Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00515/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00515-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7402 IRS: Jurisdiction of District Courts

---

1

17-CV-515-AJB-WVG

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAJMP, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-CV-515-AJB-WVG

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE 

ORDER

On January 31, 2020, this Court convened a discovery conference concerning, in

part, the dispute that gave rise to Defendant RAJMP, Inc.’s (“RAJMP”) instant Motion for

Protective Order. On February 12, 2020, RAJMP filed the Motion for Protective Order.

(Doc. No. 214.) On February 19, 2020, the Government filed its Opposition to the Motion

for Protective Order. (Doc. No. 220.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES

the Motion without prejudice in its entirety.

In its Motion, RAJMP articulates two requests for this Court’s consideration. First,

RAJMP moves this Court to bar the Government from asserting 5 U.S.C. section 301

(“Housekeeping Statute”) for any purpose, including, but not limited to, the issuance of

testimonial authorizations prior to any IRS employee’s deposition. RAJMP poses that,

absent a protective order in place, the Government will misuse the Housekeeping Statute

to block relevant witnesses, records, and information from discovery. To support its

Case 3:17-cv-00515-AJB-DEB Document 223 Filed 03/05/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

17-CV-515-AJB-WVG

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

position, RAJMP argues the Government may not avail itself of any discovery privileges

the Housekeeping Statute affords because the Government is a party to this action. Second,

RAJMP asks, at times rather opaquely, the Court to either (1) order counsel for the

Government to affirmatively state whether it personally represents any IRS employees

relevant to this litigation or (2) compel IRS counsel to personally appear for any

forthcoming IRS employee depositions. The Government opposes RAJMP’s Motion in its

entirety and maintains the Motion is legally unsound and premature. 

The Court does not reach the merits of RAJMP’s instant Motion because it declines

to “engage in the futile exercise of analyzing non-existent discovery disputes.” Watts v.

Allstate Indem. Co., 2010 WL 4225561, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2010). RAJMP’s Motion

is not ripe for adjudication because it does not present any actual discovery dispute.

Glaringly, the Motion fails to identify any current or former IRS employee RAJMP intends

to depose, what information RAJMP seeks to obtain from any current or former IRS

employee, or what documents RAJMP requests for production for purposes of any IRS

employee’s deposition. From there, based on nothing more than its own supposition,

RAJMP argues the Government will, at some uncertain time in the future, assert the

Housekeeping Statute to thwart RAJMP’s undefined discovery efforts.

By exclusively premising its Motion on hypotheticals, RAJMP compounds the gross

conjecture it engages in by forcing the Government to speculate regarding the scope of

testimonial authorizations it may (or may not) require in the context of IRS employee

depositions. The result of such motion practice is counsel’s argument over legal theory to

address unborn discovery disputes. In the absence of served subpoenas, notices of

deposition, or written discovery requests, amongst other discovery devices, RAJMP does

not present any existing discovery dispute necessitating this Court’s intervention. For this

reason alone, the Motion is premature and is dismissed without prejudice in its entirety.

Further, “the court will only rule on ripe, properly and narrowly presented issues

which the parties have first attempted in good faith to resolve of their own accord.” Watts,

supra, 2010 WL 4225561, at *3. Although counsel for RAJMP averred in his declaration

Case 3:17-cv-00515-AJB-DEB Document 223 Filed 03/05/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

17-CV-515-AJB-WVG

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

that he “met and conferred with the U.S.” (Doc. No. 214-2, 2:4), the Motion indicates that

such efforts were not robust and certainly not exhaustive. The Motion’s self-professed “all

or nothing” position on a purely theoretical matter, all without indicating what particular

witness, document, or information is at issue, gives this away. This Court’s Civil Chambers

Rule IV unequivocally requires counsel to “thoroughly meet and confer in good faith” and

“proceed with due diligence in scheduling and conducting an appropriate meet and confer

conference.” Counsel clearly fell short of making this requisite effort given the dearth of

facts upon which this so-called discovery dispute is based and RAJMP’s requested relief.

Indeed, the Motion’s request to “avoid frustration, delay, and unnecessary motions to

compel” (Doc. No. 214-1, 13:6-7) at some nebulous time in the future only cements there

is no genuine discovery dispute before the Court, and counsel could not have conducted a

meaningful meet and confer conference on the matter.

The Court is disturbed by RAJMP’s blatant misuse of party and judicial resources

to litigate a non-existent discovery dispute as well as its failure to comply with this Court’s

Civil Chambers Rules. At all times, compliance with all applicable rules is imperative, and

deviations from such compliance will not be tolerated. The Court cautions counsel it is

prepared to issue appropriate sanctions for any further violations, including, but not limited

to, inaccurate and misleading citations to legal authority, as it discovered here in citechecking RAJMP’s instant Motion. Finally, the Court hereby ORDERS the Parties to

refrain from filing any other motions relating to any issue, including, but not limited to, the

issues raised in RAJMP’s Motion for Protective Order, unless and until they can (1)

identify the particular facts giving rise to an actual dispute; (2) articulate their opponent’s

refusal to reach an informal resolution or compromise; (3) engage in exhaustive meet and

confer efforts; and (4) ensure compliance with all applicable rules and procedures. More

immediately, and as aforementioned, RAJMP’s Motion for Protective Order is DENIED

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-00515-AJB-DEB Document 223 Filed 03/05/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

17-CV-515-AJB-WVG

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

without prejudice in its entirety. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2020

Case 3:17-cv-00515-AJB-DEB Document 223 Filed 03/05/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4