Print MeLR 16.5 Alternative Dispute Resolution
(a) Authorization of Alternative Dispute Resolution and Requirement of Mediated Settlement Conference.
(1) Pursuant to Section 651(b) of Title 28 United States Code, (the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998), the Court hereby authorizes the use of alternative dispute resolution processes in all civil actions including adversary proceedings in bankruptcy.
(2) Within 45 days prior to trial, each civil case not exempted by LR 26.1(b)(1) through (3) shall be set for a Mediated Settlement Conference before a Magistrate Judge. Upon the request of any party, or upon its own motion, the Court, in its discretion, may require additional Settlement Conferences during the pre-trial period. Trial counsel for each party as well as a party representative having full settlement authority shall attend each Settlement Conference ordered by the Court. If insurance coverage may be applicable, a representative of the insurer, having full settlement authority, shall attend.
(3) The Full-Time Magistrate Judges of the District Court shall constitute the panel of neutrals the court hereby makes available for use by the parties, as contemplated by Section 653 of Title 28 United States Code (the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998). The provisions of Title 28 United States Code Section 455 shall govern the disqualification of Magistrate Judges from serving as a neutral.
(b) Other Dispute Resolution Methods.
(1) In the discretion of the Court, the parties, trial counsel, and other persons deemed necessary to attend may be ordered to participate in other non-binding dispute resolution methods before a Judge or Magistrate Judge, including but not limited to, summary jury trials, non-binding arbitration and mediation.
(2) In the discretion of any Judge or Magistrate Judge, the parties, trial counsel, and other persons deemed necessary to attend may be ordered to engage in any one or a combination of non-binding alternate dispute resolution methods to be conducted by someone other than a Judge or Magistrate Judge. In such cases, the parties may be ordered to bear the reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the ADR process as allocated by the Court, provided that the Court shall not allocate any costs or expenses of the ADR process to a party who is proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
(c) Confidentiality of Dispute Resolution Communications
(1) Definition: “confidential dispute resolution communication” means any communication made to a neutral during any Alternative Dispute Resolution process which is expressly identified to the neutral as being confidential information which the party does not want communicated to any other person outside of the Alternative Dispute Resolution process.
(2) No confidential dispute resolution communication shall be disclosed outside the alternative dispute resolution process by any party, party representative, insurance adjuster, lawyer, or neutral without the consent of the party making the confidential dispute resolution communication.
[Adopted effective November 1, 1996; amended January 3, 2000]
1999 Advisory Committee’s Note to LR 16.5
The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998 requires that every district authorize the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution processes in all civil actions, (Title 28 United States Code, Section 651(b))and to provide litigants in all civil cases with at least one alternative dispute resolution process (Title 28 United States Code, Section 652(a)). By this Local Rule 16.5(a)(1) the Court complies with the requirement of the Act that it authorize the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution processes. To comply with the requirement of Section 652(a) of Title 28 United States Code, (the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998), that the court provide litigants in all civil cases with at least one alternative dispute resolution process, Local Rule 16.5(a)(2) requires that a settlement conference be held in every civil case, not exempted by the Rule. The Judges of the District Court have concluded that a mediated settlement conference presided over by a magistrate judge is the one alternative dispute resolution process it will provide to litigants in all civil cases.
Parties are of course free to agree upon the use of other alternative dispute resolution processes, and Local Rule 16.5(b) authorizes the court to order any other alternative dispute resolution process which it deems necessary. Because the voluntary selection by the parties of alternative dispute resolution processes as well as court-ordered alternative dispute resolution processes depart from the “panel of neutrals” made available by LR 16.5(a)(3), the Court is not establishing by this Rule the “amount of compensation” (See 28 U.S.C. § 658) to be received by such persons, allowing that compensation to be freely negotiated, as in longstanding practice, by the parties.
The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998 also requires that the Court adopt appropriate processes for making neutrals available for use by the parties, and authorizes the use of Magistrate Judges for this purpose. (See Title 28 United States Code, Section 653) By this Rule, the Court expressly designates the full time Magistrate Judges of the District to be the panel of neutrals contemplated by the Act, and expressly makes them available to the parties for the purpose of conducting mediated settlement conferences in every civil case not otherwise exempted by local rule. The Act further requires that the court adopt rules for the disqualification of neutrals. To comply with this provision of the Act, the Court expressly incorporates by reference the provisions of Title 28 United States Code, Section 455.
The Act
further requires that the court adopt rules to provide for the confidentiality
of the alternative dispute resolution process and to prohibit disclosure of
confidential dispute resolution communications. See Tile 28 United States Code
Section 652(d). By Local Rule 16.5(c) the Court complies with this requirement
of the Act.
1996 Advisory Committee's Note to LR 16.5
In 1986, the Federal Practice Committee in the District of Minnesota recommended that the Court not adopt a formal ADR program. In 1993, the Civil Justice Reform Act Advisory Group also recommended that the Court not impose mandatory ADR. The Advisory Committee, like the CJRA Group, supports the use of selective ADR mechanisms on a case by case basis as determined by the individual Judge or Magistrate Judge. This Rule recognizes the Court's authority to require the parties to pay reasonable costs associated with ADR, but expressly exempts from this requirement parties who are proceeding in forma pauperis.
Regarding settlement conferences, see 28 U.S.C. 473(b)(5), which provides “a requirement that, upon notice by the Court, representatives of the parties with authority to bind them in settlement discussions be present or available by telephone during any settlement conference.”