Martin v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Sep 18, 1980 No. Civ. 60120Published

Before: Roth

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a party compelled to disclose financial information in discovery due to a punitive damages claim is presumptively entitled to a protective order limiting dissemination of that information solely to the opposing party's counsel.

Issues

Whether a protective order allowing dissemination of financial information to parties and counsel is sufficient to protect a defendant's constitutional right of privacy.
What limitations should be placed on the dissemination of financial information obtained through discovery for punitive damages claims.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“where a party is compelled in civil discovery to reveal financial information because the information is relevant to the subject matter of a claim for punitive damages, that party is, upon his motion, presumptively entitled to a protective order”

“limiting dissemination solely and only to counsel for real parties.”

Opinion

ROTH, P. J.

Petitioners in this proceeding for an extraordinary writ are the named defendants in an action now pending in respondent court.

Plaintiffs in the pending action are K & K Properties, Inc., Wil

[393]

liam Everett Kane and Barbara Kelly and they are the real parties in interest (RPI’s) in this proceeding.

RPI’s seek punitive damages in connection with three of the causes of action alleged in the pending action and seek discovery of the assets of petitioners in connection therewith. Petitioners objected to questions 38 through 58 seeking disclosure of their income, assets and liabilities and sought and obtained a protective order, which they consider is insufficiently protective and by this proceeding petition this court to require respondent court to vacate its said order and issue a new one which will adequately protect their constitutional right of privacy. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1.) We issued an alternative writ.

Petitioners concede the right of RPI’s to the information sought by interrogatories 38 through 58 and are prepared to voluntarily produce subject to a concurrent appropriate protective order “in accordance with the guidelines set forth in

Richards

Superior Court,

86 Cal.App.3d 265, (. . . 1978)” current financial statements embracing the sought for information.

Petitioners submitted a proposed protective order in pertinent part as follows: “B) That the financial statements shall remain under seal to be examined only by the Court, except that Plaintiffs, their counsel, and authorized representative of Plaintiffs’ counsel, and no other person or persons, may examine said financial statements on the occasion of the occurrence of the first of: 1) the final judgment or dismissal of both of the following lawsuits which are respectively styled:

“a) William W. Martin Et Al. v. Barbara Kelly, William E. Kane, K & K Properties, Inc., Et Al., No. 76-92040 (JB) ‘D’ (Adversary Proceeding D), and b) Gilbert Robinson, Trustee in Bankruptcy v. K & K Properties, Inc., Et Al., No. 76-02940 (JB) ‘E’ (Adversary Proceeding ‘E’) or 2) Sixty days in advance of the trial of this lawsuit.” (Motion for Protective Order, p. 1 of motion, lines 9-25, exhibit D.)

Martin v. Superior Court

AI Brief

ROTH, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief