Opinion
17379-19 17380-19 17381-19 17382-19
10-13-2023
GREEN VALLEY INVESTORS, LLC, BOBBY A. BRANCH, TAX MATTERS PARTNER, ET. AL.,[1] Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Christian N. Weiler Judge
On August 11, 2023, petitioners issued one subpoena duces tecum to SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc., (SRK) and issued a second subpoena duces tecum to Jones, Lang LaSalle Incorporated (JLL). Each subpoena ordered its respective addressee to appear before this Court on September 6, 2023. On September 1, 2023 a Motion to Quash or Modify petitioners' Non-Party Subpoena was filed by JLL. A remote hearing before the undersigned judge was held on September 6, 2023 (September Hearing) for the purpose of returning the two foregoing subpoena duces tucem. Counsel for JLL and SRK appeared and were heard at the September Hearing.
At the September Hearing, petitioners through their counsel of record, advised the Court how all of his subpoenas, excluding respondent's subpoenas to JLL and SRK, have been complied with or how the responding party was in the process of complying with respondent's subpoenas. At the hearing, representatives from JLL and SRK were heard, and petitioners agreed to modify and limit the scope of their subpoenas issued to JLL and SRK.
On October 6, 2023, respondent filed two Motions to Enforce Subpoenas pursuant to Rule 147, requesting that this Court enforce the subpoena duces tecum against JLL and the subpoena duces tecum against SRK. Petitioners' Motions cite us to Rule 27(a) and how the Court requires redaction of documents in only limited instances. Petitioners also contends how JLL and SRK have furnished redacted responsive documents; however both have failed to explain their redactions or assert privilege over any redacted information.
Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
A Motion to Quash or otherwise Modify the Subpoena to JLL remains pending, and was held in abeyance pending possible resolution of these issues; however, the Court now finds it to be appropriate for petitioners to respond to JLL's Motion to Quash or otherwise Modify the Subpoena since a resolution has not been reached. To date, no motion to quash or otherwise modify petitioners' non-party subpoena has been filed by SRK.
Considering the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that on or before November 1, 2023, SRK and JLL shall each show cause why petitioners' respective Motions to Enforce Subpoena pursuant to Rule 147 should not be granted. SRK and JLL may discharge this order by proof that its counsel has produced the unredacted documents requested by petitioner in accordance with the subpoena served on August 11, 2023 and as modified by agreement at the September Hearing; or with an explanation for why SRK and JLL have not produced the unredacted documents. SRJ is cautioned that a failure to adequately respond to this order may cause the Court to exercise its power to compel a deposition or hold SRK and JLL in contempt of court, see 26 U.S.C. sec. 7456(c). It is further
ORDERED that on or before October 30, 2023, respondent shall file a response to petitioners' Motions to Enforce Subpoena pursuant to Rule 147. It is further
ORDERED that on or before October 30, 2023, petitioners shall file a response to the Motion to Quash or Modify petitioners' Non-Party Subpoena filed by JLL on September 1, 2023. It is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall serve this Order on Stephen D. Hamilton, as counsel for JLL, at Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP, One Logan Square, Suite 2000, Philadelphia, PA 19103. It is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall serve this Order on Adam Nott, as general counsel to SRK at 2600-320 Granville St. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6C 159.