Nevertheless, some district courts in California have recognized that California`s strong public policy, which favors settlements, encourages « enhanced control » in establishing confidential transaction agreements. See z.B. Big Baboon Corp. v. Dell, Inc., 2010 WL 3955831 -4 (C.D. Cal. 2010); MedImmune, L.C. v. PDL BioPharma, Inc., 2010 WL 3636211 -2 (N.D. Cal.
2010). As a result, it is likely that California`s federal courts « will further balance the interest of one party in discovering potentially relevant information against [the other party`s] interest in protecting a negotiated transaction with the expectation of confidentiality. » MedImmune, L.C., 2010 WL 3636211 at `2. Ultimately, disclosure disputes are often resolved by the fact that the protection applicant must file the dispute settlement agreement under lock and key for on camera verification. See z.B., Big Baboon Corp., 2010 WL 3955831 at `4. In the Federal Court, confidential transaction agreements are protected from disclosure by granting a proper protection order. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002) (« Phillips »). The correct reason is not defined, but it is left to the discretion of the Court. Id. to 1211.
However, contrary to the Hinshaw standard, the duty to seek protection must be questionable by the party, which must demonstrate that there is « specific prejudice or harm in the absence of a protection decision. » Id. at 1210-11. This assertion is unfounded. Of course, it is true that the courts and the parties to the trial often deal with the settlement… Again, to give you a better idea of what they look like, a few requests are asked from a wreck case. Unlike disclosure requests, which remain the same in all cases, they in turn change on a case-by-case basis. But these examples are typical of the kind of things you should perhaps provide. In this case, however, the question would be whether the agreement would be possible under California… Courts « must balance the interest of one party in discovering potentially relevant information against the interest of another party in the protection of a negotiated transaction with the expectation of confidentiality. » MedImmune, L.C. v. PDL BioPharma, Inc., 2010 WL 3636211 at 2 (N.D. Cal.
2010). In this case, the applicants` privacy interests must yield to the disclosure of the transaction agreement, as it is directly relevant to the determination of compensation for damages. Accordingly, the Tribunal rejected the applicants` objection to confidentiality. In its response, BCIA argues that « whether BCIA is a common cake tumor or not, since liability for the same injury authorizes BCIA to compensate the amount of liability in order to avoid a double recovery for the same injury. » (ECF 136 to 2.) BCIA states that the « actual settlement amount that the complainants received from bankers determines BCIA`s claims as opposed to the policy limit of 266,000 $US. » (Id. at 8.) Finally, BCIA argues that a « confidentiality provision does not interfere with BCIA`s interest in obtaining relevant evidence. » (Id.) « The tacit treaty [of good faith and fair trade] imposes certain legal obligations on the contracting parties, in particular that they fulfil their contractual obligations in good faith and honesty. » Mundy v.