Breaking Barriers to Justice
In Mike Davidov Co. v. Issod (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 597, the court ordered the defendant to produce his financial records following a jury finding of liability for punitive damages. The defendant refused. On appeal, the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s failure to conduct pretrial discovery, subpoena documents, or formally move for bifurcation under § 3295, precluded the court from ordering production at trial. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument. The court held that trial judges possess discretion to order defendants to produce evidence of financial condition following a liability determination, even where the plaintiff undertakes none of those preliminary steps. Civil Code § 3295, subdivision (c), allows such orders “at any time.” While the statute contemplates a motion- and-affidavit procedure, that procedure presupposes the plaintiff has not yet prevailed at trial. Once the jury actually determines liability based on a weighing of credibility, the affidavit-and-hearing process is patently superfluous. The critical holding that if the defendant disobeys the production order and fails to challenge it on appeal, the defendant “waives any right to complain of the lack of such evidence.” The plaintiff cannot suffer penalties for the defendant’s obstruction. The court affirmed the punitive award. Streetscenes v. ITC Entertainment Group, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 233 reinforces these principles. There, defendant ITC initially agreed to produce financial documents upon a liability finding, with counsel informing the court that the company possessed its most recent consolidated report and would present it immediately after the jury returns a verdict requiring a punitive phase. When that phase arrived, ITC reversed course arguing that proving net worth was not ITC’s
burden and that ITC bore no obligation to authenticate documents.
The court rejected both contentions. On the burden question: while defendants need not affirmatively prove their net worth, once the court orders them to produce evidence, they must comply. When counsel presents the unaudited balance sheets in accordance with his prior representation, the documents qualify as authenticated and admissible as party admissions. The combined teaching of Mike Davidov and Streetscenes establishes that defendants cannot simultaneously (1) refuse to produce financial records, (2) decline to challenge production orders, and (3) later argue that punitive awards lack evidentiary support. The waiver doctrine provides meaningful teeth.
Strategies for Collecting Financial Evidence
Armed with the doctrinal framework above, plaintiff’s attorneys should consider a multi-layered approach to financial evidence. The following strategies operate cumulatively rather than exclusively; the most effective approach often combines several.
Establish the Record Early: The § 3295(c) Motion
In cases with strong evidence of malice, fraud, or oppression, file a motion under Civil Code § 3295(c) seeking leave to conduct financial discovery. Even if the court denies the motion, it creates a record that may prove invaluable at trial. Judges demonstrate significantly greater willingness to grant mid-trial continuances for financial discovery when they observe that counsel made good-faith efforts during
33
Consumer Attorneys of California
FORUM July/August 2026
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs