Kalinauskas v. Wong

151 F.R.D. 363 (D. Nev. 1993)

What's Going On?

Defendant, sued by Plaintiff in a sexual harassment case, seeks a protective order to prevent Plaintiff from deposing a witness who settled a prior sexual harassment suit with Defendant pursuant to an agreement requiring confidentiality in matters regarding the settlement.

Who's Who?

Plaintiff     :

Lin T. Kalinauskas – former employee of Defendant Caesars Palace.

Defendant :

Desert Palace, Inc. d/b/a Caesars Palace Hotel & Casino – former employer of Plaintiff.

Facts:

Plaintiff Lin T. Kalinauskas filed suit against Caesars Palace Hotel & Casino, her former employer, for sexual harassment. Plaintiff seeks to depose Donna R. Thomas, a former employee of Defendant who filed a sexual harassment suit against Defendant that was settled without trial. The court sealed Thomas's settlement agreement pursuant to a stipulated agreement of the parties that barred Thomas from discussing any aspect of her employment with Defendant other than her job title and dates of employment. Defendant seeks a protective order to prevent Plaintiff from deposing Thomas.

Issue:

May a plaintiff depose a witness who has entered into a settlement agreement with the defendant binding the witness to confidentiality when the witness has factual information relevant to the plaintiff's case?

Decision:

Yes. This case presents a direct conflict between the crucial public interest of promoting the completion of litigation and the private interest of protecting the secrecy of settlements when desired by the settling parties. Confidential settlements deserve court protection because they benefit society, and the parties involved, by quickly resolving disputes; however, preventing the deposition of Donna Thomas could impede the discovery of relevant evidence and lead to wasteful efforts to generate discovery already in existence. Preventing the deposition of Donna Thomas would additionally condone the disturbing practice of buying the silence of a witness with a settlement agreement. Defendant argues that, in order to depose Thomas, Plaintiff must intervene in the Thomas case and seek a modification of the confidentiality order. Plaintiff, however, does not have the option of intervening because no live controversy exists in which Plaintiff can properly intervene. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff must show a compelling need in order to obtain discovery. This contention is true only in relation to the specific terms of the settlement agreement, such as the amount and conditions of the agreement. Defendant, however, should not be able to conceal basic facts of concern to Plaintiff and the general public. Plaintiff does not need to show a compelling need to obtain factual information surrounding Donna Thomas's case. The deposition of Thomas shall be allowed, but the substantive terms of her agreement with Defendant must not be disclosed. Defendant's motion for a protective order is granted in part, and denied in part.

Basic Rule:

A plaintiff may depose a witness who has entered into a settlement agreement with the defendant binding the witness to confidentiality when the witness has factual information relevant to the plaintiff's case.

Home  |  Briefs  |  Glossary  |  Contact Us