| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Motion for Financial Condition Discovery
5 9:00 10 24CV447215 Anshul Kothari, et al. v. Adam Wu, et al. Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Permit Discovery of the Financial Information of Defendant Adam Wu Under Civil Code Section 3295(c)
See Line 10 below for complete tentative ruling. After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal order.
9:00 11 22CV408251 Jiapei Sun, et al. v. John Reed, et al. Order on Defendant’s Motion To Stay This Action Pending Appeal of His Conviction for First Degree Murder of Plaintiff’s Mom.
See Line 9 below for complete tentative ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Stay, which the Court analyzed in the same Order resolving Plaintiff’s Motion for Financial- Condition Discovery in the same case.
9:00 12
9:00 13
9:00 14
9:00 15
47 Line 10 Case Name: Anshul Kothari, et al. v. Adam Wu, et al.
Case No.: 24CV447215
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Plaintiffs move for an Order Permitting Discovery of the Financial Condition of Defendant Adam Wu (“Defendant”) under Civil Code Section 3295(c) on the ground that there is a substantial probability that Plaintiffs will prevail on their puniti ve damages claims. Notice of Motion (the “Motion”) at 2:3-6.d
The Motion came on for hearing on May 13, 2026, at 9:00 AM in Department 16. After reviewing all the papers and the record, and giving counsel for all parties the full and fair opportunity to be heard, the Court finds and rules as follows.
Under Civil Code Section 3295(c), “[n]o pretrial discovery by the plaintiff shall be permitted” with respect to “the financial condition of the defendant” unless the Court enters an Order permitting (otherwise- prohibited) pretrial discovery on defendant’s financial condition “if the court finds, on the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits presented, that the plaintiff has established that there is a substant ial probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the [punitive damages] claim pursuant to Section 3294.” Civil Code § 3295(c).
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Applying this governing legal standard and carefully weighing all the supporting and opposing affidavits presented, the Court respectfully DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Motion because the Court does not find at this stage of the proceedings that Plaintiffs are “very likely” to prevail at trial on their claim for punitive damages against Defendant Adam Wu. Jabro, 95 Cal. App. 4th at 758. It’s quite possible that Plaintiffs will win punitive damages at trial, but the Court does not find base d on the affidavi ts presented that they are “very likely” to do so. Id.
The Court reminds all parties that by the plain text of Section 3295(c), this “order shall not be considered to be a determination on the merits of [Plaintiffs’ punitive damages] claim or any defense thereto and shall not be given in evidence or referred to a t
48 the trial.” Civil Code § 3295(c). And because this is not a ruling on the merits of Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim, this Order DENYING Plaintiffs’ motion for pretrial discovery on Defendant’s financial condition is expressly made WITHOUT PREJUDICE, so that Plaintiffs will be free at trial including at the Motions In Limine stage to bring to the trial judge a Motion for discovery of Defendant’s financial condition under Section 3295(c).
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
Date: May 13, 2026 Hon. Vincent I. Parrett Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara