International Automated Systems (fka IAUS)

[scion]

Defendants’ sole argument in favor of quashing the bank subpoenas is that they seek documents that would “disclos[e] a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information” belonging to Defendants, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(B)(i), including “lenses,” “confidential and commercial communications and actions undertaken by Defendants” (ECF Doc. 65 at 3) and “costs and expenditures associated” with Defendants’ purported technology (id. at 5). Even if this unsupported assertion were true, both 1) Defendants’ bank records, generally, and 2) any potential “trade secrets” or confidential communications or action about their so-called solar technology that might be revealed in their bank records are at the very heart of key issues in this litigation: whether Defendants have made false or fraudulent statements or gross valuation overstatements while promoting the abusive tax scheme and the extent of Defendants’ gross receipts from their scheme to be disgorged.

With few exceptions, Defendants’ motion to quash the bank subpoenas consists of text copied and pasted from the text of their untimely, unsubstantiated motion to quash “the June 2, 2016” subpoena. (Compare ECF Doc. 65 with ECF Doc. 62.) As in the latter motion, Defendants offer a blanket objection to the bank subpoenas without actually evaluating each category of documents on its merits. Defendants do not provide any support for their argument that every single responsive document is somehow confidential or related to their trade secrets or confidential and commercial activities. Even if they had made such a showing, Defendants do not provide law or facts suggesting that the United States is not entitled to receive them in discovery.

page 6

Extract -
Doc 73 PDF file
https://www.scribd.com/document/319967621/USA-v-RaPower-3-et-al-Doc-73-filed-01-Aug-16-pdf