Opinion
CV-S-98-1655-PMP(LRL)
November 15, 2000
William C. McLeod, II, Las Vegas, NV, Pro Se, Plaintiff.
Jennifer A. Giaimo, Tax Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Kathryn Landreth, U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Virginia Cronan Lowe, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Attorneys for United States of America, Defendant.
ORDER
This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Further Responses to Interrogatories (#23, filed April 19, 2000) and Plaintiff's Motion to Increase Number of Interrogatories Allowed and to Extend Discovery Cut-Off Date (#24, filed April 19, 2000). In response, Defendant filed two opposition briefs: United States' Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Further Responses to Interrogatories (#29, filed May 24, 2000) and United States' Memorandum in Opposition of Plaintiff's Motion to Increase Number of Interrogatories Allowed and to Extend Discovery Cut-Off Date (#25, filed May 9, 2000).
The Court has considered both motions with the corresponding oppositions.
McLeod's motions contained two fundamental violations of the Local Rules. Local Rule 7-4 provides that "[u]nless otherwise ordered by the court, pretrial and post-trial briefs and points and authorities in support of motions shall be limited to thirty (30) pages including the motion but excluding exhibits." Local Rule 10-1 provides, in part: "Except for exhibits, quotations, the caption, the title of the court, and the name of the case, lines of typewritten text shall be double-spaced. . . ." McLeod's motion did not comply with these basic requirements. Had McLeod's motion to compel (and points and authorities) been double-spaced, it would have exceeded the allowable page limit without the Court's permission. The Court is mindful of its duty to "be particularly lenient with pro se petitioners for whom legal procedures often present insurmountable obstacles." White v. Internal Revenue Service, 790 F. Supp. 1017, 1020 (D.Nev. 1990) ( citations omitted). Hence, the Court will overlook McLeod's violations and address the merits of his motions. However, subsequent violations might not be ignored by the Court. McLeod is invited to review the Court's local rules to insure future compliance.
Plaintiff did not file a reply brief in support of either motion.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This case arises out of a 1990 tax dispute between plaintiff, William McLeod ("McLeod"), and the United States. Essentially, McLeod claims that his court ordered non-child support cash payments to his ex-wife was "alimony" that entitled him to a $6,622.00 alimony deduction in his 1990 tax return. The United States disagrees. After unsuccessfully pursuing numerous levels of administrative review, McLeod filed the instant complaint. In his complaint, McLeod raises various incidents of alleged government malfeasance/nonfeasance during his administrative reviews. According to McLeod, the government has continued this opprobrious conduct during the discovery process.On August 3, 1999, McLeod orally requested a copy of his IRS Administrative File ("IRS file") for the period of his audit and appeal. The United States provided McLeod with fifty-five pages of documents that were drafted well after his audit and appeal. Unsatisfied with the United States' response, McLeod pursued other avenues for obtaining his IRS file. In January 2000, McLeod learned that the Department of Justice possessed his IRS file. McLeod served a request for the production of documents on January 24, 2000. On February 11, 2000, McLeod served his first set of interrogatories to the United States. The United States served its response to both the request for production of documents and the interrogatories on March 15, 2000. As a part of this response, the United States released the relevant IRS file to McLeod. According to McLeod, the released IRS file had been "reordered and sanitized and as a result it will be difficult, if not impossible, for Plaintiff to prove portions of his case as the file is missing over 30 pages of documents. . . ." Motion (#23) at 3 (emphasis omitted). On April 19, 2000, McLeod filed the motions that are now before the Court.
Many of McLeod's interrogatories take the form of requests for admissions.
McLeod failed to provide any basis for his allegation that thirty pages were missing from his IRS file. Furthermore, McLeod has not specified the nature or content of these missing thirty pages.
