“Rule 37 does not empower the district 28 court to award attorney fees to a pro se litigant.”
How later courts described this case
- “Rule 37 does not empower the district 28 court to award attorney fees to a pro se litigant.”
- holding that “at least in the content of a civil lawsuit involving business matters, 22 a written marital communication may not be privileged if it is an ‘ordinary business 23 communication’ and it does not have some other indication of confidentiality”
- “[P]roof of 4 theoretical control is insufficient; a showing of actual control is required.”
- “Control is defined as the legal right to obtain documents upon 3 demand.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 AARON STANZ, individually and Case No.: 22-cv-01164-GPC-JLB
derivatively on behalf of Jet Genuis
12
Holdings, Inc., ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
13 MOTION TO COMPEL
Plaintiff,
14
v. [ECF No. 188]
15
JORDAN BROWN, et al.,
16
Defendants.
17
18 AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM.
19
20 Before the Court is a motion to compel production of documents and for an award
21 of attorney’s fees filed by Plaintiff Aaron Stanz (“Plaintiff”). (ECF No. 188.) Plaintiff
22 seeks to compel responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production (“RFP”) (Set One) served
23 on Defendants Jordan Brown (“Brown”), Jet Genius Holdings, Inc. (“JGH”), Jet Genius
24 Florida Holdings, Inc., Bowman Aviation, Inc., Jet Agency Global, LLC, C3 Jets, LLC,
25 and C3 Limo, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”). (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff also seeks an award
26 of attorney’s fees incurred in bringing this motion. (Id.) Defendants filed an opposition
27 (ECF No. 190), and Plaintiff filed a reply (ECF No. 191).
28 ///
1 On May 15, 2025, and May 28, 2025, the Court held hearings on the pending motion.
2 (ECF Nos. 207, 210.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s
3 motion to compel.
4 I. BACKGROUND
5 A. Procedural Background
6 Plaintiff, individually and as a shareholder on behalf of JGH, commenced this
7 lawsuit against Defendants on August 8, 2022. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint asserts the
8 following causes of action: (1) violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. §
9 1836(b)(1); (2) violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Cal. Civil Code §
10 3426, et seq.; (3) breach of contract; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) fraud; (6) conspiracy;
11 (7) accounting; and (8) unjust enrichment. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended
12 Complaint on March 2, 2023. (ECF No. 25.)
13 On April 7, 2023, JGH filed a counterclaim against Plaintiff for (1) breach of
14 contract; (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) violation of the
15 Defend Trade Secrets Act; (4) violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act; (5)
16 intentional misrepresentation; (6) negligent misrepresentation; and (7) breach of fiduciary
17 duty. (ECF No. 37.) Plaintiff filed an answer to the counterclaim on April 28, 2023. (ECF
18 No. 57.)
19 Plaintiff filed the verified Second Amended Complaint, the operative complaint, on
20 August 21, 2023. (SAC, ECF No. 78.) The Second Amended Complaint brings the
21 following causes of action against Defendants: (1) express indemnity; (2) equitable
22 indemnity; (3) breach of duty to defend; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) breach of contract;
23 (6) fraud; (7) violation of California Corporations Code § 316(a); (8) aiding and abetting
24 breach of fiduciary duty; (9) conspiracy to breach fiduciary duty; (10) unjust enrichment;
25 (11) quasi-contract/promissory estoppel; (12) conversion; (13) conspiracy to commit
26 conversion; (14) money had and received; (15) violation of California Penal Code § 502;
27 (16) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (17) intrusion into private affairs; (18)
28 accounting; and (19) declaratory relief. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks actual, special, and punitive
1 damages, restitution and/or disgorgement, an accounting, interest, a judicial declaration,
2 all appropriate injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees and costs. (Id.) Defendants filed
3 answers on October 5, 2023. (ECF Nos. 85, 87.)
4 On November 13, 2023, the Court held the Early Neutral Evaluation and Case
5 Management Conferences. (ECF No. 95.) A Scheduling Order was issued on
6 November 15, 2023. (ECF No. 96.) The Scheduling Order was subsequently amended
7 multiple times. (See ECF Nos. 114, 119, 122, 138, 146, 157, 170, 185.) The Court entered
8 a stipulated protective order on December 5, 2023. (ECF No. 98.)
9 On February 29, 2024, Plaintiff and Defendants Brown, C3Jets LLC, C3 Limo LLC,
10 Jet Agency Global, LLC, and Bowman Aviation, Inc. (collectively, the “Brown
11 Defendants”) lodged a Joint Discovery Statement concerning the Brown Defendants failure
12 to respond to Plaintiff’s RFPs (Set One). (ECF No. 102.) The Court held a Discovery
13 Conference on March 7, 2024, and ordered the Brown Defendants to provide supplemental
14 responses and production no later than March 22, 2024. (ECF No. 103.)
15 On April 4, 2024, Plaintiff and JGH lodged a Joint Discovery Statement, as did
16 Plaintiff and the Brown Defendants. (ECF No. 107.) After a Discovery Conference,
17 Defendants agreed, inter alia, to provide updated responses and supplemental production
18 to Plaintiff’s RFPs (Set One) by May 10, 2024. (ECF No. 110.) Plaintiff and Defendants
19 lodged an updated Joint Discovery Statement on June 21, 2024. (ECF No. 117.) Plaintiff
20 claimed that Defendants failed to timely serve supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s RFPs
21 and that he had received a document production in an unreadable format. After another
22 Discovery Conference, Defendants were ordered to serve second supplemental responses
23 to Plaintiff’s RFPs (Set One) and produce a complete privilege log by July 15, 2024. (ECF
24 No. 120.)
25 The Mandatory Settlement Conference was held on July 22, 2024. (ECF No. 125.)
26 The case did not settle. (Id.) On July 30, 2024, the Court held another Discovery
27 Conference. (ECF No. 126.) On August 19, 2024, following another Status Conference,
28 the Court ordered Defendants to complete their document production by
1 September 13, 2024. (ECF No. 135.) On August 21, 2024, the parties left a joint voicemail
2 with Chambers informing the Court that they had resolved their discovery dispute. (ECF
3 No. 136.)
4 Plaintiff’s counsel withdrew from the case on September 23, 2024. (ECF No. 145.)
5 On September 30, 2024, the Court ordered that all remaining depositions, including that of
6 Plaintiff, be conducted by November 15, 2024, or fourteen days after Plaintiff retains
7 counsel, whichever occurs first. (ECF No. 146.)
