Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02373/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02373-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE GOMEZ,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv2373 L (MDD)

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR

DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY

DISPUTE RE: DEPOSITION

QUESTIONS OF PLAINTIFF

[DOC. NO. 40]

v.

ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY

OF LOS ANGELES, LLC,

Defendant.

Before the Court is the joint motion of the parties, filed December 9, 2011, for the Court to

rule on a discovery dispute that arise during the deposition of Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 40). The dispute

involves eleven electronic mails exchanged between Plaintiff and employees of Defendant shortly

after Plaintiff left Defendant’s employ. Counsel for Plaintiff refused to allow Plaintiff to answer

when Plaintiff was asked to authenticate the emails. Plaintiff argues that the emails are privileged

settlement discussions under Fed.R.Ev. 408. Defendant argues that there is no settlement

discussion privilege and that Rule 408 is a rule governing admissibility and not discovery. 

By its terms, Rule 408 governs only the admissibility of certain evidence that derives from

settlement discussions. Rule 408(a) provides, in part:

Evidence of the following is not admissible on behalf of any party,

when offered to prove liability for, invalidity of, or amount of a

- 1 - 10cv2373 L (MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-02373-L-MDD Document 44 Filed 12/14/11 Page 1 of 3
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

claim that was disputed as to validity or amount, or to impeach

through a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction:

(1) furnishing or offering or promising to furnish - or

accepting or offering or promising to accept - a

valuable consideration in compromising or attempting

to compromise the claim; and,

(2) conduct or statements made in compromise

negotiations regarding the claim . . . .

As with most rules, exceptions are provided which do allow for the admissibility of such evidence

if not offered for a purpose prohibited by subsection (a). See Rule 408(b). Evidence of otherwise

prohibited settlement discussions may be admitted, for example, to prove a witness’ bias or

prejudice or to negate a contention of undue delay. Id.

Rule 408, then, only implicates discovery to the extent that discovery must be relevant -

relevance being defined as “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Inasmuch as Rule 408 does not provide an absolute bar to the admissibility

of evidence derived from settlement discussions, this Court finds that it does not provide for a

“settlement negotiation privilege” as suggested by Plaintiff.

Nevertheless, courts have struggled with issues of discovery of settlement negotiations. In

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company v. Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F.3d 976 (6th Cir. 2003), the

court of appeals recognized a settlement negotiation privilege, at least as against third parties

stating:

Parties are unlikely to propose the types of compromises that most

effectively lead to settlement unless they are confident that their

proposed solutions cannot be used on cross examination, under the

ruse of “impeachment evidence,” by some future third party.

Id. at 980 (emphasis added). Similarly, Cook v. Yellow Freight System, Inc., 132 F.R.D. 548, 554

(E.D.Cal. 1990), relied upon by Plaintiff, declined to order defendant to produce settlement

- 2 - 10cv2373 L (MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-02373-L-MDD Document 44 Filed 12/14/11 Page 2 of 3
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

communications between the defendant and a third party. 

More recently, on the other hand, discovery was allowed into communications with third

parties which communications were characterized as settlement negotiations. In Phoenix

Solutions, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 254 F.R.D. 568, 583-584 (N.D. Cal. 2008), the court

declined to find that Rule 408 provided a discovery bar. 

In the instant case, the communications at issue were between this Plaintiff and this

Defendant. Moreover, Defendant has the communications. Thus far, Plaintiff has been asked only

to authenticate the communications. This Court finds that Rule 408 does not provide a general bar

prohibiting Defendant from questioning Plaintiff regarding the communications between them. 

Nor does the Court find any basis to apply any other “settlement negotiation privilege” in the

context of this case. Whether there are questions that may be asked that justify a refusal to answer

on some grounds is not before the Court today. And, whether the answers given to the questions

are admissible will be a question for another day before another judge. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff must answer questions posed regarding the eleven emails unless the

answer calls for otherwise privileged information. 

IT IS SO ORDERED:

DATED: December 14, 2011 

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 3 - 10cv2373 L (MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-02373-L-MDD Document 44 Filed 12/14/11 Page 3 of 3