Kalinauskas v. Wong
Not Reported in F.Supp. (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A confidential settlement agreement from a prior lawsuit does not shield a settling party from being deposed by a plaintiff in a subsequent, similar lawsuit regarding the underlying facts of the prior case, although the substantive terms of the settlement itself may remain protected.
Facts:
- Lin T. Kalinauskas, a former employee, sued her employer, Desert Palace, Inc. (doing business as Caesars Palace Hotel & Casino), for sexual discrimination.
- Donna R. Thomas, another former Caesars employee, had previously filed a separate sexual harassment lawsuit against Caesars.
- Thomas's lawsuit was resolved through a confidential settlement agreement.
- This agreement contained a clause prohibiting Thomas from discussing any aspect of her employment at Caesars, other than her dates of employment and job title.
- The court in Thomas's case had sealed the settlement documents upon the parties' stipulation.
- In her own lawsuit, Kalinauskas sought to depose Thomas to gather information relevant to her sexual discrimination claim.
- Kalinauskas's case and Thomas's prior case involved at least one common supervisory employee at Caesars.
Procedural Posture:
- Lin T. Kalinauskas filed a lawsuit against Desert Palace, Inc. (Caesars) for sexual discrimination in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.
- During the discovery phase of the litigation, Kalinauskas sought to depose Donna R. Thomas.
- Caesars filed a Motion for a Protective Order to prevent the deposition of Thomas, arguing it was barred by a confidential settlement agreement from Thomas's prior lawsuit.
- The motion was submitted to a U.S. Magistrate Judge for a ruling.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a confidential settlement agreement in a prior lawsuit justify a protective order preventing a plaintiff in a subsequent, similar lawsuit from deposing the settling party about the underlying facts of the prior case?
Opinions:
Majority - Johnston, United States Magistrate Judge
No. A confidential settlement agreement does not justify a protective order to prevent a litigant in a similar, subsequent case from deposing a party about the underlying, non-privileged facts of the settled dispute. The court reasoned that the scope of discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) is exceptionally broad, encompassing any relevant matter that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. While public policy favors the settlement of disputes, it does not permit a party to 'buy the silence of a witness with a settlement agreement,' thereby concealing facts of public concern. Citing Wilk v. American Medical Association, the court held that preventing duplicative discovery efforts outweighs the interest in enforcing a confidentiality agreement against a non-party, unless the party seeking protection can demonstrate that the discovery would cause tangible prejudice to its substantial rights. Here, Caesars failed to show any prejudice beyond the breach of its confidentiality agreement. The court distinguished between the discoverable underlying facts of Thomas's employment and harassment claims and the non-discoverable substantive terms of the settlement agreement itself, which remain protected.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant limitation on the enforceability of confidential settlement agreements against third-party discovery. It prioritizes the principles of broad discovery and public access to information over private contractual rights when a pattern of alleged misconduct is at issue. The court's decision creates a clear distinction between the discoverable underlying facts of a case and the protected terms of the settlement, preventing defendants from using settlements to conceal evidence of wrongdoing from future plaintiffs. This precedent is crucial in areas like employment discrimination and product liability, where information from prior settled cases can be essential for subsequent litigants to prove their claims.
