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)
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?