Emilio Garcia v. Roc Nation LLC

Background

The court had ordered counsel for all parties to participate in an initial pretrial conference on November 6, 2024. An earlier order set the conference for Courtroom 12C, and a later order moved it to Courtroom 26B. Both orders stated that the conference would occur at the courthouse in person.

The court, its staff, the court reporter, and defendants’ counsel appeared at the scheduled time. Plaintiff did not appear. Plaintiff’s counsel, Ronald Leonardo Zambrano, attempted to call the court’s dedicated conference line, but the scheduling orders did not permit telephone participation. He had not asked to postpone the conference before it began.

The court ordered Mr. Zambrano to explain why he should not be sanctioned for violating the conference order and failing to appear. He submitted a declaration, and defendants responded.

Legal standard

The court explained that it has inherent authority to sanction an attorney for violating a court order. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f)(1) also permits a court to issue an appropriate order when a party or attorney fails to appear at a scheduling or other pretrial conference.

Under Rule 16(f)(2), the court must order the party, attorney, or both to pay reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the violation unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances would make an award unjust. A failure is substantially justified when there is a genuine dispute or reasonable people could disagree about whether the conduct was appropriate. Negligence or carelessness generally does not excuse a Rule 16 violation.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Mr. Zambrano’s failure to attend was not substantially justified. The conference orders clearly identified an in-person courtroom. The court’s individual rules stated only that the court might designate a conference as telephone-based; they did not authorize telephone attendance at this conference. Mr. Zambrano acknowledged that, in retrospect, he had incorrectly assumed remote participation was allowed.

The court also rejected Mr. Zambrano’s difficulty with the electronic filing system as a justification. As plaintiff’s counsel, he was responsible for monitoring communications about the case, including checking the electronic docket. The court’s chambers had directed him to use the electronic filing help desk for system questions. In addition, he learned about the conference and read the scheduling order on or before October 24, giving him time to request an adjournment. The scheduling order required such requests to be made by letter at least two business days before the conference. He did not make that request or ask opposing counsel to make it.

The court found no circumstance making a sanction unjust. Although Mr. Zambrano apologized, the court concluded that defendants should not bear the cost of their attorneys’ attendance at a conference that plaintiff’s counsel failed to attend or postpone without substantial justification.

Disposition

The court sanctioned Mr. Zambrano under Rule 16(f) and ordered him to pay defendants’ reasonable expenses incurred in appearing at the November 6 conference. The order did not specify a dollar amount.

The court directed defendants to file an application for attorney’s fees by December 2, 2024, supported by a counsel affidavit and appropriate time records showing the fees and costs incurred in traveling to and attending the conference. The order addresses the fee application’s documentation and the calculation of a reasonable award but does not decide the final amount.