United States of America v. RAJMP, Inc. et al

Filing 223

ORDER on Defendant's Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 3/5/2020. (jrm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No.: 17-CV-515-AJB-WVG

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER

v.
RAJMP, INC., et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

On January 31, 2020, this Court convened a discovery conference concerning, in

18

part, the dispute that gave rise to Defendant RAJMP, Inc.’s (“RAJMP”) instant Motion for

19

Protective Order. On February 12, 2020, RAJMP filed the Motion for Protective Order.

20

(Doc. No. 214.) On February 19, 2020, the Government filed its Opposition to the Motion

21

for Protective Order. (Doc. No. 220.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES

22

the Motion without prejudice in its entirety.

23

In its Motion, RAJMP articulates two requests for this Court’s consideration. First,

24

RAJMP moves this Court to bar the Government from asserting 5 U.S.C. section 301

25

(“Housekeeping Statute”) for any purpose, including, but not limited to, the issuance of

26

testimonial authorizations prior to any IRS employee’s deposition. RAJMP poses that,

27

absent a protective order in place, the Government will misuse the Housekeeping Statute

28

to block relevant witnesses, records, and information from discovery. To support its
1
17-CV-515-AJB-WVG

1

position, RAJMP argues the Government may not avail itself of any discovery privileges

2

the Housekeeping Statute affords because the Government is a party to this action. Second,

3

RAJMP asks, at times rather opaquely, the Court to either (1) order counsel for the

4

Government to affirmatively state whether it personally represents any IRS employees

5

relevant to this litigation or (2) compel IRS counsel to personally appear for any

6

forthcoming IRS employee depositions. The Government opposes RAJMP’s Motion in its

7

entirety and maintains the Motion is legally unsound and premature.

8

The Court does not reach the merits of RAJMP’s instant Motion because it declines

9

to “engage in the futile exercise of analyzing non-existent discovery disputes.” Watts v.

10

Allstate Indem. Co., 2010 WL 4225561, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2010). RAJMP’s Motion

11

is not ripe for adjudication because it does not present any actual discovery dispute.

12

Glaringly, the Motion fails to identify any current or former IRS employee RAJMP intends

13

to depose, what information RAJMP seeks to obtain from any current or former IRS

14

employee, or what documents RAJMP requests for production for purposes of any IRS

15

employee’s deposition. From there, based on nothing more than its own supposition,

16

RAJMP argues the Government will, at some uncertain time in the future, assert the

17

Housekeeping Statute to thwart RAJMP’s undefined discovery efforts.

18

By exclusively premising its Motion on hypotheticals, RAJMP compounds the gross

19

conjecture it engages in by forcing the Government to speculate regarding the scope of

20

testimonial authorizations it may (or may not) require in the context of IRS employee

21

depositions. The result of such motion practice is counsel’s argument over legal theory to

22

address unborn discovery disputes. In the absence of served subpoenas, notices of

23

deposition, or written discovery requests, amongst other discovery devices, RAJMP does

24

not present any existing discovery dispute necessitating this Court’s intervention. For this

25

reason alone, the Motion is premature and is dismissed without prejudice in its entirety.

26

Further, “the court will only rule on ripe, properly and narrowly presented issues

27

which the parties have first attempted in good faith to resolve of their own accord.” Watts,

28

supra, 2010 WL 4225561, at *3. Although counsel for RAJMP averred in his declaration
2
17-CV-515-AJB-WVG

1

that he “met and conferred with the U.S.” (Doc. No. 214-2, 2:4), the Motion indicates that

2

such efforts were not robust and certainly not exhaustive. The Motion’s self-professed “all

3

or nothing” position on a purely theoretical matter, all without indicating what particular

4

witness, document, or information is at issue, gives this away. This Court’s Civil Chambers

5

Rule IV unequivocally requires counsel to “thoroughly meet and confer in good faith” and

6

“proceed with due diligence in scheduling and conducting an appropriate meet and confer

7

conference.” Counsel clearly fell short of making this requisite effort given the dearth of

8

facts upon which this so-called discovery dispute is based and RAJMP’s requested relief.

9

Indeed, the Motion’s request to “avoid frustration, delay, and unnecessary motions to

10

compel” (Doc. No. 214-1, 13:6-7) at some nebulous time in the future only cements there

11

is no genuine discovery dispute before the Court, and counsel could not have conducted a

12

meaningful meet and confer conference on the matter.

13

The Court is disturbed by RAJMP’s blatant misuse of party and judicial resources

14

to litigate a non-existent discovery dispute as well as its failure to comply with this Court’s

15

Civil Chambers Rules. At all times, compliance with all applicable rules is imperative, and

16

deviations from such compliance will not be tolerated. The Court cautions counsel it is

17

prepared to issue appropriate sanctions for any further violations, including, but not limited

18

to, inaccurate and misleading citations to legal authority, as it discovered here in cite-

19

checking RAJMP’s instant Motion. Finally, the Court hereby ORDERS the Parties to

20

refrain from filing any other motions relating to any issue, including, but not limited to, the

21

issues raised in RAJMP’s Motion for Protective Order, unless and until they can (1)

22

identify the particular facts giving rise to an actual dispute; (2) articulate their opponent’s

23

refusal to reach an informal resolution or compromise; (3) engage in exhaustive meet and

24

confer efforts; and (4) ensure compliance with all applicable rules and procedures. More

25

immediately, and as aforementioned, RAJMP’s Motion for Protective Order is DENIED

26

///

27

///

28

///
3
17-CV-515-AJB-WVG

1

without prejudice in its entirety. IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

Dated: March 5, 2020

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
17-CV-515-AJB-WVG