Lifetree Trading Pte v. Kingston
Filing
77
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 68 Motion to Quash; denying 69 Motion to Quash; denying 70 Motion to Quash; denying 72 Motion to Quash. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 6/11/18 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
LIFETREE TRADING, PTE., LTD.,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER
v.
JACOB O. KINGSTON,
Defendant.
Case No. 2:18-cv-215-CW
District Judge Clark Waddoups
Before the court are Defendant Jacob O. Kingston’s four Motions to Quash Subpoenas.
(ECF Nos. 68–70, 72.) The subpoenas, which are largely identical, require Washakie Renewable
Energy, Jacob Kingston, Isaiah Kingston, and Sally Kingston 1 to do as follows: appear before
this court for a hearing June 12, 2018, at 8:30 a.m. during which the court will hold an
evidentiary hearing on the writ of attachment and produce all bio fuel tax credit forms signed by
Kingston between 2012 and 2015, all communications from the IRS and other federal agencies
that the bio fuel credits were improper or subject to repayment, and all documents identified in
Isaiah Kingston’s declaration, which was attached as an exhibit to Kingston’s response to the
motion for writ. Defendant argues the subpoenas are improper because they seek irrelevant
information, are not proportional, and implicate Isaiah and Jacob Kingston’s Fifth Amendment
rights. Having considered the briefing and otherwise being fully informed, the court determines
1
The subpoena of Sally Kingston does not request the documents from Isaiah Kingston’s
declaration.
oral argument is unnecessary, Local Rule D.U. Civ. R. 7-1(f), and acting within its discretion
DENIES Defendant’s motions for the reasons stated herein. 2
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) defines the proper scope of discovery as
follows:
[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, 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. 3
Defendant contends the items requested are neither relevant nor proportional.
First, the three categories of evidence requested are relevant. The first and second
requests relate to fuel credits Washakie Renewable Energy may have claimed while Kingston
was the CEO. These credits are the subject of a purported fraud investigation being undertaken
by the United States government, which LifeTree has alleged as evidence demonstrating
Washakie had fraudulent intent when it transferred approximately $10 million to Kingston and
that a fraud would be perpetrated if the corporate veil is not pierced to allow LifeTree to recover
from Kingston. Therefore, the requests for information about fuel credits, including what credits
were reported and whether Kingston had notice that that the credits may have been improperly
2
“The district court has broad discretion over the control of discovery, and [the Tenth Circuit]
will not set aside discovery rulings absent an abuse of that discretion.” Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v.
Merrill Scott & Assocs., Ltd., 600 F.3d 1262, 1271 (10th Cir. 2010) (quotations and citations
omitted).
3
“Rule 45 does not include relevance as an enumerated reason for quashing a subpoena. It is
well settled, however, that the scope of discovery under a subpoena is the same as the scope of
discovery under Rule 26(b)4 and Rule 34.” In re Capuccio, 558 B.R. 930, 935 (Bankr. W.D.
Okla. 2016).
2
filed, are relevant to show fraud. The documents referenced in Isaiah Kingston’s declaration are
similarly relevant. Isaiah’s declaration was submitted as foundation for the documents Jeremiah
Grant relied upon in issuing his expert opinion on Washakie’s financial status.
Second, the three categories are proportional to the needs of the case. This case involves
a dispute over a $10 million transfer as well as liability for a more than $30 million judgment.
The information should not be difficult to access as it includes recent tax records, which should
be kept on file by the company, and documents Defendant has already relied upon in this
litigation. Because they should be relatively easily accessed, they place a limited demand on
Defendant’s resources. Despite all this, Defendant argues a lack of proportionality because
Plaintiff seeks “all documents regarding a topic.” (Motion to Quash p. 5, ECF No. 70.) While a
request for an entire category of documents may sometimes be overbroad, this is not such a case.
The scope of the requests for fuel credits is limited to the time between 2012 and 2015 and the
requests are for only some of the documents related to fuel credits—those signed by Kingston or
written by United States agency and indicating improper or subject to repayment. The request for
those documents Isaiah Kingston identified in his declaration is necessarily limited to those cited
by him.
Finally, the Fifth Amendment does not bar production of the documents at issue because
they are already in the custody of the United States Internal Revenue Service. (Decl. of Laura
Fuller ¶ 5, ECF No. 70.) See United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 44 (2000) (quoting Fisher v.
United States, 425 U.S. 391, 411 (1976)) (“‘The existence and location of the papers are a
foregone conclusion and the taxpayer adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government’s
information by conceding that he in fact has the papers.’”).
3
For these reasons the motions to quash are DENIED.
DATED this 11th day of June, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
Clark Waddoups
United States District Judge
4
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?