The opinion of the court was delivered by: Arthur J. Schwab United States District Judge
ORDER OF COURT DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S FINDINGS OF CONTEMPT (DOC. NO. 284) AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS' MOTION FOR CONTEMPT SANCTIONS (DOC. NO. 286) ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Findings of Contempt (doc. no. 284), with defendant's opposition thereto (doc. no. 290), and Defendant Varian Medical Systems' Motion for Contempt Sanctions (doc. no. 286), with plaintiff's opposition thereto (doc. no. 291). The Court denies the Motion for Reconsideration (doc. no. 284), and the Court grants in part and denies in part the Motion for Sanctions (doc. no. 286).
The case involves an intense patent dispute, with high-powered, out-of-town attorneys, countless pleadings despite being in the pre-claim construction stage of litigation (already approaching 300 docket entries), and continual discovery disputes, motions to quash, motions for sanctions, and "emergency" motions. Also, pending before the Court are objections to the Special Master's Report and Recommendation (doc. no. 254) (relating to plaintiff's failure to join the co-owner of the patents-in-suit at the commencement of the case as a co-plaintiff).
In light of the foregoing, the Court believed that the scheduling of a settlement conference would be prudent. However, the Court further believed that to conduct a meaningful settlement conference, three (3) pieces needed to be in place: (1) each party needed to submit to the Court a confidential detailed settlement letter analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the case; (2) each party needed to submit confidentially to the Court a proposed settlement agreement; and (3) importantly, the chief business decisionmaker*fn1 of each party was directed to attend the settlement conference, if there was to be any hope of moving beyond lawyer's gamesmanship and tactics, so the Court could talk to the chief business decisionmakers face-to-face.*fn2 No party, including plaintiff, filed any motion to be excused from any of these three (3) requirements, or a motion to clarify any of these three (3) requirements.
The Order of Court Setting Status/Settlement Conference (doc. no. 262) stated as follows:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a Status / Settlement conference shall be held regarding the above-captioned matter on March 28, 2008 at 8:00 AM in Courtroom 7C, 7th Floor, United States Courthouse, 700 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Chief trial counsel and chief business decisionmakers shall attend in person and be prepared to discuss case schedule, settlement, and further alternative dispute resolution options in detail.
By NOON on March 26, 2008, each party should submit brief confidential letters to the Court detailing the relative strengths and weaknesses of their case, as well as settlement postures including monetary amounts. The letters will not be filed nor shared with opposing counsel. Accordingly, candor is expected.
FURTHERMORE, by NOON on March 26, 2008, each party shall submit a proposed settlement agreement to the Court. The proposed agreement will not be filed nor shared with opposing counsel.
Counsel should be familiar with this Court's Practices and Procedures (see Court Practices and Procedures at www.pawd.uscourts.gov, link "court practice".)
The words "chief business decisionmakers" are unambiguous and were intentionally chosen, so that the Court could talk face-to-face with the "business" decisionmakers - - moving beyond the lawyers who are personally engaged in this case on a day-to-day basis. The Court spent substantial time preparing for the settlement conference. Unfortunately, plaintiff (a) failed to submit a meaningful case analysis letter to the Court; (b) failed to submit any "proposed settlement agreement to the Court" prior to the conference; and (c) failed to have in attendance "in person" "the chief business decisionmaker" of plaintiff for this important case, at the settlement conference. While a party certainly can chose not to settle a case, a party cannot refuse to participate in court-ordered settlement conferences in a meaningful manner. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(c)(2)(I), (f)(1)(C) and Local Rule 16.
Counsel for plaintiff's argument -- that they either did not understand that "business" meant "business," or that showing up with only the same legal team (including outside and inside counsel) that appeared at the initial case management conference was all that the Order required (with the "business" person being available somewhere by telephone) -- is simply not credible. While the Court appreciated the genuine apology contained in trial counsel's declaration (doc. no. 285), filed on April 3, 2008, the subsequent filing by plaintiff at doc. no. 291, filed five (5) days later on April 8, 2008, returned to the prior, implausible argument that plaintiff "substantially complied with the Court's Order and took reasonable steps to comply with this Court's Order."
As a result of plaintiff's non-compliance, no meaningful settlement discussions occurred at the March 28, 2008 settlement conference, since there were no "chief business decisionmakers" of plaintiff in attendance with which the Court could engage in meaningful settlement discussions. Thus, the Court made certain findings and rulings at the settlement conference which were set forth in the Revised Hearing Memo (doc. no. 282) as follows:
Counsel for Plaintiff Daniel Johnson, Jr.; Lauren Hillock, In House Counsel, as "business representative" for plaintiff; Jerome Cochran, Vice Chancellor, the Chief Officer with full authority, not in attendance Counsel for Defendant Henry Sneath; Shannon Clougherty; William Anthony; Keith Ascoff, Officer with full business authority Court ...