Kozlowski v. JFBB Ski Areas, Inc.

• Decision Date: 13 May 2020
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-353
• Parties: JAMES KOZLOWSKI, Plaintiff, v. JFBB SKI AREAS, INC., d/b/a JACK FROST and BIG BOULDER SKI RESORTS, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

JAMES KOZLOWSKI, Plaintiff, v. JFBB SKI AREAS, INC., d/b/a JACK FROSTand BIG BOULDER SKI RESORTS, Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-353

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

May 13, 2020

(JUDGE MARIANI)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. INTRODUCTION

Here the Court considers the parties' dispute regarding discovery of financial information. The parties disagree whether the discovery sought is timely requested and relevant to the ongoing litigation. (Docs. 50, 58, 63, 68.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court concludes that the discovery requests are not timely and, although a parties' wealth is a relevant factor in considering a punitive damages award, such evidence is not required and Plaintiff is not foreclosed from seeking an award of punitive damages.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this action on February 13, 2018, against Peak Resorts, Inc., d/b/a Jack Frost & Big Boulder Ski Resorts and JFBB Ski Areas, Inc., d/b/a Jack Frost & Big Boulder Ski Resorts, asserting one count of negligence based on injuries he sustained in a ski accident at Big Boulder. (Doc. 1.) On June 11, 2018, the parties filed the Stipulation to Dismiss and Amend Caption in which they stipulated and agreed to dismiss Peak Resorts, Inc., d/b/a Jack Frost & Big Boulder Ski Resorts as a defendant in the action. (Doc. 14 at 1.) The Stipulation further stated that

[t]his dismissal and amendment is made pursuant to the agreement of counsel. It is further stipulated and agreed the dismissal is without prejudice to the Plaintiff in that if discovery reveals that the Defendant dismissed herein had any involvement or responsibility for the accident or damages subject of the instant dispute, then, upon notice to defense counsel, it can be renamed and be made a party to this lawsuit regardless of the statute of limitations.

(Id. at 1-2.) By Order of June 12, 2018, the Court approved the Stipulation. (Doc. 15.)

On October 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Include Allegations of Gross Negligence and Reckless Conduct. (Doc. 21.) Defendant's counsel opposed the filing of the motion. (Id. at 6.) On November 6, 2018, the parties filed the Stipulation to Amend Complaint and Include Allegations of Gross Negligence and Reckless Conduct in which they indicate that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), Defendant consented to the amendment sought in Plaintiff's October 23, 2018, Motion. (Doc. 22 at 1.) Based on the Stipulation, the Court issued an Order on November 7, 2018, granting Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to add allegations of gross negligence and reckless conduct. (Doc. 23.)

Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on November 8, 2018. (Doc. 24.) The Amended Complaint contains two counts: Count I for Negligence and Count II for Gross Negligence/Recklessness. (Id.)

On January 31, 2019, Defendant filed the Motion for Summary Judgment on Behalf of Defendant JFBB Ski Areas, Inc., seeking summary judgment in its favor on both claimscontained in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. (Doc. 30.) In the Memorandum Opinion addressing Defendant's motion issued on December 12, 2019, the Court set out the following summary of the case:

The above captioned matter stems from a skiing accident that occurred on January 15, 2017, at Big Boulder Ski Resort ("Big Boulder"). (Doc. 30 ¶ 1.) . . . Plaintiff states that he was skiing at Big Boulder and, as he came to an intersection of trails, he followed tracks which led to an embankment at the edge of a catwalk. (Doc. 24 ¶¶ 14-17.) Plaintiff asserts that, as he skied down the embankment, he suddenly and unexpectedly collided with partially exposed snowmaking pipes which could not be seen from a reasonably safe distance in the area where he was skiing. (Id. ¶¶ 18-20.) He alleges that he was rendered unconscious as a result of the collision and had to be dug out from under the pipes before he was transported to the hospital by ambulance. (Id. ¶ 21.)

(Doc. 44 at 1.) The Court denied Defendant's motion as to the negligence claim, finding that "issues of fact and credibility exist which preclude summary judgment on the issue of whether Plaintiff's injury resulted from a risk inherent to the sport of downhill skiing which Plaintiff must be conclusively found to have assumed." (Id. at 18.) The Court denied Defendant's motion as to the gross negligence/recklessness claim, finding that

this is not a case where the Court can determine at this stage of the proceedings that the issues of gross negligence and/or recklessness can be decided as matter of law, i.e., the Court cannot conclude that the case is entirely free from doubt, and no reasonable jury could find gross negligence.

(Id. at 22 (internal quotation and citation omitted).)

