Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01993/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01993-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Recovery of IRS Tax

---

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

1 If, as plaintiff suggests, the Government is stone walling

and refusing to answer relevant questions concerning its legal

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VISION SERVICE PLAN,

NO. CIV. S-04-1993 LKK/JFM

Plaintiff,

v.

O R D E R

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

 /

The United States has filed a motion to reconsider an order

of Magistrate Judge Moulds denying in part the Government’s motion

for a protective order. 

It is not clear to this court that the issue is moot.

Although the deposition took place, it appears that the

Government’s direction to its witnesses not to answer was in direct

conflict with the previous order, and thus will probably give rise

to a motion to compel answers to those questions. Nonetheless, as

plaintiff argues the motion must be denied.1

Case 2:04-cv-01993-LKK -JFM Document 47 Filed 09/20/05 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

position, and if by virtue of the cut off for discovery plaintiff

will be deprived of an opportunity to elicit that information, the

proper remedy may be the exclusion at trial of evidence concerning

the defendant’s position, or a determination that the Government

has waived any right to present a legal theory. 

2

As plaintiff maintains, the scope of review of the Magistrate

Judge’s order in issue is very narrow. This court cannot determine

that, under all the circumstances, the Magistrate Judge’s order was

clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See L.R. 72-303(f); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 72(a). 

The motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 19, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-01993-LKK -JFM Document 47 Filed 09/20/05 Page 2 of 2