Simmons et al v. COA Inc et al
Filing
38
OPINION AND ORDER denying Philips 32 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew P Rodovich on 1/8/14. (mc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
TANISHA SIMMONS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH
AMERICA CORP.
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:12-cv-39
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the Motion to Compel Discovery [DE 32] filed on September
23, 2013. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
Background
The defendant, Philips Electronics North America Corporation, served a non-party
request for production of documents on Coaster Co. of America, Inc. on June 26, 2013, seeking
production of the settlement agreement the plaintiffs entered with Coaster. Defense counsel
contacted Coaster’s counsel on several occasions inquiring about the production of the
settlement agreement. Coaster’s counsel has refused to produce the settlement agreement
because it is confidential and irrelevant. Philips now moves the court to compel production of
the settlement document.
Discussion
“In the context of third party discovery, courts should be especially careful in protecting
1
the parties from excessive or oppressive discovery.” Moore v. PlasmaCare, Inc., 2012 WL
602623, *2 (S.D. Ind. Feb.23, 2012). See also Charles v. Quality Carriers, Inc., 2010 WL
396356, *1 (S.D. Ind. Jan.28, 2010). “Non-parties have a different set of expectations.
Accordingly, concern for the unwanted burden thrust upon non-parties is a factor entitled to
special weight in evaluating the balance of competing needs.” Charles, 2010 WL 396356 at *1
(quoting Cusumano v. Microsoft Corp., 162 F.3d 708, 717 (1st Cir. 1998)). When determining
whether to enforce a discovery request, the court must weigh the need for the information, the
breadth of the request, the time period the discovery covers, the particularity of the documents,
and the burden imposed. Charles, 2010 WL 396356 at *1.
Similarly, “courts are generally reluctant to order disclosure of negotiations or documents
related to a settlement agreement.” Davenport v. Indiana Masonic Home Foundation, 2003
WL 1888986, *2 (S.D. Ind. March 27, 2003) (citing Butta-Brinkman v. FCA Int'l, Ltd., 164
F.R.D. 475, 476-77 (N.D. Ill.1995) (holding defendant not required to turn over confidential
settlement agreements reached in other cases absent showing that plaintiff would be unable to
obtain the relevant information through other discovery); Cook v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 132
F.R.D. 548, 550 (E.D.Cal.1990) (denying plaintiffs-employees' motion to compel production of
material disclosed in settlement negotiations between employer and terminated employee who
plaintiffs claimed sexually harassed them)). This is because settlement serves an important role,
and compelling production of such documents may have a chilling effect on entering settlement
agreements. Davenport, 2003 WL 1888986 at *2; See also Information Technologies
International, Inc. v. ITI of North Florida, Inc., 2002 WL 356509, *2 (N.D. Ill. March 6,
2002). The party requesting the settlement information must show that the information is not
2
available by other means. Butta-Brinkman v. FCA International, Ltd., 164 F.R.D. 475, 476
(N.D. Ill. 1995).
Philips has not explained why it needs the information contained in the settlement
agreement, why the information may be relevant to its claim, or why the information it seeks is
not available by other means. Rather, its motion contains a boilerplate statement that the
information is relevant and likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Because
Philips has not demonstrated why the court should burden a non-party with producing a
confidential settlement document, nor has it satisfied its burden to show why the information is
necessary and not available by other means, the court DENIES Philips’ motion to compel.
ENTERED this 8th day of January, 2014
/s/ Andrew P. Rodovich
United States Magistrate Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?