Opinion
3755-17 3756-17
03-01-2023
Bloomberg L.P., Bloomberg, Inc., Tax Matters Partner, ET AL., Petitioner(s) v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Joseph Robert Goeke, Judge
Pending before the Court are respondent's Motion to Depose Dr. Atulya Sarin Pursuant to Rule 74, filed January 26, 2023, and respondent's Motion to Depose Dr. Peter Meenan Pursuant to Rule 74, filed January 26, 2023.
The Court attempted to resolve the dispute regarding these motions and held two conference calls. Petitioner adamantly maintained that the depositions were not necessary, and that any questions about the preparation of the reports would be subject to privilege. Respondent asserted that Dr. Meenan referred to various witness interviews and they were not aware of the information he obtained in these interviews. In the first conference call on January 27, 2023, the Court suggested that the parties discuss a resolution which would allow petitioner to also depose one or more of respondent's experts. After a week, petitioner reported that they did not wish to depose any of respondent's experts.
In the second conference call on February 13, 2023, the Court suggested that petitioner might resolve the matter by producing copies of notes of interviews, made available to Dr. Meenan. Petitioner then provided such information to the Court for in camera inspection, and agreed to redact one set of notes, as suggested by the Court. In order to determine if respondent had asserted similar claims of privilege to factual notes of respondent's experts, the Court directed respondent to submit for in camera inspection, notes similar to the notes, subject to the discussion in the conference calls. Respondent misconstrued this instruction and overwhelmed the Court with superfluous material, however respondent ultimately sent the Court its privilege log regarding these matters, and it is obvious respondent asserted attorney work product privilege for certain third party information developed by his experts.
To preserve a level playing field, we determine petitioner is to produce to respondent only a copy of the redacted notes provided for in camera inspection by petitioner as Attachment 1 of Dr. Meenan's assistant's notes, which were subsequently redacted by the Court's instructions.
The parties are advised that all emails associated with this in camera inspection have been deleted.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that petitioner is directed on or before March 3, 2023, to produce to respondent a copy of the redacted version of Attachment 1 of Dr. Meenan's assistant's notes that were provided to the Court per our instructions. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Depose Dr. Atulya Sarin Pursuant to Rule 74, filed January 26, 2023, is denied. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Depose Dr. Peter Meenan Pursuant to Rule 74, filed January 26, 2023, is denied.