Kappesser v. Northwest Treatment Services Inc

W.D. Washington

Kappesser v. Northwest Treatment Services Inc

DecidedSeptember 27, 2022

Docket3:21-cv-05590

StatusUnknown

This text of Kappesser v. Northwest Treatment Services Inc (Kappesser v. Northwest Treatment Services Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kappesser v. Northwest Treatment Services Inc, (W.D. Wash. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 KYNDRA KAPPESSER, Case No. C21-5590 TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER 8 NORTHWEST TREATMENT SERVICES 9 INC, 10 Defendants. 11 This matter comes before the Court on defendant’s motion to compel discovery. 12 Dkt. 33. Specifically, defendant seeks plaintiff’s state and federal tax returns. Plaintiff 13 objected to defendant’s request on the grounds that it was overly broad in time and 14 scope, and irrelevant because plaintiff is not claiming lost wages. Id. at 2. 15 Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of Washington’s Health Care Act, Medicaid 16 Fraud False Claims Act, and wrongful discharge. Dkt. 1. Pursuant to plaintiff’s 17 responses to defendant’s requests for production, plaintiff is not seeking lost wages. 18 Dkt. 38-1 at 1-2. 19 Defendant nonetheless argues that plaintiff’s tax returns are relevant for plaintiff’s 20 request for emotional distress damages. Because plaintiff is allegedly earning more 21 money with their new employer after being terminated, defendant asserts the tax 22 records are relevant to the issue of whether plaintiff has suffered emotional distress. 23 24 1 Plaintiff argues the fact that plaintiff may be earning more money with their new 2 employer should be of no consequence to their emotional distress claim against 3 defendant – their prior employer. The Court agrees. 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (b)(1) provides:

5 Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter 6 that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the 7 action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in 8 resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of 9 discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

10 “Tax returns do not enjoy an absolute privilege from discovery. Nevertheless, a 11 public policy against unnecessary public disclosure arises from the need, if the tax laws 12 are to function properly, to encourage taxpayers to file complete and accurate 13 returns.” Premium Serv. Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 14 1975) (internal citations omitted). An order compelling production of plaintiff's tax returns 15 may be issued if they are relevant and when there is a compelling need for them 16 because the information sought is not otherwise available. See Aliotti v. Vessel 17 SENORA, 217 F.R.D. 496, 497-98 (N.D. Cal. 2003). 18 Defendant has not shown the wage information in plaintiff's tax returns is 19 relevant, and not privileged. 20 Plaintiff has not placed lost earnings in controversy. Defendant relies on Besco v. 21 City of Longview, No. 2016 WL 1077366 (W.D. Was. Mar. 18, 2016) to support its 22 argument that the Court should compel plaintiff to produce their tax returns. However, in 23 that case, plaintiff had placed lost earnings in controversy with respect to his Americans 24 1 with Disabilities Act claim in which he specifically sought recovery of lost employment 2 compensation, lost employment benefits, and emotional distress damages from 3 defendant. Id. at 3. In this case, the plaintiff has abandoned her request for lost wages. 4 Dkt. 38-1 at 1-2. Moreover, even if plaintiff sought the remedy of lost wages, there are

5 other documents (such as the responses that plaintiff provided to defendant’s 6 interrogatory No. 16, Dkt. 37-1) that would provide the information defendant seeks. 7 Thus, for the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion to compel is DENIED. 8 9 Dated this 27th day of September, 2022. 10 11 A 12 Theresa L. Fricke 13 United States Magistrate Judge

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 KYNDRA KAPPESSER, Case No. C21-5590 TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER 8 NORTHWEST TREATMENT SERVICES 9 INC, 10 Defendants. 11 This matter comes before the Court on defendant’s motion to compel discovery. 12 Dkt. 33. Specifically, defendant seeks plaintiff’s state and federal tax returns. Plaintiff 13 objected to defendant’s request on the grounds that it was overly broad in time and 14 scope, and irrelevant because plaintiff is not claiming lost wages. Id. at 2. 15 Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of Washington’s Health Care Act, Medicaid 16 Fraud False Claims Act, and wrongful discharge. Dkt. 1. Pursuant to plaintiff’s 17 responses to defendant’s requests for production, plaintiff is not seeking lost wages. 18 Dkt. 38-1 at 1-2. 19 Defendant nonetheless argues that plaintiff’s tax returns are relevant for plaintiff’s 20 request for emotional distress damages. Because plaintiff is allegedly earning more 21 money with their new employer after being terminated, defendant asserts the tax 22 records are relevant to the issue of whether plaintiff has suffered emotional distress. 23 24 1 Plaintiff argues the fact that plaintiff may be earning more money with their new 2 employer should be of no consequence to their emotional distress claim against 3 defendant – their prior employer. The Court agrees. 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (b)(1) provides:

5 Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter 6 that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the 7 action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in 8 resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of 9 discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

10 “Tax returns do not enjoy an absolute privilege from discovery. Nevertheless, a 11 public policy against unnecessary public disclosure arises from the need, if the tax laws 12 are to function properly, to encourage taxpayers to file complete and accurate 13 returns.” Premium Serv. Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 14 1975) (internal citations omitted). An order compelling production of plaintiff's tax returns 15 may be issued if they are relevant and when there is a compelling need for them 16 because the information sought is not otherwise available. See Aliotti v. Vessel 17 SENORA, 217 F.R.D. 496, 497-98 (N.D. Cal. 2003). 18 Defendant has not shown the wage information in plaintiff's tax returns is 19 relevant, and not privileged. 20 Plaintiff has not placed lost earnings in controversy. Defendant relies on Besco v. 21 City of Longview, No. 2016 WL 1077366 (W.D. Was. Mar. 18, 2016) to support its 22 argument that the Court should compel plaintiff to produce their tax returns. However, in 23 that case, plaintiff had placed lost earnings in controversy with respect to his Americans 24 1 with Disabilities Act claim in which he specifically sought recovery of lost employment 2 compensation, lost employment benefits, and emotional distress damages from 3 defendant. Id. at 3. In this case, the plaintiff has abandoned her request for lost wages. 4 Dkt. 38-1 at 1-2. Moreover, even if plaintiff sought the remedy of lost wages, there are

5 other documents (such as the responses that plaintiff provided to defendant’s 6 interrogatory No. 16, Dkt. 37-1) that would provide the information defendant seeks. 7 Thus, for the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion to compel is DENIED. 8 9 Dated this 27th day of September, 2022. 10 11 A 12 Theresa L. Fricke 13 United States Magistrate Judge

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kappesser v. Northwest Treatment Services Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kappesser-v-northwest-treatment-services-inc-wawd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack