\
.fm-E :f:l-L'ED
.1
SUPERIOR COURT SUPERiUR COURT
OF GUAM
2025 AUG2020 PH 2025 AUG up ·I-| a PM '·It: Z
CLERK CLER!< 0F
Of CG'
JRT COURT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM Y:
BY: Ur
t
DURI DORI CORPORATION, CIVIL CMLCASE
CASE no.
NO.CV0548-23
CV0548-23
Plaintiff, plamnfifg
vs. DECISION DECISION AND
AND ORDER DENYING
DENYING
MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF
BASE CORPORATION CORPORATION AND AND SUNG
SUNG CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT
HEE HONG, AGREEMENT
Defendants.
This matter came before This before the theHonorable
Honorable Dana
Dana A.
A. Gutierrez on May 22, 2025, for a hearing healing
Duri Corporation's on Dori Corporation's Motion Motion for
forDisclosure
Disclosure of
ofConfidential
ConfidentialSettlement
Settlement Agreement
Agreement (Nov. 5,
2024). At At the hearing, hearing,Attorney
AttorneyPhilip
Philip Torres
Tones appeared on behalf appeared on bebalfof Dori Corporation.
ofDuri Corporation. DefeNdants Defendants
Base Base Corporation Corporation and and Sung
Sung Her
Hee Hong.
Hong did
did not hearing. 1 Upon not appear for thehearing.' Upon review review of
ofthe
the parties'
arguments and and applicable DENIES the Motion.
applicable Guam law, the Court hereby DENIES Modem
BACKGROUND BACK GROUND
Base Corporation Base Corporation and Duri Corporationale Dori Corporation areconstruction constructioncompanies.
companies. Base
Base Corporation
Corporation was
was
the primary contractor, and Duri DuraCorporation
Corporationwas a subcontractor, subcontractor, on a construction constructionproject
project called
Yigo Sienna Garden Phase Yugo Sienna Phase 2. In'
In' February
February 2022,
2022, Duri
Dura Corporation
Corporation allegedly
alleged completed its
subcontractwork work on
on Yigo
YigoSienna
SiennaGarden
GardenPhase
Phase22 and
and tendered
tendered an invoice to Base Base Corporation in
the amount amountof$91,139.55.
of$91,139.55. This iii.voice remainsunpaid.
This iNvoice unpaid.
1 Base 1 BaseCorporation has never answered Corporationhas answered or appeared case, and the appeared in this case, theSuperior SuperiorCourt Clerk of
CourtClerk ofCourt
Court has
has
entered Base entered Base Corporation's Corporation's default.
default. Attorney Thomas M. Tarpley Tarpleyhas
has previously
previously appeared
appeared on behalfof
onbehalf of
Sung Hee he did not appear for this hearing.
Her Hong, buthe hearing.
DECISION AND ORDER DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DENYING MOTION
MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE
DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CV0548-23; Duri CV0548-23; Duri Corporation Corporation and Corporationv.Base Corporation and Sung Sung HeeHong
Hong
In In October October 2023,
2023, Duri Corporation
Corporation tiled
filed aa Complaint
Complaintagainst
against Base
Base Corporation
Corporation and
and Sung
.Hee Hong. 2Base .Hee BaseCorporation Corporationhas
hasnot
not filed
filedan
an Answer.
Answer. Sung Hee Hong has Sung Hee hasfiled
filed an
anAnswer,
Answer,which
which
adnuits thatBase admits that BaseCorporation Corporation (but
(butnot
notSung
SungHee
HeeHong
Hong herself)
herself) owes Duri
Duxi Corporation
Corporation the
the amount
in in question.
question. Sung Hee Hong's Hong's Answer
Answerfurther
further explains
explains:
[Base Corporation] has has promised promised to pay Plaintiff Plaintiffsquid amountwhen said amount whenBase
Basecollects
collects
it it from from tile
the owner of the project
project ....
