Spriggs v. Phoenix Insurance Company, The
Filing
46
OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; granting in part and denying in part 39 Motion for Protective Order (crp, Dpty Clk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
LARRY SPRIGGS,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE PHOENIX INSURANCE
COMPANY d/b/a TRAVELERS
INSURANCE,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 13-CV-451-JED-FHM
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order, [Dkt. #39], is before the court for decision.
Defendant responded to the motion through its response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike
Scheduling Order and Stay Discovery. [Dkt. #41]. A hearing was held on June 4, 2014.
Plaintiff seeks a Protective Order to prevent the continuation of Plaintiff’s deposition
until the court rules on Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Discovery, and alternatively, if Plaintiff’s
deposition is ordered to go forward Plaintiff seeks an order precluding Defendant from
inquiring into the settlement of an unrelated lawsuit.
Plaintiff has affirmatively engaged in discovery in this case. Therefore, the court
hereby denies Plaintiff’s request for a Protective Order to prevent the continuation of
Plaintiff’s deposition. Defendant is permitted to complete Plaintiff’s deposition at a mutually
convenient time.
Plaintiff also requests a Protective Order to prevent Defendant from inquiring into
the settlement of an unrelated lawsuit. That lawsuit was pending in another court and was
settled pursuant to a Confidential Settlement Agreement between the parties. There is no
indication that the settlement resulted from a court ordered settlement process, or that the
court specifically held that the settlement was confidential. As a result, the Settlement
Agreement is not protected from discovery by a court order. And, Plaintiff does not asset
that it is privileged.
Plaintiff argues the court should respect the parties’ agreement that the settlement
be kept confidential and the settlement is not relevant to this case. There is a strong public
policy to encourage settlement which the court may consider when addressing the
relevance of the information to the case before the court.1 According to Defendant, the
settlement is relevant to show that the settlement provided Plaintiff with sufficient funds to
pay for his medical care which counters Plaintiff’s claim of financial hardship resulting from
Defendant’s alleged delay in payment. At the hearing Plaintiff represented that he will not
contend that he was unable to pay for his medical care after he received the settlement.
In light of Plaintiff’s position, the court finds that there is no need for Defendant to obtain
the settlement information.
However, Plaintiff’s attorneys are ordered to have the
settlement information readily available at trial for disclosure to Defendant should Plaintiff
assert a contrary position.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order, [Dkt. #39], is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part.
SO ORDERED this 6th day of June, 2014.
1
The court has considered the cases cited by Defendant at the hearing and finds that they are
factually distinguishable from the present case. In one case the settlement was a central issue as the
damages were in part based on the amount of the settlement, Trinity Mortgage Co., Inc. v. Dryer, 2010 WL
2365525 (N.D. Okla.), and in the other case the settlement was with one of the Defendants in the case who
would be a witness in the case and the settlement may have been relevant for impeachment for bias or
interest, Transportation Alliance Bank v. Arrow Trucking, Co., 2011 WL 4964034 (N.D. Okla.).
2
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?