Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-01437/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-01437-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

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 03cv1437 W(RBB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GET OUTDOORS II, LLC, a Nevada

limited liability company, dba

GET OUTDOORS, LLC, in

California,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF EL CAJON; DOES 1-25,

inclusive,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 03cv1437 W(RBB)

ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS ON

DEFENDANT CITY OF EL CAJON FOR

FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES IN GOOD

FAITH

On August 7, 2006, the Court decided that sanctions should be

imposed on the City of El Cajon under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 16(f) for failure to participate in settlement

conferences in good faith. (Mins. Aug. 7, 2006.) The City was

ordered to pay Get Outdoors' attorneys' fees and costs incurred in

connection with settlement conferences and negotiations from May

12, 2006, through June 30, 2006, and additional specified items

[doc. no. 79]. The Court directed the Plaintiff to submit itemized

billing records so that a calculation of the total amount of

sanctions could be made. Get Outdoors filed a request for

Case 3:03-cv-01437-W-RBB Document 90 Filed 09/22/06 Page 1 of 14
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

2 03cv1437 W(RBB)

$17,373.01 in fees and costs [doc. nos. 84-85]. Plaintiff later

increased its request to $18,151.01 [doc. no. 88]. 

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Get Outdoors II, L.L.C., ("Get Outdoors") filed a

Complaint [doc. no. 1] on July 21, 2003, and a First Amended

Complaint [doc. no. 3] on July 24, 2003, against the City of El

Cajon seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. (Compl. 28-29;

Am. Compl. 29.) Get Outdoors is a Nevada company which operates

outdoor advertising signs throughout California. (Am. Compl. 2.) 

Plaintiff "investigates possible sign locations, reviews municipal

sign regulations, and negotiates with landowners regarding the

possibility of posting signs on their property." (Id. at 3.) Get

Outdoors asserts that it entered into lease agreements with twelve

landowners for the construction and operation of one advertising

sign on each parcel of land. (Id. at 3.) 

The Complaint alleges that on June 9, 2003, Plaintiff

submitted twelve completed applications to post signs within the

City of El Cajon. (Id. at 15.) On the next day, June 10, 2003,

the City informed Get Outdoors that it would not grant the company

permits to construct signs at any of the twelve locations. (Id.) 

According to Plaintiff, the City of El Cajon’s regulations for

issuing permits are unconstitutional because they constitute a

prior restraint on speech and grant unfettered discretion to city

officials. (Id. at 16.) 

Get Outdoors filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction [doc.

no. 9] and a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of

Motion [doc. no. 10] on August 22, 2003. On August 25, 2003,

Defendant gave notice of related cases pending against the City of

Case 3:03-cv-01437-W-RBB Document 90 Filed 09/22/06 Page 2 of 14
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

3 03cv1437 W(RBB)

San Diego, City of Chula Vista, and City of Lemon Grove [doc. no.

12]. United States District Court Judge Thomas J. Whelan ordered

that this action be stayed pending final adjudication of the

related cases [doc. no. 24]. In light of the stay, Judge Whelan

denied Get Outdoors' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Order

Staying Action 4.) Get Outdoors filed a Motion for Reconsideration

of the Court's Order [doc. no. 29], which Judge Whelan denied on

December 16, 2003 [doc. no. 42]. Plaintiff appealed the district

court's order staying the action and denying an injunction [doc.

no. 31], which the court of appeals subsequently affirmed [doc. no.

45]. 

The stay expired on June 6, 2005. (Order Extending Stay 2.) 

This Court held an early neutral evaluation conference on June 29,

2005 [doc. no. 50]. Neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff's counsel

appeared at the conference, so a settlement conference and order to

show cause hearing were scheduled for November 9, 2005 [doc. no.

50]. Nine settlement conferences were held with the Court between

November 9, 2005, and June 30, 2006 [doc. nos. 54-61, 64]. At the

conclusion of the last settlement conference on June 30, 2006, the

Court ordered counsel for both parties to "submit simultaneous

briefs regarding whether there is a means for imposing sanctions on

Defendant and whether sanctions are appropriate." (Mins. June 30,

2006.)

