Opinion ID: 2823223
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: State of the Law

Text: In Palmisano, 624 A.2d at 316, the plaintiff in a premises liability action sought discovery about the defendant’s personal finances with regard to her claim for punitive damages. The defendants refused to comply with the plaintiff’s requests. Id. at 316-17. As a result, the plaintiff filed motions to compel that were granted by a justice of the Superior Court. Id. at 317. Thereafter, the defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with this Court. Id. -4- On review, the Supreme Court explained that a discovery request seeking information about a defendant’s personal finances “invades the traditionally private domain of one’s personal finances and oftentimes inconveniently seeks disclosure of unnecessary specific details.” Palmisano, 624 A.2d at 319 (citing Gierman v. Toman, 185 A.2d 241, 244 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1962)). However, at the same time, this Court also recognized the importance that evidence of a defendant’s personal finances has “in assessing an amount of punitive damages that would adequately serve as a punishment.” Id. (citing Vollert v. Summa Corp., 389 F.Supp. 1348, 135152 (D. Haw. 1975)). To resolve this conundrum, this Court set forth a procedure that would be applied before a plaintiff may delve into a defendant’s personal financial information. Id. at 32021. In doing so, we expressly rejected the adoption of the same bifurcated approach that was employed by the hearing justice in this case. Id. at 319. We explained that “[i]f a defendant believes that a punitive-damage claim cannot be supported factually and legally, the defendant may move to strike the claim for punitive damages,” at which point a hearing justice should conduct an “evidentiary hearing” to test the propriety of a claim for punitive damages. Palmisano, 624 A.2d at 320. At the hearing, “[t]he plaintiff may present evidence in opposition to the motion sufficient to constitute a prima facia [sic] showing of his or her eligibility for punitive damages    .” Id. The defendant may also introduce evidence and cross-examine witnesses in an effort to nullify the showing made by the