Many legal professionals may raise an eyebrow at the phrase ‘Motion to Compel Lunch.’ This may seem like a joke intended to clog up courtroom dockets or a penalty tied to an unusual, specific case. Such an assumption, however, would overlook this peculiar motion arising in Arizona, which grapples with an essential procedural matter, albeit in an unorthodox manner.
Above the Law reports that a party’s opposing counsel has ceased responding to emails and avoids taking calls, effectively stalling the case. They’re refusing to partake in the “meet and confer” process, a necessary pre-requisite to any filing, leading to the unusual request for the court to mandate a lunch meeting between the lawyers.
The curious choice of “lunch” as a resolution brings historical precedence to mind. In the 2006 case of Physicians Choice of Ariz., Inc. v. Miller, the plaintiff’s counsel wanted to discuss a settlement, but the defense lawyers refused to respond. The plaintiff’s lawyer requested a lunch meeting, and the court, led by Hon. Pendleton Gaines, granted this unusual form of remedy. The court order stated:
‘The Court has rarely seen a motion with more merit. The motion will be granted.
The Court has searched in vain in the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure and cases, as well as the leading treatises on federal and Arizona procedure, to find specific support for Plaintiff’s motion. Finding none, the Court concludes that motions of this type are so clearly within the inherent powers of the Court and have been so routinely granted that they are non- controversial and require no precedential support.’
Interestingly, the counsel also requested the waiver of meet and confer rules for the duration of the case as an alternate solution. Instead of promising to confer in good faith, which would be the expected response, a full briefing of this motion has occurred, with the reply brief submitted earlier this week.
Just goes to show, some attorneys would do anything to avoid a lunch date.