Filing 102

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

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?