The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Nora Barry Fischer
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Thomas W. Cameron's ("Defendant") Motion for Sanctions directed at Plaintiff Advanced Network Installations, Inc. ("Plaintiff"). (Docket No. 26). For the reasons stated fully herein, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant's Motion for Sanctions (Docket No. ).
In his Motion for Sanctions filed on March 20, 2009, Defendant argues that due to Plaintiff's representative Michael Thompson's ("Thompson") "unexplained and inexcusable absence" at the arbitration of this matter scheduled for February 26, 2009, Defendant has been deprived of an early, neutral evaluation of this matter and the opportunity for such evaluation to result in amicable resolution. (Docket No. 26 at 3). Defendant also claims that at no time prior to the scheduled arbitration did Thompson notify Defendant's counsel that he would be unavailable. (Id. at 2). Moreover, during a conference call with the Court one day before the hearing, on Wednesday, February 25, 2009, upon Defendant's request to continue the arbitration, Plaintiff's counsel asserted that Thompson had already purchased a flight from Boston, Massachusetts to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and was to arrive that evening. (Id.). However, it was not until Plaintiff's counsel, Defendant and his counsel, and the arbitrator convened on Thursday, February 26, 2009 did they learn that Thompson was not going to be attending and was not even in Pittsburgh. (Id.). Defendant claims that Thompson did not attend because he was upset with the developments in his divorce proceeding that occurred sometime on Wednesday, February 25, 2009, and as such decided to go home to Virginia rather than fly to Pittsburgh. (Id.). Therefore, Defendant maintains that Thompson's reason for not attending did not constitute an "emergency" for purposes of this Court's ADR Policies and Procedures. (Id. at 3). Nor was it "extraordinary or otherwise unjustifiable hardship" for purposes of the same. (Id.).
Defendant further argues that regardless of Thompson's reason, he had an affirmative duty to notify his counsel so that his counsel, in turn, could notify Defendant and the arbitrator. (Id.). Additionally, Defendant maintains that if Thompson could not attend because of a previously scheduled divorce proceeding, he would have had plenty of time to provide the requisite notification. (Id.). As a result of Thompson's failure to attend and/or failure to notify of his nonattendance, Defendant asserts he has incurred legal fees in the amount of $2,262,50 in preparation for the arbitration and the instant motion. (Docket No. 26 at 3; Docket No. 26-2). Defendant also incurred expenses in the amount of $95.15 to travel from Uhrichsville, Ohio to Pittsburgh for the hearing. (Docket No. 26-3). Accordingly, Defendant requests that the Court enter an order assessing sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $2,357.65. (Docket No. 26 at 4).
Plaintiff filed its Response to Defendant's Motion on March 27, 2009, in which Plaintiff's counsel assures that he was not aware that Thompson was unable to attend until the day of the arbitration. (Docket No. 27 at 2). Thompson claims he had a scheduling conflict with a family law proceeding on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 which prevented him from attending. (Id.). He further argues that the term "emergency" and "extraordinary or otherwise unjustifiable hardship" are not defined in the Policies and Procedure and that being scheduled for two separate court appearances in two separate states within 24 hours does constitute either an emergency or a hardship for which Thompson would have been excused pursuant to the Policies and Procedures. (Docket No. 27 at 3). By way of further answer, Thompson admits that he should have notified his counsel in advance, however, he argues that the Policies and Procedures do not create an affirmative duty for him to do so and that even if he had notified his counsel, "Defendant still would have the same grounds for sanctions." (Id. at 4).
Plaintiff further responds that Defendant was still able to have the opportunity to present his counterclaim, which was evaluated by the arbitrator and upon which the arbitrator issued an assessment of the merits. (Id.). To that end, Defendant was able to present testimony and evidence to support his counterclaim while Plaintiff's counsel was able to cross-examine Defendant on said testimony and challenge the offered evidence. (Docket No. 27 at 6). Therefore, Thompson's absence did not prejudice the Defendant to the degree claimed and Defendant was not deprived of an early neutral evaluation of the case. (Id.). Conversely, Plaintiff contends it is Thompson who has been prejudiced as his counsel could not present his testimony or evidence. (Id. at 7). Hence, Thompson argues that his absence has deprived him of an early neutral evaluation of his claim and that Defendant is now in an uneven bargaining position. (Id.). In response to Defendant's claim for sanctions, Plaintiff also argues that Defendant has failed to break down the work his counsel performed to determine how much work was done to defend against Plaintiff's claims and to prepare his counterclaim. (Id. at 8). Finally, Plaintiff notes that because Defendant had to be in attendance regardless of Thompson's attendance to pursue his counterclaim, Defendant's mileage should not be included in any calculation of sanctions against Plaintiff. (Id.).
III. Procedural Background
After briefing concluded on the instant motion, on March 30, 2009, the Court convened a telephone status conference with counsel wherein the Court heard argument from counsel regarding the instant motion and statements from Thompson regarding his absence at the Court ordered arbitration. Upon consideration of same, the Court ordered Thompson to secure and file an affidavit by his Massachusetts family law attorney by April 6, 2009 outlining the reasons for Thompson's failure to appear at the arbitration hearing. (Docket No. 29). The Court further ordered that any supplement to the Motion for Sanctions or reply by Defendant in response to said affidavit be filed by April 13, 2009. (Id.).
Thereafter, on April 7, 2009, Thompson filed the affidavit of Paul J. Starr, Esquire, an attorney licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.*fn1 (Docket No. 31-2). In said affidavit, Mr. Starr attests that he represents Lisa Thompson, wife of Michael Thompson, relative to a divorce action pending in Massachusetts. (Id.). He further states that upon his request, Thompson attended a meeting at his offices in Stoughton, Massachusetts on Monday, February 23, 2009, at which time they addressed matters pertaining to the divorce between Thompson and Lisa Thompson. (Id.). Thompson also represented to this Court during the conference call on March 30, 2009 that while he was in Boston the week of February 23, 2009, he was attempting to remove items from his house where his wife was still living.
The Court will now address this Court's ADR Policies and Procedures as to they relate to the instant Motion for Sanctions.
IV. This Court's ADR Policies and Procedures
ADR is mandatory in the Western District of Pennsylvania. See W.D. Pa. Local Rule 16.2, available at http://www.pawd.uscourts.gov/Documents/Forms/lrmanual.pdf. This Court's ADR Policies and Procedures include court sponsored arbitration, which is authorized in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 651.*fn2 See http://coldfusion.pawd.uscourts.gov/adr/Documents/adrpoliciesprocedures. pdf. Here at a case management conference on November 13, 2008, the parties agreed upon non-binding arbitration ...