Filing # 51136118 E-Filed 01/13/2017 08:11:05 AM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE
COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASENO. 201l-cA-7139-O
DIVISION: 39
ALLISON MATHIS,
Plaintiff,
vs.

CHRISTOPHER W. BOSH.
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING DISCOVERY AND RESERVING RULING ON

ADMISSIBILITY AT TRIALIOF SETTLEMENT AGRI,EMENT REACHED IN
CALIFORNIA LITIGATION WITH NON-PARTY SHED MEDIA

THIS MATTER came before the Court at a specially set hearing on January 10,2017,
on Plaintifls Motion to compel Settlement Agreement, pursuant to an order entered on
December 28, 2016 (attached as Exhibit "A") by this division's predecessor judge. the
Honorable John Marshall Kest.

AND, the court, having received and reviewed in camera a confidential Settlement
Agreement dated May 22,2011, between Defendant and Shed Media US, Inc., a non-party to
this proceeding (hereaft er "Settlement Agreement"),

AND, the Court having heard argument of counsel on whether the Settlement Agreement
should be produced and its potential admissibility at trial, and being otherwise futly advised in
the premises, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintifls Motion to Compel Production of the
Settlement Agreement is GRANTED, and, the court reserves ruling upon the admissibility of
the Settlement Agreement at trial based on the reasons set fo(h herein.

The Court shall order the Clerk to file a copy of the Settlement Agreemenr under seal in
the court records. The Defendant shall immediately provide a copy of the Settlement Agreement
to Plaintifls counsel (however, upon information previously provided the Court believes the

Plaintifls counsel is in possession ofa copy). The Plaintiffs trial counsel may privately inspect
I

As noted herein, the Court finds the Settlement Agreement relevant to this proceeding, Admissibility shall be
determined at trial.
PaBe 1 of 3

the Seftlement Agreement conditioned upon maintaining its confidentiality. The Settlement
Agreement shall be subject to a protective order. Counsel shall promptly endeavor to agree upon
the terms ofa protective order conceming the Settlement Agreement. Ifunable to agree, counsel
shall notify the Court ofthe disputed areas.

Plaintifls counsel and the Plaintiff must agree in writing to be bound to the terms of the
protective order. The Plaintiff may view the Settlement Agreement with her counsel following
written acceptance of the terms of the protective order; however, the Plaintiff may not possess a
copy, nor shall Plaintiffor her attomey communicate to third parties in any medium, absent court
order, about the substance of the Settlement Agreement.

In determining that the Settlement Agreement is discoverable, the Court weighed the
public policy of maintaining the confidentiality of private agreements against the need for
faimess and openness to truth during the discovery process. The Court also considered the broad
discovery rules that permit parties to view documents that are not privileged and are relevant to
the subject matter ofthe pending action. .See Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280.
The Defendant and Shed Media US, Inc., entered into the Settlement Agreement on May
22,20ll1, the Plaintiff filed this action on June 13, 2011. The Plaintiff was also a party to the
Califomia litigation until the Califomia court granted her dismissal based upon an inconvenient

forum. The Court finds there is a legitimate, valid. and relevant nexus between the Settlement
Agreement and the allegations and defenses raised in this case such that the Ptaintiffis entitled to
discover the Settlement Agreement. See Vondersaor v. Starbucks Corp.,2013 WL 1915746
(N.D. Cal. 2013) (Documents conceming settlement of similar cases were not protected by a
settlement privilege. Citing from the advisory notes to Federal Rule of Evidence 408, the Court
noted the rule contemplates the discovery of settlement materials.).
Potential Admissibilitv of Settlement Asreement at Trial
This case is proceeding to trial on January 17, 2017 on the two counts2 that remain in the
PlaintifPs amended complaint: Count I is for tortious interference with an advantageous
business relationship; Count II is for tortious interference with a contractual relationship. The
Defendant denied the allegations in the amended complaint, and raised several affirmative
defenses, among them, the defense of justification or privilege; and. that the Defendant was
engaged in lawful, permissible activities. Florida law provides the defendant with a defense of

justification if he proves his interference was pursuant to a lawful, permissible act or privilege.

