Gomez v. Cedar Oaks Apartments L.P. ( 2022 )

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION 3 4 PATRICIA GOMEZ, 5 Plaintiff, Case No. 1:21-cv-00830-DAD-BAK (SKO) 6 v. 7 ORDER RE: DISCOVERY CEDAR OAKS APARTMENTS L.P., 8 et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 13 Having considered the parties’ letter briefs regarding their informal discovery dispute and 14 having heard from counsel at the informal discovery dispute conference held on April 7, 2022, the 15 Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 16 1. Plaintiff’s request to compel production of Defendants’ past three years of federal 17 and state tax returns and past four years of financial records is GRANTED IN 18 PART, as the records are relevant to Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages and 19 responsive to a Request for Production propounded by Plaintiff. See White v. Ford 20 Motor Company, 500 F.3d 963, 976–77 (9th Cir. 2007) (evidence of a defendant's 21 finances, income, assets, and net worth is crucial to issues of punitive damages). 22 However, the Court limits the required production to records sufficient to 23 demonstrate Defendants’ current financial condition, specifically financial records 24 from the period one year before the date of this order, i.e., April 8, 2021, through 25 April 8, 2022. See Bennett v. 38604 10th St. E., LLC, No. CV208858DMGPVCX, 26 2021 WL 5033490 (C.D. Cal. July 30, 2021) (granting the plaintiff’s motion to 27 compel production of documents about the defendant’s financial condition, 28 1 including federal and state tax returns, as relevant to the plaintiff’s claims for 2 punitive damages under the federal Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and the California 3 Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), but limiting the scope of the 4 discovery to documents from one year before the date of the court’s order because 5 only information about the defendant’s current net worth was relevant); Barajona 6 v. C & R Canoga Park, LP, No. CV191250TJHPLAX, 2019 WL 8886021 (C.D. 7 Cal. Dec. 4, 2019) (granting the plaintiff’s motion to compel production of 8 documents sufficient to identify the defendant’s current net worth as relevant to the 9 plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages under the FHA). 10 2. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer to establish what financial records 11 from April 8, 2021, to the present, are relevant to determining Defendants’ current 12 financial condition1, and by no later than April 15, 2022, Defendants SHALL 13 produce their federal and state tax returns from the past year and any other financial 14 records agreed upon by the parties. Any privacy concerns can be addressed by 15 redacting only the information which contains private or privileged information 16 (i.e., SSNs, DOBs, etc.). 17 3. Plaintiff’s request to compel production of a settlement agreement from a prior 18 discrimination lawsuit against Defendants is DENIED, as Plaintiff failed to address 19 the confidential nature of the settlement agreement or explain why her need for the 20 agreement outweighs the privacy interests of the parties to that agreement. See 21 Gergawy v. United States Bakery, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00417-SAB, 2021 WL 22 6141702 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 8, 2021) (denying the plaintiffs’ request to compel 23 24 25 26 1 Such documents might include, for example, financial statements; balance sheets; and federal, state, county, or local tax returns. See Barajona, 2019 WL 8886021, at *5 n.1. In the unlikely event that there remains a dispute about the 27 financial records to be produced, the parties may file a formal motion regarding their discovery dispute pursuant to E.D. Cal. Local Rule 251. 28 1 disclosure of settlement agreements where the plaintiffs failed to show “that their 2 need to see these agreements outweighs their confidential nature”).2 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: April 8, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 In their letter brief, Defendants claimed that Plaintiff was demanding unredacted versions of certain documents 27 produced during discovery. As Plaintiff did not make such a request in her letter brief, the Court declines to address whether unredacted documents need to be produced. 28