When a Settlement Is Not a Settlement

You didn't expect to be here, but yet here you are -- stuck in a lawsuit over which you seem to possess little control. Now, your lawyer says he wants to "mediate" your case and wants a response from you soon. Unfamiliar with the process, you wonder if you should say "yes." Maybe a little history will help you to make your choice. Mediation arrived on the scene in Louisiana in the early 1990s. It offered an alternative to protracted litigation and the ordeal of trial. The theory was that mediation offered an efficient, cost-effective means of resolving a case and allowed the outcome to be determined by the litigants as opposed to the judge or jury.

In a state court trial, the outcome of your case rests in the hands of twelve unknown jurors or the judge. For all intents and purposes, once the case is submitted to the judge or jury, a litigant loses control of his or her destiny. Although judges and juries often get it “right," sometimes they do not. All you have to do is consider how many of the convicted are subsequently exonerated through a DNA analysis; how many cases get reversed on appeal; or, for a specific example, the O. J. Simpson acquittal which is often cited as an improper verdict. Mediation can put the decision-making back in your hands.

Mediation is generally an informal proceeding. The first step is for the parties to agree to mediate. The next, and very important step, is to select the mediator. You want a mediator familiar with your type of case. Then, you pick a date. Meditations usually last between a half-day to a full day. The mediation is attended by the mediator, the litigants and their attorneys in a confidential setting. It is important to understand that the mediator is simply the facilitator who “manages” the mediation. The “shots” are called by the parties through their attorneys. The decision as to whether to settle is solely in the hands of the parties. At the end of the day, cases are often resolved, perhaps most of the time. Even if the case does not settle at mediation, follow-up by the mediator often results in a settlement in the days and weeks that follow.

The process of mediation can be extremely valuable for these reasons: it can greatly reduce costs, fees and expenses; it gives the parties greater control over the outcome; it eliminates risk; and it allows closure and ends the distraction and emotional baggage clients often experience when in litigation. So now, when you are asked to mediate, you might let history be your guide.

By: Gracella Simmons, partner with Keogh Cox. As a mediator, she has successfully resolved a wide variety of cases over the past 15 years.

The image of a law firm stuffed with banker boxes floor-to-ceiling is shifting to the view of a computer server filled with gigabytes of information. This is increasingly a digital world and the documents, photographs, charts, memos, and emails that are the “stuff” cases are built upon now often come in digital form. As a result, great emphasis is placed upon “electronic discovery.”

What is “electronic discovery”? “Discovery” includes the exchange of information between parties in a lawsuit. “Electronic discovery” is the process of collecting, preparing, reviewing, and producing “electronically-stored information” in the context of a civil action.

What is electronically stored information (“ESI”)? The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure define ESI as information created, manipulated, communicated, stored, and best utilized in digital form, requiring the use of computer hardware and software. Because of the wide variety of computer systems currently in use, and the rapidity of technological change, courts often give an expansive definition of ESI which can include any type of information that is stored electronically, including emails, images, spreadsheets, “metadata,” PDF documents, databases, and other groupings of information.

Are printed copies of my emails sufficient? In litigation, emails are commonly produced as printouts or PDFs. However, courts may require the production of emails in their native electronic form to allow the other party to certify that the produced emails have not been altered. If the court finds that a party, anticipating litigation, intentionally deletes or destroys ESI, that party may be exposed to a claim that they have “spoliated” evidence. An opponent may even complain if a party fails to take affirmative steps to prevent information from being deleted or overridden as part of an automated process. For instance, this often occurs when a surveillance camera system “writes over” older video to create space for new video.

On June 27, 2025, in an Opinion authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the United States Supreme Court determined that “universal injunctions,” injunctions issued by district judges that apply nationwide, “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.” In Trump v. CASA, Inc., the Supreme Court, with a 6-3 vote, concluded that district courts do not have authority to issue universal injunctions which seek to prohibit the enforcement of a law or policy against anyone nationwide. The decision limits the relief afforded by the district courts in consolidated matters to only the parties in those actions.

By prohibiting the use of “universal injunctions” in federal courts, litigants already have started to utilize another procedure to seek the relief they seek – class actions. Class actions are a special procedure provided by both federal and state law that allows one or more class representatives to file suit and seek to represent the interests of other similarly situated individuals or companies. Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc., a single litigant could apply for a universal injunction through an individual action. Now that the Supreme Court has declared that process unavailable for application of an injunction nationwide, class actions may be the procedural process litigants attempt to use to achieve that same purpose. It remains to be seen whether class actions will be an effective way to achieve broader relief for individuals impacted by government policies.

References:

Trump v. CASA, Inc., --- S.Ct. ---, No. 24A884, 2025 WL 1773631 (U.S. June 27, 2025).