Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01937/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01937-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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 1 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RICHARD LYTEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

JANET SIMPSON, 

Defendant.

___________________________________

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-1937 JF (PVT)

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTION AND

REQUEST TO SEAL

On July 18, 2006, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Lytel (“Lytel”) and Defendant/CounterClaimant Janet Simpson’s (“Simpson”) appeared before Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull for

hearing of a discovery motion.1 At the beginning of the hearing, Defense counsel complained that

1) Lytel had violated “Federal Rule 406” by disclosing settlement negotiations; and 2) Lytel had filed

in the public record a portion of Simpson’s medical records.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, to the extent Defense counsel’s reference to “Federal Rule

406” was intended to be an objection to Lytel’s reference to settlement negotiations based on

Federal Rule of Evidence 408, that objection is OVERRULED. Rule 408 provides, in pertinent

Case 5:05-cv-01937-JF Document 332 Filed 07/21/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

part:

“Evidence of (1) furnishing or offering or promising to furnish, or (2)

accepting or offering or promising to accept, a valuable consideration

in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim which was

disputed as to either validity or amount, is not admissible to prove

liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount. Evidence of

conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations is likewise

not admissible . . . This rule also does not require exclusion when the

evidence is offered for another purpose . . . .”

Here, Lytel did not submit the information about Simpson’s settlement demand in order to

prove “liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount.” Lytel submitted the information as

support for his argument that the discovery at issue in the motion was warranted. Rule 408 does

not preclude evidence of settlement negotiations when offered for that purpose.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent Simpson’s complaint about the filing of

portions of her medical records in the public file was intended as a motion to seal, that motion is

GRANTED. Simpson shall promptly file a request to seal that references this order, and that

specifically identifies by docket number each such document to be filed under seal.

Dated: 7/21/06

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01937-JF Document 332 Filed 07/21/06 Page 2 of 2