United States v. Yennie

Background

The United States sued Joseph H. Yennie to obtain judgment on unpaid federal income-tax assessments and to enforce federal tax liens against real property in Pine Island, Minnesota. The United States named additional defendants, including Sheila A. Yennie, because they may claim an interest in the property. The opinion states that Joseph H. Yennie filed an answer and counterclaim, while Sheila A. Yennie had not answered and had unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the action three times.

The April 7, 2020 scheduling order required the defendants to make initial disclosures by April 30, 2020, and required fact discovery to be completed by September 30, 2020. The United States served interrogatories and requests for production of documents on both defendants, and requests for admission on Joseph H. Yennie. The United States stated that neither defendant had made initial disclosures, answered the interrogatories, responded to the document requests, or contacted its counsel to meet and confer.

Motion and Applicable Rules

The United States moved to compel disclosures, discovery responses, and document production; requested sanctions; and sought more time under the scheduling order. The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, which generally requires discovery to concern nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The court also addressed Rules 33 and 34, which govern interrogatories and requests for production.

Rulings

The court ordered Joseph H. Yennie and Sheila A. Yennie to serve their initial disclosures no later than March 1, 2021. The disclosures had to identify people likely to have information supporting their claims or defenses and documents they might use to support those claims or defenses.

The court granted the United States’ motion to compel answers to its interrogatories. Both defendants had to respond by March 1, 2021. The court also granted the motion to compel responses to the requests for production and required both defendants to produce responsive documents by that date. The court overruled the defendants’ filings to the extent they were intended as objections to these obligations.

The court did not decide whether the requests for admission were proper because the United States had not moved to compel responses to them. It directed that, if the United States wanted to rely on Joseph H. Yennie’s failure to respond, the requests had to be re-served by February 16, 2021, with a plain-language explanation of the requests and the consequences of failing to answer. If re-served, Joseph H. Yennie would have 30 days to respond.

The court granted in part and denied in part the United States’ request for more time. It extended the deadline for completing depositions of Joseph H. Yennie and Sheila A. Yennie to March 31, 2021, and set related deadlines for deposition notices and possible motions seeking remote depositions. It also extended the deadline for non-dispositive motions to March 31, 2021, and the deadline for dispositive motions to April 30, 2021. If the case was not resolved through dispositive motions, the court set it to be ready for a one-day bench trial on or about September 30, 2021.

The court denied the United States’ request for sanctions at this time. It stated that the United States could renew that request if either defendant failed to comply with the order.

Disposition

The order states that the United States’ Motion to Compel Disclosures, Discovery Responses and Production of Documents, for Sanctions, and to Enlarge Time was GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The ruling addressed discovery and scheduling; it did not decide the underlying tax-liability claims.