Robert L. Citroen, Law Corporation v. Micron Optics, Inc.

Filing 52

ORDER that Microns Motion to Compel ECF No. 42 is GRANTED. Micron's request for reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred in connectionwith this motion is granted. Micron shall file a document setting forth the reasonable expenses requested on or before 09/08/2017. Citroen has until 09/20/2017 to file a response. Micron will then have until 09/27/2017, to file a reply, if necessary. See Order for further details and information. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 08/28/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

ROBERT L. CITROEN, LAW
CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
MICRON OPTICS, INC., a Georgia
)
corporation,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
MICRON OPTICS, INC., a Georgia
)
corporation,
)
)
Counterclaimant,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ROBERT L. CITROEN, LAW
)
CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation,
)
ROBERT L. CITROEN, an individual,
)
)
Counter-Defendants.
)
______________________________________)

3:16-cv-00570-RCJ-WGC
ORDER
Re: ECF No. 42

21
22

Before the court is Defendant/Counterclaimant Micron Optics, Inc.’s (Micron) Motion to Compel

23

Income and Tax Records. (ECF Nos. 42, 42-1 to 42-16.) Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants Robert L. Citroen,

24

Law Corporation and Robert L. Citroen, an individual (collectively, Citroen) filed a response. (ECF No.

25

45.) Micron filed a reply (ECF Nos. 48, 48-1 to 48-5), as well as a supplemental reply (ECF Nos. 50,

26

50-1 to 50-4). The court held a hearing on the motion on August 25, 2017, where it heard argument from

27

the parties. (Minutes at ECF No. 51.) The court issues the instant Order granting Micron’s motion.

28

///

1
2

I. BACKGROUND
A. Robert L. Citroen, Law Corporation’s Complaint

3

Robert L. Citroen, Law Corporation sued Micron in State court on August 18, 2016. (ECF No.

4

1-1 at 4.) The complaint alleges that Citroen and Micron entered into an assignment agreement that was

5

characterized as a settlement payment to resolve claims for amounts due for advice and services provided

6

but not paid for. The complaint alleges that Micron agreed to pay Citroen a total of $500,000 ($12,500

7

per quarter per year for ten years). Micron made payments on July 1, 2014, October 1, 2014, in all four

8

quarters of 2015, and in January and April of 2016, but thereafter purportedly refused to pay, asserting

9

the payments were for legal services. Citroen contends that Micron breached the agreement, and also

10

includes claims for unjust enrichment, conversion, anticipatory breach and misrepresentation.

11

B. Micron’s Counterclaims

12

Micron removed the action to federal court on October 3, 2016 (ECF No. 1), and shortly

13

thereafter filed its answer and counterclaims against Robert L. Citroen, Law Corporation and Robert L.

14

Citroen individually (ECF No. 5). Micron claims that Citroen provided (or represented they were

15

providing) outside legal services to Micron until sometime in November 2011. Micron alleges that

16

Citroen is the president of Citroen Law Corporation, Micron’s former legal counsel, and was a member

17

of Micron’s board of directors from 2000 until November 14, 2011. Micron states that in 2004, Micron

18

Optics International AG (MOIAG) was formed as an entity under the laws of Liberia to operate as an

19

independent reseller of Micron’s products in Asia. MOIAG’s stock was held equally by Karlsson &

20

Bergkvist (Schweiz) A.B. (K&B) and Metallikon A.G. until 2014.

21

Micron claims that Citroen failed to disclose that he was operating, controlling and/or had an

22

ownership interest in Metallikon, which held half of MOIAG’s shares. Micron goes on to allege that

23

MOIAG profited from its relationship with Micron and distributed profits to shareholders, including

24

Citroen (through Metallikon) and that Citroen received distributions while he was legal counsel/board

25

member to Micron. Micron avers that Citroen and others set up another entity, Technica, S.A., for their

26

own financial benefit, and that Citroen’s wife was an undisclosed owner/operator of both MOIAG and

27

Technica. Micron asserts that Citroen, through a fiduciary position with Micron, used these entities to

28

funnel profits and structure the $500,000 payoff from Micron and improperly received self-payments
2

1

through fraud.

