Schuette v. Menard Inc.

Background

The lawsuit concerned a forklift incident at a Menard store in which Bo Schuette alleged that he was injured. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright had entered a protective order allowing a party to designate documents as confidential or proprietary. At a later hearing, Judge Wright explained that Menard could use the protective order for information produced in supplemental discovery and that Schuette could challenge a designation.

Menard produced supplemental discovery and designated two interrogatory responses as “attorney’s eyes only.” One response referred to another injured party represented by Schuette’s counsel in a different action against Menard. Schuette did not challenge the confidentiality designation before the parties settled.

The parties notified the Court on May 13, 2026, that they had settled through private mediation. Schuette later signed and notarized a release of all claims, rights, and damages arising from the incident and lawsuit. Menard mailed a settlement check and dismissal documents, and Schuette’s counsel confirmed receipt of the check. Counsel then said he would not sign the dismissal stipulation because he believed the interrogatory responses were not covered by the protective order.

Motions and Analysis

Menard moved to enforce the settlement, dismiss the case with prejudice, and strike Schuette’s motion and a sealed exhibit containing the confidential responses. Schuette moved for miscellaneous relief.

The Court stated that a district court has the power to enforce a settlement agreement in a pending case. It concluded that Schuette’s release covered all claims, rights, and damages arising from the incident and lawsuit, and that he had waived rights in the litigation, including the ability to challenge designations under the protective order. The Court recognized that the protective order survived the settlement but distinguished that continued protection from the ability to continue litigating a protective-order dispute after settlement. It found that Schuette’s interest in receiving payment and completing the settlement outweighed his attorney’s interest in using the information in a different lawsuit.

Disposition

The Court granted Menard Inc.’s Motion to Enforce Settlement. It dismissed Schuette’s complaint with prejudice, denied Schuette’s Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, and ordered the Clerk to strike Docket Nos. 59 and 59-1. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.