Jo Ann Howard & Associates, P.C. v. Cassity
2014 WL 6607067
E.D. Mo.2014Background
- Defendant National City moved to compel Plaintiffs to produce documents and communications concerning final or potential settlements with current or former defendants.
- Plaintiffs produced fourteen executed settlement agreements but withheld settlement communications, asserting they merged into agreements and disclosure would chill negotiations.
- National City argued Rule 408 governs admissibility not discovery scope, and settlement discussions are discoverable to show witness bias/prejudice and may be admissible for non-liability purposes.
- The parties exchanged letters; mediation is ongoing for some parties and some mediations included nondisclosure agreements signed by National City.
- The court reviewed competing case law showing split results on discoverability of settlement communications and found no definitive rule applicable to all cases.
- With trial approaching and dispositive motions due, the court found National City’s request overbroad and burdensome but ordered production of draft agreements that are not finally executed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs must produce settlement communications (not just final agreements) | Communications merged into final agreements; disclosure would chill settlements and plaintiff asserted a heightened standard for such discovery | Ordinary discovery rules permit seeking settlement communications; Rule 408 limits admissibility but not discoverability; communications may show bias/prejudice | Request denied in part: Plaintiffs must produce drafted but unsigned agreements; other settlement communications denied as overbroad and likely to chill negotiations, especially given mediation nondisclosure agreements and proximity to trial |
Key Cases Cited
- In re MSTG, Inc., 675 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (found settlement negotiations discoverable regarding royalties and damages)
- United States v. Dish Network, LLC, 943 F. Supp. 2d 891 (D. Ill. 2013) (required unsealing of documents reflecting settlement negotiations)
- In re Subpoena Issued to CFTC, 370 F. Supp. 2d 201 (D.D.C. 2005) (ordered production of settlement documents where disclosure would not chill settlement and served public investigatory interests)
- White v. Kenneth Warren & Son, Ltd., 203 F.R.D. 364 (N.D. Ill. 2001) (discussed the merger doctrine treating negotiations as merged into final agreement)
- Triax Co. v. United States, 11 Cl. Ct. 130 (Cl. Ct. 1986) (addressed discoverability of settlement-related materials)