The Wave Studio, LLC v. General Hotel Management Ltd.

Background

Judge Seibel had directed the parties to engage in early settlement discussions before filing an answer or beginning motion practice and discovery. At a March 1, 2024, status conference, the court discussed how to proceed with settlement negotiations. Before that conference, The Wave Studio, LLC asked the court to require the Defendants to disclose insurance information under Rule 26(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The requested information included the existence and extent of insurance coverage, the names of insurers, policy limits, and whether an insurer had reserved its rights.

The court received six letters from 53 Defendants. Eight Defendants objected because they intended to raise personal-jurisdiction defenses. Thirteen objected to disclosure without a stipulated protective order. Fifteen requested more time to provide the information.

Insurance disclosures

The court directed every Defendant who had not yet disclosed insurance information, including reservation-of-rights letters, to provide it to the Plaintiff by March 29, 2024. The produced information was to be treated as confidential, subject to a formally stipulated protective order after the parties met and agreed on its terms.

The court separately addressed the eight Defendants who intended to challenge personal jurisdiction. It ordered them to provide the insurance information only for the limited purpose of facilitating settlement and stated that all defenses were preserved. The court concluded that, in these circumstances, disclosure would not waive or forfeit a personal-jurisdiction defense. It relied on decisions holding that participation in settlement negotiations does not, by itself, waive that defense.

Other request and disposition

The Plaintiff requested an extension until March 15, 2024, to determine whether it would waive confidentiality and produce excerpts of the Wave-GHM Settlement Agreement. The court granted that request.

This was an ancillary discovery and settlement-management order, not a decision on the underlying claims. The order required specified insurance disclosures, preserved the jurisdictional defenses of the objecting Defendants, and granted the Plaintiff’s requested extension.