Johnson v. California Forensic Medical Group, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RANDALL SCOTT JOHNSON No. 2:19-cv-1722 JAM DB DECEASED, etc., et al., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER 14 v. 15 CITY OF REDDING, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 On June 9, 2023, this matter came before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 19 302(c)(1) for hearing of plaintiff’s motion to compel. (ECF No. 196.) Attorney Michael Haddad 20 appeared via Zoom on behalf of the plaintiff. Attorneys Paul Cardinale, Peter Bertling, and John 21 Jacobson appeared via Zoom on behalf of defendants. Oral argument was heard and plaintiffs’ 22 motion was taken under submission. Having reviewed the parties’ briefing and oral arguments, 23 the undersigned will grant plaintiff’s motion for the reasons stated in the parties’ briefing, at the 24 June 9, 2023 hearing, and below. 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 Plaintiff’s motion seeks to compel production of essentially two categories of discovery: 2 (1) Plaintiff’s requests related to defendants’ complete financial records; and (2) Plaintiff’s 3 requests for “Bid Packages” with Shasta County. (JS (ECF No. 196) at 14, 26.) 4 Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the 5 needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access 6 to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense 7 of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to 8 be discoverable. 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevancy, for the purposes of discovery, is defined broadly, although 10 it is not without ultimate and necessary boundaries.” Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674, 11 679-80 (N.D. Cal. 2006). “The party resisting discovery ‘has the burden to show that discovery 12 should not be allowed, and the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.’” 13 Laub v. Horbaczewski, 331 F.R.D. 516, 521 (C.D. Cal. 2019) (quoting Oakes v. Halvorsen 14 Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D. 281, 283 (C.D. Cal. 1998)). 15 With respect to plaintiff’s requests for discovery concerning defendants’ complete 16 financial records such evidence is relevant and proportional to the needs of plaintiff’s case. See 17 Provident Life & Acc. Inc. Co., 32 Fed. Appx. 821, 825 (9th Cir. 2002) (“If the plaintiff fails to 18 present evidence regarding the defendant’s wealth, the punitive damages award cannot stand.”); 19 Abrams v. Blackburne and Sons Realty Capital Corp., Case No. 2:19-cv-6947 CAS (ASx), 2022 20 WL 4021734, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2022) (“presenting evidence of a defendant’s financial 21 condition is a legal precondition for pursuing a punitive damages claim”); Vieste, LLC v. Hill 22 Redwood Development, No. C-09-4024 JSW (DMR), 2011 WL 855831, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 23 2011) (“Discovery of Defendants’ net worth and financial condition is clearly relevant to the 24 issue of punitive damages.”). The relevance and necessity of this evidence is even greater given 25 the nature of the testimony of defendants’ Person Most Knowledgeable, Tabitha Vanns, and the 26 parties’ competing financial expert opinions.1 (JS (ECF No. 196) at 4-8, ECF No. 201 at 2.) 27 1 Plaintiff has offered evidence in support of these arguments which has been filed under seal. At 28 the June 9, 2023 hearing, counsel for defendants acknowledged that Vanns “admittedly could not 1 With respect to plaintiff’s requests for Bid Packages with Shasta County, defendants 2 raised no argument as to this issue at the June 9, 2023 hearing. In the parties’ Joint Statement 3 defendants argue simply that “fact discovery has been closed since December 17, 2021.” (JS 4 (ECF No. 196) at 28.) As defendants are well aware, however, the assigned District Judge 5 already determined that the undersigned could hear plaintiff’s motion to compel. (ECF No. 188 6 at 2.) In this regard, defendants have failed to offer any substantive opposition to this discovery 7 request. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. Plaintiff’s June 2, 2023 motion to compel (ECF No. 196) is granted; and 10 2. Defendants shall produce responsive discovery within seven days2. 11 DATED: June 9, 2023 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 DLB:6 DB/orders/orders.civil/ johnson1722.oah.060923 19 20 21 22 23 answer all” of plaintiff’s questions related to defendants’ financial condition. Because some of 24 that testimony has been filed under seal, the undersigned will not discuss it with specificity. Suffice it to say, the undersigned would certainly agree with defense counsel’s statement. 25 2 At the June 9, 2023 hearing the undersigned offered defense counsel the opportunity to raise any 26 legal objections in response to plaintiff’s discovery requests. The purpose of that prompt was to 27 offer defendants a full hearing as to this discovery dispute. It was not an invitation for defendants to reassert objections asserted here and found lacking, or to raise new objections not previously 28 asserted in responding to plaintiff’s requested discovery.