Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05601/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05601-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Wrongful Death

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMARN OLSEN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-05601-SI 

ORDER RE: SECOND DISCOVERY 

DISPUTE

Re: Dkt. No. 43

Now before the Court is a discovery dispute letter submitted by the parties. Docket No. 

43. This is the second discovery dispute in this case. See Docket No. 30.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are the surviving wife and daughter of Sterling Charles Olsen, who died on 

November 22, 2012. Corrected Complaint ¶¶ 3-4, 6. They bring this suit for wrongful death 

against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Id. ¶ 1. Among other relief, they 

seek “[p]ast and future damages for the loss of the support, earnings, services, and financial 

benefits from Decedent . . . .” Id. at 4. 

Presently at issue is whether plaintiffs must disclose their tax returns to defendant United 

States. Defendant has sought all of plaintiffs’ tax returns filed since 2009. Letter Brief at 1. 

Defendant argues that the tax returns should be disclosed because no privilege applies and because 

“Plaintiffs have claimed lost income and financial support as a form of damages.” Id. at 2. 

Plaintiffs argue that such information should be protected from disclosure due to the public policy 

disfavoring disclosure of tax returns and because plaintiffs have not put their income at issue in 

this case. Id. at 3-4.

Case 3:14-cv-05601-SI Document 46 Filed 03/01/16 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

LEGAL STANDARD

Where a plaintiff sues under the Federal Tort Claims Act, federal privilege law governs. 

Young v. United States, 149 F.R.D. 199, 204 (S.D. Cal. 1993); accord. Burrows v. Redbud Cmty.

Hosp. Dist., 187 F.R.D. 606, 608 (N.D. Cal. 1998). Under federal law, “[t]ax returns do not enjoy 

an absolute privilege from discovery.” Premium Service Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 

F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 1975). Nevertheless, there is a public policy against the unnecessary 

public disclosure of tax records. Id. “Accordingly, the Court may only order the production of 

plaintiff’s tax returns if they are relevant and when there is a compelling need for them because 

the information sought is not otherwise available.” Aliotti v. Vessel Senora, 217 F.R.D. 496, 497-

98 (N.D. Cal. 2003). “The party seeking production has the burden of showing relevancy, and

once that burden is met, the burden shifts to the party opposing production to show that other 

sources exist from which the information is readily obtainable.” A. Farber & Partners, Inc. v. 

Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 191 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (citation omitted); accord Dunfee v. Truman 

Capital Advisors, LP, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165936, at *10 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2013); KeyBank 

Nat’l Ass’n v. Nielson, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55575, at *9 (D. Nev. May 24, 2011).

DISCUSSION

Defendant has failed to show that the requested tax returns are relevant. Defendant argues

that “Plaintiffs have claimed lost income and financial support as a form of damages.” Letter 

Brief at 2. This is not entirely accurate. This is not a situation where a plaintiff claims to have lost 

his or her own income as a result of a defendant’s conduct. Plaintiffs here have not put their own 

income at issue; rather they have put at issue the earnings and income of the decedent, Mr. Olsen. 

See Corrected Complaint ¶ 14 (“Plaintiffs have suffered and in the future will suffer damages for 

the loss of support, earnings, services, and financial benefits from Decedent . . . .”) (emphasis 

added).

The Court therefore disagrees with defendant that “[w]hether either one of them has sought 

employment since his death is . . . an important question in the case.” See Letter Brief at 2. Mr. 

Olsen’s daughter, plaintiff Neolani Olsen-Rodriguez, asserts that the support she received from her 

Case 3:14-cv-05601-SI Document 46 Filed 03/01/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

father was in the form of gifts such as help paying for cars, clothes, and tuition. Id. at 3-4. Such 

gifts would not necessarily appear on Ms. Olsen-Rodriguez’s tax returns nor be impacted by her 

employment status before or after his death. Plaintiff Samarn Olsen, Mr. Olsen’s surviving 

spouse, apparently received some of Mr. Olsen’s financial benefits for his care and support. Id. at 

4. Mrs. Olsen has enumerated these benefits in the discovery letter. Id. Presumably defendant 

United States already possesses information regarding what federal benefits Mr. Olsen was 

receiving, and such information would not change based on Mrs. Olsen’s employment status 

before or after his death. 

It is also not clear that the information defendant seeks—regarding plaintiffs’ income and 

employment status—is not available from other sources. The discovery letter indicates that 

defendant has already taken plaintiffs’ depositions and received interrogatory responses on the 

topic of plaintiffs’ earnings and employment in recent years. Id. at 2. Defendant therefore has

whatever statements plaintiffs have already made as to their income and employment. If the 

statements are inconsistent, as defendant alleges, defendant may use those inconsistencies for 

impeachment at trial. It does not need tax returns “to verify or disprove” the statements that 

plaintiffs have already made under oath. See id. at 2. Defendant has not made a showing of 

relevance, and public policy weighs against disclosure of plaintiffs’ tax returns in this instance. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s request to compel the disclosure of plaintiffs’ tax 

returns is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05601-SI Document 46 Filed 03/01/16 Page 3 of 3