ILNews

Federal Bar Update: Client representative at settlement conferences

John Maley
September 29, 2010
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In the Southern District of Indiana, settlement conferences are routinely held in most civil cases before the assigned magistrate judge. These conferences are authorized pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and S.D. Ind. Local Rule 16.1(c). Each magistrate judge issues a standard order (with some modest variations) setting the settlement conference, and which requires the presence of a client representative, or if an insurer is named or contractually required to defend or indemnify, the presence of a fully authorized representative of the insurer. Further, Local Rule 16.1(c) requires counsel to confer prior to all court conferences to prepare for the conference.

In Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Yamaha Motor Corp., No. 2:09-CV-191 (Aug. 25, 2010), these issues came into play when plaintiff and its representative appeared for a scheduled settlement conference, but defense counsel appeared without a client representative and without advance notice of no representative attending. Defense counsel did not attempt to notify plaintiff counsel until the morning of the conference that no defense representative would attend with him, and by that time both plaintiff counsel were en route to the settlement conference.

The matter was not settled at the conference, but the parties did settle the matter within several weeks thereafter. Plaintiff’s counsel moved for sanctions for travel costs of $200.20 and for the client representative’s time spent at the conference of $800.

Magistrate Judge Hussmann granted in part the motion and sanctioned defendant Yamaha $200.20 to compensate plaintiff’s client representative for travel costs incurred in attending a settlement conference with plaintiff’s counsel. Judge Hussmann denied the $800 for time spent at the conference, reasoning that “the case was ultimately resolved shortly after the settlement conference” such that the representative’s “time was not wasted.”

Judge Hussmann concluded his for-publication order, writing: “The practice of attending settlement conferences without an appropriate client is explicitly discouraged from this point forward. If a particularly difficult logistical problem arises with the client’s attendance, counsel must, pursuant to Local Rule 16.1, seek permission from opposing counsel. If opposing counsel does not agree, a motion seeking permission should be filed sufficiently in advance of the conference to allow opposing counsel to file an objection.”

Mark your calendars – The annual Federal Civil Practice Update seminar will be Dec. 17 from 1:30 to 4:45 p.m. Registration information will be available in October at www.theindianalawyer.com.•

__________

John Maley (jmaley@btlaw.com) is a partner with Barnes & Thornburg, concentrating on federal and state litigation. The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT