ILNews

Tax Court grants partial reimbursement on discovery enforcement motions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Tax Court has awarded reimbursement fees to both the University of Phoenix Inc. and the Indiana Department of State Revenue after finding that the two entities were entitled to reimbursement on some, though not all, of the discovery enforcement motions filed in their litigation.

After the University of Phoenix served a non-party subpoena to the former commissioner of the Department of Revenue in October 2016, the department moved for a protective order explaining that information in the 2015 House Bill 1349, September 2014 Tax Competitiveness and Simplification Report and a presentation of the report were not relevant and was most likely obtainable from “lesser-ranking officials.” Although Indiana Tax Court Judge Martha Blood Wentworth initially quashed the subpoena, she later allowed the university to depose the former commissioner in November 2016 despite the department’s filing of a second protective order.

However, before the November 2016 decision was handed down, the university had already filed a discovery enforcement motion seeking to compel the department to produce documents regarding the deposition topics. Wentworth granted and denied in part that request earlier this month.

Additionally, in January 2017, the Tax Court conducted an evidentiary hearing on both parties’ requests for expenses under Trial Rule 37(A)(4), and in a Thursday order, Wentworth granted reimbursement expenses to both litigants totaling more than $20,000.

Under Rule 37(A)(4), when a court grants or denies a discovery enforcement motion, the party who necessitated the motion or the party advising such conduct, or both, are required to pay the “reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order” to the moving party. Thus, the question in this case was whether both the university and the department were entitled to reimbursement for successfully resisting their opponent’s discovery enforcement motions or prosecuting their own, either in whole or in part, Wentworth wrote Thursday.

A reasonable person could have concluded that there was a genuine issue as to whether the department was bound to comply with the university’s request to depose the former commissioner, the judge wrote, so it was substantially justified in filing its first motion for protective order. However, because that motion was denied and because the department merely re-stated the same legal arguments in its second motion for a protective order, it was not justified in filing for a protective order a second time.

Similarly, Wentworth wrote that the university was not justified in filing its motion to compel because there existed a genuine issue as to whether it was entitled to its requested discovery.

Although the University of Phoenix had requested $159,446.40 in reimbursement expenses, Wentworth opted to award the school $9,850.50 because it was not entitled to reimbursement on the first motion for protective order or its motion to compel. Additionally, she awarded the state Department of Revenue with a reimbursement of $12,900 for resisting the motion to compel.

The case is The University of Phoenix, Inc. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue, 49T10-1411-TA-00065.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. @BryanJBrown, You are totally correct. I have no words, you nailed it.....

  2. You have not overstated the reality of the present situation. The government inquisitor in my case, who demanded that I, on the record, to choose between obedience to God's law or man's law, remains on the BLE, even an officer of the BLE, and was recently renewed in her contract for another four years. She has a long history in advancing LGBQT rights. http://www.realjock.com/article/1071 THINK WITH ME: What if a currently serving BLE officer or analogous court official (ie discplinary officer) asked an atheist to affirm the Existence, or demanded a transsexual to undergo a mental evaluation to probe his/her alleged mindcrime? That would end a career. The double standard is glaring, see the troubling question used to ban me for life from the Ind bar right here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners (see page 8 of 21) Again, what if I had been a homosexual rights activist before law school rather than a prolife activist? A gay rights activist after law school admitted to the SCOTUS and Kansas since 1996, without discipline? A homosexual rights activist who had argued before half the federal appellate courts in the country? I am pretty certain that had I been that LGBQT activist, and not a pro-life activist, my passing of the Indiana bar exam would have rendered me an Indiana attorney .... rather than forever banished. So yes, there is a glaring double standard. And some are even beyond the reach of constitutional and statutory protections. I was.

  3. Historically speaking pagans devalue children and worship animals. How close are we? Consider the ruling above plus today's tidbit from the politically correct high Court: http://indianacourts.us/times/2016/12/are-you-asking-the-right-questions-intimate-partner-violence-and-pet-abuse/

  4. The father is a convicted of spousal abuse. 2 restaining orders been put on him, never made any difference the whole time she was there. The time he choked the mother she dropped the baby the police were called. That was the only time he was taken away. The mother was suppose to have been notified when he was released no call was ever made. He made his way back, kicked the door open and terrified the mother. She ran down the hallway and locked herself and the baby in the bathroom called 911. The police came and said there was nothing they could do (the policeman was a old friend from highschool, good ole boy thing).They told her he could burn the place down as long as she wasn't in it.The mother got another resataining order, the judge told her if you were my daughter I would tell you to leave. So she did. He told her "If you ever leave me I will make your life hell, you don't know who your f!@#$%^ with". The fathers other 2 grown children from his 1st exwife havent spoke 1 word to him in almost 15yrs not 1 word.This is what will be a forsure nightmare for this little girl who is in the hands of pillar of the community. Totally corrupt system. Where I come from I would be in jail not only for that but non payment of child support. Unbelievably pitiful...

  5. dsm 5 indicates that a lot of kids with gender dysphoria grow out of it. so is it really a good idea to encourage gender reassignment? Perhaps that should wait for the age of majority. I don't question the compassionate motives of many of the trans-advocates, but I do question their wisdom. Likewise, they should not question the compassion of those whose potty policies differ. too often, any opposition to the official GLBT agenda is instantly denounced as "homophobia" etc.

ADVERTISEMENT