Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01164/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01164-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Denial of Overtime Compensation

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

cal 

1 08cv1164

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN KING; PATRICK SOVACOOL;

REX MAXWELL, individually and as private

attorney generals in the interests of the

general public,

Plaintiff,

v.

S.A. THOMPSON, INC., a California

corporation dba ROTO-ROOTER SEWER &

DRAIN CLEANING SERVICE; STANLEY

A. THOMPSON; LINDA A. BLACK; and

DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.08cv1164 L (AJB)

ORDER 

Defendants’ contacted the Court regarding Plaintiffs’ counsel’s disclosure of confidential

settlement negotiations to a third party, Roto-Rooter, Inc., and requested that the Court instruct the third

party that they are not to use the confidential information disclosed to them in any way and requesting

the Court sanction Plaintiffs’ attorney for the disclosure in the amount of $750.00. 

The confidential information was a settlement position of defendant S.A. Thompson, Inc.

communicated in a letter by defense counsel and dated October 2, 2008. The letter was appropriately

marked as “Confidential.” No information from the Court’s Early Neutral Evaluation process was

disseminated. Had information from the ENE process been disseminated, the Court would not hesitate

for a moment to significantly sanction plaintiff’s counsel for violation of Court rules and orders. 

Case 3:08-cv-01164-L-AJB Document 19 Filed 12/18/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\CASES\2 Orders to be filed\08cv1164.King.Order.re.discl.confid.settle.wpd 2 08cv1164

While the Court finds Plaintiffs’ counsel’s actions both deplorable and unprofessional, neither

the Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit have recognized a blanket settlement privilege as a matter of

federal common law. There is, however, a strong public interest in favor of maintaining the confidential

nature of settlement negotiations, because without confidentiality, the effectiveness of settlement

negotiations would be compromised. 

The confidentiality of settlement negotiations is paramount. Parties must feel uninhibited and

free to propose compromises that would otherwise weaken their legal position. This is true whether

settlement negotiations are conducted by the court or informally by and between the parties. Without

confidentiality, parties would more often than not, forego settlement negotiations and proceed to trial,

thereby weakening the settlement process and jeopardizing the judicial efficiency it fosters.

An expectation of confidentiality is what forms the essential basis of the pro-settlement policies

underlying Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Plaintiffs’ counsel betrayed this expectation of

confidentiality by disclosing confidential settlement negotiations to third party Roto-Rooter Group, Inc.

without Defendants’ knowledge or consent. As such, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiffs to notify

third party Roto-Rooter, Inc. of the confidential nature of the settlement information disclosed to them. 

Plaintiffs and third party Roto-Rooter, Inc. are prohibited from using, or in any way disseminating, the

settlement negotiations that were improperly disclosed by Plaintiffs’ counsel. Defendants’ request for

sanctions is DENIED, however, Plaintiffs’ counsel is warned that this type of subversive conduct is

unprofessional and damaging to settlement negotiations and will not be tolerated by this Court. If this

happens again, Plaintiff’s counsel will be referred to the Court’s Disciplinary Committee. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 17, 2008

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:08-cv-01164-L-AJB Document 19 Filed 12/18/08 Page 2 of 2