Popovich v. Indiana Department of State Revenue
2016 Ind. Tax LEXIS 6
| Ind. T.C. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Popovich requested $51,210.29 in expenses for successfully prosecuting his first motion to compel.
- The dispute references Popovich I (7 N.E.3d 406 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2014)).
- An October 22, 2014 hearing addressed Indiana Trial Rule 37(A)(4) expenses.
- The Department of State Revenue had raised about 418 discovery objections.
- A February 20, 2012 order required a discrete, numbered list of items the Department sought to protect from discovery.
- The court awarded Popovich $24,963.00 for reasonable expenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Department’s opposition was substantially justified. | Popovich contends Department’s blanket objections were unjustified. | Department argues some objections were substantially justified and supported by authority. | Partially: three objections were substantially justified; blanket objections were not. |
| Whether Popovich’s expense request was reasonable in amount. | Popovich seeks full $51,210.29 for the first motion to compel. | Amount inflated; time frame and unrelated case entries undermine reasonableness. | Expense award reduced; Department must pay $24,963.00. |
Key Cases Cited
- Penn Cent. Corp. v. Buchanan, 712 N.E.2d 508 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (presumption of expense reimbursement for successful discovery motions)
- Georgetown Steel Corp. v. Chaffee, 519 N.E.2d 574 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988) (discovery sanctions context; instruction on expenses)
- Ledden v. Kuzma, 858 N.E.2d 186 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (substantial justification standard; reasonable issue exists)
- Popovich I, 7 N.E.3d 406 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2014) (discovery protections; relevance of objections; framework for fees)
- Munsell v. Hambright, 776 N.E.2d 1272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (existence and scope of discovery rights)
- Brown v. Katz, 868 N.E.2d 1159 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (sufficiency of articulating objections in discovery)
- Noble Cnty v. Rogers, 745 N.E.2d 194 (Ind. 2001) (sanctions for discovery violations; range of awards)
- State v. Kuespert, 411 N.E.2d 435 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980) (principles supporting sanctions framework)
- Hatfield v. Edward J. DeBartolo Corp., 676 N.E.2d 395 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (broad discretion in discovery rulings and sanctions)