Hinshaw was a case of abuse of law. The complainants were part of a group of physicians represented by Hinshaw Law Firm against Kaiser. For contentious reasons, the Hinshaw applicants rejected their claims and the other applicants were settled on the basis of a confidential transaction agreement. Later, another group of doctors sued Kaiser for similar allegations; The Hinshaw complainants attempted to join the second complaint, but were excluded because of their involvement in the first case. Hinshaw`s complainants then sued the registry for abuse of law. In the action against the company, Hinshaw`s plaintiffs requested copies of the confidential transaction agreements reached in the first and second actions against Kaiser for calculating their harm. The court rejected this application because “public policies promote comparisons, the explicit desire for confidentiality of the parties, and the speculative way in which the plaintiffs` damages are measured by these comparisons.” Hinshaw, 51 Cal. App. 4th at 242. In In re GreCon, Inc. a Texas appeals court recently discussed when a party must submit transaction agreements.
The complainant sued several defendants to death after a fire, and charged everything but GreCon. After being informed of the comparisons, GreCon granted requests for disclosure under the Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194.2 which, like some other legal systems, requires disclosure of “the existence and content of all relevant parties to a transaction agreement.” The applicant responded by stating that there were “not any at this stage.” The applicants argue that the transaction agreement is confidential and should not be coerced. BCIA argues that its interest in obtaining relevant evidence outweighs the applicants` complaint of confidentiality. Compel`s immediate request seeks a court order requiring the applicants to provide the transaction agreement entered into by BSIC, the applicant and defendant. (NO ECF) 130.) BCIA argues that it is “entitled to require the presentation of the transaction contract, since the amount of the transaction is done all other damages awarded to the complainants.” (Id. to 4.) BCIA argues that the complainants “claimed that the alleged actions of BCIA and the bankers [BSIC] were merged into indivisible harm” – the alleged failure to provide adequate insurance coverage. (ID. at 4-6.) “The complainants argue that BCIA is liable for any personal property damage that goes beyond the limits of the Bankers Directive [BSIC], which means that BCIA is assumed to be liable for damages that are not covered by bankers [BSIC] . .
. . . (ID. to 6, referring to Appendix F.) As a result, “BCIA is a common tumor of cake. . . . [and therefore] the right to deduct the amount of the transaction with future claims of the claimants. (Id.) The Federal Regulations for Civil Proceedings generally permit a broad discovery that allows the parties to obtain discoveries with respect to “any unprivileged cause that is relevant to a party`s claim or defence.” Fed.