Plaintiff filed a Brief in Support of Request for Sanctions

[doc. no. 65] and Defendant filed a curt Memorandum of Points and

Authorities re: Authority for Monetary Sanctions in Connection with

Participation in Settlement Conference [doc. no. 67] on July 7,

2006. The City of El Cajon later filed a more extensive Response

Case 3:03-cv-01437-W-RBB Document 90 Filed 09/22/06 Page 3 of 14
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

4 03cv1437 W(RBB)

to Plaintiff's Brief [doc. no. 75]. Each of these documents was

ordered sealed [doc. nos. 65, 67, 69, 74]. Get Outdoors filed a

Motion to Strike Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Brief in

Support of Request for Sanctions [doc. no. 77] and a Memorandum of

Points and Authorities [doc. no. 78], arguing that the Response was

not authorized by the Court’s prior order. (Pl.'s Mot. to Strike

2.) The specifics and the progress of settlement negotiations

between Get Outdoors and the City of El Cajon are detailed in the

parties' briefs.

On August 7, 2006, an in camera hearing was held on

Plaintiff's Request for Sanctions [doc. no. 79]. The Court denied

Get Outdoors' Motion to Strike Defendant's Response. (Mins. Aug.

7, 2006.) For the reasons stated on the record, sanctions were

imposed against the City of El Cajon under Rule 16(f) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.) The Court's order

provides as follows:

The City shall pay all of Plaintiff's attorney’s fees and

costs incurred in connection with settlement conferences

and negotiations from May 12, 2006, through June 30,

2006, as well as attorney’s fees and costs incurred in

connection with the briefing and appearances on the

Request for Sanctions and subsequent briefing regarding

the amount of sanctions to be imposed.

(Id.) Plaintiff was directed to submit a supporting declaration

with itemized billing records, which it filed on August 18, 2006

[doc. nos. 84-85].

In this action, Get Outdoors was represented by two law firms

and requested a total of $17,373.01 in attorney's fees and costs

for the applicable period. (Webb Decl. 2, Aug. 16, 2006; Lund

Decl. 2.) The City of El Cajon filed a Memorandum of Points and

Authorities in Opposition to Declarations Submitted in Support of

Case 3:03-cv-01437-W-RBB Document 90 Filed 09/22/06 Page 4 of 14
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

5 03cv1437 W(RBB)

Plaintiff's Request for Sanctions [doc. no. 86]. Get Outdoors then

filed a Reply Brief [doc. no. 87] and a Second Declaration of E.

Adam Webb [doc. no. 88]. In Webb's second declaration, Get

Outdoors increased its request to $18,151.01 to include fees and

costs incurred in preparing its Reply Brief. (Webb Decl. 2, Sept.

6, 2006.) 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standards for Imposing Rule 16(f) Sanctions

Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides

for the imposition of sanctions for failure to participate in

settlement conferences in good faith: "[I]f a party or party's

attorney fails to participate [in a scheduling or pretrial

conference] in good faith, the judge, upon motion or the judge's

own initiative, may make such orders with regard thereto as are

just, and among others any of the orders provided in Rule

37(b)(2)(B), (C), (D)." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f). Settlement

conferences are among the pretrial conferences conducted under Rule

16. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a)(5). When awarding sanctions under this

rule, the court shall require the sanctioned party or the party's

attorney to pay the reasonable expenses incurred because of any

noncompliance with Rule 16, in addition to or in lieu of any other

sanction, unless the court finds that noncompliance was

substantially justified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f).

The imposition of sanctions for failure to participate in

pretrial conferences in good faith is justified by the need to

avoid unnecessary expense and a waste of the court's and parties'

time. See Francis v. Women’s Obstetrics and Gynecology Group,

P.C., 144 F.R.D. 646, 649 (W.D.N.Y. 1992). "Absent the requirement

Case 3:03-cv-01437-W-RBB Document 90 Filed 09/22/06 Page 5 of 14
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

6 03cv1437 W(RBB)

of good-faith participation, recalcitrant litigants and attorneys

could frustrate the purpose of the [settlement] conference. 

Consequently, Rule 16(f) expressly provides the court with the

authority to sanction a party or a party's attorney who does not

participate in good faith at the conference." Id. at 647-48. "We

cannot allow parties to waste the court's dispute resolution assets

by pretending to support settlement while never intending to settle

the case." Guillory v. Domtar Indus. Inc., 95 F.3d 1320, 1334 (5th

Cir. 1996). 

The imposition of sanctions under Rule 16(f) is a matter of

discretion. Id.; Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F.3d

1385, 1396-97 (9th Cir. 1993); Francis, 144 F.R.D. at 647-48. 

Depending upon the circumstances, courts may impose a monetary

sanction or make other appropriate orders "as are just." See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 16(f). 

In determining the amount of attorney's fees to award as

sanctions, courts consider "the reasonableness of the fees

requested, the minimum that will serve to adequately deter the

undesireable behavior, the severity of the violation, and the level

of malice or bad faith." Former Employees of Tyco Elecs. v. U.S.

