant is admonished for violating the non-disclosure requirement of our rule. Future violations of this rule may subject counsel to sanctions.

Appellant’s objection to appellee’s motion for an extension of time is construed as a motion to reconsider the clerk’s order of January 17, 1992 and is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant has filed an objection to a motion for an extension of time filed by appel-lee. In the objection, counsel for appellant recounts remarks made by opposing counsel at a settlement conference held, pursuant to 10th Cir.R. 33.1. This disclosure violates our rule that "... statements and comments made during a conference shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed to the court ... by counsel_” 10th Cir.R. 33.1.

We agree with the Second Circuit that the guarantee of confidentiality is essential to the proper functioning of an appellate settlement conference program. Lake Utopia Paper v. Connelly Containers, 608 F.2d 928, 930 (2d Cir.1979). We also agree that revealing statements or comments made at a settlement conference is a serious breach of confidentiality. Id. For our conference program to be successful, participants must trust that matters discussed at a conference will not be revealed to the judges. Counsel for appellant is admonished for violating the non-disclosure requirement of our rule. Future violations of this rule may subject counsel to sanctions.

Appellant’s objection to appellee’s motion for an extension of time is construed as a motion to reconsider the clerk’s order of January 17, 1992 and is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

957 F.2d 745, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 1980, 1992 WL 25603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-t-clark-v-stapleton-corporation-a-corporation-dba-stapleton-ladder-ca10-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack