IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
August 1, 2007
MIKE PEREZ, PLAINTIFF
JOHN J. GRIFFIN AND LAW OFFICE OF JOHN J. GRIFFIN, DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 1st day of August, 2007, upon consideration of pro se plaintiff's motion (Doc. 46) to compel defendants to provide complete answers to his interrogatories,*fn1 and it appearing that defendants will provide plaintiff with copies of the documents responsive to interrogatory number 10 (see Doc. 49 at 6),*fn2 that prior complaints against defendants are irrelevant to the instant malpractice action and not admissible under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, see FED. R. EVID. 402, 404, and that plaintiff has not yet demonstrated a "'real possibility' of an award of punitive damages," Iwanejko v. Cohen & Grisgby, P.C., No. 2:03CV1855, 2005 WL 4043954, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 5, 2005) (granting defendant's motion for a protective order regarding plaintiff's request to discover information about defendant's finances and granting plaintiff leave to discover such information only after plaintiff's claim "survives summary judgment and [plaintiff] can demonstrate a 'real possibility' of an award of punitive damages"); see also McCurdy v. Wedgewood Capital Mgmt. Co., No. 97-4303, 1998 WL 964185, at *10 (E.D. Pa. 1998) ("Rule 26 [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] will not permit the discovery of facts concerning a defendant's financial status, or ability to satisfy a judgment, since such matters are not relevant, and cannot lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."),*fn3 it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to compel (Doc. 46) is DENIED.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge