TVBI Company Limited v. Hong Thoa Thi Pham
Filing
88
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 3/18/2019)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
TVBI COMPANY LIMITED,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No. 17-cv-05858-SI
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
v.
Re: Dkt. Nos. 84, &, 87
HONG THOA THI PHAM, et al.,
Defendants.
12
13
Before the Court are the parties’ joint statements regarding a discovery dispute. Dkt. No. 84
14
and 87. While the parties have resolved most of their disputes, one remains, namely: whether
15
defendant Hong Thoa Thi Pham should produce her personal tax returns for the years 2014-2018.
16
Plaintiff TVBI Company Limited (“TVBI”) requested an informal discovery conference regarding
17
this issue. Having considered the arguments submitted in the parties’ joint statements, the Court
18
finds the matter appropriate for immediate resolution.
19
Defendants argue that (1) Ms. Pham’s personal tax returns are private, (2) the returns are
20
irrelevant, and (3) since Lido and Ms. Pham are separate and distinct, Lido’s tax returns are
21
sufficient and have been produced. These arguments fail.
22
First, Ms. Pham admitted in her answer to the second amended complaint (“SAC”) that she
23
is Lido’s sole shareholder, officer, and director – giving her complete control over the entity. Dkt.
24
39 ¶ 5. Second, the SAC alleges that Ms. Pham transferred the income, revenues, and assets of Lido
25
Night Club to herself and/or other persons/entities. Dkt. No. 32 ¶¶ 23-24, 44-46, 59-61, 69, 75-77,
26
88-90. The SAC goes on to allege that Ms. Pham used that money for her own personal use,
27
“including payment of her personal taxes and child support obligations, and to acquire, maintain,
28
and improve or pay taxes related to other properties she owned…” Id. ¶¶ 76-77, 89-90. Thus, Lido’s
1
tax returns alone are insufficient to fulfill plaintiff TVBI’s request, Ms. Pham’s tax returns are
2
relevant, and the request for said returns is reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible
3
evidence. FRCP 26(b).
Finally, Ms. Pham has waived the privilege with respect to her tax returns. There is no
5
federal privilege for tax returns and, while California does recognize such a privilege, it is not
6
absolute. “The privilege is waived or does not apply in three situations: (1) there is an intentional
7
relinquishment (2) the gravamen of [the] lawsuit is so inconsistent with the continued assertion of
8
the taxpayer’s privilege as to compel the conclusion that the privilege has in fact been waived, or
9
(3) a public policy greater than that of confidentiality of tax returns is involved.” Schnabel v.
10
Superior Court, 5 Cal. 4th 704, 721, 854 (1993) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Lido
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
4
has already produced its tax returns – admitting they are relevant and intentionally relinquishing
12
them. Therefore, and considering the facts discussed above, Ms. Pham’s personal tax returns are
13
also relevant and should be produced.
14
CONCLUSION
15
16
Plaintiff TVBI has stated that it is willing to enter into a protective order to ensure Ms.
17
Pham’s confidentiality. The Court hereby orders Ms. Pham to produce her personal tax returns for
18
years 2014-2018 no later than March 22, 2019. If the parties submit a proposed protective order
19
prior to that date, the Court will review and approve it.
20
21
22
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 18, 2019
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?