Plaintiff to prove the two causes of action, and

the Defendant's asserted affirmative defenses ofjustification and privilege, the Court finds the
Settlement Agreement is relevant to both parties' positions. The Settlement Agreement arises
Based on the elements necessary for the

'?Counts

III, IV, and V (incorrectly identified

as

lV) in the amended complaint were previously dismissed.

Page 2 of 3

from allegations set forth in Defendant's Califomia lawsuit that allegedly set forth legal and
permissible justifrcations for "interfering" with the Plaintills business relationship/contract
between the Plaintiff and Shed Media.
The Court reviewed legal authority from various jurisdictions that provide support for
admission of the Settlement Agreement under certain circumstances. For example, in instances
where the settlement is from a different case; where the settlement predated the instant cause of
action; where the settlement is between a party in this case and a non-party; where the agreement
is offered to show bias, self-interest. prejudice; where offered in rebuttal or impeachment, among
others. The Court reserves ruling on the issue of admissibitity to observe the context in which a
party seeks admission, through whom, and whether the proponent of the admission can establish
a proper foundation, among other evidentiary prerequisites.
In summary, notwithstanding the requirement to produce the Settlement Agreement and
maintain at this time its confidential nature, the Court has determined it is appropriate to reserve
ruling on whether the Settlement Agreement may be admissible at trial.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at the Orange County Courthouse in Orlando,
Floriduthis /j
olJanuary.20l7.
,

CHRISTI L. LINDERWOOD
Circuit Judge
Copies to:

Victor Chapman, Barrett, Chapman & Ruta, P.A.

Jane E. Carey. Jane E.Carey. P.A.

Robin Taylor Symons. Gordon & Rees LLP

Jacqueline M. De Leon, Gordon & Rees LLP

Page 3 of 3

Filing # 50561880 E-Filed 12/2812016 O2:5932 PM

IN THI.] CIRCI.]IT COURT OF THE NINTH ruDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR ORANGE COLNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 201 l-CA-007139-O
ALLISON MATHIS,

Plaintifr
vs.

CHRISTOPHER BOSH,
Defendant.

/
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO FULLY
RESPOI{D TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND TO
PRODUCE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS CAUSE came beforc the Coun at a hearing held on December 19, 2016 upon the

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel the Defendant to fully respond to Plainriffs Second Set of
Intenogalories and to produce lhe Settlement Agreement l)efendant executed with Shed Media

("Motion to Compel"). During the proceeding. Plaintifls counsel moved, ore renus. for the
Court to conduct an in camera inspection of the Senlement Agreement entered into between
Defendant, Christopher Bosh, and non-party, Shed Media LIS lnc., to resolve the case st-vled
Christopher W. Bosh vs. Shed Media IIS Inc. and Allison Morhis. Llase

the United States District Court for the Central Disrrict

of

lio

Cl'1 l-037E2,filedin

Califomia (rhe "setrlemenr

Agreement") for purposes of dctermining Plainti(ls Motion to Compel.

Having heard argument of counsel, and being othena,ise fully advised in the premises, it
is hereby ADJUDGED:

l.

Plaintifls ore lenus motion fbr irl carzera inspection of the Settlement Agreemenl

is hereby GRANTED.

2.

Following entry of this Order, the partics shall coordinate with the Court to

schedule lhe in camera inspection with the new judge assigred io this case - Judge Christi L.

E*nibit "A"

Underwood, The Court noles that this cause is scheduled for Irial during the trial term beginning
lanuary

1?

3.

,2Ol7

The Court reserves ruling on plaintilfs Motion to Compel until after the iz

camera insrf,f,tion of the Settlement Agreement.

4.

The Court also reserves ruling on plarntitfs Motion to Determine the

confidentiality of the Settlement Agreement for purposes of Iiling same under seal until the

court's ruling on Plaintilrs Motion to compel following the ,r, camera inspection of
Settlement Agreemenl.

DONE and ORDERED in Orange County, Florida, tllis

fufaayof

December. 2016.

Victor L. Chapman, Esq.

Barreu, Chapman & Ruta, P.A.
l8 Wall Strect, Orlando, FL 32t0l
Jane E. Carey, Esq.
Jane E. Carey, P.A.,905 West Colonial Drive, Orlando, FL 32804

Robin Taylor Symons, Esq.

Jacqucline M. De [ron, Esq.
Gordon & Rees, LLP, 100 SE Second Street. Suite 3900, Miami, FL 33

I3

the