*1 Dr. Shashi Barnia (“Dr. Barnia”) and AAA Dental, PC (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed suit against Dr. Aandeep Kaur (“Dr. Kaur”), Dr. TejPretty Singh (“Dr. Singh”), and Amandeep Kaur, D.D.S. P.C. (“Kaur P.C”), alleging breach of contract and various torts and statutory violations arising out of a business relationship between the parties. Dr. Kaur and Kaur P.C. (collectively, “Kaur Defendants”) move to compel certain financial documents from Dr. Barnia. For the reasons below, their Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I. BACKGROUND

Dr. Barnia was formerly employed by Kaur P.C. as a dentist in its two Massachusetts practices. His claims center around that employment relationship, the fallout of its termination, and an alleged purchase of the practices that was reneged upon. The Kaur Defendants have asserted multiple counterclaims. These counterclaims form the basis of the Motion to Compel. Although the substance of the claims differ, they all turn on variations of the same allegation: that when Dr. Barnia was contractually bound to work solely for Kaur P.C., he both worked for other dental practices and diverted funds and resources from Kaur P.C. to those practices.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Rule 37.1

The Local Rules for this District require parties to confer prior to filing a motion in a discovery dispute; “[t]he motion shall include a certificate in the margin of the last page that the provisions of this rule have been complied with.” L.R. 37.1 (emphasis added). The Kaur Defendants embedded the relevant citation at the end of the background section of their memorandum. In the future, the Kaur Defendants are to comply with the Local Rules, which allow me to quickly review discovery motions to ensure compliance with Local Rule 37.1. However, Kaur Defendants have complied with the substance of Local Rule 37.1 and I will not dismiss the motion on those grounds.

B. Tax Documents

The Kaur Defendants move to compel Dr. Barnia's federal tax returns from 2015 to 2021. They argue that while Dr. Barnia has admitted that he had an ownership interest in multiple dental offices and businesses, including a 50% ownership in RB Dental from 2016 to 2018, during which time RB dental operated two offices, he has offered no documentation quantifying his economic interest in those ventures. They also argue that Dr. Barnia was referred to as a “business partner” by multiple third parties in communications, but Dr. Barnia has failed to disclose a business or economic interest with any of them. Finally, they argue that Dr. Barnia publicly represented that he operated multiple dental practices in a job posting in 2021, but has not identified the benefit he received from these practices.

Tax returns are discoverable if they are “relevant to the claims of the parties and the information is not readily available in another form.” Jiajing (Beijing) Tourism Co. v. AeroBalloon USA, Inc., No. 20-cv-11313, 2021 WL 6284114, at *2 (D. Mass. Oct. 12, 2021) (citation omitted). Courts in this District hold it is the non-moving party's burden to identify alternative sources of information to tax returns. See, e.g., Baillargeon v. CSX Transportation, Inc., No. 19-cv-30135-MGM, 2022 WL 1104588, *4 (D. Mass. Apr. 13, 2022); Jiajing Tourism Co., 2021 WL 6284114, at *2; Pedraza v. Holiday Housewares, Inc., 203 F.R.D. 40, 43 (D. Mass. 2001); Buntzman v. Springfield Redevelopment Auth., 146 F.R.D. 30, 32 (D. Mass. 1993). Although this body of law is not binding, it is persuasive. The party resisting the production of tax returns will normally be in a better position to identify alternative sources of information.

*2 Dr. Barnia does not contest the relevancy of his tax returns. Instead, he argues that his responses have been sufficient and therefore the information is “readily available.” First, he argues that some of the instances identified by the Kaur Defendants are simply times “Dr. Barnia provided limited assistance to his friends without an economic interest or operational control,” and that such instances would not appear on his tax returns. Second, Dr. Barnia argues that his interrogatory responses provide all the information the Kaur Defendants requested. However, keeping in mind that he bears the burden, his arguments fail.

None of the allegations above refer to “limited assistance to friends.” As to the second argument, Dr. Barnia claims his responses “contain[ ] extraordinary levels of detail about his personal and business income” and that the Kaur Defendants have received “extensive discovery.” He does not, however, attach these responses to his opposition or describe them in any detail. This dispute does not mirror similar discovery disputes over tax returns, where there is either an obvious alternative source for the information, Driscoll v. McCann, No. 19-cv-12302, 2020 WL 5983272, at *4 (D. Mass. Oct. 8, 2020), or the non-moving party concedes their responses are deficient, Baillargeon, 2022 WL 1104588, at *4. Nevertheless, I find Dr. Barnia's arguments on this point evasive and unconvincing.

Dr. Barnia is unwilling to make the argument outright in his opposition—which is telling—but his position seems to be that he never received any income from his various partnerships, which is why no information or documents concerning income or revenue have been produced.[1] That is extraordinary considering, by his own admission, his response to an interrogatory requiring him to “[i]dentify each and every dental office or practice (collectively, “Office”) in which You had any economic interest and/or operational (or co-operational) control from August 1, 2014 to November 3, 2021” took up “seven pages” (emphasis in original). I cannot credit Dr. Barnia's conclusory allegation that his interrogatories are complete given that he admitted he had economic interests in multiple dental practices over multiple years. Given the sensitive nature of the information, Dr. Barnia is given leave to request a protective order to have the tax returns identified as “attorneys eyes only.” Cf. Baillargeon, 2022 WL 1104588, at *4. This aspect of the Motion to Compel is GRANTED. As to the other tax documents, Dr. Barnia represents that he has already provided the Kaur Defendants with 1099s, W-2s, and K-1s. Therefore, that aspect of the Motion to Compel is DENIED.

C. Bank Accounts

The Kaur Defendants move to compel Dr. Barnia's pre-September 2016 Bank of America account statements and statements from his TD Bank Account.[2] The parties agree that Dr. Barnia's pre-September 2016 Bank of America accounts are relevant and discoverable, but Dr. Barnia argues—and allegedly informed the Kaur Defendants prior to this motion—that Bank of America only allows access to seven years of records. This Court will not order an impossible discovery request. But to the extent that Dr. Barnia has any of the records in his possession, they must be produced. Similarly, while the Kaur Defendants argue that a reference to a TD Bank business account in a text message shows that Dr. Barnia is hiding accounts, Dr. Barnia avers that the TD Bank account in question was controlled by Kaur P.C.—his former employer. Because those accounts are, presumably, within the Kaur Defendants’ control, I will not compel those records. Therefore, this aspect of the Motion to Compel is DENIED.

D. Sworn Statement

*3 Kaur Defendants request a sworn statement, under penalty of perjury, that Dr. Barnia has conducted discovery in good faith. Defendants cite no case law. I expect all parties to conduct discovery in good faith and will institute appropriate sanctions if I find that a party has intentionally evaded its discovery obligations. I will not order a party, even in a case involving fraud claims, to sign such a statement. This aspect of the Motion to Compel is DENIED.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, the Motion to Compel is GRANTED insofar as it applied to Dr. Barnia's federal tax returns and DENIED as to all other relief.

SO ORDERED.