DANIEL OWENS ET AL VS. RUTH WONG ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC23608259 - November 21, 2025 Hearing date: November 21, 2025 Case number: CGC23608259 Case title: DANIEL OWENS ET AL VS. RUTH WONG ET AL Case Number: | | CGC23608259 | Case Title: | | DANIEL OWENS ET AL VS. RUTH WONG ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-11-21 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion For An Order Permitting Discovery Of Defendants' Financial Condition | Rulings: | | On the Law and Motion/Discovery calendar for November 21, 2025, line 2. PLAINTIFFS' Motion For An Order Permitting Discovery Of Defendants' Financial Condition.

Plaintiffs Daniel and Johara Owens's motion for leave to conduct discovery of the financial condition of defendants Ruth Wong, Marilyn Wong, and Garry Wong pursuant to Civil Code, section 3295, subdivision (c), is denied without prejudice to any subsequent order by the trial court once the case is sent out to trial.

Discovery into a defendant's financial condition is subject to Civil Code, section 3295, which prohibits such discovery absent court order. "[B]efore a court may enter an order permitting discovery of a defendant's financial condition, it must (1) weigh the evidence submitted in favor of and in opposition to motion for discovery, and (2) make a finding that it is very likely the plaintiff will prevail on his claim for punitive damages." (Jabro v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 754, 758.) "Very likely" means more than a reasonable probability, and more than a prima facie showing of the kind needed to defeat summary judgment. (Id.)

The evidence presented here is after-accident photos of the handrail whose defect injured Daniel Owens, steps covered in green mildew, and deposition excerpts of Marilyn Wong, the daughter-in-law of the property owner and a defendant who did not inspect the handrail prior to the accident but had traversed the stairs. The Wongs offer Marilyn Wong's declaration and a counsel declaration attaching further Marilyn Wong deposition excerpts and information about Garry Wong's and Ruth Wong's medical conditions.

The court concludes that, weighing the evidence presented on this motion, it does not find that it is very likely that the Owenses will prevail on their claim for punitive damages. The Wongs have presented evidence that Marilyn Wong responded to complaints, inspected the stairs, did not notice the issue with the handrail, and never received any complaints about the stairs. The Owenses' evidence of malice, i.e. despicable conduct carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of the safety of others (Civ. Code, section 3294, subd. (c)(1)), is not so strong as to make it very likely the Owenses will obtain punitive damages.