Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02266/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02266-76/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:15 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ADVANCED MICROTHERM, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NORMAN WRIGHT MECHANICAL

EQUIP. CORP., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 04-2266 JW (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT F.W.

SPENCER & SON, INC.’S MOTION TO

COMPEL PLAINTIFF ADVANCED

MICROTHERM, INC. TO PRODUCE ALL

DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO REQUESTS

FOR PRODUCTION 8-15; AND DENYING

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

On December 30, 2009, Defendant F.W. Spencer & Son, Inc. (“Spencer”) filed a Motion to

Compel Plaintiff Advanced Microtherm, Inc. To Produce All Documents Responsive to Requests for

Production 8-15 and Request for Sanctions. Plaintiffs opposed the motion. Having reviewed the

papers submitted by the parties, the court finds it appropriate to issue this order without oral

argument. Based on the moving, opposition and reply papers, and the file herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Spencer’s motion to compel production of documents

responsive to Requests for Production 8-15 is GRANTED. Settlement agreements are not exempt

from discovery. See, e.g., Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Mediatek, Inc., 2007 WL

963975 (N.D.Cal. 2007). The case relied on by Plaintiff does not support a contrary result. See Folb

v. Motion Picture Industry Pension & Health Plans, 16 F.Supp.2d 1164, 1180 (C.D.Cal. 1998)

(finding “communications to the mediator and communications between parties during the

mediation” and “communications in preparation for and during the course of a mediation with a

Case 5:04-cv-02266-JW Document 1301 Filed 02/26/10 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

ORDER, page 2

neutral” to be protected under F.R.E. 501). The court in Folb drew a bright line between

communications with a mediator, and all other settlement negotiations and documents:

“ To protect settlement communications not related to mediation would invade Rule

408’s domain; only Congress is authorized to amend the scope of protection afforded

by Rule 408. Consequently, any post-mediation communications are protected only

by Rule 408’s limitations on admissibility.” Ibid.

The fact that Rule 408 permits settlement agreements to be admitted at trial for some

purposes (such as to show witness bias), belies Plaintiff’s claim that they are outside the scope of

discovery. Plaintiffs concede that the amounts of any settlements may be relevant after trial. 

However, there is no separate post-trial discovery period (other than for enforcement of judgment

after judgment is entered); discovery relevant to post-trial proceedings is included in the pre-trial

discovery period. Plaintiffs also concedes there may be relevant factual information, but argues it is

duplicative of information in the pleadings. The fact the information may repeat information

included in other documents is insufficient grounds to withhold discovery absent a protective order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Spencer’s motion is DENIED to the extent it seeks an

order compelling Plaintiff to organize previously produced documents to correspond to the pertinent

document requests. As Plaintiff notes, the requests themselves are primarily organized by project.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Spencer’s request for sanctions is DENIED. See CIVIL

L.R. 7-8(a).

Dated: 2/25/10

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:04-cv-02266-JW Document 1301 Filed 02/26/10 Page 2 of 2