Judge Nealon of Lackawanna County Addresses Request for Financial Worth Discovery in Punitive Damages Case

In the case of Charlesworth v. Galacci, No. 2014-CV-3390 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Sept. 19, 2017 Nealon, J.), the trial court in Lackawanna County addressed the merits of a Plaintiff's motion for punitive damages discovery in a dog bite case.

Judge Nealon reviewed the Plaintiff's motion for leave of court to gather such discovery on the Defendant's financial worth under the standards set forth under Pa.R.C.P. 4003.7 and the case of Kirkbride v. Lisbon Contractors, Inc., 555 A.2d 800, 803 (Pa. 1989).  The court ruled that the Plaintiff made a proper prima facie showing of a valid punitive damages claim in support of the request for the discovery order.  As such, the request for financial worth discovery was allowed.

The court also looked past the fact that the Plaintiff's motion was filed after a Certificate of Readiness had been filed.  While the court noted that, generally speaking, requests for discovery after the filing of a Certificate of Readiness are frowned upon, in this case the Defendants had also conducted discovery after the filing of the Certificate.  Moreover, the court also noted that it found no prejudice to the defense in allowing the discovery as the requested information was relevant to the jury's consideration of potential punitive damages to possibly be awarded.

While discovery of the Defendant's financial worth was allowed, the court did order that any information disclosed must be kept confidential and could only be disclosed as may be necessary for trial purposes, including the provision of such information to expert witnesses.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Federal Court Rules on Propriety of Financial Wealth Discovery in Punitive Damages Cases

In the case of N’Jai v. Bentz, Civil Action No. 13-1212 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 24, 2015 Fischer, J.), the court denied a Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel relative to a punitive damages claim.

In so ruling, the federal court asserted that a Plaintiff is not automatically entitled to discovery of a Defendant’s financial wealth simply by successful pleading a punitive damages claim.  Rather, the court noted that a Plaintiff must go beyond the pleadings and produce prima facie evidence to show a right to recover punitive damages before a court would permit such financial wealth discovery.  

Stated otherwise, the court found that financial wealth discovery is not appropriate in a civil litigation matter until there is a reasonable evidentiary basis to show that a Plaintiff’s punitive damages claims can be submitted a jury.  

Anyone wishing to review this case online may click this LINK.

 

I thank Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of Reid Smith for bringing this case to my attention.

 

Judge Terrence R. Nealon of Lackawanna County Addresses Prerequisites for Discovery on Defendant's Finances in Punitive Damages Case

In his recent March 9, 2012 detailed Ordered issued in the case of Genevich v. T.S.E., Inc. Utility & General Contracting, No. 09-Civil-5119 (C.P. March 9, 2012 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas addressed the issues presented by a Plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to Conduct Punitive Damages Discovery (Financial Work Discovery) of a Defendant in a Personal Injury Litigation.”

This matter arose out of an accident that occurred while the Plaintiff was working underneath a sidewalk area.  The Plaintiff alleged that one of the Defendants allegedly caused the sidewalk area to collapse down into the area where the Plaintiff was working, allegedly resulting in personal injuries. The Plaintiff sued various Defendants and asserted punitive damages claims.

In his detailed Order, Judge Nealon reviewed Pa. R.C.P. 4003.7 which governs the discovery of a Defendant’s wealth in connection with a claim for punitive damages. That Rule specifically states that a party may obtain information concerning the wealth of a Defendant in a claim for punitive damages only upon an Order of Court setting forth appropriate restrictions as to that type of discovery.

Judge Nealon referred to prior decisions out of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas on which the Court had held that Rule 4003.7 retains a common law requirement that a Plaintiff must first demonstrate a prima facie right to recover punitive damages before such financial discovery would be ordered.

The court noted that the maintenance of the prima facie showing protects the privacy rights of a Defendant by ensuring that there is some factual basis for the Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim before a Defendant will be compelled to divulge confidential financial information to an opponent in a lawsuit.

Applying the law to the facts of this matter, the court noted that, while the Plaintiffs had alleged allegations of willful, wanton, and reckless conduct, the Plaintiff had not specifically demanded any punitive damages in the Complaint.

As such, Judge Nealon found that there was no existing punitive damages claim in the case before him to support an allowance of discovery of the Defendant’s finances. Accordingly, the court denied the Plaintiff’s request for financial work discovery without prejudice to the Plaintiff’s right to later seek out such discovery in the event the Plaintiff was granted leave of court to amend his Complaint to include a specific claim for punitive damages.

Anyone desiring a copy of this Opinion may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.