Free Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00178-GMS

Document 56

Filed 11/07/2007

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE DEUTSCHER TENNIS BUND et al., Plaintiffs, v. ATP TOUR, INC. et al., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 07-178

Defendants.

ORDER WHEREAS, on October 9, 2007, the court conducted a discovery teleconference with the parties in the above-captioned case; WHEREAS, the court directed the parties to file letter briefs with citation to authority regarding the production of certain settlement documents; WHEREAS, on October 12, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a letter brief (D.I. 43) supporting their request for in-camera review and subsequent production of draft documents and communications from the defendant ATP Tour, Inc. ("ATP") in relation to its settlement with a former plaintiff to the case; WHEREAS, on October 17, 2007, ATP filed a letter brief (D.I. 46) opposing the plaintiffs' request; WHEREAS, Federal Rule of Evidence 408(a) prohibits the use of settlement agreements and discussions to prove liability;1

1

See Fed. R. Evid. 408(a)

Case 1:07-cv-00178-GMS

Document 56

Filed 11/07/2007

Page 2 of 2

WHEREAS, courts in the Third Circuit have required a "more particularized showing" to compel production of settlement negotiation documents;2 and WHEREAS, after having considered the parties' submissions on the issue (D.I. 43, 46), the court concludes that the plaintiffs have not made the required showing; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The plaintiffs' letter request for in-camera review and subsequent production of draft documents and communications in relation to ATP's settlement with a former plaintiff (D.I. 43) is DENIED.

Dated: November 7, 2007

/s/ Gregory M. Sleet CHIEF, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

See Block Drug Co., Inc. v. Sedona Labs., Inc., No. Civ. A. 06-350, 2007 WL 1183828, at * 1 (D. Del. Apr. 19, 2007) ("Courts in this circuit and others, to effectuate the goals of both rules, have required a more `particularized showing' that the evidence sought is relevant and calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.") (citations omitted). 2

2