## I n the U nited S tates Cour t of Feder al Claim s
No . 1 4 -2 5 1 C (Fi l edDecem

ber 2 1 , 2 0 1 5 )
UNPUBLI SHED

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BISHOP HILL ENERGY LLC * an d INVENERGY W IND LLC, * * Pla i n t i f f s , * M ot i o n t o Co m p el ; In fo rm at io n * So u g h tIs Bo t h Irrel ev an t an d v
. * Bu rd en s o m e t o Pro du ce. * THE UNITED STATES, * * Def en d a n t

. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jo h n C. Ha

yes , Jr

. , W as h i n g t o n , DC, fo r p l ai n t i ffs

. 1 Al yci a A. Zi a rn o an d Br i a n P. Do n n el l

y , W as h i n g to n , DC, o f co u n s el

. Mi r a n d a Bu r ea u , Un i t edSt at es Dep art m en to f J u st i ce Tax Di v i s i o n , wi t h wh o m w ere Ca r o l i ne D. Ci r a o l o , Act i ng As s is t an tAt to rn ey Gen eral , Da vi d

I. Pi n cu s , Ch i ef, G. Ro bs o n St ewa r t , As s i s t an tCh i ef, Bla i n e G. S a i t o , Tri al At t o rn ey , W as h i n g t o n, DC, fo r d efen d an t

.

_ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ OPI NI ON

_ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

1 / At the time plaintiff’s motion to compel was filed, Invenergy W ind L L C had not been added as a co-plaintiff. Thus, the court’s reference to a sing ular plaintiff in this opinion is to B ishop Hill Energy

L L C.Bus h , S

en i o r Ju d ge . Th e co u rt h as b efo re i tp l ai n t i ff’ s m o t i o n t o co m p el res p o n s es t o i n t erro g at o ri es , fi l edSep t em b er 3 0 , 2 01 5 . Parto f p l ai n t i ff’ s m o t i o n was wi th drawn aft er t h e g o v ern m en tam en d edcert ai n i n terro g at o ry an s wers . Pl .’ s Rep ly at1 . Th e rem ai ni n g p o rt i o n o f p lai n t i ff’ s m o t i o n i s o p p o sedb y d efen d an t

. Fo r t h e reas o n s s t at edb el o w, p l ai n t i ff’ s m o t i o n i s d en ied

. Th e act i o n th atg av e ri s e t o th i s s u i ti s th e g o v ern m en t ’ s d et erm i nat i on th at p l ai n t i ff s h o u l drecei v e l es s t h ani t req u es t ed i n a fed eral g ran tfo r h av i n g d ev el o p ed a wi n dp o w er faci l i t y . Th e co m p l ai n t s eek s $ 1 2 ,7 0 7 ,0 11 “ i n ad d i t i o nal p aym en t s u n d er Sect i o n 1 6 0 3 o f t he Am eri can Reco v ery an d Rei n v es tm en t[Acto f 2 0 0 9 ] , Pub . L. 1 1 1 -5 (2 0 0 9 ), as am en d edb y § 7 0 7 o f t he Tax Rel i ef, Un em p l o ym en tIn s u ran ce Reau t h o ri zat i o n , an dJ o b Creat i on Acto f 2 0 1 0 , Pub . L. 1 1 1 -3 1 2 (2 0 1 0 ) (‘ Sect io n 1 60 3 ’ ).” Def.’ s Op p . at2 . Iti s u nd i s pu t edthatSect i o n 1 6 0 3 g ran t s , p u rs uan tt o th e s t atu t e, s h o u l dv ary i n am o u n ti n o rd er t o acco u n tfo r th e co s tb as i s o f t h e p art icu l ar wi n dp o wer faci l i t y
. Co m pl . ¶ 1 0 . Acco rd i n g t o the p art i es , atl eas t o ne o f t he el em en t s o f t h e “ cl ai m edel i gi b l e” co s t b as i s o f p l ai n t i ff’ s faci li t y

i s a “ d ev el o pm en tfee” o f $ 6 0 , 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 p ai dt o th e p aren t co rp o rat i o n o f p lai n t i ff. Pl

. ’ s M o t . at1 ; Def.’ s Op p. at3

. Th e co u rt n o t es atth e o u t s etth atth is i s t he s eco n d d i s co v ery d i sp u te b ro u gh t t o th e co u rt ’ s at t en t i o n b y th e p art i es , an dy et an o t h er m o ti o n reg ard i n g a d i s co v ery d i sp u t e h as recen t l y

b een d o ck et edi n th i s cas e, a m ot i o n wh i ch al s o h as d i rect ap p l i cab i l i t y

t o a co m p an i o n cas e, Ca l i

fo rn i a Ri d

g e W i nd En er gy LLC v. Un i ted Sta t es , No . 1 4 -2 5 0C. Al s o p en d i n g b efo re t h e co u rtare fu l l y -b ri efed o p p o s edm o t io n s t o am en dth e d i s co v ery s ch edu l e i n t h es e co m

p an i o n cas es . Th e co u rts tro n g l y

en co u rag es the p art i es t o wo rkh ard er o n ach i ev i n g co n s en s u s o r co m p ro m i s e reg ard i n g d i s co v ery m at t ers . Th es e co m

p an i o n cas es h av e al read y co n su m eda d i s p ro p o rt i o n at e am o u n to f ju d i ci al res o u rces an dth e co u rt m u s t al l o cat e i t s res o urces am o n g al l o f t h e cas es o n i t s d o ck etg o i n g fo rward

. In an y ev en t , th e co u rt ’ s an al y si s i n t h i s o pi n i o n ad dres s es th ree p ri n ci p al d i s p u t es : (1 ) wh et h er t h e g ov ern m en t ’ s d at a co n cern i n g u n rel at edwi n dp o wer p ro ject s an d t h ei r g ran tap p l i cat i o n s an dp aym en t s are rel ev an t t o th e d i s p u t e o v er th e am o un to f p lai n t i ff’ s g ran ti n th i s cas e; (2 ) wh et h er t h e t y p e an dam o un to f i n fo rm at i o n s o u g h t b y

m ean s o f p l ai n t i ff’ s i n t erro g at ori es i s o v erl y b urd en s o m e o n

