Breaking Barriers to Justice
oppression, or fraud. This sequencing is to protect defendants from the prejudice of having jurors learn the defendant’s wealth before deciding fault. Torres v. Automobile Club of Southern California (1997) 15 Cal.4th 771 explained Civil Code § 3295 does not bar disclosure; it regulates timing. Once the jury determines liability and finds the requisite culpability, the defendant’s privacy interest in financial information yields to the plaintiff’s legitimate need to prove an appropriate award. Because of court congestion, it may take at least a year to get a motion for financial discovery resolved, thereafter to force production of documents, and to get depositions (assuming the defendant does not obstruct all the way to the supreme court). For that reason, as soon as the trial date is set, prepare the motion for financial discovery. Get it on calendar. Time is ticking.
amounts, settlement values, profit calculations, that lluminate the defendant’s economic incentives and capacity. To maximize effectiveness, complaints should expressly allege a “pattern and practice,” “course of conduct,” or “company policy” giving rise to the misconduct. These allegations provide the jurisdictional hooks for Colonial Life discovery and insulate requests against overbreadth objections.
Punitive Damages Discovery-180 days to Trial
Civil Code § 3295 erects a series of procedural hurdles to accumulating financial evidence. § 3295(a) allows discovery of the defendant’s financial condition. Subdivision (c) disallows such discovery until the court enters an order finding a “substantial probability” that the plaintiff will prevail on the punitive claim. The “substantial probability” standard demands much. As Jabro v. Superior Court (2002) clarifies. A court must “weigh the evidence presented by both sides” and make a finding that the plaintiff’s success appears “very likely.” This exceeds a prima facie showing; it contemplates actual judicial evaluation of conflicting proof. Some trial judges effectively require plaintiffs to demonstrate they will meet the “clear and convincing” standard before permitting any financial discovery, although that is not what the statute requires. Subdivision (d) adds the bifurcation requirement: even if the court allows punitive discovery, evidence of profits and financial condition do not go to the jury until the trier of fact (1) returns a verdict for actual damages and (2) finds the defendant guilty of malice,
The Amoco Error: California Courts Can Compel Out-of-State Document Production
If your defendant’s executive office is out-of-state, you confront objections based on Amoco Chemical Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 554. Amoco, held that California courts lack jurisdiction to compel an out- of-state witness to produce documents at trial. The court’s reasoning is broken into two steps. First, it correctly holds that Code of Civil Procedure § 1989 cannot compel an out-of-state witness to attend a California trial. This poses a personal-attendance limitation, a straightforward recognition that California’s compulsory process does not extend to commanding out-of-state persons to physically appear in California proceedings.
30
Consumer Attorneys of California
FORUM July/August 2026
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs