Makransky v. Doto et al

Filing 47

ORDER Denying 38 Defendant Jenna Wells-Doto's Emergency Motion to Stay Enforcement of the Magistrate Judge's Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff John Makransky's request for sanctions is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 12/22/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11

JOHN MAKRANSKY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DAVID DOTO, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:16-cv-00563-JCM-CWH
ORDER

12
13

Presently before the court is Defendant Jenna Wells-Doto’s Emergency Motion to Stay

14

Enforcement of the Magistrate Judge’s Order (ECF No. 38), filed on November 2, 2016. Plaintiff

15

John Makransky filed a response (ECF No. 43) on November 18, 2016. Defendant filed a reply

16

(ECF No. 44) on November 28, 2016.

17

Defendant Wells-Doto requests that the court stay its order (ECF No. 34) that was entered

18

on October 19, 2016. Specifically, Defendant Wells-Doto requests that the court stay enforcement

19

of its order requiring her to produce financial records regarding her separate property pending the

20

disposition of her objection (ECF No. 39) to the order, which is currently pending before the United

21

States district judge assigned to this case. Defendant Wells-Doto argues that without a stay, she

22

will suffer irreparable harm because she has a protected privacy interest in her confidential

23

financial records under Nevada law.

24

Plaintiff opposes a stay, arguing that Defendant Wells-Doto is attempting to re-litigate

25

issues that the court already considered at the hearing on October 19, 2016. Plaintiff requests

26

sanctions under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including that Defendant Wells-

27

Doto be held in civil contempt until she complies with the court’s order.

28

///

1

Regarding staying enforcement of the order, the court understands Defendant Wells-Doto to

2

be arguing that she may unilaterally determine the character of the property that is at issue in the

3

financial records (i.e., separate or community property) and that plaintiff and the court must accept

4

her characterization of the property. Defendant Wells-Doto cites legal authority indicating that in

5

certain situations, tax returns may be accorded greater privacy protections and financial discovery

6

may be limited when it is of marginal relevance or based on speculative allegations. See, e.g.,

7

Hetter v. Dist. Ct., 874 P.2d 762, 766 (Nev. 1994) (holding that before a defendant doctor needed

8

to disclose tax returns or financial records related to the issue of punitive damages, the plaintiff

9

needed to demonstrate a factual basis for the punitive damages claim); Fosbre v. Las Vegas Sands

10

Corp., No. 2:10-cv-00765-APG-GWF, 2016 WL 54202, at *4 (D. Nev. Jan. 5, 2016) (describing

11

situations in which the court may exercise its discretion to deny financial discovery, but

12

nevertheless requiring a defendant’s personal financial information to be disclosed because it was

13

relevant to the claims at issue and was proportional to the needs of the case); Sarbacher v.

14

Americold Realty Trust, No. 1:10-cv-429-CWH, 2011 WL 2470681, at *3 (D. Idaho June 20, 2011)

15

(denying discovery of personal financial records because they were not reasonably calculated to

16

lead to the discovery of relevant evidence and there were other methods of obtaining the same

17

information).

18

In this case, however, the court finds that Defendant Wells-Doto’s financial condition is

19

relevant to the claims and defenses. Indeed, the amended complaint specifically alleges that the

20

parties had a mutual understanding that the loans at issue were for the benefit of both defendants

21

and that the loans would be repaid from their collective assets. (See Am. Compl. (ECF No. 17).)

22

To obtain discovery regarding Defendant Wells-Doto’s personal financial condition, Plaintiff is not

23

required to prove his allegations—that is a matter that will be determined based on admissible

24

evidence at summary judgment or trial. The court therefore concludes, as it did at the hearing on

25

October 19, 2016, that Defendant Wells-Doto’s financial condition it at issue and she must respond

26

to Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents as previously ordered.

27
28

As for the argument that she will suffer irreparable harm if she discloses documents related
to that property, given that the parties have entered into a stipulated protective order in this case,
2

1

the court is not convinced that Defendant Wells-Doto would suffer irreparable harm by disclosing

2

her financial records subject to the protective order, which explicitly covers “private financial

3

records; confidential financial data; tax data or tax returns; and personal information subject to

4

protection under Nevada law.” (Protective Order (ECF No. 25) at 2.) The court therefore will deny

5

Defendant’s motion to stay.

6

To the extent Defendant Wells-Doto requests the court to reconsider its order, the court

7

likewise will deny Defendant’s motion. Defendant does not identify points of law or fact that the

8

court has overlooked or misunderstood, nor does she point to a change in legal or factual

9

circumstances since the hearing that would entitle her to relief. See LR 59-1 (setting forth the

10
11
12
13
14

standard for reconsideration of an interlocutory order).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Jenna Wells-Doto’s Emergency Motion to
Stay Enforcement of the Magistrate Judge’s Order (ECF No. 38) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff John Makransky’s request for sanctions is
DENIED.

15
16

DATED: December 22, 2016

17
18

______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3