Bakersfield Pipe & Supply, Inc., v. Cornerstone Valve, LLC

Filing 79

ORDER GRANTING 47 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel the Production of Documents and Further Responses to Interrogatories by Defendant Nitesh Gupta, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/28/2016. Joint protective order due by 7/1/2016. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BAKERSFIELD PIPE & SUPPLY, INC.,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

CORNERSTONE VALVE, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01445 - JLT
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
AND FURTHER RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES BY DEFENDANT NITESH
GUPTA
(Doc. 47)

17

Bakersfield Pipe & Supply, Inc. asserts Cornerstone Valve and Nitesh Gupta, the owner and

18

president of Cornerstone, are liable for deceit and concealment, and for breaching a purchase order.

19

(Doc. 23) Plaintiff seeks to compel discovery related to Gupta’s financial status. (Doc. 47) Because

20

the financial information is relevant to Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages, as discussed below,

21

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED.

22

I.

Background
The operative pleading claims that the defendants fraudulently induced the plaintiff into

23
24

entering into a contract through deceit and concealment. (Doc. 23 at 4-7) The plaintiff seeks punitive

25

damages on this claim. Id. at 6, 7. Defendants have resisted discovery into their financial statuses

26

because, they claim, punitive damages are not awardable in this action. In this motion, the plaintiff

27

seeks to compel responses to discovery into this topic.

28

///
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

II.

Scope of Discovery and Requests
The scope and limitations of discovery are set forth by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and Evidence. Rule 26(b) provides:
Unless otherwise limited by court order, parties may obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged manner that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense – including the
existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or
other tangible things. . . For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter
relevant to the subject matter involved in the accident. Relevant information need not
be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.

8
9

Relevant evidence is defined as “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that

10

is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be

11

without the evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. Further, relevancy is interpreted “broadly to encompass

12

any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on any issue that

13

is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 427 U.S. 340, 351 (1978).

14

A.

Interrogatories

15

A party may propound interrogatories relating to any matter that may be inquired to under Rule

16

26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). A responding party is obligated to respond to the fullest extent possible,

17

and any objections must be stated with specificity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3)-(4). In general, a

18

responding party is not required “to conduct extensive research in order to answer an interrogatory, but

19

a reasonable effort to respond must be made.” Haney v. Saldana, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93447, at *9

20

(E.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2010) (citing L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73753 (E.D. Cal.

21

Sep. 21, 2007)). Further, the responding party must supplement a response he later obtains the

22

information sought or discovers the previous response requires correction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A).

23

B.

Requests for Production of Documents

24

A party may request documents “in the responding party’s possession, custody, or control.”

25

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). Similarly, a party may serve a request “to permit entry onto designated land

26

or other property possessed or controlled by the responding party, so that the requesting party may

27

inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(2). A

28

request is adequate if it describes items with “reasonable particularity;” specifies a reasonable time,
2

1

place, and manner for the inspection; and specifies the form or forms in which electronic information

2

can be produced. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b). Thus, a request is sufficiently clear if it “places the party

3

upon ‘reasonable notice of what is called for and what is not.’” Kidwiler v. Progressive Paloverde Ins.

4

Co., 192 F.R.D. 193, 202 (N.D. W. Va. 2000) (quoting Parsons v. Jefferson-Pilot Corp., 141 F.R.D.

5

408, 412 (M.D.N.C. 1992)); see also Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, California Practice Guide:

6

Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rev. #1 2011) Discovery, para. 11:1886 (“the apparent test is

7

whether a respondent of average intelligence would know what items to produce”).
The responding party must respond in writing and is obliged to produce all specified relevant

8
9

and non-privileged documents, tangible things, or electronically stored information in its “possession,

10

custody, or control” on the date specified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). Actual possession, custody or control

11

is not required. “A party may be ordered to produce a document in the possession of a non-party entity

12

if that party has a legal right to obtain the document or has control over the entity who is in possession

13

of the document.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 620 (N.D. Cal. 1995). Such documents

14

include documents under the control of the party’s attorney. Meeks v. Parson, 2009 WL 3303718 (E.D.

15

Cal. Sept. 18, 2009) (involving a subpoena to the CDCR); Axler v. Scientific Ecology Group, Inc., 196

16

F.R.D. 210, 212 (D. Mass. 2000) (a “party must produce otherwise discoverable documents that are in

17

his attorneys’ possession, custody or control”). In the alternative, a party may state an objection to a

18

request, including the reasons. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A)-(B).
If a party “fails to respond that inspection will be permitted - or fails to permit inspection - as

19
20

requested under Rule 34,” the propounding party may make a motion to compel production of the

21

documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv). Further, “an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or

22

response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). A

23

moving party has the burden of demonstrating “actual and substantial prejudice” from the denial of

24

discovery. Hallet v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002)).

25

III.

