MAIDEN v. BEST HOME FURNISHINGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
EVANSVILLE DIVISION
ERIC MAIDEN, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 3:24-cv-00199-RLY-CSW
)
BEST HOME FURNISHINGS, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER ON DEFENDANT ’S MOTION TO P ERMIT REPRESENTATIVE TO A PPEAR
REMOTELY A T S ETTLEMENT C ONFERENCE
Before the Court is Defendant, Best Home Furnishings, Unopposed Motion to
Permit Insurance Carrier’s Representative to Appear Telephonically at Settlement
Conference (Dkt. 37). This motion is nearly identical to a previous motion (Dkt. 25)
the Court denied.
Defendant again seeks leave of this Court’s Order to allow its corporate
representative/insurance claim professional to attend the settlement conference
telephonically and/or via video connection. The Court DENIES Defendant’s
Motion.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(c) provides that, “[i]f appropriate, the
court may require that a party or its representative be present [at conferences] . . .
to consider possible settlement.” The district court holds the “inherent authority to
preserve the efficiency . . . of the judicial process.” G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v.
Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 652 (7th Cir. 1989) (applying the 1987 version of
Rule 16) (internal quotations omitted).
The Court previously held a settlement conference in this matter on
September 9, 2025. The insurance representative requested to attend that
settlement conference remotely, but that request was denied. Thereafter, the
Case 3:24-cv-00199-RLY-CSW Document 38 Filed 12/01/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

parties requested to reconvene the settlement conference, and the Court granted the
request. Thus, this December settlement conference is the second time the Court
has set aside time for a settlement conference.
Defendant’s motion – filed almost thirty days after the scheduling of the
settlement conference – informs the Court that its insurance representative is
located outside of the state of Indiana. (Dkt. 37). Defendant states that requiring
the insurance representative to attend a second settlement conference would impose
a burden of significant time and expense on the representative.
The mere fact that the corporate representative is located outside of Indiana
does not constitute good cause for leave of the Court’s Order. A settlement
conference requires full engagement and participation by all.
The parties requested the Court set this second settlement conference, and
they did so knowing the previous ruling on the same request.1 The Court’s Order
setting this second settlement conference intentionally requires attendance in
person in order to have the best possible opportunity to resolve the case.
The Defendant’s Motion is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Date: December 1, 2025
Distributed electronically to ECF registered counsel of record.
1 If the parties wish to conduct negotiations remotely, they may do so between counsel or through
private mediation and inform the Court of their intent to do so. They should confer on the same in
advance of the status conference set for December 5, 2025.
Case 3:24-cv-00199-RLY-CSW Document 38 Filed 12/01/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>