Bottaro v. Hatton Associates

80 Citing cases

  1. Bennett v. La Pere

    112 F.R.D. 136 (D.R.I. 1986)   Cited 53 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding Bottaro "out of kilter with the spirit and philosophy of the Federal Rules" in its reliance on Federal Rule of Evidence 408, which addresses admissibility and not discoverability, and its misconception of the public policy considerations underlying Rule 408, in that "[n]o discouragement [of settlement] attends discoverability anent completed compromises"

    Having concluded that the settlement materials are relevant in the discovery sense, the court turns to a consideration of the existence vel non of any considerations which might militate against disclosure. At the outset, the court flatly rejects the plaintiffs' contention, drawn from Bottaro v. Hatton Associates, 96 F.R.D. 158 (E.D.N.Y.1982), that the movant has the burden of making " some particularized showing of a likelihood that admissible evidence will be generated by the dissemination of the terms of a settlement agreement." Id.

  2. POLSTON v. ELI LILLY COMPANY

    C/A No.: 3:08-3639 (D.S.C. Jul. 23, 2010)   Cited 16 times
    Declining to adopt Bottaro standard; observing, "The Fourth Circuit has never recognized a settlement privilege or required a particularized showing in the context of a subpoena for confidential settlement documents. Nor can the court find any statute or rule excepting a confidential settlement agreement from Rule 26(b)."

    The court notes that a variety of courts have recognized a "settlement privilege," see Goodyear Tire Rubber Co. v. Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F.3d 976 (6th Cir. 2003) ("[W]e believe a settlement privilege serves a sufficiently important public interest, and therefore should be recognized.");Olin Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 603 F. Supp. 445, 449-50 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (same), or required a "particularized showing that admissible evidence will be generated" prior to allowing the discovery of a confidential settlement agreement, see Bottaro v. Hatton Assoc., 96 F.R.D. 158 (E.D.N.Y. 1982). Many have not.

  3. Vardon Golf Co., Inc. v. BBMG Golf Ltd.

    156 F.R.D. 641 (N.D. Ill. 1994)   Cited 63 times
    In Vardon Golf Co. v. BBMG Golf Ltd., 156 F.R.D. 641, 650-51 (N.D.Ill.1994), the court concluded that the Bottaro standard overstated the nature of the proponent's burden.

    Courts considering the issue have divided on whether it is the burden of the proponent or opponent of discovery to establish that the evidence sought is reasonably (or not reasonably) calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Those courts placing the burden on the proponent of discovery follow Bottaro v. Hatton Associates, 96 F.R.D. 158 (E.D.N.Y.1982). Courts placing the burden on the opponent of discovery to show that the evidence is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence follow Bennett v. LaPere, 112 F.R.D. 136 (D.R.I.1986).

  4. Tanner v. Johnston

    Case No. 2:11-cv-00028-TS-DBP (D. Utah Jan. 8, 2013)

    Unfortunately, there is country-wide discord about the showing of relevance required to justify disclosure of a settlement agreement. Plaintiffs primarily rely on Bottaro v. Hatton Assocs., 96 F.R.D. 158 (D.C.N.Y. 1982), and its progeny, to urge this Court to adapt a heightened relevancy standard for discovery related to confidential settlement agreements. (Docket No. 56 at 4.)

  5. Young v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

    169 F.R.D. 72 (S.D.W. Va. 1996)   Cited 33 times
    Holding settlement agreement between client and insurance company that resulted from an unlawful trade practices suit was discoverable in an action by client's former attorney for fees in a tort action because it was relevant to the nature of the agreement between client and attorney and the results obtained in the tort action

    Plaintiffs contend that the Court should first determine the relevance of the settlement agreement (upon a showing that admissible evidence will be generated by the dissemination of the document), Bottaro v. Hatton Assoc., 96 F.R.D. 158 (E.D.N.Y.1982), and then weigh the competing interests of the parties in its continued confidentiality, McCullough v. Nichols, No. 9404CV0093, 1995 WL 679265 (Mass.Dist.Ct. Aug. 3, 1995). They assert that the agreement is highly relevant to their claim for attorneys' fees which were contingent upon success in both the underlying claim and the bad faith action.

