At a Case Management Conference, the Court asked the Plaintiffs in a long-running Class Action to explain their objections to going to a Judicial Dispute Resolution (“JDR”). The Plaintiffs provided an Affidavit stating, among other things, that they did not want to go to a JDR before getting proper disclosure as they believed the Defendant had something to hide.

The Court considered whether to direct the parties to participate in an alternate dispute resolution process (“ADR”) under Rule 4.16(4) and (5). The Court noted the benefits of ADR such as early settlement, and noted that there is no rule or best practice as to when is the best time for an ADR to occur. The Court also noted that the Rules emphasize party autonomy and party control over their litigation. As such, and given the Plaintiffs’ resistance to ADR, the Court declined to Order that a JDR take place.