UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

RESULT MARKETING GROUP, LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:21-cv-611-TJC-JBT

SOUTHEASTERN GROCERS, LLC, et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Result Marketing Group, LTD’s Motion to Quash Subpoena for Quotient Settlement Agreement (“Motion”) (Doc. 112) and Defendants’ Response thereto (Doc. 113). For the reasons stated herein, the Motion is due to be DENIED. In short, the Court agrees with the reasoning of the court in Kadiyala v. Pupke, No. 17-80732-CIV-Marra/Matthewman,

(S.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 2019), and a number of other cases cited by Defendants. See Northstar Moving Holding Co. v. King David Van Lines, No. 19-62176-CIV-DIMITROULEAS/SNOW,

(S.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2021); Silver Streak Trailer Co., LLC v. Thor Industries, Inc., No. 18-14126-CIV-ROSENBERG/MAYNARD,

(S.D. Fla. Nov. 15, 2018); Travelers Prop. Casualty Co. of Am. v. Charlotte Pipe & Foundry Co., No. 6:11-cv-19-Orl-28GJK,

(M.D. Fla. Jan. 10, 2012); Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Nebula Glass Int'l, Inc., No. 05-60860-CIV,

(S.D. Fla. May 22, 2007). As the court stated in Kadiyala: “The settlement agreement and related documents are relevant to damages, and specifically relevant to setoff. The documents sought are relevant for impeachment purposes, and they are producible under Rule 26(b)(1). Plaintiff has failed to show good cause or some other sound reason for prohibiting disclosure.” Kadiyala,

, at *3. That reasoning is largely applicable here. The Court finds distinguishable and/or not persuasive the cases that Plaintiff cites to the contrary. Finally, the Court finds no reason for an in camera review of the subject settlement agreement. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: The Motion (Doc. 112) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, on May 16, 2023.

fo-X £B. ae JOZL B. TOOMEY United States Magistrate Judge Copies to: Counsel of Record