United States of America v. Mesadieu

Filing 22

ORDER granting 19 Plaintiff's Motion for leave to take up to 100 fact depositions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 11/26/2014. (Smith, Thomas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 6:14-cv-1538-Orl-22TBS

DOUGLAS MESADIEU, individually and
d/b/a LBS TAX SERVICES, MILESTONE
TAX SERVICES, TAX ADVANCE, INC.,
PLATINUM CAPITAL GROUP, INC.,
PRINCETON CAPITAL GROUP, INC.,
GALLEON CAPITAL GROUP, INC., SANTA
MARIA GROUP, INC., and TAX AID, LLC,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/
ORDER
Plaintiff The United States of America alleges that Defendant Douglas
Mesadieu individually and as the sole owner of Tax Advance, Inc., Platinum Capital
Group, Inc., Princeton Capital Group, Inc., Galleon Capital Group, Inc., Santa Maria
Group, Inc., and Tax Aid, LLC owns and operates 46 tax return preparation stores in
Florida, Georgia, and Texas. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff avers that Defendant has violated
federal tax laws by continually and repeatedly causing the preparation of false and
fraudulent federal income tax returns thus causing the loss of millions of dollars in
taxes. (Id.). Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant’s customers now face large
income tax debts and may be liable for sizeable penalties and interest. (Id.)
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to Take
More than 10 Fact Depositions (Doc. 19). Plaintiff desires to take a sufficient number
of depositions to provide the Court with testimony from witnesses whose tax returns

were prepared in several different geographic areas and in several different years to
support its allegations of widespread and systemic preparation of fraudulent tax
returns. (Id.). Plaintiff also wishes to depose Defendant’s employees and other
persons associated with Defendant’s tax preparation business. (Id.). To accomplish
this discovery, Plaintiff is requesting leave of Court to take up to 100 fact depositions.
Defendant does not oppose the motion. (Id.).
When a party seeks leave of court to take more than the ten depositions
allowed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A), the Court considers the principles set out in
Rule 26(b)(2)(C):
On motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency
or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or
by local rule if it determines that: (i) the discovery sought is
unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained
from some other source that is more convenient, less
burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking
discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the
information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely
benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in
controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the
issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the
discovery in resolving the issues.
FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(2)(C). These concerns are adequately addressed and satisfied
because Defendant consents to the relief requested in the motion. Accordingly, after
due consideration the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff may take up to 100 fact
depositions in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

-2-

DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on November 26, 2014.

Copies to all Counsel

-3-