## Facts

- Lin T. Kalinauskas, a former card dealer at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas, sued supervisory and corporate defendants associated with Caesars, alleging sexual harassment and discrimination under Title VII and related state law.
- About a year earlier, Donna R. Thomas, another former Caesars employee, filed a similar sexual harassment suit against Caesars.
- Thomas’s earlier case ended in a sealed, confidential settlement agreement restricting her ability to disclose information about her employment and the prior litigation.
- In Kalinauskas’s case, the plaintiff noticed Thomas’s deposition to obtain evidence relevant to a pattern of harassment and Caesars’s notice.
- Caesars sought a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to prevent Thomas’s deposition based on the confidentiality provisions in Thomas’s settlement.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant may use a nonparty’s prior confidential settlement agreement to bar a later plaintiff from deposing that nonparty about relevant events in a related discrimination case.
2. How a court should weigh settlement confidentiality and finality against the need for relevant discovery and the truth-seeking function of litigation when deciding a Rule 26(c) protective-order request.

## Decision

- The court denied Caesars’s request for a blanket protective order prohibiting Thomas’s deposition.
- The court permitted the deposition to proceed, subject to restrictions designed to limit questioning to relevant matters.
- The court rejected the argument that a confidentiality agreement, by itself, categorically prevents discovery from a nonparty witness in subsequent litigation.
- The court recognized competing interests in settlement confidentiality and therefore tailored limitations rather than imposing a complete bar on testimony.

## Legal Principles

- A confidentiality provision in a settlement agreement generally binds only its signatories and does not, standing alone, preclude discovery by a later litigant who was not a party to the agreement.
- Courts should not allow settlement confidentiality to function as “purchased silence” that suppresses relevant evidence in later litigation.
- Under Rule 26(c), protective orders are discretionary and should be narrowly tailored to protect legitimate confidentiality interests while preserving access to relevant information.
- When confidential settlement interests conflict with discovery likely to yield important, relevant evidence, courts may allow discovery and regulate its scope instead of prohibiting it outright.

## Conclusion

The court held that a prior confidential settlement could not be used to categorically block a later plaintiff from deposing a nonparty witness in a related harassment case, and it allowed the deposition under targeted restrictions to protect confidentiality only to the extent consistent with fair discovery.


Kalinauskas v. Wong, 151 F.R.D. 363 (D. Nev. 1993)