K. Kolnhofer

In a multi-party motor vehicle accident action, the plaintiffs and two of the defendants entered into a Pierringer agreement.

The non-settling defendants brought a motion to compel production of the agreement, redacted only as to quantum.

The settling parties argued that only the 'essential terms' needed to be disclosed and that the agreement itself was protected by settlement privilege.

The court granted the motion, finding that the non-settling defendants faced potential procedural prejudice and that the need to protect them outweighed the public interest in maintaining settlement privilege over the non-financial terms of the agreement.

A case conference was held regarding a tentative settlement that had stalled due to issues with the plaintiffs' previous counsel's fees and disbursements.

The litigation guardian for the plaintiffs under disability failed to attend the conference for the second time and was ordered to provide a doctor's note.

The defendants took the position that a binding settlement was reached, while the plaintiffs argued they were under duress.

The court directed the plaintiffs to confirm their position on the settlement within two weeks, noting that any motion for court approval would require the plaintiffs under disability to retain new counsel pursuant to Rule 15.01(1).