McDougall v. CRC Industries, Inc.

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota May 30, 2024

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
DAVID A. MCDOUGALL,
Civil No. 20-1499 (JRT/LIB)
Plaintiff,

v.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
CRC INDUSTRIES, INC., MOTION TO COMPEL

Defendant.

Tara D. Sutton, Philip L. Sieff, Rashanda C. Bruce, Michael D. Reif, Julie
Reynolds, and Ryan W. Marth, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, 800 LaSalle Avenue,
Suite 2800, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for Plaintiff.

Robert J. Gilbertson, Virginia R. McCalmont, and David J. Wallace-Jackson,
FORSGREN FISHER, 225 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500, Minneapolis, MN
55402, for Defendant.

After a jury trial, Defendant CRC Industries, Inc. (“CRC”) filed a motion to compel
production of the settlement agreement resolving Plaintiff David A. McDougall’s state
court lawsuit against Kyle Neumiller pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(e)(1)(B). The Court will grant the motion.
DISCUSSION
In his state action against Neumiller, McDougall filed a petition for the state court
to approve his settlement agreement with Neumiller, in which he referenced the subject
federal action. (Decl. Eric Ernstene (“Ernstene Decl.”) ¶ 4, Ex. B at 3–4, Apr. 29, 2024,
Docket No. 259.) In addition, McDougall and Neumiller filed a Stipulation wherein
Neumiller accepted McDougall’s offer of judgment and the parties agreed to permit the
state court to enter judgment against Neumiller. (Decl. Rashanda C. Bruce, Ex. A

(“Stipulation”) at 2, May 6, 2024, Docket No. 287.) The state court approved McDougall’s
petition for approval of the settlement, authorizing McDougall “to execute such
releases . . . as are necessary to settle with . . . Neumiller” and allowing him to “retain
authority to continue pursuit of additional and pending claims associated with this

matter.” (Ernstene Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. C at 3–4.)
Now, after a jury returned a verdict in favor of McDougall, CRC seeks to compel
production of the state-court settlement agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(e)(1)(B). (Def.’s Mot. Compel, Apr. 29, 2024, Docket No. 256; see also Jury
Verdict at 1, Apr. 30, 2024, Docket No. 272.) Under Rule 26, “[a] party who has made a
disclosure under Rule 26(a)—or who has responded to an interrogatory, request for
production, or request for admission—must supplement or correct its disclosure or

response . . . as ordered by the court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(B). CRC claims that
McDougall did not produce the settlement agreement that resolved his state action
against Neumiller despite CRC’s requests. (Ernstene Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A at 23–24 (requesting
“[a]ll documents reflecting or relating to any . . . civil legal proceedings in which Kyle

Neumiller has been a party”).)
The settlement agreement is necessary, according to CRC, to determine what
monetary amount the Court should order in entry of judgment. Specifically, CRC contends
that if the settlement agreement contains a Pierringer release that allowed McDougall to
settle with Neumiller without extinguishing his right to recover from CRC, then the

damages award against CRC must be reduced by the percentage of fault the jury
apportioned to Neumiller, regardless of whether Neumiller is an intentional tortfeasor.
See Frey v. Snelgrove,

269 N.W.2d 918

, 921–23 (Minn. 1978) (citing Pierringer v. Hoger,

124 N.W.2d 106

 (Wis. 1963)).  McDougall responds that the motion should be denied 

because there is no release, any release is irrelevant to the Court’s entry of judgment, and 
CRC’s request is untimely.                                                
    After its review of the record and in camera review of documents with related 

information, the Court determines that the only documents relevant to CRC’s request are: 
(1) the Stipulation wherein Neumiller accepted McDougall’s offer of judgment and the 
parties agreed to permit the state court to enter judgment against Neumiller, which is 
already filed on this case’s docket; (2) the Stipulation filed in the state action wherein 

McDougall dismissed his claims with prejudice against Neumiller; and (3) the executed 
release between McDougall and Unitrin Safeguard Insurance Company related to the 
uninsured/underinsured motorist claims arising from or related to the crash on July 22, 
2019.  McDougall represents that there is no settlement agreement and that there are no 

further documents related to the settlement in any other case.  As CRC already has access 
to the first Stipulation, the Court will grant CRC’s motion to compel production of the 
second  Stipulation  wherein  McDougall  dismissed  his claims against  Neumiller and the 
release of claims between McDougall and Unitrin.

ORDER

     Based on the foregoing, and  all the files,  records, and  proceedings herein,  IT IS 
HEREBY ORDERED that: 
     1.  Defendant’s Motion to Compel [Docket No. 256] is GRANTED. 
     2.  Plaintiff has seven calendar days from the date of the Court’s Order to comply. 

DATED:  May 30, 2024                              Fon. (aed 
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.                         JOHN R. TUNHEIM 
                                            United States District Judge 

                                    -4-