Robinson v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 3:12-cv-00981

Robinson sues Quicken Loans, Inc. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. alleging a joint venture to push a high-interest home equity loan.
In 2001, the HELOC Agreement was formed allowing Quicken to originate loans for Wells Fargo.
Robinson obtained a 2003 loan through Quicken under the HELOC program.
In June 2008 Wells Fargo sued Quicken for breach, asserting misrepresentations and seeking loan repurchases totaling about $4,047,000.
Quicken counterclaimed that Wells Fargo created a stated-income program and assumed risk for profits; Wells Fargo allegedly demanded repurchases when values fell.
After four months of litigation, the settlement was reached and the case dismissed on December 3, 2008; Robinson later sought production of the confidential settlement documents.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the settlement documents are discoverable.	Plaintiff seeks documents to show joint venture and potential evidence affecting liability allocation.	Settlement papers do not illuminate joint venture or liability and are not relevant.	Denied; settlement documents are not relevant to plaintiff's claims or defenses.
Whether the settlement agreement could illuminate apportionment of liability.	Agreement may reveal who drove the defendants' business dealings.	Plaintiff's own pleadings and HELOC docs suffice; settlement would not aid apportionment.	Denied; document not helpful for apportionment given joint and several liability.
Whether the settlement could show willfulness or unconscionability.	Settlement could reveal willfulness/unconscionability and impeachment value.	Robinson's loan was not central to 2008 litigation; no evidence in agreement on those issues.	Denied; nothing in the settlement relates to willfulness or unconscionability or impeachment.
Whether the settlement is admissible evidence or should be produced under broad discovery.	Discovery is broad; settlement should be produced.	Discovery limited to claims and defenses; no need to produce settlement.	Denied; relevance is limited to the case and the settlement does not prove or affect the issues.

Short v. Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A., 401 F. Supp. 2d 549 (S.D. W. Va. 2005) (joint venture liability and apportionment considerations for discovery)