2th e g o vern m en t ; an d , (3 ) wh eth er t h e d i s co v ery req u es t ed o f p l ai n t i ff (o r rel at ed en t i t i es ) reg ard i n g co m

p an ies affi l i at edwi t h p l ai n t i ff, p rev i ou s ly ap p ro v edb y

th e co u rt , i s o f t h e s am e n atu re as th e d i s co v ery req u es t edo f t h e g o v ern m en t th ati s th e s ub jecto f p l ai n t i ff’ s m o t i o n t o co m p el . Th e co u rt ’ s d i s cu s s i o n o f t h i s l as t i s su e s h o u l dh el p t h e p art i es t o co l l ab o rat i v el y res o l v e d efen dan t ’ s m o ti o n fi l edo n No v em b er 2 5 , 2 0 1 5 i n th i s cas e. Th e co u rtb eg i n s wi t h t h e i s s u e o f rel ev an ce.
I . Rel ev a nce Th e t ax p ro v i s i o n u n d erl y i n g thi s s u i t req u i res a d et erm i n at i o n o f t h e co s t b as i s o f wi ndp ower faci l i t i es b y th e Un i t edSt at es Dep art m en to f th e Treas u ry (Treas u ry ) b efo re a g ran tcan i ss u e. Co m p l. ¶ 1 1 . Lo g i cal l y , Treas u ry ’ s d et erm i n at i o n o f t h e co s tb as i s o f a p art i cu l ar wi n d p o wer faci l i t y i s a fact -s p eci fi c i n qu i ry wh i ch d ep en d s , t o a g reat d eg ree, o n th e acco u n t i n g d at a p ro vi dedt o Treas u ry b y th e g ran t ap p li can t

. S

ee i d

. ¶ 1 4 (n o ti n g t h ataffi l i at edco m pan i es o f p l ai n t i ff s ub m i t t edg ran tap pl i cat i o n s i n wh i ch , “ [i ] n acco rd an ce wi t h wel l es t ab l i s h edt ax p ri n ci p l es , th e fu l l co s t o f d ev el o p m en t[fo r en erg y p ro du ct i o n faci li t i es ] was cl ai m edas th e co s tb as i s fo r each faci li t y ”). Th e co u rt ’ s t as ki n th i s s u i ti s s i m i lar; th e co u rtm u s td et erm i n e wh et h er p l ai n t i ff h as m eti t s b u rd en t o s h o w th ati t s co s t b as i s was g reat er t h an t h e co s tb as i s d et erm i n edb y Treas u ry
. Th e p art i es ag ree t h atth i s i s a d e n o vo i nqu i ry . Def.’ s Op p. at3 (ci t i n g W .E. Pa r tn er s II, LLC v. Un i t ed

Sta t es , 1 1 9 Fed . Cl . 6 8 4 , 6 9 0 (2 0 1 5), a p p ea l d o cket ed , No . 1 5 -5 0 5 4 (Fed . Ci r. Feb . 1 3 , 2 0 1 5 )); Pl .’ s M o t. at7

. Th e p art i es s t ro n gl y

d is ag ree, h o wev er, as t o wh et h er d at a co l l ect edb y Treas u ry reg ard in g ap p ro x i m at el y 1 0 8 o t h er wi n d p ower faci l i t i es are rel ev an tt o th e co u rt ’ s i n qu i ry

i n th is s u i t . Th e d at a s o u g h tb y p l ai n t i ff i ncl u d e p ro

ject i n fo rm at i o n , s u ch as th e d at e o f each wi n dfaci l i t y ’ s Sect io n 1 60 3 ap p l i cat i o n an d th e en erg y

o u tpu to f t h atfaci l i ty . Pl .’ s M o t . Ap p . at2 9

. Pl ai n t i ff i s al s o i n t eres t ed i n l earn i n g th e s i ze o f “ d ev el op m en tfees ” t h at t hes e o t h er wi n d faci l i t y p ro ject s h av e p ai d, an dthe ex t en tt o wh i ch s u ch d ev el o p m en tfees were d et erm in edb y Treas u ry t o b e reas on ab l e. Id

. Befo re tu rn i n g t o th e p art i es ’ s p eci fi c arg um en t s reg ard i n g th e rel ev an ce o f t h e i n fo rm at i o n s o u g ht b y p l ai n t i ff’ s i nt erro g at ori es , th e co u rtrev i ews p ert i n en t juri sp ru d en ce i n t ax s u it s wh i ch d i scu s s es t h e rel ev an ce, o r th e l acko f rel ev an ce, o f p ri o r d et erm in at i on s o f Treas u ry as t o th e t ax l iab i l i t i es o f s i m i l arl y s itu at edt ax p ay ers
.

3A. De No vo Pro ceedi ng s i n Ta x Ca s es

Wh en th i s co u rtad

ju d i cat es a t ax d i s p ut e, p as t t reat m en to f s i m i l arl y s i tu at ed t ax p ay ers b y Treas u ry i s n o t , as a g en eral ru l e, rel ev an tt o t he co u rt ’ s res o l ut i o n o f t h e t ax d i s p u t e b efo re i t

. W .E. Pa r tn er

s , 1 9 9 Fed . Cl . at6 9 2 (ci t i n g Vo n s Co s. v. Un it ed

Sta t es , 5 1 Fed . Cl . 1 , 1 0 & n .1 0 (2 0 01 ), mo di fi ed i n p ar t b y Vo n s Co s. v. Un it ed

Sta t es , No . 0 0 -2 3 4 T , 2 00 1 W L 1 5 5 5 30 6 (Fed . Cl

. No v . 3 0 , 2 0 0 1 )). In th e co u rt ’ s v i ew, awardd eci si o n s b y Treas u ry o n Sect io n 1 60 3 g ran t ap p li cat io n s are an al o g o u s t o p ri v at e l et t er ru l i n g s i ss u ed b y Treas u ry t o a p art i cu l ar t ax p ay er. Th e s ub s t an ce o f s u ch co m m u ni cat io n s wi t h an i nd i vi du al t ax p ay er u n rel at edt o the p lai n t i ff h as n o rel ev an ce t o a t ax cas e b efo re t h i s co u rt

. S ee, e.g
. , Amer

g en En er gy Co ., LLC ex r el

. Exel o n Gen er a t io n Co ., LLC v. Un it ed Sta t es , 9 4 Fed . Cl . 4 1 3 , 4 23 (2 0 1 0 ) (“ No n e o f th es e cas es [ci t edb y th e p l ai n t i ff] p ers u ad es th e co u rt t h at t h e [p ri v at e l et ter ru l i n gs ] i n qu es t i on h av e an y rel ev an ce t o the i s su es t o b e d eci d edi n t h i s [t ax ] cas e.”); Vo n s , 5 1 Fed . Cl . at1 2 (h ol d i n g th atp ri v at e l et t er ru l in g s i s su edt o o t h er t ax p ay ers m ay n o t b e rel i edup o n fo r t h ei r s ub s t an ce i n a t ax s ui tb efo re th i s co u rt ); s ee a l so Ha n o ver

