Opinion
Jay L. Breakstone, Parker Waichman LLP, Port Washington, NY, Jay P. Dinan, Parker Waichman, LLP, Bonita Springs, FL, Manuel A. Pietrantoni, Marini Pietrantoni Muniz LLC, Richard Schell-Asad, Schell Law Office, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff.
Guillermo J. Ramos-Luina, San Juan, PR, Eric M. Quetglas-Jordan, Quetglas Law Office PSC, Guaynabo, PR, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BESOSA, District Judge.
Plaintiff Parker Waichman LLP ("Parker") and cross-plaintiff Eric J. Quetglas-Jordan d/b/a Quetglas Law Firm ("Quetglas") (collectively, "movants") move for an extension of the discovery deadline until November 30, 2018. (Docket Nos. 237 and 238.) Defendants John F. Nevares and Associates, P.S.C. ("Nevares"), and Salas LC ("Salas") (collectively, "defendants") opposed the movants’ request. (Docket No. 239.) For the reasons set forth below, the motion for an extension of discovery (Docket Nos. 237 and 238) is GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
At the September 28, 2018 status conference, the Court set the discovery deadline for October 31, 2018. (Docket No. 236.) According to the movants, "[d]uring the hearing held ... on September 28, 2018, [they] learned that in addition to this lawsuit, The Becnel Law Firm, LLC, ... had also filed a lawsuit against Nevares for the work and sums invested in [the CAPECO litigation]" ("Becnel litigation"). (Docket No. 237 at p. 1; see Docket No. 238 at p. 1.) The Becnel litigation "settled shortly after it was filed," and on October 29, 2018, Parker requested that the defendants "produce a copy of the settlement agreement executed by the parties and of the correspondence exchanged amongst them prior thereto." (Docket No. 237 at pp. 1-2.) The defendants rejected Parker’s request on relevancy grounds. Id. at p. 2.
On October 31, 2018, the movants requested to extend the discovery deadline until November 30, 2018. (Docket Nos. 237 and 238.) On the same day, Parker "served a short request for production of documents, seeking the correspondence exchanged between Nevares and Mr. Becnel’s firm prior to the settlement, that exchanged between Nevares and Salas related to said claim and a copy of the settlement agreement entered with Mr. Becnel’s firm." (Docket No. 237 at p. 4; see Docket No. 237, Ex. 1 at pp. 3-4.)
On October 31, 2018, Parker moved to extend the discovery deadline, Docket No. 237, and Quetglas moved to join Parker’s motion. (Docket No. 238.) The Court granted Quetglas’ motion to join Parker’s request for an extension. (Docket No. 244.)
Parker argues that the "relevancy of the information related to Mr. Becnel’s settlement cannot be clearer." (Docket No. 237 at p. 3.) According to Parker, "When Mr. Nevares was asked during his deposition if Mr. Becnel had been paid for his services in the CAPECO litigation, he indicated that he had been reimbursed for the sums invested in the case, but that he was waiting to receive his time sheets to pay him for his legal fees." Id. Parker explains, "One of the ways to measure the value of a professional’s services, absent a contract, is to evaluate the compensation awarded to a similarly situated professional, in a like matter." Id. Parker continues, "Since Mr. Becnel’s firm filed a lawsuit before this Court and a settlement was reached, it is evident that Mr. Nevares was able to calculate and value Mr. Becnel’s fees." Id. Parker "wishes to know how Mr. Becnel’s fees for the services rendered in the CAPECO litigation were calculated and compare said methodology to the one that it used to value its own quantum meruit claim." Id. Parker also asserts that "the settlement agreement between Nevares and Mr. Becnel’s firm and the correspondence exchanged in relation to said claim, may contain admissions or other information which may be relevant" to this case. (Docket No. 237 at pp. 3-4.)
Quetglas joins Parker’s arguments and maintains that "the parties enter[ed] into the understandings that Nevares and Salas are to produce certain additional discoveries and revisit certain objections" by October 31, 2018. (Docket No. 238 at p. 2.) "As of now, Quetglas has not yet received the referenced discovery responses." Id. Quetglas informed the defendants "that he is working on a revised Time Sheet but to finalize it he needs the deposition transcripts that they have agreed to produce or to put at his disposition for review for Quetglas to determine the time he devoted preparing for and attending those deposition[s]." Id. Quetglas also advised the defendants "that he still needs additional time to revise the Time Sheet [ ] in light of certain data that he recently received from Nevares’ time sheet and in light of certain mistakes that were contained in the unfinished one that Quetglas had sent before to [the defendants] that were brought to his attention during his [ ] deposition on [October 30, 2018]." Id.
II. DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) ("Rule 16(b)") states that "[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent." Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). The "good cause" standard requires "showing that the deadline cannot be reasonably met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension." O’Connell v. Hyatt Hotels of P.R., 357 F.3d 152, 154 (1st Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted). Other factors, such as prejudice to the opposing party, may be considered by the Court, but the "dominant criteria" is the diligence of the party seeking the extension. Comité Fiestas de la Calle San Sebastian, Inc. v. Cruz, 314 F.R.D. 23, 25 (D.P.R. 2016) (Besosa, J.) (citation omitted).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) ("Rule 26(b)") governs the scope of discovery. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b). According to Rule 26(b):
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party .... It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Id. The range of discovery is thus extremely broad. Bennett v. La Pere, 112 F.R.D. 136, 138 (D.R.I. 1986) (citing Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 26, 1946 Amendment ("[T]o the extent that the examination develops useful information, it functions successfully as an instrument of discovery, even if it produces no testimony directly admissible.") ). "If there is some legitimate relevance to the requested information and if no cognizable privilege attaches, it ought to be discoverable— at least in the absence of some countervailing consideration, e.g., that production would be disproportionately onerous or burdensome, that unfair prejudice would result, or the like." Id. "Rule 26(b) does not condition the availability of discovery upon the likely admissibility of the information sought." Id.
In the context of pretrial discovery, "relevance" is "broadly and liberally interpreted." Bennett, 112 F.R.D. at 138 (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947) ). "Mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation." Hickman, 329 U.S. at 507. "To that end, Rule 26(b) permits a party to inquire into anything ‘relevant’ to the subject matter of the litigation." Bennett, 112 F.R.D. at 138. Courts may even allow the discovery of information contained in and related to confidential settlement agreements. See Quílez-Velar v. Ox Bodies, Inc., No. 12-1780, 2014 WL 4385314, at *2 (D.P.R. Sept. 4, 2014) (Carreño-Coll, Mag. J.) (holding that "all settling parties shall produce to Plaintiffs copies of any settlement agreements"); Atchinson Casting Corp. v. Marsh, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 225, 227 (D. Mass. 2003) (holding that the "broad scope of the discovery rules" require the disclosure of the settlement agreement); cf. EnergyNorth Nat. Gas, Inc. v. Cent. Indem. Co., No. 97-94, 2000 WL 33667085, at *1 (D.N.H. Mar. 8, 2000) (holding that "[p]laintiffs shall disclose the amounts received in settlement from co-defendant insurers").
The information contained in and related to the defendants’ settlement agreement in the Becnel litigation is relevant to this case. As Parker correctly states, in this quantum meruit case, "[o]ne of the ways to measure the value of a professional’s services, absent a contract, is to evaluate the compensation awarded to a similarly situated professional, in a like matter." (Docket No. 237 at p. 3.) The Becnel litigation was "a lawsuit against Nevares for the work and sums invested in [the CAPECO litigation]," identical to this action. (Docket No. 237 at p. 1.) The Becnel Law Firm LLC involved similarly situated professionals, in the same CAPECO matter. Accordingly, the Court agrees that the defendants’ valuation of Becnel’s services is relevant to Parker’s claims.
The discovery deadline could not be "reasonably met despite the diligence" of the movants. See O’Connell, 357 F.3d at 154. The movants learned of the Becnel litigation one month before the discovery deadline, and the Becnel litigation settled even later. The movants diligently requested that the defendants "produce a copy of the settlement agreement executed by the parties and of the correspondence exchanged amongst them prior thereto," but the defendants rejected their request. (Docket No. 237 at pp. 1-2.) Quetglas also requested that the defendants provide the remaining discovery on several occasions to no avail. (Docket No. 238 at p. 1.) Consequently, the Court finds that there is good cause to extend the discovery deadline. See O’Connell, 357 F.3d at 154.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, Parker and Quetglas’ motion for an extension of discovery (Docket Nos. 237 and 238) is GRANTED. The Becnel litigation settlement agreement will be produced to plaintiffs no later than November 20, 2018. Without a prior order from this Court, the movants are prohibited from disclosing the contents of the defendants’ settlement agreement in the Becnel litigation or related documents to any non-party to this action. The Court extends the discovery deadline to December 7, 2018. The defendants must complete Quetglas’ outstanding discovery requests by November 20, 2018.
IT IS SO ORDERED.