3:13-cv-02062
N.D. Cal.Dec 23, 2013Background
- This is an in rem forfeiture action under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7) concerning real property at 2441 Mission Street, San Francisco.
- The United States alleges SHC operates a marijuana store on the property in violation of federal narcotics laws.
- Ebrahim and Valintin Poura are owners of the property; Kristine Keifer and Khader Al Shawa are alleged SHC proprietors.
- The United States filed a forfeiture notice on May 6, 2013, with multiple parties filing claims thereafter.
- On September 24, 2013 the United States served a subpoena on the California State Board of Equalization (BOE) seeking SHC records; SHC moved to quash on December 6, 2013.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SHC’s tax records are discoverable in this forfeiture case. | United States contends tax records show nexus to alleged marijuana activity and may relate to excessive fines defenses. | SHC argues tax returns are protected and not shown to be relevant or obtainable from other sources. | Tax records are relevant; production denied only if burden outweighs benefit. |
| Whether the subpoena to BOE should be quashed for undue burden or improper scope. | United States asserts reasonable scope and need for records from SHC-related tax activity. | SHC claims burden and lack of compelling need; other sources not shown. | Court denies motion to quash; records must be produced. |
Key Cases Cited
- Premium Service Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225 (9th Cir. 1975) (tax returns not absolutely privileged; need must be compelling and relevant)
- Moon v. SCP Pool Corp., 232 F.R.D. 633 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (district court discovery control; undue burden factors considered)
- In re Apple Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66669 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (discovery scope and protective orders under Rule 45)
- Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681 (9th Cir. 1988) (district court has wide discretion in controlling discovery; abuse of discretion standard)
- S.E.C. v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 656 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (Rule 45(d)(3) protections and quashing subpoenas for undue burden)