.... Hong
Hongaffirmatively
affirmativelyalleges
allegesthat
thatsaid
said amount
amount is
included included inin the the mechanic
mechanic liens
liens on
on the
the project
project properties
properties that
that Base
Base recorded
recorded at the
Guam Department Departmentof of Land
Land Management
Management which which areare aa subject subjectofof Base's lawsuit against Guam Five Five Star Corporation in the Superior Superior Court
Court ofof Guam
Guard for
for breach of
of
contract contract andand foreclosure foreclosure of saidsaid liens, liens, and
and that
that [Dura
[Duri Corporation]
Corporation] has been
been
repeatedly repeatedly informed of of all all these
these legal
legal actions
actions which
which are
are presently
presently stayed
stayed pending
ongoing arbitration arbitration between Base Corporation and Guam Guam FiveFive Star Corporation.
Corporation.
Answer at at 2 2 (Nov.
(Nov. 13,
13, 2023).
2023). Thereafter, the parties Thereafter, the parties stipulated stipulatedtotostay
staythis
thiscase
caseuntil
untilafter
aler the
conclusion conclusion of the the arbitration
arbitration between
between Base
Base Corporation and Guam Five Star Corporation and Star Corporation Corporation
("GFSC"). ("GFSC"). Step.& Stip. Order
Order (Feb.
(Feb. 19,
19, 2024).
2024).
On On October October22,
22, 2024,
2024, the Court
Court held
held aa Status
Status Hearing.
Hearing. There,Dori
Duri Corporationinformed
Corporation informed
the Court that that Base Corporation
Corporation and GFSC
GFSChad
hadconcluded
concludedtheir
their arbitration
arbitration proceedings
proceedings and
reached reached a settlement (hereafter,"GFSC settlement (hereafter, "GFSC Settlement"). On November Settlement"). On November 5, 5, 2024, Dura
Duri Corporation
filed filed the the instant instant Motion,
Motion, arguing
arguing that
that the GFSC Settlement disclosed "based on potential Settlement should be disclosed potential
fraud to the thepublic public and
andrelevance
relevanceto
tothis
thisongoing
ongoingcase.''
case."Mot.
Mot.Disclose
Diseloseat
ate. Dori Corporation
2. Duri Corporation asserts asserts
that the theGFSC GFSC Settlement is is"confidential,"
"confidential" and
andthat
thataa confidential
confidentialsettlement
settlementagreement
agreement is contrary
to both the "public "public good"
good" and
and "the
''the rights
rights of
ofother
otherparties
parties that
that have
have done or may
may do business
business with
with
2 The 2 alleges that thatDuri
Duri Corporation's
Corporation's contract was with with both Base Corporation and and Sung
Sung Hee
Her
The Complaint alleges Hong, and Hong, and the instant Motion alleges instant Motion thatBase alleges that BaseCorporation Corporationisisthe
the"alter
"alterego"
ego"of
ofSung
SungHee
HerHong.
Hong. Mot.
Mot.
Disclosure Disclosure at at 2. Sung Hee
Her Hong
Hong disputes
disputes the "alter ego" allegation.
allegation. See
SeeVerified
Verified Response
Responseatate
2 (Nov. 14,
14,
2024). 2024).
3
I
DECISION AND ORDER DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DENYING MOTION
MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE
DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT . . CV0548-23; Duri Corporation CV0548-23; Duri Corporation v.
v. Base
Base Corporation
Corporation and
andSungHer
Sung Hee Hong
Hong
Base Base Corporation Corporation or or [GFSC].
[GFSC]. Id
Id.Duri
DuriCorporation
Corporationthus
thusrequests
requeststhat
that the Court
Court order GFSC
GFSC and/or
and/or
Bee BaseCorporation Corporationtotodisclose disclosethe
theGFSC
GFSCSettlement
Settlementto DuriCorporation, to Duri Corporation, or
orelse
else show
show cause
cause why
they should not.
not.
On 3 Attorney Talley On November 14, 2014,Attorney 14, 2014, AttorneyTarpley Ta.rpleyfiled
fileda aVerified
VerifiedResponse.
