Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1
2
3
4
v.
JUAN C. ZARAGOZA-GOMEZ, in his official
capacity as Secretary of the Treasury of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Defendant.
5
6
MEMORANDUM ORDER
On the afternoon of January 15, 2016, plaintiff Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, Inc. (Wal-Mart
PR) moved the court to compel third-party KPMG, defendants external financial auditor, to
produce materials responsive to Wal-Mart PRs subpoena, dated December 30, 2015. (ECF
10
Nos. 70 (motion); 70-1 (subpoena).) Wal-Mart PR informs the court that KPMG alleges that
11
defendant has ordered KPMG to withhold production of the materials on the ground that some
12
13
2.) Because Wal-Mart PR is scheduled to depose KPMG on January 20, 2016, Wal-Mart PR
14
asks the court to order KPMG to produce the material forthwith. (ECF No. 70 at 4-5.) The
15
court ordered defendant to respond to the motion within the next seven hours, i.e., by 10:00
16
p.m. the same day. (ECF No. 71.) Wal-Mart PR filed additional briefing in support of the
17
motion. (ECF No. 72.) Defendant then responded in opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 73.)
18
This is a federal-question case involving only federal causes of action. (See ECF No. 1
19
at 31-35.) Under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, federal common law governs all
20
claims of privilege unless federal constitutional or statutory law, or a rule prescribed by the
21
United States Supreme Court, provides otherwise. Fed. R. Evid. 501; see also Fashion House,
-2-
Inc. v. K Mart Corp., 892 F.2d 1076, 1095 n.11 (1st Cir. 1989). [N]o confidential accountant-
client privilege exists under federal law. Cavallaro v. United States, 284 F.3d 236, 246 (1st
Cir. 2002) (quoting Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 335 (1973)). There is no common
law accountant-client privilege, and the limited statutory accountant-client privilege that
Congress enacted under 26 U.S.C. 7525(a)(1) only extends to communications that would
be privileged were they between a taxpayer and an attorney, and therefore would provide . . .
no further protection than the attorney-client privilege, which has not been raised here.
United States v. Bisanti, 414 F.3d 168, 170 & n.1 (1st Cir. 2005). Because Wal-Mart PRs suit
is not a tax proceeding brought by or against the United States, the limited statutory privilege
10
does not apply here. See 26 U.S.C. 7525(a)(2). By contrast, Puerto Rico recognizes an
11
accountant-client privilege. See Arthur Young & Co. v. Vega, 136 D.P.R. 157 (P.R. 1994).
12
The privilege is currently codified in Rule 504 of the Puerto Rico Rules of Evidence of 2009.
13
14
The court finds that the accountant-client privilege does not apply under federal law and
15
that the Commonwealth version of that privilege does not apply, either. Indeed, for decades
16
now, this court has routinely declined invitations to recognize Puerto Ricos accountant-client
17
privilege in a federal-question case. See, e.g., Coastal Fuels Inc. v. Caribbean Petroleum
18
Corp., 830 F. Supp. 80, 81 (D.P.R. 1993); Rapidforma Del Caribe, Inc. v. United States, 636
19
F. Supp. 465, 467 (D.P.R. 1986). Moreover, even if this court were to find that the Puerto
20
Rico privilege should be recognized under Federal Rule of Evidence 501, the privilege would
21
still not apply here because it expressly exempts from its scope matters of pressing public
22
-3-
The court finds that the subpoenaed financial statements, communications, and
materials about the Commonwealth that KPMG currently possesses are of pressing public
interest as they apply to this case. It is of pressing public interest that Wal-Mart PRs facial
challenge to the Commonwealth tax law is resolved promptly, fairly, and correctly. The
challenged tax will either help fund the Commonwealth in a time of great fiscal need by
ensuring that local corporations pay an appropriate minimum tax or be enjoined as violative of
core federal principles, assuming that jurisdiction exists under the Butler Act. These interests
will be needlessly frustrated, if not denied, if defendant were to block the courts jurisdictional
inquiry by invoking a general local privilege that does not even exist under federal law. 1
10
11
defendant claims that their objection to KPMGs production of documents is not based on the
12
accountant-client privilege, but on the fact that most of the documents provided to Defendant
13
by KPMG for examination before production do not respond to the specific requests made by
14
Wal-Mart [PR] in its subpoena, and more importantly, . . . must not be disclosed by KPMG
15
under the Confidentiality Clause contained in the services contract between KPMG and
16
defendant.
17
agreement simply raises, albeit without the support of a promulgated rule of evidence, a
18
contract-based version of the accountant-client privilege. Defendant does not raise any other
19
basis for claiming that the subpoenaed information is privileged or subject to protection. See
20
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A). As explained above, the asserted privilege is not recognized in
1
Under Puerto Rico law, only a natural or juridical person who is the actual client of the accountant
may invoke the accountant-client privilege. 32 L.P.R.A., App. VI, R. 504(a)(2). Due to the grounds of our
disposition, the court does not have occasion to determine whether the Commonwealth is a juridical person
under Puerto Rico law or whether the Secretary of Treasury is the actual client of KPMG.
-4-
federal-question cases.
Evidence to preclude an otherwise valid subpoena. In addition, defendant has not provided the
court with any basis for finding that KPMGs production of materials in response to the
In closing, the court observes that defendant pointedly reserves the right to hold
KPMG responsible for any unrequested disclosure of documents and information covered by
their contractual confidentiality clause. (ECF No. 73 5.) In order to settle the matter and
defuse any fear of future liability, the court hereby orders KPMG to produce the materials that
10
they had previously identified as responsive to Wal-Mart PRs subpoena. Any interference by
11
any party of this production will face the possibility of civil contempt.
12
Accordingly, the court hereby GRANTS the motion to compel discovery, filed under
13
ECF No. 70, and orders defendant and KPMG to produce, forthwith, the materials requested in
14
Wal-Mart PRs subpoena, dated December 30, 2015. Production must be completed by noon,
15
local time, on Saturday, January 16, 2016. Failure to do so will incur severe sanctions under
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
20
21