McCann v. Parkey et al
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 15 Plaintiff Michael A. McCann's Motion to Compel Discovery. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 03/27/18. (wh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MICHAEL A. McCANN,
Plaintiff,
v.
LUCRETIA PARKEY; AND
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE GROUP
LLC,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-17-563-C
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Now before the Court is Plaintiff, Michael A. McCann’s Motion to Compel
Discovery (Dkt. No. 15). Defendant Lucretia Parkey filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion
to Compel (Dkt. No 18). Plaintiff McCann filed a Reply to Response to Motion to Compel
Discovery (Dkt. No. 19). The Motion is now at issue.
I. Background
This discovery dispute arises from a contested sale of a business, Professional
Service Group, LLC, specifically pertaining to the issue of whether the sale of the business
was rescinded and who owned and controlled Defendant Professional Service Group, LLC,
during the timeframe the litigation arose. Plaintiff requests income tax returns from
Defendants Parkey and Professional Service Group, LLC. Defendant Parkey argues that
producing the tax returns for Defendant Professional Service Group, LLC, and redacted
versions of Defendant Parkey’s personal tax returns “that only disclose Schedule C and all
schedules and/or information related thereto” should suffice for discovery purposes. (Resp.
to Pls. Mot. to Compel, Dkt. No. 18, p. 1.) Defendant Parkey does not entirely dispute the
relevancy of the unredacted personal tax returns and mainly asserts from a public policy
standpoint that Plaintiff McCann should not be granted unlimited access to personal tax
returns and information.
II. Standard
Generally, “[p]arties 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.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). This requirement is often coupled with the public policy concerns
that offer protection against tax returns’ production. See Hilt v. SFC Inc., 170 F.R.D. 182,
188 (D. Kan. 1997). Of note, there is also “no absolute privilege [that] exists preventing
their discovery.” Id. at 189. Additionally, it is common practice that courts will not require
the production of tax returns when that information is readily available through other means
and sources. See id. “While courts have been reticent to compel taxpayers to disclose
income tax return information merely because they have become parties to a lawsuit, they
nonetheless, have compelled production of income tax returns ‘where a litigant himself
tenders an issue as to the amount of his income.’” Fields v. General Motor Corp., No. 94C-4066, 1996 WL 14040 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Jan 14, 1996) (quoting Poulos v. Naas Foods, Inc.,
959 F.2d 69, 75 (7th Cir. 1992)).
III. Discussion
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Parkey “appears to have claimed to be the sole
proprietor (100% owner) of PSG in her and her husband’s (Billy Parkey’s) joint income
tax returns for years 2010-2015.” (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel Disc., Dkt. No. 15, p. 3.) Plaintiff
2
also argues that Defendant Parkey’s and Defendant Professional Service Group, LLC’s tax
returns for 2010-2015 are relevant for discovery purposes. (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel Disc.,
Dkt. No. 15, p. 6.) Defendant Parkey argues that it would be against public policy to allow
income tax returns to become discoverable. (Def.’s Resp. to Pls. Mot. to Compel, Dkt. No.
18, p. 2.) The Court does not find this argument persuasive and finds the tax returns are
relevant to the instant inquiry.
Defendants Parkey and Professional Service Group, LLC, shall produce their 20102015 unredacted tax returns subject to a Protective Order to be agreed upon among counsel
and submitted to the Court.
Plaintiff has requested reasonable costs and expenses,
including attorney’s fees (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel Disc., Dkt. 15, p. 7). If a motion is granted,
Rule 37 allows for the recovery of reasonable expenses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5). The
Court finds that Defendant Parkey was not substantially unjustified in her argument and all
parties will be responsible for their own reasonable costs and expenses in connection with
this Motion.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt. No. 15) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 27th day of March, 2018.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?