2

Micron alleges that the agreement referenced by Citroen was precipitated by an agreement

3

entered into by Micron with K&B and Metallikon for the sale of MOIAG, where K&B and Metallikon

4

agreed to sell their shares of issued stock of MOIAG to Micron for $100,000, and the agreement also

5

included a provision for settlement of a purported debt for services provided by Sades Establissements

6

Karoly (SADEK) to MOIAG and owed by MOIAG, which was to be assumed by Micron. This included

7

payment of $500,000 to SADEK in quarterly installments of $12,500. The same date the agreement was

8

entered into, SADEK assigned its interest to Citroen. According to Micron, Citroen’s interest in the

9

agreement was not disclosed to or approved by Micron’s board of directors or shareholders. Micron

10

made 7 quarterly payments, for a total of $87,500.

11

Micron contends that in 2008, Citroen had resigned his law license after pleading guilty to a

12

felony of possession of five or more false identification documents and false statements, but failed to

13

disclose this to Micron while still billing it for legal services. Micron did not discover this until March

14

of 2016, along with his financial interests in Metallikon, MOIAG and Technica, and stopped making the

15

quarterly payments.

16

C. Discovery Requests

17

In discovery, Micron requested documents and information relating to Citroen’s financial

18

interests in the entities involved in the alleged MOIAG fraud scheme. In its initial set of requests for

19

production of documents, it sought, inter alia, documents reflecting income, funds or benefits from any

20

source from January 1, 2004 to the present, as well as tax returns for the past fifteen years, including

21

attachments, schedules and forms. (ECF No. 42-4 at 5, Requests 1, 3.) Citroen objected to the first

22

request on grounds that it was overbroad; unclear regarding the use of the terms “funds” and “benefits”;

23

that the documents were in Micron’s possession; and that it sought confidential, privileged documents

24

that are unrelated to this lawsuit. (ECF No. 42-5 at 4.) Without waiving the objections, Citroen stated

25

it did not have any documents reflecting income, funds or benefits from Micron. (Id.) In response to the

26

request for tax returns, Citroen objected that the request was overbroad and sought confidential,

27

privileged documents unrelated to this case. (ECF No. 42-5 at 4-5.) Without waiving the objections,

28

Citroen responded that it had no responsive documents. (Id.)
3

1

The parties met and conferred, and Micron explained that it sought the documents in connection

2

with its allegations that Citroen had an ownership/financial interest in the above-described entities

3

related to the fraudulent scheme. (ECF Nos. 42-6 at 2-6, 42-2 at 7-8 ¶ 7, 42-7 at 2.) During the meet and

4

confer, Micron’s counsel contends that Citroen’s counsel represented that Citroen no longer had any

5

records or tax documents responsive to the requests, saying: “he is an old man and doesn’t keep copies

6

of things.” (Id.) Following the meet and confer, Citroen served supplemental responses, but they did not

7

significantly differ from the original responses. (ECF No. 42-8.) Citroen’s counsel reiterated that Citroen

8

“do[es] not have many of the documents that you requested.” (ECF No. 42-7 at 2.)

9

In light of the representation that Citroen did not have the documents requested, Micron served

10

a second set of discovery asking for executed authorizations to allow Micron to obtain the tax records

11

directly from the IRS; for documentation of income, funds or benefits received from MOIAG, Technica,

12

Metallikon, K&B and SADEK; and, for the name and contact information for Citroen’s accountants and

13

tax preparers/consultants used to prepare tax returns. (ECF Nos. 42-9 at 5, 42-11 at 5, 42-10 at 5-6, and

14

42-12 at 5.)

15

Citroen responded with objections, and produced no documents. Citroen objected to the request

16

for authorizations for the tax returns on the basis that it was not a request for production, was ambiguous,

17

unlimited as to time, sought confidential, privileged information, and was unrelated to this case.

18

(ECF No. 42-13 at 3, ECF No. 42-14 at 4.)

19

In response to the requests for documents of income, funds or benefits received from the other

20

entities, Citroen objected that the requests were overbroad, unlimited as to time, sought irrelevant

21

information, and were ambiguous. (ECF No. 42-13 at 4-6; ECF No. 42-14 at 4-6.) Without waiving the

22

objections, they responded that they did “not believe there are any documents reflecting any payments”

23

from these entities in the past ten years. (Id.)

24

As to the request for contact information for accountants and tax preparers/consultants, Citroen

25

objected that the requests were ambiguous, unlimited as to time, sought confidential, privileged

26

information, and sought irrelevant information. (ECF No. 42-15 at 3-4, ECF No. 42-16 at 3-4.)

27

The parties met and conferred again on July 3, 2017. (ECF No. 42-2 at 5 ¶¶ 20-22.) Citroen

28

maintained that the information sought was confidential and not relevant, while Micron continued to
4

1

assert that the information was relevant to its counterclaims. (Id.) Citroen represented it would produce

2

any 1099s from those entities, but refused to provide the information for the accountants and tax

3

preparers/consultants or authorize the release of the tax returns. (Id.)

4

On July 7, 2017, Citroen represented it did not receive a 1099 from SADEK, MOIAG, Technica,

5

or Metallikon and would supplement their response, but as of July 20, 2017, they had not done so.

6

(ECF No. 42-2 at 6 ¶ 24.)

7

D. Motion to Compel

8

In its motion to compel, Micron seeks an order compelling Citroen to produce income and tax

9

records from 2004 to the present, and to pay its costs and attorney’s fees incurred in connection with

10

bringing this motion. It maintains that the records are directly relevant to its defenses and counterclaims.

11

In their response, Citroen asserts that they already responded that they do not have the discovery

12

sought by Micron. (ECF No. 45 at 2.) Citroen also asserts that Micron has not shown the information

13

sought is relevant to its claims or defenses, that it has a compelling need for the information, and that

14

it cannot be obtained from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome and less expensive.

15

Citroen contends that the tax returns would not assist Micron because while they would show the total

16

income received by Citron, they would not show the source. They add that 1099s might show the source,

17

but these are all foreign entities and do not issue 1099s.

18

Citroen states that because Micron has not shown the information sought is relevant, it has no

19

duty to show other sources exist from which Micron can obtain the information, but in any event argues

20

that depositions and documents show how payments from MOIAG were made and why. Citroen points

21

to depositions of Donna Biddiscombe, Jeff Miller, Andrei Csipkes, and Todd Haber.

22

In its reply, Micron maintains that the information sought is directly related to its claims and

23

defenses based on the allegation that Citroen had a financial or ownership interest in these entities

24

(which Citroen has denied in a pending motion), and demonstrates that Citroen breached fiduciary

25

duties. Micron asserts that the recent deposition testimony contradicts Citroen’s representations

26

concerning his financial interest in the entities. Micron points to deposition testimony by Csipkes

27

(Micron’s former CFO) and Miller (Micron’s former CEO) that Citroen profited from the relationship

28

between MOIAG and Micron; that he received a portion of the commission Micron paid to MOIAG; that
5

1

Citroen advised them not to disclose their ownership or financial interests in MOIAG to Micron’s board;

2

and that Citroen controlled Metallikon and helped arrange for Miller to pick up packages of thousands

3

of dollars of cash from Metallikon’s president in Switzerland. Micron supplemented its reply brief with

4

the relevant portions of the deposition transcripts.

5

While Citroen claims it has no responsive documents, Micron argues that Citroen’s deposition

6

testimony reveals that he undertook no efforts to look for responsive documents, as he testified he

7

“might” have responsive documents, but he would need to be paid before he would look through his

8

records.

