Evidence Record

Order

ORDER Regarding Procedures for Follow-Up Settlement Conference

Type
document
Court
EDVA
Case
HII v. Cyberlux interpleader
Docket
3:25-cv-00483
Pages
4
Lines
102
SHA-256
7492a01f1528

DISTIL analysis

DISTIL Run
Profile
Standard
Version
1
Doc Type
Court Order - Settlement Conference Procedures
Total Nodes
24
Node Legend
Entity (ENT)
Event (EVT)
Claim (CLM)
Anchor (ANC)
Omission (OMI)
Tension (TEN)
Tell (TEL)
Inference (INF)
Hypothesis (HYP)
Stage 1
Index
Orientation · No nodes
Document Classification
Court Order - Settlement Conference Procedures U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark R. Colombell, Eastern District of Virginia Federal civil litigation - HII Mission Technologies Corp. v. Cyberlux Corp. 2026-04-22 (order date) through 2026-05-18 (conference date)
judicial_ordersettlement_proceduresmandatory_attendance_requirementsex_parte_communications_authorized
Analytical Frame
Procedural order establishing requirements for follow-up settlement conference
Analytical Summary
This order from U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark R. Colombell establishes detailed procedural requirements for a follow-up settlement conference scheduled for May 18, 2026 in the civil litigation between HII Mission Technologies Corp. and Cyberlux Corp. The order mandates that each party have a representative with full settlement authority present, with sanctions possible for non-compliance. Parties must submit confidential ex parte memoranda by May 8, 2026, detailing case developments and settlement negotiations. The order implements a hybrid conference format with local and lead counsel attending in person while client representatives and additional counsel attend remotely. Strict electronic device policies are enforced, requiring advance authorization requests for devices beyond cell phones and smart watches, with a ten-day advance submission requirement.
Key Points
  • Follow-up settlement conference scheduled for May 18, 2026 at 9:30 AM in chambers of Magistrate Judge Colombell
  • Each party must have representative with full settlement authority present; failure may result in sanctions
  • Hybrid format: local and lead counsel in person, client representatives and additional counsel remote
  • Ex parte memoranda (4-page limit) due May 8, 2026, will be kept confidential and destroyed upon case resolution
  • Electronic devices beyond cell phones/smart watches require advance authorization submitted at least 10 days before conference
  • Cell phones and smart watches must be placed in Yondr Pouches upon courthouse entry
Stage 2
Core — Entities, Events, Claims
13 nodes
ENT-001
Entity
HII Mission Technologies Corp.
Plaintiff in Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-00483 (JAG) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division
Page 1 — HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP., Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-00483 (JAG)
ENT-002
Entity
Cyberlux Corp.
Defendant (among others) in Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-00483 (JAG) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division
Page 1 — CYBERLUX CORP., et al., Defendants.
ENT-003
Entity
Magistrate Judge Mark R. Colombell
United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia who issued this order regarding settlement conference procedures and will preside over the settlement conference
Page 1, 3 — the parties and their counsel shall report to the chambers of Magistrate Judge Mark R. Colombell... Mark R. Colombell United States Magistrate Judge Richmond, Virginia Date: April 22, 2026
EVT-001
Event
Follow-up settlement conference scheduled
The Court scheduled a follow-up settlement conference for May 18, 2026 at 9:30 A.M. in the chambers of Magistrate Judge Mark R. Colombell
Page 1 — The Court has scheduled this case for a follow-up settlement conference on May 18, 2026 at 9:30 A.M. At that time, the parties and their counsel shall report to the chambers of Magistrate Judge Mark R. Colombell.
EVT-002
Event
Court order issued
Magistrate Judge Mark R. Colombell issued an order on April 22, 2026 establishing procedures for the follow-up settlement conference
Page 3 — Mark R. Colombell United States Magistrate Judge Richmond, Virginia Date: April 22, 2026
CLM-001
Claim
Mandatory party representative attendance with settlement authority
Each party must have a representative present with full authority to settle the action. Individual named parties must be present personally. Business entities must have a representative with full settlement authority present.
Page 1 — In addition to counsel, each party must have a representative present with the full authority to settle this action. If an individual is a named party, that individual must be present at the settlement conference. If a business entity (or entities) is/are involved, each entity must have a representative with full authority to settle the case on behalf of that entity present.
CLM-002
Claim
Sanctions authorized for non-compliance with attendance requirement
