SANTA ANA, Calif. — When Debbie Hetman, the mother of Tyler Skaggs, took the stand on the morning of Nov. 18, her attorney had a couple of questions that, to the jury, might have seemed irrelevant — questions about an iPad.
The lawyer, Daniel Dutko, wanted to know if Hetman had ever communicated with the Drug Enforcement Agency about getting her son’s iPad back. He also wanted to know about the iPad’s value.
She’d spoken to the DEA, she said, but the agency had never returned the iPad — valued at around $2,000.
This iPad has been asked about a lot in the wrongful death civil trial brought by Skaggs’ family against the Angels. It was the surface where Skaggs lined up the drugs before snorting them. Ex-Angels communications director Eric Kay provided the fentanyl-laced pill that Skaggs ingested, leading to his death on July 1, 2019.
On its face, the iPad seemingly serves no purpose in this case, other than its physical proximity to the tragic events that unfolded. But that iPad could trigger many millions of dollars in punitive damages.
There’s a reason Dutko asked Hetman those questions, and why both sides have been litigating facts surrounding this piece of technology.
In the state of California, wrongful death civil suits cannot include punitive damages. However, they can be awarded in separate, but related, survival claims if the decedent suffered property damage before death. In most states, punitive damages can be awarded in wrongful death trials without this extra layer. But in California, it’s a prerequisite.
While there are forms of damages meant to compensate for loss of income, loss of society and companionship, among other areas, punitive damages are meant to punish a defendant and deter similar conduct in the future. In the initial statement of damages, provided by the Angels to The Athletic, the Skaggs side was seeking $400 million in punitive damages. It is unclear if that remains the amount the plaintiffs would request.
Skaggs family lawyers have specifically cited the O.J. Simpson civil trial brought by the estate of Ron Goldman, arguing the case serves as precedent for awarding a large punitive damages judgment, despite limited property damage.
In that trial, the only property damage was Goldman’s clothing, Skaggs lawyers argued, but the jury awarded the plaintiffs $25 million in punitive damages.
In a brief filed in September, the Skaggs’ side cited the appellate court ruling from that trial, which stated that “Relatively minor compensatory damages, such as here the decedents’ clothing and personal property damaged during the homicides, can be the springboard for substantial punitive damages.”
The Angels disagree with the premise and don’t believe that punitive damages are warranted in this case.
“There is absolutely no basis for punitive damages,” Angels lead attorney Todd Theodora told The Athletic in a written statement. “There has been no evidence — nor will there be — that any one in management acted with malice or ill will. Indeed, to the contrary the Team wishes that Tyler had admitted to his addiction because it would have steered him into recovery and helped him.”
Skaggs attorney Rusty Hardin took issue with Theodora’s characterization of Skaggs as an addict, saying “The only people that have said Tyler Skaggs is an addict are the lawyers for the Angels. (Skaggs’) conduct does not even remotely compare to Eric Kay’s.”
Hardin also advocated for imposing punitive damages against the team.
“This thing cries out for punitive damages, which are designed to punish and deter the responsible party,” Hardin told The Athletic. “Anybody that has sat through the last two months of this trial, I would respectfully suggest, would have no doubt that the Angels deserve to be punished for what they’ve done.”
The Angels filed a successful and unopposed pre-trial motion to bifurcate. This essentially allows for a second phase of the trial, if needed, to determine the amount of punitive damages based, in part, on the Angels’ value. The bifurcation precludes the entrance of trial evidence regarding the Angels’ finances, according to relevant case law.
In their filing, Skaggs family lawyers say they “unapologetically base their claim for punitive damages on property damage to Tyler’s iPad.”
The plaintiffs will ask that the jury base any punitive damages awarded on the “actual physical harm to Tyler, reprehensibility of the Angels’ conduct in causing it, and the amount necessary to punish the Angels and deter future wrongful conduct, in light of the Angels’ financial condition.”
What the Skaggs lawyers want to prove is that the iPad was damaged beyond repair by the fentanyl provided by Kay, who they argue was working in his capacity as a representative of the Angels. Their argument centers on a contention that fentanyl was found on the iPad, and that the DEA has not surrendered the iPad back into the Skaggs family’s custody.
The Angels’ argument centers on a contention that the substance on the iPad was never tested for fentanyl. There was a substance tested in the room that appeared to be the same, but it did not come from the iPad. It’s unclear if the Angels agree that the iPad will never be given back to the Skaggs family.
Investigators and experts have been questioned on the topic — specifically, Jonathan Macheca, who was a Southlake Police Department investigator at the time. On cross-examination during his Nov. 14 testimony, Angels lawyer Stephen Ladsous asked many questions about the iPad.
“Whatever drug chopping took place happened on the cover of the iPad, not the iPad itself,” Ladsous asked, to which Macheca agreed.
Ladsous also asked about the contents of the iPad being searched by Southlake PD investigators. It was seemingly to make a case that the iPad itself was not damaged by the fentanyl, only the cover, and that the technology remains functional because it was searched by investigators.
The judge has already ruled that this will be an issue for the jury to decide — and made several notable statements indicating a belief in the legitimacy of the Skaggs family’s argument.
In rejecting the Angels’ motion for summary judgment prior to the start of the trial, the judge wrote, “As to whether the iPad suffered physical damage, evidence submitted by Plaintiffs shows that the iPad was covered in fentanyl and could not be forensically analyzed without chemical treatment, which would destroy the iPad.
“Further, despite her requests, the iPad was not returned to Carli from the Drug Enforcement Agency because it was contaminated with fentanyl residue.”
The jury has not yet been explained the case law, nor the iPad’s relevance. But it will be fair game for lawyers to bring up during their closing arguments, and it’s possible that language surrounding this topic will be included in instructions given to the jury before they deliberate.