Curtis v. City of Oakland et al

Filing 66

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 12/13/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

RONALD EL-MALIK CURTIS,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

No. C 10-00358 SI

Plaintiff,

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

v.
CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,
Defendants.

/

13
14

This is an action brought by plaintiff Ronald Curtis, a firefighter paramedic in the Oakland Fire

15

Department (the “OFD”), against the City of Oakland and various OFD officials for racial

16

discrimination and retaliation in violation of California law and the U.S. Constitution. See First

17

Amended Complaint. The parties have submitted letter briefs presenting a discovery dispute to the

18

Court. At issue is plaintiff’s request for defendants’ financial information in connection with plaintiff’s

19

claim for punitive damages.

20

In Curtis’ first request for the production, he seeks a variety of documents establishing the

21

financial condition of defendants Joseph Torres, John Farrell, Gerald A. Simon, and Jennifer Ray. The

22

parties agree that defendants’ financial information is relevant to Curtis’ punitive damages claim, and

23

is discoverable under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. They dispute, however, how far back the

24

plaintiffs may discover the information. Plaintiffs are seeking property appraisals, loan applications and

25

related financial statements, earning statements, account balances and outstanding debt information from

26

January 1, 2006 to the present. Defendants are offering discovery of net worth informaiton from

27

January 1, 2011 forward, including appraisals of real or personal property, statements of income, bank

28

and investment statements redacted to reflect balances only, loan statements redacted to reflect loan

1

balances, liens or judgments, and vehicle ownership data. Defendants’ also seek to limit the information

2

to attorneys’ eyes only.
For the purposes of punitive damages, courts have generally found that the relevant discoverable

4

information is the “current condition” of defendants’ finances. See Momot v. Mastro, 2011 U.S. Dist.

5

LEXIS 51747, *8 (D. Nev. May 13, 2011) (rejecting request for 10 years of tax returns, limiting it to

6

2007-2009); see also Platcher v. Health Professional, Ltd., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68838 (C.D. Ill.

7

2007) (rejecting a three-year look back). “Other district courts addressing this issue have concluded that

8

financial records over the past two years is sufficient to establish a defendant’s current net worth.”

9

United States v. Autumn Ridge Condo Ass’n, 265 F.R.D. 323 (N.D. Ind. 2009) (rejecting three year

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

3

period as overbroad). This Court agrees; two years of financial information is sufficient to establish the

11

defendants’ current net worth. Plaintiff’s citation to U.S. v. Dong, 436 F.2d 1237, 1239 (9th Cir. 1971)

12

to support a claim for five years of records is inapposite; Dong is a tax evasion case that does not

13

address punitive damages.

14

The Court therefore orders defendants Joseph Torres, John Farrell, Gerald A. Simon, and

15

Jennifer Ray to produce the following records from the period of January 1, 2010 to the present:

16

appraisals of real or personal property, statements of income, bank and investment statements redacted

17

to reflect balances only, loan statements redacted to reflect loan balances, liens or judgments, and

18

vehicle ownership data. The documents will be for attorneys’ eyes only.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: December 13, 2011
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2