8 On October 16, 2024, the Court held a Status Conference because Defendants failed
9 to meet the September 13, 2024 document production deadline. (ECF No. 150.) The Court
10 ordered Defendants to provide Plaintiff with supplemental responses to the discovery
11 requests at issue by October 21, 2024. (ECF No. 150.) Defendants did provide Plaintiff
12 with supplemental responses on October 21. Ten days later, the parties lodged another
13 Joint Discovery Statement concerning those responses, as Plaintiff felt they were deficient.
14 A Status Conference was held on November 12, 2024. (ECF No. 152.) The Court held a
15 discovery hearing on November 19, 2024. (ECF Nos. 151, 153, 158, 162, 164.) Following
16 the hearing, the court authorized a motion to compel to resolve the dispute. (ECF No. 164.)
17 On November 12, 2024, the Court amended the Protective Order. (ECF No. 155.)
18 That same day, the Court extended the deposition deadline to November 22, 2024. (ECF
19 No. 157.) On November 20, 2024, the parties filed another Joint Discovery Statement
20 concerning Defendants’ interrogatory responses. (ECF No. 165.) On December 5, 2024,
21 the Court held a Discovery Conference and resolved the dispute. (ECF No. 175.) On
22 January 6, 2025, the Court extended the deposition deadline to January 31, 2025. (ECF
23 No. 185.)
24 B. Factual Background
25 The following allegations are taken from the Second Amended Complaint:
26 Plaintiff is the creator and developer of software and systems that simplify and
27 accelerate aircraft charter brokering, including JetXchange, The Grid, and the Charter
28 Flight Group website, which are also supported by custom applications, reports, lead
1 generations tools, databases, business analytics, and certain client lists (collectively, the
2 “JGH Platform”). (SAC ¶ 38.) The JGH Platform allows a charter aviation brokerage
3 company to operate more efficiently by facilitating more trips per staff member than any
4 charter brokerage competitor. (Id.)
5 Plaintiff and Brown formed JGH, a private jet charter broker, with a non-party,
6 Alexander Wolf, in 2016. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 39.) Plaintiff contributed the JGH Platform to JGH
7 and received a 49.5% ownership interest in the company. (Id. ¶ 39.) Plaintiff and Brown
8 are the two primary shareholders of JGH. (Id.) Plaintiff served as the Chief Technology
9 Officer and had principal responsibility for designing and implementing the JGH Platform.
10 (Id. ¶¶ 1, 44.) Since 2018, Brown has been JGH’s Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) and
11 sole director. (Id. ¶ 1.)
12 Plaintiff alleges that Brown used JGH as his “personal piggy bank” and “raided
13 JGH’s assets through phony transactions, indefensible self-approved compensation, and
14 wrongful diversion of corporate assets” to the tune of approximately $1.9 million. (Id. ¶¶
15 2, 71, 103.) Plaintiff further alleges that Brown “employs a shell game of entities to avoid
16 paying Plaintiff amounts due to him and to avoid other company obligations.” (Id. ¶¶ 4,
17 76–136.) For example, on September 16, 2019, Brown formed Jet Agency Global, LLC
18 and transferred to Jet Agency ownership of, or licensed rights in and to, the JGH Platform
19 without adequate consideration. (Id. ¶¶ 82, 89.) Thereafter, on September 11, 2020, Brown
20 formed C3 Limo, LLC with his wife Stacy Brown, who was listed as manager for six
21 months before it was changed to Chasen Dobos, Brown’s stepson. (Id. ¶ 94.) Brown
22 transferred to C3 Limo ownership of, or licensed rights in and to, parts of the JGH Platform
23 without adequate consideration and transferred cash from JGH to C3 Limo. (Id.¶¶ 95, 96.)
24 Less than a year later, on April 23, 2021, Brown formed C3 Jets and transferred $100,000
25 per month from JGH to the new company. (Id. ¶ 97.) Brown had no plans to repay JGH
26 for these fund transfers. (Id. ¶¶ 95–99.)
27 Plaintiff further alleges that Brown “seeks to avoid millions in assessed federal
28 excise taxes (‘FET’) related to chartering aircrafts.” (Id. ¶ 4.) As a business that collected
1 payment for commercial domestic transportation of persons, JGH was subject to an
2 assessment of FET. (Id. ¶ 46.) Brown failed to timely and fully pay the FET related to
3 JGH’s operations and instead “took actions to saddle Plaintiff personally with much of that
4 burden—$1.3 million in unpaid FET—, despite assurances Brown would account for those
5 taxes, while also shifting JGH’s operations and assets to a new entity to avoid payments.”
6 (Id. ¶¶ 4, 50, 51–70, 108–22.) Plaintiff further alleges that Brown utilized Plaintiff’s former
7 cell phone number to impersonate him. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 6, 124–36.)
8 Plaintiff brings certain claims derivatively and in the right and for the benefit of JGH.
9 (Id. ¶ 27.) At the time the Second Amended Complaint was filed, Plaintiff was the holder
10 of 25% of the outstanding and issued shares of JGH. (Id. ¶ 28.)
11 II. LEGAL STANDARD
12 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), a party is entitled to seek discovery of
13 “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional
14 to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the
15 amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’
16 resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden
17 or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
18 26(b)(1). Information need not be admissible to be discoverable. Id.
19 “The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of establishing that its request
20 satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1).” Alves v. Riverside Cnty., 339 F.R.D.
21 556, 559 (C.D. Cal. 2021) (quoting Bryant v. Ochoa, No. 07-CV-00200-JM-PCL, 2009
22 WL 1390794, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009)). “District courts have broad discretion in
23 determining relevancy for discovery purposes.” Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods.,
24 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir.
25 2002)). “Once the propounding party establishes that the request seeks relevant
26 information, ‘[t]he party who resists discovery has the burden to show discovery should
27 not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its
28 objections.’” Goro v. Flowers Foods, Inc., 334 F.R.D. 275, 283 (S.D. Cal. 2018) (quoting
1 Superior Commc’ns v. Earhugger, Inc., 257 F.R.D. 215, 217 (C.D. Cal. 2009)). However,
2 a court must—either on motion or sua sponte—”limit the frequency or extent” of otherwise
3 permissible discovery if the court finds, inter alia, the request “unreasonably cumulative
4 or duplicative” or the discovery sought is obtainable from a “more convenient, less
5 burdensome, or less expensive” source. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i).
