McCarthy et al v. Jauregui et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEVIN MCCARTHY, 	: Civil No. 3:21-CV-1759
:
Plaintiff, 	: (Judge Munley)
:
v. 	:
: (Chief Magistrate Judge Bloom)
RAUL JAUREGUI, et al., 	:
:
Defendants. 	:
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the court is a request to obtain copies of the parties’
confidential settlement memorandum.1 For the reasons stated below, the
request will be denied.
The above-captioned action was referred to the undersigned for the
purpose of conducting a settlement conference.2 	On December 13, 2024,
the Court issued a Scheduling Order setting a conference for January 3,
2025, 	and 	directing 	the 	parties 	to 	submit 	confidential 	settlement
memorandum setting forth the parties’ assessment of the case and
settlement recommendations via email. 3 On January 3, 2025, the parties
1 Doc. 83.
2 Doc. 69.
3 Doc. 75.
Case 3:21-cv-01759-JKM-MCC Document 85 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 3

reached settlement and the Court ordered dismissal of the matter. 4
Defendant Raul Jauregui now seeks to obtain the confidential settlement
memorandum submitted in preparation of the conference. 5 	Defendant
Daniel Boye filed an objection to the request arguing that the memoranda
should not be disclosed as they are confidential.6
There is a longstanding public interest in encouraging settlement
and maintaining the confidentiality of negotiations made in furtherance
of settlement. 7 	Indeed, “[f]or settlement negotiations to be fruitful,
parties ‘must be able to make hypothetical concessions, offer creative
quid pro quos, and generally make statements that would otherwise belie
their litigation efforts.’”8 	This public interest is also reflected in Federal
Rule 	of 	Evidence 	408, 	which 	prohibits 	the 	admission 	of 	settlement
4 Docs. 79-80.
5 Doc. 83.
6 Doc. 84.
7
Cambria Co. LLC v. Hirsch Glass Corp., Civ. No. 21-10092, 2023 WL
6387680, at *4 (D.N.J. Sept. 29, 2023) (citing
Bank of Am. Nat. Tr. & Sav.
Ass’n v. Hotel Rittenhouse Assocs., 800 F.2d 339, 344 (3d Cir. 1986));
see
also U.S. ex rel. Underwood v. Genentech, Inc., Civ. No. 03-3983, 2010
WL 8917474 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 7, 2010).
8
Cambria Co. LLC, 2023 WL 6387680, at *4 (quoting
Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Co. v. Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F.3d 976, 980 (6th Cir.
2003)).
Case 3:21-cv-01759-JKM-MCC Document 85 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 3

negotiations when made “either to prove or disprove the validity or
amount 	of 	a 	disputed 	claim 	or 	to 	impeach 	by 	a 	prior 	inconsistent
statement or a contradiction.” 9 	As stated by the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals, 	the 	“policy 	behind 	Rule 	408 	is 	to 	encourage 	freedom 	of
discussion with regard to compromise.” 10 	Accordingly, “information
exchanged during discussions held for the purpose of settlement should
be kept confidential.” 11
Here, Jauregui requests a copy of “all submissions that the parties
provided” to the undersigned in preparation of the January 3, 2025
settlement 	conference 	without 	explanation. 	Considering 	the 	strong
public interest in the confidentiality of settlement negotiations and
Jauregui’s failure to proffer any basis for disclosure, we will DENY his
request for copies of the parties’ confidential settlement memorandum.
So ordered this 5th day of January 2026.
s/ Daryl F. Bloom
Daryl F. Bloom
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
9 Fed. R. Evid. 408.
10
Affiliated Mfrs., Inc. v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 56 F.3d 521, 526 (3d
Cir. 1995)
11
Cambria Co. LLC, 2023 WL 6387680, at *5.
Case 3:21-cv-01759-JKM-MCC Document 85 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 3