Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01010/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01010-26/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:6502 IRS:Enforcement of tax liens

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DR MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 05-1010 MMC (MEJ)

ORDER FOR DEFENDANT TO

PROVIDE DECLARATION

On September 12, 2007, the Court conducted a telephonic conference regarding the IRS'

30(b)(6) deposition. After the conference, the Court ordered Defendant's counsel to provide a

declaration stating that all facts related to the IRS' decision have been provided to Plaintiffs. (Doc.

#39.) After receiving Defendant's declaration, Plaintiffs filed a request that the Court order

Defendant to provide a proper declaration. (Doc. #48.) In their request, Plaintiffs argued that the

declaration was insufficient for three reasons: (1) the declarant is not the deponent; (2) the

declaration is not properly constructed and contains unacceptable qualifications; and (3) the

declaration does not reflect the factual statement agreed to by the government. (Doc. #48 at 1.) 

Based on Plaintiffs' arguments, the Court requested that the parties provide further briefing to

address these issues. 

The Court is now in receipt of the parties' further briefing regarding the government's

Case 3:05-cv-01010-MMC Document 73 Filed 11/01/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 2

declaration. (Doc. ##68, 72.) Upon review of the parties' briefing, the Court finds that Defendant's

counsel's declaration does not meet with the spirit of the September 12 telephonic conference. 

While counsel did respond to the literal reading of the Court's order, it was the Court's intention that

Defendant provide a declaration from the deponent. Further, Plaintiffs have raised the argument that

a declaration from Defendant's counsel does not bind the government. Although the Court provided

Defendant the opportunity to address this argument, it did not. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS

Defendant, not Defendant's counsel, to provide a declaration that must (a) be made by a witness

having personal knowledge of the facts stated therein; (b) state facts that would be admissible

evidence (rather than hearsay or the declarant's opinions or conclusions); and (c) affirmatively show

that the witness would be competent to testify at trial. In the declaration, the witness shall state that

the facts relied on by the IRS to issue the FPAAs were derived from information provided to the IRS

by Plaintiffs. Defendant shall provide the declaration by November 14, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2007 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01010-MMC Document 73 Filed 11/01/07 Page 2 of 2