Opinion ID: 2638442
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ABC suffered prejudice as a result of DeNardo's failure to comply.

Text: ABC argues it suffered prejudice as a result of DeNardo's failure to produce the requested information. Analysis of each category of requested information supports ABC's position.
ABC argues that it was prejudiced by DeNardo's failure to provide information regarding his prior residences and employers, information that might go towards DeNardo's credibility. A listing of DeNardo's prior residences, ABC claims, might have aided in determining jurisdictions to search for his criminal and litigation history. ABC is correct that information regarding DeNardo's prior residences and employers might have been helpful in determining which jurisdictions to search for his criminal and litigation history. In addition, it may have been helpful in determining DeNardo's credibility; credibility would likely be particularly important in resolving the underlying dispute here, which concerns an oral contract. [23] Knowledge of prior residences would allow ABC to contact past neighbors of DeNardo's who might give further information regarding credibility. Speaking to past employers would allow ABC to determine if DeNardo had had previous work-related problems and might also go towards determining his credibility in work-related situations. Because DeNardo's prior residences and employment history would have been helpful in determining how to uncover other relevant evidence as well as issues involving DeNardo's credibility, Judge Joannides did not err in finding ABC was prejudiced by DeNardo's failure to provide the information.
ABC claims that information regarding DeNardo's criminal and litigation history was necessary because it could have affected DeNardo's credibility, a necessary factor in resolving a disputed oral contract. DeNardo claims that such information is generally irrelevant, that character evidence is not admissible in a civil trial, and that, in any event, such information is available in the public record. As noted above, credibility is a necessary factor in resolving a dispute over an oral contract. [24] DeNardo's criminal history is thus possibly relevant as it might affect the fact-finder's view of DeNardo's credibility. DeNardo's previous litigation history is potentially relevant as well, and it might lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
ABC argues that in order to properly determine damages, information regarding DeNardo's subsequent employment is required. DeNardo responds that ABC already possesses information regarding his subsequent employment and that his tax records are protected. We have held that [w]ithholding materials relating to a party's damages may seriously prejudice the adverse party by making it difficult or impossible to adequately assess the strength of the opponent's case, thereby leaving the opponent in a weakened position for settlement negotiations or other purposes. [25] That appears to have been the case here. In his complaint, DeNardo requested compensatory damages. However, as DeNardo knows from his own previous litigation,  `a plaintiff alleging breach of contract must present evidence sufficient to calculate the amount of the loss caused by the breach.'  [26] DeNardo argues that ABC has all of the information it needs because it knows he was subsequently hired by Alaska Economy RVs. However, [t]he purpose of awarding damages for a breach of contract is to put the injured party in as good a position as that party would have been had the contract been fully performed. [27] Therefore, by analogy to wrongful discharge cases, an employee is generally entitled to the amount of the agreed-upon salary for the unexpired term of his employment minus what he could earn by making diligent efforts to obtain similar work. [28] ABC has no way of knowing, absent DeNardo providing it, the salary information necessary to litigate or settle the issue of damages. Therefore, despite ABC possibly having some knowledge regarding where DeNardo was working shortly after he left ABC, DeNardo was required to provide the information ABC requested. Because whether DeNardo obtained subsequent employment and because information involving that employment was relevant to any damages regarding his claim for breach of contract, ABC was prejudiced by his failure to provide the requested information.
One of the alleged reasons for DeNardo's termination was his failure to provide a copy of his driver's license upon being hired by ABC, which claimed that driving RVs was a requirement of DeNardo's employment. ABC thus argues that whether DeNardo had a valid driver's license is at the very heart of this dispute. DeNardo claims this information is irrelevant because driving was not a requirement. This factual dispute was not susceptible to resolution during the pretrial period when discovery occurs. But ABC was entitled to discovery of information pertinent to the claim so that it could prepare for the litigation. Had the case proceeded to trial, and had the fact-finder concluded that a driver's license was a requirement of the job, it would clearly have been important to know if DeNardo possessed a license.