DISCUSSION
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Further Responses to Interrogatories (#23)
McLeod's initial discovery requests focused primarily on the conduct and deliberations of the IRS during the administrative process. Specifically, McLeod requested all of the complete IRS files relating to his 1990 tax year (Request Nos. 1, 6-9, 11, 32-35; Interrogatory Nos. 5, 9-12, 21); information concerning the locations of his IRS file (Request Nos. 2-5, 10); general information and qualifications of IRS personnel who were involved in his 1990 audit (Request No. 12; Interrogatory Nos. 2, 4, 22); and both internal and public information concerning IRS procedures and interpretations of tax law as they relate to McLeod's case. (Request Nos. 13-31, 36-37, Interrogatory No. 3, 6-8, 13, 15-20). The government provided McLeod with 294 pages of documents, including his IRS file, but objected to most of McLeod's requests based on privilege and relevance, as well as the overly broad and unduly burdensome nature of his requests. Since the United States' responses to his requests for production of documents and interrogatories were "filled with boilerplate objections," McLeod complains that the United States is merely stonewalling his discovery attempts. Motion (#23) at 4. According to McLeod, these documents are relevant because they "enable him to prepare a list of issues that are agreed and which may be stipulated to, and to provide the evidence he needs to prove the remainder of his case." Id.
The issue in this case is whether McLeod overpaid his 1990 taxes and whether he is entitled to the $6,622.00 alimony deduction. The factual and legal analysis employed by the Commissioner is not relevant to this inquiry. R.E. Dietz Corp. v. United States, 939 F.2d 1, 4 (2nd Cir 1991); see also Ruth v. United States, 823 F.2d 1091, 1094 (7th Cir. 1987) ("[C]ourts will not look behind an assessment to evaluate the procedure and evidence used in making the assessment."). Hence, any information relating to the location of McLeod's IRS files or the personnel records of IRS officials is not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Moreover, internal memos and notes concerning the IRS' deliberative process and interpretations of law, as they relate to McLeod's case, are privileged information. Rogers v. Hyatt, 91 F.R.D. 399, 405 (D.Col. 1980). Additionally, privacy interests in IRS personnel files clearly outweigh any purported relevance to McLeod's case. See Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 957(1991). Thus, McLeod's motion to compel must be denied.
McLeod notes various "privileged" documents that he has already received from the United States and requests this Court to rule "that Privilege has been waived with respect to all documents for which it has been claimed . . ." Motion (#23) at 6. Courts, however, do not support this "all or nothing" approach to the United States' waiver. Mobil Oil Co. v. United States EPA, 879 F.2d 698, 700-01 ("[W]e have [no cases] where the release of documents waives [the privilege] as to other documents."); see also In re Sealed Cases, 121 F.3d 729, 741 (D.C.Cir 1997) ("[A]ll or nothing" approach of subject matter waiver has not been applied to claims of deliberative privilege.).
2. Plaintiff's Motion to Increase Number of Interrogatories Allowed and to Extend Discovery Cut-Off Date (#24)
Pursuant to the August 17, 1999 scheduling order (#19), the parties were allowed to conduct discovery until May 12, 2000. Currently, McLeod seeks to extend the production cut-off date "by at least 6 months to give Plaintiff time to effect further discovery." Motion (#24) at 1. In addition McLeod requests leave to "propound a maximum of 200 interrogatories to the Defendant so that Plaintiff may further define issue to be dealt with at trial." Id. Apparently, McLeod requests the additional time and interrogatories to obtain "information on IRS procedure in order to narrow the issues." Id. The United States correctly opposes McLeod's requests. As noted earlier, information concerning the location of McLeod's file, the qualifications of the tax auditors, and the internal procedures of the IRS are not relevant considerations to resolve this case. Hence, McLeod's requests for an extension of time and additional interrogatories must be denied. Accordingly, and for good cause shown,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion To Compel Production of Documents and Further Responses to Interrogatories (#23) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Increase Number of Interrogatories Allowed and to Extend Discovery Cut-Off Date (#24) is DENIED.