Opinion
No. 02 Civ. 0477 (AGS) (HBP)
April 12, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter has been referred to me for general pretrial supervision including conducting an initial pretrial conference. Pursuant to that Order, I scheduled an initial pretrial conference in this matter for March 11, 2002 at 11:00 a.m. Written notice of the conference was sent to counsel for both sides.
Counsel for defendant timely appeared for the conference. Counsel for plaintiff did not, however, appear at 11:00 a.m. After waiting approximately one-half hour with no appearance or telephone call from plaintiffs' counsel, I released defendant's counsel. At approximately twelve noon, plaintiffs' counsel appeared at my Courtroom.
On the following day, March 12, 2002, I issued an Order to Show Cause directing plaintiffs' counsel to show cause why he should not be directed to reimburse defendant's counsel for the time spent traveling to Court and waiting on March 11, 2002. Plaintiffs' counsel has submitted a "certification" addressing this issue.
Plaintiffs' counsel's explanation for his failure to appear in a timely manner amounts to little more than a claim that he is unfamiliar with public transportation in Manhattan and the location of the Courthouse. Assuming the truth of these statements, they are not a sufficient excuse for counsel's failure to appear for the conference in a timely manner. Quite simply, if an attorney has an appearance scheduled in any courthouse at a specified date and time, it is incumbent upon the attorney to ascertain the location of the courthouse and to allocate the time necessary to travel there prior to the date and time set for the appearance. Tardiness of the nature exhibited here not only wastes the Court's time, it causes the adverse party to incur unnecessary and unjustifiable time charges. There is no reason in law, logic or common sense for defendant's expenses to be multiplied because plaintiffs' counsel could not find his way to Court.
Defendant's counsel has submitted an affidavit stating that his time charges for the failed March 11, 2002 conference total $262.50. I find this sum to be reasonable given the prevailing rates in the Southern District of New York.
Finally, I note that since the sanction here is based on the Court's inherent power "to manage [its] own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases," no finding of bad faith is necessary. United States v. Seltzer, 227 F.3d 36, 41 (2d Cir. 2000) (inner quotation marks and citations omitted).
Accordingly, no later than ten (10) days from the date of this Order, plaintiffs' counsel is directed to reimburse defendant's counsel the sum of $262.50. Since this sanction is the sole result of counsel's conduct, it is not to be charged to plaintiffs personally as a disbursement, cost or any other item of expense.