Mediplex of California, Inc. v. Superior Court

In this case, we are asked to decide whether a nonsettling defendant who opposes a good faith settlement motion is entitled to see the settlement agreement. We conclude a nonsettling defendant has a right to review the agreement notwithstanding the settlors’ protests that the confidential terms and contingencies do not affect the offset. The nonsettling defendant must be given an opportunity to determine independently whether the undisclosed terms arguably have an effect on reducing the offset.

Factual and Procedural Background

Casa de las Campanas (Casa) filed a construction defect suit against developer Mediplex of California, Inc., general contractor the Law Company, Inc., doing business as Lawco Construction, Inc. (Lawco) and others. Lawco cross-complained against Mediplex and others for express, implied and equitable indemnity, breach of contract, breach of warranties, negligence and declaratory relief.

After entering into a settlement with Casa, Lawco filed a motion for good faith settlement approval under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6. According to the moving papers, the agreement required Lawco to pay Casa $8 million and assign to Casa its indemnity and…