McDougall v. CRC Industries, Inc.
- John Tunheim
- 0:20-cv-01499
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In McDougall v. CRC Industries, Judge Tunheim granted CRC’s motion to compel production of specified settlement-related documents after trial.
David A. McDougall must produce the specified state-court stipulation and Unitrin release to CRC Industries, Inc. within seven calendar days; the documents may assist in determining the federal judgment amount.
What happened
In McDougall v. CRC Industries, Inc., CRC asked the court to require David A. McDougall to produce documents from his state-court case against Kyle Neumiller. The request came after a jury returned a verdict for McDougall in the federal case.
CRC argued that the documents could help determine the amount of the judgment, including whether McDougall’s claims against CRC had to be reduced based on Neumiller’s share of fault. McDougall opposed the request, arguing that no settlement agreement existed, that any release was irrelevant, and that CRC’s request was too late.
Judge Tunheim granted CRC’s motion to compel. The court required McDougall to produce the state-court stipulation dismissing his claims against Neumiller and the executed release involving Unitrin Safeguard Insurance Company within seven calendar days.
The detailed version
- McDougall v. CRC Industries, Inc. · No. 0:20-cv-01499
- John Tunheim
- May 30, 2024
Background
After a jury trial and a verdict in favor of David A. McDougall, CRC Industries, Inc. moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1)(B) to compel production of documents concerning McDougall’s state-court lawsuit against Kyle Neumiller. Rule 26(e)(1)(B) requires a party to supplement or correct certain disclosures and discovery responses as ordered by the court.
In the state action, McDougall filed a petition seeking approval of an arrangement with Neumiller and referred to the federal case. McDougall and Neumiller also filed a stipulation under which Neumiller accepted McDougall’s offer of judgment and the parties agreed that the state court could enter judgment against Neumiller. The state court approved McDougall’s petition and authorized him to sign releases needed to resolve the matter while retaining authority to pursue additional pending claims associated with it.
Parties’ Positions
CRC argued that McDougall had not produced the documents resolving his state action with Neumiller despite CRC’s discovery requests. CRC said the documents were needed to determine the amount the court should order in the federal judgment. In particular, CRC argued that if the documents contained a release allowing McDougall to settle with Neumiller without giving up claims against CRC, the damages award against CRC would have to be reduced by the percentage of fault assigned to Neumiller.
McDougall argued that the motion should be denied because there was no settlement agreement, any release was irrelevant to entry of judgment, and CRC’s request was untimely.
Court’s Ruling
After reviewing the record and examining documents privately, the court identified three documents relevant to CRC’s request: (1) the stipulation already filed in the federal case concerning Neumiller’s acceptance of McDougall’s offer of judgment; (2) the stipulation filed in the state case in which McDougall dismissed his claims against Neumiller; and (3) the executed release between McDougall and Unitrin Safeguard Insurance Company concerning uninsured- and underinsured-motorist claims arising from or related to the July 22, 2019 crash.
Because CRC already had access to the first stipulation, the court granted CRC’s motion to compel production of the second stipulation and the Unitrin release. The order required McDougall to comply within seven calendar days of May 30, 2024.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.