6 III. DISCUSSION
7 A. Background and Arguments
8 Plaintiff served his first set of RFPs on Defendants on December 15, 2023. (ECF
9 No. 188 at 2.) Following meet and confer efforts, Defendants agreed to collect documents
10 from the following custodians and perform a search to determine if they have responsive
11 documents: (1) Brown; (2) personal assistants, presumed to be, but not limited to, Ileana
12 Garces, Marie Stone, Bianca Feller, Kimberlee Pouykham, and Emile Rosenow;
13 Executives Chasen Dobos, Ryan Sargent, and Yves Brancheau; (3) accounting staff Roya
14 Arabi, Deb Fouts, Cindy Grotsky, Maureen Bartzis, and Laurie Rector; (4) shareholder
15 Alexander Wolf; and (5) Stacy Brown. (ECF No. 188-1 at 5; see also ECF No. 188-3 at
16 82–84.)
17 Plaintiff now argues that “[d]espite numerous extensions and repeated violations of
18 Court-imposed deadlines and orders, Defendants’ production remains inadequate.” (ECF
19 No. 188-1 at 4.) Plaintiff argues that the requested documents are directly relevant to the
20 claims and defenses in this case. (Id. at 11.) Plaintiff claims that the requested documents
21 relate to “financial transactions, communications, and other records essential for Plaintiff
22 to establish his claims and prepare for trial.” (Id.) Plaintiff further argues that Defendants’
23 objections are boilerplate and lack specificity. (Id.) In addition, Plaintiff contends that
24 Defendants appear to have not conducted a reasonable search, including omitting key
25 custodians from their searches. (Id. at 11–12.)
26 In their opposition, Defendants argue that they have already gathered and produced
27 over 40,000 documents in response to the RFPs at issue. (ECF No. 190 at 2.) Defendants
28 further assert that they have repeatedly offered to let Plaintiff, or his agent, perform an
1 inspection of Defendants’ servers to obtain the documents he seeks. (Id.) Defendants
2 contend that their entire staff, except for one IT person, with the knowledge necessary to
3 perform the pertinent document searches have either resigned or been laid off due to the
4 financial condition of the companies. (Id.) Defendants claim that Brown and the lone
5 remaining IT member lack the necessary expertise and manpower to conduct the requested
6 searches. (Id.)1
7 The Court held an initial hearing on this motion on May 15, 2025. (ECF Nos. 207,
8 215.) Defense counsel represented that he had just substituted into the case and could not
9 update the Court on the status of Defendants’ devices and the discovery. (ECF No. 213 at
10 3–4.) Therefore, the hearing was continued to May 28, 2025, and Defendants were directed
11 get answers to the following questions: (1) were the devices used by the custodians their
12 personal devices or devices provided by Defendants; (2) when did the devices become
13 unavailable to Defendants; (3) what efforts, if any, were made to preserve evidence stored
14 on those devices; and (4) what was the nature and timing of any litigation hold
15 communicated to Defendants’ custodians. (See ECF Nos. 208; 213 at 6–7.) At the
16 May 28, 2025 hearing, Defendants were unprepared to answer those questions.2 (See ECF
17 Nos. 210; 214 at 7–10.) At that hearing, Defendants reiterated their willingness to provide
18 Plaintiff access to Defendants’ email accounts and documents so Plaintiff could conduct
19 his own search and inspection. (ECF No. 214 at 3–4.) Prior to the hearing, Defendants
20
21
1 Defendants also argue that JGH and Jet Genius Florida Holdings, Inc. are not
22
properly before the Court as Plaintiff never initiated a meet and confer on their most recent
23 responses before filing the present motion. (ECF No. 190 at 2–3.) However, the Court
finds this argument disingenuous. Extensive meet and confer efforts have taken place with
24
respect to all these RFPs. Regardless, the RFPs specifically at issue, as discussed below,
25 were served not on JGH and Jet Genius Florida Holdings, Inc., but rather on Brown and
two other entity defendants.
26 2 During the hearing, defense counsel represented, inter alia, “With regard to the
27 physical devices, my client has indicated to me that he does not – he is not aware of where
they are, and there was not an effort to preserve them at the time because it was not obvious
28
1 provided Plaintiff with a list of all of the email accounts and passwords and offered to
2 provide the address of the home office in Florida where the business records currently
3 reside. (Id. at 4–5, 9.) Defendants were unable to state whether any responsive material
4 could be found in any electronic media other than email. (Id. at 10.)
5 B. Legal Standard
6 Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that:
7 A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b):
8
(1) to produce and permit the requesting party or its representative to
9 inspect, copy, test, or sample the following items in the responding party’s
10 possession, custody, or control:
11 (A) any designated documents or electronically stored
information—including writings, drawings, graphs, charts,
12
photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or data
13 compilations—stored in any medium from which information can be
obtained either directly or, if necessary, after translation by the
14
responding party into a reasonably usable form; or
15
(B) any designated tangible things; or
16
(2) to permit entry onto designated land or other property possessed or
17
controlled by the responding party, so that the requesting party may inspect,
18 measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated
object or operation on it.
19
20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a).
21 For each request, the responding party “must either state that inspection and related
22 activities will be permitted as requested or state with specificity the grounds for objecting
23 to the request, including the reasons.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). Alternatively, “[t]he
24 responding party may state that it will produce copies of documents or of electronically
25 stored information instead of permitting inspection.” Id.
26 Documents are deemed to be within a party’s possession, custody or control if the
27 party has actual possession, custody, or control thereof or the legal right to obtain the
28 documents on demand. In re Bankers Trust Co., 61 F.3d 465, 469 (6th Cir. 1995); see also
1 United States v. Int’l Union of Petroleum & Indus. Workers, AFL-CIO, 870 F.2d 1450,
2 1452 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Control is defined as the legal right to obtain documents upon
3 demand.”); In re Citric Acid Litig., 191 F.3d 1090, 1107 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[P]roof of
4 theoretical control is insufficient; a showing of actual control is required.”). “Accordingly,
5 a party has an obligation to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the factual basis of [its]
6 responses to discovery, and, based on that inquiry, a party responding to a Rule 34
7 production request is under an affirmative duty to seek that information reasonably
8 available to it from its employees, agents, or others subject to its control.” A. Farber &
9 Partners, Inc. v. Garber (“Farber”), 234 F.R.D. 186, 189 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (internal
10 citations, quotation marks, and alterations omitted).