9
10

Insofar as Citroen contends that Micron can obtain the requested information from Miller,
Csipkes and Haber, Micron argues that they do not have access to Citroen’s income records.

11
12

II. DISCUSSION
A. Motion to Compel

13

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant
to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,
considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in
controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether
the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to
be discoverable.

14
15
16
17
18

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

19

“[A] party may move for an order compelling disclosure of discovery. The movant must include

20

a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party

21

failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

22

37(a)(1). A motion to compel may be made if a party fails to answer an interrogatory or produce

23

documents, or if there is an evasive or incomplete response or disclosure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii),

24

(iv), (4).

25

“The party opposing discovery has the burden of showing the discovery is irrelevant, overly

26

broad, or unduly burdensome.” Fosbre v. Las Vegas Sands Corp., 2:10-cv-00765-APG-GWF, 2016 WL

27

54202, at * 4 (D. Nev. Jan. 5, 2016) (citing Graham v. Casey’s General Stores, 206 F.R.D. 251, 253-54

28

(S.D. Ind. 2000)). “However, when a request for discovery is overly broad on its face or when relevancy
6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

is not readily apparent, the party seeking discovery has the burden to show the relevancy of the request.”
Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
“Discovery regarding a party’s financial condition may be obtained if it is relevant to the claims
or defenses in the case.” Id. (citations omitted). “Where inquiry into a party’s financial condition is of
only marginal relevance and based on speculative assertions, however, the court may in its discretion
deny such discovery.” Id. (citations omitted). “With the exception of tax returns, no special rules or
limitations apply to the discovery of relevant financial information.”

8

1. Financial Information

9

Documents reflecting income, funds or benefits to Citroen from MOIAG, Technica, Metallikon,

10

K&B and SADEK are directly relevant to the defenses and counterclaims being asserted by Micron.

11

Micron alleges that Citroen engaged in fraud and violated fiduciary duties while serving as legal counsel

12

and a member of Micron’s board of directors because he had a financial or ownership interest in these

13

entities that were involved in deals with Micron. At the hearing on this motion, counsel for both parties

14

attempted to clarify Citroen’s role with respect to these entities, and while they described a complex set

15

of facts concerning these entities, it is clear that Citroen not only served in a role as legal counsel,

16

business advisor and/or a director with Micron, but also had involvement to some degree with certain

17

of these other entities. Therefore, income or benefits Citroen received from these entities goes to the

18

heart of Micron’s defenses and counterclaims, and are thus deemed relevant under Federal Rule of Civil

19

Procedure 26. Micron contends that the fraudulent scheme was carried out beginning in 2004 through

20

2016, and that Citroen was a member of Micron’s board of directors and served as legal counsel for

21

years before that; therefore, 2004 to 2016 is a reasonable time frame.

22

While Citroen asserted in responses that they “[did] not believe there [we]re any documents

23

reflecting payments” from these entities, this is an insufficient response. Citroen is required to produce

24

documents in their possession, custody or control. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). This has been interpreted to

25

mean documents the party has a legal right to obtain, even if the party does not actually possess a copy

26

of the document. See In re Bankers Trust Co., 61 F.3d 465 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted) (“[F]ederal

27

courts have consistently held that documents are deemed to be within the ‘possession, custody or

28

control’ for purposes of Rule 34 if the party has actual possession, custody or control, or has the legal
7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

right to obtain the documents on demand.”). In addition, the responding party is required to undertake
a reasonable search for the requested documents. See Sell v. Country Life Ins. Co., 189 F.Supp.3d 925,
933 (D. Ariz. June 1, 2016). Citroen’s language that they do not “believe” there are responsive
documents, coupled with Mr. Citroen’s deposition testimony that he “might” have documents, and that
he has a volume of documents in an office in the Palm Desert area but that he would not look through
them unless he were paid, is indicative that he has not undertaken a reasonable search for responsive
documents.

