Eisen v. Day
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:21-cv-05349
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Eisen v. Day, Judge Demarchi ordered Noam Eisen to explain alleged settlement-confidentiality disclosure before deciding whether sanctions were warranted.
Noam Eisen and potentially his counsel, who were ordered to explain alleged disclosure of confidential settlement-conference information; Emily Day objected to the disclosure.
What happened
In Eisen v. Day, Noam Eisen opposed Emily Day’s request to file an amended complaint. His opposition described communications and positions from settlement conferences, which Day objected to.
The court said a local rule requires settlement-conference information to remain confidential and generally prohibits sharing it with the assigned judge. The court therefore ordered Eisen to explain why sanctions should not be imposed on him or his counsel.
Judge Demarchi required a written response by December 8, 2023, and set a December 19 hearing. The order did not decide whether a violation occurred or impose sanctions.
The detailed version
- Eisen v. Day · No. 5:21-cv-05349
- Virginia Demarchi
- Nov. 29, 2023
Background
Noam Eisen filed an opposition to Emily Day’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The opposition included statements about the parties’ communications and positions during settlement conferences with Magistrate Judge Beeler. Day objected to those statements.
Rule at Issue
The court cited Alternative Dispute Resolution Local Rule 7-4. That rule requires parties and lawyers to keep information exchanged during settlement conferences confidential and generally prohibits disclosing that information to the assigned judge, subject to stated exceptions.
Order
The court ordered Eisen to show cause—meaning to explain—why it should not impose monetary or other sanctions against him and/or his counsel for disclosing confidential information in violation of the local rule. The court required a written response by December 8, 2023, and set a hearing for December 19, 2023, at 10:00 a.m.
The order did not determine that Eisen violated the rule and did not impose sanctions. It addressed only the process for deciding whether sanctions should be imposed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.