Ba n k v. Co mm’r , 3 6 9 U.S. 6 7 2 , 6 8 6 (1 9 6 2 ) (n o ti n g th att ax p ay ers “ are n oten t i t l edt o rel y up o n u np ub l i s hed p ri v at e ru l i ng s wh i ch were n o ti s s u eds p eci fi cal l y t o th em ”) (ci t at i o n s o m it t ed ). Th u s , t o th e ex ten tthatp l ai n ti ff’ s i n t erro g at o ri es s eekTreas u ry ’ s ru l i ng s o n th e reas on ab l en es s o f d ev el o p m en tfees p ai d t o creat e o t h er u n rel at edwi n d p o wer p ro

ject s , s u ch i n fo rm at i on i s i rrel ev an t t o th e co u rt ’ s i n qui ry i n thi s s u i t

. B. Pl a i nti ff’s Rel ev a nce Arg um ents
No t wi t h s t an d i n g th e wei g h to f p reced en td i scu s s ed su p r a , p l ai n t i ff arg u es th ati t s i n t erro g at o ri es reg ard i n g o t h er wi n dp ro ject s , o t h er Sect i o n 1 6 0 3 ap p li cat io n s , an d o t h er d ev el op m en tfees cl ai m edb y ap p l i can t s an d/ o r ru l edup o n b y Treas u ry are al l rel ev an tt o th i s s u it . Th e cen t ral th ru s to f p l ai n t i ff’ s arg u m en t i s thatTreas u ry

p o s s es s es i n fo rm at i o n rel ev an tt o th e t as k o f d et erm i ni n g th e “ fai r m ark etv al u e” o f d ev el o p m en tfees fo r wi ndp o wer p ro ject s , an dth at t h i s rel ev an t d at a m u stb e p ro v i d edt o p l ai n ti ff. S ee Pl .’ s M o t. at9 (as s ert in g th atp l ai n t i ff’ s i n t erro g at o ri es “ s eeki n fo rm at io n th ati s d i rect l y rel ev an tt o t h e fai r m ark et v al u e o f Pl ai n t i ff’ s d ev el op m en tfee, wh i ch th e Go vern m en tco n ced es i s a m at eri al fact i n th i s cas e”). A s eco n d p u rp o s e o f t h e i n t erro g at o ri es i s t o p erm i tp l ai n t i ff t o i m p each th e g ov ern m en t ’ s wi t nes s es wh o m i g ht o p in e as t o the “ fai r m ark etv al u e” o f wi n dp o w er faci li t y

d ev el o p m en tfees i n a m an n er i n co n s i s t en t wi t h p ri o r

4Treas u ry

ru l i ng s o n o t h er Sect io n 1 6 0 3 ap p l i cat i o ns
. Id

. at8 ; Pl .’ s Rep ly at7 -9

. As fo r p l ai nt iff’ s rel ev an ce arg u m en twh i ch as s ert s th atTreas ury d at a wi l l h el p es t ab l i s h th e fai r m ark etv al u e o f d ev el o p m en tfees , p l ai n t iff’ s m o t i o n o ffers o n l y o n e cas e as au t h o ri ty

fo r t h i s p ro p os i t i o n. 2 S

ee Pl .’ s M o t . at9 (ci t i n g Vo n s , 5 1 Fed . Cl . at4 , 1 5). Pl ai nt i ff’ s rel i an ce o n Vo n s i n i t s o p en i n g b ri ef i s b o t h cu rs o ry an dv ag u e: “ t he Co u rt[i n Vo n s ] co n du ct eda p o i nt -b y -p o i n tex am i n at i o n o f t h e p l ai n t i ff’ s d i s co v ery req ues t s an d o rd eredthe Go v ern m en t t o res p o n dt o m an y o f th em .” Id

. No fu rth er referen ce t o Vo n s i s s up pl iedi n p l ai n t iff’ s rep l y b ri ef, n or i s an y

ad di t i o n al au t h o ri ty

ci t edfo r t h e p ro p os i t i o n th atTreas u ry ru l i n g s i n o th er t ax m at ters m ay

b e u s edt o es t ab l i sh th e fai r m ark etv al u e o f d ev el o p m en t fees , o r, fo r t h at m at t er, fo r es t ab l i s h i n g t h e co s tb as is o f a p art i cu l ar i nv es t m en t p ro p erty
. Co n traryt o p l ai n ti ff’ s v i ew o f Vo n s th e co u rtth erei n ex p res sl y cri t i ci zed an y i n t erp ret at i o n o f g o v ern in g cas el aw wh i ch wo ul d s up p o rt“p erv as i v e d i s co v ery an du s e o f p ri vat e l et t er ru l i n g s an d o t h er i n fo rm at i o n i n t h e IRS’ s fi l es t o d em o n s t rat e u n equal treat m en tam o n g t ax p ay ers
. ” 5 1 Fed . Cl . at 1 0 n .1 0 (ci t at i o n o m i tt ed ). Th e Vo n s co u rtwen t o n t o ci t e wi t h ap p ro v al a d eci s i o n o f t h e Un i ted St at es Tax Co u rtwh i ch h el dth at“ ‘ [i ] th as l o n g b een t h e p o s i ti o n o f t h i s Co u rtth ato u r res po n s i b i l i ty i s t o ap p l y

th e l aw t o the fact s o f th e cas e b efo re u s an d d et erm i n e th e t ax l i ab i li t y o f t h e p art i es b efo re u s ; h o w th e Co m m i s s i o n er m ay h av e treat ed o th er t ax pay ers h as g en eral ly b een co n s id eredi rrel ev an t i n m ak i n g th atd et erm i n at i o n .’ ” Id

. (qu o ti n g Da vis v. Co mm’r , 6 5 T.C. 1 0 1 4 , 1 02 2 , 1 9 7 6 W L 3 7 5 0 (1 9 7 6 )). Th e h o ld in g i n Vo n s reg ard i n g p ri v at e l et t er ru l i n g s (PLRs ) o f Treas u ry h as b een s u m

m ari zedb y

th i s co u rti n t h e fo l l o w i ng s t at em en to f th e l aw:
“ [T] h e s ub st an ce o f th e PLRs i s s u edt o [o t h er t ax pay ers i s ] a u s e o f PLRs n o t co n do n edb y Vo n s .” Amer gen , 9 4 Fed . Cl

