The battle over a laptop computer and iPad device are still at the heart of a lawsuit filed by the City and Borough of Wrangell against former Wrangell Medical Center administrator Noel Rea and six former members of the WMC Board of Directors after a hearing showed attorneys for both sides debating the merits of a settlement conference in the matter.
A hearing held Dec. 6 in Wrangell’s First District Court seemed at first to be an opportunity for all sides and their attorneys – Rea, the six recalled board members, and the city – to wrap up what has been a months-long court case and expensive proposition for the parties involved. And while light might be at the end of the tunnel in the case, the question of whether the laptop computer previously used by Rea, along with an iPad currently in his possession, will be returned as part of a settlement are the final sticking points in the quarter-million dollar agreement.
According to the terms of the pending agreement, the settlement will require the return of $250,000 to the City and Borough of Wrangell and dismissal of the Borough’s lawsuit and Mr. Selle-Rea’s counterclaim entirely with prejudice, meaning the Borough and Wrangell Medical Center cannot seek further return of monies from Rea and the recalled board members and Rea cannot seek any further payments from the Wrangell Medical Center.
Blasco said that, although he has been traveling, he has attempted to reach out to attorneys on all sides in an effort to get the settlement moving along.
“We’ll agree to a settlement conference with Judge (Trevor) Stevens if your honor would make that request,” Blasco told Judge Carey. “I haven’t received any calls from Mr. Shoupe and Mr. Dawson so that’s where it’s at, I haven’t heard anything.”
Rea’s attorney, David Shoupe, is asking that the protocol agreement for the return of the electronic devices be a part of the final settlement – and stated that barring such an agreement, any finality to the proceedings would be off the table in a take-it-or-leave-it arrangement.
“I don’t have an objection to a settlement conference, but what I do have an objection to is the request that the settlement judge be able to enter an order on these issues,” Shoupe said. “If there is no settlement… in that circumstance, the back and forth on this protocol has the potential of costing the parties tens of thousands of dollars to search thousands upon thousands of emails on one of these devices.”
Shoupe then explained how an effort to data mine the laptop would cost Rea an exorbitant amount of money in litigation costs – which would force a return to trial rather than settlement.
“Mr. Rea is in a position now where that would greatly erode the value of this settlement to him,” Shoupe added. “From my point of view, this isn’t just the tail wagging the dog. It’s an integral issue. My client is not going to settle this case if we are called upon to pay tens of thousands of dollars so that the borough can sift through tens of thousands of emails. It’s not worth it to us.”
Judge Stevens is set to hear the settlement talks. A date has not yet been set, however, pending Stevens’ schedule in Anchorage.
After the case had gone off record, but before leaving the courtroom, Alaska Island Community Services physician Greg Salard turned to Rooney and asked him directly about why the Borough has not been more aggressive in seeking the return of the pair of electronic devices from Digital Securus and Rea.
“Why can’t we file theft charges and get the things back?” Salard asked. “I know you can’t answer that, but this is what is frustrating me. It’s the hospital’s computer. Why are we negotiating with somebody to return our property?”
Rooney declined to comment.
Reader Comments(0)