Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Country Club Villa Properties (CCVP) and Comcast Cable Communications filed seven discovery disputes at or after the September 4, 2026 fact-discovery cutoff. Their underlying dispute concerns Comcast’s alleged use of CCVP property and equipment to serve neighboring residential complexes. CCVP sought financial-condition evidence for punitive damages, information about revenue or profits tied to the alleged property use, discovery from two nonparties, and comparable private-property agreements. Comcast sought additional testimony and documents from CCVP about earlier PacBell service and an AT&T contract.
The magistrate judge criticized both sides for failing to cooperate on reasonable, proportional discovery and for waiting until the deadline to present numerous disputes. Although the order authorized limited additional production and depositions, the magistrate judge explained that only the presiding judge could modify the scheduling order. The parties therefore had to submit a stipulated request to Judge Noël Wise by October 14, 2026, seeking a limited extension of the closed discovery period.
The Court’s Holding
On punitive-damages discovery, the court held that federal procedure controls timing and that net financial information is relevant. Comcast was ordered to produce documents sufficient to show its assets, income, liabilities, and expenses for January 1, 2025 through September 30, 2026. But CCVP’s demand for all financial documents and a corporate deposition was disproportionate. The court expected an authenticity stipulation and reserved the possibility of revisiting testimony if Comcast refused.
The court also required documents sufficient to show Comcast’s profits from using the identified portions of CCVP’s property to serve third parties from January 1, 2020 forward, or revenue if profit figures were unavailable. Comcast had to provide a Rule 30(b)(6) witness on specified profit and agreement topics for a deposition limited to two hours. CableCom, which did not object, was directed to complete its promised production and deposition. By contrast, the court refused to enforce CCVP’s FiberTel subpoena because it allowed only seven days, identified no place of compliance, and did not establish a Rule 45-compliant location for the Utah-based company.
CCVP likewise had to provide further two-hour corporate depositions about PacBell service and the AT&T contract. Its witness had to consult former general manager Dave Cortese about reasonably available organizational knowledge. CCVP also had to produce a complete AT&T contract or certify after a diligent search that it could not locate one. Finally, Comcast had to produce Santa Clara County agreements for rights to install or operate telecommunications facilities on private property, disclose related compensation, and answer interrogatories identifying compensated property owners. The order contained an apparent typographical date of October 30, 2006 for one deposition; read in context, the operative schedule plainly concerned 2026, but practitioners should consult the docket for any correction.
Key Takeaways
- Federal procedure governs discovery of financial condition in federal court, even when California punitive-damages law supplies the relevance question.
- Net-worth discovery should cover assets, income, liabilities, and expenses; sweeping demands for every financial record or duplicative testimony may be disproportionate.
- A Rule 30(b)(6) designee must investigate information reasonably available to the organization, including by consulting a knowledgeable former manager where appropriate.
- A remote subpoena still must provide reasonable time and specify a Rule 45-compliant place of compliance.
- Waiting until discovery closes can jeopardize otherwise appropriate relief because a magistrate judge handling disputes may lack authority to modify the presiding judge’s schedule.
Why It Matters
The order offers a practical roadmap for discovery in California property-use and punitive-damages litigation. Parties should connect each request to the governing damages measure, ask for documents sufficient to establish the relevant figures, and avoid piling on testimony where authenticated records will do. For organizational depositions, preparation obligations extend beyond the witness’s personal knowledge.
The scheduling lesson is equally important. The court granted targeted relief but made it contingent on obtaining a schedule modification from the assigned judge. Counsel who delay meeting and conferring or subpoena service until the cutoff risk losing time and leverage even when the requested evidence is relevant.