Response? Attorney Tarpley
explains explains that while while he had
hadpreviously
previouslybeen"attorney
"attorney ofrecord"
record" for
for Base
Base Corporation,
Corporation, he ultimately ultimately
"took no no part"- in the
part'' in the execution
execution of
of the GFSC Settlement. Id Instead, GFSC Settlement. Instead, he avers that the avers that the GFSC
GFSC
Settlement wasdrafted Settlement was drapedbybyAttorney AttorneyJoyce
JoyceTang,
Tang, counsel
counsel forfor Id.IdAttorney GFSC. GFSC. AttorneyTarpley Talley agrees
that the GFSC GFSC Settlement
Settlement contains
contains a confidentiality confidentiality clause
clausebut
butasserts
assertsthat
thatthe
the settlement
settlement agreement
"allows "allowsdisclosure disclosure of
ofthe
the settlementtermspursuant settlement pursuant to acourt courtsubpoena
subpoenaor
orcourt order."Id.
courtorder." Id at
at 1-2.
Talley states
Attorney Tarpley stateshe heinformed
informed Attorney
Attorney Tang
Tang of Duri Corporation's ofDuri Corporation'srequest request for disclosure
and recommended recommendedthat thatGFSC
GFSC agree to
to do
do so,
so,but
buthe
hehas
hasnot
notreceived
receivedaadefinitive
definitive response.
response.See
Seeid
id
at 2. Attorney Attorney Tarpley
Talley concludes
concludesby
bystating
statingthat
that Sung
Sung Her
Hee Hong
Hong "has
"has no
no objection
objection to this Court
disclosure."Id.
ordering such disclosure." Id
Dori Duri Corporation
Corporation did
did not
not file
fileaa Reply.
Reply.The
TheCourt
Courtheard
heard the
the Motion
Motionon
on May
May22,
22, 2025,
2025, and
subsequently took took the
the matter under advisement.
DISCUSSION DISCUSSION
Duri Duri Corporation
Corporation asks
asks the Court to "issue
"issue an
an Order
Order compelling
compelling [Base
[Base Corporation
Corporation and
GFSC] GFSC] to to disclose
disclosethe
the confidential
confidentialsettlement
settlement agreement
agreement or personallyappearbefore before this Court to
explain explain why they object to to disclosure."
disclosure." Mot.
Mot. Disclosure
Disclosure at3.However,
3. However, Dori
Duri Corporation
Corporation has
has not
offered offered a procedural procedural vehicle,
vehicle, such
suchas
asaastatute
statuteoror Guam
Guam RaeofofCivil
Rule CivilProcedure
Procedure("GRCP"),
("GRCP"), which
which
13 Although the thedocument
documentisisstyled
style as the "Verified
"Verified Response
Response of of Defendant Hong," it is Defendant Hong," is written written from
from the
perspective of Attorney Tarpley and Tarpley and is signed and verified and verified only by him.
4
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION MOTION FOR FOR DISCLOSURE DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CV0548-23; Duri DuriCorporation
Corporationv.v.Bose
Base Corporation
Corporationand
andSungHer
Sung Hee Hong
empowers the Court to issue such empowers the order. Since such an order. Duri Corporation Since Duri Corporation seeks seeks to compel
compel a party
opponent (Base (Base Corporation)
Corporation) and/or
and/or a non-party (GFSC)
(GFSC) to disclose
disclose a document
document with alleged
"relevance "relevance to this ongoing case,"
case," Mot.
Mot. Disclose
Disclose at
at2,
2, theCourt
Court construes the Motion Motion as discovery
as a discovery
motion motion pursuant pursuant to GRCP 26(b). cf. Hoerchler ). Cf Hoerchler v.
v. Equifax
Equifax Inf).