Discussion and Analysis

26

In this action, the disputed discovery requests related to Nitesh Gupta’s financial information.

27

Specifically, in its Request for Production No. 1, Plaintiff requested Gupta produce “[a]ll documents

28

sufficient to show [his] net worth,” including:
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

a. bank statements, money market statements, bond accounts, and other investment
accounts as of July 31, 2015, and August 31, 2015;
b. a listing of all rental income receivable as of July 31, 2015, and August 31, 2015;
c. copies of all mortgage loan balance statements for all investment and personal real
estate properties as of August 31, 2015;
d. copies of home owner's insurance policies for all investment and personal real
estate properties as of August 31, 2015;
e. documentation and valuation of all life insurance policies and annuities that carry a
“cash-in” or redemption value as of July 31, 2015;
f. estimated value of all household goods, including furniture, equipment, clothing,
firearms, and collectibles owned and the approximate value as of August 31, 2015,
as to an item with a value of at least $500;
g. listing of all personal motor vehicles required to be licensed by the Texas
Department of Motor Vehicles and owned or leased as of August 31, 2015,
including year, make, and model;
h. listing of all other personal property, including boats, ATVs, and trailers as of
August 31, 2015;
i. copies of individual 2014 Federal Individual Income Tax Return, including all
applicable attached schedules;
j. copies of all other tax returns for any entities controlled by YOU for 2014,
including but not limited to Eii Valve Company, Eii AVSCO FZCO, Cornerstone
Valve, LLC, Well Head Component, Inc. dba AVSCO, Mg Valve Company, Inc.
Gupta Management Co., LLC, Inc.;
k. documents demonstrating how YOU determined the amount of quarterly taxes due
and the documents upon which YOU relied to estimate the amount of quarterly
taxes due and documents demonstrating YOUR proof of payment of these taxes;
l. listing of outstanding accounts payable as of July 31, 2015, and August 31, 2015;

21

m. copies of all credit card balance statements as of July 31, 2015, and August 31,
2015 for each credit card which reflected a debt of at least $500; and

22

n. copies of applications for loans during the past year.

23

(Doc. 56 at 9-10) Defendant objected to the Request, asserting it was “[o]verbroad and does not seek

24

discovery that is within the realm of that which is likely to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence.”

25

(Id. at 10) In addition, Defendant argues it invaded his “right to privacy.” (Id.)

26
27
28

Similarly, the contested interrogatories sought information regarding Gupta’s assets and
financial condition:
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Please describe or otherwise IDENTIFY each of YOUR assets (whether owned solely
4

1
2
3

by YOU or partly by YOU) with a value of $500 or more. Describe each asset in detail,
including but not limited to: the type of asset; the value of the asset, including rental or
interest income; the physical location of the asset; and any other persons or entities
having an ownership interest in the assets.

6

INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Please describe or otherwise IDENTIFY YOUR ordinary expenses. For each expense
identify: the type of expense, the name of the company or person generating the
expense, the amount of the expense, the frequency of the expense, and the method used
to pay the expense. If an ordinary expense ranges in amount, state the range of the
amount of the expense since January 1, 2015.

7

INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

8

Please describe or otherwise IDENTIFY any expense, other than an ordinary expense, of
$500 or more that YOU incurred since January 1, 2015. For each expense, describe the
type of expense, IDENTIFY of the PERSON generating the expense, the amount of the
expense, and the method used to pay for the expense. This interrogatory calls for all
expenses of $500 or more, incurred since January 1, 2015, that were not included in
your response to interrogatory #2

4
5

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Please describe or otherwise IDENTIFY all gifts or loans, including cash gifts or loans,
worth over $500 that you have given any person since January 1, 2015. For each gift or
loan, state whether the transaction was a gift or a loan, the recipient of the gift or loan,
the type of gift or loan, the value of the gift or loan, the location where the gift was
purchased (if applicable), the method used to pay for the gift or loan, the date you gave
the gift or loan, any documents that relate to the gift or loan, and, if a loan, the terms of
the loan including the dates you received or expect to receive repayment.

16
17

(See Doc. 56 at 13-16) Defendant objected to each of these interrogatories, asserting the information

18

requested was “[o]verbroad,” “outside the scope of what is permitted, and invades [his] right to

19

privacy.” (Id.) In addition, Defendant objected the interrogatories were “[i]mmaterial and not

20

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Id.) Instead, he argued the

21

“discovery [was] meant for no other reason than to harass and annoy...” (Id.)
Defendant’s financial information is within the scope of discovery.

22

A.

