Valencia v. Crop Production Services, Inc. et al

Filing 15

ORDER on 11 Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute regarding disclosure of Plaintiff's tax returns. Defendants motion to compel, as presented in this Joint Motion, is GRANTED. Plaintiff must produce his filed tax returns for the period requested. Those returns, however, may be viewed only by Defendants attorneys and experts and may not be disclosed to any other person(s). When the lawsuit is concluded, including any appeals, Defendants attorneys and expert(s) must verify in writing that all copies of Plaintiff tax returns have been destroyed or returned to Plaintiff. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 11/8/18. (Dembin, Mitchell)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

JUVENICO VALENCIA, dba,
RANCHO NUEVO,

Case No.: 18-cv-0678-JAH-MDD
ORDER ON JOINT MOTION
FOR DETERMINATION OF
DISCOVERY DISPUTE
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S TAX
RETURNS

Plaintiff,
v.
CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES
INC.,
Defendant.

17

[ECF No. 11]

18
19

Before the Court is the Joint Motion of the parties for determination of

20

a discovery dispute filed on September 17, 2018. (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff is a

21

sunflower grower suing Defendant, an agricultural retailer of crop products,

22

alleging that he used a product, Sandea, based upon the recommendation of

23

Defendant to solve a nutsedge issue. Sandea, however, is inappropriate for

24

use on land growing sunflowers. Plaintiff alleges, as a consequence, that he

25

suffered substantial business losses, including lost profits. (ECF No. 1; ECF

26

No. 11 at 2).

27
28

This dispute relates to a Request for Production (“RFP”), in which
1
18-cv-0678-JAH-MDD

1

Defendant requested that Plaintiff produce his tax returns filed beginning on

2

January 1, 2013. Plaintiff asserts protection under California law. (Id.).

3

LEGAL STANDARD

4

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

5

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize parties to obtain

6

discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or

7

defense and proportional to the needs of the case . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P.

8

26(b)(1). “Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in

9

evidence to be discoverable.” Id. District courts have broad discretion to

10

limit discovery where the discovery sought is “unreasonably cumulative or

11

duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more

12

convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).

13

A party may request the production of any document within the scope of

14

Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). “For each item or category, the response

15

must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as

16

requested or state an objection to the request, including the reasons.” Rule

17

34(b)(2)(B). If the responding party chooses to produce responsive

18

information, rather than allow for inspection, the production must be

19

completed no later than the time specified in the request or another

20

reasonable time specified in the response. Id. An objection must state

21

whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that

22

objection. Rule 34(b)(2)(C). An objection to part of a request must specify the

23

part and permit inspection or production of the rest. Id. The responding

24

party is responsible for all items in “the responding party’s possession,

25

custody, or control.” Rule 34(a)(1). Actual possession, custody or control is

26

not required. Rather, “[a] party may be ordered to produce a document in the

27
28

2
18-cv-0678-JAH-MDD

1

possession of a non-party entity if that party has a legal right to obtain the

2

document or has control over the entity who is in possession of the

3

document.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 620 (N.D. Cal. 1995).

4

California Privilege

5

In a pure diversity case, such as this case, state law governs

6

interpretation of substantive matters, including privilege. Erie R.R. Co. v.

7

Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78–80, (1938); see also Platypus Wear, Inc. v. K.D.

8

Co., Inc., 905 F. Supp. 808, 811 (S.D. Cal., 1995) (state law governs law of

9

privilege in diversity case). In Sav–On Drug Stores v. Superior Court, 15

10

Cal.3d 1, 6 (1975), the court found that the language of the Revenue and

11

Taxation Code reflected a clear legislative intent that tax returns be treated

12

as privileged in order to encourage full and truthful declarations. The tax

13

return privilege, however, is not absolute. Weingarten v. Superior Court, 102

14

Cal.App.4th 268 (2002). “The privilege will not be upheld when (1) the

15

circumstances indicate an intentional waiver of the privilege; (2) the

16

gravamen of the lawsuit is inconsistent with the privilege; or (3) a public

17

policy greater than that of the confidentiality of tax returns is involved.” Id.

18

at 274. “A trial court has broad discretion in determining the applicability of

19

a statutory privilege.” Id.

20
21

DISCUSSION
Defendant asserts that the privilege does not apply because Plaintiff is

22

seeking lost profits such that the gravamen of the lawsuit in inconsistent

23

with the privilege. (ECF No. 11-1 at 3-5). Plaintiff counters that tax return

24

information should be disclosed only when there is compelling need because

25

the information sought is not readily available from other sources. And,

26

according to Plaintiff, the information sought is available and ascertainable

27
28

3
18-cv-0678-JAH-MDD

1
2

from Plaintiff’s business records. (ECF No. 11-2 at 3-6).
The Court finds that Plaintiff has placed his income directly in issue by

3

claiming damages for lost profits. In Small v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of

4

America, No. 08-cv-1160-BTM-WMc, 2010 WL 2523649 (S.D. Cal. June 21,

5

2010), plaintiff sought recovery of lost income and profits from the

6

destruction of his avocado trees as a result of fire. The court found that this

7

claim was the “gravamen” of his complaint. 2010 WL 2523649 at *2. This

8

case is no different.

9

There are cases in which courts have declined to order production of tax

10

records. Plaintiff references, for example, Mrvich v. Midland Funding, LLC,

11

No. 16-cv-0481-DMS-LSP, 2017 WL 5999058 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2017), a Fair

12

Debt Collection Act case, in which defendant sought plaintiff’s tax returns to

13

see if plaintiff claimed a deduction for a computer she allegedly purchased

14

with a credit card to determine whether the debt incurred was a “debt” or a

15

“consumer debt,” which would relate to subject matter jurisdiction. The court

16

there found that there was no compelling need for disclosure of the tax return

17

because plaintiff had not put her income or her taxes at issue and there were

18

other, better sources, for the information sought. 2017 WL 5999058 at *3.

19

The Court finds that Mrvich is not apposite.

20

Plaintiff’s lost income and profits are the gravamen of his case against

21

Defendants. The relevance of his tax returns outweighs the qualified

22

privilege and underlying policies against disclosure.

23

CONCLUSION

24

Defendant’s motion to compel, as presented in this Joint Motion, is

25

GRANTED. Plaintiff must produce his filed tax returns for the period

26

requested. Those returns, however, may be viewed only by Defendant’s

27
28

4
18-cv-0678-JAH-MDD

1

attorneys and experts and may not be disclosed to any other person(s). When

2

the lawsuit is concluded, including any appeals, Defendant’s attorneys and

3

expert(s) must verify in writing that all copies of Plaintiff’ tax returns have

4

been destroyed or returned to Plaintiff.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 8, 2018

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
18-cv-0678-JAH-MDD