## Facts

- Tammy Turner brought a personal-injury action against Stanhope Express, Inc. and related defendants.
- The court’s scheduling order required the parties to mediate on December 13, 2001.
- Before mediation, defense counsel asked to have the claims handler with settlement authority participate by telephone; plaintiff’s counsel objected and suggested contacting the court to resolve the issue in advance.
- At mediation, defense counsel appeared with Scott Glow, a representative of defendants’ liability insurer.
- Glow initially had authority to settle up to $25,000; after clarification that certain potential invasion-of-privacy claims were not part of the mediation, Glow called the carrier and received authority up to $20,000 to settle the personal-injury claims without a release of the separate claims.
- The mediation ended without settlement.
- Turner moved for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f) and D. Kan. Rule 16.3, arguing defendants failed to appear with an attendee possessing appropriate settlement authority.

## Issues

1. Whether D. Kan. Rule 16.3’s attendance requirement for a party representative with settlement authority applies to mediations conducted by a private mediator when ordered by the court.
2. If the rule applies, whether defendants’ attendance through an insurance representative with limited and telephonically adjustable authority warranted sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f) and the local rule.

## Decision

- The court held D. Kan. Rule 16.3 applies to court-ordered mediations conducted by private mediators.
- The court denied sanctions, concluding that prior local authority did not clearly define whether the rule extended to private mediation or what level of “settlement authority” was required in this setting.
- Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions was denied.

## Legal Principles

- Court-ordered settlement processes must be attended by a party representative with meaningful settlement authority; in the District of Kansas this requirement extends to court-ordered private mediation, not only judge-led settlement conferences.
- A representative who must repeatedly seek approval by telephone or can negotiate only within a narrow range may fail to satisfy the settlement-authority requirement, and such noncompliance may support sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f) in an appropriate case.
- Sanctions are discretionary and may be denied where governing standards were not clearly established at the time of the alleged noncompliance, even if the court clarifies expectations for future cases.

## Conclusion

The court interpreted D. Kan. Rule 16.3 to require attendance at court-ordered private mediations by a representative with settlement authority, but declined to impose Rule 16(f) sanctions because local guidance on the rule’s reach and the meaning of “settlement authority” was insufficiently clear when the mediation occurred.


Turner v. Young, 205 F.R.D. 592 (D. Kan. 2002)