Tentative Ruling: Damon Richardson, Thuy-Trang vs Thomas Ayer

Case Number

25CV04832

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 03/18/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion for Discovery of Defendant’s Financial Condition

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiffs:[1] Anthony Kastenek, Philip Alexander.

For Defendant: James Baretta, Kathryn E. Keegan.

RULINGS

The Court has read the Motion, the Opposition, the Reply, and rules as follows:

1. The Court has addressed this issue many times.

2. This is a bifurcated trial on the issue of punitive damages.

3. The Motion is DENIED.

4. The Court orders that Defendant will have a “net worth” declaration that clearly presents his assets and liabilities as well as his last 12 months average income prepared by Defendant’s accountant or in lieu thereof such a declaration prepared by Defendant himself.

5. It will be presented to the Court, in a sealed envelope, when jury selection begins.

6. The net worth exhibit will be reviewed only by the Court prior to jury selection.

7. If the net worth document is not presented when ordered above or is vastly insufficient, in the Court’s opinion, the Court will tell the jury – if Plaintiff prevails on the punitive damage question - that the Defendant can afford any punitive damage award they make in the second phase; that will be the majority of the evidence presented on the punitive damage phase of the trial which immediately follows a jury verdict on the first phase.

8. The net worth document(s) will be admitted into evidence without further foundation or testimony assuming the jury answers the bifurcated question “yes” as to whether plaintiff has proved a right to punitive damages on the jury verdict form.

9. This decision is based on the Court’s observation that that most of these cases are settled. If not settled most of the time the Jury answers the punitive damage question “No.” That when the Jury answers the punitive damage question “Yes” and they are required to decide the issue of punitive damages, most of the time they ignore the Defendant’s net worth.

10. When discovery has been allowed by this Court in the past, there are discovery disputes over the perceived lack of candor on the discovery issues raised on the net worth issue. 

11. To allow the discovery means the tail is wagging the dog.

12. The Court confirms the next CMC is set for 4/29/26; the MSC is set for 11/13/26 in #5 at 8:30am via Zoom; the Pretrial Conference is set for 12/2/26; all trial documents are due one week in advance of the pretrial conference; jury panel to come over 12/3/26.

[1] Statement of the case: On January 18, 2025, Plaintiffs, Damon Richardson and Thuy Trang Chau, were walking in the north crosswalk on Santa Barbara St and E De La Guerra St. The Plaintiffs had a walk pedestrian signal. The Defendant was waiting for a green light on E De La Guerra St in the left hand turn lane and failed to yield to the pedestrians in a marked crosswalk. Defendant accelerated and his vehicle collided with Plaintiff Damon Richardson’s body which caused him to collide with Plaintiff Thuy-Trang Chau.  The Defendant had been driving while impaired.  Plaintiff Damon Richardson was injured due to the crash, with special damages of approximately $121, 465.64. Plaintiffs are seeking punitive damages due to the impairment of Defendant when the collision occurred.