Discovery Into Subjective Beliefs Of Individuals Settling Claims Not Allowed By Oklahoma Federal Court
The estate of an individual killed as a result of injuries sustained in a catastrophic railroad collision sued the railroad and the parties settled the case for $1 million. The settlement agreement released the railroad the deceased’s treating physician “from any and all claims and liabilities of any kind or nature, whether or not heretofore asserted or otherwise known, to the same extent that [the railroad] is released.” The railroad later brought a contribution claim against the treating physician in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. Following the magistrate judge’s rulings on certain discovery issues, the treating physician appealed to the district judge but the district judge affirmed those rulings last week. Several of the issues are worth discussion.
The treating physician argued that he should be allowed to conduct discovery into the subjective beliefs and motivations of the persons settling the underlying case on behalf of the railroad. Specifically, the treating physician wanted discovery of “why [the railroad] settled, how it arrived at what it paid, and how much it claims it overpaid and should be paid by the contribution defendant, and why.” The district judge concluded that the magistrate’s decision not to allow this discovery was reasonable. The district judge reasoned, “The Court has found not other cases that would allow discovery into the subjective considerations of the persons settling a prior lawsuit, nor does this Court find that depositions of the persons who negotiated a settlement would be relevant in a contribution case.” The district judge agreed with the magistrate that allowing the treating physician to obtain any written communications between the railroad and the estate, and drafts of the final settlement agreement between the settling parties, would afford fair notice of the considerations that went into the settlement.
The treating physician also objected to the magistrate’s ruling that discovery should not be permitted on the issue of whether the settlement between the estate and the railroad included some amount to settle the estate’s demand for punitive damages. The district judge agreed with the magistrate’s conclusion that such discovery would be irrelevant. Here, the district judge pointed to the discovery that the magistrate allowed, citing it more likely to be probative of whether the settlement included some amount for punitive damages than would depositions of the individuals who brokered the settlement.
The district judge also found the magistrate judge’s ruling that discovery concerning other accidents that occurred at this railroad crossing be limited to the preceding two years. The district judge did allow a potential loophole, however, in the event that the railroad’s expert witness relies on any evidence more than two years before the accident. In that situation, such evidence would have to be disclosed.
