KENNETH DINKINS, Plaintiff, v. GERALDINE SCHINZEL, Defendants Case No. 2:17-cv-01089-JAD-GWF United States District Court, D. Nevada Signed January 18, 2018 Counsel Kenneth Dinkins, Las Vegas, NV, pro se. Geraldine Schinzel, Waterford, MI, pro se. Foley Jr., George, United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 66), filed on October 23, 2017. Defendant filed her Response (ECF No. 67) on October 26, 2017 and Plaintiff filed his Reply (ECF No. 73) on November 2, 2017. Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden and expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” The party opposing discovery has the burden of showing that it is irrelevant, overly broad, or unduly burdensome. Graham v. Casey's General Stores, 206 F.R.D. 251, 253-4 (S.D. Ind. 2000); Fosbre v. Las Vegas Sands Corp., 2016 WL 54202, at *4 (D. Nev. Jan. 5, 2016); Izzo v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2016 WL 593532, at *2 (D. Nev. Feb. 11, 2016). When a request is overly broad on its face or when relevancy is not readily apparent, however, the party seeking discovery has the burden to show the relevancy of the request. Desert Valley Painting & Drywall, Inv. v. United States, 2012 WL 4792913, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 9, 2012) (citing Marook v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 259 F.R.D. 388, 394-95 (N.D. Iowa 2009)). The 2015 amendments to Rule 26(b) have not changed these basic rules, although they must now be applied with a greater emphasis on proportionality. Plaintiff requests an order compelling Defendant to respond to his requests for production. Plaintiff requests that Defendant produce tax returns, documentation relating to Defendant's former employment, and documents of real estate transactions. Defendant objects to these requests as irrelevant and as an invasion of privacy. Plaintiff requests that Defendant produce “all documentation to prove that Summit Ventures LLC is a non existent entity” and “all documentation that would prove that Plaintiff does not have an interest in Summit Ventures LLC.” See Plaintiff's Request for Production Nos. 14, 24. A responding party must make a reasonable inquiry to determine whether responsive documents exist. Rogers v. Giurbino, 288 F.R.D. 469, 485 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (quoting Marti v. Baires, 2012 WL 2029720, at *19–20, (E.D. Cal. June 5, 2012)). “A party, however, is not required to create a document where none exists.” Id. Defendant provided substantive responses to Plaintiff's requests and states that there are no documents responsive to such requests. Plaintiff requests that Defendant produce her “tax returns from 2015 to 2016.” See Request for Production No. 18. Defendant argues that her tax returns are not relevant because such documents do not relate to Plaintiff's claims and because she is not seeking damages for loss of income. Plaintiff argues that Plaintiff's tax returns are relevant to her claim for damages. Discovery regarding a party's financial condition may be obtained if it is relevant to the claims or defenses in the case. Wynn Las Vegas v. Zoggolis, 2014 WL 2772241, *4-5 (D. Nev. June 17, 2014). Courts, however, accord greater privacy protection to federal income tax returns than other forms of financial information because the tax system depends on accurate reporting of income and deductions by taxpayers who might be less candid on their returns if they were made available to opposing parties in the ordinary course of litigation. Fosbre v. Las Vegas Sands Corp., 2016 WL 54202, at *5 (D. Nev. Jan. 5, 2016). Both parties seek punitive damages and Defendant seeks “general, compensatory, actual, consequential, incidental, and special damages in the amount of $300,000.00.” See Answer and Amended Counterclaims (ECF No. 70), 24. Defendant's tax returns are relevant to her claim for damages and the Court, therefore, orders her to produce her 2015 and 2016 tax returns. *2 Plaintiff requests that Defendant produce “all documentation that relate to the Defendant no longer being employed with Real Estate One” and “all documentation to evidence the transactions Defendant closed while working for Real Estate One.” See Requests for Production Nos. 21, 22. Defendant substantively responded that she was not employed by Real Estate One and that she does not have responsive documents. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 66) is granted, in part, and denied, in part, in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant is ordered to supplement her response to Request for Production No. 18. Defendant shall serve her supplement to these discovery requests within fourteen (14) days of the filing of this order.