Dep't of Labor, 259 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1252 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2003);

see also Kiser v. Boeing Co., 163 F.R.D. 13, 15 (D. Kan. 1995); 3

James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 16.92(5)(b) (3d

ed. 2006). 

B. Defendant's Objections to Plaintiff's Fee Request

The City of El Cajon objects to several items included in

Plaintiff's billing records. In total, Defendant asks that Get

Case 3:03-cv-01437-W-RBB Document 90 Filed 09/22/06 Page 6 of 14
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

7 03cv1437 W(RBB)

Outdoors' initial request for sanctions be reduced from $17,373.01

to $5,522.50. (Def.'s Opp'n 3.) 

1. Objection that Plaintiff Seeks Duplicative Fees

Defendant claims that Plaintiff's sanctions request should be

reduced by $1,370.25 for "duplicative work" reflected in several

time entries. (Def.'s Opp’n 2.) A court may exercise its

discretion to reduce attorney's fees if the billed services are

duplicative or unreasonable. Childress v. Darby Lumber, Inc., 357

F.3d 1000, 1010 (9th Cir. 2004). Some courts are skeptical of any

claim that "more than one attorney was necessary to perform a

single task." Padro v. Puerto Rico, 100 F. Supp. 2d 99, 106 (D.

P.R. 2000) (citing Pearson v. Fair, 980 F.2d 37, 47 (1st Cir.

1992), aff'd in part, modified in part sub nom. Gay Officers Action

League v. Puerto Rico, 247 F.3d 288 (1st Cir. 2001). Other courts

recognize that "[m]any tasks require or benefit from the attention

of more than one attorney." Bleecker Charles Co. v. Bleecker St.

Apt. Corp., 212 F. Supp. 2d 226, 230 n.5 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (citing

EEOC v. Local 638, Sheet Metal Worker's Int'l Ass'n, 1991 WL

278917, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 1991), aff'd, 327 F.3d 197 (2d

Cir. 2003). Here, if the efforts of multiple attorneys do not

benefit the client, the Court will consider the attorney's services

as duplicative.

The City of El Cajon claims that Mr. Lund's time entries for

May 11, 2006, and May 12, 2006, are duplicative, because Lund

attended a telephonic conference on May 11 but also seeks

compensation for a court appearance on May 12. (Def.'s Opp'n 2.) 

Defendant's argument is flawed. The telephonic court appearance

for which Mr. Lund seeks compensation was held on May 12, 2006

Case 3:03-cv-01437-W-RBB Document 90 Filed 09/22/06 Page 7 of 14
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

8 03cv1437 W(RBB)

[doc. no. 61]. Mr. Lund's time entry on May 11 refers to

"preparation for" the May 12 conference. (Pl.'s Reply Br. 2.) The

two entries are not duplicative; one refers to preparation for a

conference, and the other refers to the conference. 

The Defendant also objects that Mr. Webb and Mr. Lund, the two

attorneys representing Get Outdoors, are seeking fees for

completing the same tasks. (Id.) The City claims: "Mr. Lund's

entries for July 5th and 6th for 1.3 and 1.2 hours respectively,

duplicate efforts noted in Mr. Webb's declaration for those same

dates." (Id.) Mr. Webb's billing entry on July 5, 2006, describes

his work as "[r]esearch for sanction briefing; emails to/from R.

Lund re ____; revise and edit sanctions brief." (Webb Decl. Ex. A

at 2 (deletion in original).) Mr. Lund's entry for that day reads:

"Work on File, review sanctions brief, file." (Lund Decl. Ex. A at

1.) Similarly, Mr. Webb's entry for July 6, 2006, is "Revise and

edit sanctions brief; call to R. Lund re ____; emails to/from same;

call from W Benham re ____," and Mr. Lund’s entry is "Work on File,

call to Adam, review edits, procedural history." (Webb Decl. Ex. A

at 2 (deletions in original); Lund Decl. Ex. A at 1.) As explained

by Get Outdoors, these entries refer to separate tasks by each

attorney. Mr. Webb's office researched and drafted the sanctions

brief; Mr. Lund reviewed and edited it. (Pl.'s Reply Br. 2.) Each

of the lawyers performed different tasks to produce the sanctions

brief, and accordingly, the entries in the billing records are not

duplicative. 

Defendant argues that Lund's time entry for August 4, 2006,

"seeks compensation for reviewing the Court's order, researching

Federal Rule 16(f) and forwarding the research to co-counsel," and

Case 3:03-cv-01437-W-RBB Document 90 Filed 09/22/06 Page 8 of 14
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

9 03cv1437 W(RBB)

Mr. Webb's entries for that date list substantially the same tasks. 

(Def.'s Opp'n 2; see Lund Decl. Ex. A at 2; Webb Decl. Ex. A at 3.) 

Get Outdoors claims these entries are not duplicative. Both

attorneys reviewed the Court's order and researched the issue to

prepare for the hearing; they then shared and discussed the results

of their research. (Pl.'s Reply Br. 3.) Plaintiff further

stresses, "[g]iven the importance of the issue to the client . . .

it is not unreasonable for counsel to have spent a total of 3.3

hours researching the issue . . . and preparing for oral argument

on said issue." (Id.) 

"While reasonable hours may include time spent by more than

one attorney on a particular issue or task, if there is duplication

of effort, the court may reduce the total hours claimed." B & H

Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Lyn E. Bright, No. CVF01-6619-AWI-LJO, 2006 WL

547975, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2006) (citing Davis v. City &

County of San Francisco, 976 F.2d 1536, 1544 (9th Cir. 1992)). Two

attorneys consulting with each other does not make their fees

duplicative. See Padro v. Puerto Rico, 100 F. Supp. 2d at 106. 

Indeed, parties are often represented by two or more attorneys, and

it is common for co-counsel to consult with each other when

preparing for upcoming hearings. In light of the total number of

hours spent on the sanctions issue and the importance of the issue

to Plaintiff, 3.3 hours is a reasonable amount of time for

researching and preparing for oral argument. The Court will not

reduce this time from Plaintiff's fee request. 

Case 3:03-cv-01437-W-RBB Document 90 Filed 09/22/06 Page 9 of 14
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

10 03cv1437 W(RBB)

2. Objection that Plaintiff Seeks Compensation Not 

Contemplated by the Court's Order

Defendant claims that Get Outdoors' fee request must be

reduced because Plaintiff is not entitled to compensation for fees

incurred on May 11, 2006. (Def.'s Opp'n 2.) The Court's Order of

August 7, 2006, stated: "The City shall pay all of Plaintiff's

attorney's fees and costs incurred in connection with settlement

conferences and negotiations from May 12, 2006, through June 30,

2006 . . . ." (Mins. Aug. 7, 2006.)

Defendant argues that the order precludes any compensation for

time prior to May 12, 2006. The order, however, authorizes the

Plaintiff to recover the attorney's fees incurred "in connection

with" settlement conferences, beginning with the conference held on

May 12. The tasks performed on May 11, 2006, include reviewing

settlement correspondence, phone calls to chambers regarding the

conference, and conversations with co-counsel, opposing counsel,

and clients. (Webb Decl. Ex. A at 1; Lund Decl. Ex. A at 1.) Each

of these tasks was undertaken in connection with the May 12

settlement conference. Accordingly, the legal services performed

on May 11, 2006, are contemplated by the Court's order and charges

for those services will not be deducted from the Plaintiff's fee

request. 

The City also claims that all of Mr. Webb's time entries from

May 16, 2006, through June 20, 2006, totaling 4.1 hours, should be

stricken because they are not related to settlement conferences or

negotiations. (Def.'s Opp'n 2-3.) These entries relate to

preparing a stipulation to extend pretrial deadlines. (See Webb

Decl. Ex. A at 1-2.) Get Outdoors argues they should be

Case 3:03-cv-01437-W-RBB Document 90 Filed 09/22/06 Page 10 of 14
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

11 03cv1437 W(RBB)

recoverable because they were caused by Defendant's failure to

follow through with earlier settlement offers and are "proximately

related to the City’s bad faith conduct . . . ." (Pl.'s Reply Br.

3-4.)

The Court intended to compensate Get Outdoors for expenses

that were directly related to settlement, not for all expenses

incurred between May 12, 2006, and June 30, 2006. See Allstate

Financial Corp. v. Stee-N-Foam-Docks, Inc., No. 93-2231-EEO, 1995

WL 7448, at *2 (D. Kan. Jan. 5, 1995) (stating that Rule 16(f) does

not authorize "blanket sanctions" for all litigation expenses). 

Plaintiff's fee request will be reduced by $1,082.00 to reflect the

4.1 hours spent on the stipulation to extend dates. (See Webb

Decl. Ex. A at 1-2.) 

Defendant claims Get Outdoors' fee request should be reduced

by another 0.7 hours for time spent on July 7, 25, and 30, 2006,

because these services "have no relationship to either settlement

conferences or negotiations." (Def.'s Opp'n 3.) The billing

entries reflect phone calls and email between counsel and clients. 

(See Webb Decl. Ex. A at 2-3.) The contents of those conversations

were redacted to preserve the attorney-client privilege. (Pl.'s

Reply Br. 4.) To rebut the City's claim, Plaintiff represents that

these conversations concerned the sanctions issue, and are properly

included in its fee request. (Id.) Based upon Get Outdoors'

representation that these entries relate to the request for

sanctions, the fees are recoverable, and the Court will not strike

them from the fee request simply because Plaintiff redacted the

entries to preserve its attorney-client privilege. 

Case 3:03-cv-01437-W-RBB Document 90 Filed 09/22/06 Page 11 of 14
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

12 03cv1437 W(RBB)

The City objects to Mr. Webb's time entries for May 12, May

15, and June 30, 2006, on the ground that they refer to multiple

tasks and some entries have been redacted, making it unclear how

much time was spent on settlement issues. (Def.'s Opp'n 3.) 

Settlement conferences were held on May 12 and June 30 [doc. nos.

61, 64]. Mr. Webb's billing entries on those dates refer to the

conferences, along with phone calls and emails to clients and cocounsel. (Webb's Decl. Ex. A at 1-2.) The entry for May 15,

however, includes "research re scheduling stipulation." (Id. at

1.) It does not specify how much time was spent on the

stipulation. Id. With this exception, the entries for all three

dates, May 12, May 15, and June 30, 2006, show that the legal

services were related to the settlement of this action or the award

of sanctions. As discussed earlier, the Court will not compensate

Plaintiff for attorney's fees incurred in preparing a stipulation

to extend pretrial and trial dates. Accordingly, the Court will

allocate .5 hours to "research re scheduling stipulation" and

reduce the 1.8 hours billed by Mr. Webb on May 15 by .5 hours

($155.00).

3. Objection that Plaintiff Should Not be Compensated for 

Unsuccessful Efforts

Lastly, Defendant argues that Get Outdoors is not entitled to

compensation for expenses incurred in connection with Plaintiff's

Motion to Strike Defendant's Response because the Motion was

denied. (Def.'s Opp'n 3.) The City asserts that a prevailing

party analysis should be applied, and Get Outdoors should not

recover attorney's fees for any efforts which were unsuccessful. 

(Id.) Defendant cites no authority for the proposition that

Case 3:03-cv-01437-W-RBB Document 90 Filed 09/22/06 Page 12 of 14
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

13 03cv1437 W(RBB)

attorney's fees awarded as Rule 16(f) sanctions should be limited

to successful efforts, nor is the Court aware of any corresponding

limitation. 

Although the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Response

was denied, the Plaintiff's argument was well taken. The Court had

previously ordered the parties to submit simultaneous briefs by

July 7, 2006 [doc. no. 64]. Reply briefs were not authorized. 

Nevertheless, on July 26, 2006, the City unilaterally served

Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Brief [doc. no. 75]. Get

Outdoors subsequently filed its Motion to Strike [doc. nos. 77,

78]. The Plaintiff was correct; the Defendant's Response was

neither contemplated nor authorized. Still, the Court exercised

its discretion to consider the arguments made by the City. Get

Outdoors lost its Motion to Strike, but its legitimate efforts were

the result of the City's attempt to get in the last word. For

this, the Plaintiff should not be penalized.

The purpose of Rule 16(f) sanctions is to insure compliance

with a court's pretrial orders and "to compensate opposing parties

for inconvenience and expense incurred because of any noncompliance

. . . ." In re Sanction of Baker, 744 F.2d 1438, 1441 (10th Cir.

1984). The Plaintiff's fees associated with the Motion to Strike

were "incurred in connection with the briefing and appearances on

the Request for Sanctions . . . ." Accordingly, Get Outdoors' fee

request will not be reduced for attorney's fees associated with the

Motion to Strike.

III. CONCLUSION

Get Outdoors is entitled to recover $16,914.01 in attorney's

fees and costs as a result of the failure of the City of El Cajon

Case 3:03-cv-01437-W-RBB Document 90 Filed 09/22/06 Page 13 of 14
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

K:\COMMON\BROOKS\CASES\GET OUTDOORS1437\SANCTIONSORD.wpd 14 03cv1437 W(RBB)

to participate in court-ordered settlement conferences in good

faith. Plaintiff's Request for Sanctions of $18,151.01 has been

reduced by $1,237.00 to reflect 4.6 hours spent on a scheduling

stipulation rather than settlement or sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 22, 2006

Ruben B. Brooks

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Judge Whelan

All Parties of Record

Case 3:03-cv-01437-W-RBB Document 90 Filed 09/22/06 Page 14 of 14