Ballast Advisors, LLC v. Peterson et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
BALLAST ADVISORS, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SCOTT A. PETERSON, et al.,
Defendant.
Case No. 23-CV-3769 (PJS/JFD)
ORDER ON MOTION TO
COMPEL
This matter is before the Court on Ballast Advisors, LLC’s (“Ballast”) Motion to
Compel Scott A. Peterson, Melinda M. Bradley, and MMX Wealth Partners, LLC
(“MMX”) (collectively, “Defendants”) to respond to various discovery requests. (Dkt. No.
79.) The Court heard oral argument on the Motion on October 2, 2025. Matthew T. Boos
and Melissa Stumbras appeared for the Plaintiff, while Joel Andersen and Katie M.
Connolly appeared for the Defendants. (Hr’g Mins., Dkt. No. 156 (listing all appearances
of counsel).) After hearing oral argument and studying the parties’ briefs, the Court grants
the motion in part and denies it in part, as described below.
BACKGROUND
This is a breach of contract case in which Ballast alleges that Defendant Scott
Peterson violated his employment contract with Ballast in various ways, including by
illicitly using and disclosing Ballast’s confidential information, soliciting Ballast clients,
and violating a non-compete agreement between the parties. (See Sec. Am. Compl. ¶¶78–
89, Dkt. No. 73.) It also alleges that Peterson misappropriated trade secrets and confidential
CASE 0:23-cv-03769-PJS-JFD Doc. 108 Filed 10/21/25 Page 1 of 10

2
information, breached his fiduciary duty and duty of loyalty to Ballast, tortiously interfered
with Ballast’s prospective economic advantage, and that he was aided and abetted in these
actions by his co-defendants. (See id. at ¶¶90–127.) In response, Mr. Peterson brings
several counterclaims against Ballast and its founding partner, Paul Parnell, including
defamation, malicious injury, intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation of Mr. Peterson’s
name and likeness, and false endorsement under 15 U.S.C. §1125. (See Peterson Answer
to Sec. Am. Compl. and Counterclaims ¶¶27–70, Dkt. No. 76.)
Generally, Mr. Peterson and Ms. Bradley were hired by Ballast in 2017 and 2019,
respectively, with Mr. Peterson working as an investment advisor and Ms. Bradley working
as a Client Services Manager, almost exclusively for Mr. Peterson. (See Sec. Am. Compl.
at ¶¶2, 3, 14, 19, 24.) Ms. Bradley left Ballast in June 2022 and went to work for MMX, a
company owned by Mr. Peterson’s friend Mark Marxer. (Id. at ¶36–37.) In September
2022, Mr. Peterson signed an Employment Agreement that included confidentiality and
non-solicitation agreements. (Id. at ¶26.) Mr. Peterson resigned from Ballast in February
of 2023. (Id. at ¶¶38–40.) After leaving Ballast, Mr. Peterson began providing investment
advising services in association with Ms. Bradley and MMX, where, Ballast alleges, he has
both solicited and advised clients whom he advised with Ballast and whom he agreed not
to solicit in his employment agreement in violation of that agreement’s confidentiality and
non-solicitation clauses. (Id. at ¶¶47–51.) Ballast alleges that the plan for Ms. Bradley and
Mr. Peterson to leave Ballast for MMX and take Ballast clients was devised in May and
June of 2022. (Id. at ¶56.)
CASE 0:23-cv-03769-PJS-JFD Doc. 108 Filed 10/21/25 Page 2 of 10

