Opinion ID: 3026155
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Discovery Order and Ruling as to Testimony

Text: Kopacz challenges the District Court’s refusal to compel the production of certain documents and to allow certain questioning at trial. We review the District Court’s evidentiary rulings and discovery orders for abuse of discretion. Moyer v. United Dominion 1 In O’Connell, we noted that the Second, Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth circuits all disallow punitive damages in such cases, although the Ninth Circuit has since clarified that while punitive damages may not be recovered in failure to provide maintenance and cure cases, they may be available in other claims under general maritime law. In re Exxon Valdez, 270 F.2d 1215, 1227 (9th Cir. 2001). 2 Kopacz relies in part on Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199 (1996). The facts of Yamaha are distinct from those of this case, where a seaman and a federal statute are involved. 3 Our view is also consistent with Judge Irenas’s conclusion in Jackson v. Delaware River & Bay Authority, a case that we affirmed, although the issue of punitive damages was not considered on appeal. Jackson v. Del. River & Bay Auth., 334 F. Supp. 2d 615, 616 n.2 (D.N.J. Feb. 27, 2004), aff’d, 114 Fed. Appx. 511 (3d Cir. 2004) (“[P]unitive damages may not be awarded in a seaman’s personal injury case under the Jones Act.”). 7 Indus., Inc., 473 F.3d 532, 542 (3d Cir. 2007); Holmes v. Pension Plan of Bethlehem Steel Corp., 213 F.3d 124, 138 (3d Cir. 2000). The District Court’s findings of fact underpinning such orders are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard. See Diesler, 54 F.3d at 1079. With respect to Kopacz’s argument that the District Court should have ordered the production of certain documents, the District Court specifically reviewed all of these documents in camera and found that they were prepared in anticipation of litigation. Based on the record before us, we cannot conclude that the District Court’s determination in that respect constituted clear error, or that the District Court abused its discretion in denying the production of these documents. In addition, Kopacz contends that the District Court erred in preventing counsel from questioning a witness about opinions she had received from two lawyers regarding Kopacz’s entitlement to maintenance. Based on the record before us,4 we are unable to conclude that the District Court abused its discretion in disallowing this testimony.