Seoane v. Lexisnexis Risk Data Management, Inc et al
Filing
18
ORDER denying 11 Motion to Expedite Early Neutral Evaluation Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr on 5/26/2011. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mtb)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
STEVEN M. SEOANE, an Individual,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
LEXISNEXIS RISK DATA
)
MANAGEMENT, INC., a Florida
)
Corporation; LEXISNEXIS RISK
)
SOLUTIONS FL, INC., a Minnesota
)
Corporation; LEXISNEXIS RISK
)
SOLUTIONS BUREAU, LLC, a Delaware
)
Corporation; and LEXISNEXIS RISK DATA )
RETRIEVAL SERVICES, LLC, a Georgia
)
)
Corporation,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
Civil No. 11cv0908 L (WMc)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR AN EARLY NEUTRAL
EVALUATION CONFERENCE
Background
On May 20, 2011, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion requesting an expedited Early Neutral
Evaluation Conference (“ENE”) under Civil Local Rule 16.1(c)(1). [Doc. No. 11.] Defendants filed a
response to the motion on May 23, 2011, and an amended response to the motion on May 24, 2011.
[Doc. Nos. 14 & 15.] Defendants also filed a motion to dismiss on May 24, 2011. [Doc. No. 16.] The
Court has not yet ordered an ENE because the Defendants have not filed an Answer.
Additionally, the parties are currently litigating similar issues in a Florida state court.
28
1
11cv0908 L (WMc)
1
2
Plaintiff’s Argument
Plaintiff has requested an ENE before the filing of the answer in this matter or shortly thereafter.
3
Plaintiff argues that an expedited ENE will permit early settlement discussions and an expedited
4
scheduling order, if needed. [Doc. No. 11, pg. 2.] Plaintiff asserts that this ex parte application is
5
necessary to protect his rights as a California resident and employee. Id. Plaintiff further asserts that
6
“[t]his case presents a paradigm for the application of Civil Local Rule 16.1( c)(1).” Plaintiff does not
7
cite any case law to support this assertion.
8
9
Defendant’s Argument
Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s ex parte application for the following reasons: (1) the California
10
litigation is duplicative of the Florida litigation, (2) the parties have already engaged in settlement
11
discussions, (3) various dispositive motions have been filed or will be filed shortly, and (4) the
12
Defendants have not yet filed an answer. [See Doc. No. 15.]
13
14
Legal Standard For Ordering An Expedited ENE
In this District, Magistrate Judges typically conduct ENEs within forty-five days of the filing of
15
an answer. See Local Civil Rule 16.1(c)(1); see Yang v. DTS Financial Group, 570 F.Supp.2d 1257,
16
1261 (S.D.Cal. 2008). However, Local Civil Rule 16(c)(1) provides that counsel for either party may
17
make a request, in writing, to the judicial officer in charge of discovery, to conduct an ENE conference
18
before an answer has been filed. Upon such a request, the Magistrate Judge will examine the circum-
19
stances of the case and the reasons asserted for the request, and determine whether an expedited ENE
20
would reduce the expense and delay of litigation. See Local Civil Rule 16(c)(1).
21
22
Granting Plaintiff’s Motion Would Not Reduce Expense or Delay
Plaintiff has failed to specify why conducting an ENE before Defendants file an answer will
23
reduce the expense and delay of litigation. Rather, it appears to the Court, that scheduling an ENE
24
before Defendants file an answer would increase costs without any corresponding benefit to the parties.
25
Engaged in similar litigation in Florida, the parties would certainly duplicate their efforts and costs if the
26
Court ordered the parties to appear at an expedited ENE in California.
27
28
Furthermore, conducting an ENE before the Defendant file answers could delay resolution of the
case. Local Civil Rule 16.1(c)(1)(a) provides that “the judicial officer and the parties shall discuss the
claims and defenses and seek to settle the case” at an ENE conference. In order to effectively and
2
11cv0908 L (WMc)
1
efficiently discuss the claims and defenses in this matter, the parties must have the opportunity to
2
finalize the pleadings, which includes having an operative complaint on file that identifies the claims at
3
issue as well as an answer that lists all applicable defenses. Here, the Defendants have not filed an
4
answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. Furthermore, ordering the Defendants to participate in an expedited
5
ENE despite their unwillingness to do so would likely increase costs and delay. Therefore, the Court
6
finds that it cannot conduct a meaningful discussion of the claims and defenses in this case until the
7
Defendants file an answer.
8
Conclusion
9
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Request for an expedited Early Neutral Evaluation
10
Conference is DENIED.
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 26, 2011
12
13
Hon. William McCurine, Jr.
U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court
14
Copy to:
15
HONORABLE M. JAMES LORENZ, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
11cv0908 L (WMc)
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
