Whittaker v. Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, Civil Action No. 2019-0199

Background

Whittaker sued the United States; the case was referred to Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey for a settlement conference on Dec. 19, 2019; the parties continued negotiations after the conference.
The Government made a written offer conveyed to the magistrate on Feb. 6, 2020; Magistrate Judge Harvey relayed that Whittaker accepted on Feb. 11, 2020.
The Government emailed a draft settlement and stipulation on Feb. 28, 2020; counsel exchanged edits and by March 10–11, 2020 the parties were "signature ready" according to Plaintiff’s counsel.
No settlement document was ever signed; Plaintiff later informed counsel on April 9, 2020 she would not sign, citing a change of heart after a traumatic event.
The Government moved to enforce the settlement on June 16, 2020; the Court held an evidentiary hearing on April 13, 2021 and, applying D.C. contract law, found by clear and convincing evidence that a binding settlement was reached.
The Court addressed mediation-confidentiality objections, concluded it could consider the post-conference communications at issue, granted the Government’s motion to enforce, and dismissed the case with prejudice; it also proposed unsealing most filings and invited objections.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court may consider post-mediation communications to decide if a settlement was reached	Mediation confidentiality (D.C. Code / LCvR 84) bars consideration of mediation-related communications	Communications at issue were administrative (finalizing/signature logistics) and not substantive mediation disclosures	Court: May consider the communications; LCvR 84 did not apply to a magistrate-led mediation and the emails were non-substantive administrative evidence
Whether parties formed an enforceable settlement despite no signed agreement	Absence of an executed, signed document means no binding contract	Parties agreed to all material terms and manifested intent to be bound; the agreement was later memorialized in writing	Court: Enforceable settlement existed (clear and convincing evidence). Material terms agreed and intent to be bound established
Whether Plaintiff's counsel had authority to bind Plaintiff	Counsel lacked authority or the record was ambiguous	Counsel had actual authority to negotiate and accept on Plaintiff’s behalf; counsel repeatedly represented acceptance	Court: Plaintiff testified counsel had authority; counsel’s communications manifested assent—counsel bound Plaintiff
Whether challenged filings should remain sealed	Plaintiff sought sealing under mediation confidentiality	Government opposed sealing the administrative communications relied upon	Court: Memorandum will be public; ordered parties to state objections by July 19, 2021 and proposed unsealing most filings (excluding the settlement agreement itself)

Key Cases Cited

Makins v. Dist. of Columbia, 277 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (state contract law governs enforcement of settlement agreements)
Foretich v. Am. Broadcasting Cos., 198 F.3d 270 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (parties may form binding agreements later memorialized in writing)
Hood v. Dist. of Columbia, 211 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.D.C. 2002) (enforceability requires agreement on material terms and intent to be bound)
Dyer v. Bilaal, 983 A.2d 349 (D.C. 2009) (intent to be bound is determined by objective manifestations, including communications)
Tauber v. Quan, 938 A.2d 724 (D.C. 2007) (nonmaterial terms need not be agreed to for enforceability)
Davis v. Winfield, 664 A.2d 836 (D.C. 1995) (a signed writing is not essential to contract formation)
Demissie v. Starbucks Corporate Office & Headquarters, 118 F. Supp. 3d 29 (D.D.C. 2015) (courts may consider post-mediation communications when assessing whether a settlement was reached)
Rios v. I.S. Enterprises, 113 F. Supp. 3d 283 (D.D.C. 2015) (email exchanges and draft agreements can show intent to be bound)
Blackstone v. Brink, 63 F. Supp. 3d 68 (D.D.C. 2014) (when formation is disputed, court must hold evidentiary hearing and movant must prove settlement by clear and convincing evidence)
Williams v. Johanns, 529 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 2008) (mediation confidentiality is important and breaches can chill settlements)