Free Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-00148-GMS Document 88 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 1 of 4
A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE: )
) Chapter ll
INACOM CORPORATION, ez al., ) Lead Case No. 00-02426 (PJW)
) J 0intly Administered
Debtors. )
I
INACOM CORPORATION, )
)
Plaintiff, ) C.A. N0. 04-148 (GMS)
v. )
)
TECH DATA CORPORATION, )
)
Defendant. )
v. )
)
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, )
COMPAQ COMPUTER CORPORATION, )
ITY CORPORATION, )
and CUSTOM EDGE, INC. )
)
Third Party Defendants. )

INACOM CORPORATION, )
)
Plaintifi ) C.A. No. 04-582 (GMS)
v. )
)
DELL COMPUTER CORPORATION, )
)
Defendant. )

INACOM CORPORATION, )
)
Plaintiff, ) C.A. N0. 04-583 (GMS)
v. )
)
LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC., )
)
Defendant. )
)

Case 1:04-cv-00148-G|\/IS Document 88 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 2 of 4
v. )
)
COMPAQ COMPUTER CORPORATION, )
Third-Party Defendant. )

INACOM CORPORATION, )
) .
Plaintiff, )
) C.A. No. 04-593 (GMS)
v. )
)
HWGRAM ENTERTAINMENT, INC., )
)
Defendant. )

ORDER
1. On August 9, 2005, Lexmark International, Inc. ("Lexmark") submitted an Application for
a Settlement Conference (D.I. 53) in the action styled Inacom Corp., etal. v. Lexmarklnternational,
Inc., C .A. No. 04-583. The application requests the court to schedule a settlement conference before
it or the magistrate judge for the Lexmark action, as well as the actions styled Inacom Corp., et al.
v. Tech Data Corp. , C.A. No. 04-148 (GMS), Inacom Corp., etal. v. Dell Computer Corp. , C.A. No.
04-582 (GMS), and Inacom Corp., etal. v. Ingram Entertainment, Inc., C.A. No. 04-593, and the
third-party claims brought by Lexmark and Tech Data Corp. ("Tech Data") against Hewlett-Packard
Company ("HP). Lexmark filed its application pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(a)(5)
and (c)(9), and Delaware Local Rules 16.4(a) and 72.1(a).l
l Lexmark’s Memorandum (D.I. 54) in support of its application for a settlement
conference states that Tech Data Corp. ("Tech Data"), Dell Computer Corp. ("Dell"), and Ingram
Entertainment, Inc. ("Ingram") have advised Lexmark that they do not object to its application
for a settlement conference. (D.I. 54, at 5.) Additionally, Tech Data filed a j oinder (D.I. 74, C.A.
No. 04-148 (GMS)) in Lexmark’s motion. Thus, it appears to the court that the Inacom
2

Case 1 :04-cv-00148-GMS Document 88 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 3 of 4
2. Inacom Corp., etal. ("lnacom") filed a response (D.I. 83) to Lexmark’s application, which
asserts that it does not oppose a settlement conference in the Lexmark matter, or any other matter
pending before the court, but believes that any settlement negotiations should be handled on an
individual case basis, between Inacom and the single defendant that wishes to settle.
3. HP filed a response (D.I. 87) to Lexmark’s application, which asserts that it is willing to
attend a settlement conference of the third-party actions filed by Tech Data and Lexmark, but
believes that the settlement conference would be most productive if conducted alter the pre·trial
conference for the cases, which is scheduled for September 19, 2005. The response also asserts that
it is not necessary for HP to attend a settlement conference involving Inacom’s preference claims.
4. Aiier having considered the parties’ submissions (D.l. 53, 54, 83, 87), relevant law, and both
its and the magistrate judge’s schedules, the court finds that a settlement conference is not
appropriate at this time for several reasons. First, the court is not inclined to remove these cases,
which have been pending on the court’s docket since their references were withdrawn from the
Bankruptcy Court on June 28, 2004 and are scheduled for trial beginning October 17, 2005, from
its calendar. Additionally, these cases are currently scheduled for a bench trial, and the court will
not sit as a settlement judge in a pending case when it is the fact finder. Lastly, the United States
Court for the District of Delaware has one magistrate judge, and her calendar will not accommodate
a conference of any form before the scheduled trail date of these matters.2 That being said, the court
defendants all agree that a settlement conference is appropriate.
2 The court should also point out that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Delaware
Local Rules Lexmark cited to support its application do not stand for the proposition that the
court has "specific authority" to require the parties to participate in a settlement conference.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure l6(a)(5) provides that the court may direct the attomeys for the
parties to appear before it for a conference to "facilitat[e] the settlement of the case." Fed. R.
3

Case 1 :04-cv-00148-GMS Document 88 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 4 of 4 »
expects that the parties will continue to negotiate settlement on their own, as well as continue their
trial preparations.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
l. Lexmark’s Application for a Settlement Conference (D.I. 53) is DENIED without
prejudice.
”“‘°"’ "`“g"“——" ’2°°5
T S ATES IS CT
F I L E D
AUG 3 l 2005
u.s. DISTRICT counr
msrmcr or DELAWARE
Civ. P. l6(a)(5) (2005). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(c)(9) provides that the court may
consider and take appropriate action with respect to "settlement and the use of special procedures
to assist in resolving the dispute when authorized by local rule." Fed. R. Civ. P. l6(c)(9) (2005)
(emphasis added). The Delaware Local Rules, however, do not authorize the court to take action
to facilitate settlement. The provisions of the Delaware Local Rules cited by Lexmark state only
that a party may apply to the court for a pre—trial conference following the completion of
discovery, Rule l6.4(a), and that one of the magistrate judge’s duties is to conduct alternative
dispute resolutions processes, including settlement conferences, Rule 72.l(a). These rules do not
gant the court "speciiic authoritf to require parties to participate in a settlement conference.
4

Case 1:04-cv-00148-GMS

Document 88

Filed 08/31/2005

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00148-GMS

Document 88

Filed 08/31/2005

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00148-GMS

Document 88

Filed 08/31/2005

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00148-GMS

Document 88

Filed 08/31/2005

Page 4 of 4