VeroBlue Farms Inc. v. Wulf
| Decision Date | 08 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | 3:19-cv-764-X |
| Parties | VEROBLUE FARMS USA INC., Plaintiff, v. LESLIE A. WULF, ET AL., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
VEROBLUE FARMS USA INC., Plaintiff,
v.
LESLIE A. WULF, ET AL., Defendants.
No. 3:19-cv-764-X
United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
November 8, 2021
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER [1]
DAVID L. HORAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff VeroBlue Farms USA, Inc. has filed (1) a Motion Challenging the Sufficiency of Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's Second Set of Requests for Admission and for Leave to Further Depose Defendants Leslie A. Wulf and John E. Rea, see Dkt. No. 368 (the “RFA Motion”); (2) a Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendant Keith Driver, see Dkt. No. 417 (the “Driver MTC”); and (3) a Motion to Compel Discovery from Founder Defendant, see Dkt. No. 421 (the “Founders MTC”).
United States District Judge Brantley Starr has referred all three motions to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for a hearing, if necessary, and determination under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). See Dkt. Nos. 370, 419, & 424.
In the RFA Motion, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2), 36(a)(4), and 37(a)(5), VBF requests that the Court (1) overrule the Founder Defendants' -specifically, Defendants Leslie A. Wulf's, Bruce Hall's, James Rea's, and John E. (“Ted”) Rea's - objections and enter an order requiring them to answer VBF's Second Requests for Admission (“RFAs”) in compliance with Rule 36; (2) grant VBF leave to further depose Defendant Wulf for two hours and Ted Rea for ninety minutes; and (3) award VBF its related expenses. See Dkt. No. 368 at 1.
More specifically, in its reply, “VBF respectfully requests [an] order from this Court granting the following relief to VBF:
[1] Within seven (7) days, the Founder Defendants shall provide responses in compliance with Rule 36, which shall include
o Removing improper objections to Wulf's RFA No. 5; Ted Rea's RFA No. 5; James Rea's RFA Nos. 5, 17-20; and Hall's RFA Nos. 5, 17-20
o Supplementing or removing “insufficient information” responses to Wulf's RFA No. 25; Ted Rea's RFA Nos. 25, 30, 33-34, 39-45, and 58; James Rea's RFA Nos. 9-10, 21, 25, 27, 33-34, 39-45, and 58 and Hall's RFA Nos. 21, 25, 39-45, and 58.
o Removing improper narrative responses to Wulf's RFA Nos. 12, 13, 15-16, 23, 29-30, 37-38, 50-51, and 53; Ted Rea's RFA Nos. 14, 16, 36-37, and 50-51; and James Rea's RFA Nos. 30, 53-54, and 61.
[2] Leave for VBF to further depose Wulf for two hours and Ted Rea for ninety minutes regarding the FTAI Forgeries and their RFA responses, and award VBF the expenses associated with said depositions.
[3] An award of VBF's reasonable attorneys' fees and costs necessary to bring this Motion, pursuant to a fee petition to be submitted, and to include court reporter and videographer costs for the requested redepositions of Wulf and Ted Rea.”
Dkt. No. 413 at 10.
In the Driver MTC, VBF “respectfully requests that this Court overrule Driver's improper objections to certain requests for production [‘RFPs'] and interrogatories, compel Driver to fully answer the interrogatories propounded by VBF and compel Driver to produce the specific categories of documents detailed” in the motion and award VBF its attorneys' fees and expenses incurred during the filing of the motion. Dkt. No. 417 at 2, 22.
More specifically, “VBF respectfully requests that the Court:
(1) overrule Driver's objections to VBF's First RFPs Nos. 1-9 and 11-87, VBF's Second RFPs Nos. 1-36, and 38-43, and VBF's Third RFPs Nos. 132;
(2) compel Driver to produce documents responsive to VBF's First RFPs Nos. 1-9, 11-87, VBF's Second RFPs Nos. 1-36 and 39-43, and VBF's Third RFPs Nos. 1-32;
(3) overrule Driver's objections to VBF's First Interrogatories Nos. 1-6, 912, 14, 16, 19, and 22;
(4) compel Driver to amend his responses to VBF's First Interrogatories Nos. 1-4, 10, 12, 16, and 18;
(5) compel Driver to amend his responses to VBF's First RFAs Nos. 1-10, 13-15, 18-20, 22, 24, 26, 28-37, 40-41, 43-50, 55, 58-72, 75-84, 89-93, 96106, and 108-109 and VBF's Second RFAs Nos. 21, 25, 27, 30, 33-34, 3945, and 59-62 in compliance with Rule 36; and
(6) award VBF any further relief that may be just and proper.”
