Breaking Barriers to Justice
The Empty Briefcase in Phase Two of Trial: Obtaining Financial Evidence to Support California Punitive Damages Awards By Steven R. Young
The Victory That Isn’t
subpoena can reach them. Thank you, your honor.”
Your jury deliberates for three days. The court clerk reads the verdict: liability established, compensatory damages of $1.2 million, and findings of malice, fraud, and oppression by clear and convincing evidence. You enjoy a moment of satisfaction. Your client, a small business owner systematically defrauded by a larger competitor, stands vindicated. You exposed the predatory conduct. Your satisfaction lasts approximately ninety seconds. Defense counsel rises and announces that his client, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Nevada, will not produce financial records. “Defendant has no California presence beyond the transactions at issue. Amoco Chemical Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 554, says this courts lacks jurisdiction to compel an out-of-state witness to produce documents.” The attorney continues as he begins packing his brief case, “The defendant stores its records in Nevada. Its CFO resides in Nevada - no California
You occupy an impossible position. You watch the three years and substantial resources you expended proving liability prepare to leave the courtroom. Your client endured the ordeal of trial. The jury performed its constitutional duty. Now, at the threshold of the punitive phase, the phase designed to punish and deter precisely the kind of calculated misconduct the jury identified, you possess no evidence of the defendant’s financial condition. Under Adams v. Murakami (1991) 54 Cal.3d 105, meaningful evidence of the defendant’s financial condition is as an essential prerequisite to any punitive award. Without it, even a finding of the most egregious misconduct cannot support a dollar of exemplary damages. The chair reserved for evidence of net worth is vacant. This scenario plays out with troubling regularity in California courtrooms. Plaintiffs who prove everything the law requires, who satisfy the demanding “clear and convincing” standard for for malice, fraud, or oppression, find themselves unable to close the loop because the defendant refuses to produce. Sometimes the evasion takes the form of jurisdictional gamesmanship, as in the hypothetical above. Sometimes it manifests as outright disobedience of court orders. Sometimes it flows simply from discovery decisions counsel made months or years earlier, when counsel underestimates
Steven R. Young is the founder and lead trial attorney with Law Offices of Steven R. Young based in Orange County, CA. He has tried more than 175 jury trials covering multiple practice areas. syoung@juryattorney.com
28
Consumer Attorneys of California
FORUM July/August 2026
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs