National Public Radio, Inc. v. U.S. Central Command

District Court, S.D. California·Decided November 12, 2021·No. 3:21-cv-01079·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, INC. and Case No.: 3:21-cv-01079-MMA-AHG GRAHAM SMITH, 11 ORDER: Plaintiffs, 12 v. 1) VACATING MOTION HEARING 13 SET FOR NOVEMBER 16, 2021 U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND and 14 [ECF No. 11], U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

15 Defendants. 2) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 16 MOTION FOR EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION CONFERENCE 17 [ECF No. 10], and 18 3) SETTING EARLY NEUTRAL 19 EVALUATION CONFERENCE AND 20 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE VIA 21 VIDEOCONFERENCE 22 23 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Pre-Answer Early Neutral Evaluation 24 Conference. ECF No. 10. 25 On June 9, 2021, Plaintiffs filed suit in this district, alleging violations of the 26 Freedom of Information Act, and seeking records from Defendants relating to a “a 27 suspected friendly fire incident that took place in Fallujah, Iraq on 12 April, 2004.” ECF 28 No. 1. On August 2, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint. ECF 1 No. 6. As such, no Defendant answered Plaintiffs’ complaint. On November 4, 2021, 2 Plaintiffs filed the instant motion, requesting that an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference 3 (“ENE”) be scheduled before any answer had been filed. ECF No. 10; see CivLR 4 16.1(c)(1). On November 10, 2021, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and 5 ordered Defendants “to file a response within the time specified by Federal Rule of Civil 6 Procedure 12(a)(4)(A).” ECF No. 12 at 9. On November 12, 2021, Defendants filed a 7 Notice of Non-Opposition to the instant motion, stating that “they do not oppose Plaintiffs’ 8 request that the Court schedule an Early Neutral Evaluation.” ECF No. 13. The Court finds 9 that this motion is suitable for determination on the papers and without oral argument in 10 accordance with Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). As such, the motion hearing scheduled for 11 November 16, 2021 is VACATED. 12 In this district, the Court generally conducts ENEs within forty-five days of the filing 13 of an answer. See CivLR 16.1(c)(1) (“Within forty-five (45) days of the filing of an answer, 14 counsel and the parties must appear before the assigned judicial officer supervising 15 discovery for an early neutral evaluation conference”); Seoane v. Lexisnexis Risk Data 16 Mgmt., No. 11cv0908 L-WMc, 2011 WL 2132844, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 26, 2011); Yang 17 v. DTS Financial Group, 570 F. Supp. 2d 1257, 1261 (S.D. Cal. 2008). However, “[a]t any 18 time after the filing of a complaint and before an answer has been filed, counsel for any 19 party may make a request in writing to the judicial officer assigned to supervise discovery 20 in the case to hold an early neutral evaluation conference[.]” CivLR 16.1(c)(1). Upon such 21 a request, the Court “will examine the circumstances of the case and the reasons asserted 22 for the request[,]” and determine whether an expedited ENE would reduce the “expense 23 and delay” of litigation. Id.; Seoane, 2011 WL 2132844, at *1. 24 Upon due consideration of this case’s procedure history (see ECF Nos. 12, 13), and 25 good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion. ECF No. 10. 26 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 27 / / 28 / / 1 IT IS ORDERED that an Early Neutral Evaluation (“ENE”) of your case will be held 2 on December 15, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard. In 3 accordance with the Local Rules, the Court requires personal attendance of all parties, party 4 representatives, including claims adjusters for insured defendants, and the primary 5 attorney(s) responsible for the litigation. CivLR 16.1(a). However, due to the current 6 COVID-19 public emergency,1 and upon due consideration, the Court hereby MODIFIES 7 the ENE to be via videoconference for all attendees. 8 The Court issues the following Mandatory Procedures to be followed in 9 preparation for the ENE: 10 1. Purpose of the Conference: The purpose of the ENE is to permit an informal 11 discussion between the attorneys and the settlement judge of every aspect of the lawsuit in 12 an effort to achieve an early resolution of the case. All conference discussions will be 13 informal, off the record, and confidential. 14 2. Full Settlement Authority Required: A party or party representative with 15 full and complete authority to enter into a binding settlement must be present via 16 videoconference or immediately available to join. Full authority to settle means that a 17 person must be authorized to fully explore settlement options and to agree at that time to 18 any settlement terms acceptable to the parties. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat 19 Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7th Cir. 1989). The person needs to have “unfettered discretion 20 and authority” to change the settlement position of a party. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 21

22 1 On March 2, 2021, Chief Judge Dana M. Sabraw issued an Order in response to the 23 COVID-19 public emergency (“CJO #62”) which, among other things, suspends the requirement under Civil Local Rule 16.1(a) that ENEs be conducted in person. See CJO 24 #62 at 1. CJO #62 is available on the Court website at 25 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/_assets/pdf/rules/Chief%20Judge%20Order%2062%20- %20Civil%20Case%20Proceedings%20During%20the%20Covid- 26 19%20Public%20Emergency.pdf. The suspension of the requirement under Civil Local 27 Rule 16.1(a) that ENEs be conducted in person is also reiterated by CJO #62-B, filed on June 11, 2021. CJO #62-B is available on the Court website at 28 1 216 F.R.D. 481, 485–86 (D. Ariz. 2003). Limited or sum certain authority is not adequate. 2 Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 595–97 (8th Cir. 2001). A person who needs 3 to call another person who is not present on the videoconference before agreeing to 4 any settlement does not have full authority. 5 3. Confidential ENE Statements Required: No later than December 8, 2021, 6 the parties shall submit confidential statements of five (5) pages or less directly to the 7 chambers of Magistrate Judge Goddard outlining the nature of the case, the claims, and the 8 defenses. These statements shall not be filed or served on opposing counsel. They shall 9 be lodged via email at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov. The ENE statement is limited to 10 five (5) pages or less, and up to five (5) pages of exhibits or declarations. Each party’s 11 ENE statement must outline: 12 A. the nature of the case and the claims, 13 B. position on liability or defense, 14 C. position regarding settlement of the case with a specific2 15 demand/offer for settlement,3 and 16 D. any previous settlement negotiations or mediation efforts. 17 4. Case Management Conference: In the event the case does not settle at the 18 ENE, the Court will immediately thereafter hold a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) 19 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Appearance of the parties at the CMC is not required. 20 The Court orders the following to occur before the CMC: 21 A. The parties must meet and confer pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) no 22 later than November 30, 2021. 23 24 25 2 A general statement, such as that a party “will negotiate in good faith,” is a not a specific demand or offer. 26

27 3 If a specific demand or offer cannot be made at the time the ENE statement is submitted, then the reasons as to why a demand or offer cannot be made must be stated. Further, the 28 1 B.

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

National Public Radio, Inc. v. U.S. Central Command, (S.D. Cal. 2021).

National Public Radio, Inc. v. U.S. Central Command (National Public Radio, Inc. v. U.S. Central Command) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related