Kalinauskas v. Wong
Facts
Kalinauskas sued Caesars for sexual discrimination and sought to depose Donna R. Thomas, another former Caesars employee who had filed a sexual harassment suit against Caesars the year before. Thomas's case settled without trial under a confidential settlement agreement, and related protective and confidentiality orders stated that Thomas would not discuss any aspect of her employment at Caesars other than dates of employment and job title. Caesars relied entirely on that confidentiality arrangement to argue that Thomas could not be deposed. Kalinauskas sought discovery of factual information relevant to her own similar case, which involved at least one Caesars supervisory employee in common with Thomas's case.
Issue
May a defendant use a prior confidential settlement agreement and confidentiality order to prevent a plaintiff in a later, similar discrimination suit from deposing the prior claimant about the underlying facts of her employment and harassment allegations? Must the later plaintiff first intervene in the closed prior case or show a compelling need before obtaining such discovery?
Rule
Discovery is broadly available as to any nonprivileged matter relevant to the subject matter of the pending action and reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Where an appropriate modification of a protective order or confidentiality agreement can place private litigants in a position they would otherwise reach only after repetition of another's discovery, modification may be denied only if it would tangibly prejudice substantial rights of the party opposing disclosure; even then, the court has broad discretion to weigh the injury against the benefits. A compelling-need showing applies to discovery of the specific terms of a settlement agreement, not to factual information surrounding the settled case.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
The company moves for a protective order barring Benton’s deposition solely because of the confidentiality agreement. No privilege is asserted, and the company identifies no concrete harm from the testimony. How should the court rule?