The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kenneth G. Gale United States Magistrate Judge
The Defendants' Motion to Compel the Production of Plaintiff's Tax Returns (Doc. 43.) is denied. The Defendants have failed to show they conferred, or made an effort to confer, with Plaintiff's counsel prior to filing the motion. Additionally, the Defendants have failed to demonstrate a compelling need for the production of Plaintiff's tax returns.
Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint on July 29, 2010, bringing claims for violations of her First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition for redress of grievances, as well as civil conspiracy and claims resulting from the allegedly wrongful termination of her employment. (See generally, Doc. 18.) Plaintiff seeks past and future lost wages, compensation for mental anguish and emotional distress, punitive damages, and attorneys fees. (Id., at 12.) Defendants Answered, generally denying Plaintiff's allegations and raising, among other defenses, the failure to mitigate damages. (Doc. 25, at 14.)
Defendant Southeast Kansas Education Service Center served its first interrogatories and requests for production on August 6, 2010. (Doc. 21; Doc. 44-1.) Included among the document requests was No. 3, seeking "[a]ll income tax returns with supporting schedules and all W-2 forms for the last three (3) years." (Doc. 44-1, at 4.) Plaintiff served her answers and objections to Defendants' on August 30, 2010. (Doc. 30; Doc. 44-2.) In response to Request No. 3, Plaintiff stated there was "no 'compelling need for the returns.'" (Doc. 44-2, at 2.) She continued that the returns contained confidential information regarding her husband, who is not a party to this lawsuit. (Id.) Finally, instead of the tax returns, Plaintiff produced her W-2 forms and Social Security statements for the years in question. (Id.)
Defense counsel sent a "golden rule" letter to Plaintiff's counsel on September 13, 2010, raising issues regarding several of Plaintiff's discovery responses, including Request No. 3. (Doc. 44-3.) As to Plaintiff's response to that particular request, Defendants stated the following:
This request seeks Plaintiff's tax returns for the last three years. Despite Plaintiff's contention, there is a compelling need for such returns. Plaintiff has put her income at issue by seeking economic losses. See Hamner v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 2008 WL 917900, *1 (D.Kan. Mar. 31, 2008). Although she claims she has not been employed since February 2009, she, herself, admits that she has tutored students. To this end, she has received income, which will not be reflected in her W-2s. (Id., at 2.)
Plaintiff's counsel responded to Defendants' letter on September 28, 2010, stating in relevant part:
We have provided you with supplemental information on this point including W-2s and our client's social security statement. I hope it places to rest your concerns over the tax returns. As stated previously, the tax returns provide confidential and irrelevant information regarding Debra Stephenson's husband. How would the return help you determine her income over any period[?] Her income would be combined with her husband's on the return itself. Plaintiff has put her income at issue, not that of her husband. You now have the best evidence of her income. (Doc. 44-4, at 5.) Plaintiff's counsel closed the letter by stating that he "believe[d] we will be able to resolve these issues without Court intervention." (Id., at 7.) Despite this invitation from Plaintiff's counsel, there is no indication that defense counsel made any further attempt to resolve or even discuss the issue. Rather, defense counsel's initial letter -- which contained one paragraph regarding Request No. 3 -- was Defendants' only communication regarding this issue prior to filing the present motion to compel.
Defendants filed their Motion to Compel on November 1, 2010.*fn1 (Doc. 43.) Defendant seeks an Order compelling Plaintiff to provide her tax returns and all supporting schedules for the last three years.
A motion to compel "must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action." Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 (a)(1) (emphasis added). The local rules further state that a court "will not entertain any motion to resolve a discovery dispute" unless a reasonable effort has been made to confer regarding the motion's underlying issue(s) prior to the filing of the motion. D.Kan. Rule 37.2 (emphasis added). The local rule also requires the certification to describe with particularity the steps taken by all counsel to resolve the issue in dispute. These requirements encourage parties to resolve discovery disputes "without judicial intervention." Cotracom Commodity Trading Co. v. Seaboard Corporations, 189 F.R.D. 456, 459 (D.Kan. 1999); see also VNA Plus, Inc. v. Apria Healthcare Group, Inc., No. 98-2138-KHV,1999 WL 386949, at *1 (D.Kan. June 8, 1999).
The conference mandate of "reasonable efforts to confer" requires "more than mailing or faxing a letter to the opposing party." D. Kan. Rule. 37.2. Rather, the parties must "in good faith converse, confer, compare views, and consult and deliberate or in good faith attempt to do so." Id.; see also Cotracom, 189 F.R.D. at 459. "[The parties] must make genuine efforts to resolve the dispute by determining precisely what the requesting party is actually seeking; what responsive documents or information the discovery party is reasonably capable of producing, ...