11 C. Analysis3
12 1. RFPs to Brown
13 Plaintiff contends that Brown’s response to RFP Nos. 5, 7–9, 28, 31–33, 37–39, 43,
14 53, 54, 58, and 64–70 remains deficient. (ECF No. 188-1 at 5–10.) Brown supplemented
15 his initial response to Plaintiff’s RFPs three times. (See ECF No. 188-3 at 90–194.) For
16 RFP Nos. 7–9, 28, 31–33, 37–38, 43, 67, and 70, the “Third Further Response,” which the
17 Court interprets to be Brown’s complete and final response, states, in part:4 “Compliance
18
19
20 3 Although Plaintiff states generally that he seeks to compel responses to every single
21 RFP issued to all Defendants, he only specifically addresses certain RFPs propounded on
Defendants Brown, Jet Agency Global, LLC, and C3 Jets, LLC, text messages for certain
22
RFPs propounded on all Defendants, a privilege log, and verifications. Accordingly, the
23 Court will limit its discussion to these specific requests.
4 Brown also makes additional objections in his “Third Further Response” to these
24
RFPs, but the Court deems those objections waived, as Brown did not raise them in his
25 opposition to the motion to compel. See Medina v. Cnty. of San Diego, No. 08CV1252-
BAS-RBB, 2014 WL 4793026, at *16 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2014) (“If a party fails to
26
continue to assert an objection in opposition to a motion to compel, courts deem the
27 objection waived.”); Duran v. Cnty. of Riverside, No. 5:23-CV-00106-AB (JDE), 2024 WL
3468758, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 3, 2024) (“Objections asserted in discovery responses but
28
1 with this request is unmanageable and unduly burdensome given the breadth of the
2 request.”5
3 For RFP Nos. 31 through 33 and 70, despite making this burden objection in his
4 “Third Further Response,” Brown represents that he “has conducted a search using the
5 keyword words provided in the request, as well as any relevant synonyms not explicitly
6 stated in the request” and “[t]o the extent they exist, [he] will produce all documents
7 responsive to this request in [his] possession including text messages in [his] possession.”
8 (ECF No. 188-3 at 137–40, 188 (emphasis added).)6 In addition, for RFP Nos. 43 and 67,
9 Brown represents that “[a]fter a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, [he] cannot comply
10 with th[e] request at this time as no such document(s) exists within [his] possession,
11 custody, or control.” (ECF No. 188-3 at 152, 184.) For all other RFPs, including RFP
12 Nos. 5, 39, 53, 54, 58, 64–66, 68, and 69, Brown objects solely on other grounds, none of
13 which are argued in his Opposition and, therefore, all of which are waived.
14 Defendants represent that they have “repeatedly already offered to let Plaintiff or his
15 agent perform inspections of Defendants[’] servers to obtain the documents sought[.]”
16 (ECF No. 190 at 2.) Specifically, “Defendants offered [Plaintiff] and his counsel the
17 opportunity to come to Defendants’ place of business with their own expert and perform
18 whatever downloads they wished.” (Id. at 4; see also id. at 5 (“Defendants remain
19 committed to permitting [Plaintiff] either personally, or through experts, to examine their
20 systems and pull whatever data he wishes.”).7 Plaintiff has declined to do so. (Id.)
21
22
23
24 5 Defendants claim the 40,000 documents already produced by Brown took 80 hours
25 to produce and estimate that the remaining searches on seven additional custodians will
take at least 100 hours. (ECF No. 190 at 3–4.) Defendants also claim that engaging experts
26
to do the searches could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. (Id. at 3.)
27 6 As discussed below, Brown must produce all relevant documents in his possession,
custody, or control, not just in his possession.
28
1 Plaintiff does not address this offer in his reply. Rather, he argues that “Defendants’
2 reliance on outdated comparisons to justify their claims of excessive cost lacks credible
3 support,” particularly as Defendants “use Google for email services,” which has a cloud-
4 based platform and “readily accessible data with widely available instructions for retrieving
5 current and former accounts to prepare files for discovery.” (ECF No. 191 at 2.) Plaintiff
6 further argues that “[r]etrieving text messages is straightforward, using widely available
7 third-party tools that do not require Apple ID access.” (Id. at 3.)
8 Plaintiff contends that Defendants have the technical knowledge to access the
9 required documents on their own, pointing to a Joint Discovery Statement, dated
10 June 21, 2024, submitted by Defendants’ prior counsel at Higgs Fletcher & Mack, LLP,
11 which indicates that the firm has an in-house IT team. (ECF Nos. 191 at 2–3; 191-1 at 46.)
12 Plaintiff also argues that Defendants’ initial capacity to produce over 40,000 documents
13 from a single custodian belies their claim of burden. (Id. at 4.) However, Plaintiff does
14 not address Defendants’ claim that its substantial production of 40,000 documents occurred
15 at a time when Defendants “were still (potentially) solvent business entities, and
16 Defendants had the technical staff necessary to assist with pulling and reviewing
17 potentially-responsive documents.” (ECF No. 190 at 4–6.) Defendants have represented
18 that they no longer employ the requisite technical staff or a large law firm with an in-house
19 IT staff. (See ECF No. 112.)
20 Given the foregoing, the Court finds that the most efficient (and reliable) way to
21 gather all documents and communications at issue is to compel Brown to permit Plaintiff
22 (or his designated expert or representative) to inspect any servers and/or hard drives in
23 Brown’s possession, custody, or control for all agreed upon custodians, as well as provide
24 access to their Gmail accounts, at a mutually agreeable date and time within the next
25 fourteen days. Brown has represented in this case that he uses “a single email account for
26 all the Defendant entities.” (ECF No. 191-1 at 42.) Moreover, Plaintiff served as the Chief
27 Technology Officer of JGH until January 2023. (ECF No. 188-2 at 5.) He has over ten
28 years of experience and proficiency in Google Cloud Platform and various other cloud
1 services providers, is proficient in the setup, maintenance, and operations of Google
2 Workspace, including Gmail, and is “the most authoritative person regarding the general
3 storage and accessibility of JGH records and much of Defendants[’] data systems.” (See
4 ECF Nos. 191-1 at 2–10; 188-2 at 5, 6.) He therefore has the technological know-how to
5 access and download Gmail accounts and search for the documents he needs to prosecute
6 his case.