3
I. 	Procedural History
This case has had a slow start. Though the original complaint was filed in December
of 2023, the parties did not argue Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss until April of 2024, and
no action was taken after that hearing until Defendants moved to stay discovery until
October of 2024. (See Compl., Dkt. No. 1; Defs.’ Mem in Supp. of Mot. to Stay 1–2, Dkt.
No. 39.) That motion was granted on November 13, 2024 by the Honorable Tony N. Leung,
the Magistrate Judge to which this case was referred until his retirement in March of 2025.
(Min. Entry, Dkt. No. 45.) Judge Leung lifted that stay on January 7, 2025, and Defendants
filed their Amended Answer and Counterclaims on January 24. (See Order Lifting Stay,
Dkt. No. 53; Am. Ans. and Countercl., Dkt. No. 54.) A Pretrial Scheduling Order was not
issued until March 3, 2025, setting the fact discovery and non-dispositive motions deadline
for November 1, 2025.1 (See Pretrial Scheduling Order, Dkt. No. 65.) After a substitution
of counsel for Defendants in April and another round of amendments to the complaint and
countercomplaint in August and September of 2025, Ballast filed this Motion, claiming
that Defendants have intentionally delayed and avoided their discovery obligations in
several ways, unnecessarily extending this litigation. (See Pl.’s Mem. in Supp. 1–3, Dkt.
No. 81.)
Ballast states that it re-served its first set of discovery requests on all Defendants on
January 10, 2025, three days after the stay was lifted and that Mr. Peterson’s first
substantive responses came on February 26, consisting of 99 pages of documents. (Pl.’s
1 The fact discovery deadline has since been extended to January 9, 2026, pursuant to a
stipulation by the parties. (Am. Pretrial Scheduling Order, Dkt. No. 107.)
CASE 0:23-cv-03769-PJS-JFD Doc. 108 Filed 10/21/25 Page 3 of 10

4
Mem. in Supp. 6, Dkt. No. 81.) Ballast did not receive substantive responses from Ms.
Bradley and MMX until May 30. (Id.) These productions did not include communications
between Ms. Bradley and Mr. Peterson, a deficiency that was mirrored in Mr. Peterson’s
production. (Id. at 10.) Ballast claims those responses were inadequate for a variety of
reasons, including that Peterson had refused to respond to several requests because “terms
like ‘Ballast Client,’ ‘done business with,’ and ‘You’ were vague and ambiguous.” (Id. at
7) Ballast says that, on multiple occasions, the parties came to agreements about discovery,
only to have Defendants’ counsel fail to produce promised discovery in a timely manner.
(Id. at 9.) Mr. Peterson then made additional productions in May of 2025, which Ballast
also claims were inadequate, and Ballast says that further attempts by its counsel to retrieve
responsive documents were unsuccessful, with regular promises of imminent production
going unfulfilled. (Id.) This pattern of promises to produce documents followed by a failure
to follow through on those promises allegedly continued throughout the summer of 2025
and ultimately led to Ballast’s decision to file this motion on September 18.
For their part, Defendants largely do not object to Ballast’s characterization of the
Discovery process to date. Rather, they make legal arguments as to vagueness and this
Court’s authority to order discovery and base their objections on the Proposed Order
presented to the Court, rather than Ballast’s substantive claims of deficiency. As explained
below, the Court finds Defendants’ legal arguments dubious, at least. In fact, the day after
the hearing, Defendants submitted a letter to the Court, stating that they now plan on
CASE 0:23-cv-03769-PJS-JFD Doc. 108 Filed 10/21/25 Page 4 of 10

5
producing a majority of the documents sought by Ballast in the motion. (Defs.’ Oct. 7,
2025 Letter, Dkt. No. 101.)2
In response to Defendants’ post-hearing letter, Ballast also submitted a letter,
insisting that the Court still order Defendants to produce the discovery in the motion. (Pl.’s
Oct. 8, 2025 Letter, Dkt. No. 104.) In it, Ballast argues that the promises in Defendants’
letter are more limited than the discovery requested in the Motion and that “[t]he promises
in [the] letter … resemble the vague promises that forced Ballast to file its motion to compel
in the first place. A binding court order will productively move this case forward.” (Id.)
II. 	Legal Standards
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that “[p]arties 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). 	In 	determining
proportionality, courts consider numerous factors, including “the importance of the issues
at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to the relevant
information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues,
and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.”
Id.
2 While not at issue in this motion, the day after oral argument Defendants also withdrew
(Dkt. No. 99) a pending motion for partial dismissal of Plaintiff’s amended complaint under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 90) The Court had several times expressed its view that
this motion, while perhaps legally defensible, would have no practical effect on the
litigation and would almost certainly slow it down.
CASE 0:23-cv-03769-PJS-JFD Doc. 108 Filed 10/21/25 Page 5 of 10

