Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch4_p00421.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 22 The holding in Tillery was endorsed in Hazeldine v. Beverage Media, Ltd., No. 94 CIV. 3466 (CSH), 1997 WL 362229, at *2-*3 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), which explained” “Tillery followed this preferred course by bifurcating the trial, see Simpson, 901 F.2d at 283, but allowing pre-trial financial discovery to proceed.” Most cases in most jurisdictions outside the Southern District of New York have reached exactly the same conclusion and allowed pre-trial discovery of financial information for punitive damage purposes.* 4 See, e. 2 e CEH, Inc. v. FV Seafarer, 153 F.R.D. 491 (D.R.1.1994) (plaintiffs were not required to establish prima facie case on issue of punitive damages before they could obtain pretrial discovery of financial information of defendants; plaintiffs had alleged facts sufficient to make a non-spurious claim for punitive damages and that was sufficient to warrant discovery); e =E.E.0.C. v. California Psychiatric Transitions, 258 F.R.D. 391 (E.D.Cal.2009) (evidence of employer's current financial worth was relevant to issue of punitive damages, and thus was discoverable in Title VII action alleging sexual harassment and retaliation, where complaint sought punitive damages, deposition evidence indicated that employer may have acted in reckless disregard of female employees' federal rights, and privacy concerns could be addressed with protective order); e Grosek v. Panther Transp., Inc., 251 F.R.D. 162 (M.D. Pa. 2008) (there was no good cause to issue protective order preventing discovery of defendants’ financial condition until determination was made that punitive damages were warranted; plaintiffs stated claim for punitive damages, and delaying discovery until after discovery of evidence supporting punitive damages would have been inefficient and delayed conclusion of the case); e Vieste, LLC v. Hill Redwood Dev., No. C-09-04024 JSW DMR, 2011 WL 855831, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2011) (allowing pre-trial discovery of Defendants' net worth and financial condition because it was clearly relevant to the issue of punitive damages); e Charles O. Bradley Trust v. Zenith Capital, LLC, 2005 WL 1030218, at *3 (N.D.Cal. May 3, 2005) (while some federal courts have required a prima facie showing of entitlement to punitive damages before ordering discovery, the majority have not and listing cases); e Inre Aqua Dots Products Liability Litigation, 270 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 2010), affd, 654 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 2011) (plaintiffs' discovery regarding financial information from manufacturer and distributor of recalled children's toy was discoverable in a product liability action. Plaintiffs sought punitive damages, and the distributor and manufacturer were arguably principal actors); ¢ Oakes y. Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D. 281 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (because defendants asserted a counterclaim seeking punitive damages, they could obtain discovery regarding 9