Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch4_p00420.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 22 from issues of liability, and punitive damages issues thus may never arise, punitive damage discovery was not necessary at the pretrial stage. See Collens, 222 F.R.D. at 254. Plaintiffs assert that the same jury will decide both liability and punitive damages issues and that, as a practical matter, there is no time to conduct discovery—including depositions of the individual police officers—between the liability verdict and the charge to the jury on punitive damages. Plaintiffs' counsel represented at oral argument that if Defendants are concerned with maintaining the confidentiality of the individual police officer defendants' personal information, Plaintiffs will agree to a confidentiality order and the sealing of those portions of the deposition transcripts and documents that disclose such information until such time as there is a finding of liability, if any, as to the individual police officer defendants. . . . Insofar as Plaintiffs assert a claim under 42 U.S .C. § 1983, the Court notes that “evidence of a tortfeasor's wealth is traditionally admissible as a measure of the amount of punitive damages that should be awarded[.]” City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 270 (1981). Therefore, interrogatories seeking information about Defendants' financial condition are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence on the issue of punitive damages. Graham vy. Carino, No. CIV.09-4501 JEI/AMD, 2010 WL 2483294, at *3 (D.N.J. June 4, 2010). That pre-trial discovery on financial matters is allowed when a punitive damage issue is present in a case is confirmed by Tillery v. Lynn, 607 F. Supp. 399, 402-03 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). To leave the discovery until later would be burdensome on the jury — meaning that a common approach is to allow financial discovery to proceed pre-trial and then to later bifurcate the trial itself into liability and punitive damages phases: Discovery as to defendant's personal assets may be undertaken by plaintiff at this time. It would be unduly burdensome to plaintiff, and most particularly a jury and the court, to delay resolution of the issue as to the amount of punitive damages, if any, which should be awarded until discovery as to defendant's personal assets had been completed. However, as the New York courts have recognized, “defendant's wealth should not be a weapon to be used by plaintiff to enable him to induce the jury to find the defendant guilty of malice, thus entitling plaintiff to punitive damages.” Rupert v. Sellers, 48 A.D.2d 265, 272, 368 N.Y.S.2d 904, 912 (4th Dep't 1975). Accord, Chilvers v. New York Magazine Company, Inc., 114 Misc.2d 996, 453 N.Y.S.2d 153 (N.Y.Co.Sup.Ct.1982). Accordingly, in the interest of justice and to avoid any undue prejudice during the liability phase of this action, the trial will be bifurcated. ... Therefore, defendant's motions for partial summary judgment and to stay discovery as to his financial status are denied. Tillery v. Lynn, 607 F. Supp. 399, 402-03 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (Motley, J.). 8