Opinion
CIV. NO. 3:08CV513 (WWE).
November 3, 2009
RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS TO COMPEL [DOCS. ##21 AND 31] AND PLAINTIFF'S ORAL MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES
The Court heard oral argument on October 15, 2009 and, after careful consideration, the Court DENIED defendant's Motions to Compel [Docs. 21 and 31] for the following reasons.
Background
Standard of Review
26 U.S.C. § 6201et seq 2626See Daval Steel Prods. v. M/V Fakredine951 F.2d 13571367Morse/Diesel, Inc. v. Fidelity Depos it Co.122 F.R.D. 447449
Defendant's Motions to Compel
Defendant's motions rely on jurisdictional assertions that are not relevant or material to the issues in this case. Mr. Jaeger argues that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service.
Defendant's Motion to Compel [Doc. #21] applies to the first set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production, which seeks information relating to the IRS's "legal validation of their claim as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1692(g)." Doc. #21 at 3. For example, defendant's Request for Production No. 1 asks the Government to admit "that it has never provided one single document . . . with respect to any of its claims against respondent." Id. The Government stated on the record, and defendant acknowledged, that he has been given a copy of the IRS administrative file. Defendant's Interrogatory No. 3 asks, "please indicate by name and employee identification number, which Internal Revenue Service employees specifically determined, and by what specific means they did determine, that defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service, specifically with respect to the issuance of an IRS lien and subsequent levy against defendant." The defendant argues that the IRS is a private collection agency rather than an agency of the US Government.
Defendant's Second Motion to Compel [Doc. #31] applies to his second set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production, which seeks information "being used as the basis for plaintiff's petition to seize defendant's home." At oral argument, Mr. Jaeger stated that he did not file a tax return for 2002. Defendant's Request for Production No. 1 seeks "copies of IRS official documentation showing that on or about October 20, 2005, $403,060.19 — sent by Ameritrade to the Internal Revenue Service to comply with an administrative levy — was properly credited against Defendant's alleged tax liability." Doc #31 at 3. The IRS form 4595 (Income Tax Examination Changes) was provided to defendant in the Government's initial disclosures. Doc. #33 at 3. The Government also provided Mr. Jaeger with IRS Form 4340 (Certificate of Assessments, Payments, and Other Specified Matter) which detailed all payments and credits including the $206,920.52 from the Ameritrade levy for the tax year at issue.Id. Additionally, at oral argument, counsel for the Government explained that the monies seized from defendant's Ameritrade account have been applied to delinquencies for tax years 1999 and 2001 as well as 2002, the year at issue in this case. Despite these credits, a balance still remains.
None of the information defendant seeks in his motions to compel is relevant or material to the case. It is therefore not discoverable under Rule 26(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court DENIED defendant's Motions to Compel [Doc. #21 and 31] on October 15, 2009.
Request for Reimbursement of Expenses
The Government's request for reimbursement of reasonable fees incurred in defending these motions and related travel expenses is GRANTED. Counsel will submit an expense affidavit to the Court for review. Once approved, payment is to be made within sixty (60) days.
This is not a recommended ruling. This is a discovery ruling and order which is reviewable pursuant to the "clearly erroneous" statutory standard of review. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), 6(e) and 72(a); and Rule 2 of the Local Rules for United States Magistrate Judges. As such, it is order of the Court unless reversed or modified by the district judge upon motion timely made.