Opinion ID: 608853
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Refusal to Compel Production of Settlement Documents

Text: 29 In its brief on its cross appeal, defendant argues in a footnote that the district court's refusal to permit Cessna access to the settlement agreements relied upon by the court in its summary judgment holding is reversible error. 30 The defendant's argument is not clearly discernible. We will therefore first interpret it to be an attack on the court's pretrial denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment. We understand such an argument to be premised on defendant's contention that the amount of the setoffs exceeded any reasonable potential verdict. 31 Even if one assumes that summary judgment would be appropriate in such a case, the short answer to this contention is that we cannot find in the record any application for the production of the settlement documents before the argument and decision on the summary judgment motion. Thus, given the record, defendant cannot rely on any such refusal as the basis for holding that the court's ruling constituted error entitling it to a pretrial judgment. Nor is our conclusion changed because the court had in camera access to the settlement agreements. 32 Alternatively, if defendant's footnote can be read to attack the denial by the court of defendant's later formal pretrial motion for production of the settlement agreements, the answer is that had they been produced they would not, without more, have entitled defendant to summary judgment even assuming that the motion was timely. This is so because further evidentiary proceedings would have been necessary, at least with respect to the Falcon Jet settlement, before the court could possibly have determined that the settlement proceeds exceeded any potential verdict. 2 2] Thus, defendant did not show that it was entitled to pretrial judgment. 3