Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00100/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00100-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 871
Nature of Suit: IRS 3rd Party Suits 26 USC 7609 (U.S. plaintiff)
Cause of Action: 26:7426 IRS: Wrongful Levy for Taxes

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 08cv110-BTM (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEEDS LP, a California Limited

Partnership,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 08cv100-BTM (BLM)

ORDER RE MOTION TO EXCLUDE

EVIDENCE SUPPORTING

PLAINTIFF’S FORECLOSURE

PROFFER

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Plaintiff makes a motion in limine to exclude evidence supporting Defendant’s proffer

regarding a foreclosure sale by New Horizon Lighting. This motion is DENIED.

The evidence supporting Defendant’s proffer is relevant to the taxpayers’ intent in

transferring their interests in the McCall and Fourth properties and to whether they continued

to exercise control over the property after transfer. 

Exclusion of this evidence would be inappropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). The

United States’ Second Supplemental Response to Plaintiff’s contention interrogatory states,

“The purported consideration paid to the Susanne C. Ballantyne Trust for its 99.1 percent

interest in [Leeds and Fourth] was illusory and ultimately unrealized by the Susanne C.

Ballantyne Trust or Susanne Ballantyne.” (Castaldi Decl. ¶ 2) Amongst other support for this

statement, Defendant provides deposition transcript citations referencing the New Horizon

foreclosure. This response was sufficient to put Plaintiff on notice that Defendant could seek

to use the evidence contained in Defendant’s proffer, and thus, the Court holds that

Case 3:08-cv-00100-BTM-BLM Document 135 Filed 01/21/11 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

In further support of this conclusion, the Court notes that Plaintiff's own exhibit list

filed on November 17, 2009 includes documents that have no other importance except as

they pertain to the foreclosure by New Horizon lighting, such as the Notice of Private Sale

of Collateral on Behalf of New Horizon Lighting (Pl Exh. 135, Trial Exh. 3086). [Dock. # 52-1,

pg 45] Plaintiff’s claim of surprise and prejudice is unfounded.

2 08cv110-BTM (BLM)

Defendant’s second supplemental response was not deficient under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. See

Lucero v. Valdez, 240 F.R.D. 591, 594 (D.N.M. 2007) (“Contention interrogatories should not

require a party to provide the equivalent of a narrative account of its case, including every

evidentiary fact, details of testimony of supporting witnesses, and the contents of supporting

documents.”); Tubbs v. Sacramento County Jail, 2008 WL 863974, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2008)

(“[P]laintiff is not required to present his entire case in discovery responses.”).1 For these

reasons, Defendant may produce evidence supporting its proffer at trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 21, 2011

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00100-BTM-BLM Document 135 Filed 01/21/11 Page 2 of 2