. at4 2 4 . Th e co u rtcan n o tth erefo re read

2 / Plaintiff also cites to RCF C 26(b)(1) and to a case which notes that the scope of discovery is broad enough to cover matters that could bear on an issue before the court. Pl.’s Mot. at 8 (citing Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders , 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978)). The court acknowledg es this g eneral principle and applies it here. See Oppenheimer Fund , 437 U.S. at 351 (statingthat relevant discovery “has been construed broadly to encompass any

matter that bears on, or that reasonably

could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may

be in the case” (citing Hickman v. Taylor , 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947))). The particular discovery dispute before the court, however, implicates precedent which specifically addresses the relevance of unrelated Treasury tax ruling s to a particular taxcase.

5Vo n s as s upp l y i n g au t h o ri t y fo r t h e d i sco v ery

th atp l ai n ti ff s eek s i n i t s m o t i o n t o co m p el

. Retu rn i n g t o p l ai n t i ff’ s p ro p o s i ti o n reg ard i n g “ fai r m ark etv al u e,” b ot h p l ai n t i ff an dth e g ov ern m en trefer t o th e t erm “ fai r m ark etv al u e” wh end i s cu s s i n g h o w Treas u ry

arri v edati ts d et erm i n at io n o f t h e ex t en t t o wh i ch p l ai n t i ff’ s d ev el o p m en tfee was p ro p erl y al l o wab le. Pl ai n t i ff co nt en d s th at“ i n fo rm at i o n rel at i n g t o d ev el op m en tfees cl ai m edb y o th er wi n d p ro

ject s was p l ai nl y rel ev an t t o Pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m , b o t h as s ub s t an t i v e ev i d en ce o f t h e fai r-m ark etv al u e o f Pl ai n t i ff’ s d ev el o p m en tfee an dt o i m p each Treas u ry ’ s cred ib i l i t y i n th e ev en ti t o ffers i n co n si s ten tev i d en ce o r t es t i m on y attri al .” Pl .’ s M o t . at4 . Pl ai n t i ff g o es o n t o as sertth atTreas u ry h as p ub l i cl y

ackn o wl ed g edthati tu s es d at a fro m o t h er Sect i o n 1 6 0 3 ap pl i can ts i n ev al u at i n g th e fai r m ark etv al u es o f p ro p ert i es th atare th e s ub jecto f Sect i o n 16 0 3 ap p l i cat i o n s . Pl

. ’ s Rep l y at4 . Pl ai n ti ff t h en m ak es th e l eap th at“ i ti s h ardt o th i n ko f an y fact s m ore rel ev an t t o th e fai r m ark etv al u e o f Pl ai n t i ff’ s d ev el o p m en tfee t han th e d ev el op m en t fees ch arg edb y s im il arl y s i tu at ed p l ay ers i n th e wi n den erg y m ark et .” Id

. Pl ai n t i ff, h o wev er, co m p ares ap p les t o o ran g es
. As refl ect edi n the g ov ern m en td o cu m en tup o n wh i ch p lai n t i ff rel i es , “ Ev al u at i n g Co s tBas i s fo r So l ar Ph o t o v o l t ai c Pro p ert i es ,” Pl .’ s M o t . Ex . H, th e co n tex ti n wh ich “ fai r m ark etv al u e” i s referen cedrel at es t o t he ag en cy ’ s d et erm i n at i o n o f an ap p l i can t ’ s cl ai m ed co stb as i s :

Th e rev i ew o f ap p l i cat i o n s fo r p aym en tu n d er t h e Sect io n 1 6 0 3 p ro g ram i n cl u d es a d et erm i n at i o n as t o wh et her t h e ap p l i can th as p ro p erl y rep res en t edan d cal cu l at edi t s co stb as i s . Each ap pl icat i o n i s ev al u at edt o d et erm i ne wh eth er t h e co s t b as i s i n cl u d es o n l y el i g i bl e i t em s an dthati t rep res en t s th e ap p l i can t ’ s actual co s t s o r, i n cert ai n cas es , fai r m ark etv al u e fo r t h e el i gi b l e p ro p ert y
. Pl .’ s M o t . Ap p
. at5 9

. Th e d o cu m en tfu rt h er p ro v i d es :

As d es cri b edi n v ari ou s In t ern al Rev en u e Serv i ce (IRS) p ub l i cat i o n s , b as i s i s th e am o u n to f a b u s i nes s ’

6i n v es t m en ti n p ro p ert y fo r t ax p u rp o s es . Bas i s i s g en eral l y th e co s t o f t h e p ro pert y

an dm ay al s o i n cl ud e t h e cap i tal i zed p o rt i o n o f cert ai n o t h er co s t s rel at edt o b uy i n g o r p ro du ci n g th e p ro p ert y (e.g . p erm it ti n g, en g i n eeri n g , an di n t eres tdu ri ng co n s t ru ct i o n ). Ho w ev er, as d es cri b edi n Bry an tv . Co m m i s s i o n er o f In t ern al Rev en u e (7 9 0 F.2 d1 4 6 3 ), “ t he co u rt s h av e d et erm i n ed t h ati n cert ai n ci rcu m s t an ces , a t ax p ay er’ s s tat edco s tfo r an as s et d o es n o trefl ectth e t ru e eco n o m i c co s to f t h at as s ett o th e t ax p ay er an d wi l l b e i g n o redfo r p u rp o s es o f d et erm i ni n g th e b as i s o f th e as s et

. ” Fo r ex am p le, a s t at edco stm ay

b e i n co ns i s ten t wi t h the el ig i b le p ro p ert y ’ s tru e b as i s “ wh ere a t ran s act i o n i s n o t co n du ct edatarm ’ s -l en g t h b y two eco n o m i cal l y s el f-i n teres t edp art i es o r wh ere a t ran s act io n i s b as ed upo n ‘ pecu l i ar ci rcu m s tan ces ’ wh i ch i n fl u en ce th e p urch as er t o ag ree t o a p ri ce i n ex ces s o f t h e p ro p ert y ’ s fai r m ark etv al u e.”
In o rd er t o en s u re t h ata Sect i o n 1 6 0 3 ap p l i can t ’ s cl ai m edco s t b as i s refl ect s t he el ig i b l e p ro p erty ’ s fai r m ark etv al u e, b as i s i s m o re cl o s el y s cru t i n izedi n cas es i n v ol v i n g rel at ed p art i es , rel at edtran s act io n s , o r o t her u nu s u al ci rcu m s t an ces
. Id

. (fo o tn o tes o m i t ted ).
As s t at ed i n th e qu o t edp as s ag e ab o v e, wh ere a s ect i on 1 6 0 3 p aym en t ap p li cat io n i n v o l v es rel at edp arty co n s id erat i o n s (as i n the i n s t an tcas e), th e ag en cy ’ s rev i ew o f t he ap pl i can t ’ s cl ai m edco s tb as i s m ay i ncl u d e an as s es s m en t o f t h e fai r m ark etv al u e o f t h e el i g ib l e p ro p ert y . Ad di t i o n al l y , th e d ocu m en tg o es o n t o s t at e: Co m

m on ex am

p l es o f rel at ed p arty

o r o t h er u n u s u al ci rcu m s t an ces i n cl u d e: 1

. Own er/ ap p l i can t i s rel at edt o th e

7d ev el o p er, i n s t al l er, o r s upp l i er (co l lect i v el y referred t o as th e “ d ev el o p er”). Th e d ev el o p er m ay

b e a s ep arat e, l eg al l y -o rg an i zedb u s i n es s, b u t th ere i s co m m on o wn ers h i p / co n t ro l

. 2

. Own er/ ap p l i can t i s a p arty t o o n e o r m o re rel at edtran s act i o n s wi t h th e d ev el o p er s u ch th ateco n o m i c i n t eres t s i n th e s p eci fi c t ran s act i o n d et erm i n i n g b as i s m ay n otb e ad v ers e. Fo r ex am

p l e, t h e o wn er/ ap p l i can t p urch as edth e en erg y

p ro p ert y fro m th e d ev el o p er an dl eas edth e p ro p ert y b ackt o t h e d ev el o p er. Wh ere s u ch ci rcu m s t an ces are p res en t , the rev i ew t eam ev al u at es wh et h er t h e cl ai m ed b as i s i s co n si st en twi t h t h e p ro p ert y ’ s fai r m ark etv al u e. As o ne as p ecto f t h i s ev al u at io n, wh ere rel at edtran s act i o n s o r o t h er u n u s u al ci rcu m s t an ces are p res en t , th e rev i ew t eam wi l l co n s id er t h e ap pl ican t ’ s al l o cat i o n o f t h e co s tt o t h e el i gi b l e p ro p ert y , rel at iv e t o o t h er i n el i g i b l e as set s , ri g h t s , o r co n t ract s th atm ay

h av e b een ex p l i ci t l y

o r i m p l i ci t ly co n v ey edi n th e t ran s act i o n(s ). In th i s co nt ex t , th e o wn er/ ap p l i can t m ay

b e as k edt o s ub m i t a m o re d et ai l ed co s t break d o wn . Sp eci fi cal l y , o ri gi n al m an u fact u rer’ s i n v oi ces / co s t s t o th e d ev el o p er s h o ul db e p ro v i d edfo r m ajo r eq u i p m en t , s ub s equ en tm arkup s b y th e d ev el o p er s h o u l d b e en u m erat ed , an dan y m arkup s b y th e o wn er i d en t i fi ed . Th e o wn er m ay al s o s ub m i ta d et ai l edan d cred ib le t h i rd -p art y

ap p rai s al . . . d em o n s t rat in g t h atth e cl ai m edb as i s i s co n s i s ten twi t h a m ark ettran s act i o n b etw een u n rel at edp art i es wi t h ad v ers e eco n om i c i n t eres t s
. Id

. at6 1 (fo o t n o t e o m i t t ed ).

8It is cl ear t h atan y an al y s i s o f “ fai r m ark etv al u e” i n th e co nt ex to f

d et erm i n i n g wh eth er p l ai n t i ff’ s Sect i o n 1 6 0 3 p aym en tap p li cat i o n was p ro p erl y g ran t edrev o l v es aro u n dth e i s s u e o f wh et h er i n ex am i n in g th e co stb as i s o f an ap p li can t ’ s p ro p ert y

th ere were an y

rel at edp art y

o r arm s-l en gt h tran s act i o n co n cern s. It i s al s o cl ear t h atan y fai r m ark etv al u e an al y s es p erfo rm edi n rel at i o n th eret o wo u l den tai l an ex am i n at i o n o f t h e fai r m ark etv al u e o f t h e p r o p er t y co n cern ed . Th ere i s n o i n d icat i o n th at Treas u ry wo u ldat t em

p ta m et a-an al y s i s o f o th er Sect i o n 1 6 0 3 ap p l ican t s ’ d ev el op m en tfee req u es ti n fo rm at i o n i n o rd er t o d et erm i n e t h e fai r m ark etv al u e o f a p art i cu l ar en erg y p ro p ert y
. Th e co u rt n o t es , t o o , t h atth e m as s o f d at a reg ard i n g d ev el o p m en t fees wh i ch Treas u ry

h as accep t edas p ro p er fo r u s e i n es t ab l i sh i n g co s t b as i s i s i rrel ev an tt o th e co u rt ’ s an al y s is h ere. Th is i s a de n o vo p ro ceed i n g – th e rat i o nal i ty

o f Treas u ry ’ s ru l i n g o n p l ai nt i ff’ s Sect i o n 1 6 0 3 ap p l icat io n, as wel l as th e rat io n al i t y

o f i t s ru li n g s o n o t h er u n rel at edSect i on 1 6 0 3 ap p l i cat i o n s , are b ey o n d the s co p e o f p l ai n t iff’ s b u rd en o f p ro o f o r t h e g o v ern m en t ’ s o b l i g at i o n s as d efen d an ti n th i s s u i t. Pl ai n t i ff, fo r ex am p le, can n o trel y

o n th es e ru l i n gs as a m eas u re o f i ts p ro p er co stb as i s
. S ee, e.g
. , Fla. Po wer

