United States of America v. Wilkins et al

Filing 95

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 92 Motion to Compel Discovery Against Defendant Living Light Ministries, Inc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed on 7/3/2017. (SMC)

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

Case No: 8:14-cv-993-T-17JSS

LAWRENCE N. WILKINS, CAROL G.
WILKINS, THE WILKINS
FOUNDATION, INC. and LIVING LIGHT
MINISTRIES, INC.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER ON THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Government’s Motion to Compel Discovery
Against Defendant Living Light Ministries, Inc. (“Motion”) (Dkt. 92), and Defendants’ response
in opposition (Dkt. 94). For the reasons that follow, the Motion is granted in part and denied in
part.
The Government brought this action against Defendants to reduce Defendant Lawrence M.
Wilkins’ unpaid federal income tax liabilities to judgment and foreclose federal tax liens on real
property owned by Defendant Wilkins and titled in the name of Living Light Ministries, Inc. (Dkt.
76.) The Government alleges that Defendant Wilkins used bank accounts opened in the name of
The Wilkins Foundation, Inc. and Living Light Ministries, Inc. to hide his income, pay personal
expenses, and shield his assets from creditors. (Dkt. 76 ¶ 17.)
In the Motion, the Government seeks an order compelling Defendant Living Light
Ministries, Inc. to produce its membership lists and provide a privilege log for all information
withheld subject to a claim of privilege. (Dkt. 92 at 1.) Defendants objected to producing the

membership lists, asserting the First Amendment rights of freedom of association and religious
expression. (Dkt. 94.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 allows any party “on notice to other parties and all
affected persons . . . [to] move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37.
District courts have broad discretion in managing pretrial discovery matters and in deciding
whether to grant motions to compel. Perez v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 297 F.3d 1255, 1263 (11th Cir.
2002); Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Westrope, 730 F.2d 729, 731 (11th Cir. 1984). Rule 34
requires a party objecting to a document request to “state whether any responsive materials are
being withheld on the basis of that objection. An objection to part of a request must specify the
part and permit inspection of the rest.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(C). Further, under Rule 26, a party
withholding information otherwise discoverable by claiming that the information is privileged
must expressly make that claim and describe the nature of the documents.

Fed.R.Civ.P.

26(b)(5)(A).
In their response to the Motion, Defendants state that no responsive documents exist to the
Government’s request for the membership lists. (Dkt. 94 at 6.) In light of Defendants’ response,
the Motion is moot as to the Government’s request for Living Light Ministries, Inc.’s membership
lists. However, the Government further contends that despite requesting a privilege log from
Defendants, no privilege log has been produced in response to the Government’s document
requests. (Dkt. 92 at 3.) Defendants do not address the Government’s request for a privilege log
or whether documents responsive to other requests for production have been withheld on the basis
of privilege. Thus, to the extent Defendants are withholding responsive documents on an assertion
of privilege, Defendants are directed to supplement the responses with a privilege log identifying
any responsive documents, the author(s) of the document, the recipient(s) (including copy

-2-

recipients) of the document, the subject matter of the document, the date of the document, and a
specific explanation of why the document is privileged or excluded from discovery.

See

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5)(A) (“When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable by
claiming that the information is privileged . . . the party must expressly make the claim and describe
the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed – and
do so in a manner that . . . will enable the other party to assess the claim.”)
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Government’s Motion to Compel Discovery
Against Defendant Living Light Ministries, Inc. (Dkt. 92.) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part. Defendants are directed to supplement the responses with a privilege log within ten (10) days
of this Order. The motion is denied as moot with regard to the Government’s request for
membership lists of Living Light Ministries Inc. The Government’s Motion to Compel is denied
with respect to the request for fees and costs incurred in connection with the Motion.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on July 3, 2017.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

-3-