7 The Court further finds it appropriate to compel Brown to produce all bank
8 statements and credit card statements responsive to RFP Nos. 5 and 7–9. To the extent
9 Brown has control over the accounts at issue and has the authority to personally request a
10 copy of the statements from his bank and credit card companies, he shall do so. Brown
11 shall file a declaration with the Court within ten days of the date of this Order confirming
12 that he has requested such statements from the relevant banks and credit card companies.
13 With respect to text messages, Plaintiff claims that Defendants previously agreed to
14 produce text messages for all RFPs to which responsive communications include text
15 messages. (ECF No. 188-1 at 10.) However, Defendants now claim that they no longer
16 have access to any text messages from any of the identified custodians and that Brown no
17 longer has any text messages from the relevant time frame. (ECF No. 190 at 5.)
18 Specifically, Defendants represent that they “simply do not have access to the individual
19 text messages for the requested custodians.” (Id.) Although expressly directed by the
20 Court to provide the information, Defendants appeared at the May 28, 2025 hearing
21 unprepared to say whether the identified custodians used their personal phones for business
22 use and why Defendants no longer have possession, custody, or control of the data. (ECF
23 No. 214 at 7–10.) However, to the extent the requested custodians used cell phones,8 which
24
25
26 8 The Court finds that the inspection of business cell phones does not implicate the
27 same privacy interests as the inspection of personal cell phones. See Henson v. Turn, Inc.,
No. 15-CV-01497-JSW (LB), 2018 WL 5281629, at *5–7 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2018)
28
1 still in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control, they shall make these phones
2 available for inspection by Plaintiff.
3 Accordingly, as set forth in the chart below, the Court orders as follows:
4
5 REP No. 5 All bank statements for any | Brown shall produce all
bank account held by You __| responsive bank statements
6 either in part or in whole from December 13, 2016, to
7 that demonstrate any the present. Brown has not
payments You received demonstrated that he cannot
8 from any of the Entity obtain these statements from
9 Defendants? since the bank or that it would be
December 13, 2016. unduly burdensome. All
10 transactional information
ll beyond that which is requested
may be redacted.
12 RFP No. 7 All credit card statements _| Brown shall produce all
B for any credit card account | responsive credit card
held by You either in part or | statements from December 13,
14 in whole that reflect any 2016, to the present. Brown
15 charges for any of the Entity | has not demonstrated that he
Defendants since cannot obtain these statements
16 December 13, 2016. from the credit card
7 companies and that it would
be unduly burdensome. All
18 transactional information
19 beyond that which is requested
may be redacted.
20
1 RFP No. 8 All bank statements relating | Brown shall produce all
to any bank account held in | responsive bank statements
22 the name of any Entity from December 13, 2016, to
23 Defendant that you are the present. Brown has not
authorized to access since demonstrated that he cannot
24 December 13, 2016. obtain these statements from
25
26
27 Entity Defendant(s) is defined in the RFPs as follows: “Jet Genius Holdings, Inc.;
Jet Genius Florida Holdings, Inc.; C3 Jets LLC; Bowman Aviation, Inc.; Jet Agency Global,
28 |ILLC: C3 Limo LLC: and Jetcharter.com LLC.” (See ECF No. 188-3 at 3.)
| dee
unduly burdensome.
3 RFP No. 9 All credit card statements Brown shall produce all
4 relating to any credit card responsive credit card
account held in the name of | statements from December 13,
5 any Entity Defendant for 2016, to the present. Brown
6 which you are an authorized | has not demonstrated that he
user since cannot obtain these statements
7 December 13, 2016. from the credit card
8 companies and that it would
be unduly burdensome.
9 RFP No. 28 All documents and Defendant shall make any
10 communications relating to | physical documents and
any re1mbursement You materials, as well as the
ll have received from any servers, email accounts, cell
12 Entity Defendant at any phones, and any other
time since December 13, electronic storage media in his
13 2016. possession, custody, or control
14 for all identified custodians
available for Plaintiff's
I5 inspection.
16 RFP No. 31 All communications Defendant shall make any
between You and Alex physical documents and
17 Wolf since December 13, materials, as well as the
18 2016 relating to any of the | servers, email accounts, cell
Entity Defendants. phones, and any other
19 electronic storage media in his
20 possession, custody, or control
for all identified custodians
21 available for Plaintiffs
77 inspection.
REP No. 32 All communications Defendant shall make any
23 between You and Alex physical documents and
74 Wolf since December 13, materials, as well as the
2016 relating to Plaintiff. servers, email accounts, cell
25 phones, and any other
26 electronic storage media in his
possession, custody, or control
27 for all identified custodians
28
|r
inspection.
3 RFP No. 33 All communications Defendant shall make any
4 between You and Alex physical documents and
Wolf relating to this Action. | materials, as well as the
5 servers, email accounts, cell
6 phones, and any other
electronic storage media in his
7 possession, custody, or control
8 for all identified custodians
available for Plaintiff's
9 inspection.
10 RFP No. 37 All communications Defendant shall make any
between You and Stacy physical documents and
ll Brown since December 13, | materials, as well as the
12 2016 relating to any of the | servers, email accounts, cell
Entity Defendants. phones, and any other
13 electronic storage media in his
14 possession, custody, or control
for all identified custodians
I5 available for Plaintiff's
16 inspection.
RFP No. 38 All communications Defendant shall make any
17 between You and Stacy physical documents and
18 Brown since December 13, | materials, as well as the
2016 relating to Plaintiff. servers, email accounts, cell
19 phones, and any other
20 electronic storage media in his
possession, custody, or control
21 for all identified custodians
77 available for Plaintiffs
inspection.
23 RFP No. 39 All communications Defendant shall make any
74 between You and Stacy physical documents and
Brown relating to this materials, as well as the
25 Action. servers, email accounts, cell
26 phones, and any other
electronic storage media in his
27 possession, custody, or control
28 for all identified custodians
|r
inspection.
