Kappesser v. Northwest Treatment Services Inc

[3] 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA [6] KYNDRA KAPPESSER, Case No. C21-5590 TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER [8] NORTHWEST TREATMENT SERVICES 9 INC, 10 Defendants. [11] This matter comes before the Court on defendant’s motion to compel discovery. [12] Dkt. 33. Specifically, defendant seeks plaintiff’s state and federal tax returns. Plaintiff [13] objected to defendant’s request on the grounds that it was overly broad in time and [14] scope, and irrelevant because plaintiff is not claiming lost wages. Id. at 2. [15] Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of Washington’s Health Care Act, Medicaid [16] Fraud False Claims Act, and wrongful discharge. Dkt. 1. Pursuant to plaintiff’s [17] responses to defendant’s requests for production, plaintiff is not seeking lost wages. [18] Dkt. 38-1 at 1-2. [19] Defendant nonetheless argues that plaintiff’s tax returns are relevant for plaintiff’s [20] request for emotional distress damages. Because plaintiff is allegedly earning more [21] money with their new employer after being terminated, defendant asserts the tax [22] records are relevant to the issue of whether plaintiff has suffered emotional distress. [24] 1 Plaintiff argues the fact that plaintiff may be earning more money with their new 2 employer should be of no consequence to their emotional distress claim against 3 defendant – their prior employer. The Court agrees. 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (b)(1) provides: 5 Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter 6 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 7 action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in 8 resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of 9 discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. [10] “Tax returns do not enjoy an absolute privilege from discovery. Nevertheless, a [11] public policy against unnecessary public disclosure arises from the need, if the tax laws [12] are to function properly, to encourage taxpayers to file complete and accurate [13] returns.” Premium Serv. Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. [14] 1975) (internal citations omitted). An order compelling production of plaintiff's tax returns [15] may be issued if they are relevant and when there is a compelling need for them [16] because the information sought is not otherwise available. See Aliotti v. Vessel [17] SENORA, 217 F.R.D. 496, 497-98 (N.D. Cal. 2003). [18] Defendant has not shown the wage information in plaintiff's tax returns is [19] relevant, and not privileged. [20] Plaintiff has not placed lost earnings in controversy. Defendant relies on Besco v. [21] City of Longview, No. 2016 WL 1077366 (W.D. Was. Mar. 18, 2016) to support its [22] argument that the Court should compel plaintiff to produce their tax returns. However, in [23] that case, plaintiff had placed lost earnings in controversy with respect to his Americans [24] 1 with Disabilities Act claim in which he specifically sought recovery of lost employment 2 compensation, lost employment benefits, and emotional distress damages from 3 defendant. Id. at 3. In this case, the plaintiff has abandoned her request for lost wages. 4 Dkt. 38-1 at 1-2. Moreover, even if plaintiff sought the remedy of lost wages, there are 5 other documents (such as the responses that plaintiff provided to defendant’s 6 interrogatory No. 16, Dkt. 37-1) that would provide the information defendant seeks. 7 Thus, for the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion to compel is DENIED. [8] 9 Dated this 27th day of September, 2022. [11] A [12] Theresa L. Fricke 13 United States Magistrate Judge