Todd v. AT&T Corp., 4:16-cv-03357

Plaintiff Cynthia Todd sued under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), seeking punitive damages for alleged violations and requesting discovery of defendants’ net worth to evaluate punitive damages exposure.
Defendants are Equifax Information Services LLC and the National Consumer Telecom and Utilities Exchange; they opposed broad discovery of financials as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial.
The parties submitted a joint discovery letter to the magistrate judge concerning production of net worth information; the case had a then-scheduled trial date in October 2017.
The magistrate judge applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) and the proportionality factors from the 2015 amendments in resolving the dispute.
The court recognized that a defendant’s financial condition is traditionally relevant to punitive damages but cautioned against undue prejudice; it found the plaintiff’s request for five years of financials overbroad.
Ruling: Defendants must produce documents sufficient to show their current net worth only; additional deposition follow-ups were denied as disproportionate and redundant. The court also admonished the parties for failing to comply with the magistrate’s meet-and-confer attestation requirement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant net worth is discoverable for punitive damages	Net worth is relevant to the amount of punitive damages and discoverable under Rule 26	Net worth is irrelevant and its disclosure would be unduly prejudicial to defendants	Net worth is relevant; discovery allowed but limited to current net worth
Scope of financial discovery (time period requested)	Five years of financial documents (preceding and including trial year) are needed	Five-year request is overbroad and unnecessary	Five-year request denied as disproportionate; only current net worth must be produced
Whether deposition witnesses must reconvene to answer previously refused questions	Plaintiff sought court order to make witnesses answer those questions	Defendants opposed as redundant given documentary production	Denied; answers would be duplicative and not proportional
Procedural compliance with magistrate's standing order	Plaintiff asserted extensive meet-and-confer communications occurred	Defendants joined in letter brief without the required in-person attestation	Court found parties failed to satisfy attestation requirement and admonished that future letters without attestation will be denied

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (Sup. Ct.) (evidence of wealth can bias juries but is not categorically inadmissible)
City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247 (Sup. Ct.) (a tortfeasor’s wealth is traditionally admissible as a measure of punitive damages)
Cortez v. TransUnion, LLC, 617 F.3d 688 (3d Cir.) (jurors may consider relative wealth when setting punitive damages)
Dixon-Rollins v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 753 F. Supp. 2d 452 (E.D. Pa.) (financial condition relevant to punitive damages; bifurcation can mitigate prejudice)
Saunders v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 469 F. Supp. 2d 343 (E.D. Va.) (denying remittitur where jury was instructed about punitive-damages purposes and defendant’s net worth was considered)
Adams v. Murakami, 54 Cal.3d 105 (Cal.) (under California law jurors must consider defendant’s financial condition when awarding punitive damages)