Hon. Wayne D. Brazil (Ret.) is fully engaged as a neutral at JAMS, after earning a national and international reputation as one of the most significant innovators and leaders in the field of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). He is an expert in crafting procedures to meet the needs of individual cases – and in finding new directions when movement toward settlement seems to stall.
Judge Brazil spent 25 years as a magistrate judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. He exercised the full range of judicial responsibilities, presiding over civil and criminal trials, managing the pretrial development of civil cases, hearing substantive and procedural motions, and ruling on fee disputes. His extensive work as a settlement judge and on complex discovery matters earned him national recognition and was rewarded when the Chief Justice of the United States appointed him to the committees that write the federal rules of civil procedure and evidence. He also led the teams that designed and implemented the Court’s multi-faceted ADR program, then he served as the Court’s first ADR Magistrate Judge, a position he occupied for more than 15 years.
Judge Brazil hosted more than 2,000 settlement conferences in cases across the full spectrum of the court’s jurisdiction, but most commonly in employment, civil rights, intellectual property, business contracts, insurance, and tort matters.
In the fall of 2009, Judge Brazil joined the faculty at Berkeley Law (Boalt Hall) as its inaugural “Professor from Practice.” His teaching has centered on ADR and professional skills.
Judge Brazil’s approach to mediation features energetic engagement and tenacity. He encourages and participates actively in sophisticated analysis of law and evidence. He is respectful of all participants and takes special care to manage the process to maximize the likelihood that the parties will identify accurately the outcome that best serves everyone’s interests.
ADR Experience and Qualifications
- Served 25 years as a Federal Magistrate Judge, presiding over trials and evidentiary hearings, hearing a full range of motions, managing discovery, and hosting settlement conferences in thousands of cases.
- Judge Brazil oversaw the design and implementation of the Northern District’s multi-faceted ADR program and served as the Court’s first ADR Magistrate Judge for more than 15 years. The Northern District’s ADR program is acknowledged widely to be the most comprehensive and sophisticated in the country.
- In 2009, the Dispute Resolution Section of the ABA conferred its highest award on Judge Brazil. A decade earlier the New York based International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) honored him with its Lifetime Achievement Award.
- Member of the 9th Circuit’s ADR Committee for 12 years.
- Serves on the Editorial Board of the ABA’s Dispute Resolution Magazine.
- In addition to scores of published opinions, Judge Brazil has written more than 30 journal articles and three books, most focusing on issues related to court provision of ADR services, settlement, the use of special masters, and the system of civil discovery.
- Judge Brazil served the Judicial Conference of the United States as a member of the committees on Civil Rules and on Evidence, and as reporter for the Conference’s Special Committee on the Civil Justice Reform Act.
- Judge Brazil has trained thousands of judges and lawyers from all over the world in mediation, early neutral evaluation, court-sponsored arbitration, and case management – fields in which his publications have earned numerous awards.
Representative Matters
Employment
- Thomas v. T.D. Ameritrade, class action re overtime and benefits; approved class-wide settlement
Civil Rights
- King v. City of Oakland, fatal shooting of suspect by police; hosted settlement negotiations that yielded seven-figure settlement
- Williams v. City of Clayton, race discrimination allegations against police officers; tried twice; jury verdict
- Robertson v. City & County of San Francisco, allegations of police misconduct; managed case from filing through pretrial
- Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653; principles informing and scope of “official information” privilege
Intellectual Property
- Highfields Capital Management v. Doe, 385 F.Supp.2d 969; dispute over access to information that would identify persons who posted allegedly defamatory comments on internet message board
- Sharper Image Corp. v. Honeywell International, Inc., 222 F.R.D. 621; scope of waiver of attorney-client privilege as result of asserting advice of counsel defense in patent case
- Intermedics v. Ventritex, multiple reported opinions, e.g., 775 F.Supp. 1258; alleged theft of trade secrets re micro-circuitry for implantable defibrilators; month-long jury trial to judgment
Insurance
- Bernstein v. Travelers Ins., Inc., 447 F. Supp.2d 1100; relevance of carrier’s reserves to issues of bad faith
- Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Homestead Land Development Corp., 145 F.R.D. 523; dispute over fees in complex coverage litigation re slander claims
Business and Contract Disputes
- Dallas Corp. v. Ido Corp. and BART; court trial over responsibility for revamping BART fleet; multi-million dollar judgment, after which case settled
Product Liability/Torts
- Skaggs. v. Uwatec, Inc., allegations of known defects in deep water diving apparatus; managed discovery and ruled on motions in contentious case
- Stovall v. Channel Star Excursions, 1989 WL 162322; ruling re whether plaintiff qualified as a “seaman” for purposes of Jones Act
Environmental Law
- Humbolt Baykeeper v. Union Pacific Railroad, 244 F.R.D. 560; ruling re kinds of discovery reasonably necessary to assess scope and sources of contamination of real property
ERISA
- Bovey v. Informal Plan for Retired Officers of Teamsters; managed case development and resolved discovery disputes
ADA
- Millard v. Burger King, et. al., access case; managed aspects of pretrial and hosted successful settlement negotiations
Civil Discovery/Special Master/Discovery Referee
- In re Convergent Technologies Securities Litigation, 108 F.R.D. 328; applied “proportionality” requirement to discovery disputes in contentious securities class action
- United States v. Chevron Texaco Corp., 241 F.Supp.2d 1065; documents protected from discovery by IRS in tax case
- Jumpsport, Inc. v. Jumpking, Inc., 213 F.R.D. 329; limits on reach of work product protection