## Facts

- G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. sued Joseph Oat Corporation in federal district court.
- A magistrate judge scheduled a pretrial conference to discuss disputed issues and possible settlement.
- The magistrate ordered Oat to send a corporate representative with authority to settle.
- Oat sent counsel (including an attorney authorized to speak for corporate principals) but did not send a corporate representative or principal to attend in person.
- The magistrate found Oat violated the attendance order and recommended sanctions.
- The district court imposed monetary sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f) totaling $5,860.01 to reimburse other parties’ costs and attorneys’ fees for the conference.
- Oat appealed, challenging the court’s authority to require personal attendance and the imposition of sanctions.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal district court may order a represented party, including a corporation, to appear in person at a pretrial conference to discuss case posture and settlement.
2. Whether Rule 16 and the court’s inherent authority permit sanctions under Rule 16(f) for failure to comply with such an attendance order.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing the monetary sanction assessed against Oat.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit (en banc) affirmed.
- The court held a district court may require litigants, even if represented by counsel, to appear personally at a pretrial conference for settlement and case-management purposes.
- The court held Rule 16 does not bar requiring represented parties to attend; the rule’s reference to attorneys and unrepresented parties is not an implied limitation.
- The court held the order was also supported by the district court’s inherent authority to manage litigation in a manner consistent with the Federal Rules.
- The court held Rule 16(f) authorized sanctions because Oat failed to obey a pretrial order, and the monetary award was a reasonable compensatory sanction.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 permits active judicial management of pretrial proceedings, including procedures that advance settlement and streamline litigation.
- Rule 16’s authorization to direct “attorneys for the parties and any unrepresented parties” to appear does not preclude requiring a represented party’s personal attendance when appropriate.
- District courts have inherent authority to manage cases and to require the presence of decision-makers at pretrial conferences, so long as the practice is consistent with the Federal Rules.
- Under Rule 16(f), a court may sanction a party for failing to appear or for failing to obey a scheduling or pretrial order, including by awarding reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees caused by noncompliance.
- Monetary sanctions that reimburse costs incurred due to a party’s violation of a pretrial order fall within the district court’s discretion when tied to the expenses caused by the violation.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld a district court’s authority to require a represented corporate party to send an in-person representative with settlement authority to a pretrial conference and to impose compensatory sanctions under Rule 16(f) when the party disobeys that order.


G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648 (7th Cir. 1989) (en banc)