The failure of a party to have a representative present with full authority to settle the case may result in the imposition of sanctions upon that party
Page 1 — The failure of a party to have a representative present with full authority to settle the case may result in the imposition of sanctions upon that party.
CLM-003
Claim
Hybrid conference format attendance requirements
The settlement conference is designated as hybrid. Local counsel and lead counsel (if different individuals) shall attend in person. Client representatives and additional counsel shall attend via remote means.
Page 1 — Based on physical space and time limitations, the Court is designating this as a hybrid settlement conference. Local counsel and lead counsel (if different individuals) shall attend in person. Client representatives and additional counsel shall attend via remote means.
CLM-004
Claim
Ex parte memoranda submission requirement
Parties must submit brief ex parte memoranda to chambers via email no later than May 8, 2026, detailing case developments, position updates, and settlement negotiations, with a four-page limit
Page 2 — The parties shall submit brief ex parte memoranda to chambers via email no later than May 8, 2026, detailing case developments, position updates, and settlement negotiations. The Court is setting a page limit of four (4) pages for this submission.
CLM-005
Claim
Confidentiality and destruction of ex parte memoranda
The ex parte memorandum will be considered and maintained on a confidential basis until resolution of the case, when the memorandum will then be destroyed. The memorandum will not be exchanged with or discussed with opposing parties or counsel by the Court without prior permission.
Page 2 — The memorandum will be considered and maintained on a confidential basis until resolution of the case, when the memorandum will then be destroyed. The memorandum will not be exchanged (or its contents discussed) with opposing parties or counsel by the Court without prior permission.
CLM-006
Claim
Cell phone and smart watch Yondr Pouch requirement
Cellular phones and smart watches may be brought into the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Courthouse without prior authorization, but all visitors bringing such devices will be required to place them into a Yondr Pouch upon entering the Courthouse
Page 2 — cellular phones and smart watches may be brought into the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Courthouse without prior authorization of the Court. However, all visitors bringing cellular telephones or smart watches will be required to place their device(s) into a Yondr Pouch upon entering the Courthouse.
CLM-007
Claim
Prior authorization required for other electronic devices
All personal electronic devices other than cell phones and smart watches are prohibited from entry into the courthouse without prior authorization. Counsel must complete and submit a Request for Authorization form to bring such devices.
Page 2 — All personal electronic devices other than cell phones and smart watches are prohibited from entry into the courthouse without prior authorization. Should counsel or party representatives desire to bring any such devices to the settlement conference, counsel must complete the attached Request for Authorization
CLM-008
Claim
Ten-day advance submission requirement for electronic device authorization
Counsel must submit the electronic authorization request form directly to chambers when they submit their ex parte memoranda, no later than ten days before the date of the settlement conference. Forms received within 48 hours of the conference date will be denied.
Page 3 — Counsel are directed to complete and submit this form directly to chambers when they submit their ex parte memoranda, which are due no later than ten days before the date of the settlement conference... Counsel are advised that electronic authorization request forms received within forty-eight (48) hours of the settlement conference date will be denied.
Stage 3
In Situ — Quotations, Tells, Tensions, Questions
6 nodes
QUO-001
Quotation
Pro hac vice counsel must be accompanied by local counsel
In accordance with Local Rule 83.1(E)(1)(b), any attorney appearing pro hac vice must be accompanied by local counsel
Page 1 — In accordance with Local Rule 83.1(E)(1)(b), any attorney appearing pro hac vice must be accompanied by local counsel.
QUO-002
Quotation
Court's limited disclosure if matter not settled
If the matter is not settled, the Court will simply inform the designated trial judge that the matter was not resolved despite the parties' good faith efforts (provided that the parties comply with the conditions of this Order and act in good faith during the settlement conference)
Page 3 — If the matter is not settled, the Court will simply inform the designated trial judge that the matter was not resolved despite the parties' good faith efforts (provided that the parties comply with the conditions of this Order and act in good faith during the settlement conference).
TLL-001
Tell
Justification for hybrid format based on space and time constraints
