Opinion
12472-18
10-18-2022
MAHESH SHETTY & SANDYA SHETTY, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Lewis R. Carluzzo, Chief Special Trial Judge.
This I.R.C. section 7623(b)(4) case is before the Court on a motion for protective order filed May 11, 2021, on behalf of Bharat Sangani and Yatin Gandhi (third parties), who are subject to deposition subpoenas previously served on each of them. The stipulation that provides for the deposition to which the subpoenas relate was filed August 13, 2019. According to the motion, the Court should require that any depositions to be held pursuant to the stipulation be conducted by video because of health concerns expressed by the third parties.
The motion was heard in Dallas, Texas, on October 12, 2022. The Court excused counsel for the third parties from appearing at the hearing. Counsel for respondent appeared and offered no objection to the motion. Counsel for petitioners appeared and objected to the motion. According to petitioners: (1) video depositions are subject to delays and interruptions due to technical complications that can be avoided by in-person depositions; (2) witness coaching is not easily detected during a video deposition; and (3) the health concerns raised by the third parties, if valid at the time the motion was made, are no longer valid. Petitioners' points are well-made but insufficient to overcome the relatively modest relief requested in the motion.
That being so, for the reasons relied upon in the motion and more fully set forth in the transcript of the above-referenced proceeding, it is
ORDERED that the motion for protective order is granted to the extent that: (1) unless either third party consents to an in-person deposition, any deposition to be conducted pursuant to this Order must be conducted by video; (2) unless otherwise agreed to by the parties and the relevant third party, the deposition must be conducted within 30 days from the date of service of this Order; and (3) the subpoenas previously served upon the third parties in connection with the previously scheduled in- person depositions are sufficient to compel attendance/participation of the third parties at the depositions (video or in-person) contemplated by this Order. It is further
ORDERED that as soon as practical after the depositions (video or in-person) are scheduled, the parties supplement the stipulation filed August 13, 2019, with updated information. See Rule 74(b)(2) and 81(d), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. It is further
ORDERED that in all other respects, petitioners' motion is denied.