Irifo. Serve.,
Servs., LLC, 568 F.Supp.3d F .Supp.3d 931,
939 (N.D. lli. 2021)
(N.D. Ill. 2021) ("Whether ("Whetheraaconfidential
confidentialsettlement
settlementagreement
agreement should
should be
be disclosed to other
parties in aa multi-party multi-party case
case is
is governed by the familiar familiar Rule
Rule 26(b)(1)
26(b)(l) discovery
discovery standards.");
standards.");
Cooley Cooley v. Curves, Curves,Int 'I, Inc.,
Int'L Inc., 2008 WL 11333881* 11333881 • 4 (W.D. Tex. May May 19, ("Courts routinely 19, 2008)("Courts routinely
order production production of ofconfidential
confidentialsettlement
settlementagreements
agreements under Rule 26 when they are relevant to
the allegations at issue issuein
in aaparticular
particular action.").
action.").
Under GRCP 26(b 26(b),
), aaparty
partymay
maydiscover
discoverany
anydocument
document''not
"notprivileged,
privileged, that is relevant to
the claim or or defense
defense of any
any party."
party." The
Thefact
factthat
thatthe
theGFSC
GFSCSettlement
Settlement has
has been labeled
"confidential" does not itself itself create
create a privilege.
privilege.See
See Board
BoardofTru.vfee.v of Leland of Trustees of Leland StanfordJunior
Univ. ni 'I'yco v. Il vc o Int'[ InTI Inc.,
Inc ., 253
253 F.R.D. 522~23 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (("[T]he F.R.D. 521, 522-23 m h o ssimple i m p l e ffact
a that the
that
parties settlementagreement parties to the settlement agreementagreed agreedtotoitsitsconfidentiality confidentialitydoes
doesnot
notshield
shieldititfrom
fromdiscovery:');
discovery:");
DIRECTK DIRECTV, Inc.
Inc. v. Puccinelli, Puccinelli,224
224F.R.D.
F.R.D.677,
677, 685
685 (D,
(D. Kan.
Kan. 2004);
2004); Bennett
Bennett v. Pere,112 F.R.D.
v. La Pere,
1986).4 However,
136, 140-41 (D. R.I. 1986).4 However, while while the
the GFSC Settlementmay
GFSC Settlement maynot
not be.privileged,
be privileged, it must
still still be be proven provenrelevant.
relevant.The
Thecourt
courtrecognizes
recognizesthat
thatrelevance
relevanceunder
underGRCP
GRCP 26
26 is
is aa broad
broad standard,
standard,
encompassing "anymatter encompassing "any matter that that bears
bearson,
on,or
orthat
that reasonably
reasonablycould
could lead
lead to
to other matters that
that could
bear on, any any issue issue that is
is or may
may be
be in
in the case." OppenheimerFund, case." Oppenheimer Fund Inc.
Inc. v. Sanders,
Sanders, 437 U.S.
U.S.
4 "As 4 ii'om the ''As the GRCP are generally derived from the Federal Federal Rules of ofCivil
CivilProcedure,
Procedure,andand because
because discovery
issues are are infrequently infrequently decided
decided by
by appellate
appellate courts,
courts,we
we look
look to
to decisions
decisions of
of federal
federal district courts regarding Lujan v.v. Tebo,
discovery as instructive." Lujan Tebo, 2024 Guam 15 IS, 1136.
36.
5
DEc1s1on DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR FOR DISCLOSURE DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CV0548-23;Dori CV0548-23; Duri Corporation Corporation v.
v. Base
Base Corporationand
and Sung HeeHong
Hong
340, 351 351 (1978).
(1978).But But even
even under
under that
thatliberal
liberal standard,
standard,the
theCourt
Court is
is unclear whetherthe
unclear whether theGFSC
GFSC
Settlement bears on, on, or
or could
could bear on,
on, any
anyissue
.issue in
in this case. 5
this case.5
Dura Duri Corporation's claim, in in effect,
effect, is
is that
that it
it (1)
(1) performed
performed work for Base
Base Corporation
Corporation
and/or Sung Hee Hong, Hong, (2)
(2) was
was not
not paid
paidfor
forthat
thatwork,
work,and
and(3)
(3)was
wasthus
thusdamaged in the amount damaged'm amount
of $91,139.55.
,139.55.See SeeComp!.
Con pl. (Sept.
(Sept. I,
1,2023).
2023).If
Ifthese
theseallegations
allegations are true,
true, they
they would
would be.equally
equally true
true
regardless of the terms terns of
ofthe
the GFSC
GFSCSettlement.
