Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Peskoff v. Faber
Citations: 233 F.R.D. 207; 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6688; 2006 WL 445924Docket: No. CIV.A.04-526 HHK/JMF
Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; February 22, 2006; Federal Appellate Court
Jonathan Peskoff filed a motion for clarification regarding the deposition of non-party Mark Levine, which was granted by the Court. Peskoff had previously served Levine with a subpoena for documents and testimony related to the Seynhaeve litigation. The defendant sought a protective order, arguing the requested information was covered by a confidentiality agreement from a prior settlement in the Seynhaeve case, which the Court later denied, noting the relevance of the information to Peskoff’s fraud and Civil RICO claims. The Court had advised Levine not to disclose any information protected by the confidentiality agreement but did not assess the agreement's specifics at that time. Subsequently, Peskoff's motion arose from a dispute about whether the confidentiality agreement prohibited Levine from testifying. The agreement, a 'Confidential Settlement Agreement,' emphasized that confidentiality was crucial and outlined conditions under which disclosure could occur, specifically permitting disclosure 'when required by law.' The defendant contended that merely receiving a subpoena does not equate to a legal requirement to disclose information, arguing Levine must maintain confidentiality unless a court orders otherwise. In contrast, Peskoff asserted that the subpoena's demand for testimony constituted a legal requirement, allowing Levine to comply without breaching the agreement. The Court concluded that the confidentiality provision permits Levine to comply with the subpoena, as it explicitly allows disclosures when mandated by law. Levine's subpoena constitutes a legal demand that activates the exception in Section 8(b) of the confidentiality agreement. Established legal precedent indicates that a subpoenaed witness is compelled to testify under legal process, as seen in Reiser v. West Co., where testimony was permitted despite a privately stipulated settlement agreement due to provisions allowing for disclosure under legal process. Even if a party to such an agreement initiates a new lawsuit seeking information, compliance with a subpoena is mandated when the agreement allows for disclosure required by law or legal process. Consequently, the confidentiality provision does not inhibit Levine from providing the requested documents and testimony. The court grants the plaintiff's motion for clarification regarding the scope of Levine's deposition.