6
If a party believes that an opposing party has failed to respond to discovery, or has
served insufficient responses, it may “move for an order compelling disclosure or
discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). A court may compel responses if a party fails to
designate a witness for deposition as noticed under Rule 30, to answer an interrogatory
propounded under Rule 33, or to produce documents requested under Rule 34. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 37(a)(3)(B)(ii)–(iv). 	For 	purposes 	of 	such 	a 	motion, 	“an 	evasive 	or 	incomplete
disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4).
A proper discovery response must either answer the request fully or state with
specificity the grounds for objecting to the request. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b), 34(b)(2).
Objections must be stated with specificity and in relation to specific requests; any ground
“not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the party’s failure to object is excused by
the court for good cause.” Cargill, Inc. v. Ron Burge Trucking, Inc., 284 F.R.D. 421, 424
(D. Minn. 2012). The party seeking discovery bears the initial responsibility for making a
threshold showing of relevancy before the production of information is required. See, e.g.,
Hofer v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 981 F.2d 377, 380 (8th Cir. 1992). “Courts generally have wide
discretion in granting or denying discovery requests.” Reese v. Sherburne Cnty. Det. Ctr.,
No. 0:19-CV-1975-ECT-KMM, 2021 WL 1723780, at *1 (D. Minn. Mar. 16, 2021) (citing
Robinson v. Potter, 453 F.3d 990, 994–95 (8th Cir. 2006); Stuart v. Gen. Motors Corp., 217
F.3d 621, 630 (8th Cir. 2000).
CASE 0:23-cv-03769-PJS-JFD Doc. 108 Filed 10/21/25 Page 6 of 10

7
DISCUSSION
Ballast seeks substantive responses to a wide range of discovery requests, all of
which it claims Defendants have either outwardly refused to produce or have promised to
produce and failed to fulfill those promises. Among those requests are 1) “emails to, from,
or including Mr. Peterson’s ‘advisorpete@gmail.com’ email address,” which Ballast
alleges Peterson used in 2022 and 2023 to “establish, organize and run his competing
investment advisory business;” 2) communications between the ‘key players’ in the
lawsuit, including Mr. Peterson, Ms. Bradley, Messrs. Marxer and Leftwich of MMX, and
representatives of ASN (an investment advisory firm that Ballast alleges Defendants use
to advise clients); 3) communications and notes of communications between Defendants
and Ballast clients; and 4) “documents evidencing Peterson’s retention and use of Ballast’s
confidential information and trade secrets.” (Pl.’s Mem. in Supp. 14–15, Dkt. No. 81.)
Ballast also seeks a 90-day extension of the fact discovery deadline for itself, without any
extension for Defendants. (Id. at 37–38.)
The Court finds that the discovery in all four of these categories is foundationally
relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendants largely do not object to that
conclusion, nor could they. Given the fact that the discovery Ballast seeks is obviously
relevant in a case of this type, the Court also finds the requested discovery to be
proportional. Further, after the hearing in this case, Defendants filed a letter with the Court
saying that they will be producing a wide range of documents sought in the motion,
including:
CASE 0:23-cv-03769-PJS-JFD Doc. 108 Filed 10/21/25 Page 7 of 10

