SHELTON v. COUNTY OF CHESTER et al

Filing 36

ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S PUNITIVE DAMAGES INTERROGATORIES AND NOTICE OF VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITIONS IS GRANTED. PLAINTIFF'S PUNITIVE DAMAGES INTERROGATORIES AND NOTICE OF VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION ARE STRICKEN; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GERALD A. MCHUGH ON 9/16/15. 9/16/15 ENTERED AND E-MAILED.(jl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LISA MARIE SHELTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF CHESTER, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
No. 13-4667

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This 16th day of September, 2015, upon consideration of Defendants’ Objections to
Plaintiff’s Punitive Damages Interrogatories and Notice of Videotape Deposition, it is
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Punitive Damages
Interrogatories and Notice of Videotape Deposition are STRICKEN for the reasons that follow.

I. Background
Plaintiff brings several medical malpractice claims against health care provider
PrimeCare Medical, Inc. (“PrimeCare”) and certain PrimeCare employees. Plaintiff served
Defendant PrimeCare with Interrogatories and a Notice of Deposition on July 22, 2015. These
discovery requests sought to identify information related to PrimeCare’s financial status,
including net income, net profits, assets, and liabilities. In response, the PrimeCare Defendants
filed a motion seeking to quash those discovery requests on the basis that they are not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

1

II. Scope of Discovery
“It is well established that the scope and conduct of discovery are within the sound
discretion of the trial court.” Marroquin-Manriquez v. I.N.S., 699 F.2d 129, 134 (3d Cir.1983).
Discovery is only warranted if the information sought is relevant to a party’s claim or defense.
FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). A litigant may obtain discovery that will not be admissible at trial, but
the information requested must be “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.” Id. Prior to judgment, “facts about a defendant's financial status are not discoverable
as such.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee's note to 1970 amendment. Plaintiff admits that
discovery of “information concerning a defendant’s wealth is not ordinarily permitted,” but she
argues that such records are relevant in this instance to her claims for punitive damages. Pl.’s
Resp. to Def.’s Mot. at 26.
It is true that a trier of fact may properly consider the wealth of a defendant as a factor in
assessing an award of punitive damages. In re Lemington Home for the Aged, 777 F.3d 620, 631
(3d Cir. 2015) (citing Vance v. 46 and 2, Inc., 920 A.2d 202, 207 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007);
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908(2)). However, discovery of such information is not without
limitations. A plaintiff must demonstrate a well-founded possibility that a defendant may be
subject to punitive damages as a matter of law before discovery of that defendant’s financial
documents is appropriate. See Tallon v. J.E. Brenneman Co., No. 85-0053, 1986 WL 4327, at *2
(E.D. Pa. Apr. 8, 1986) (citing Chenoweth v. Schaaf, 98 F.R.D. 587, 589 (W.D. Pa. 1983));
Cavalier Clothes, Inc. v. Major Coat Co., No. 89-3325, 1991 WL 125179, at *4 (E.D. Pa. June
26, 1991). Because Plaintiff’s discovery requests seek the financial information of the corporate
entity PrimeCare, rather than its employees named as individual Defendants in the suit, Plaintiff

2

must demonstrate that she has the potential to recover punitive damages from PrimeCare itself in
order to satisfy the Court that such information is discoverable at this time.

III. Availability of Punitive Damages
Plaintiff’s potential recovery of punitive damages against PrimeCare is limited as a
matter of law by Pennsylvania’s Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE)
Act. 40 P. S. § 1303.101 et seq. Because Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages asserted in
Count III of the Complaint was dismissed by this Court, Plaintiff’s only allegation of
PrimeCare’s direct liability for punitive damages is contained in Count IV of her Complaint,
based on a state law survival action. Compl. at ¶ 76. The MCARE Act stipulates that in order to
recover punitive damages on the basis of direct corporate liability, Plaintiff will need to prove
that PrimeCare itself, rather than its agent or agents, engaged in conduct constituting willful or
wanton conduct or reckless indifference to the rights of others. 40 P.S. § 1303.505(a).
The only such conduct alleged in the Complaint and addressed in Plaintiff’s expert
reports is a failure to promulgate policies to ensure effective communication between nursing
and medical staff. Compl. at ¶ 57(o). One of Plaintiff’s expert reports states that “PrimeCare
had the responsibility to ensure there were proper policies and procedures implemented
regarding the effective dissemination/communication of information amongst the treatment
staff.” Expert Report of Joelene Boiano, Attach. to Def.’s Mot. as Ex. F (“Boianao Report”) at 3.
The report further states that the nursing staff’s apparent failure to follow up with a Physician’s
Assistant shows “a failure on the part of PrimeCare to implement effective policies to make sure
that important information regarding medical care/treatment was being communicated amongst
staff.” Boianao Report at 3. This cursory statement is the only support that Plaintiff offers for

3

her claim. Such a breach of the standard of care would at most constitute ordinary negligence,
not the sort of wanton or reckless conduct justifying punitive damages.
Plaintiff also asserts a right to recover punitive damages against PrimeCare under theories
of vicarious liability. Compl. at ¶¶ 94, 116. Plaintiffs may recover punitive damages from
PrimeCare on this basis only if it can show that PrimeCare “knew of and allowed the conduct by
its agent” that would give rise to an award of punitive damages. 40 P. S. § 1303.505(c). Even
assuming that Plaintiff will be able to prove conduct by the individually named Defendants
giving rise to punitive damages, Plaintiff has produced no evidence and alleged no facts in her
Complaint demonstrating that PrimeCare “knew of and allowed” such conduct.
I am not persuaded that Plaintiff has shown a sufficient basis to conclude that PrimeCare
may be liable for punitive damages under Pennsylvania’s MCARE Act. Any discovery of
PrimeCare’s financial information is therefore irrelevant and unwarranted.
/s/ Gerald Austin McHugh
United States District Court Judge

4