PNY TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. MILLER, KAPLAN, ARASE & CO., LLP

Filing 102

ORDER Regarding Dkt. Nos. 96 , 100 by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. (shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/25/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PNY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 15-cv-01728-MMC (EDL)
ORDER REGARDING DKT. NOS. 96,
100

v.
MILLER, KAPLAN, ARASE & CO, LLP,
Defendant.

12
13

On May 23, PNY submitted a letter requesting that the Court compel responses to

14

Requests for Production Nos. 87 and 88 which demand financial information from Miller Kaplan

15

sufficient to establish its net worth and financial condition, including balance sheets, statements of

16

income, statements of cash flow, and state and federal tax returns from 2013 to present. Dkt. No.

17

96. Miller Kaplan did not join in the discovery letter, but filed a response on May 25 in which it

18

argues that state law allows discovery of a defendant’s wealth only after the plaintiff has shown a

19

substantial probability of recovering damages. Dkt. No. 100 (citing W. Schwarzer et al., Cal.

20

Practice Guide: Fed Civil Procedure Before Trial § 1:1062 (Rutter Group 2014); Cal. Civ. Code§

21

3295(c)). The Court declines to apply this state law, and hereby Orders Miller Kaplan to respond

22

to Requests for Production Nos. 87 and 88. PNY has stated claims for intentional torts including

23

fraud, intentional misrepresentation and tortious interference and it is demanding punitive

24

damages, and financial information is relevant to a jury’s determination of the amount of punitive

25

damages, if any, to award.

26

More persuasively, Miller Kaplan argues that it has a right to privacy in its financial

27

information. However, that right is not absolute. To protect its interests and in the interest of

28

time, Miller Kaplan may initially produce its financial information under an “Attorneys Eyes

1

Only” designation within one week from the date of this Order. Upon production, the parties shall

2

meet and confer to determine whether this designation is warranted or whether a “Confidential”

3

designation for some or all of the documents is appropriate.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 25, 2016

7
8
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2