## Facts

- William Hill sued Hikmat Jabro (a convenience store owner) and Saad Matti for tort damages arising from an altercation outside Jabro’s store.
- Hill alleged Matti beat and seriously injured him while yelling racial slurs, and that Jabro encouraged Matti during the incident.
- Hill sought compensatory and punitive damages based on alleged malicious and oppressive conduct.
- Hill moved under Cal. Civ. Code § 3295(c) for permission to conduct pretrial discovery into defendants’ financial condition to support punitive damages.
- The trial court granted the motion after considering only Hill’s evidence and applying what it described as a prima facie standard.
- Jabro and Matti petitioned for writ relief, challenging the discovery order as applying the wrong statutory standard and procedure.

## Issues

1. Under Cal. Civ. Code § 3295(c), must a trial court consider and weigh evidence from both sides and find a “substantial probability” (very likely success) on punitive damages before allowing discovery of a defendant’s financial condition?
2. Is it error to authorize such discovery based only on the plaintiff’s evidence and a prima facie showing similar to the standard used to defeat summary judgment?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal granted writ relief and held the trial court applied the wrong standard under § 3295(c).
- The court ruled that § 3295(c) requires the trial court to consider and weigh evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to the motion.
- The court construed “substantial probability” to require a predictive finding that the plaintiff is very likely to prevail on the punitive damages claim, not merely that the claim is facially supported.
- The court directed the trial court to vacate the discovery order and reconsider the motion using the correct standard.

## Legal Principles

- Pretrial discovery of a defendant’s financial condition to support punitive damages is barred unless the court finds a substantial probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the punitive damages claim.  
- “Substantial probability” is a demanding, predictive standard requiring a finding that success on punitive damages is very likely; it is not satisfied by a prima facie showing.
- The trial court must allow and evaluate evidentiary submissions from both plaintiff and defendant (by declarations, affidavits, or testimony as permitted) and must weigh conflicting evidence in deciding the motion.
- The statutory scheme reflects heightened protection for sensitive financial information and aims to prevent premature disclosure and misuse of punitive-damages allegations as settlement pressure.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal required trial courts, before permitting punitive-damages financial-condition discovery under Cal. Civ. Code § 3295(c), to weigh both sides’ evidence and make a predictive finding that the plaintiff is very likely to prevail; a plaintiff-only prima facie approach is legally insufficient.


Jabro v. Superior Court, 95 Cal. App. 4th 754, 115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 843 (Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2002)