APPLICATION TO PERMIT ATTENDANCE OF CLIENT REPRESENTATIVE BY TELEPHONE AT STATUS CONFERENCE; ORDER

EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.

Further to the Court's June 4, 2015 Amended Civil Minutes, Dkt. No. 30, directing principals to appear in-person for the September 24, 2015 status conference, later rescheduled to October 1, 2015, Plaintiffs Corthera, Inc. ("Corthera") and Thomas G. Wiggans ("Wiggans") respectfully request permission for Corthera's representative, Lee J. Stoller, Esq., to participate by telephone.

Corthera greatly appreciates the Court's efforts to resolve this matter in a reasonable fashion — or, at a minimum, to ensure that the parties are fully apprised of the potential cost-benefit in proceeding. Nevertheless, Corthera respectfully seeks relief from the in-person appearance requirement noted above for three main reasons: (1) Corthera understands the potential costs and risks of proceeding with this case; (2) appearing in-person would present a substantial hardship to Mr. Stoller and/or another Corthera representative; and (3) the message the Court wishes to deliver (and which Corthera takes very seriously) can reasonably be conveyed by telephone.

Corthera, by and through sophisticated in-house counsel, including Mr. Stoller, has discussed at length with its outside counsel, McCarter English, LLP ("McCarter") and Farella Braun + Martel, LLP ("Farella"), the potential cost of proceeding with the lawsuit, weighed against the potential recovery, and the time and distractions inherent in litigation. The parties' mediator, Hon. Ronald M. Sabraw (Ret.), also capably reiterated those considerations. Corthera fully appreciates all of the risks and potential pitfalls, but feels strongly that it has been mistreated by Scottsdale. Corthera cannot in good conscience accept the amounts that have been offered or signaled by Scottsdale in mediation and settlement discussions to date. From Corthera's perspective, Scottsdale should not obtain a substantial benefit by leveraging the litigation process to compel Corthera to accept a grossly inadequate recovery — a practice favoring insurers, particularly in situations involving relatively small claims.

That said, Corthera does not wish to present itself to the Court as an ideologue or as overly litigious. It is neither. Corthera understands that the amount in question (approximately $800,000) must be weighed against the costs and risks associated with litigation, including the possibility that Corthera will not recover its attorneys' fees (which, we believe, would be an unjust result here). Corthera, for those reasons, advocated early mediation, which Scottsdale initially refused. Scottsdale later agreed to mediate, but only if its principal could participate in the mediation by telephone, a notion with which the Court expressed disapproval at the initial Case Management Conference. When the mediation session ultimately did occur, Scottsdale's principal, who was flying in from Arizona, arrived over three hours late on the morning of the mediation, postponing the start of the mediation session. In contrast, Corthera's principal, Mr. Stoller, who lives and works in New Jersey, was on-time and physically present; he lost three days traveling back and forth from New Jersey to San Francisco. As stated above, Judge Sabraw spoke with Mr. Stoller at length concerning the benefits of early resolution coupled with a detailed discussion of the issues; presumably, a similar discussion occurred with Scottsdale.

If the Court compels Corthera's in-person attendance at the upcoming Court status conference, Corthera's principal would again have to travel back and forth from New Jersey to participate, which will take the better part of two to three days, depending on flights and schedules.

Finally, to the extent the Court has concerns that Corthera's in-house counsel has not fully appreciated the economics of this case or if the Court wishes to provide additional information or insight directly to Mr. Stoller, the Court will be able to do so by telephone. Mr. Stoller is willing and able to attend on the scheduled date telephonically; however, requiring him to attend in person is not feasible at this time.

In light of the foregoing, Corthera respectfully requests the Court permit Mr. Stoller to appear by telephone at the October 1, 2015 status conference.

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the application of Corthera, Inc. and Thomas G. Wiggans to allow Corthera's in-house counsel to appear telephonically at the October 1, 2015 status conference is denied. Defendant's request to strike or seal Plaintiffs' Application to Permit Attendance of Client Representative by Telephone (Docket No. 34) is denied.