The order explicitly reveals that physical space and time limitations are the basis for designating the settlement conference as hybrid rather than fully in-person
Page 1 — Based on physical space and time limitations, the Court is designating this as a hybrid settlement conference.
TEN-001
Tension
Strict timing requirements vs. pragmatic flexibility
The order imposes rigid deadlines (10-day advance submission for electronic devices, 48-hour cutoff for denial) while simultaneously acknowledging practical limitations (space constraints requiring hybrid format). This creates tension between procedural strictness and operational accommodation.
Page 1, 3 — Counsel are directed to complete and submit this form directly to chambers when they submit their ex parte memoranda, which are due no later than ten days before the date of the settlement conference... Counsel are advised that electronic authorization request forms received within forty-eight (48) hours of the settlement conference date will be denied... Based on physical space and time limitations, the Court is designating this as a hybrid settlement conference.
QST-001
Question
Nature of previous settlement conference
The order refers to a 'follow-up settlement conference,' implying at least one prior settlement conference occurred, but provides no details about that prior conference, its outcome, or what developments necessitate this follow-up session
Page 1 — The Court has scheduled this case for a follow-up settlement conference on May 18, 2026
QST-002
Question
Identity and number of additional defendants
The case caption lists 'CYBERLUX CORP., et al.' as defendants, indicating multiple defendants, but the order does not specify the identity or number of other defendants beyond Cyberlux Corp.
Page 1 — CYBERLUX CORP., et al., Defendants.
Stage 4
Interpretive — Inferences, Omissions, Patterns
5 nodes
INF-001
Inference
Settlement negotiations have progressed but remain unresolved
The scheduling of a 'follow-up' settlement conference, combined with the requirement for ex parte memoranda detailing 'case developments, position updates, and settlement negotiations,' suggests ongoing but incomplete settlement discussions that warrant judicial intervention to facilitate resolution
Page 1, 2 — The Court has scheduled this case for a follow-up settlement conference... The parties shall submit brief ex parte memoranda to chambers via email no later than May 8, 2026, detailing case developments, position updates, and settlement negotiations.
INF-002
Inference
High-stakes litigation requiring strict settlement facilitation controls
The combination of mandatory attendance with settlement authority, sanctions for non-compliance, confidential ex parte communications, and the Court's limited disclosure protocol suggests this is significant litigation where the Court is actively managing settlement prospects with careful procedural controls
Page 1, 2, 3 — The failure of a party to have a representative present with full authority to settle the case may result in the imposition of sanctions upon that party... The memorandum will be considered and maintained on a confidential basis until resolution of the case, when the memorandum will then be destroyed... If the matter is not settled, the Court will simply inform the designated trial judge that the matter was not resolved despite the parties' good faith efforts
INF-003
Inference
Security concerns drive electronic device restrictions
The strict electronic device policy requiring Yondr Pouches for phones/watches, advance authorization for other devices, and IT clearance procedures suggests heightened security concerns at the Richmond federal courthouse, possibly related to sensitive case information or broader facility security protocols
Page 2, 4 — all visitors bringing cellular telephones or smart watches will be required to place their device(s) into a Yondr Pouch upon entering the Courthouse... All personal electronic devices other than cell phones and smart watches are prohibited from entry into the courthouse without prior authorization... IT clearance must be completed, unless waived, before court appearance.
OMI-001
Omission
No disclosure of substantive case issues or claims
The order is entirely procedural and provides no information about the substantive legal claims, factual disputes, damages sought, or underlying controversy between HII Mission Technologies Corp. and Cyberlux Corp., despite being a follow-up settlement conference order
Page 1 — HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP., Plaintiff, V. CYBERLUX CORP., et al., Defendants. ORDER Regarding Procedures for Follow-Up Settlement Conference
OMI-002
Omission
No explanation of what constitutes 'full settlement authority'
While the order repeatedly requires party representatives with 'full authority to settle,' it does not define what constitutes such authority or provide guidance on how parties should document or demonstrate this authority to the Court
Page 1 — each party must have a representative present with the full authority to settle this action... each entity must have a representative with full authority to settle the case on behalf of that entity present.