Id. at 22-23. After Driver served amended RFA responses, VBF, in reply, “requests that the Court find Driver's amended responses to First RFAs Nos. 1-10, 13-15, 1820, 22, 24, 26, 30-33, 35-37, 40-41, 43-49, 55, 58-66, 68-69, 70-72, 75-80, 82-84, 87, 8993, 96-106, 108, 109 and Second RFAs No. 21, 25, 27, 33-34, 39, 41-45, 53, 59-62 are improper under Rule 36, and require him to serve amended responses complying with Rule 36.” Dkt. No. 428 at 10.
In the Founders MTC, VBF “respectfully requests that this Court overrule the Founder Defendants' improper objections and compel the Founder Defendants to fully answer the interrogatories propounded by VBF and produce the specific categories of documents detailed” in the motion and “further requests that this Court order Ted Rea and Wulf to reappear for their depositions to answer questions they were improperly instructed not to answer” in the motion and to award VBF its attorneys' fees and expenses incurred during the filing of the motion. Dkt. No. 421 at 1, 25. More specifically, “respectfully requests that the Court:
(1) compel the Founder Defendants to produce documents pertaining to communications with Cassels and/or Sean Maniaci, tax returns, documentation regarding the chain of custody for external hard drives and the loan application, as described in this Motion;
(2) compel the Founder Defendants to reproduce Defendant Wulf for a deposition to answer the certified questions described herein;
(3) compel the Founder Defendants to reproduce Ted Rea for a deposition to answer the certified questions described herein;
(4) provide supplemental and/or amended answers and responses to the interrogatories and document requests referenced herein; and
(5) award VBF any further relief that may be just and proper.”
Id. at 25.
In some instances, VBF further narrowed or withdrew the relief that it is seeking based on amended objections, responses, or answers served or other developments after the initial motion's filing.
For the reasons and to the extent explained before, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part VBF's RFA Motion [Dkt. No. 368], Driver MTC [Dkt. No. 417], the Founders MTC [Dkt. No. 421].
Background and Legal Standards
The parties and the Court are familiar with the background of this case, so the Court will not repeat it here. See generally VeroBlue Farms USA, Inc. v. Wulf, 465 F.Supp.3d 633 (N.D. Tex. 2020).
The Court has previously laid out the standards that govern a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(6) motion to determine the sufficiency of answers and objections to Rule 36 requests for admission:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36, “[a] party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 26(b)(1) relating to: (A) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and (B) the genuineness of any described documents.” FED. R. CIV. P. 36(a)(1). Rule 36 requests are properly directed to matters that the requesting party would otherwise need to prove. See Am. Auto. Ass'n, Inc. v. AAA Legal Clinic of Jefferson Crooke, P.C., 930 F.2d 1117, 1120 (5th Cir. 1991).
Under Rule 36(a), when a request for admission is served, “[a] matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney, ” although “[a] shorter or longer time for responding may be stipulated to under Rule 29 or be ordered by the court.” FED. R. CIV. P. 36(a)(3). “A matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended.” FED. R. CIV. P. 36(b).
“In form and substance a Rule 36 admission is comparable to an admission in pleadings or a stipulation drafted by counsel for use at trial, rather than to an evidentiary admission of a party. An admission that is not withdrawn or amended cannot be rebutted by contrary testimony or ignored by the district court simply because it finds the evidence presented by the party against whom the admission operates more credible. This conclusive effect applies equally to those admissions made affirmatively and those established by default, even if the matters admitted relate to material facts that defeat a party's claim.” Am. Auto.
Ass'n, 930 F.2d at 1120 (internal quotation marks and footnotes omitted).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has explained that “Rule 36 allows litigants to request admissions as to a broad range of matters, including ultimate facts, as well as applications of law to fact.” In re Carney, 258 F.3d 415, 419 (5th Cir. 2001). “Such breadth allows litigants to winnow down issues prior to trial and thus focus their energy and resources on disputed matters.” Id.; see also Am. Auto. Ass'n, 930 F.2d at 1121 (“Rule 36 allows parties to narrow the issues to be resolved at trial by identifying and eliminating those matters on which the parties agree.” (footnote omitted)).
And “[t]he binding nature of judicial admissions conserves judicial resources by avoiding the need for disputatious discovery on every conceivable question of fact. Once a fact is formally admitted and thereby set aside in the discovery process, the party requesting an admission is entitled to rely on the conclusiveness of it.” Armour v. Knowles, 512 F.3d 147, 154 n.13 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“For Rule 36 to be effective in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial