Beaumont’s own nurses and nurses employed by the other hospitals, the settlement cannot be characterized as disgorgement. The district court properly denied Federal’s motion to compel discovery. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 1 . The Policy defines bolded terms elsewhere in the document. 2 . Federal does not argue that this court should look at the clause "any amount reimbursed by any Insured Person” (R. 11-2 PAGE ID 244) in making its decision. As the district court correctly held, under the terms of the Policy, an insured person encompasses only individuals, not companies. R. 46 PAGE ID 2327 n. 9. 3 . Other courts have distinguished Level 3 on this ground. See Genzyme Corp. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 622 F.3d 62, 70 (1st Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); Virginia Mason Med. Ctr. v. Exec. Risk
holding the eleventh amendment barred the retroactive payment of state benefits wrongfully withheld holding that proceeds of a litigation settlement were an identifiable fund and thus a proper subject of a misappropriation and conversion claim holding that plaintiffs security deposit was not improperly withheld when home applied the deposit amount to rent in arrears holding that because the settlement agreement here specifically did not contain any admission of liability the plaintiff must therefore prove some liability on the part of defendant holding that defendant obtained no identifiable asset and therefore the underlying settlement payment cannot represent the restoration to the plaintiffs of some amount the defendant had improperly taken and withheld