Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02064/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02064-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 42:1396 - Tort Negligence

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sprint Communications Co., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Western Innovations, Inc., et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. cv-06-2064-PHX-ROS

ORDER

Pending is Western’s Motion in Limine Regarding Punitive Damages (Doc. 223).

Western moves for an order that Plaintiff is not entitled to present evidence regarding punitive

damages, unless and until Sprint has made a prima facie showing of an entitlement to punitive

damages. In support of this proposition, they cite to an Arizona state case which agreed with the

proposition that “prima facie proof of a triable issue on liability for punitive damages is necessary

to discover information relating to the defendant’s financial status.” Larriva v. Montiel, 691 P.2d

735, 736 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984) (emphasis added). However, as Plaintiff points out, the court there

explicitly avoids making broader statements regarding a prima facie case for damages, emphasizing

that the 

rule is to require a plaintiff to make a prima facie showing that he will be entitled to

present the issue of punitive damages to the jury before discovery should be allowed

in the financial area. This can be done through discovery, by evidentiary means or

through an offer of proof. Otherwise, the possibilities of harassment and misuse of

civil process are obvious.

Case 2:06-cv-02064-ROS Document 276 Filed 05/21/09 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Id. at 738. Here, discovery has long passed. Sprint is not seeking to obtain information that it would

not otherwise have access to regarding Western’s culpability. No parallel possibilities for

harassment and misuse of civil process exist here and in no way can Sprint’s activities be

characterized as a fishing expedition as they might be in the context of discovery. Conversely, at

least one Arizona case has implied that the prima facie case for punitive damages will often be a

matter for the jury. Hawkins v. Allstate Ins. Co., 722 P.2d 1073, 1080-81 (Ariz. 1987) (discussing

what evidence is relevant in establishing a prima facie case for punitive damages for the jury).

Accordingly, the rule carved out by the Larriva court simply does not apply outside the discovery

context.

It is also worth noting that even if such a heightened pleading standard existed, it may not

be applicable in federal court. See, e.g., Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc., 184 F.3d 1292, 1295-968

(where Florida law required the dismissal of a request for punitive damages asserted without leave

of the court, the law conflicts with Fed. R. Proc. 8(a)(3) and could therefore not be applied by

federal courts sitting in diversity.) However, the issue need not be decided at this time.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.

DATED this 21st day of May, 2009.

Case 2:06-cv-02064-ROS Document 276 Filed 05/21/09 Page 2 of 2