M.G. et al v. Metropolitan Interpreters and Translators, Inc. et al, No. 3:2012cv00460 - Document 166 (S.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part 129 Joint MOTION to Compel Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' Written Discovery Requests. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is granted to the extent that Defendant Metropolitan and defendant J. C. must provide such responses as required in the attached Order within 30 days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 10/30/14. (Dembin, Mitchell)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
M.G. et al v. Metropolitan Interpreters and Translators, Inc. et al Doc. 166 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 M.G., et al., Plaintiffs, 12 13 v. ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO DETERMINE DISCOVERY DISPUTE - PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NO. 12cv0460-JM (MDD) 13cv1891-JM (MDD) 13cv1892-JM (MDD) METROPOLITAN INTERPRETERS and TRANSLATORS, INC., et al., [ECF NO. 129] Defendants. Background On May 22, 2014, the parties jointly moved the Court to determine a discovery dispute regarding Plaintiffs’ discovery requests to defendant Metropolitan Interpreters and Translators, Inc., and a number of individual defendants who are or were employees of defendant Metropolitan. The dispute related to interrogatories and requests for production of documents requiring the defendants to disclose their financial condition and financial records. (ECF No. 129). On August 12, 2014, this Court deferred ruling on the dispute during the pendency of motions for summary judgment. (ECF No. 158). On October 24, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part -1- 12cv460, 13cv1891, 13cv1892-JM (MDD) Dockets.Justia.com 1 the pending motions for summary judgment. (ECF No. 161). As a 2 consequence of the Court’s rulings, all that remains in this case is the 3 issue of damages, including punitive damages, against defendant 4 Metropolitan and one individual defendant, “J. C.” Similarly, all that 5 remains of the instant dispute are the interrogatories and requests for 6 production directed to defendant J. C. and the requests for production 7 directed at defendant Metropolitan. 8 Plaintiffs assert that the information is relevant because the 9 Plaintiffs may be awarded punitive damages. Defendant Metropolitan 10 opposes disclosure primarily on the grounds that financial discovery of 11 the individual defendant is not warranted as Metropolitan has a 12 complete indemnity agreement with defendant J. C. Defendant 13 Metropolitan also objects to the scope of the requests for production 14 directed at it. Discussion 15 As a threshold matter, it should be noted that although the Ninth 16 17 Circuit has not defined the extent of financial discovery allowed in a case 18 alleging punitive damages, a majority of federal courts allow for such 19 discovery without requiring plaintiffs to make a prima facie showing 20 that punitive damages may be recovered. See Salisbury v. Hickman, 21 1:12cv01098, 2013 WL 4402789 *4-5 (E.D. Cal. August 14, 2013). To the 22 extent that California’s right to privacy would impact this analysis, that 23 right is not absolute and the Protective Order issued in this case serves 24 to adequately protect against further dissemination. Id. *6. (ECF No. 25 51). 26 Defendant Metropolitan has stated unequivocally that it will 27 indemnify defendant J. C. for any damages assessed against him. (ECF 28 No. 129-1 at 7 (using the page numbers supplied by ECF, not the original -2- 12cv460, 13cv1891, 13cv1892-JM (MDD) 1 page numbering)). Accordingly, Defendants assert that discovery of the 2 financial condition of defendant J. C. is not relevant. Plaintiffs, however, 3 assert that the indemnity agreement does not control whether the 4 information can be discovered. 5 Defendants rely upon Nowlin v. Lusk, 11cv712S, 2014 WL 298155 6 (W.D. N. Y. Jan. 28, 2014). In Nowlin, police officers were sued in their 7 individual and official capacities for civil rights violations, including a 8 claim for punitive damages. Plaintiff sought the personal financial 9 information of the individual officers. The court denied the requests as 10 irrelevant because any damages assessed against the individual officers, 11 by statute, would be indemnified by their employers. Id. *7. Plaintiffs 12 appear to attempt to distinguish this case primarily because the plaintiff 13 in Nowlin was a prisoner proceeding pro se. If the Court has interpreted 14 the argument correctly, it is singularly unpersuasive; the notion that a 15 federal judge would give short shrift to a self-represented litigant, 16 prisoner or not, can be considered offensive. 17 Defendants also direct the Court’s attention to Platcher v. Health 18 Professionals, Ltd., 04-1442 2007 WL 2772855 *2 n.3 (C.D. Ill. Sep. 18, 19 2007), in which the court noted that if the defendants contended that any 20 damage award against them would be indemnified, then the requested 21 discovery would be irrelevant and inadmissible. Defendants also point to 22 United States v. Autumn Ridge Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 265 F.R.D. 23 323, 327-28 (N.D. Ind. 2009), in which the court found the requested 24 financial discovery to be relevant because the indemnification agreement 25 would not cover the complained-of acts. By implication, therefore, the 26 discovery requested would be irrelevant if the indemnification 27 agreement was unequivocal. Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish these 28 cases because discovery actually was ordered. -3- 12cv460, 13cv1891, 13cv1892-JM (MDD) 1 Plaintiffs rely upon Chasse v. Humphreys, CV-07-189-HU, 2008 WL 2 867751 *1 (D. Ore. March 27, 2008). In Chasse the court ordered limited 3 financial discovery of individual defendants despite the presence of an 4 indemnity agreement. Discovery of the finances of the individual 5 defendants was limited by the court to “a simple statement of net worth, 6 under oath . . .” The statement was to be provided subject to the 7 protective order under the attorney’s eyes only provision. Id. 8 9 Plaintiffs also cite to Clark v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Civ. A. 93-1365, 1994 WL 3966478 (E.D. Pa. July 21, 1994). The plaintiff in 10 Clark asked for detailed financial information from the defendants, 11 including tax returns. The defendants objected generally to the 12 disclosure of such information and specifically because an indemnity 13 agreement was in place. The court only addressed the issue of 14 discoverability generally, finding that such information is discoverable, 15 and ruled specifically that the defendants’ tax returns were relevant. Id. 16 *2-3. The court did not address the impact of the indemnity agreement 17 and thus, by implication, rejected the notion that the indemnity 18 agreement rendered the personal financial information irrelevant, but 19 limited the disclosure of the tax returns only to the preceding year 20 (1993). The court did not address the requests for other financial 21 information. Id. The court did express its view that past earnings and 22 net worth is not relevant - the issue being the defendants’ net worth 23 now. Id. *3. 24 There are ten special interrogatories and fifteen requests for 25 production directed to defendant J. C. at issue. (ECF No. 129 at 23-42; 26 98-121). All involve production and disclosure of detailed personal 27 financial information. Considering the relevant case law, the Court will 28 take a decidedly conservative approach. The motion to compel as to -4- 12cv460, 13cv1891, 13cv1892-JM (MDD) 1 defendant J. C. is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant J. C. must produce a 2 simple financial statement, under oath, reflecting his current assets and 3 liabilities, to Plaintiffs no later than 30 days from the entry of this 4 Order. The financial statement will be produced pursuant to the 5 outstanding Protective Order in this case and classified as “attorneys 6 eyes only.” The Court will not be inclined to grant any motion to re- 7 depose J. C. upon the financial statement. 8 9 There are six requests for production directed at defendant Metropolitan at issue. (ECF No. 129 at 214-231). The requests for 10 production seek detailed financial information for the period 11 commencing January 2009. Plaintiffs voluntarily limited the requests to 12 the period commencing January 2011, to coincide with the period 13 covered by the Complaint. Defendant Metropolitan objects that the 14 requests remain overbroad. Included in the information sought by 15 Plaintiffs are lists of shareholders, (RFP No. 25), general ledgers (RFP 16 No. 26), tax returns (RFP No. 27), bank accounts (RFP No. 28), gross 17 receipts of “money” (RFP No. 29), property (RFP No. 30), and current 18 contracts and projects including gross income or revenue for each (RFP 19 No. 31). 20 The Court agrees that these requests are overbroad. The issue is 21 defendant Metropolitan’s net worth now, not in the past. Consequently, 22 the motion to compel as to defendant Metropolitan is GRANTED IN 23 PART. Defendant Metropolitan must produce to Plaintiffs its most 24 recent certified financial statement and its tax return for 2013. If the 25 most recent certified financial statement only pertains to the calendar 26 year 2013, defendant Metropolitan must produce that information and a 27 pro forma (uncertified) financial statement for the year-to-date verified 28 as accurate under oath by a responsible and knowledgeable corporate -5- 12cv460, 13cv1891, 13cv1892-JM (MDD) 1 official. If defendant Metropolitan does not have a certified financial 2 statement for 2013, it must produce a verified financial statement for 3 that year and the year-to-date attested under oath by a responsible and 4 knowledgeable corporate officer. Such disclosures must be made no later 5 than 30 days following the entry of this Order. Conclusion 6 7 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant 8 J.C., as presented in the instant Joint Motion for Determination of a 9 Discovery Dispute, is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant J. C. must 10 produce a simple financial statement, under oath, reflecting his current 11 assets and liabilities, to Plaintiffs no later than 30 days from the entry of 12 this Order. The financial statement will be produced pursuant to the 13 outstanding Protective Order in this case and classified as “attorneys 14 eyes only.” 15 2. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant 16 Metropolitan, as presented in the instant Joint Motion for Determination 17 of a Discovery Dispute, is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant Metropolitan 18 must produce to Plaintiffs its most recent certified financial statement 19 and its tax return for 2013. If the most recent certified information only 20 pertains to the calendar year 2013, defendant Metropolitan must 21 produce that information and a pro forma (uncertified) financial 22 statement for the year-to-date verified as accurate under oath by a 23 responsible and knowledgeable corporate official. If defendant 24 Metropolitan does not have a certified financial statement for 2013, it 25 must produce a verified financial statement for that year and the year- 26 to-date attested under oath by a responsible and knowledgeable 27 corporate officer. Such disclosures must be made no later than 30 days 28 following the entry of this Order. -6- 12cv460, 13cv1891, 13cv1892-JM (MDD) 1 3. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses from individual 2 defendants, other than defendant J. C., as presented in the instant Joint 3 Motion for Determination of a Discovery Dispute, is DENIED AS MOOT. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: October 30, 2014 6 7 8 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin U.S. Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -7- 12cv460, 13cv1891, 13cv1892-JM (MDD)
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
