Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02012/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02012-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

MYRONISHA DAILEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

JUST ENERGY MARKETING CORP., et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-02012-HSG 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF TAX 

RETURNS

Re: Dkt. No. 35

In a discovery letter brief filed on March 2, 2015, Defendants Just Energy and Commerce 

Energy requested that this Court order Plaintiff Myronisha Dailey to produce her federal and state 

income tax returns for the years 2012 through 2014, along with all schedules and attachments 

thereto. See Dkt. 35. Dailey opposed the request. Id.

California law recognizes a privilege protecting against the forced disclosure of income tax 

returns. Webb v. Standard Oil Co., 49 Cal. 2d 509, 513 (1957). The purpose of this privilege “is 

to facilitate tax enforcement by encouraging a taxpayer to make full and truthful declarations in 

his return, without fear that his statements will be revealed or used against him for other 

purposes.” Id. The tax return privilege is not absolute: it is waived or inapplicable in situations 

where “(1) there is an intentional relinquishment, (2) the gravamen of the lawsuit is so inconsistent 

with the continued assertion of the taxpayer’s privilege as to compel the conclusion that the 

privilege has in fact been waived, or (3) a public policy greater than that of confidentiality of tax 

returns is involved.” Schnabel v. Super. Ct., 5 Cal. 4th 704, 721 (1993) (citations omitted).

//

//

//

//

Case 4:14-cv-02012-HSG Document 50 Filed 04/09/15 Page 1 of 2
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

None of the three exceptions to the California tax return privilege are satisfied here, for the 

reasons articulated by the Court in its March 20, 2015 Order, Dkt. 36, and at the April 8, 2015 

Case Management Conference. Defendants’ request for the production of Dailey’s tax returns is 

therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-02012-HSG Document 50 Filed 04/09/15 Page 2 of 2