IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

SMARTMATIC USA CORP., 

SMARTMATIC INTERNATIONAL 

HOLDING B.V., and SGO 

CORPORATION LIMITED, 

Plaintiffs,

v. 

NEWSMAX MEDIA, INC., , 

Defendant.

)

) 

) 

) C.A. No.: N21C-11-028 EMD

) 

)

) 

) 

) 

)

) 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S CORRECTED MOTION TO COMPEL 

DISCOVERY OF SMARTMATIC’S SETTLEMENT WITH OANN

UPON CONSIDERATION of Defendant’s Corrected Motion to Compel Discovery of 

Smartmatic’s Settlement with OANN (the “Motion”) filed by Defendant Newsmax Media Inc. 

(“Newsmax”) on May 30, 2024; Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel 

Discovery of Smartmatic’s Settlement with OANN (the “Opposition”) filed by Plaintiffs 

Smartmatic USA Corp., Smartmatic International Holding B.V., and SGO Corporation Limited 

(collectively, “Smartmatic”) on June 4, 2024; the arguments made in the Motion and the 

Opposition; the case law cited in the Motion and the Opposition; the Court having determined 

that no hearing is necessary on the Motion or the Opposition; the Court finds as follows: 

1. The Motion seeks to compel production of all agreement(s) and other documents

“sufficient to show all terms” of the settlement (the “OANN Settlement”) between Smartmatic 

and One America News Network (“OANN”) that resolved Smartmatic’s defamation claims 

against OANN. Newsmax contends it has a “fundamental” right to discover the terms of the 

OANN Settlement. In addition, Newsmax maintains that the OANN Settlement is “critical” to 
2

Newsmax’s ability to fully defend against Smartmatic’s claims in this case. Finally, Newsmax 

claims that the OANN Settlement is “highly” relevant to offset issues. 

2. In the Opposition, Smartmatic makes two basic arguments against production. 

Smartmatic argues that any disclosure of the confidential OANN Settlement Agreement and 

related documents would go against the public interest in encouraging settlement. Smartmatic 

also argues that the Motion is premature.

3. Rule 28 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure provides that parties may 

obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged which is relevant to the subject matter 

involved in the pending action.1 A party may seek a motion to compel discovery, when, after 

making a request for inspection under Rule 34 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, 

the opposing party fails to permit inspection as requested.2 The Court has discretion to order the 

disclosure of information in the interests of justice based on the facts and circumstances of the 

case.3

4. In CNH Industrial America LLC v. The Travelers Indemnity Co.,

4

the Court 

addressed and rejected arguments similar to those made in the Motion. In reaching that 

decisions, the Court relied on S&R Associates, L.P. v. Shell Oil Co.5In S&R Associates, this 

Court held that confidential settlement agreements should be protected when possible.6 In S&R 

Associates, the plaintiff sued a number of distributors and manufacturers after its plumbing 

system failed.7 The plaintiff reached confidential settlement agreements with all defendants 

1 Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 28(a)(1).

2 Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 37(a)(2).

3 Showell v. Mountaire Farms, Inc., 2002 WL 31818512, at *1 (Del. Super. Nov. 18, 2002) (citing Williams v. Hall, 

176 A.2d 608, 617 (Del. Super. 1961)).

4 2015 WL 5157039, at *2 (Del. Super. Feb. 19, 2015).

5 1999 WL 744422 (Del. Super. July 28, 1999).

6

Id. at *1.

7

Id.
3

except Shell Oil.8 Shell Oil moved to compel production of settlement agreements, asserting that 

they were relevant to the issues of compensation and contribution among tortfeasors.9 The Court 

held that required disclosure of the settlement agreements was premature, and denied Shell Oil’s 

motion without prejudice.10 

5. The Court sees no reason to deviate from the well-settled law articulated CNH

and S&R Associates. Here, there are two major issues to be decided. First, whether Newsmax is 

liable to Smartmatic. Only if Newsmax is liable, will it then become necessary to determine the 

extent of the liability. These were the same issues addressed in CNH and S&R Associates. 

While the OANN Settlement Agreement between Smartmatic and OANN may eventually 

become relevant in computing the dollar amount of Newsmax’s liability, it is not relevant to 

determining whether Newsmax is in fact liable to Smartmatic. 

6. As noted above, the Court should, to the extent possible, protect the 

confidentiality of settlement agreements. Newsmax’s arguments do not convince the Court that 

the discovery of the terms of OANN Settlement Agreement at this time is necessary. 

Accordingly, compelling discovery of the confidential OANN Settlement Agreement now would 

be “premature.”

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 25, 2024

Wilmington, Delaware

/s/ Eric M. Davis

 Eric M. Davis, Judge

 

cc: File&ServeXpress

8

Id.

9

Id.

10 Id.