8
• 	All non-privileged emails (including attachments) from [various] email
accounts for all of 2022 and 2023, regardless of content or recipients.
• 	All non-privileged emails (including attachments) between Peterson and
Bradley for all of 2022 and 2023 from [various] email accounts,
regardless of content, and including third parties.
• 	All text messages in Peterson’s and/or Bradley’s possession between
Peterson and Bradley from 2022 and 2023, regardless of content.
• 	All emails (including attachments) between any “@advservnet.com”
email address and Mark Marxer’s … email account, for all of 2022 and
2023, regardless of content.
• 	All emails (including attachments) between Bradley and any Ballast
Client (as Ballast has defined that concept during meet-and-confers) for
all of 2022 and 2023, regardless of content.
• 	Peterson’s 2022 cell phone records.
(Defs.’ Oct. 7, 2025 Letter, Dkt. No. 101.) The email accounts listed in the letter include
those discussed in Ballast’s memorandum. Rather than causing the Court to consider the
Motion moot, Defendants’ letter rather reads as a concession of the relevance and
proportionality of Ballast’s discovery requests and of the impropriety of Defendants’
refusal to produce the documents at issue. The Court will not entertain a motion from
Plaintiffs for an award of fees and costs at this time, but warns Defendants that they cannot
avoid the issuance of a court order awarding costs to Plaintiff by changing their tune after
the expense, time, and aggravation of formal motions practice and months of delay.
However, given Defendants’ submission to the Court that it intends to correct this behavior
going forward, the Court declines to order sanctions today
Accordingly, the Court orders that Defendants produce the following within 14 days
of the filing of this order:
CASE 0:23-cv-03769-PJS-JFD Doc. 108 Filed 10/21/25 Page 8 of 10

9
1. 	All non-privileged emails (including attachments) to, from, or including the email
accounts listed in Defendants’ post-hearing letter for all of 2022 and 2023,
regardless of content or recipients;
2. 	All non-privileged emails (including attachments) between Mr. Peterson and Ms.
Bradley for all of 2022 and 2023 to, from, or including the email accounts listed in
Defendants’ post-hearing letter, regardless of content, and including third parties;
3. 	All text messages between Mr. Peterson and Ms. Bradley from 2022 and 2023,
regardless of content and whether they include third parties;
4. 	All emails (including attachments) to, from, or including any “@advservnet.com”
email address and Mark Marxer’s … email account, for all of 2022 and 2023,
regardless of content and whether they include third parties;
5. 	All emails (including attachments) between Ms. Bradley and any Ballast Client (as
Ballast has defined that concept during meet-and-confers) for all of 2022 and 2023,
regardless of content and whether they include third parties; and
6. 	Mr. Peterson’s 2022 cell phone records.
The parties will file a joint status report with the Court no later than 21 days after the date
of this order detailing compliance with its terms.
In its letter, Ballast also raises a concern about spoliation in response to claims by
Defendants that, in response to some requests, certain defendants have “produced all
responsive” discovery. (Ballast’s Oct. 8, 2025 Letter, Dkt. No. 104.) It bases those concerns
on the fact that some of the text messages produced were not from Mr. Peterson’s phone.
While there is no spoliation-related motion before the Court, the Court reminds Defendants
CASE 0:23-cv-03769-PJS-JFD Doc. 108 Filed 10/21/25 Page 9 of 10

10
of the severe consequences of intentional spoliation of evidence. See Paisley Park Enters.,
Inc. v. Boxill, 330 F.R.D. 226, 232 (D. Minn. 2019). The Court also reminds parties of their
obligations to preserve discoverable Electronically Stored Information and to retrieve such
information from other sources, if the originals have been destroyed.
As to Ballast’s Motion for an extension of the fact discovery deadline, the Court
denies the motion as moot. The Court recently issued an Amended Pretrial Scheduling
Order, pursuant to stipulation by the parties. (See Am. Pretrial Scheduling Order, Dkt. No.
107.)
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based on the foregoing and on all of the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Ballast Advisors, LLC’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part.
2. 	Defendants will produce the ordered discovery within 14 days of the date of this
order.
3. 	The parties will file a joint status report detailing compliance with this order within
21 days of the date of this order.
Date: October 21, 2025 s/ John F. Docherty
JOHN F. DOCHERTY
United States Magistrate Judge
CASE 0:23-cv-03769-PJS-JFD Doc. 108 Filed 10/21/25 Page 10 of 10