8

Micron’s motion to compel Citroen to produce documents reflecting income, funds or benefits

9

Citroen received from Micron, MOIAG, Technica, Metallikon, K&B and SADEK from 2002 to 2016

10

is granted. Citroen shall undertake a reasonable search for documents in their actual possession, as well

11

as those to which they have a legal right to obtain, even if they do not have actual possession of the

12

documents, and then shall supplement their responses. In addition, given the cavalier position Citroen

13

has taken to date concerning the obligation to undertake such a search, Micron’s motion to compel

14

Citroen to provide Micron with the identification and contact information for accountants and tax

15

preparers/consultants utilized by Citroen from 2002 to 2016 is also granted. Citroen shall provide this

16

information so that Micron may subpoena documents from their accountants and tax preparers reflecting

17

income, funds or benefits Citroen received from Micron, MOIAG, Technica, Metallikon, K&B and

18

SADEK between 2004 and 2016.

19

The parties are directed to meet and confer and enter into a mutually agreeable stipulation

20

concerning a protective order to protect the confidentiality of these documents, and submit the

21

stipulation and a proposed order to the court.

22

2. Tax records

23

“Courts accord greater privacy protection to federal tax returns because the tax system depends

24

on accurate reporting of income and deductions by taxpayers who might be less than candid on their

25

returns if they were made available to opposing parties in the ordinary course of litigation.” Fosbre, 2016

26

WL 54202 at * 5 (citations omitted). “Tax returns may be discovered, however, where the party’s

27

income or financial condition is in issue and where adequate, verifiable information regarding income

28

is not otherwise available to the requesting party.” Id. (citation omitted). “If the requesting party shows
8

1
2
3
4
5
6

the relevance of the producing party’s tax returns, then the burden shifts to the producing party to show
that other sources exist from which defendants may readily obtain the information.” Id. (citation
omitted).
As discussed above, Micron has shown the relevance of the tax returns to the defenses and
counterclaims asserted against Citroen. While Citroen argues that the documents will not show the
information Micron is seeking, that is for Micron to determine once it has obtained the documents. At

7

the very least, in light of its allegations of fraud and breach of fiduciary duties, the tax returns are

8

relevant to compare the amounts shown in the tax records with other documentation or testimony

9

concerning Citroen’s financial interests in these entities.

10

Therefore, the burden is shifted to Citroen to show other sources exist from which Micron may

11

readily obtain the information. Citroen says this information can be obtained through other sources, such

12

as Mr. Miller, Mr. Csipkes, and documentation produced in connection with their depositions. At the

13

hearing, Citroen’s counsel provided documentation that was produced in connection with those

14

depositions to support his argument that production of the tax returns is unnecessary.

15

That documentation should have been included with Citroen’s response to Micron’s motion to

16

compel, and not provided for the first time at the hearing on the motion. Nevertheless, a review of the

17

documentation actually supports Micron’s claim that Citroen did have a financial interest or received

18

financial benefits from certain of these other entities. While Citroen argues that Micron approved of

19

these benefits, the individuals who purportedly approved the arrangement—Miller and Csipkes—are the

20

individuals that Micron now claims were complicit in the self-dealing scheme Citroen is alleged to have

21

undertaken. In addition, Miller and Csipkes both testified that Citroen advised them not to disclose their

22

financial or ownership in MOIAG to Micron’s board.

23

As a result, the court concludes that Citroen’s tax returns from 2004 to 2016 are relevant to

24

Micron’s claims and defenses, and sources do not exist from which Micron may otherwise readily obtain

25

the information. Therefore, Micron’s motion to compel Citroen to produce its tax returns, including

26

attachments, schedules and forms for 2004 to 2016 is granted.

27

While Citroen previously responded that they did not have these documents, it is clear that

28

Citroen did not undertake a reasonable search to obtain documentation within their possession, custody
9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

or control, which includes a duty to search for documents which may not be in their actual possession
but which they have a legal right to obtain. As such, the court will require Citroen to undertake a
reasonable search and supplement their responses. Again, given Citroen’s cavalier position towards their
obligations under Rule 34, Citroen is also ordered to either execute authorizations so that Micron may
obtain the documents directly from the Internal Revenue Service1, or provide the identifying and contact
information for their accountants and tax preparers/consultants for the relevant time period so that
Micron may subpoena the records.

8

Again, the parties are directed to meet and confer and enter into a mutually agreeable stipulation

9

concerning a protective order to protect the confidentiality of these documents, and submit the

10

stipulation and a proposed order to the court.

11

B. Expenses
If the motion is granted—or if the disclosure or requested discovery is
provided after the motion was filed—the court must, after giving an
opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct
necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or
both to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the
motion, including attorney’s fees. But the court must not order this
payment if:
(i) the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain
the disclosure or discovery without court action;
(ii) the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or objection was
substantially justified; or
(iii) other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(i)-(iii).
The court does not find that Citroen’s non-disclosure, responses or objections were substantially
justified. Nor do other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. While Citroen’s counsel offered
to come to an agreement regarding production of the tax returns toward the end of the hearing, that was
only after Micron was forced to engage in multiple meet and confer sessions, file a motion, reply, and

24
25
26
27
28

1

The 10th Circuit has held that a district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a party to sign authorizations
to release documents from non-parties when the plaintiff had ignored his responsibility to turn over information. Rodriguez
v. IBP, Inc., 243 F.3d 1221, 1230 (10th Cir. 2001).

10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

sur-reply, and attend a lengthy hearing. Therefore, Micron’s request that it be awarded reasonable
expenses, including attorney’s fees incurred in connection with this motion is granted. Micron shall file
a document setting forth the reasonable expenses requested on or before September 8, 2017. Citroen
has until September 20, 2017 to file a response. Micron will then have until September 27, 2017, to
file a reply, if necessary. The court will then issue an order on the amount of reasonable expenses to be
awarded.
Citroen’s counter-request for sanctions is denied.

8
9

III. CONCLUSION
Micron’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 42) is GRANTED as follows:

10

(a) Citroen has THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of this Order to undertake a reasonable

11

search and supplement their responses and produce documents reflecting income, funds or benefits

12

Citroen received from Micron, MOIAG, Technica, Metallikon, K&B and SADEK from 2004 to 2016.

13

(b) Within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this Order, Citroen shall provide Micron with the

14

identification and contact information for accountants and tax preparers/consultants utilized by Citroen

15

from 2004 to 2016, so that Micron may subpoena documents from their accountants and tax preparers

16

reflecting income, funds or benefits Citroen received from Micron, MOIAG, Technica, Metallikon, K&B

17

and SADEK between 2004 and 2016.

18

(c) Citroen has THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of this Order to undertake a reasonable

19

search and supplement their responses and produce tax returns, including attachments, schedules and

20

forms for 2004 to 2016.

21

(d) Citroen is also ordered to either execute authorizations so that Micron may obtain the

22

documents directly from the Internal Revenue Service,, or provide the identifying and contact

23

information for their accountants and tax preparers/consultants for the relevant time period so that

24

Micron may subpoena the records.

25

(e) The parties are directed to meet and confer and enter into a mutually agreeable stipulation

26

concerning a protective order to protect the confidentiality of these documents, and submit the

27

stipulation and a proposed order to the court.

28
11

1
2
3
4
5
6

(f) Micron’s request for reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred in connection
with this motion is granted. Micron shall file a document setting forth the reasonable expenses requested
on or before September 8, 2017. Citroen has until September 20, 2017 to file a response. Micron will
then have until September 27, 2017, to file a reply, if necessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 28, 2017.

7
__________________________________________
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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