Opinion
CASE NO. CV 00-0467-E-BLW.
December 20, 2000
ORDER
Currently pending before the Court for its consideration are the following motions: I) Plaintiffs motion to quash the notice of removal (docket # 5), filed August 31, 2000; 2) Defendant's [first] motion for a protective order (docket # 15), filed October 6, 2000; 3) Plaintiffs [first] motion to exceed page limit on objection to [first] motion to dismiss (docket # 19), filed October 23, 2000; 4) Plaintiffs motion to amend complaint (docket #25), filed November 1, 2000; 5) Defendant's [second] motion for protective order (docket # 27), filed November 29, 2000; and 6) Plaintiffs [second] motion to exceed page limit on response to [second] motion to dismiss (docket # 31), filed December 4, 2000. The Court has reviewed all of the briefing associated with the above motions and makes its rulings as follows.
I. Background.
On August 4, 2000, pro se Plaintiff Clyde Wallace Stock ("Stock") filed a complaint with the Idaho District Court in and for Caribou County, Idaho, against the United States Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"). On August 23, 2000, the IRS removed the action to the federal District Court.
In his complaint, Stock challenges various tax liabilities assessed by the IRS, as well as the validity of tax liens and liens. Stock alleges that the IRS failed to take the proper procedural steps before initiating liens and levies, and therefore acted outside its authority.
II. Plaintiff's motion to quash notice of removal.
Plaintiff filed a motion objecting to the IRS's removal of the action to this Court, The Court finds that Stock's objections are baseless and without merit as a matter of law. This is arguably an action to challenge the imposition and collection of tax by the United States and accordingly involves a federal question. This Court has original jurisdiction over all federal questions. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Further, 28 U.S.C. § 1441 provides that any civil action brought in a state court, involving a matter over which the district courts of the United States would have original jurisdiction, may be removed.
The motion is 39 pages long with numerous attachments. The motion fails to comply with Dist. Idaho hoc. Civ. R. 7.1(a)(2), which provides that no memorandum in support of or in opposition to a motion shall be allowed which exceeds twenty (20) pages without leave of Court. In this instance, the motion should not have been docketed unless an order was entered by the Court granting permission for the filing of an over length brief. At this juncture, and in the interest of expediency, the Court will not go to the time and trouble to correct the error, but will instead rule on the motion "as is." All future filings, however, which do not comply with the requirements of Dist. Idaho Loc. R. 7.1, will in fact be rejected by the Court, returned to the offending party, and will not become or remain part of the record.
The action is also a civil action against a federal officer and/or federal agency. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1442, such actions may be removed.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Court finds that Stock's motion to quash the Defendant's notice of removal is denied as a matter of law.
III. Defendant's [first] and [second] motions for protective order.
The IRS filed two motions for protective order seeking orders to be free from having to respond to Stock's voluminous discovery requests until such time as the Court has ruled on the two outstanding motions to dismiss.
At the time the first motion for protective order were filed, Stock had propounded the following discovery requests: 1) first set of interrogatories, 2) first requests for admission, 3) second requests for admission, 4) first request for production of documents, and 5) second request for production of documents. Copies of all of the discovery requests are attached to the declaration of David Cheng filed in support of his [first] motion for protective order (docket 1+17). A review of the discovery requests reveals that they consist of, all told, approximately two hundred (200) pages of material. in addition, they are very broad in scope and do not comply with Dist. Idaho Loc. R. 33.1, which limits the number of interrogatories allowed, including subparts, to forty (40) without leave of court.
On August 10, 2000, Stock submitted a set of interrogatories consisting of 40 questions. On November 21, 2000, a second set of interrogatories consisting of 40 interrogatories was submitted to the IRS.
The motions to dismiss raise issues which are to be determined as matters of law, such as subject matter jurisdiction and the failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (addressing the claimed violations of the Freedom of Information Act).
The Court finds that it is in the interest of judicial economy to temporarily stay the advance of discovery until such time as the Court hears oral argument on and decides the motions to dismiss which are pending. It is apparent from a review of the discovery requests that they are burdensome and broad, and perhaps beyond what is allowed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26. It is anticipated that the IRS might object to a number of the requests and then the matter would be before the Court on one or motions to compel. Instead, rather than allowing the case to be sidetracked on those matters, it would be best at this juncture to conserve the parties' efforts and resources by taking matters one step at a time. The parties should first and foremost be focused on the two pending motions to dismiss. Obviously, if one or both of the motions were to be granted, then discovery in this case would become moot. On the other hand, if one or both of the motions were denied, the delay in proceeding with discovery would be of little impact. Accordingly, the Defendant's motions for protective order will be granted, and a stay on discovery will be in place until such time as the Court has entered a decision on the two pending motions to dismiss.
IV. Plaintiff's [first] and [second] motions to exceed page limit.
Stock seeks an order allowing him to file a thirty (30) page objection to the United States' [first] motion to dismiss and another order allowing him to file a thirty (30) page response to the United States [second] motion to dismiss. In addition to the briefs, each has numerous exhibits attached. The two briefs together amount to several hundred pages of material.
The general policy of the Court is that every effort should be made to limit a brief submitted in support of or in response to a motion to twenty (20) pages. As provided in Local Rule 7.l(a)(2).
The Court has reviewed the [first] and [second] motions to dismiss filed by the IRS and finds that Stock should be able to address each of them within the twenty-page limit because the issues raised are narrowly drawn. This is especially true in view of the fact that the Court will set the motions for a hearing wherein Stock will be given the opportunity to present any additional information which Stock wishes to bring to the attention of the Court. Therefore, the motion will be denied, the proposed briefs will be returned, and Stock shall have the opportunity to resubmit briefs in opposition to the motions to dismiss that are within the twenty (20) page limit.
V. Plaintiff's motion to amend complaint.
Stock seeks to file an amended complaint to add claims covering the years 1994, 1995, and 1996. The IRS does not oppose the relief requested. Stock did not submit a copy of his proposed amended complaint, as is required under Dist. Idaho Loc. R. 15.1, however, so he will be required to file and serve the amended complaint within ten (10) days of the date of this Order.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, the Court being fully advised in the premises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1) Plaintiffs motion to quash the notice of removal (docket # 5), filed August 31, 2000, is DENIED.
2) Defendant's [first] motion for a protective order (docket # 15), filed October 6, 2000, is GRANTED, and:
A) The Defendant shall not be required to respond to the discovery requests which have thus far been propounded by Plaintiff until such time as the Court has heard and decided the two motions to dismiss which are currently pending.
B) The Plaintiff shall be restrained from serving any additional discovery requests until such time as the Court has heard and decided the two motions to dismiss which are currently pending.
3) Plaintiffs [first] motion to exceed page limit on objection to [first] motion to dismiss (docket # 19), filed October 23, 2000, is DENIED, and:
A) The Clerk of the Court is directed to return the proposed brief, entitled "objection to United States' motion to dismiss," lodged October 23, 2000, to Stock.
B) Stock shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order in which to resubmit a brief in response to the IRS's [first] motion to dismiss which complies with the limits set forth in Local Rule 7.1(a)(2).
4) Plaintiffs motion to amend complaint (docket # 25), filed November 1, 2000, is GRANTED and Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint no later than ten (10) days from the date of this Order .
5) Defendant's [second] motion for protective order (docket # 27), filed November 29, 2000, is GRANTED.
6) Plaintiff's [second] motion to exceed page limit on response to [second] motion to dismiss (docket # 31), filed December 4, 2000, is DENIED, and:
A) The Clerk of the Court is directed to return the proposed brief, entitled "response to United States' renewed motion to dismiss," lodged December 4, 2000, to Stock.
B) Stock shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order in which to resubmit a brief in response to the IRS's [second] motion to dismiss which complies with the limits set forth in Local Rule 7.1(a)(2).
7) A hearing on the IRS's [first] and [second] motions to dismiss (docket # 12 and # 27) shall take place on Monday, February 5, 2001, at 2:00p.m ., in the United States Courthouse in Pocatello, Idaho.