3 RFP No. 43 All communications Defendant shall make any
4 between You and Chasen physical documents and
Dobos since December 13, | materials, as well as the
5 2016 relating to any of the | servers, email accounts, cell
6 Entity Defendants. phones, and any other
electronic storage media
7 devices in his possession,
8 custody, or control for all
identified custodians available
9 for Plaintiff's inspection.
10 RFP No. 53 All documents and Defendant shall make any
communications relating to | physical documents and
11 any transfer of any money __| materials, as well as the
12 or any other asset to the servers, email accounts, cell
Stacy Brown Separate phones, and any other
13 Property Trust, as may be electronic storage media in his
14 amended and/or restated, by | possession, custody, or control
You or any Entity for all identified custodians
I5 Defendant since December _ | available for Plaintiffs
16 13, 2016. inspection.
RFP No. 54 All documents and Defendant shall make any
17 communications relating to | physical documents and
18 any transfer of any money | materials, as well as the
or any other asset from the | servers, email accounts, cell
19 Stacy Brown Separate phones, and any other
20 Property Trust, as may be electronic storage media in his
amended and/or restated, to | possession, custody, or control
21 You or any Entity for all identified custodians
77 Defendant since December | available for Plaintiff's
13, 2016. inspection.
23 RFP No. 58 All documents and Defendant shall make the
74 communications relating to | servers, email accounts, cell
Your travels, including all | phones, and any other
25 itineraries, receipts, electronic storage media in his
26 accommodation bookings, | possession, custody, or control
and records of any flights, | for all identified custodians
27 whether commercial or available for Plaintiff's
28 private [for which You did __| inspection.
‘| ees:
since December 13, 2016.
3 RFP No. 64 All documents and Defendant shall make any
4 communications relating to | physical documents and
any unpaid state or federal | materials, as well as the
5 tax obligations that You servers, email accounts, cell
6 owed or was assessed phones, and any other
against You from December | electronic storage media in his
7 13, 2016 to present, possession, custody, or control
8 including but not limited to | for all identified custodians
any unpaid federal excise available for Plaintiff's
9 tax. inspection.
10 RFP No. 65 All documents and Defendant shall make any
communications relating to | physical documents and
11 any decisions to provide, or | materials, as well as the
12 not to provide, a defense or | servers, email accounts, cell
to indemnify Plaintiff in phones, and any other
13 relation to any tax electronic storage media in his
14 obligation or action by the _| possession, custody, or control
IRS related to any tax for all identified custodians
I5 obligation. available for Plaintiff's
16 inspection.
RFP No. 66 All documents and Defendant shall make any
17 communications relating to | physical documents and
18 the sale, license, transfer, or | materials, as well as the
continued development of | servers, email accounts, cell
19 the JGH Platform since phones, and any other
20 December 13, 2016. electronic storage media in his
possession, custody, or control
21 for all identified custodians
77 available for Plaintiffs
inspection.
23 RFP No. 67 All documents and Defendant shall make any
74 communications relating to | physical documents and
You permitting the use of _ | materials, as well as the
25 the JGH Platform by any servers, email accounts, cell
26 other person or entity since | phones, and any other
December 13, 2016. electronic storage media in his
27 possession, custody, or control
28 for all identified custodians
inspection.
3 RFP No. 68 All documents and Defendant shall make any
4 communications relating to | physical documents and
the negotiations or materials, as well as the
5 execution of the Letter servers, email accounts, cell
6 Agreement. phones, and any other
electronic storage media in his
7 possession, custody, or control
8 for all identified custodians
available for Plaintiff's
9 inspection.
10 RFP No. 69 All documents and Defendant shall make any
communications relating to | physical documents and
ll Your performance, or the materials, as well as the
12 performance of Jet Genius ___| servers, email accounts, cell
Holdings, Inc., of the terms | phones, and any other
13 and requirements of the electronic storage media in his
14 Letter Agreement. possession, custody, or control
for all identified custodians
I5 available for Plaintiff's
16 inspection.
REP No. 70 All documents and Defendant shall make any
17 communications (including | physical documents and
18 but not limited to evidence | materials, as well as the
of phone calls or text servers, email accounts, cell
19 messages) relating to, phones, and any other
20 evidencing, or comprising | electronic storage media in his
communications made possession, custody, or control
21 while utilizing the Phone for all identified custodians
77 Account. available for Plaintiffs
inspection.
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 2. Jet Agency Global, LLC
2 Plaintiff contends that Jet Agency Global, LLC’s response to RFP No. 5 remains
3 deficient. (ECF No. 188-1 at 10.) RFP No. 5 requests: “All Your client invoices since
4 December 13, 2016.” (ECF No. 188-3 at 277.) Jet Agency Global, LLC’s “Third Further
5 Response” states:
6 This request seeks information that may be confidential, proprietary, and trade
7 secret business information, and violates the right to financial privacy.
Subject to and without waiving said objections, Responding Party responds
8 as follows: Responding Party will produce all documents responsive to this
9 request in its possession. Discovery is ongoing and Responding Party
reserves the right to modify, supplement, revise or amend this response as
10 additional information becomes available.
11 (Id. at 278.)
12 Defendants do not dispute the relevance of this request. The Court deems the
13 objections as to trade secrets, confidentiality and privacy waived as Defendants did not
14 raise them in their opposition to the motion to compel. See Medina, 2014 WL 4793026, at
15 *16; Duran, 2024 WL 3468758, at *2. Separate and apart from the waiver, in light of the
16 Protective Order in place and the representations that the entity defendants are insolvent
17 and winding down (ECF No. 190 at 4), those objections are overruled. Therefore, to the
18 extent Jet Agency Global, LLC has not produced all documents in its “possession, custody,
19 or control,” it must do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). As previously stated, “[c]ontrol is
20 defined as the legal right to obtain documents upon demand.” Int’l Union of Petroleum &
21 Indus. Workers, AFL-CIO, 870 F.2d at 1452. Therefore, Defendant Jet Agency Global,
22 LLC is responsible for producing documents that are not just in its possession, but
23 documents that it has the legal right to demand from a third party. If no additional
24 documents exist, Jet Agency Global, LLC must amend its response to state that a
25 reasonable inquiry has been made, and no further responsive documents exist.
