Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01255/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01255-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Global Data Systems, Inc., a Louisiana

corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dimension Data North America, Inc., a

New York company; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1255-PHX-HRH

ORDER

This matter arises on the parties’ joint letter, dated September 4, 2007,

requesting that the Tuesday, September 25, 2007 settlement conference currently scheduled

for 2:00 p.m. be reset to 9:30 a.m. on the same date. The parties indicate that party

representatives will be traveling from Louisiana and Massachusetts to attend the settlement

conference and the parties wish to ensure “they have the benefit of a full day, if necessary,

to try and resolve the matter.” The parties also request that the Court modify its Settlement

Conference Order because of their concern that candid presentations of each side’s factual

and legal claims or defenses will “create a risk of further polarizing the parties at the outset

of the [settlement conference].” The parties also seek another modification of the Settlement

Conference Order that they be permitted “to omit from the settlement conference memoranda

[the obligation to] exchange ‘the amount that the Plaintiff is currently willing to accept and

Defendant(s) is/are willing to offer.’” They claim that counsel will include that separate

Case 2:06-cv-01255-HRH Document 71 Filed 09/05/07 Page 1 of 4
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 -

information in the memoranda they submit to the Court which will, obviously, be information

different from what is exchanged with adverse counsel.

The file reflects that the Complaint in this case was filed on May 5, 2006; the

Amended Answer on October 13, 2006. Leave to file the First Amended Complaint was

granted on December 14, 2006. Current Rule 16 deadlines include disclosure of the parties’

experts by October 5 and November 16, 2007, respectively. All discovery has been ordered

to be completed by January 31, 2008. Dispositive motions are due by February 29, 2008.

Interrogatories and documents have been submitted and/or produced; depositions have been

noticed for early and mid-September, 2007.

On May 25, 2007, the parties requested that a magistrate judge be appointed

to conduct a settlement conference. After succeeding in the reassignment of the settlement

conference to a more convenient Phoenix magistrate judge than the Flagstaff Magistrate

Judge, the parties now desire to significantly modify the rules by which the undersigned

conducts his settlement conferences. Of course, the Court will reschedule the settlement

conference to begin a 9:30 a.m. to accommodate out-of-state parties and/or corporate

representatives. However, counsel and the parties must understand that if it becomes clear

to the undersigned during the Court’s private caucauses with one side or the other that one

or both sides are adopting an immovable or unreasonable settlement position or are insistent

upon in a belief that this case will be resolved by dispositive motion which dictates the value

of the case for settlement purposes, the settlement conference will be vacated. In other words,

resetting this matter to 9:30 a.m. is no indication that the settlement conference will go all

day without significant progress being made towards settlement. Lunch will be taken at 12:00

noon.

Seventeen years as a trial judge and nearly a like number of years as a trial

lawyer has instructed that once a lawsuit has been filed, especially one like this case with

allegations of the commission of intentional torts, allegations supporting an award of punitive

Case 2:06-cv-01255-HRH Document 71 Filed 09/05/07 Page 2 of 4
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

 Under Arizona law, punitive damages are awarded only “in the most egregious of

cases, where there is reprehensible conduct combined with an evil mind over and above that

required for commission of a tort . . .” Linthicum v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 150 Ariz. 326, 332,

723 P.2d, 675, 681 (1985); Newman v. Sun Valley Crushing Co., 173 Ariz. 456, 461, 844

P.2d 623, 628 (Ariz. App. 1992) (“While the necessary ‘evil mind’ may be inferred, it is still

this ‘evil mind’ in addition to outwardly aggravated, outrageous, malicious, or fraudulent

conduct which is required for punitive damages.”)). 

- 3 -

damages based upon an “evil mind”1

 and mutual requests for awards of reasonable attorneys’

fees to the prevailing party, the parties have now entered the “real world” of litigation where

there will be a winner and a loser and one’s life-savings and professional reputation are at

risk. A federal lawsuit is not like poker game where the card hands are not disclosed to all

remaining players until the end of the game. In the litigation realm if all facts are disclosed

as required, an experienced and neutral lawyer or judicial officer may discern whether a party

likely has a meritorious claim or defense or whether a genuine dispute over the facts exists

for jury resolution. It is naive to believe that at this stage of the litigation, avoidance of a

lawyer’s or settlement judge’s candid words and arguments may offend the sensitivities of

businessmen and professionals and will more likely lead to an early voluntary resolution of

this case. It is the lawyers’ candid words and arguments, surely to be expressed without

restraint to a trial judge or jury at a later time absent a settlement, that will give the parties

the real sense of this case and the risks associated with continued litigation. In fact, if all the

cards (facts and arguments) are placed on the table, the opposite is more likely. It is the actual

use of a litigator’s candid words and arguments, made orally or contained within the nonfiled settlement conference memoranda, supported by the evidence or reasonable inferences

from the evidence, which paint his view of his client’s perception of the true picture of

“coming attractions” that will directly deliver to the parties the impact and realization that

some other person (trial judge) or group of persons (jury) will resolve this case one way or

the other if the parties do not voluntarily do so themselves. There should be no “pulling

punches” within, of course, the bounds of legal ethics and professionalism why each lawyer

believes that his or her client will prevail at trial. Thus, the Court does not agree with the

Case 2:06-cv-01255-HRH Document 71 Filed 09/05/07 Page 3 of 4
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 -

request that there should be separate memoranda with separate information or dollar figures

shared with only the settlement conference judge. The settlement conference memoranda

must, as ordered, be read by all adverse counsel and parties prior to the settlement

conference. Full and candid disclosure is the spirit upon which the federal rules of discovery

are predicated to determine the truth and the predicate upon which undersigned’s settlement

conferences are held.

If the parties desire to mediate their differences through privately-paid

mediators wherein the parties may dictate the rules of mediation, the Settlement Conference

Order gives them that option if exercised in a timely fashion.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties informal request to modify the start time of

the settlement conference is GRANTED. The Tuesday, September 25, 2007 settlement

conference is hereby reset to 9:30 a.m. Arizona time. All other informal requests for

modification of the Settlement Conference Order are DENIED. Except for the time, all other

orders contained in August 2, 2007 Settlement Conference Order is hereby AFFIRMED.

DATED this 4th day of September, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01255-HRH Document 71 Filed 09/05/07 Page 4 of 4