whether an evidentiary basis exists for the punitive damage claim before compelling responses to such discovery. See Tennant v. Charlton, 377 S2d 1169 (Fla. 1979); Cobb v. Super. Ct. of Los Angeles County, 160 Cal. Rptr. 561 (Cal. App. 1979). Also, it has been held almost uniformly that where pre-trial discovery of the defendant’s financial resources is authorized, the scope of such should be restricted to the extent necessary to prevent an unreasonable intrusion into the defendant’s privacy. See Rupert v. Sellers, supra, 368 NYS2d at 913; Leidholt v. Dist. Ct. of Denver, supra, 619 P2d at 771-772; Gierman v. Toman, supra, 185 A2d at 244; Cobb v. Super. Ct. of Los Angeles County, 160 Cal. Rptr., supra. Accord Borenstein v. Blumenfeld, 151 Ga. App. 420, 421 (260 SE2d 377) (1979) (<HOLDING>). Decided March 4, 1991 Rehearing denied March
holding the conduct element satisfied where debtor earned income during the tax years at issue but did not make any estimated tax payments had inadequate or no withholdings and latefiled his tax returns holding that agency could not claim confidentiality for tax returns that had been exhibits in tax court and were therefore public records holding that the lower court erred both in requiring production of copies of the defendants income tax returns and in receiving the returns into evidence over objection holding that late state income tax returns fail to comply with applicable filing requirements holding in a case where punitive damages were not at issue but where the appellants financial condition was nevertheless arguably relevant that the interests of justice did not require the appellant to produce his federal income tax returns