Opinion ID: 769936
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Discovery of Settlement Negotiations

Text: 20 Havird sought discovery of the settlement negotiations for two reasons: to challenge the fairness of the settlement and to challenge class counsel's request for attorney fees and costs. With regard to her challenge to the fairness of the settlement, we lack jurisdiction to consider approval of the settlement. Her discovery request for that purpose, therefore, is moot. Her discovery request as it pertains to the final award of attorney feesand costs, however, is not moot. As to that request, Havird argues the settlement negotiations would shed light upon whether class counsel's application for attorney fees and costs was excessive and should have been denied. 21 We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying this requested discovery. Settlement negotiations involve sensitive matters. See Mars Steel Corp. v. Continental Illinois Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 834 F.2d 677, 684 (7th Cir. 1987). We agree with the Seventh Circuit that discovery [of settlement negotiations] is proper only where the party seeking it lays a foundation by adducing from other sources evidence indicating that the settlement may be collusive. Id. Havird made no foundational showing of collusion. Her requested discovery of the settlement negotiations, therefore, was properly denied. 22