& Li gh t Co . v. Un i t ed Sta t es , 5 6 Fed . Cl . 3 2 8 , 3 34 (2 0 0 3 ) (s t at in g th ata t ax “p l ai n t i ff can n o tcl ai m en t i t l em en tt o a p art i cu l ar t ax treat m en to n t h e b as i s o f a ru l i n g i s s u edt o an o t h er t ax p ay er” (ci ti n g H

a no ver Ba n k , 3 6 9 U.S. at6 8 6 )), af f’d , 3 7 5 F.3 d 1 1 1 9 (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 0 4 ). No r can th e g o v ern m en tcl ai m th atTreas u ry ’ s p ract i ce o f accep t in g a cert ai n l ev el o f d ev el o p m en tfees as reas o n ab l e s h o u l dg u i d e t h e co u rt ’ s i n t erp ret at io n o f t h e s t atut e i n t h i s cas e. Th e p art i es ’ arg u m en t s o n co stb as i s m u s t rel y o n fact s rel ev an tt o p lai n t i ff’ s Sect i o n 1 6 03 ap pl icat i o n t o b e p ers u as i v e. Pl ai n t i ff h as fai l edt o s ho w h o wTreas u ry ’ s fi l es reg ard i n g o t h er Sect i o n 1 60 3 ap p li cat io n s are rel ev an to r ev en p o t en t i al l y rel ev an tt o t h i s i n qu i ry
. 3
Tu rn i n g n o wt o th e qu es t i o n o f i m p each m en t , p l ai n t i ff h as n o t ci t ed an y au th o ri ty fo r t he p ro p o s i t i o n t h atp ri o r Treas u ry ru l i n g s are d is co v erab le fo r t h e

3 / Plaintiff’s complaint underscores the irrelevance of Treasury ruling s on prior Section 1603 applications. Companies affiliated with plaintiff are alleg ed to have received five Section 1603 g rants in proportion to the cost bases claimed in the g rant applications. Compl. ¶¶ 14-15. Plaintiff’s g rant, however, was reduced when its claimed cost basis was not allowed. Id. ¶¶ 19-21. Treasury ’s ruling s on the five previous applications mentioned in the complaint have no relevance to plaintiff’s claim here. Similarly, Treasury ’ s ruling s in the 108 Section 1603 applications targ eted by

plaintiff’s motion to compel have no relevance to this suit.

9p u rp os e o f i m p each i n g fu tu re t es t i m o n y fro m Treas u ry em p lo y ees o r ex p ert s reg ard i n g th e co s tb as i s o f ani n v es t m en tp ro pert y . In s t ead , p lai n t i ff rel ies o n two cas es fo r t h e g en eral p ro p o s i t i o n th at“p ri o r i nco n s i s t en t s t at em en ts ” m ay b e u s ed t o i m p each th e cred i b i li t y

o f a wi t n es s
. S

ee Pl .’ s M o t . at8 (ci t i n g U n i t ed Sta t es v. Ha l e , 4 22 U.S. 1 7 1 , 1 7 6 (1 9 7 5 ) an d Gr a n d Aca di a n , In c. v. Un i t ed

Sta t es , 1 0 1 Fed

. Cl

. 3 9 8 , 4 0 5 n
. 1 0 (2 01 1 )); Pl

. ’ s Rep l y at7 (s am e). Nei t h er o f t hes e cas es ad dres s es th e t y

p e o f d i sco veryd i s p u t e p res en t edb y p l ai n t i ff. Ha l e ex am in ed wh et h er a cri m i nal s u s pect ’ s t es t i m o n y co u ldb e i m

p each edb y

ev id en ce o f h i s s i len ce du ri n g a p ol i ce i n t erro g at i o n . Th e Gr a n d Aca di a n fo o t n o te ci t edb y p l ai n t i ff d i s cu s s es th e g en eral ru l e t h atp ri o r i n co n s i s t en ts t at em en t s m ay b e ad m i s s i b l e attri al fo r t h e p u rp os es o f i m p each m en to f a wi t n es s , b utthi s fo o t n o t e d o es no tad dres s t he rel ev an ce o f p ri o r Treas u ry ru l i n g s i n a t ax cas e –

fo r i m p each m en to r fo r an y o t her p u rp o s e.
M o reo v er, t h i s co u rt ’ s ex am i n at io n o f i m p each m en tev i d en ce h as s h o wn th atth e “p ri o r i n co n s i s t en ts t at em en t s ” i m p each m en tt o o l d o es n o tap p l y wh en th e au th o r o f t he p ri o r i n co n s is t en t s t at em en t s i s n o tth e s am e as th e t es t i fy i n g wi t n es s
. S ee Fis h er v. Un i ted Sta t es , 7 8 Fed . Cl . 7 1 0 , 7 1 2 (2 00 7 ) (“ Th e ev i den t i ary ru l es d o n o tal l ow fo r i m

peach m en to f anex p ertwi t n es s b y s t at em en t s m ad e b y

s o m eo n e el s e t hatare co n t ai n edi n a rep o rt .”) (ci t at i o n o m it t ed ). Pl ai n t i ff h as n o t es t ab l i s h edth ats t at em en t s reg ard i n g p ri o r d ev el o p m en t fee al lo w an ces b y Treas u ry wo u l dh av e b een m ad e b y an y wi t n es s th atm i g h t b e cal l ed i n th i s s u i t

. Th e co u rtth erefo re s ees n o l o g i cal co nn ect i o n b et ween Treas u ry ’ s p ri o r fi n d i n g s reg ard i n g 1 0 8 Sect i o n 1 6 0 3 ap p l i cat i o n s an d t h e i m p each m en to f g o v ern m en t wi tn es s es i n th i s cas e. Bo t h o f p lai n t i ff’ s arg u m en t s reg ard i n g th e rel ev an ce o r ev en th e p o t en t i al rel ev an ce o f t h e i n fo rm at io n s o u g h ti n i t s i n t erro g at o ri es fai l . Th e p art i es m u s t n eces s ari l y

fo cu s o n t h e s p eci fi c fact s o f t h i s cas e rat h er t h ano n an y al l eg ed p at t ern s i n th e d i s p o si t i o n b y Treas u ry o f 1 0 8 Sect io n 1 6 0 3 g ran tap p li cat i o n s
. Becau s e th e i n fo rm at i o n s o u g h ti n p l ai n ti ff’ s i nt erro g at o ri es i s n o trel ev an t , d efen d an tn eed no tp ro v id e an y m o re s p eci fi c res p o n s es t o p l ai n t i ff’ s i n t erro g at o ri es th an th o s e al read y p ro vi d ed

. I I . Undul y Burdens o m e Di s co v ery Th e g o v ern m en to p p o s es p lai n t i ff’ s m o t i o n o n an o t h er g ro u n d– th atfu l l

