## Facts

- Michael Strandell was arrested in Jackson County, Illinois, subjected to a strip search, and jailed.
- Strandell later died by suicide while in custody.
- Strandell’s parents sued Jackson County and county officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging civil-rights violations and seeking \$500,000 in damages.
- The County refused to discuss settlement despite the plaintiffs’ demand.
- At a pretrial conference, the district court suggested that the parties agree to a nonbinding “summary jury trial,” in which each side would present an abbreviated version of its case to a jury to obtain an advisory verdict as a settlement aid.
- Plaintiffs’ counsel, Thomas F. Tobin, declined to participate, arguing that the procedure would require disclosure of protected material, including attorney work product and other privileged information.
- The district court ordered the parties to participate in the summary jury trial anyway.
- Tobin again refused to take part.
- The district court found Tobin in criminal contempt and imposed a \$500 fine.
- Tobin appealed the contempt order.

## Issues

1. May a federal district court require unwilling parties and counsel to participate in a nonbinding summary jury trial as a settlement-related pretrial procedure?
2. Do Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 or a federal court’s non-statutory case-management power authorize compelling a summary jury trial over objection?
3. If the court lacked power to issue the underlying order, can a criminal contempt sanction stand for refusing to comply with it?

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit vacated the criminal contempt judgment and set aside the \$500 fine.
- The court held that the district court lacked power to compel participation in a nonbinding summary jury trial when a party objected.
- The court read Rule 16 as permitting judges to manage pretrial proceedings and encourage settlement discussions, but not as authorizing a court to force litigants into a particular, trial-like settlement mechanism.
- The court rejected reliance on a general, non-rule-based case-management power to impose a procedure that effectively adds a quasi-trial requirement not found in the Federal Rules.
- The court noted that compelled participation risks pressuring counsel to reveal trial strategy and attorney work product, upsetting the balance struck by the discovery rules.
- Because the summary-jury-trial order was unauthorized, Tobin’s refusal could not be punished as criminal contempt.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts have broad power to manage their dockets, but that power must operate consistently with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and cannot be used to create mandatory procedures that the Rules do not allow.
- Rule 16 authorizes active pretrial management and allows a court to encourage settlement discussions, but it does not authorize requiring unwilling parties to participate in a nonbinding summary jury trial.
- A district court may invite parties to use settlement devices and may facilitate voluntary alternatives to trial, but it may not coerce participation in a specific settlement mechanism absent clear authorization in a rule or statute.
- Trial-management devices that compel abbreviated presentations can pressure parties to reveal protected work product and litigation strategy, creating conflicts with the discovery framework.
- A criminal contempt sanction cannot rest on disobedience of an order that exceeds the issuing court’s lawful power.

## Conclusion

In Strandell v. Jackson County, Illinois, the Seventh Circuit vacated a \$500 criminal contempt fine imposed on plaintiffs’ counsel for refusing to participate in a court-ordered, nonbinding summary jury trial, holding that neither Rule 16 nor general case-management power permitted the district court to require unwilling parties to submit to that procedure.


Strandell v. Jackson County, Illinois, 838 F.2d 884 (1987)