Opinion
Case Number: 01-74386
October 31, 2003
ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER QUASHING THE NOTICE OF THE UNITED STATES' DEPOSITION
This is a case concerning Plaintiff's complaint to quiet title to a tract of real property located in Grass Lake, Michigan, as well as the United States' counterclaim to foreclose two federal tax liens against the property. Now before the Court is the Defendant and Counterclaimant's Motion for a protective order quashing the notice of deposition of the United States. Having considered the entire record, and for the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS the United States' Motion for a Protective Order quashing Plaintiff's notice of deposition of the United States.
FACTS
Plaintiff, Grass Lake All Seasons Resort, Inc. ("GLASR"), filed a complaint to quiet title to a tract of real property located in Grass Lake, Michigan, The United States counterclaimed and seeks to foreclose two federal tax liens against the Grass Lake property and to have the property sold to satisfy the liabilities secured by the liens. The federal tax liens that the United States seeks to foreclose are related to unpaid federal tax assessments in the Plaintiff's name, and in the name of another corporation, All Seasons Resorts, Inc. ("ASR").
The federal tax liens associated with assessments made in the name of GLASR totaled $37,205,95 as of February 28, 2003, while those in the name of ASR total over $10 million. The United States seeks to foreclose the tax liens associated with the unpaid assessments in the name of ASR because GLASR allegedly holds the Grass Lake property as the nominee of ASR, or because GLASR is allegedly an alter ego of ASR.
On October 15, 2003, two days before the close of discovery, GLASR issued a notice of the deposition of the United States pursuant to Fed, R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), to take place on November 3, 2003. GLASR's notice requires the United States to designate one or more persons who consent to testify on its behalf regarding the following: (1) the United States responses to Plaintiff's written discovery, (2) tax sales of the Grass Lake property, (3) procedures for the issuance, filing, enforcement and/or cancellation of federal tax liens, (4) title documents relating to the Grass Lake property, including federal tax liens, and (5) the factual and legal bases for Defendant's affirmative defenses and counterclaim.
On July 29, 2003, this Court extended the deadline for discovery to October 17, 2003. See Or. Granting Mot. for Extension of Time (July 29, 2003).
Included in this category, GLASR requests the person to possess knowledge regarding: (1) any and all documents to be produced pursuant to the discovery requests; (2) any and all documents that Defendant withheld based on any privilege or any reason; (3) any and all interrogatories and/or the answers to interrogatories propounded in discovery in this case; and (4) any and all requests to admit and/or the answer to requests to admit propounded in discovery in this case.
In response, the United States has filed the instant motion seeking a protective order quashing the deposition for three reasons: (1) the deposition should not go forward while the United States has a pending motion to dismiss before the Court; (2) the plaintiff's proposed deposition is precluded by this Court's Order setting the deadline for discovery on October 17, 2003; and, (3) the proposed Rule 30(b)(6) deposition would be unduly burdensome and plaintiff's untimely discovery, if permitted, should be limited to contention interrogatories.
ANALYSIS
At the outset, the Court observes that on October 29, 2003, the United States filed a motion to dismiss GLASR's complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37, as a sanction for GLASR's refusal to appear for its deposition by the United States. If this motion is granted by the Court, Plaintiff's requested deposition is unnecessary, Accordingly, this Court will GRANT the Defendant's motion for a protective order to quash the notice of the United States' deposition.
In so holding, the Court makes no ruling on the United States' remaining arguments. If, after ruling on the Defendant's pending motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff still requests the deposition testimony of the Defendant, the Court will entertain further motions at that time.
SUMMARY
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the United States' motion for a protective order quashing the notice of the United States' deposition, scheduled for November 3, 2003.
SO ORDERED.