*1 Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion [488] to Compel Discovery, filed April 7, 2023. Briefing is complete, and an Oral Argument/Evidentiary Hearing was held on April 27, 2023. After considering the briefs, the applicable law, and the Court file, and after considering the arguments made during the hearing, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiffs' Motion should be granted.

Plaintiffs are seeking to compel production of documents responsive to Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 5, and Request for Production No. 2 from Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. More specifically, Plaintiffs seek information and documents related to Defendants, Randall J. Broda's (deceased) (“Mr. Broda”) and Deborah V. Broda-Morgan's (“Ms. Morgan”) personal income, lines of credit, and tax returns for the past five years. See ECF No. 495 at p. 3, 11-12, 14. See also ECF No. 513 at p. 2.

Plaintiffs sought this information through a previously filed Motion to Compel. The Court denied this request in an Order filed on December 20, 2021, having found that, at that time, there was not enough evidence to justify compelling production of such information. ECF No. 201 at 5-6. Plaintiffs re-raise this issue and argue that the landscape of the case has changed so as to justify production of this evidence. In particular, Plaintiffs argue that this evidence is relevant to Plaintiffs' claims for fraud, alter-ego, and punitive damages, which have survived the summary judgment stage of the case. Plaintiffs further argue that they cannot obtain this information elsewhere.

Defendants argue that the discovery Plaintiffs seek is neither relevant, nor proportional to the needs of this case. Defendants further argue that, with respect to Plaintiffs' alter ego claim, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a compelling need for the information sought, and there are sources of information that are less intrusive than personal tax returns, lines of credit, and income information that Plaintiffs may obtain.

“Unless otherwise limited by court order...[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense” and proportional to the needs of the case. Long v. M&M Transp., LLC, 2014 WL 235517, at * 2 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 22, 2014) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “A defendant's financial information is clearly relevant if the defendant is potentially liable for punitive damages.” Id. “[I]n general a plaintiff must establish that a claim for punitive damages is viable before discovery into a defendant's financial information will be allowed.” Long, 2014 WL 235517, at *2 (citing Robinson v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 2013 WL 1704839 (S.D.W. Va. April 19, 2013). “This prima facie showing of viability can be made by presenting evidence to support the factual allegations in the complaint or by surviving a summary judgment motion as to claims for which punitive damages are available.” Long, 2014 WL 235517, at *2.

In the instant case, Plaintiffs have asserted a fraud claim against both Mr. Broda and Ms. Morgan, individually, and these fraud claims have survived a summary judgment motion from and on behalf of both Mr. Broda and Ms. Morgan. See ECF Nos. 326, 381 and 383. See also ECF No. 492. Plaintiffs are seeking punitive damages as a result of this alleged fraud. ECF No. 326. Mr. Broda's and Ms. Morgan's financial information is relevant to Plaintiffs' fraud claim and claim for punitive damages. See Long, 2014 WL 235517, at * 2. Given the District Court's denial of Mr. Broda's and Ms. Morgan's Motions for Summary Judgment vis-à-vis Plaintiffs' fraud claims, the requisite prima facie showing has been made. Id. The discovery sought by Plaintiffs is therefore relevant and discoverable.

*2 Assuming that Defendants' position is correct, that they did not move for summary judgment on the individual fraud claims asserted against Mr. Broda and Ms. Morgan, the Court is nevertheless persuaded that Mr. Broda's and Ms. Morgan's personal financial information is relevant and discoverable at this stage of the proceedings. Defendants' choice not to move for summary judgment has the same functional result as if they had moved for summary judgment and had been denied: Plaintiffs' fraud claims against Mr. Broda and Ms. Morgan are viable inasmuch as they are proceeding to trial (barring any other Order of Court).

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not established a compelling need for this information, and that Plaintiffs already have the information they need. The Court is not persuaded by this argument. This argument appears to relate primarily to Plaintiffs' alter ego claims and does not bear upon Plaintiffs' claims of fraud asserted individually against Mr. Broda and Ms. Morgan. Moreover, and inasmuch as the Court has found the requested discovery relevant and discoverable with respect to Plaintiffs' fraud claims, the Court does not need to consider the arguments related to Plaintiffs' alter ego claims.

Finally, Defendants argue that five (5) years of personal financial information is not proportionate to the needs of this case. The Court would disagree. This is the same time period for which Defendants produced tax returns for the corporate and limited liability company Defendants, and the Court finds this same time period reasonable to investigate the individual defendants' current financial status.

Accordingly, and for all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion [488] to Compel is GRANTED. Defendants are DIRECTED to provide the requested discovery to Plaintiffs within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order. It is further ORDERED that, notwithstanding the Protective Order already in place, the information to be disclosed SHALL be REDACTED for personal information such as social security numbers and dates of birth.

It is so ORDERED.

Any party may, within FOURTEEN DAYS of this Order, file with the Clerk of the Court written objections identifying the portions of the Order to which objection is made, and the basis for such objection. A copy of such objections should also be submitted to the District Court Judge of Record. Failure to timely file objections to the Order set forth above will result in a waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of this Court based upon such an Order.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of this Order upon any pro se party by certified mail, return receipt requested, and upon counsel of record herein.