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.
