Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02509/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02509-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

1

18-cv-02509-LAB-BGS

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

William Perez, Jr. Individually and On 

Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

Transunion Rental Screening Solutions, 

Inc.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-cv-02509-LAB-BGS

ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’

REQUEST TO CONTINUE ENE

AND TAKING UNDER 

SUBMISSION REQUEST TO 

CONVERT ENE TO TELEPHONIC 

ATTORNEYS ONLY CONFERENCE 

[ECF NO. 20] 

On January 14, 2019, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Continue the Early Neutral 

Evaluation Conference currently set for January 30, 2019. (ECF No. 20.) In the Joint 

Motion, they request that the Early Neutral Evaluation be continued to February 27, 2019 

in light of defense counsel’s previously scheduled hearing in Chicago set for January 30, 

2019. (Id. at 2.) Further, they request that the Early Neutral Evaluation be converted into 

a telephonic, attorneys only conference in light of the fact that: (1) this is a putative class 

action, (2) Plaintiff is unwilling to entertain an individual settlement prior to the discovery, 

and (3) class-wide settlement is not possible before discovery has occurred. (Id. at 3.) 

Good cause appearing, the Joint Motion (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED IN PART. 

The request to continue the Early Neutral Evaluation to February 27, 2019 in light of 

Case 3:18-cv-02509-LAB-BGS Document 21 Filed 01/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2

18-cv-02509-LAB-BGS

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

defense counsel’s preexisting scheduling conflict is GRANTED. However, the Court 

TAKES UNDER SUBMISSION the parties’ request to convert the Early Neutral 

Evaluation into a telephonic, attorneys only conference pending review of the parties’ Early 

Neutral Evaluation briefs. Accordingly: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that an Early Neutral Evaluation of your case will be 

held on February 27, 2019, at 1:30 PM before United States Magistrate Judge Bernard 

G. Skomal, United States District Court, 333 W. Broadway, Suite 1280, San Diego, 

California.

The following are mandatory guidelines for the parties preparing for the 

Early Neutral Evaluation Conference.

1. Purpose of Conference: The purpose of the Early Neutral Evaluation 

Conference (“ENE”) is to hold a serious discussion of every aspect of the lawsuit in an 

effort to achieve an early resolution of the case. All conference discussions will be off 

the record, privileged and confidential. Counsel for any non-English speaking parties is 

responsible for arranging for the appearance of an interpreter at the conference.

2. Personal Appearance of Parties Is Required: All parties, adjusters for 

insured defendants, and client representatives must be present and have full and complete 

authority to enter into a binding settlement at the ENE.1 The purpose of this requirement 

is to have representatives present who can settle the case during the course of the 

conference without consulting a superior. Counsel for a government entity may be 

 

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 person must be able to bind the party without the 

need to call others not present at the conference for authority or approval. 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).

Case 3:18-cv-02509-LAB-BGS Document 21 Filed 01/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3

18-cv-02509-LAB-BGS

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

excused from this requirement so long as the government attorney who attends the ENE 

conference (1) has primary responsibility for handling the case; and (2) may negotiate 

settlement offers which the attorney is willing to recommend to the government official 

having ultimate settlement authority. Other parties seeking permission to be excused 

from attending the ENE in person must follow the procedures outlined in Judge Skomal’s 

Chambers’ Rules. (See Judge Skomal’s Chambers’ Rules II.C.) Failure of any of the 

above parties to appear at the ENE conference without the Court’s permission will be 

grounds for sanctions. The principal attorneys responsible for the litigation must also be 

present in person and prepared to discuss all of the legal and factual issues in the case.

3. Confidential ENE Statements Required: No later than February 13, 

2019, the parties must submit confidential statements of seven pages or less directly to 

Judge Skomal. Please also attach relevant exhibits. The statement must address the legal 

and factual issues in the case and should focus on issues most pertinent to settling the 

matter. The statement should not repeat facts or law contained in the Complaint or 

Answer. Statements do not need to be filed or served on opposing counsel. The 

statement must also include any prior settlement offer or demand, as well as the offer or 

demand the party will make at the ENE. The Court will keep this information 

confidential unless the party authorizes the Court to share the information with opposing 

counsel. ENE statements must be emailed to efile_Skomal@casd.uscourts.gov.

4. New Parties Must Be Notified by Plaintiff’s Counsel: Plaintiff’s counsel 

shall give notice of the ENE to parties responding to the complaint after the date of this 

notice.