Extracted text

4 pages · 5894 characters

Order — Formatted Extract

Type: document
Court: EDVA
Matter: HII v. Cyberlux interpleader
Docket: 3:25-cv-00483
Filing Header

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division

HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP., Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-00483 (JAG)

V. CYBERLUX CORP., et al., Defendants.

ORDER Regarding Procedures for Follow-Up Settlement Conference

The Court has scheduled this case for a follow-up settlement conference on May 18, 2026 at 9:30 A.M. At that time, the parties and their counsel shall report to the chambers of Magistrate Judge Mark R. Colombell. 1 The following shall govern the progress of the follow-up settlement conference:

Attendance of Parties and Counsel

1(a). In addition to counsel, each party must have a representative present with the full authority to settle this action. If an individual is a named party, that individual must be present at the settlement conference. If a business entity (or entities) is/are involved, each entity must have a representative with full authority to settle the case on behalf of that entity present.

1(b). The failure of a party to have a representative present with full authority to settle the case may result in the imposition of sanctions upon that party.

1(c). In accordance with Local Rule 83.1(E)(1)(b), any attorney appearing pro hac vice must be accompanied by local counsel.

1(d). Attendance is subject to the requirements set forth in footnote one.

1
Based on physical space and time limitations, the Court is designating this as a hybrid settlement conference. Local counsel and lead counsel (if different individuals) shall attend in person. Client representatives and additional counsel shall attend via remote means.
Ex Parte Submissions

2(a). The parties shall submit brief ex parte memoranda to chambers via email no later than May 8, 2026, detailing case developments, position updates, and settlement negotiations. The Court is setting a page limit of four (4) pages for this submission.

2(b). Due to the ex parte nature of the settlement memorandum, it should be delivered directly to the Court's chambers (either by e-mail or by hand delivery of a hard copy) and not filed with the Clerk's Office.

2(c). The memorandum will be considered and maintained on a confidential basis until resolution of the case, when the memorandum will then be destroyed.

2(d). The memorandum will not be exchanged (or its contents discussed) with opposing parties or counsel by the Court without prior permission.

Electronic Device Authorization

3(a). Consistent with the requirements of this Court's Electronic Devices Policy, cellular phones and smart watches may be brought into the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Courthouse without prior authorization of the Court. However, all visitors bringing cellular telephones or smart watches will be required to place their device(s) into a Yondr Pouch upon entering the Courthouse.

3(b). All personal electronic devices other than cell phones and smart watches are prohibited from entry into the courthouse without prior authorization. Should counsel or party representatives desire to bring any such devices to the settlement conference, counsel must complete the attached Request for Authorization "Request for Authorization to bring electronic device(s) into the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia."2

2
The form may also be accessed at the form can be accessed at https://www.vaeb.uscourts.gov/sites/vaeb/files/ElecDeviceRequestForm.pdf

3(c). Counsel are directed to complete and submit this form directly to chambers when they submit their ex parte memoranda, which are due no later than ten days before the date of the settlement conference. Please send the electronic authorization request form via email to chambers staff in PDF form without fillable fields. Do not file the electronic authorization request form.

3(d). Counsel are advised that electronic authorization request forms received within forty- eight (48) hours of the settlement conference date will be denied.

3(e). On the date of the settlement conference, counsel shall bring a physical copy of the authorization form, signed by Judge Colombell or his law clerk, for inspection by court security officers. 3

If the matter is not settled, the Court will simply inform the designated trial judge that the matter was not resolved despite the parties' good faith efforts (provided that the parties comply with the conditions of this Order and act in good faith during the settlement conference).

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party not represented by counsel.

It is so ORDERED.

/s/ MRC

Mark R. Colombell United States Magistrate Judge

Richmond, Virginia Date: April 22, 2026

3
Each individual named on the authorization form must bring his or her own physical copy of the authorization form for inspection by court security officers.

Request for Authorization to bring electronic device(s) into the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

The following named person(s) is authorized to bring the below described electronic device(s) into the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on the date(s) specified:

Authorized Person(s):

Electronic Device(s):

Purpose and Location Of Use:

Case No .:

Date(s) Authorized:

IT Clearance Waived: (Yes) (No)

APPROVED BY:

Date:

United States District/Magistrate/Bankruptcy Judge

A copy of this signed authorization must be presented upon entering the courthouse.

IT Clearance:

IT Staff Member

Date(s)

IT clearance must be completed, unless waived, before court appearance.

Original source file

No source file is attached yet. The record is ready for the PDF/media link when the attachment importer is connected.
File
ip-hii-edva-00483-doc-0191.pdf
Source UID
source:7492a01f15288da8249027cdfec75357113ec8566de970256fe54f4bd13fd67f
Full SHA-256
7492a01f15288da8249027cdfec75357113ec8566de970256fe54f4bd13fd67f