\ .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). 2 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. 3 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. 4 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.
5 '
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.
6 • . .
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. 7 :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... _.