26 3. C3 Jets, LLC
27 Plaintiff contends that C3 Jets, LLC’s response to RFP No. 19 remains deficient.
28 (ECF No. 188-1 at 10.) RFP No. 19 requests: “All Your check registers and general ledgers
1 since December 13, 2016.” (ECF No. 188-4 at 30.) C3 Jets, LLC’s “Third Further
2 Response” states:
3
Objection. Responding Party objects to the terms “check registers” and
4 “general ledgers” as vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. This request seeks
5 information that may be confidential, proprietary, and trade secret business
information, and violates the right to financial privacy. Subject to and without
6 waiving said objections, Responding Party responds as follows: To the extent
7 they exist, Responding Party will produce all documents responsive to this
request in its possession. Discovery is ongoing and Responding Party
8 reserves the right to modify, supplement, revise or amend this response as
9 additional information becomes available.
10 (Id. at 31.) Defendants do not dispute the relevance of this request. The Court deems the
11 objections as to trade secrets, confidentiality and privacy waived as Defendants did not
12 raise them in their opposition to the motion to compel. See Medina, 2014 WL 4793026, at
13 *16; Duran, 2024 WL 3468758, at *2. Separate and apart from the waiver, in light of the
14 Protective Order in place and the representations that the entity defendants are insolvent
15 and winding down (ECF No. 190 at 4), those objections are overruled. Therefore, as
16 previously stated, to the extent C3 Jets, LLC has not produced all documents in its
17 “possession, custody, or control,” it must do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). If no
18 additional documents exist, C3 Jets, LLC must amend its response to state that a reasonable
19 inquiry has been made, and no further responsive documents exist.
20 4. Privilege Log, Verifications, and Amended RFP Responses
21 Plaintiff further claims that Defendants previously agreed to do, but have not done,
22 the following: (1) produce a privilege log that (a) identifies all documents or
23 communications that were removed from collection by anyone other than Higgs, Fletcher
24 & Mack attorneys and (b) properly identifies all documents or communications that were
25 withheld on the basis of a privilege; (2) serve verifications to interrogatories for which they
26 have not served verifications; and (3) for any RFP response that states Defendants will
27 produce responsive documents or communications in their “possession” means that they
28
1 will produce responsive documents or communications in their “possession, custody or
2 control.” (ECF No. 188-1 at 10.)
3 Defendants do not address any of these requests. As to the privilege log issue,
4 Defendants served their initial responses to Plaintiff’s RFPs well over a year ago at a time
5 when they were a solvent entity and represented by a large law firm. Following a
6 June 27, 2024 Discovery Conference, the Court further ordered Defendants to produce a
7 complete privilege log to Plaintiff no later than July 15, 2024. (ECF No. 120.) To the
8 extent no privilege log has been served with respect to any prior production, the Court finds
9 that all privileges, except for marital communications, as discussed below, have been
10 waived under the circumstances. See Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct.
11 for Dist. of Mont., 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that a district court should
12 make a case-by-case determination as to whether a party has waived its privileges by failing
13 to timely produce a privilege log; finding five months too long).
14 To the extent Stacy Brown is claiming the marital communications privilege as to
15 any responsive marital communications, Defendants must create a privilege log of those
16 communications within fourteen days. See United States v. Montgomery, 384 F.3d 1050,
17 1056 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[T]he marital communications privilege[] provides that
18 [c]ommunications between the spouses, privately made, are generally assumed to have
19 been intended to be confidential, and hence they are privileged.”) (internal quotation marks
20 and citation omitted); see also Veracities PBC v. Strand, 602 F. Supp. 3d 1354, 1359 (D.
21 Or. 2022) (holding that “at least in the content of a civil lawsuit involving business matters,
22 a written marital communication may not be privileged if it is an ‘ordinary business
23 communication’ and it does not have some other indication of confidentiality”). With the
24 exception of documents as to which Stacy Brown asserts the marital communications
25 privilege, Defendants shall produce all documents withheld on the basis of privilege.
26 Next, with respect to Defendants’ interrogatory responses, Federal Rule of Civil
27 Procedure 33 clearly states, “The person who makes the answers must sign them, and the
28 attorney who objects must sign any objections.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(5). Therefore, to
1 the extent Defendants have not signed their interrogatory responses, they must do so within
2 ten days of the date of this Order.
3 D. Attorney’s Fees
4 Plaintiff seeks $64,450.50 in attorney’s fees which he incurred because of this
5 discovery dispute. (ECF No. 188-1 at 13.) This amount covers the time frame from
6 January 31, 2024, through August 22, 2024. (ECF No. 191-1 at 145–48.) Plaintiff attaches
7 the invoices from Procopio, his law firm during this time, to his reply. (Id. at 95–144.)
8 Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees is not appropriate given
9 Plaintiff’s pro se status at the time he filed the motion. (ECF No. 190 at 2.)
10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5) provides that if the court grants a motion
11 to compel discovery, it “must” order the non-moving party to pay the moving party's
12 “reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A).
13 However, the Rule recognizes various exceptions, such as where the court finds the
14 nonmoving party’s nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified,10 or
15 an award of expenses would be unjust. See id. If the court grants in part and denies in part
16 a motion to compel discovery, the court may “apportion the reasonable expenses for the
17 motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C).
18 Here, although Defendants do not argue otherwise, the Court finds that Defendants’
19 discovery positions were not reasonably justified, and an award of attorney’s fees would
20 not be unjust. This Court has overseen discovery disputes regarding Defendants’ responses
21 to the discovery requests at issue for more than a year. Defendants initially raised some
22 legitimate objections to some aspects of the discovery. On multiple occasions, the Court
23 held informal Discovery Conferences at which compromises were reached and Defendants
24
25
26 10 “A request for discovery is ‘substantially justified’ under Rule 37 if reasonable
27 people could differ on the matter in dispute.” Blair, 2014 WL 4658731, at *1 (citation
omitted). The non-moving party bears the burden of demonstrating its conduct was
28
1 agreed to supplement their responses consistent with those compromises. Time and time
2 again, Defendants revoked or denied the agreements reached in informal discovery
3 conferences. Time and time again, Defendants failed to meet deadlines set by the Rules of
4 Civil Procedure and by Court orders. Time and time again, Defendants shifted their
5 positions to the detrimental reliance of Plaintiff. Although Defendants most recently have
6 offered to resolve some of the disputes between the parties by allowing Plaintiff to directly
7 inspect and copy electronically stored data, it was only at the continued motion hearing on
8 May 28, 2025, that Defendants provided email usernames and passwords to Plaintiff.
9 Moreover, Defendants’ assertions at the hearings on this motion raised serious questions
10 about possible spoliation of evidence.
