Weingarten

Weingarten v. Superior Court

Good Law
102 Cal. App. 4th 268·125 Cal. Rptr. 2d 371·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4668·2002 Daily Journal DAR 10980·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9762
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 20, 2002D039959California3,516 words

Opinion

Opinion

Haller, J.

After the first phase of a trial in which the court found defendant Palomba Weingarten committed fraud and malice, the court ordered Weingarten to produce her 2000 and 2001 personal tax returns to permit plaintiffs to prepare for the punitive damages phase. Weingarten seeks a writ of mandate directing the trial court to set aside its disclosure order, contending the order violates her privilege to maintain confidentiality of her tax returns. We deny the requested relief.

We agree with Weingarten that a finding a defendant is liable for punitive damages is insufficient, by itself, to establish the tax return privilege is inapplicable. But we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the privilege was inapplicable in this case because the record showed Weingarten engaged in conduct precluding plaintiffs from obtaining relevant nonprivileged financial information necessary to support plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim, and there was no less intrusive alternative for plaintiffs to obtain the information. We modify the order only to include a provision requiring that Weingarten’s husband, Robert Weingarten, receive notice and an opportunity to be heard…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.