Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01119/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01119-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1

19cv1119-W(MSB)

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

DOUGLAS C. HEUMANN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TAMMIE LEE ASANTI, et al.,

Defendants.

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

Case No.: 19cv1119-W(MSB)

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO 

CONTINUE EARLY NEUTRAL 

EVALUATION CONFERENCE [ECF NO. 8]

Pending before the Court is the parties’ “Joint Motion to Continue Early Neutral 

Evaluation Conference.” (ECF No. 8.) They ask the Court to continue the Early Neutral 

Evaluation Conference (“ENE”) scheduled for August 21, 2019, until August 30, 2019, or 

the first available date on the Court’s calendar. (Id. at 2.) The parties further ask the 

Court to continue all related deadlines. (Id.) In support, they state that “Defendant’s 

counsel has a calendar conflict in that he is required to appear at an Early Neutral 

Evaluation Conference in Case No. 19CV116 DMS JLB at 9:00 a.m. on August 21, 2019.” 

(Id.) 

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-01119-W-MSB Document 9 Filed 08/14/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

19cv1119-W(MSB)

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

Having considered the joint motion and finding good cause, the Court GRANTS the 

motion. Accordingly, the Court modifies its ENE order as follows:

An ENE will be held on September 9, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. in the chambers of the 

Honorable Michael S. Berg, United States Magistrate Judge, located at 221 West 

Broadway, second floor, San Diego, California, 92101. All discussions at the ENE 

Conference will be informal, off the record, privileged, and confidential. Counsel for any 

non-English speaking party is responsible for arranging for the appearance of an 

interpreter at the conference. The following rules and deadlines apply: 

1. Personal Appearance of Parties Required: All named parties, party 

representatives, including claims adjusters for insured defendants, as well as the 

principal attorney(s) responsible for the litigation, must be present in person and legally 

and factually prepared to discuss and resolve the case. Counsel appearing without their 

clients (whether or not counsel has been given settlement authority) will be cause for 

immediate imposition of sanctions and may also result in the immediate termination of 

the conference.

2. Full Settlement Authority Required: A party or party representative with 

full settlement authority1 must be present at the conference. Retained outside 

corporate counsel shall not appear on behalf of a corporation as the party 

representative who has the authority to negotiate and enter into a settlement. A 

government entity may be excused from this requirement so long as the government 

attorney who attends the ENE has (1) primary responsibility for handling the case, and 

 

1

 “Full settlement authority” 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. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7th Cir. 1989). 

The person needs to have “unfettered discretion and authority” to change the settlement position of a 

party. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485-86 (D. Ariz. 2003). The purpose of requiring a 

person with unlimited settlement authority to attend the conference contemplates 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. See Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 595-97 (8th Cir. 

2001).

Case 3:19-cv-01119-W-MSB Document 9 Filed 08/14/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

19cv1119-W(MSB)

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) authority to negotiate and recommend settlement offers to the government 

official(s) having ultimate settlement authority.

3. Confidential ENE Statements Required: No later than September 2, 2019, 

the parties shall submit directly to Magistrate Judge Berg’s chambers (via hand delivery 

or by e-mail to the Court at efile_berg@casd.uscourts.gov), confidential settlement 

statements. The ENE statement is limited to five (5) pages or less, and up to five (5) 

pages of exhibits or declarations. Each party’s ENE statement must outline (1) the 

nature of the case and the claims, (2) position on liability or defense, (3) position

regarding settlement of the case with a specific demand/offer for settlement, and 

(4) any previous settlement negotiations or mediation efforts. 

If a specific demand or offer cannot be made at the time the ENE statement is 

submitted, then the reasons as to why a demand or offer cannot be made must be 

stated. Further, the party must explain when they will be in a position to state a 

demand or offer. General statements such as a party will “negotiate in good faith” is 

not a specific demand or offer. The ENE statement should be submitted confidentially 

and need not be shared with other parties. 

4. New Parties Must be Notified by Plaintiff or 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: If the case does not settle during the ENE, 

the Court will conduct a Case Management Conference. In preparation for this 

conference, the parties must do the following:

a. Meet and confer pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) no later than

August 26, 2019;

b. File a Joint Discovery Plan no later than September 2, 2019. 

Agreements made in the Joint Discovery Plan will be treated as binding stipulations that 

are effectively incorporated into the Court’s Case Management Order. The Joint 

Discovery Plan must be one document and must cover the parties’ views and proposals 

Case 3:19-cv-01119-W-MSB Document 9 Filed 08/14/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

19cv1119-W(MSB)

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

for each item identified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3). In addition, the Joint Discovery Plan 

must include the following:

i. Service: A statement as to whether any parties remain to be 

served and, if so, a proposed deadline for service;

ii. Amendment of Pleadings: The extent to which parties, claims, or 

defenses are expected to be added or dismissed and a proposed deadline for amending 

the pleadings;

iii. Protective Order: Whether a protective order is contemplated to 

cover the exchange of confidential information and, if so, the date by which the 

proposed order will be submitted to the Court;

iv. Privilege: The procedure the parties plan to use regarding claims 

of privilege and whether an order pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502 will be sought;

v. Evidence Preservation: Whether the parties have discussed 

issues related to the preservation of relevant evidence and if there are areas of 

disagreement, how the parties are resolving them;

vi. Electronic Discovery: In addition to the requirements set forth in 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3)(C), the parties must describe their agreements regarding 

methodologies for locating and producing electronically stored information and the 

production of metadata, and must identify any issues or agreements regarding 

electronically stored information that may not be reasonably accessible (see Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(b)(2)(B));

vii. Discovery: In addition to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(f)(3)(B), the parties must describe the discovery taken to date (if any), any proposed 

limitations or modifications of the discovery rules, and any identified discovery disputes;

and

viii. Related Cases: Any related cases or proceedings pending before

another judge of this court, or before another court or administrative body.

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-01119-W-MSB Document 9 Filed 08/14/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

19cv1119-W(MSB)

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. Exchange initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(A-D) no later than

September 2, 2019.

6. Requests to Continue an ENE Conference: Local Rule 16.1(c) requires that 

an ENE take place within forty-five (45) days of the filing of the first answer. Requests to 

continue ENEs are rarely granted. An ENE may be rescheduled only upon a showing of 

good cause and adequate notice to the Court. Absent good cause, requests for 

continuances will not be considered unless submitted in writing no fewer than seven 

(7) calendar days prior to the scheduled conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-01119-W-MSB Document 9 Filed 08/14/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5