¶ 30 When counsel for the New Times asked MacPherson at her deposition if the reason she gathered the fish pond documents was in response to the lawsuit rather than in response to the request, she replied as follows: A. I don’t know if — I wouldn’t say that. I — I assembled all that information and got it over to him before I assembled it. There was a lot of information because there were a variety of different bids and so forth that we were putting together. Q----And why, again, did it take you over three months to forward 11 pages of material to Mr. Dougherty? A. Well, I would go to the Custody people, and they would go to th form of prompt notification or response, as is required by A.R.S. § 39-121.01(D)(1) and (E). Cf. Chourre v. I.R.S., 203 F.Supp.2d 1196, 1200-02 (W.D.Wash.2002) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 32 Here, MCSO failed to put forth
holding that the submission of false documents to irs violated  1505 holding that irs claim for taxes and claim of debtor against irs for violation of automatic stay did not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence holding that a decedents tax settlement with the irs did not establish the value of his estates claim against the irs as a matter of law holding that shareholder was improperly seeking to champion  rights belonging to the irs holding that the irs did not improperly withhold records when it provided responsive documents just over five months after the request was made but gave four intervening notices stating that the irs needed more time