Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01148/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01148-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7401 IRS: Tax Liability - Authorization to collect via civil action

---

paBa P a fTlk

I 8 ft**, %d 1

2 OCT 2 8 2016

3

CLERK US DIS I HIST COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4 BY DEPUTY

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No.: 3:15-cv-01148-BEN-RBB

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

13 v. RECOMMENDATION

14 WILLIAM C. FEUSS, [Docket Nos. 27]

15 Defendant.

16

The United States commenced this litigation against Defendant William C. Feuss

on May 21, 2015. (Docket No. 1.) On May 25, 2016, the United States filed a Motion

for Discovery Sanctions, seeking an order (1) deeming all ofthe United States’ requests

for admissions admitted by Defendant; (2) prohibiting Defendant from introducing into

evidence any information requested by the United States in discovery, but not disclosed

as ofthe date the motion was filed; and (3) awarding the United States reasonable

expenses, including attorney’s fees, for bringing this motion for discovery sanctions.

(Docket No. 15.)

On July 5, 2016, Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks heard the United States’

motion and issued an order granting its request for reasonable expenses and attorney’s

fees, but denying the other forms ofreliefrequested. (Docket No. 20.) In Judge Brooks’

minute order, Defendant was given until July 4, 2016, to respond but not to object to the

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

l

3:15-cv-01148-BEN-RBB

Case 3:15-cv-01148-BEN-RBB Document 31 Filed 10/28/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
United States’ requests for admissions, interrogatories, and requests for production. (Id.)

The United States was given until July 26, 2016, to file a motion to compel or a motion

for sanctions in connection with Defendant’s pending responses to the interrogatories and

the requests for production. (Id.)

On July 26, 2016, the United States filed a second motion for discovery sanctions

against Defendant, seeking an order:

1

2

3

4

5

6

(1) precluding Defendant from presenting documentary evidence

to support his contention that he is entitled to various deductions

and that certain income items included in the tax assessments

7

8

described in paragraph six (6) of the United States’ Complaint

are in any way incorrect pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

9

10 3 7(b)(2)(A)(ii);

11 (2) compelling Defendant to provide specific and complete

answers, signed under oath, to all of the United States’

interrogatories pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii);

(3) providing for any other sanction the Court deems appropriate

given Defendant’s conduct; and

(4) awarding the United State reasonable expenses, including

attorney’s fees, associated with bringing the motions to compel

discovery and discovery sanctions.

12

13

14

15

16

17 (Docket No. 23.) Defendant did not oppose the United States’ second motion for

discovery sanctions. (Docket Nos. 24-25.)

On September 7, 2016, Judge Brooks heard the United States’ second motion for

discovery sanctions. (Docket No. 27.) In Judge Brooks’ minute order, the United States’

motion was granted as to its requests for reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees,

and its request that Defendant be compelled to serve complete answers to interrogatories

2-6 and 10 by September 21, 2016. (Id.) Judge Brooks denied the United States’

requests to compel Defendant’s responses to interrogatories 1, 7-9, and 11-12 and for

Defendant to be precluded from producing business records in lieu of answering its

interrogatories under Rule 33(d). (Id.)

Judge Brooks further issued a Report and Recommendation that this Court grant

the United States’ request for evidence preclusion sanctions, pursuant to the provisions of

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

3:15-cv-01148-BEN-RBB

Case 3:15-cv-01148-BEN-RBB Document 31 Filed 10/28/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and issue an order that Defendant is precluded from presenting

documentary evidence (1) showing his entitlement to deductions or (2) rebutting the

accuracy ofPlaintiffs tax assessments when opposing a motion for summary judgment

or at trial. (Id.)

Any objections to the Report and Recommendation were due September 27, 2016.

Neither party has filed any objections. For the reasons that follow, the Report and

Recommendation is ADOPTED.

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a

magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). “[T]he districtjudge must determine de novo any part ofthe [report and

recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the districtjudge must review the magistrate

judge’s findings and recommendations de novo ifobjection is made, but not otherwise.”

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also

Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither the Constitution nor

the statute requires a districtjudge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations

that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.

The Court has considered and agrees with the Report and Recommendation. The

Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiffs Motion for evidence

preclusion sanctions is GRANTED pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Defendant is hereby precluded from presenting documentary evidence: (1) showing his

entitlement to deductions or (2) rebutting the accuracy ofPlaintiffs tax assessments

when opposing a motion for summary judgment or at trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Dated: October^^O16 26

27 GER T. BENITEZ

28 United States District Court Judge

3

3:15-cv-Ol 148-BEN-RJBB

Case 3:15-cv-01148-BEN-RBB Document 31 Filed 10/28/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3