Matthew D. Van Steenwyk, Individually, as Trustee and Beneficiary of The Matthew Van Steenwyk GST Trust and The Matthew Van Steenwyk Issue Trust, and as Co-Trustee of The Gretchen Marie Van Steenwyk-Marsh GST Trust and The Gretchen Marie Van Steenwyk-Marsh Issue Trust and derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendants Applied Technologies Associates, Inc., Scientific Drilling International, Inc. and ATA Ranches, Inc. v. Kedrin E. Van Steenwyk, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California amended its memorandum decision and order granting in part the plaintiff’s motion to compel post-judgment discovery. The court held that the probate exception did not bar federal post-judgment discovery and that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(2) permitted discovery under the Federal Rules. The court sustained, without prejudice, objections to discovery seeking tax returns and related information under California’s tax-return privilege, and declined to award expenses.

Holdings

1. The probate exception to federal jurisdiction did not apply because the requested discovery did not require the court to probate or annul a will, administer a decedent's estate, or assume in rem jurisdiction over property in the custody of a probate court.
2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(2) permitted Plaintiff to use interrogatories and requests for production under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to obtain post-judgment discovery in aid of execution.
3. Plaintiff did not meet his burden to establish an exception to California's tax-return privilege, so the motion to compel was denied without prejudice as to requests seeking tax-return information and related documents.
4. The court declined to award expenses in connection with the motion to compel.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the probate exception to federal jurisdiction barred post-judgment discovery in aid of execution.
2. Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(2) permitted Plaintiff to use federal discovery procedures notwithstanding state-law procedures governing execution of the judgment.
3. Whether Plaintiff established an exception to California's tax-return privilege for discovery of tax returns and related documents.
4. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to an award of expenses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(C).

Disposition

other