Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00764/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00764-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AARON DUSENBERRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

T-MOBILE USA, INC.,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07CV764-LAB(LSP)

ORDER FOLLOWING SETTLEMENT

CONFERENCE, SETTING RULE 26

COMPLIANCE AND NOTICE OF CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE &

FURTHER SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

On August 6, 2007, at 2 p.m. the Court convened a Settlement

Conference in the above-entitled action. Appearing were Stefan

Cohn, Esq. on behalf of plaintiff and Amy Wintersheimer, Esq. on

behalf of defendants. Settlement of the case could not be reached

and the Court therefore discussed compliance with Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure, Rule 26. Based thereon, the Court issues the

following orders:

1. Any objections made to initial disclosure pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(a)(1)(A-D) are overruled,

and the parties are ordered to proceed with the initial disclosure

process. Any further objections to initial disclosure will be

resolved as required by Rule 26.

/ /

Case 3:07-cv-00764-LAB-LSP Document 6 Filed 08/07/07 Page 1 of 2
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 1. "Full authority to settle" means that the individuals at the

settlement conference must be authorized to fully explore settlement

options and to agree at that time to any settlement terms acceptable to

the parties. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d

648 (7th Cir. 1989). The person needs to have "unfettered discretion

and authority" to change the settlement position of a party. Pitman v.

Brinker Intl., Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485-486 (D. Ariz. 2003). The

purpose of requiring a person with unlimited settlement authority to

attend the conference includes that the person's view of the case may

be altered during the face to face conference. Id. at 486. A limited

or a sum certain of authority is not adequate. Nick v. Morgan's Foods,

Inc., 270 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 2001).

2 

2. The Rule 26(f) conference shall be completed before

August 31, 2007;

3. The date of initial disclosure pursuant to Rule

26(a)(1)(A-D) shall occur before September 14, 2007;

4. A discovery plan shall be lodged with Magistrate Judge

Papas on or before September 14, 2007; and,

5. A Case Management Conference, pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 16(b) shall be held on September 24, 2007, at 2

p.m., in the chambers of Magistrate Judge Leo S. Papas. 

6. A Settlement Conference will also be held on September

24, 2007, at 2 p.m. All parties or their representatives who have

full and unlimited authority to enter into a binding settlement, in

addition to the attorneys participating in the litigation, shall be

present at the conference.1 

Failure of any counsel or party to comply with this Order

will result in the imposition of sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 7, 2007

Hon. Leo S. Papas

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00764-LAB-LSP Document 6 Filed 08/07/07 Page 2 of 2