Punt v. Kelly Services et al

Filing 27

MINUTE ORDER granting 22 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant GE Controls to Produce Financial Documents, as set forth in the order. Defendant GE Controls Solutions shall fully respond to Plaintiff's Second Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 1 and 2 on or before 3/12/2015. All discovery produced is subject to the Protective Order 25 . By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 2/19/2015. (emill)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02560-CMA-MJW
KRISTIN PUNT,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
KELLY SERVICES and
GE CONTROLS SOLUTIONS,
Defendant(s).
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant GE Controls
to Produce Financial Documents (docket no. 22) is GRANTED for the following reasons.

This is an American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) case in which Plaintiff is seeking punitive damages under
Section 1981a, and alleging the requisite malice or reckless disregard for federally
protected rights, as necessary to obtain punitive damages under Section 1981a.
The case of Deters v.Equifax Credit Info. Services, Inc., 202 F.3d 1262, 1273 (10th Cir.
2000), is dispositive on the subject motion (docket no. 47). The Deters case was a Title
VII case, applying the very same punitive damage provision applicable in this case
under 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. The Tenth Circuit held in Deters that the defendant’s financial
resources are relevant to a claim of punitive damages under Section 1981a.
Accordingly, there is no dispute that information pertaining to a defendant’s financial
resources is discoverable when the plaintiff seeks punitive damages. See Britton v. Car
Toys, Inc., 2007 WL 1395290, *3 (D. Colo. May 9, 2007). Furthermore, I find that
Defendant GE Controls Solutions’ objections that Plaintiff’s Second Requests for
Production of Documents Nos. 1 and 2 are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case are
overruled.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant GE Controls Solutions shall fully
respond to Plaintiff’s Second Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 1 and 2 on or
before March 12, 2015.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that all discovery produced is subject to the

2
Protective Order (docket no. 25), and such discovery may be used for the limited
purpose of this case only and for no other purpose.

Date: February 19, 2015