Convergence Aviation, Ltd. et al v. Dallas Airmotive, Inc. et al

Filing 315

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 5/9/13: Defendant's motion with respect to production of settlement documents is granted [dkt. 300]. (For further details see minute order). Mailed notice (vkd, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Susan E. Cox

CASE NUMBER

10 C 2021

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

5/9/2013

Convergence Aviation, Ltd., et al vs. Dallas Airmotive, Inc., et al

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Defendant’s motion with respect to production of settlement documents is granted [dkt. 300].

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
Defendant’s motion to dismiss was previously before this Court, at which time we mooted the motion
with the exception of the issue regarding whether certain settlement documents would be required to be produced
[dkt. 300]. The parties have now fully briefed the issue. We grant defendant’s request that plaintiffs turn over
materials from AXA and GAB Robins, the insurance companies to whom plaintiffs apparently made claims, and
with whom they eventually settled. Plaintiffs argue that under the collateral source rule, the settlement amounts
contained within this information may not be admissible at trial. Essentially, the principle is that a wrongdoer
will not be relieved of full responsibility for the wrongdoing, and the rule “operates to prevent the jury from
learning anything about collateral income.”1 To this point, we agree. Yet plaintiffs rely on this rule to argue
against production of these documents in discovery. But admissibility is not the test; instead we look at relevancy
of discovery in a broad context.2 Defendant explains that it is seeking this information not just for the amount
of the settlement agreement, but to review the insurance companies’ investigation in the occurrence, the analysis
of damages, and how they came to their ultimate determination regarding settlement. This information is certainly
relevant because, in discovery, relevance “encompasses ‘any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead
to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.’”3 And as we noted in open court, the
cases plaintiffs cited to support their collateral source argument all addressed this issue at the time of trial.
Therefore, even in those contexts, the information had been discoverable despite not being admissible at trial.
Defendant’s motion with respect to production of settlement documents is granted [dkt. 300]. Defendant
is also allowed to re-depose Orval Yarger, Alan Robinson, and William Isakson, for the limited purpose of asking
any additional questions related to these documents.
1.See Arthur v. Catour, 216 Ill.2d 72, 78 (2005)(noting the collateral source rule, which provides that “benefits
received by the injured party from a source wholly independent of, and collateral to, the tortfeasor will not diminish
damages otherwise recoverable from the tortfeasor.”).

2.Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1)(providing that “[r]elevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery
appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”).
10C2021 Convergence Aviation, Ltd., et al vs. Dallas Airmotive, Inc., et al

Page 1 of 2

3.See Maple Creek Commons Homeowners Ass’n v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., No. 08-475, 2012 WL
14022, *1 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 4, 2012)(citing Chavez v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 206 F.R.D 615, 619 (S.D. Ind. 2002).

10C2021 Convergence Aviation, Ltd., et al vs. Dallas Airmotive, Inc., et al

Page 2 of 2