Settlement. IfIfthe
the defendants failed to
defendants failed to pay Dura Corporation Duri Corporation
for the the work work ititperformed, performed, they
they would
would be
beliable
liablefor
forthat
thatnon-payment,
non-payment, regardless
regardless of Base
Base
Corporation's eventual recovery from eventual recovery from GFSC.
GFSC. Thus, the terms
terms of the GFSC
GFSC Settlement
Settlement do not
appear to bear bearon
onthe
theclaim
claimpresented
presentedin
inthe
theComplaint.
Complaint.Theoretically,
Theoretically, they
they might
might bear
bear on
on whether
Base Corporation is currently able to satire satisfyaa money
money judgment, GRCP 26 judgment, but GRCP 26 does does not permit
permit
discovery solely solely for
for that
that purpose.
purpose. See Ranney-BrownDistributors, Distribuiors, Inc.
Inc. v.v.E.T.
EI Berwick
Barwick Indus.,
Indus.,
Inc., 75 F.R.D. Inc., 15 F.R.D.3, 5 (S.D.Ohio 1977) ("O!dUnarily,Rule 1977) ("Ordinarily, Rule 26 26will
will not permitthe
the discovery of
offacts
facts
concerning a defendant's financial status, status, or ability
ability to
to satisfy
satisfyaajudgment,
judgment, since
since such
such matters
matters are
not relevant, and cannot lead to the discovery of of admissible
admissible evidence.");
evidence.''); Sierrapine v.
v. Renner
Refiner
Products Mfg, Inc., Products Mfg., Inc., 275 F.R.D.
F.R.D. 604,
604, 609-10
609-10 (E.D. Cad. 201 I) (collecting cases).
Cal. 2011) cases). To To compel
compel
discovery of of the
the GFSC
GFSC Settlement, Dori Corporation Settlement, Duri Corporation would would need theory of need to prove a different theory of
relevance. It has has not
notdone
doneso
soin
inits
itsMotion.
Motion.
s5 Duri Duri Corporation Corporationsuggests disclosrue is necessary suggests that disclosure necessary to to reveal reveal whether the GFSC Settlement was "done "done to perpetuate a fraud upon [Duri Corporation]
perpetuate a fraud upon [Duri Corporation] or the public or other misconduct."
other misconduct.'' Mot. Diselose Disclose at 3.
However, the Complaint in this case does not allege fraud, nor does it seek punitive damages based on such However, the Complaint in this case does not allege fraud, nor does it seek punitive damages based alleged alleged fraud.
fraud. Instead, pursuant to Instead, pursuant to the the Complaint,
Complaint, this case
case is
is solely
solely about
about whether
whether Base
Base Corporation
Corporation and/or
Sung Hee Hong owe Sung Hee owe Duri Duri Corporation
Corporation $91,139.55
$91,139.55 for unpaid
unpaid work.
work. Non-specific
Non-specificsuppositions
suppositions about
about
possible "ii'aud" or possible "fraud" "misconduct'' do or "misconduct" do not notbear
bear on
on any
any ofofthe
the allegations
allegations inin the
the Complaint
Complaint and
and thus do not
supply a theory theory of "relevance"
''relevance" under
under GRCP 26. 26.
6
'
DECISION AND ORDER DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DENYING MOTION
MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE
DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CV0548-23;Dura Corporation v. CV0548-23; Duri Corporation v. Base Base Corporation
Corporationand
andSung
Sung HeeHong
Hong
Aside from
from relevance,
relevance, the Motion
Motion also
also does
does not
not follow
followthe
theappropriate
appropriate procedures
procedures to
compel document discovery. Under Under GRCP
GRCP34(c),
34(c),aa party
party may
may seek to compel
compel document
documentdiscovery
discovery
&om from a non-party non-party"as
"asprovided
providedininGRCP
GRCP 45"-i.e.,
45"-i.e., by
bysubpoena.
subpoena. Here,
Here, GFSC
GFSCisisaanon-party,
non-party, and
so any attempt tocompel discovery discovery from
fromGFSC
GFSCwould
wouldrequire
requireaasubpoena.
subpoena. See,
See, e.g., United
United States
v. v. 2121 Celeste Road RoadSW, Albuquerque, NM, 307 Albuquerque, N.M, 307F.R.D.
