Zean v. Efinancial, LLC

Background

Samuel Gaybou Zean, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. He alleged that defendants used an automatic dialing system to repeatedly call his cellphone and leave automated voicemail messages after he registered with the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Burialexpense.com was dismissed after the Third Amended Complaint was filed, eFinancial, LLC was voluntarily dismissed after settling with Zean, and the record indicated that Allied Insurance Partners had not been served with the Third Amended Complaint.

The order addressed a motion by SelectQuote Insurance Services and InsideResponse, LLC to compel discovery. Their Request for Production No. 30 asked Zean to produce any settlement or release agreement between him and any defendant, including eFinancial. Zean initially objected that the request was vague, overly broad, irrelevant, confidential, and privileged. He later objected specifically that the settlement agreement and settlement amount were confidential and that he was prohibited from disclosing them. In a later letter, he stated that he did not object to producing the agreement if there were a formal request and a stipulated protective order.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that discovery may cover nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The court found that Zean’s first objections were largely boilerplate, but recognized that his later objections gave specific reasons for withholding the agreement. The court also recognized that resisting production of a settlement agreement can be valid because such agreements often contain confidentiality provisions and penalties for disclosure.

The court nevertheless found the agreement relevant to the remaining defendants’ defenses and to calculating damages. The defendants said they needed to determine which parties and claims had been released and the amount Zean had recovered, including to evaluate whether he was seeking compensation for injuries for which he had already been paid. The court noted that eFinancial’s counsel did not object to production if it occurred in response to a formal request and under a protective order. Because Zean had not objected to the proposed protective order’s terms, the court ordered that the protective order be issued.

The defendants also argued that Zean had not verified his interrogatory responses under oath as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(3). The court agreed that the responses lacked the required verification and ordered Zean to verify them under oath and subject to penalties of perjury.

Order and effect

The court granted the defendants’ motion to compel discovery production. It ordered Zean to respond to Request for Production No. 30 and produce the settlement agreement between him and eFinancial within seven days, subject to a protective order. It separately ordered Zean to verify his interrogatory responses under oath within seven days. Each party was ordered to bear its own attorney fees and expenses. The order also stated that failure to comply could result in remedies or sanctions, including costs, fines, limits on evidence, striking pleadings, dismissal with prejudice, or default judgment. Judge Tony N. Leung signed the order.