[United Kingdom][Discovery motion to compel granted]
Rothman v Rothman 2022 WL
20208933 ( N.D. California,2022)
Petitioner objected on relevance grounds to the production of documents
responsive to the following discovery requests: Documents sufficient to show
all real or personal property possessed by you, any corporate entity in which you
hold at least a 50% ownership interest, or any trust for which you are either a
settlor or beneficiary, which property was located within California between
August 2020 and the present.; Any state
and federal tax returns filed by you in the United States for the years of 2020
and 2021; Any filings or submissions provided, or representations made, to any
authority of the United Kingdom or any political entity therein with
responsibility for taxation of income or assets. The relevant time period for
this request was any year for which income obtained between January 1, 2020,
and December 31, 2021, would be relevant to such filings, submissions, or
representations. The Court held that Courts regularly consider tax return
evidence in determining habitual residence under the Hague Convention. See,
e.g., Silverman
v. Silverman, 338 F.3d 886, 890 (8th Cir. 2003); Foster
v. Foster, 429 F. Supp. 3d 589, 599, 609 (W.D. Wis. 2019); Hofmann
v. Sender, 716 F.3d 282, 287-88 (2d Cir. 2013); Wild
v. Eliot, 147 F. Supp. 3d 49, 51 (D. Conn. 2015); Sorenson
v. Sorenson, 563 F. Supp. 2d 961, 965 (D. Minn. 2008). Similarly, ownership by one or both parents
of property within the jurisdiction can be a relevant consideration. Gaudin
v. Remis, 379 F.3d 631, 635 (9th Cir. 2004); Smith
v. Smith, 976 F.3d 558, 560 (5th Cir. 2020). The Court concluded that the information
sought by the Respondent was relevant and discoverable. The respondent’s motion to
compel was granted.
No comments:
Post a Comment