Martin Terry ROTHMAN, Petitioner, v. Ailsa Mhorag Helen ROTHMAN, Respondent Case No. 22-cv-00910-JST United States District Court, N.D. California Filed May 17, 2022 Counsel Karlina Paredes, Hoover Krepelka, LLP, San Jose, CA, Stephen John Cullen, Pro Hac Vice, Kelly A. Powers, Pro Hac Vice, Miles & Stockbridge P.C., Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Joshua Douglas Anderson, Simona Alessandra Agnolucci, Yuhan Alice Chi, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent. Tigar, Jon S., United States District Judge ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY Re: ECF No. 32 *1 Now before the Court is the parties' joint discovery letter brief. ECF No. 32. Petitioner objects on relevance grounds to production of documents responsive to the following discovery requests: Request for Production No. 4: DOCUMENTS sufficient to show all real or personal property possessed by YOU, any corporate entity in which YOU hold at least a 50% ownership interest, or any trust for which YOU are either a settlor or beneficiary, which property was located within California between August 2020 and the present. Request for Production No. 13: Any state and federal tax returns filed by YOU in the United States for the years of 2020 and 2021. Request for Production No. 14: Any filings or submissions provided, or representations made, to any authority of the United Kingdom or any political entity therein with responsibility for taxation of income or assets. The relevant time period for this request is any year for which income obtained between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021, would be relevant to such filings, submissions, or representations. Id. at 1-2. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern cases in the federal court system arising under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. James D. Garbolino, The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction: A Guide for Judges 163 (2d ed. 2015). While the Court is not required to permit discovery in a Hague Convention case, Rosasen v. Rosasen, No. CV 19-10742-JFW(AFMx), 2020 WL 12968435, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2020) (citing West v. Dobrev, 735 F.3d 921, 929 (10th Cir. 2013)), the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern discovery disputes when discovery is allowed.[1] See, e.g., Tchenguiz v. Bird, No. CV 21-128-M-DWM, 2022 WL 519174, at *3 (D. Mont. Jan. 4, 2022); Kline v. Kline, No. CV 06-2844-PHX-SRB, 2009 WL 10673062, at *4 n.4 (D. Ariz. June 2, 2009). A party “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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevant information need not be admissible to be discoverable.” Laub v. Horbaczewski, 331 F.R.D. 516, 521 (C.D. Cal. 2019) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). Courts regularly consider tax return evidence in determining habitual residence under the Hague Convention. See, e.g., Silverman v. Silverman, 338 F.3d 886, 890 (8th Cir. 2003); Foster v. Foster, 429 F. Supp. 3d 589, 599, 609 (W.D. Wis. 2019); Hofmann v. Sender, 716 F.3d 282, 287-88 (2d Cir. 2013); Wild v. Eliot, 147 F. Supp. 3d 49, 51 (D. Conn. 2015); Sorenson v. Sorenson, 563 F. Supp. 2d 961, 965 (D. Minn. 2008). Similarly, ownership by one or both parents of property within the jurisdiction can be a relevant consideration. Gaudin v. Remis, 379 F.3d 631, 635 (9th Cir. 2004); Smith v. Smith, 976 F.3d 558, 560 (5th Cir. 2020). Based on the foregoing authorities, the Court concludes that the information sought by the Respondent is relevant and discoverable.[2] Respondent's motion to compel is therefore GRANTED. Petitioner shall produce the requested information within ten days of this order. *2 IT IS SO ORDERED. Footnotes [1] The Court has allowed discovery in this case and both parties are availing themselves of it. [2] Petitioner cites Monasky v. Taglieri, 140 S. Ct. 719 (2020). The signal holding of that case was that “a child's habitual residence depends on the specific circumstances of the particular case” and that an agreement between the parents is not required to establish habitual residence. Id. at 727. Nothing in Monasky changes the Court's analysis.