Wong v. Yoo et al

Filing 257

ORDER re 241 First MOTION to Quash Demand for Production of Documents filed by James Mangone, 255 Letter filed by Aaron Wong. On June 28, 2012, I terminated defendant James Mangone's motion to quash, Docket Entry 241, inferring from plaintiffs letter of June 13, Docket Entry 253, that plaintiff was no longer seeking the documents at issue in defendant's motion. Plaintiff has since informed the Court that he does press one document request defendant sought to quash, t hat for the 2011 federal tax return of the Mangone Family Partnership. See Docket Entry 255. For the reasons stated in the attached document, I order the following: 1) the tax return shall be provided to defendant Mangone's attorney, Mr. Kleinm an; 2) by July 31, 2012, by letter or during the previously scheduled telephone conference, Mr. Kleinman will inform the Court whether he has received the return and propose a date for a court conference; 3) at this conference, counsel for plaintiff will be required to articulate with specificity why he requires this tax return and may bring an appropriate expert to assist him in doing so. The Court will then examine the document and order disclosure as appropriate. The telephone conference set for JULY 31 at 2:30PM will proceed as scheduled. Ordered by Chief Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold on 7/20/2012. (Keefe, Reed)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------X
AARON WONG,
Plaintiff,
-against-

ORDER
04-CV-4569 (JBW)

YOUNG YOO, et al.,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------X
Gold, S., United States Magistrate Judge:
On June 28, 2012, I terminated defendant James Mangone’s motion to quash, Docket
Entry 241, inferring from plaintiff’s letter of June 13, Docket Entry 253, that plaintiff was no
longer seeking the documents at issue in defendant’s motion. Plaintiff has since informed the
Court that he does press one document request defendant sought to quash, that for the 2011
federal tax return of the Mangone Family Partnership. See Docket Entry 255.
Defendant Mangone’s motion to quash highlights the tension between Florida law and
federal law as to discovery about this partnership. Florida law provides protection for certain
activities of limited partnerships; this much is clear. See FLA. STAT. ANN. § 620.1703(3)
(providing that remedies, other than that stated in section (1) of the statute for a charging order
against a partner’s interest, “including foreclosure on the partner’s interest . . . and a court order
for directions, accounts, and inquiries that the debtor general or limited partnership might have
made are not available to the judgment creditor”); see also Martineau v. Banco Popular N. Am.,
77 So.3d 925, 926 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012) (Casanueva, J., concurring) (interpreting Section
620.1703 to prohibit the “production of financial records relating to an account owned by” a
Florida limited partnership). Defendant invokes this statute in his effort to prevent disclosure of

the partnership’s tax return. See Def. Mem. at 9-14.1
While state law privacy concerns such as these are due deference, they cannot overwhelm
significant federal interests. See King v. Conde, 121 F.R.D. 180, 188, 195 (E.D.N.Y. 1988)
(holding, in a federal civil rights case, that “federal courts must balance the interests favoring and
disfavoring disclosure in order to resolve discovery disputes” where state and federal rules
conflict because of the “paramount importance of federal civil rights policy” and the fact
that“[f]ederal law disfavors privileges barring disclosure of relevant evidence”); see also Billups
v. West, 1997 WL 100798, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 1997) (applying the King balancing test
where a prisoner sought non-privileged but personal information regarding Department of
Corrections officers in a civil rights case). These important federal interests exist here. A jury
awarded Wong substantial damages as compensation for defendant Mangone’s violation of his
civil rights under color of law. See Jury Verdict dated Apr. 29, 2010; Partial Judgment, Docket
Entry 189. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed this judgment, see 450
Fed. Appx. 27 (2d Cir. 2011), but the damages owed remain unpaid.
The Court has considered these competing interests and orders the following: 1) the tax
return shall be provided to defendant Mangone’s attorney, Mr. Kleinman; 2) by July 31, 2012, by
letter or during the previously scheduled telephone conference, Mr. Kleinman will inform the
Court whether he has received the return and propose a date for a court conference; 3) at this
conference, counsel for plaintiff will be required to articulate with specificity why he requires
this tax return and may bring an appropriate expert to assist him in doing so. The Court will then
examine the document and order disclosure as appropriate. The Court rules this way in order to
give deference to the privacy concerns central to the Florida statute, while recognizing the “great
1

“Def. Mem.” refers to the defendant’s memorandum in support of his motion to quash, Docket Entry 241-2.
Defendant also submitted a supplemental letter responding to the Court’s questions during a conference on May 11,
2012. See Def. Supp. Mem., Docket Entry 250.

2

weight of the policy in favor of discovery in civil rights actions.” King, 121 F.R.D. at 195.

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

Brooklyn, New York
July 20, 2012
/s/
STEVEN M. GOLD
United States Magistrate Judge

U:\rmk 2011-12\Wong v Yoo\Wong v Yoo Partnership Tax Returns Order.docx

3