Judge allows punitive-damages amendment in trucking case but bars early financial discovery

A judge at the Chetm County circuit civil docket on an undisclosed date granted the plaintiff leave to amend a complaint to include punitive damages against a trucking company but limited any financial discovery related to that claim until a court, on a later showing, finds a sufficient factual basis.

Plaintiff counsel Dale Crowley told the court the facts supporting punitive damages were identified in discovery in December, and the plaintiff filed the amendment in May to preserve the claim while depositions were being scheduled. Defense counsel Cory Ch argued the five-month interval between discovery responses and the motion amounted to undue delay and cited precedent about efficient resolution of cases. He also said the pleaded facts, including an 8-mph speeding allegation and prior employment history, were insufficient to show the requisite intent or recklessness for punitive damages.

The judge acknowledged the competing considerations of undue delay, notice and futility, and observed that while the court generally grants motions to amend liberally, the risk of invasive financial discovery warranted a protective condition. The court allowed the amendment but ordered that requests for financial and corporate discovery tied to punitive damages be barred unless the plaintiff first obtains leave of court demonstrating a factual basis for such discovery.

The defense did not object to conditioning discovery; counsel suggested the restriction would mitigate prejudice. The order gives the plaintiff an opportunity to pursue additional fact development and to seek leave for financial discovery if and when the court is satisfied that punitive-damages claims have factual support.

The matter will return to the docket if either party seeks enforcement or further clarification of the discovery restriction.