F.R.D.572,
572, 586 N.M. 2015)
586 (D. N.M. ("Discovely 2015) ("Discovery
of ofnon-parties mustbe non-parties must beconducted conductedby
bysubpoena.
subpoenapursuant
pursuant toto[Federal
[FederalRule
Ruleof
ofCivil
Civil Procedure
Procedure 45]);
Highland Highland Tank Tank&& Mfg. Co.v.P.S
Co. . Intern.,
lntern., Inc., 227 F.R.D.
F.R.D. 374,
374,379 (W.D. Pa. 2005) ("Rule 45 is 2005) ("Rule
the only discovery discovery method
method whereby information may obtained from may be obtained firm aa nonparty nonparty to the suit.").
The record does not reflect that Duri Corporation Corporation has attempted attemptedtotosubpoena
subpoenaGFSC
GFSCbefore
beforefiling
filing
thisMotion.
Under Under GRCP
GRCP34(b),
34(b), aa party
party may "move for
for an
an order" to compel document discovery from document discovery
another party pursuant another party pursuanttotoGRCP GRCP 37(a).
37(a). Base
Base Corporation
Corporationisis aa party
party to this case,
case, but Base
Base
Corporation has never appeared in this action and its default appeared in default has has been
been entered. Several federal entered. Several federal
courts have held that a defaulted defaulted defendant
defendantis
is akin to a non-party
non-party for
for purposes of discovery.
discovery. See,
See,
e.g., v. Capital Recovery e.g., Blazek v. Recovery Associates, Associates, 222
222 F.R.D.
F.R.D. 360, 361
361 (E.D. Wis.
Wis. 2004)
2004) ("once a
defendant has made madethe
thedecision
decision to default and become, as asit
it.were, a non-party,
non-party, it would not seem
fair fair to to force force such
such defendant
defendant to participate
participate in
inan
an action
action to
to aa greater degree than thancould
couldbe
berequired
requiredof
of
other non-parties.'');
non-parties.");Jules
Jules Jordan Rodeo, Inc. v.
Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc.,617 F.3d 144942 Canada F.3d 1146, 1146, 1159
1159 (9th
Cir. Cir. 2010) ("We agree with with the Blazek court's analysis, however, however, that adefaulted
defaulted defendant should should
be be treated as aa non-party.'').
treated as non-party.").The TheCourt
Courtisis likewise
likewise inclined to view view Base
Base Corporation
Corporation as
as aa non-
party; party; thus, Duri Corporation thus, Duri Corporation cannot compel discovery cannot compel discovery from Base Base Corporation
Corporation except
except by
subpoena. subpoena.
7
• . .
DECISION DECISION ANDAND ORDER
ORDER DENYING
DENYING MOTION
MOTION l<'OR
FOR DISCLOSURE
DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CV0548-23; Duri CV0548-23,' Corporation v.
DuraCorporation v. Base
Base Corporation
Corporationand
andSung
Sung Hee Hong
In its Motion,
Motion, Dura
Duri Corporation cites only only to of Osowski the "analogous" case of to the Osowski v.v.AMEC AMEC
Const. Mgmt., Const. Mgmt., Inc., 69 A.D.3d 99.(N.Y. App. Div.
Div. 2009).
