Brown v. Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc., 2:22-cv-00972

Case referred for a court‑ordered settlement conference; the court required each party to have a representative with full settlement authority present from a suitable location.
Settlement conference set for March 28, 2023; Orange Twist LLC’s authorized representative, Brittany Slater, did not appear; counsel Patricia Daehnke appeared.
Slater was actually on a commercial flight during the conference; she had purchased the ticket after confirming availability and planned to participate via in‑flight Wi‑Fi.
Initial responses omitted or redacted emails; a supplemental filing produced an email (dated March 27) in which Slater told Daehnke she would be flying during the scheduled conference and Daehnke replied that cell/text availability would be fine.
The court found the plane an unsuitable, unreliable, and non‑confidential forum for a settlement conference, concluded Slater’s absence was a willful violation of the order, and found Daehnke made false representations to the court.
Remedy: Orange Twist LLC and Slater were ordered to pay the fees for a mutually agreed neutral third‑party mediator; Daehnke was admonished for her misrepresentations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Orange Twist LLC and Slater should be sanctioned for failing to attend a court‑ordered settlement conference	Brown argued they violated the court order, caused wasted fees/time, and sanctions are appropriate	Slater said scheduling oversights and following counsel’s advice caused absence; she intended to participate via in‑flight Wi‑Fi	Court found willful violation of Rule 16(f); ordered them to pay for private mediation fees
Whether appearing from a commercial airplane satisfied the order’s “suitable location” requirement	Brown: plane is unsuitable due to confidentiality and reliability concerns	Slater: planned to use in‑flight Wi‑Fi to participate	Court held a commercial airplane is an inappropriate location and rejected that justification
Whether counsel Daehnke’s communications to the court were sanctionable	Brown implied counsel misled the court about knowledge of Slater’s travel	Daehnke claimed she did not know Slater was on a plane during the conference and initially omitted emails	Court found Daehnke made false representations and omitted communications; she was admonished (no monetary fine imposed on counsel)

Lucas Auto. Eng’g, Inc. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 275 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 2001) (sanctions under Rule 16 may be appropriate without finding bad faith)
Ayers v. City of Richmond, 895 F.2d 1267 (9th Cir. 1990) (sanctions for failure to comply with pretrial orders)
Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F.3d 1385 (9th Cir. 1993) (upholding sanctions for settlement conference noncompliance)
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (pretrial orders are binding and must be followed)
Sherman v. United States, 801 F.2d 1133 (9th Cir. 1986) (Rule 16’s broad remedial purpose)
Martin Family Trust v. Heco/Nostalgia Enterps. Co., 186 F.R.D. 601 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (pretrial order violations are not trivial)
Nick v. Morgan’s Food, Inc., 270 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 2001) (fines are among the just orders available under Rule 16)
Pittman v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481 (D. Ariz. 2003) (Rule 16 applies to court‑mandated settlement conferences)