Eberline Oilfield Service, Inc. v. Eberline et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Eberline Oilfield Service, Inc., 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING
) 	THE MOTION TO COMPEL FILED BY CHAD
vs. 	) 	EBERLINE AND ALL IN ONE OIL FIELD
) 	SERVICE, INC.
Chad Eberline and All in One Oil 	)
Field Service, Inc., 	)
) 	Case No. 1:18-cv-245
Defendant. 	)
______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is a Motion to Compel and for Attorney’s Fees filed by Chad Eberline
(“Chad”) and All in One Oil Field Service, Inc. (“All in One”) on August 31, 2022. (Doc. Nos.
64, 67). For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Eberline Oilfield Service, Inc. (“EOS”) is owned by Rich Eberline (“Rich”) and his wife.
(Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 2). EOS initiated the above-captioned action against All in One and Chad, Rich’s
nephew and the former manager of its operations in Killdeer, North Dakota, 	on November 27,
2018. (Id. at ¶ 3). Chad initiated a separate action against EOS and Rich, his uncle, on June 26,
2020. 	See Eberline v. Eberline, Case No. 1:20-cv-110 (D.N.D.). 	The two actions have been
ordered consolidated. 	(Doc. No. 32). 	They arise out of an alleged breach of a partnership
agreement between Rich and Chad, EOS’s alleged misappropriation of the alleged partnership’s
assets, Chad’s alleged efforts to subvert EOS, and Chad’s departure from EOS to All in One, a
competing oil field services company that he allegedly founded while still he was still working for
EOS.
EOS is asserting the following fourteen causes of action against Chad and All in One: (1)
violation of the Federal Trade Secrets Act; (2) violation of Federal Civil Rico; (3) breach of
Case 1:18-cv-00245-DMT-CRH Document 78 Filed 01/11/23 Page 1 of 21

2
employment contract; (4) breach of North Dakota’s employee duty of loyalty; (5) breach of duty
of confidentiality/theft of trade secrets; (6) tortious interference with contract; (7) tortious
interference with business expectancy; (8) unjust enrichment; (9) theft and conversion of EOS’s
property; (10) unfair competition; (11) civil conspiracy; (12) actual fraud; (13) constructive fraud;
and (14) deceit. 	(Doc. No. 1). 	EOS claims, among other things, that Chad sabotaged EOS
operations by failing to submit competitive bids on open bid projects after he and EOS were unable
to reach an agreement regarding his salary and his acquisition of an ownership interest in EOS,
used EOS’s resources to benefit All in One, poached EOS’s customers and employees for All in
One, and misappropriated EOS's equipment and intellectual property for All in One’s use. (Id.).
Chad is asserting the following ten causes of action against Rich: (1) breach of contract;
(2) unjust enrichment; (3) quantum meruit; (4) promissory estoppel; (5) breach of fiduciary duty;
(6) conversion; (7) civil theft; (8) actual fraud; (9) constructive fraud; and (10) deceit. See Eberline
v. Eberline, Case No. 1:20-cv-110 (D.N.D.) at Doc. No. 1. 	Chad claims, among other things, that
he relocated to North Dakota at Rich’s suggestion and informally partnered with Rich in June 2011
to start what eventually become known as EOS, but that Rich wrongfully excluded him as co-
owner when incorporating EOS in September 2014, reneged on promises to “take care of him”
and to provide him with his interest in EOS, misrepresented EOS’s fiscal health and otherwise
withheld information about EOS’s finances from him, began dissipating and selling off EOS’s
assets in early 2018, and wrongfully appropriated his interest in EOS. Id.
On November 3, 2020, All in One served EOS with a first set of discovery requests that
consisted of 25 interrogatories and 32 requests for production. (Doc. Nos. 66-1). On January 4,
2021, EOS served All in One with its responses. (Doc. No. 66-2). It objected to the majority of
the interrogatories and requests for production on the grounds that they were vague and undefined,
Case 1:18-cv-00245-DMT-CRH Document 78 Filed 01/11/23 Page 2 of 21

