Chudacoff v. University Medical Center Of Southern Nevada et al

Filing 627

ORDER that 609 Motion to Enforce Amended Stipulated Protective Order and to Strike Plaintiff's Withdrawal of Consent is granted. The "attorney's eyes only" restriction applicable to the production of Defendants' financial or net worth shall remain in effect until such time as the Court orders otherwise as indicated above. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 2/14/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 8 9 10 11 12 RICHARD CHUDACOFF, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) Case No. 2:08-cv-00863-RCJ-GWF ORDER Emergency Motion - #609 13 14 This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Emergency Motion to Enforce Amended 15 Stipulated Protective Order and to Strike Plaintiff’s Withdrawal of Consent (#609), filed on 16 January 25, 2013; Plaintiff’s Opposition to Emergency Motion (#612), filed on January 29, 2013; 17 and Defendants’ Reply in Support of Emergency Motion (#618), filed on February 8, 2013. 18 BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION 19 In Order (#611), filed on January 29, 2013, the Court adopted Amended Stipulated 20 Protective Order (#507), submitted by the parties on July 25, 2012, pending a final decision on 21 Defendants’ Emergency Motion (#609). The protective order provides that the financial or net 22 worth information that Defendants John Ellerton, Dale Carrison, Marvin Bernstein and Donald 23 Roberts produce in response to Plaintiff’s discovery requests is for “attorney’s eyes only” review 24 until and unless otherwise ordered by the Court. In his opposition, Plaintiff argues that good cause 25 does not exist for the “attorney’s eyes only” restriction and it should be removed. 26 The “attorney’s eyes only” restriction was originally imposed by Magistrate Judge Johnston 27 in the April 25, 2012 telephone conference during the deposition of Defendant Bernstein. 28 Defendant’s Emergency Motion (#609), Exhibit C, Excerpt of Dr. Bernstein’s Deposition 1 Transcript. Presumably, Magistrate Judge Johnston believed that Defendants’ financial 2 information, which in general is private information, did not need to immediately be disseminated 3 to the Plaintiff or to others in order for Plaintiff to adequately prepare and litigate his case. As 4 discussed in Order (#615), federal courts permit a plaintiff to obtain discovery relating to the 5 defendant’s net worth without being required to establish a prima facie case for the award of 6 punitive damages. Such pretrial discovery allows the Plaintiff’s counsel to obtain the net worth 7 evidence that he will need to introduce at trial if the punitive damages claim is allowed, without 8 further delaying the trial. Obviously, if the Court allows Plaintiff’s punitive damages to proceed at 9 trial, Plaintiff will be permitted to introduce evidence of Defendants’ net worth. Prior to trial, 10 Plaintiff’s counsel may also have a legitimate purpose in providing the net worth information to his 11 economic expert for purposes of offering expert advice or testimony relating to the Defendants’ net 12 worth. It may also be appropriate to share information about Defendants’ net worth with the 13 Plaintiff, himself, for purposes of Plaintiff’s settlement demand and possible future settlement 14 negotiations. 15 Plaintiff’s counsel has already represented to the Court that Dr. Chutacoff does not wish to 16 review the documents relating to Defendants’ net worth. See Opposition (#613), Declaration of 17 Jacob L. Hafter, Esq., ¶¶ 6-7. Discovery in this case has been stayed pending a decision on the 18 MEC Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Until that motion is ruled upon, Plaintiff’s counsel would 19 appear to have no need to provide Defendants’ financial information to any other person, including 20 an economist or other expert. In the event the District Judge does not decide Defendants’ motion 21 for partial summary judgment on the punitive damages issues at the same time or before he rules on 22 the MEC Defendants’ motion to dismiss, then Plaintiff’s counsel may request the Court to lift the 23 “attorney’s eyes only” limitation so that he can provide the net worth information to his economist 24 or other expert or to the Plaintiff for purposes of settlement discussions. Until such time, the 25 “attorney’s eyes only” restriction will remain in effect. Accordingly, 26 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Emergency Motion to Enforce Amended 27 Stipulated Protective Order and to Strike Plaintiff’s Withdrawal of Consent (#609) is granted. The 28 ... 2 1 “attorney’s eyes only” restriction applicable to the production of Defendants’ financial or net worth 2 shall remain in effect until such time as the Court orders otherwise as indicated above. 3 DATED this 14th day of February, 2013. 4 5 6 ______________________________________ GEORGE FOLEY, JR. United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?