10res p o n s es t o p l ai n t iff’ s i n t erro g at o ri es wo u l db e u n du l y b u rd en s o m e o n Treas u ry
. Pl ai n t i ff arg ues th atrel ev an ce an d b u rd en m u st b e wei gh edag ai n s teach o th er:
“ [T] h e Co u rtm

u s tco n s id er n o ts i m

pl y wh et h er t h e req u es t s are b u rd en so m e, b u t wh et h er ‘ t h e b u rd en o r ex p en s e o f th e p ro po s edd i s co v ery o ut wei g h s i t s l ik el y b en efi t , co ns id eri n g th e n eed s o f t h e cas e, t he am o u n t i n co n tro v ers y , th e p art i es ’ res o u rces , th e i m

p o rt an ce o f th e i s s u es ats t ak e i n th e act i o n , an d t h e i m p o rt an ce o f th e d i s co v ery

i n res o l v i n g th e i s s u es .’ ” Pl .’ s M o t . at1 1 (qu ot i n g RCFC 2 6 (b )(2 )(C)). W h en a co u rth as d et erm i nedth atth e req u es t edd i s co v ery i s n o t rel ev an t , h owev er, d i s co v ery i n th e fo rm o f m ere s p ecu lat i v e i nqu i ri es m ay an d s h o u ldb e d en i edb y

th e co u rt

. Mi cr o Mo t io n , In c. v. Ka n e Steel Co

. , 8 9 4 F.2 d 1 3 1 8 , 1 3 2 6 -2 8 (Fed . Ci r. 1 9 90 ). Becau s e t h e d i s co v ery s o u g h tb y

p l ai n t i ff i s i rrel ev an t , th e b u rd en s o m e n ature o f t h e d is co v ery req ues t edn eces s ari l y o u twei gh s an y

o t her fact o rs i n th e an al y si s. Ev en i f s o m e o f t h e i n fo rm at i o n req ues t ed i n p l ai n t i ff’ s i n t erro g at ori es co u ldb e co n si d eredt o b e o f t an g en t i al rel ev an ce t o t h e co s tb as i s i ss u e i n t h i s s u i t , d efen d an th as s ub m i t t edan affi d av i tas t o th e o n ero u s b u rd en i two ul dp l ace o n th e g o vern m en tt o m i n e 1 0 8 Sect i o n 1 6 0 3 ap p l i cat i o ns fo r t h e d at a requ es t edb y p l ai n t i ff. S

ee Def.’ s Op p. Ex . C. Acco rd i n g t o th is affi d av i t , i two u ldb e ex trem el y d i ffi cu ltt o ex t ract i nfo rm at i o n reg ard i n g cl ai m edan d al l o wed d ev el o p m en tfees fro m

th es e 1 0 8 Sect i o n 1 6 0 3 ap p li cat i o n s
. Id

. Ex . C ¶¶ 4 -5

. Al s o , acco rd i n g t o th i s affi dav i t , Treas u ry wo u l d b e u n ab l e t o rep o rt t h i s i n fo rm at i o n i n a way wh i ch wo u l db e o f an y v al u e t o ei t h er p l ai n t iff o r t he co u rt , du e t o th e am o u n to f v ari ab i li t y i n t h e d at a i ncl u d edi n th e Sect i o n 1 6 0 3 ap p li cat io n s fo r t h e v ari ou s wi n dp o wer faci l i t i es
. Id

. Ex . C. ¶¶ 6 -9 . Pl ai n t i ff res p o n d s t h atcert ai n cat eg o ri es o f i n fo rm at i o n i n t h e ap p l icat i o ns are eas i er t o co m p i le t h an o t h ers , an dth atth e v ari at io n s i n acco un t i n g cat eg o ri es am o n g th e wi n d p o wer faci l i ty

ap pl i cat i on s s ho u l d n o t ab so l v e th e g o v ern m en tfro m res p o n d in g t o p l ai n t i ff’ s i n terro g at o ri es . Pl .’ s Rep l y at3 -7 . Hav i n g co n s id ered b o th p art i es ’ arg u m en t s as t o th e b u rd en i m p o s edb y p l ai n t i ff’ s i n t erro gat o ri es , th e co u rtco n cl u d es th atth e b u rd en o n th e g o v ern m en ts i g n i fi can tl y o ut wei g h s th e p o t en t i al u t i l i t y

o f t h ati n fo rm at i o n i n d ev el o p i n g an y rel ev an to r p o t en t i al l y rel ev an t arg u m en t s t h at m i g h tb e p res en tedi n th is cas e. Pl ai n t i ff al s o rai ses the i s s u e o f i ts o wn l i m i t edres o u rces t o co m p i l e “ fai r m ark etv al u e” d at a co n cern i n g d ev el o p m en tfees , as co m p aredt o th e g o v ern m en t ’ s s t o ck

p i l e o f accu m

u lat edd at a fro m Sect i o n 1 6 03 ap pl i cat i o n s
. S ee
11Pl .’ s M o t . at1 1 (“ To al l ow t h e Go v ern m en tt o h av e p o s s es s i o n an d u s e o f

[i nfo rm at i o n wh ich co n cern s th e fai r m ark etv al u e o f p l ai n t i ff’ s d ev el o p m en tfee] wh i le p ro h i b i t in g the Pl ai n ti ff fro m d o in g t h e s am e wo u l db e fu n d am en t al l y u n fai r an d v i ol at e t h e l et ter an ds p i ri t o f RCFC 2 6 .”); Pl

. ’ s Rep l y at 3 (“ Ev en aft er n eed les s l y

ex p en d i n g res o u rces i n v es t ig at i ng h u n dred s o f p ubl i c s o u rces , th erefo re, Pl ai n t i ff s t il l wo u l d n o th av e acces s t o t he s am e i n fo rm at io n th ati s read i l y av ai l ab l e t o Defen dan t .”). Al th o u gh i ti s cert ai n l y tru e t h atth e g ov ern m en t p o s s es s es 1 0 8 co n fi d en t i al Sect i o n 1 6 0 3 ap p l icat i o n s an dp l ai n t i ff i s n o ti n th at s am e p o s i t i o n , th e n o t ed“ i m b al an ce” i n acces s t o d at a i s , i n th i s co u rt ’ s v i ew, a redh erri ng
. 4 Th e co s tb as i s o f p l ai n t i ff’ s wi n d p ower faci l i t y wi l l b e es tab l i s h ed b y th e ev i d en ce p res en t edb y th e p art i es wh i ch rel at es s p eci fi cal l y t o p l ai n t i ff’ s faci li ty
. 5 To t h e ex t en tth at“ fai r m ark etv al u e” o f d ev el o p m en tfees ev i d en ce m ay b e p res en t edb y

ei t h er p arty

i n ex p erto p i n i o n , th i s co urt ’ s d i s co v ery ru l es en s u re fai rn es s i n acces s t o d at a u n d erl y i n g ex p ertt es t i m o n y
. E.g