11 Here, Plaintiff seeks an award of attorney’s fees for the time his prior counsel spent
12 meeting and conferring and attempting to resolve this discovery dispute long before the
13 motion to compel was filed. Rule 37(a)(5) provides for “reasonable expenses incurred in
14 making the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) (emphasis added). Courts therefore do
15 not consider reasonable the time “spent on meeting and conferring regarding discovery
16 disputes or reviewing discovery responses and production, both of which are also normal
17 expenses incurred in the course of litigation.” Sanchez Y Martin, S.A. de C.V. v. Dos
18 Amigos, Inc., No. 17CV1943-LAB-LL, 2019 WL 3769191, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2019)
19 (collecting cases); see also Dish Network L.L.C. v. Jadoo TV, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-9768-FMO
20 (KSx), 2019 WL 7166067, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2019) (“Courts in this district have
21 reasoned that [the statutory] language does not include time spent by counsel in meet and
22 confer efforts as compensable under Rule 37(a)(5)(A).”).
23 At the time Plaintiff filed this motion, he was proceeding pro se. (See ECF Nos.
24 145, 178, 188.) He is therefore not entitled to any attorney’s fees for work done by his
25 former firm under Rule 37(a)(5)(A). See Duran v. Cnty. of Riverside, No. 5:23-CV-00106-
26 AB (JDE), 2024 WL 3468758, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 3, 2024) (citing Pickholtz v. Rainbow
27 Techs., Inc., 284 F.3d 1365, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“Rule 37 does not empower the district
28 court to award attorney fees to a pro se litigant.”)). However, Plaintiff is entitled to
1 reasonable expenses incurred by his current counsel in filing the reply in support of his
2 motion and attending both hearings before the Court related to the motion. (See ECF No.
3 191.) Plaintiff shall therefore file a declaration substantiating the reasonable expenses11
4 incurred by his current counsel within ten (10) days of the date of this Order. Defendants
5 will be given an opportunity to respond.
6 IV. CONCLUSION
7 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. As set forth above, the
8 Court ORDERS as follows:
9 1. Brown shall permit Plaintiff (or his designated expert or representative) to
10 inspect the electronic storage media for all agreed upon custodians,12 to
11 include providing access to their Gmail accounts, at a mutually agreeable date
12 and time within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order.
13 2. Brown shall permit Plaintiff (or his designated expert or representative) to
14 inspect and copy physical items and documents that may contain responsive
15 material at a mutually agreeable date and time within fourteen (14) days of
16 the date of this Order.
17
18
19 11 Reasonable attorneys’ fees are determined by the lodestar method. Blair v. CBE
Grp., Inc., No. 13CV134-MMA WVG, 2014 WL 4658731, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2014).
20
“The ‘lodestar’ is calculated by multiplying the number of hours the prevailing party
21 reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate.” Morales v. City of San
Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 363 (9th Cir. 1996). “[T]he fee applicant bears the burden of
22
establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and
23 hourly rate.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). To do so, the applicant
“should submit evidence supporting the hours worked and rates claimed.” Id. “Where the
24
documentation of hours is inadequate, the district court may reduce the award
25 accordingly.” Id.
12 These custodians include: (1) Brown; (2) personal assistants, presumed to be but not
26
limited to, Ileana Garces, Marie Stone, Bianca Feller, Kimberlee Pouykham, and Emile
27 Rosenow; Executives Chasen Dobos, Ryan Sargent, and Yves Brancheau; (3) accounting
staff Roya Arabi, Deb Fouts, Cindy Grotsky, Maureen Bartzis, and Laurie Rector; (4)
28
1 3. To the extent Defendants have possession, custody, or control of the cell
2 phones used by the agreed upon custodians, they shall make those phones
3 available for inspection by Plaintiff at a mutually agreeable date and time
4 within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order.
5 4. Brown shall file a declaration with the Court within ten (10) days of the date
6 of this Order confirming that he has requested all responsive bank statements
7 and credit card statements. Brown shall produce these statements to Plaintiff
8 within seven (7) days of receipt of the statements.
9 5. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, Defendant Jet Agency
10 Global, LLC shall produce all documents in its possession, custody, or control
11 responsive to RFP No. 5, or allow Plaintiff (or his designated expert or
12 representative) to inspect and copy the same at a mutually agreeable date and
13 time. If no further documents exist, Defendant shall amend its response to
14 state that a reasonable inquiry has been made, and no further responsive
15 documents exist.
16 6. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, Defendant C3 Jets, LLC
17 shall produce all documents in its possession, custody, or control responsive
18 to RFP No. 19, or allow Plaintiff (or his designated expert or representative)
19 to inspect and copy the same at a mutually agreeable date and time. If no
20 further documents exist, Defendant shall amend its response to state that a
21 reasonable inquiry has been made, and no further responsive documents exist.
22 7. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, Defendants shall produce
23 all responsive documents withheld on the basis of privilege, except for those
24 documents over which Stacy Brown asserts the marital communications
25 privilege.
26 8. Within ten (10) days of the date of this Order, Defendants shall serve on
27 Plaintiff signed copies of their interrogatories in compliance with Fed. R. Civ.
28 P. 33.
1 9. Plaintiff shall file a declaration substantiating the reasonable fees incurred by
2 his counsel in filing the reply and attending the two related hearings before
3 the Court within ten (10) days of the date of this Order. Defendants may file
4 any opposition challenging the reasonableness of the amount of attorney’s
5 fees within five (5) days of Plaintiff's filing of his declaration.
6 10. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, Defendants shall produce
7 a privilege log of any communications as to which Stacy Brown is asserting
8 marital communications privilege.
9 11. Failure to timely comply with any aspect of this Order may expose
10 Defendants to the imposition of sanctions up to and including evidentiary
11 and issue preclusion sanctions.
12 IT IS SO ORDERED.
13 Dated: June 6, 2025 -
i U Burbthenddr
n. Jill L. Burkhardt
15 ited States Magistrate Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
49