I thought I’d cover an order in Cullum v. Diamond A Hunting, Inc. since taxes are the topic du jour. On January 21, Magistrate Judge Nowak of the Western District of Texas addressed the issue of whether defendants in a copyright action must comply with a subpoena for federal income tax returns. The defendants had sought a protective order on the grounds of “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense” (F.R.C.P. 26(c)) and relevancy.
Stated the court:
The defendants argue that their gross revenues reflected on the tax documents are attributable to a number of activities which include but are not limited to hunting leases and seminars. They argue that the revenues from the various activities are commingled on the tax returns and include revenues unrelated to hunting and seminars, and therefore render the tax returns non-discoverable. While that may be true, plaintiff is entitled to information bearing on defendants’ revenue for these years and the tax statements may contain the level of detail necessary to determine the revenues from those specific activities. Additionally, those returns may contain information concerning deductible expenses.
However, the Court held that it would review the returns in camera to determine if the documents were relevant and discoverable, and that any discovery ordered would be subject to a confidentiality agreement.
Documents:
Cullum v. Diamond A. Hungting, Inc. , 07 cv 0056 WWJ, 2009 WL 159589 (W.D. Tex. Jan 21, 2009).
Counsel:
Cullum: Law Office of Delphine James, PLLC (Houston, TX).
Diamond A. Hunting, Inc.: Nunley, Jolley, Cluck, Aelvoet, LLP (Boerne, TX).
Recent scholarship from the 