  6. Morse/Diesel, Inc. v. Trinity Industries, Inc.

    142 F.R.D. 80 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)   Cited 21 times
    Holding magistrate judge erred in ordering production of settlement agreements where judge did not determine whether the documents were reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence

    Jackson responded by moving to compel production of those documents which had been withheld. Subsequently, on May 18, 1988, Magistrate Judge Buchwald ruled from the bench that although Rule 408 created no discovery privilege, Judge Neaher's decision in Bottaro v. Hatton Associates, 96 F.R.D. 158 (E.D.N.Y.1982), required Jackson to " show that the material sought will be admissible or will lead to admissible evidence." Transcript of May 18, 1988 Hearing before Hon.

  7. LePore v. A.O. Smith Corp.

    C.A. No. PC-2012-1469 (R.I. Super. May. 10, 2017)

    See id. In Alessio, this Court cited to Bottaro v. Hatton Assocs., 96 F.R.D. 158, 160 (E.D.N.Y. 1982), when it held that: "Although Defendant is correct that it is entitled to setoff, immediate disclosure of the settlement agreement is not required . . . . [S]ettlement would not be evidence relevant to any issue in this case other than the ministerial apportionment of damages, a mathematical computation which the Court rather than the jury will perform.

  8. 1611 Cold Spring Rd. Operating Co. v. Skinner

    Civil Action 21-400312-KAR (D. Mass. Dec. 18, 2023)

    Another session of this court has observed that “there are two divergent lines of thinking that courts have followed in deciding whether settlement agreements should be discoverable.” Sullivan v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-11719-MLW, 2019 WL 12315947, at *1 (D. Mass. Apr. 8, 2019) (citing Bennett v. Lapere, 112 F.R.D. 136, 138 (D.R.I. 1986); Bottaro v. Hatton Assocs., 96 F.R.D. 158, 160 (E.D.N.Y. 1982)). The court noted that Bennett favored “disclosure of settlement documents, stating that the burden should be on the opponent of discovery to show that the evidence is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” i

  9. Rhines v. United States

    Civil No. 3:12-CV-1601 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 4, 2014)   Cited 5 times
    Finding that settlements with other prison inmates contained legal and factual variables rendering them irrelevant and potentially misleading

    Accordingly, only a "particularized showing of a likelihood that admissible evidence will be generated by the dissemination of the terms of a settlement agreement." Morse/Diesel, Inc. v. Fidelity & Dep. Co., 122 F.R.D. 447, 450 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (quoting Bottaro v. Hatton Assoc., 96 F.R.D. 158, 159 (E.D.N.Y.1982)); Morse/Diesel, Inc. v. Trinity Indus., 142 F.R.D. 80 (S.D.N.Y.1992); Doe v. Methacton Sch. Dist., 164 F.R.D. 175, 176 (E.D.Pa.1995) will justify the release of these settlement documents. See Chappelle v. Varano, 4:11-CV-304, 2012 WL 3241503 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 7, 2012).

  10. Selective Way Ins. Co. v. Schulle

    Civil Action No. 3:13CV00040 (W.D. Va. Feb. 5, 2014)   Cited 5 times

    See Tanner v. Johnston, No. 2:11-cv-00028-TS-DBP, 2013 WL 121158, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3512, at *7 (D. Utah Jan. 8, 2013) ("Unfortunately, there is country-wide discord about the showing of relevance required to justify disclosure of a settlement agreement. Plaintiffs primarily rely on Bottaro v. Hatton Assocs., 96 F.R.D. 158 ([E.D.]N.Y. 1982), and its progeny, to urge this Court to adapt a heightened relevancy standard for discovery related to confidential settlement agreements . . . . In contrast, the [defendants] urge the Court to use the normal relevancy standard espoused at Fed.