MATYSIK v. JUDD TRANSPORTATION, LLC. et al

Filing 104

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 99 Motion to serve 6 additional interrogatories relating to his punitive damages claim. Signed by Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue on 3/9/2016. (CBU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
MICHAEL MATYSIK,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JUDD TRANSPORTATION, L.L.C., et
al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:14-cv-1889-TWP-DKL

Entry and Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Additional Interrogatories [doc. 99]
Plaintiff has filed Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Additional Interrogatories.
District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt referred the motion to the undersigned for ruling.
Plaintiff seeks leave pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1) to serve 6 additional
interrogatories pertaining to his punitive damages claim, specifically relating to the
wealth of Defendants Bolt Express, LLC and Judd Transportation, LLC. [See Pl.’s Mot.
Leave Serve Addt’l Interrogs., doc. 99 ¶¶ 3-4.]

Under that rule, “[u]nless otherwise

stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may serve on any other party no more than 25
written interrogatories ….” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). The court may grant leave to serve
additional interrogatories “to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2).” Id. The
court understands Plaintiff as asking only for leave to serve 6 more interrogatories. He
has not provided the Court with the proposed interrogatories.

Plaintiff argues that when punitive damages are sought, the defendant’s economic
wealth is discoverable and admissible. Defendants respond that discovery on punitive
damages is premature at this time, and is premature unless and until Plaintiff proves a
claim for which compensatory damages are available. They cite Indiana substantive law
regarding the prerequisite to receiving a punitive damages award rather than federal
procedural law.
“[T]he majority of federal courts, and courts within this Circuit, have permitted
plaintiffs seeking punitive damages to discover information related to the defendant’s
financial condition prior to making a prima facie case that [he] may recover punitive
damages.” E.E.O.C. v. SVT, LLC, No. 2:13-CV-245-RLM-PRC, 2014 WL 7148790, at *12
(N.D. Ind. Dec. 15, 2014) (quoting Marshall v. GE Marshall, Inc., 2:09–CV–198, 2012 WL
2343368, at *4 (N.D. Ind. June 20, 2012)). Plaintiff seeks punitive damages; discovery of
Bolt Express, LLC’s and Judd Transportation, LLC’s wealth is relevant to his punitive
damages claim and subject to discovery. Defendants have not shown that such discovery
would be premature at this time; indeed, the March 17, 2016 deadline for discovery
relating to damages is fast-approaching.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Additional Interrogatories [doc. 99] is GRANTED.
Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to serve 6 additional interrogatories relating to his punitive
damages claim.
SO ORDERED THIS DATE: 03/09/2016

2

Electronic Distribution to All Counsel of Record

3