2009). However, the Court finds it difficult difficult to
to that case.
draw a legal analogy to First, the settlement agreement case.First,the agreementsought Osowski was not only in Osowski
soughtin
relevant, but potentially case-dispositive relevant, case-dispositive to to an
an indemnity claim. 6 Here, as indemnity claim.6 as explained above, the
of theGFSC
relevanceof Settlement isnot yet evident to the Court. Second, the Osowski motion GFSC Settlement motion was
brought by the defendant
defendant against
againstthe
theplaintiff,
plaintiff; an
an active
active party
party opponent.
opponent.Accordingly, there was Accordingly, there
no questionin no Osowski about in Osowski about whetherthe whether court had the power to compeltheplaintiff court compel plaintiffto to produce
documents. In
the documents. In this
this case,
case,the Motion was brought by the plaintiff theMotion against aa non-party plaintiff against non-party to the
lawsuit and lawsuit defendant in default (in and aa defendant (in effect, effect, another
another non-party).
non-party). Neither
Neither Base Corporation nor
GFSC was subpoenaed GFSC was subpoenaed prior prior to
tothe
thefiling
filing of
of the
theMotion.
Motion.
Additionally, the Osowski decision the Osowski decision turned interpretation and timed on interpretation and application application of
of a specific
New New York
Yorkdiscovery
discoverystatute, Civil Practice statute, Civil Practice Law Law and ("CPLR") Law and Rules ("CPLR") Law310l(a), 3101(a),which
which creates
creates
a unique "material and necessary"
necessary" legal
legal test for Osowski holds for discovery. Osowski holds that that under the particular particular
facts of
ofthat
that case,
case, the
the settlement
settlement agreement was "material agreement was "rnateri8dand aridnecessary"
necessary"within
withinthemeaning
meaning of
CPLR CPLR Law 310l(a). In other words, Osowski Law 310l(a). Osowski is a fact-specific decision decision based
based on ajurisdiction-
specific specificdiscovery rule.InInthis discoveryrule. thiscase, case,the
thefacts
factsare
are not
not very similar
similarto
to those
those of Osowski, and in
ofOsowski, in Guam,
there is no rule or
or statute that provides
statute that provides aa similar similar "material
"material and
and necessary"
necessary" discovery
discovery test.
test. Given
Given
these distinctions, theCourt Court does
does not
not find Osowski persuasiveauthority find Osowski persuasive for resolving thisMotion.
6s Osowski
Osowski involved an
an action
action by
by aa general
general contractor
contractor (AMEC)
(AMEC) seeking indemnity from from aa subcontractor
subcontractor
(DCM) (DCM)based
based on Osowski's workplace injury. AMEC AMEC and
and Osowski
Osowski settled,
settled, but AMEC
AMEC continued
continued to to pursue
pursue
indemnity fromDCM. indemnity from DCM. In response, DCM successfully response, DCM arguedthat successfully argued thatititneeded need to toknow
knowthe the terms
terms ofof that
that
settlement, becauseififOsowski's settlement, because Osowski's recovery from AMEC AMEC waswasless
lessthan
than aa certain
certain amount,
amount, then thenAMEC
AMEC was
precluded precluded from
from maintaining
maintaining anan indemnity indemnity action as a matter of law. Here, by matter of by contrast, contrast, itit does
does not
not appear
appear
that the GFSC Settlement could bear on Duri Corporation's Settlement could bear on Duri Corporation's abilityability to maintain maintain this action.
action. Base
If Base
Corporation Corporation is liable to
to Duri
Duri Corporation
Corporation based
based on the allegations
allegationsof of the
the Complaint,
Complaint,itit would
would bebe liable
regardless of the GFSC Settlement.
Settlement.
88
:t i
DECISION AND ORDER DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DENYING MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CV0548-23; Duri Corporation CV0548-23;Duri Corporationv.v. Bose Base Corporation
Corporation and
andSung
Sung Hee Hong
CONCLUSION
Based on Based on the above analysis, analysis, the
the Court
Court concludes thatDuri
concludesthat Duri Corporation's.Motion Corporation's.Motion for
Disclosure of Disclosure ofConfidential ConfidentialSettlement
Settlement Agreement
Agreement is
is an
an improper
improper motion to compel discovery, so
the Motion
Motion isDENIED.
4 --gzx--_
so SO ORDERED
ORDERED this
this 20*
20thday
day of
ofAugust,
August,2025
2025. 'r`'-'- -_l'm-:-__
-r
Hon LE A. G. z.
EZ
Judge or o . r
f H .__ f
.':- -._~.1... _.