Redden v. Smith

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 30 MOTION to Quash Subpoena filed by Plaintiff Gary Redden, Jr. - For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to quash subpoena (#30) is DENIED. Because Lakeland is not a party to this case and is unable to protect its own confidentiality interests, disclosure of the settlement agreement shall be made under seal. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 10/2/2018. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
GARY REDDEN, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRANDON SMITH,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:17-cv-00139-SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to quash subpoena (#30).
Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition. (#31). Plaintiff did not file a reply. For the
reasons set forth below, plaintiff’s motion will be DENIED.
I.

BACKGROUND
The following facts are taken from plaintiff’s complaint and motion to quash. (#4,

#30).
On May 17, 2014, plaintiff was brought to the Pemiscot County Sheriff’s
Department for questioning regarding a house fire. Defendant, a Pemiscot County Deputy
Juvenile Officer, interviewed plaintiff—a minor at the time—in the presence of plaintiff’s
father. At some point, defendant detained plaintiff without his father’s consent and
contacted Lakeland Behavioral Health Systems (“Lakeland”) to arrange for plaintiff’s
transportation to Lakeland for mental health services. Plaintiff was confined at Lakeland
for 38 consecutive days. On June 25, 2014, the Pemiscot County Court ordered plaintiff
to be released from custody. On August 20, 2014, the Pemiscot County Court entered an
1

order “finding that the Juvenile Office failed to prove the allegations of the petition
beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore ordered the petition denied and dismissed.” (#4,
p. 4).
Apparently, plaintiff, his father, and Lakeland entered into a confidential
settlement agreement regarding plaintiff’s “unlawful” 38-day detention. That agreement,
which has not been provided to this Court either in full or in redacted form, purportedly
states in relevant part:
“[T]he [u]undersigned and their counsel agree that the underlying facts of
this claim, the terms of this settlement, and the amount of this settlement
shall be and remain confidential and that they will not publicize those terms
to the general public … All parties agree that this Confidential Release
shall not be used as precedent for any other claim, suit, cause or hearing.
Any attempt to use this Confidential Release as precedent for any other
cause shall be considered a material breach of the Confidentiality Release
Agreement and shall subject the breaching party to damages, and the nonbreaching party shall be entitled to seek all available remedies including but
not limited to injunctive relief.”
(#30, p.3-4).
Defendant, a non-party to the settlement agreement and its confidentiality
provisions, caused a subpoena to be issued to Lakeland on or about August 27, 2018,
seeking all settlement-related documents occurring between Lakeland and plaintiff since
June 30, 2014. (#30-1). Plaintiff argues defendant is not entitled to these documents
because of the above-referenced confidentiality provisions; accordingly, plaintiff moved
to quash the subpoena. Conversely, defendant argues the documents are relevant (a point
plaintiff does not refute) and that confidentiality, alone, does not prevent their production.
II.

ANALYSIS

2

The only point of contention between the parties is whether a confidentiality
provision bars the discovery of an otherwise relevant settlement agreement. Plaintiff
points to no law whatsoever for the proposition that a confidentiality provision can, in
itself, bar the production of otherwise discoverable information. To the contrary, there is
a myriad of case law favoring the opposition conclusion. It is, indeed, the general rule
that settlement agreements are discoverable notwithstanding a confidentiality provision.
See, e.g., State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Universal Health Group, Inc., 325 F.R.D.
602, 605 (E.D. Mich. 2016); Thermal Design, Inc. v. Guardian Bldg. Prods., Inc., 270
F.R.D. 437, 438 (E.D. Wis. 2010); Newby v. Enron Corp., 623 F.Supp.2d 798, 838 (S.D.
Tex. 2009); Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Tyco Int’l Ltd., 253 F.R.D.
521, 523 (C.D. Cal. 2008); DIRECTV, Inc. v. Puccinelli, 224 F.R.D. 677, 684-685 (D.
Kan. 2004). Accordingly, on this narrow issue, the Court will deny plaintiff’s motion.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to quash subpoena (#30) is
DENIED. Because Lakeland is not a party to this case and is unable to protect its own
confidentiality interests, disclosure of the settlement agreement shall be made under seal.
So ordered this 2nd day of October 2018.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3