23

Defendant objects on relevancy grounds, arguing punitive damages may not be awarded “since

24

this is a breach of contract action.” (Doc. 56 at 5, emphasis omitted) However, when, as here a party

25

asserts a fraudulent inducement to a contract, punitive damages may be awarded if the tort is

26

independent of the breach of contract. See Walker v. Signal Companies, Inc., 84 Cal.App.3d 982, 996

27

(Ct. App. 1978) (holding punitive damages may be “awarded where a defendant fraudulently induces

28

the plaintiff to enter into a contract); see also Copart, Inc. v. Sparta Consulting, Inc., 2015 WL
5

1

3622618, at *12 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2015) (finding punitive damages may be sought where the tort

2

liability is independent of the breach of contract). Consequently, punitive damages may be awarded in

3

this action.

4

Previously, this Court determined that a defendant’s “financial information is relevant” where a

5

plaintiff states a claim for punitive damages. EEOC v. Cal. Psych. Transitions, 258 F.R.D. 391, 394-95

6

(E.D. Cal. 2009) (citing City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 267 (1981) (observing

7

that evidence of a defendant’s financial worth is traditionally admissible under federal law to evaluate

8

the amount of punitive damages that should be awarded)); see also Fair Hous. Council of Cent. Cal.,

9

Inc. v. Nunez, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127389, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2011) (“financial information

10

is relevant to [a] plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages and within the scope of permissible discovery”).

11

Although the Ninth Circuit has not established “the parameters of the dissemination of financial

12

information during discovery when punitive damages are alleged,” a majority of federal courts do not

13

require the plaintiff to demonstrate punitive damages will be recovered “to discover information

14

relating to the defendant’s financial condition in advance of trial.” Cal. Psych. Transitions, 258 F.R.D.

15

at 394-95. Rather, “a majority of federal courts permit discovery of financial information about the

16

defendant without requiring [the] plaintiff to establish a prima facie case on the issue of damages.”

17

CEH, Inc., 153 F.R.D. at 498 (citing, e.g., Fretz v. Keltner, 109 F.R.D. 303, 310-11 (D.Kan. 1986);

18

Baker v. CNA Ins. Co., 123 F.R.D. 322, 329-30 (D.Mont. 1988); In re Bergeson, 112 F.R.D. 692, 696

19

(D.Mont. 1986); St. Joseph Hospital v. INA Underwriters Ins. Co., 117 F.R.D. 24, 25-26 (D.Me. 1987);

20

Renshaw v. Ravert, 82 F.R.D. 361, 363 (E.D.Pa. 1979); American Ben. Life Ins. Co. v. Ille, 87 F.R.D.

21

540, 542 (W.D.Okla. 1978)). Because “[t]he discovery of financial information [is] relevant to a

22

putative damages claim,” it is permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without a prima

23

facie showing by Plaintiff.1 Oakes v. Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D. 281, 286 (C.D. Cal. 1998).
Defendant’s right to privacy does not preclude disclosure of financial information.

24

B.

25

Defendant argues that state law protects his right to privacy, “and federal courts have generally

26

recognized state law privacy concerns in federal cases.” (Doc. 56 at 6, citing Johnson v. Thompson,

27
1

28

Even if the Court were to require a prima facie showing by Plaintiff, this obligation is clearly satisfied, as
Plaintiff successfully opposed summary adjudication of its claims for deceit and concealment, as well as for punitive
damages. (See Doc. 78 at 24-26)

6

1

971 F.2d 1487, 1497 (10th Cir. 1992)). Previously, this Court found the right to privacy under

2

California law “extends to financial privacy in litigation, but…is subject to balancing the needs of the

3

litigation with the sensitivity of the information/ records sought.” Davis v. Leal, 43 F. Supp. 2d 1102,

4

1110 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (quoting Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court, 15 Cal. 3d 652, 657 (1975)).

5

Consequently, the right to privacy is not an “absolute bar to discovery,” and “may be subject to

6

invasion.” Cal. Psychiatric Transitions, 258 F.R.D. at 395. Notably, a party’s interest in the

7

confidentiality of financial information may be adequately addressed via a protected order. Oakes,

8

179 F.R.D. at 284; Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Assn., 7 Cal. 4th 1, 38 (1994) (privacy concerns

9

“are assuaged if intrusion is limited and confidential information is carefully shielded from disclosure

10

except to those who have a legitimate need to know”).
Because Defendant’s concerns regarding privacy may be addressed by protective order, the

11
12

objections on privacy grounds are OVERRULED. See Cal. Psychiatric Transitions, 258 F.R.D. at 395

13

V.

14
15

Conclusion and Order
Defendant Gupta’s financial information is relevant to Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages,

and is within the scope of discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

17

1.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery is GRANTED;

18

2.

No later than July 1, 2016, counsel SHALL file a joint, proposed protective order
addressing the maintaining the confidentiality of the financial records at issue;

19
20

3.

Defendant SHALL produce any documents responsive to Request for Production, No. 1

21

and respond to Interrogatories Nos. 1 through 4 within five court days after the Court

22

issues the protective order.

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 28, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
7