. , Ba n ks v. Un i t ed Sta t es , 7 5 Fed . Cl . 2 9 4 , 2 98 -9 9 (2 0 0 7 ); s ee RCFC 2 6(a)(2 ). Fo r al l o f th es e reas on s , th e co u rt fi n d s th atth e b u rd en o n t h e g o vern m en t i s t o o g reat t o req u i re m o re ex pan s i v e res p on s es t o p l ai n t i ff’ s i n t erro g at ori es
. I I I . Di s s i m i l a r Fa ct Di s co v ery Reg a rdi ng Pl ai nti ff’s Affi l i a ted Co m pa ni es Th e l as tp o i n tt o b e ad dres s edi s p l ai n t i ff’ s co n t en t io n th ati two ul db e
“ eg reg i o u s ” fo r d efen d an tt o b e p erm i t t edex t en si v e d i s co v ery reg ard i n g th e affi l i at edco m

p an i es o f p l ai n t i ff an dth ei r wi n dp o wer p ro ject s , i f p l ai n t i ff i s n o t p erm i t t edt o ex t ract s i m i l arl y ex p an s i v e d at a fro m

Treas u ry ’ s Sect i o n 1 6 0 3 ap p li cat io n s . Pl .’ s M o t . at7 n .2 ; s ee Pl

. ’ s Rep l y at6 (“ D efen dan tal s o h as i n s i s t ed o n . . . ex p an s i v e t h i rd -p art y d i s co v ery

fro m Pl ai n t i ff’ s p aren ts an daffi l i at es

4 / The g overnment arg

u es that plaintiff and its affiliated companies possess substantial amounts of information reg ardingdevelopment fees and investments in wind power facilities. Def.’s Opp. at 6.

5 / Plaintiff sug g ests that because the g overnment alleg edly relied upon data from other Section 1603 g rant applications in order to determine the cost basis of plaintiff’s wind power facility , that data is relevant to the issues in this suit. Pl.’s Mot. at 10; Pl.’s Reply at 4 & n.2. The court, however, does not review the go vernment’s administrative consideration of plaintiff’s Section 1603 g rant application in this de novo proceeding . The court’s inquiry , instead, focuses on the evidence of the cost basis of plaintiff’s wind power facility. As previously stated, the analy tical framework utiliz ed by Treasury in determiningplaintiff’s Section 1603 grant is not a relevant factor for determining the proper cost basis of plaintiff’s wind power facility

.

12reg ard i n g d o zen s o f o t h er wi nden erg y p ro p ert i es wi t h l i t t l e i f an y rel ev an ce t o thi s cas e.”). Th e co m

p ari s o n o f t h es e d i s co veryeffo rt s i s i nap p o s i t e. On e o f t h e i s su es p res en t edi n th i s cas e rev ol v es aro u ndth e d ev el o pm en t fee p ai db y

a s ub s id i ary

t o a p aren tco rp o rat i on th at i s i n v o lv edi n a g reat n u m b er o f wi n dp o w er p ro

ject s. Th e am o u n to f t h e fee an d t he fi n an ci al i nv es t m en t s i n p l ai n t i ff’ s wi n d p o wer p ro jecth av e a d i rect co n n ect io n t o the fi n an ci al rel at i o n s h i p s am o n g th e affi li at edco m pan i es . Th e rel ev an ce o f t h es e p art i cu l ar wi n d p o wer p ro

ject s an dth e fi n an ci al rel at i o n s h i p s am o n g th o se rel at ed b u s i n es s en t i t i es i s cl ear. Pl ai n t i ff, o n th e o t h er h an d , as k s Treas u ry t o an al y ze co m

pl ex fi n an ci al i n v es t m en t s o f co m

p an i es wh ol l y

u n rel at edt o p l ai n t i ff i n o rd er t o es t ab l i s h s o m e ty p e o f b en ch m ark fo r t h e fai r m ark etv al u e o f d ev el o p m en tfees i n th e wi n d p o wer i n du s try . No to nl y i s t h e req ues t edan al y s i s b urd en s om e an du nl i k el y t o p ro v id e m ean i n g fu l res u l t s , the d at a ret ri ev edwo u l dn o tas s i s t th e co u rti n i t s t as k o f d et erm i ni n g th e co s t b as i s o f t h i s p art i cu l ar wi n dp o wer faci l i t y
. Th e co u rt ’ s fo cu s i n th i s s u i ti s n o to n al l wi n dp o wer faci l i t i es – i ti s o n p l ai n t i ff’ s wi ndp o wer faci li ty
. It is n ei t h er i m

b al an cedn o r i m

pro p er fo r t h e co urtt o p erm i t rel ev an t d i s co v ery an dt o res t rai n i rrel ev an td i s co v ery . Fu rt herm o re, al t h ou g h p l ai n t i ff m ay i n d eedh av e m o re v o l um i no u s co rp o rat e an dacco u n ti n g reco rd s t o p ro du ce th an th e d o cu m en t s wh i ch th e g o v ern m en tm u s t p ro du ce, t h e d i sco v ery p erm i t t ed d efen d an th as n o tb een s h own t o b e d i s p ro p o rt i o n at e t o t h e co m p l ex i t y o f t h e fi nan ci al rel at i on s h i p s ati s s u e i n thi s co s tb as i s d i s p u t e. Th e co u rt m u s treject p l ai n t i ff’ s co n t en ti o n thatthe p art i es h av e n o tb een p erm i t tedequ i val en tacces s t o rel ev an t o r p o t en t i al l y

rel ev an td i s co v ery
.

CONCLUSI ON
Fo r t h e fo reg o i n g reas o n s , i ti s h ereb y ORDERED th atPl ai nt i ff’ s M o t i o n t o Co m p el Res p o n s es t o In t erro g at o ri es , fi l ed Sep tem ber 3 0, 2 0 1 5 , i s DENI ED

. / s / Ly n n J . Bu s h LYNN J . BUSH Sen i o r Ju d g e
13