Free Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 v. Harlem Globetrotters International, Inc., an Arizona corporation; et al., Defendants. The Court held a conference call with the parties on September 6, 2006. Two motions were discussed. First, the Court addressed Plaintiffs' Motion to Determine Conflict of Interest in Representation at Settlement Conference (Dkt. #446). At the time of the conference call, this motion had not been filed with the Court. The Court directed counsel to file the motion, the response, and the reply that have been delivered to the Court's chambers. The Court denied Plaintiffs' motion. The Court does not see a conflict of interest in defense counsel's representation of Mr. Mannie Jackson and HGI of Nevada in this litigation. Although Plaintiffs' counsel suggested that chances for settlement might be better if the 80% owners of HGI have separate counsel at the settlement conference, the Court sees no ethical conflict that would require the Court to order them to appear by separate counsel. They are not parties in this case and the entity they own ­ HGI of Nevada ­ will be presented at the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Meadowlark Lemon, a married man, Plaintiff, ORDER No. CV 04-0299 PHX DGC and CV 04-1023 PHX DGC

Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC

Document 448

Filed 09/08/2006

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

settlement conference by its CEO and Chairman of the Board, Mr. Jackson. The Court declined to provide guidance on whether Plaintiffs can contact the new owners. Counsel for Defendants Jackson and HGI suggested that Plaintiffs' counsel could contact an attorney who represented the new owners in the transaction with Mr. Jackson. Second, the Court addressed Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Enforce Settlement Conference Order by Requiring Defendant GTFM's Insurer to Appear at the Settlement Conference, and to Strike GTFM Defendant's Untimely Disclosures (Dkt. #447). The Court informed the parties that it would not rule on three requests in the motion: to allow additional discovery on the insurance issue, to strike GTFM's third amended disclosure, and to impose sanctions. The parties may raise these issues in briefing filed before the Final Pretrial Conference if this matter does not settle. With respect to the fourth request contained in the motion, the Court will refer to Judge Anderson the question of whether GTFM's insurer should appear at the settlement conference. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs' Motion to Determine Conflict of Interest in Representation at Settlement Conference (Dkt. #446) is denied. 2. Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Enforce Settlement Conference Order by Requiring Defendant GTFM's Insurer to Appear at the Settlement Conference, and to Strike GTFM Defendant's Untimely Disclosures (Dkt.#447) is denied with respect to matters to be addressed at the Final Pretrial Conference and is referred to Judge Anderson with respect to the request that GTFM's insurer appear at the settlement conference. DATED this 8th day of September, 2006.

-2-

Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC

Document 448

Filed 09/08/2006

Page 2 of 2