Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Leeds Lp, A California Limited Partnership v. United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 21, 2011

LEEDS LP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PLAINTIFF,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Barry Ted MoskowitzUnited States District Judge

EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ORDER RE MOTION TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF'S FORECLOSURE PROFFER

Plaintiff makes a motion in limine to exclude evidence supporting Defendant's proffer regarding a foreclosure sale by New Horizon Lighting. This motion is DENIED.

The evidence supporting Defendant's proffer is relevant to the taxpayers' intent in transferring their interests in the McCall and Fourth properties and to whether they continued to exercise control over the property after transfer.

Exclusion of this evidence would be inappropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). The United States' Second Supplemental Response to Plaintiff's contention interrogatory states, "The purported consideration paid to the Susanne C. Ballantyne Trust for its 99.1 percent interest in [Leeds and Fourth] was illusory and ultimately unrealized by the Susanne C. Ballantyne Trust or Susanne Ballantyne." (Castaldi Decl. ¶ 2) Amongst other support for this statement, Defendant provides deposition transcript citations referencing the New Horizon foreclosure. This response was sufficient to put Plaintiff on notice that Defendant could seek to use the evidence contained in Defendant's proffer, and thus, the Court holds that Defendant's second supplemental response was not deficient under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. See Lucero v. Valdez, 240 F.R.D. 591, 594 (D.N.M. 2007) ("Contention interrogatories should not require a party to provide the equivalent of a narrative account of its case, including every evidentiary fact, details of testimony of supporting witnesses, and the contents of supporting documents."); Tubbs v. Sacramento County Jail, 2008 WL 863974, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2008) ("[P]laintiff is not required to present his entire case in discovery responses.").*fn1 For these reasons, Defendant may produce evidence supporting its proffer at trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.