United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius, 234 F. Supp. 3d 115

This is an in rem civil forfeiture action seeking over $250 million in foreign bank accounts allegedly traceable to Pavel Lazarenko’s criminal conduct in the 1990s.
The United States served Requests for Production Nos. 28 and 29 seeking Lazarenko’s tax returns, FBARs, financial disclosures, and other records from 1992 to the present.
Lazarenko objected, asserting overbreadth, relevance limits, and confidentiality concerns under 26 U.S.C. § 6103; he also contended he lacked records for 1992–1999 and that post-1999 records are irrelevant.
Magistrate Judge Harvey ordered production in part: records from 1992–1999 are relevant to both forfeitability and standing; records from 2000–present are relevant to standing and therefore discoverable; tax records are not privileged but are subject to protective measures.
Lazarenko filed objections to the magistrate judge’s order. The district court reviewed for clear error or law and affirmed the magistrate judge, overruling Lazarenko’s objections and ordering production by a set deadline.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are Lazarenko’s tax and financial records from 1992–1999 discoverable?	Records are relevant to forfeitability and standing; should be produced.	Many records unavailable; general objections; confidentiality.	Yes. Records 1992–1999 are relevant to forfeitability and standing and must be produced.
Are records from 2000–present discoverable?	Relevant to contesting Lazarenko’s asserted interest/standing; discovery permitted under Rule 26.	Standing is not in dispute, so post-1999 tax records are unnecessary and public policy disfavors production.	Yes. Records 2000–present relevant to standing and discoverable under Rule 26.
Is the 1999 tax year relevant to forfeitability or only to standing?	United contends 1999 transactions are tied to alleged criminal acts and thus relevant to forfeitability.	Lazarenko argues 1999 should be grouped with post-2000 because he was not a public official in 1999.	1999 records may relate to alleged 1999 criminal transactions; included with 1992–1999 as relevant to forfeitability.
Do public policy/confidentiality concerns (including § 6103) bar production of tax records?	Protective order and defendant production satisfy confidentiality limits; United has compelling need because IRS cannot disclose returns to government.	§ 6103 and privacy/public policy weigh against compelled production.	No. Court finds a compelling need and protective order mitigates confidentiality concerns; production ordered.

Food Lion v. United Food & Commercial Workers Int’l Union, 103 F.3d 1007 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (broad scope of discovery under Rule 26)
United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius, Baer & Co., Ltd., 959 F. Supp. 2d 81 (D.D.C. 2013) (discussing standing and Supplemental Rules in forfeiture context)
United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius Baer & Co., Ltd., 142 F. Supp. 3d 37 (D.D.C. 2015) (magistrate judge’s discovery order reviewed and affirmed)
Robinson v. Duncan, 255 F.R.D. 300 (D.D.C. 2009) (test for disclosure of tax returns: relevance and compelling need)
Stokwitz v. United States, 831 F.2d 893 (9th Cir. 1987) (protective orders can preserve confidentiality of tax information)
United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (Sup. Ct. 1948) (standard for clear error review)