Sanders v. Madison Square Garden, L.P. et al

Filing 43

Sanders v. Madison Square Garden, L.P. et al

Doc. 43

Case 1:06-cv-00589-GEL-DCF
.~ . .
,.,
~

Document 43

Filed 03/06/2007

Page 1 of 2

~~

.
~=..

-

.~

EPSTEIN BECKER& . GREEN, P.C. .-.- " . ~. ~ .
~="

., .. .

.-

A T T O R N N S AT L&W

2 5 0 PARK AVENUE
NEW'YORK. NEW Y O R K

10177.1

211
;

,

2 1 2 . 3 5 1 .a500

;;if
:'

FAX: 2 1 2 . 6 6 1 . 0 9 8 9
EBGLAW.COM

'd'

RONALD

hl

EREEN

TEL
FA*

z1:
L 2

351
878

4646

BbB6

RGREEN.~~ESGLAW.COM

February 26: 2007

BY HAND

NlEMO ENDORSED

LA-.

J

.

.+5;,.r::.~~.1
.
(,(-f_ii
-5.
3

,,ci ,,-';t.L J
.#-

(

!L

Lr4.

Honorable Debrcl C . Freeman [Inired States hlaystrate .Judge Uniled States Dlstr1c.1Court ibr the Southzrn Dislrict o f X e w York 500 Pearl Street, Room 525 New York, New York 10007-1 581

,; <i(,ii
.d . '. .L

,: 7 .++ ,G,(' t . A (.,, (:c*f-,~' ~ . .> !! , J <%...-c,~ .cti L . /

,.

/:.!, .
L'

,

,&*L.<.;

2.t

/

k
-

)

d

/."

U7

ydic ,:i~L..+.

SO ORDERED: ,

DATE: 1
/. /
,.A .
,

-

-I*_.---.--

~. ,;>?. /-<. - - - - , .
,

Re: Anucha Browns Sanders v. Madison Square Isiah Lord Thomas. 111 and James L. & & E &TD SDNY Case No 06 CV 0589 (GEL) (DCF) Dc'ar Judyc Freeman:

FREEMAN MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This fimi represents Defendants Madison Square Garden ("MSG") and .James L. Doian (hereinafter "Defendants") in the above referenced matter. We respectfully request that Your Honor reconsider that portion of the Order dated February 16, 2007 wherein Your Honor denied Defendants' request that the Court direct Plaintiff to provide authoriza~ions the release for of her 2000-3004 tax returns by the IRS "provided Plaintiff is prepared to stipulate that the unsigned copies 01the tax returns she has produced for those years are accurate copies of tax retums tlia~were actually tiled." -, Order dated Fehniary i b , 2007. at 6 attached hereto as Exh~bir A. In his Ordzr dated N o ~ e m b e r6, 2006. Judge Lynch provided that Plaintiff "produce copies of her tax returns for tax years beginning in 2000." Your Honor noted in her Order that "[a]s Delendants argue persuasively that evidence o f Plaintiffs actually-filed tax returns is relevant to a defense in this case such evidence is properly discoverable unless the need for such discovery can be obviated by stipulation." We respectfully maintain that Judge Lynch ~ntended that Plaintiff providc actual copies of the filed and signed tax retums, not the unsizned and incomplete versions of m y returns Plaintiff may now represent she filed. Since nzithcr Plaintiff nor her accountants have produced the filed copies, nor any proof of filing for any of the
ATLANTA NEWARK

.

.

CHICAGO

NEW YORY

.

.

DALLAS

.

HOUSTON

5AN rRANCISC0

.

.

L O 5 ANGELES

STAMFOeD

.

.

MIAMI

WASHINGTON.

DC

N\'IO.:7I.h:i3

EPSTEIN

sEOYER

OREEN W z Y L l F F b

HAIL. P C

I N TEXAS

ONLY

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:06-cv-00589-GEL-DCF

Document 43

Filed 03/06/2007

Page 2 of 2

Hon. Debra C Fteenian Febn~ary 2007 26. Page 2

s~lbjecttax years, the only objeclive means to confinn and obtain the actual liled returns is directly Srom the IRS.
Moreover, any representation by Plaintiff that the u n s i n e d versions are accurate copies o i the r r t ~ ~ i n s actually filed cannot be relied upon, given the i~lconsistenciesarising she fro111the deposition testimony of her tluce accountants and Plaintiffs own deposition tcstimony. Plaintiff acknowledged it1 her deposition testimony that income tax returns she filed with the IRS and with New York and New Jcrscy taxing authorities were "incorrect" with regard to her t claimed d ~ r e c tnarketing business and business deductions. See Deposition of Anucha BrowneSanders. November 28, 200b ("Browne Sanders Dep."), 4220-43:s attached hereto as Exhibit B. Plaintiff-s returns for 1001. 2002 and 2003 claimed deductions for the same business. Further, Plaintiff kncn as of April 2006 that her 2004 return contained deductions for a direct marketing business w h c ~ > spolie with her accountant abo~ltthose deductions. Deposition of Brock she \Vzaver. CP.4 on December 21, 2006 ("Weaver Dep."). 76:2 1-77: 19 attached hereto as Exhibit C. Her deposition testimony that she only became aware that the r e t u n ~ s \\,ere "incorrect" upon reviswin? the relunls following Judge Lynch's November 6, 2006 order is inconsistent and selfserving. Browne Sanders Dep. 42:20-43:s attached hereto as Exhibit B. Following Judge Lynch's order, she purportedly corrected two years of inaccurate tax returns resulting in her owing some $38,000 in back taxes. She elected not to correct the remaining two years of "incor~ect" returns apparently because her accountant advised her that she was insulated from further hack [ax liability because of the applicable statute of Limitations, and, thereby, lmowinyly receivsd individual tax benefits that she was not qualified to receive for tax years 2001 and 2002. L3epvsilion of Leon Reimei. January 12, 2007 ("Reimer Dep."), 67.4-6S:I 1, attached hereto as Exhibit D. Finally, it appears that Plaintiff had two tax returns prepared for the y e a 2005. LVIlen aslied at his deposition however, the accountant who prepared those two returns was unsure which one Plaintiff actually tiled with the IRS. Weaver Dep. 49:9-56:7, attached hereto as Exhibit E.

For a11 of these reasons, Defendants are entitled to independent corroboration of P!aintiff s actual signed tax filings from the LRS as ordered by Judge Lqnch and should not have to solely rely on Plaint~ff self-serving representations. s We respectfully request that Your Honor recons~derher ruIing in t h ~ regard s / / RespectfulIy submitted,

& (

Ronal cc: Anne C.Vladecii, Esq L. Peter Parcher. Esq.

I. Green