In re University of Michigan

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · August 23, 2019 · No. No. 19-1636

Summary

The Sixth Circuit granted a writ of mandamus, holding that a district judge abused discretion by ordering the University of Michigan’s president to personally attend a settlement conference and by converting the conference from private to public. The court ruled that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and inherent judicial powers, a district court cannot compel a specific high-ranking state official to attend when a representative with full settlement authority is offered, nor can it open settlement proceedings to the media and public. The decision emphasizes that federal courts lack authority to act without a basis in Congress or the Constitution, and that such orders intrude on federalism principles.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Thapar; Rogers; Kethledge
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
August 23, 2019
Docket number
No. 19-1636
Procedural posture
Petition for a writ of mandamus from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
Standard of review
Mandamus is appropriate to remedy a clear abuse of discretion or judicial usurpation of power.
Precedential value
Published
Parties
University of Michigan; University of Michigan Board of Regents v. John Doe
Disposition
writ_granted

Topics

civil procedureappellate procedurestandard of reviewseparation of powerscomity

Practice areas

Civil ProcedureAppellate ProcedureMandamus

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by ordering a specific high-ranking state official (the University president) to attend a settlement conference in person.
  2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by ordering the settlement conference to be public.

Holdings

  1. The district judge abused his discretion because the order had no basis in law; Rule 16 allows requiring a representative with settlement authority, but the University offered one, and the judge insisted on the president. Additionally, federalism concerns weigh against such an order.
  2. The district judge abused his discretion because settlement conferences should be private to facilitate candid discussions; the Federal Rules do not authorize public settlement conferences for matters of public interest.

Key quotations

I want the President here. He will be here. (at 3)
the most that should be expected is access to a person who would have a major role in submitting a recommendation to the body or board with ultimate decision-making responsibility. (at 5-6)
neither force nor will but merely judgment (at 9)

Factual background

The district judge, frustrated with the University's perceived foot-dragging, scheduled a settlement conference and required the University's president to attend in person, refusing requests to allow the president to attend by telephone or send a delegate with full settlement authority. Two days before the conference, the district judge changed it from private to public, citing matters of public interest and media attention. The University offered a representative with full settlement authority, but the judge insisted on the president's presence.

Procedural history

John Doe sued the University of Michigan for due-process violations in a school disciplinary hearing. The case was remanded by the Sixth Circuit in Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575. On remand, the district judge ordered the University president to attend a settlement conference and made the conference public. The University filed a petition for writ of mandamus.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…