With the denial of Defendant's motion, the Court scheduled a telephone conference to set this matter for trial (Doc. 45 ¶ 2), after which the Court issued an Order on December20, 2020, establishing the pre-trial schedule and setting the trial for June 8, 2020 (Doc. 47 ¶ 1).

Plaintiff apprised the Court of the discovery dispute at issue here by correspondence dated April 22, 2020. (Doc. 50.) Plaintiff's counsel informed the Court that Defendant objected to Plaintiff's request for financial discovery and did not provide substantive answers or responses to the discovery Plaintiff had served on January 23, 2020. (Doc. 50 at 1-2.) Specifically, Plaintiff stated as follows:

Plaintiff served Defendant with punitive damages interrogatories and requests for the production of documents ("financial discovery"). This financial discovery requested the current financial wealth/worth of Big Boulder and Vail Resorts, Inc., which assumed Big Boulder's liabilities through a stock purchase in September 2019. On 2/24/20, Big Boulder objected to Plaintiff's financial discovery and provided no information or documents. The primary basis for Big Boulder's objections was that the financial discovery was not timely. Big Boulder also objected to the relevance of the discovery and on the basis that Vail Resorts is not a party to the lawsuit.

(Doc. 50 at 2.) Plaintiff asserts that "the financial discovery is appropriate and relevant to Plaintiff's gross negligence/reckless conduct claim. As punitive damages are recoverable under such an action and the financial worth is a factor that a jury should consider when awarding punitive damages, Plaintiff is entitled to discovery related to Defendant's financial worth." (Id.) Plaintiff further asserts that financial discovery related to Vail Resorts, Inc., ("Vail") is appropriate and relevant because Vail assumed Defendant's liabilities when it purchased Defendant in September 2019 and the financial worth a jury should consider is the current net worth at the time of trial. (Id.)

By Order of April 23, 2019, the Court directed Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's correspondence and set a Telephone Discovery Conference for April 29, 2020. (Doc. 51.)

In the April 27, 2020, responsive correspondence, Defendant stated that this is a "negligence case and there is nothing about the facts of this case that point to any of the types of conduct that would even suggest consideration of punitive damages. In any case, the discovery is untimely and oppressive at this point as the case is largely ready for trial." (Doc. 58 at 1.) Defendant specifically points to the facts that "punitive damages were not identified as damages or contained in the prayer for relief . . . [and] Fact Discovery closed on December 1, 2018." (Id. at 2 ¶¶ 5, 6.)

The parties argued their respective positions at the Telephone Discovery Conference held on April 29, 2020. Plaintiff asserted that he did not need to specifically plead a claim for punitive damages because such damages are available with his gross negligence/ recklessness claim and the request for discovery was made shortly after the Court decided the summary judgement motion which allowed the gross negligence/recklessness claim to go forward. Defendant asserted that Plaintiff needed to plead punitive damages so the discovery sought is not relevant and Plaintiff has provided no basis for the Court to conclude that his discovery request is timely. At the close of the Conference, the Court granted Plaintiff an opportunity to file a supplemental letter setting forth any case law supporting the argument that a plaintiff can pursue a claim for punitive damages when a complaint doesnot specifically assert such a claim for relief. The Court also granted Defendant an opportunity to respond.

The parties responded with their correspondence of May 1, 2020, and May 5, 2020, each providing support for their respective positions. (Docs. 60, 63.)

III. ANALYSIS

In considering the parties' arguments on the relevance and timeliness of the financial discovery requested, the Court will address three questions. First, is Plaintiff correct that no claim for punitive damages need be pled to assert a claim for punitive damages at trial? Second, is Plaintiff untimely in his request for financial discovery? Third, if Plaintiff can pursue a claim for punitive damages, can he do so without evidence of Defendant's wealth?

A. Pleading Punitive Damages

Plaintiff contends "that punitive damages may be awarded when a complaint does not separately request punitive damages but alleges facts sufficient for a punitive damages award," citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c), caselaw interpreting the rule, and section 908(2) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. (Doc. 63 at 2 (citing Griffith Laboratories U.S.A., Inc. v. Pomper, 607 F. Supp. 999, 1001 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (citing F.R.C.P. 54(c) and Guillen v. Kuykendall, 470 F.2d 745, 747-748 (5d Cir. 1972)); Evans Products Co. v. W. Am. Ins. Co., 736 F.2d 920, 923 (3d Cir. 1984)).) Defendant responds that "Rule 54 does not save Plaintiff" based on restrictions on the relief that may be granted under the rule. (Doc. 68 at 4-7 (citing Evans, 736 F.2d 920; Cioffe v. Morris, 676 F.2d 539,541 (11^th ...