Capps v. Drake et al

Filing 132

ORDER GRANTING 65 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 1/5/2016. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ISAAC W. CAPPS,
Plaintiff,
v.
KEVIN DRAKE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:14-cv-441-NJR-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court is the Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery filed by
Plaintiff, Isaac W. Capps, on August 3, 2015 (Doc. 65). For the reasons set forth below, the
Motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order compelling Defendants Kevin Drake, Jared Freeman,
Shawn Isaacs, James Trogolo, Kevin Roye, and Brice Shaffer to respond to Plaintiff’s
Interrogatory Number Six that seeks certain financial information, including information on
Defendants’ gross monthly income and estimated monthly living expenses, for purposes of
punitive damages, should Plaintiff prevail on liability.
Defendants, through their respective counsel, filed responses to Plaintiff’s motion,
standing on their objections of irrelevance and immateriality to Plaintiff’s interrogatory (Docs. 67,
69, and 70). Defendants also contend that Plaintiff’s demand for production of their financial
information is premature and it is not the Plaintiff’s burden to produce evidence concerning a
defendant’s net worth; rather, it is the defendant who bears the burden of proving his inability to
pay punitive damages.
Page 1 of 2

While not relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, evidence of Defendants’ financial status may
become relevant if punitive damages become an issue at trial. With regard to punitive damages,
while “a defendant’s wealth is not a sufficient basis for awarding punitive damages” in and of
itself, Mathias v. Accor Econ. Lodging, Inc., 347 F.3d 672, 677 (7th Cir. 2003)), the Supreme
Court has referred to the “financial position” of the defendant as a factor that can be considered in
evaluating punitive damages. See Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1, 21-22 (1991)).
The Court recognizes that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has found that a plaintiff is not
required to introduce evidence concerning a defendant’s net worth, and that evidence of net worth
is inadmissible if a defendant is to be fully indemnified, see Kemezy v. Peters, 79 F.3d 33 (7th Cir.
1996); this decision, however, is not at odds with allowing Plaintiff to seek at least some discovery
related to Defendants’ net worth. Further, as the Court has ruled on dispositive motions and trial
in this matter is impending, Plaintiff’s request for financial information is not premature. The
Court notes that any issue concerning admissibility of Defendants’ financial information may be
determined at trial.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 65) is GRANTED.
Defendants are ORDERED to respond to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory Number Six by January 19,
2016. Defendants may file a motion for protective order, along with a proposed order, addressing
the disclosure of their financial information for consideration by the Court. Any motion for a
protective order shall be filed by January 12, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 5, 2016

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 2 of 2