5. Case Management Conference: 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 and Judge Skomal's 

Chambers' Rules regarding discovery disputes. Accordingly:

Case 3:18-cv-02509-LAB-BGS Document 21 Filed 01/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4

18-cv-02509-LAB-BGS

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

a. The Rule 26(f) conference shall be completed on or before January 

30, 2019;

b. The date of initial disclosure pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(A-D) shall 

occur before February 6, 2019;

c. A Joint Discovery Plan shall be filed on the CM/ECF system as well 

as lodged with Magistrate Judge Skomal by delivering the plan directly to chambers or by 

emailing it to efile_skomal@casd.uscourts.gov, on or before February 13, 2019. The 

plan must be one document and must explicitly cover the parties' views and proposals for 

each item identified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3). In addition, Judge Skomal requires the 

discovery plan to identify whether the parties will consent to jurisdiction of a Magistrate 

Judge. Agreements made in the Discovery Plan will be treated as binding stipulations 

that are effectively incorporated into the Court's Case Management Order.

In cases involving significant document production or any electronic discovery, the 

parties must also include the process and procedure for "claw back" or "quick peek" 

agreements as contemplated by Fed. R. Evid. 502(d). The parties should also address 

whether an order providing for protection under Rule 502(e) is needed.

Finally, the parties must thoughtfully meet and confer about electronic discovery 

and include answers to the following questions in the Discovery Plan:

i. Are there any preservation issues? If so, what are they and how are 

the parties addressing the issues;

ii. What form of production have the parties agreed to? Are there any 

disputes with respect to the parties’ preferred form of production? 

What is the parties’ positions respecting Metadata;

iii. Are there any proportionality issues? Specifically address Rule 

26(b)(2)(B) relating to inaccessible electronically stored information 

(“ESI”); 

iv. What have the parties decided regarding the methodologies for 

identifying ESI for production? For instance, will the parties conduct 

Case 3:18-cv-02509-LAB-BGS Document 21 Filed 01/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5

18-cv-02509-LAB-BGS

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

key word searching, use predictive coding, or other advanced culling 

techniques.

In the event the case does not settle at the ENE, a Case Management Conference, 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) will be held at the conclusion of the 

settlement conference.

6. Requests to Continue an ENE Conference: Requests to continue ENEs 

are rarely granted. The Court will, however, consider formal motions to continue an 

ENE when extraordinary circumstances exist and the other party has no objection. If 

another party objects to the continuance, counsel for both parties must call chambers and 

discuss the matter with the research attorney/law clerk assigned to the case before any 

motion may be filed. Any request for a continuance must be made as soon as counsel 

is aware of the circumstances that warrant rescheduling the conference. Requests 

to continue the ENE based on preexisting scheduling conflicts must be raised within 

10 days of the Court’s issuance of this Order.

7. Settlement Prior to ENE Conference: The Court encourages the parties 

to work on settling the matter in advance of the ENE Conference. In the event that the 

parties resolve the matter prior to the day of the conference, the following procedures 

must be followed before the Court will vacate the ENE and excuse the parties from 

appearing:

A. The parties may file a Joint Motion to Dismiss and submit a proposed 

order to the assigned district judge. If a Joint Motion to Dismiss is filed, the Court will 

immediately vacate the ENE;

B. If the parties settle more than 24 hours before the conference but are 

not able to file a Joint Motion to Dismiss, they must file a Notice of Settlement 

containing the electronic signatures of counsel for all settling parties and must also 

identify a date by which the Joint Motion to Dismiss will be filed;

Case 3:18-cv-02509-LAB-BGS Document 21 Filed 01/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6

18-cv-02509-LAB-BGS

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

C. If the parties settle less than 24 hours before the conference, counsel 

for the settling parties must JOINTLY call chambers and inform the Court of the 

settlement and receive Court permission to not appear at the ENE. 

Questions regarding this case or the mandatory guidelines set forth herein may be 

directed to Judge Skomal’s research attorney at (619) 557-2993. Please consult Judge 

Skomal’s rules, available on the Court’s website, before contacting chambers with your 

questions.

A Notice of Right to Consent to Trial Before a United States Magistrate Judge is 

attached for your information.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02509-LAB-BGS Document 21 Filed 01/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7

18-cv-02509-LAB-BGS

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

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO CONSENT TO TRIAL

BEFORE A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), you are notified that a 

U.S. Magistrate Judge of this district may, upon the consent of all parties, on form 1A 

available in the Clerk’s office, conduct any or all proceedings, including a jury or nonjury trial, and order the entry of a final judgment. Counsel for the plaintiff is responsible 

to obtain the consent of all parties, if they want to consent.

Be aware that your decision to consent or not to consent is entirely voluntary. 

Only if all parties consent will the Judge or Magistrate Judge to whom the case has been 

assigned be informed of your decision.

Judgments of the U.S. Magistrate Judges are appealable to the U.S. Court of 

Appeals in accordance with this statute and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Case 3:18-cv-02509-LAB-BGS Document 21 Filed 01/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7