Name: Robbins, et al. v. Acuity Ventures, III, LLC, et al.
Case No.: 2016-1-CV-293917 (consolidated with 2017-1-CV-310857)

This is a consolidated civil action arising from a private equity transaction brought by plaintiffs Paul Robbins and Sheri Robbins (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) as trustees of the Paul B. and Sheri L. Robbins Trust against defendants Acuity Ventures III, L.P. (“Partnership”), Acuity Management Company, LLC (“AMC”), Acuity Ventures, LLC (“Ventures I”), Acuity Ventures II, LLC (“Ventures II”), Eric Hardgrave (“Hardgrave”), and Larry Hootnick (“Hootnick”).

Plaintiffs allege AMC, a general partner of the Partnership, as well as Ventures I and Ventures II were formed for the purpose of early-stage investment in technology companies. They claim Hardgrave defrauded them into investing in these venture funds and that he and Hootnick thereafter mismanaged the funds throughout their operation and wind up. Plaintiffs assert fraud, contract, and breach of fiduciary duty claims against the entities, Hardgrave, and Hootnick.

On August 23, 2016, Plaintiffs served requests for production (“RPDs”), set one (“2016 RPDs”), in the 2016 lead case, to both AMC and Partnership. In December 2016, Plaintiffs filed a discovery motion to compel further responses to the 2016 RPDs and for monetary, evidentiary, issue and terminating sanctions. On August 1, 2017, the Court heard arguments on the motion. On February 20, 2018, Plaintiffs purportedly served RPDs, set two (“2018 RPDs”) on defendant AMC in the derivative action, consisting of 20 RPDs. Plaintiffs concede that the wording of the RPDs is similar, and in some cases, identical to the 2016 RPDs. On May 3, 2018, the Court granted in part the motion to compel further responses to the 2016 RPDs. Also on May 3, 2018, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to compel initial responses to the 2018 RPDs.

In opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion, Defendants contend that they never received the 2018 RPDs. Regardless, on June 27, 2018, Defendants provided further responses with objections and Defendants assert that the motion is moot. Defendants also assert that Plaintiffs do not have good cause to propound the duplicative discovery as the Court has already ruled on the 2016 RPDs.

In reply, Plaintiffs argue that the 2018 RPDs are not duplicative discovery because they were served in a different action involving different issues. Plaintiffs also assert that the motion is not moot because the motion sought responses without objections, and that is not what has been provided. Plaintiffs also note that Defendants have not produced documents as to the 20 RPDs except for one. Defendants have also not yet provided a privilege log as ordered by the Court in its May 3, 2018 order.

Here, the motion is MOOT as Defendants have provided responses. Moreover, the Court notes that Defendants have been ordered to produce documents responsive to the 2016 RPDs and a privilege log. Defendants have not yet provided these documents or a privilege log. Regardless, as the case has now been consolidated, responses to discovery requests pertain to the consolidated action, not merely either the lead action or the derivative action.

The Court orders the parties to meet and confer over the amended responses, and strongly encourages Defendants to provide amended responses and produce documents as already ordered. Moreover, as already stated in its May 3, 2018 order, an informal discovery conference shall be required for any future discovery motions.

Defendants request monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,246.50. Plaintiffs request monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,089.00. Both requests for monetary sanctions are code-compliant. However, there are circumstances that make imposition of the sanctions unjust. The requests for monetary sanctions are DENIED.

The Court will prepare the order.