Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00441/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00441-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

13-cv-00441-NC

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 

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOSE ANTONIO AGUILAR 

JARAMILLO, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF SAN MATEO, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 13-cv-00441-NC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

DEFENDANTS AND THEIR COUNSEL 

SHOULD NOT BE SANCTIONED FOR 

VIOLATING CONFIDENTIALITY OF 

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 

Defendants through their counsel Jeffrey Vucinich are ordered to show cause in 

writing by January 28 at 5:00 p.m., and to appear for hearing on January 29 at 2:00 p.m., in 

Courtroom 7, San Jose federal courthouse, as to why they should not be sanctioned for 

violating the rules of this Court by filing a letter on January 26, 2015, that plainly 

contained confidential settlement conference communications from plaintiff. Dkt. No. 

111. 

The letter, filed in ECF by defendants’ lead trial counsel Vucinich and addressed to 

me, the undersigned trial judge, states that it is “based on statements made in Plaintiff’s 

Settlement Conference Statement” submitted to Magistrate Judge Lloyd. Dkt. No. 111 at 

2. Defendants’ letter then excerpts three paragraphs from plaintiff’s submission to 

Magistrate Judge Lloyd. Dkt. No. 111. Magistrate Judge Lloyd has scheduled a 

settlement conference for January 29. Dkt. No. 86 (settlement conference referral). 

In the letter, defendants rely on the plaintiff’s settlement conference 

communications to request a further Court order on motions in limine. Dkt. No. 111. 

Under Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Local Rule 7-5(a), “all counsel and 

parties” shall treat as “confidential information” the contents of any written settlement 

conference statement. “Confidential information” shall not be: (1) Disclosed to anyone not 

involved in the litigation; (2) Disclosed to the assigned judge; or (3) Used for any purpose, 

Case 3:13-cv-00441-NC Document 116 Filed 01/27/15 Page 1 of 2
13-cv-00441-NC 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California

including impeachment, in any pending or future proceeding in this court. 

Here, defendants’ January 26 filing appears to violate ADR Local Rule 7-5(a) by 

disclosing to the assigned judge the contents of plaintiff’s confidential settlement 

conference statement. 

In addition to violating the rules for settlement conferences, defendants’ January 26 

letter is improper because it violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b). A request for a 

court order must be made by motion, stating with particularity the relief sought and the 

grounds for seeking relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b). Finally, the communication appears to be 

a bad faith effort to undermine the settlement process. 

The Court will consider as a proportionate sanction all the penalties provided for 

under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s inherent authority, including a 

finding of civil contempt of court, monetary sanction, exclusion of evidence, striking of 

pleadings, default judgment, and staying the proceedings until the Court’s orders are 

obeyed. 

Plaintiff Jaramillo may (but is not required to) respond in writing by January 29 at 

9:00 a.m. and may appear at the OSC hearing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 27, 2015 _____________________________________ 

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:13-cv-00441-NC Document 116 Filed 01/27/15 Page 2 of 2