Thomas L Pearson and the Pearson Family Members Foundation, The v. University of Chicago, The

Filing 121

OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; denying 103 Motion to Compel (tjc, Dpty Clk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
THE THOMAS L. PEARSON AND THE )
PEARSON FAMILY MEMBERS
)
FOUNDATION,
)
)
Plaintiff and Counterclaim )
Defendant,
)
)
v.
)
)
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO,
)
)
Defendant and Counter- )
Claimant.
)
)
AND
)
)
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO,
)
)
Counterclaimant and
)
Defendant,
)
)
v.
)
)
THE THOMAS L. PEARSON AND THE )
PEARSON FAMILY MEMBERS
)
FOUNDATION,
)
)
Counterclaim Defendant )
and Plaintiff,
)
)
THOMAS L. PEARSON,
)
)
Counterclaim Defendant. )

Case No. 18-CV-99-GKF-FHM

OPINION AND ORDER
The University of Chicago’s Sealed First Motion to Compel, [Dkt. 103], has
been fully briefed, [Dkts. 112, 117], and is ripe for decision. By its motion, Defendant
seeks an Order compelling Plaintiffs to produce documents sufficient to show
Plaintiffs’ financial capacity to make the payments required under the contract.
Defendant argues the

financial information is relevant to Defendant’s counterclaims, Plaintiffs’ affirmative
defenses to Defendant’s counterclaims, and a provision of the contract concerning
insolvency. Plaintiffs object to the motion arguing that the requested information is not
relevant to the claims or defenses in this breach of contract case. The court agrees with
Plaintiffs and therefore DENIES the motion.
While in no way minimizing the importance of this case to the parties, the dispute
is a straight forward breach of contract case focused on whether Defendant performed its
obligations under the contract. Plaintiffs claim Defendant did not perform its obligations
and therefore Plaintiffs do not have to make payments under the contract. Defendant
counterclaims that it did perform its obligations and therefore Plaintiffs must make the
payments. The issue on both Plaintiffs’ claim and Defendant’s counterclaim is whether
Defendant breached the contract.
Defendant’s argument that the financial information is relevant to test Plaintiffs’
defense to the counterclaim, i.e., that Defendant breached, by showing instead that
Plaintiffs did not have the financial ability to pay is unpersuasive. Although a Plaintiff’s
reason or motive for claiming a Defendant breached a contract may be relevant when
other issues, such as acquiescence and estoppel or bad faith and punitive damages are
present, no such issues are present in this case. Whether Plaintiffs had the ability to pay
is not relevant to whether Defendant breached.

Defendant’s actions, not Plaintiffs’

financial ability, is the issue on both Plaintiffs’ claim and Defendant’s counterclaim.
Defendant also argues that the financial information is relevant to Plaintiffs’
affirmative defenses of invalidity and unenforceability.

2

Again, the court disagrees.

Plaintiffs’ financial situation has no relevance to these issues which again focus on
Defendant’s conduct.
Finally, Defendant argues that the financial information is relevant to a provision in
the contract concerning insolvency. But Plaintiffs have not asserted that provision as a
reason for not making the payments. Plaintiffs’ financial ability to make the payments
under the contract is simply not relevant to the claims or defenses in the case.
Defendant’s First Motion to Compel [Dkt. 103], is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 2nd day of January, 2020.

3