18-CIV-05383 ADRIANA J. QUINTERO VS. STEVEN A. WEINKAUF, ET AL.

ADRIANA J. QUINTERO STEVEN A. WEINKAUF
MICHAEL B. BASSI PRO/PER

PLAINTIFF ADRIANA QUINTERO’S MOTION FOR ORDER PERMITTING PRETRIAL DISCOVERY OF DEFENDANT STEVEN WEINKAUF’S FINANCIAL CONDITION, FILED 3-15-19 TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Adriana Quintero’s Motion for Order Permitting Pretrial Discovery of Defendant Steven Weinkauf’s Financial Condition, filed 3-15-19, is GRANTED. Civ. Code §§ 3294, 3295. Defendant pled guilty to felony stalking with an enhancement for use of a firearm (see 3-15-19 Request for Judicial Notice), and admits in his sworn Opposition brief to shooting a gun/crossbow through the window(s) of Plaintiff’s place of business. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff has met her burden of demonstrating a substantial probability of prevailing on her claim for punitive damages, and thus her entitlement to pretrial discovery into Defendant’s financial condition. Jabro v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 754, 757.

As set forth in § 3295, this Order pertains only to discovery rights. It is not a determination of the merits of Plaintiff’s asserted causes of action, nor Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages, and it shall not be given in evidence or referred to at the trial. Defendant is presumptively entitled to a protective order limiting disclosure of Defendant’s financial evidence obtained solely to Plaintiff’s counsel, and solely for the purposes of this lawsuit. See Richards v. Sup.Ct. (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 265, 272. If Defendant seeks entry of such a protective order for this purpose, Defendant may meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel and agree to the language of such a protective order, and submit it to the Court for signature. Id.

Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice of portions of the related Contra Costa County Superior Court criminal case file is GRANTED. Evid. Code § 452(d).

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.