N'JAI v. US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al
Filing
203
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER denying 175 Plaintiff's Motion in Limine without prejudice to reassert her request at a later stage in these proceedings if appropriate (details more fully stated in said Order). Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/24/15. (jg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JACQUELYN B. N’JAI,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
GARY BENTZ, CONNIE BENTZ, AND C.A.
BENTZ LLC,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 13-1212
Judge Nora Barry Fischer
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Jacquelyn B. N’Jai’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion
in Limine.1 (Docket No. 175). In her motion, Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, an expedited ruling on
Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Docket No. 156), sanctions and default
judgment as a result of alleged discovery abuses, and an order compelling the Defendants to
respond to various discovery requests.
Subsequent rulings have rendered large portions of Plaintiff’s Motion moot.
On
September 1, 2015, the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and
denying in part Defendants’ Rule 12(c) Motion. (Docket No. 176). At a hearing held on
September 25, 2015, the Court ruled on the majority of the discovery issues presented in
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine. (Docket No. 200). The Court also ordered the parties to file
additional briefs concerning Plaintiff’s request to conduct discovery into Defendants’ finances.
1 Although styled a Motion in Limine, Plaintiff’s motion can more accurately be characterized as a Motion to
Compel.
1
(Id.). The parties having done so, Plaintiff’s Motion is now fully ripe for review. (See Docket
Nos. 187, 195).
The primary remaining issue concerns Plaintiff’s request to conduct wealth discovery.
Plaintiff has asked the Defendants to turn over documents and answer interrogatories concerning
their financial wealth and assets, arguing that this information is pertinent to her demand for
punitive damages. (See Docket No. 200 at 23-25). Plaintiff supports this request by observing
that the Court has already ruled that “[a] factfinder could readily conclude that punitive damages
were warranted based on [Plaintiff’s] allegations of outrageous and reckless conduct, if proven at
trial.” (Docket No. 176 at 8).
As noted by the Defendants, however, courts applying Pennsylvania law have
consistently required a plaintiff to go beyond the pleadings and make a prima facia showing of a
right to recover punitive damages before permitting wealth discovery. (Docket No. 183 at 3-4).
In Grabowski v. Levin, for example, the plaintiff sought “broad-ranging information regarding
defendant’s holdings in other business, real and personal property, as well as personal bank
account records and financial inventories.” Grabowski, 1990 WL 201320, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Dec.
6, 1990). Plaintiff supported his request by pointing to his claim for punitive damages. Id. The
Court rejected plaintiff’s request, noting that he had not made the requisite “threshold evidentiary
showing” as to whether the underlying claim supporting the punitive damage request had
“genuine merit, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages.” Id. The Court opined that
financial wealth discovery would be “inappropriately intrusive” in the absence of actual evidence
suggesting that the issue of punitive damages might go to the jury. Id.
Similarly, in Open Inns Ltd. v. Carr, 1996 WL 932089 (Pa. Com. Pl. Aug. 9, 1996), the
court held that it would not “require a defendant to respond to interrogatories or other discovery
2
requests relevant only to the amount of punitive damages to be assessed unless and until there is
first a showing of evidence to support the allegations upon which the claim for punitive damages
is based and a reasonable basis for asserting that such claim will eventually be able to be
submitted to a jury.” Id. at *3.
The court rejected the argument that the plaintiff had already
made the requisite showing simply by stating a claim for relief in the complaint that survived
preliminary scrutiny:
Plaintiffs assert that it is a sufficient demonstration of the viability of
their claim for punitive damages that defendants did not file preliminary
objections seeking to strike those claims. Such assertion is ludicrous.
One can sue anyone else for anything and draft a complaint which will
withstand preliminary objections . . . but the lack of preliminary
objections does not at all demonstrate the viability of any of the claims
made in the complaint. Plaintiffs may argue that such discovery should
be permitted so long as the claim is asserted in the complaint (a position
which we would reject) or that they have, in fact, sufficient evidence to
demonstrate at least a reasonable possibility, if not actual likelihood, that
their claim for punitive damages will get the jury (the showing which we
will require) but the mere fact that the defendants didn’t file preliminary
objections proves nothing more than that the plaintiffs have made
averments in their complaint which, if supported by competent evidence,
could entitle them to recovery. It supports not at all any contention that
there is even a scintilla of such evidence, let alone the quantum of
evidence which we will require before permitting discovery on this issue.
Id.
Plaintiff responds by citing a handful of cases in which she contends that the courts
permitted wealth discovery. See, e.g., Hutchison v. Luddy, 870 A.2d 766 (Pa. 2005); SHV Coal,
Inc. v. Continental Grain Co., 587 A.2d 702 (Pa. 1991); Bannar v. Miller, 701 A.2d 232 (Pa.
Super. 1997); Came v. Micou, 2005 WL 1500978 (M.D. Pa. June 23, 2005); Riba v. Staar
Surgical, 2003 WL 21961395 (E.D. Pa. June 25, 2003). While each of those decisions addresses
the concept of punitive damages in general terms, typically in the context of determining whether
sufficient evidence supported a jury award, none of them discusses whether and when financial
3
information is discoverable. Simply put, Plaintiff has failed to refute the general proposition that
financial discovery is not appropriate until there is a reasonable evidentiary basis to suggest that
her punitive damages claim will be submitted to a jury. Given that discovery in this action
remains ongoing, the Court concludes that it would be unduly intrusive and contrary to
Pennsylvania law to require Defendants to provide information concerning their financial wealth
at this time. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion without prejudice to reassert her request at a
later stage in these proceedings if appropriate.2
It is so ordered.
/s/ Nora Barry Fischer
Nora Barry Fischer
United States District Judge
Date:
November 24, 2015
cc/ecf: All counsel of record
Jacquelyn B. N’Jai
nj0216@aol.com
and
P.O. Box 10133
Pittsburgh, PA 15232
(regular mail)
2 To the extent that Plaintiff’s Motion seeks sanctions and default judgment for alleged discovery abuses, that
portion of the Motion is also denied.
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?