As I had suggested in my last article in which I noted that although a second mediation had been ordered, no date had been set, an Order has come from Magistrate Judge Zimmerman setting the mediation for July 30, 2009. This Order is a bit more detailed than I expected, with the following statements being of particular interest:

It is the responsibility of counsel to ensure that whatever discovery is needed for all sides to evaluate the case for settlement purposes is completed by the date of the settlement conference.

Does this mean that someone who can do more than answer “I don’t know” more than 80 times when asked financial questions about Psystar will give a 30(b)(6) deposition within the next several weeks? Will those elusive email attachments be printed and produced to Apple?

Any party who is not a natural person shall be represented by the person or persons not directly involved in the events which gave rise to the litigation but with full authority to negotiate a settlement.

This may be common in California, but I have never seen such a stipulation in mediation orders on cases that I have worked on as a legal assistant. This means that although Rudy Pedraza may attend (as he certainly will), he cannot be the person at the conference who has the authority to settle the case. This is somewhat illusory since whatever authority any other designated person is given will have been given by Rudy, but I suspect the reason for this provision is to have such authority given outside of the mediation itself which can get highly emotional. This way, the amount of potential settlement is decided in a more calm state of mind.