3
overly broad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information,
and/or sought an answer to a legal question. 	(Id.). 	It also produce documents it considered
responsive to Defendants’ requests. (Id.).
On February 1, 2021, Chad served EOS with Interrogatories and Requests for Production
of Documents. (Doc. No. 66-3). On March 12, 2021, EOS served Chad with its responses. (Doc.
No. 66-4). It objected to several of Chad’s requests for production on the grounds that they too
were vague and undefined, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to
lead to discoverable information. (Doc. No. 66-4).
Taking issue with EOS’s objections to their respective interrogatories and requests for
production, All in One and Chad (hereafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”) reached out
to EOS in what they have characterized as their “good faith” letter, dated September 9, 2021. (Doc.
No. 66-5). EOS responded via its own letter dated September 22, 2022, that it need not respond
to the interrogatories regarding its RICO claim as they called for answers to purely legal questions
and that it had produced all documents in their possession concerning Defendants’ requests. (Doc.
No. 66-6).
On November 17, 2021, the court convened a status conference with the parties in
accordance with this district’s local rules to discuss their discovery dispute. (Doc. No. 59). At the
close of the status conference it authorized Defendants to file a motion to compel.
On August 31, 2022, Defendants filed a motion to compel, asserting that EOS’s responses
to their discovery requests remain deficient and requesting that, in addition to ordering EOS to
supplement their responses and produce the documents they had requested, award them the
attorney fees they incurred in connection with their motion. 	(Doc. Nos. 64, 67). 	EOS and
Case 1:18-cv-00245-DMT-CRH Document 78 Filed 01/11/23 Page 3 of 21

4
Defendants filed their respective response and reply on September 23 and 30, 2022. (Doc. Nos.
72, 75). Thus, the motion has now been fully briefed and is ripe for the court’s consideration.
II. 	APPLICABLE LAW
Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes motions to compel discovery.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a)(1) (“On notice to other parties and all affected persons, a party may
move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery.”). Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure defines the scope of permissible discovery as follows:
Parties 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, considering
the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the
parties’ 	relative 	access 	to 	relevant 	information, 	the 	parties’ 	resources, 	the
importance of discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense
of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this
scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(b)(1).
“The scope of discovery under Rule 26(b) is extremely broad.” 	Gowan v. Mid Century
Ins. Co., 309 F.R.D. 503, 508 (D.S.D. 2015) (citing 8 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller,
Federal Practice & Procedure §§ 2007, 3637 (1970)). “The reason for the broad scope of discovery
is that ‘[m]utual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper
litigation. To that end, either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his
possession.’” 8 Wright & Miller, § 2007, 39 (quoting Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507–08
(1947)).
“Discoverable information itself need not be admissible at trial; rather, the defining
question is whether it is within the scope of discovery.” 	Colonial Funding Network, Inc. v.
Genuine Builders, Inc., 326 F.R.D. 206, 211 (2018) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). After the
proponent makes a threshold showing of relevance, the party opposing a motion to compel has the
Case 1:18-cv-00245-DMT-CRH Document 78 Filed 01/11/23 Page 4 of 21

5
burden of showing its objections are valid by providing specific explanations or factual support as
to how each discovery request is improper. Jo Ann Howard & Assocs., P.C. v. Cassity, 303 F.R.D.
539, 542 (E.D. Mo 2014) (citing Hofer v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 981 F.2d 377, 380 (8th Cir. 1992),
and St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Commercial Fin. Corp., 198 F.R.D. 508, 511-12 (N.D. Iowa
2000)). “The party must demonstrate that the requested documents either do not come within the
broad scope of relevance defined pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1) or else are of such marginal relevance
that the potential harm occasioned by discovery would outweigh the ordinary presumption in favor
of broad disclosures.” Id. (quoted case omitted). Relevancy in this context “has been construed
broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to another matter that
could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Jo Ann Howard & Assocs., P.C. v. Cassity,
303 F.R.D. 539, 542 (E.D. Mo. 2014) (citation and quotation omitted); Klein v. Affiliated Grp.,
Inc., No. 18-CV-949 DWF/ECW, 2019 WL 1307884, at *2 (D. Minn. Mar. 22, 2019).
III. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Discovery Requests at Issue
Below are the interrogatories and requests for production along with EOS’s responses to
them that appear to be at issue.
All in One’s Interrogatories
INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify, as the term is defined in the
introductory portion of these interrogatories, the RICO "person" and RICO
"enterprise."
ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as vague and undefined,
overly broad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable
information, and seeks an answer to a legal question to which no response is
required.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please describe in detail and not in summary
fashion how the RICO “person” is distinct from the RICO “enterprise” for purposes
of subsection 1962(c) violation.
Case 1:18-cv-00245-DMT-CRH Document 78 Filed 01/11/23 Page 5 of 21

6
ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as vague and undefined,
overly broad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable
information, and seeks an answer to a legal question to which no response is
required.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4: For purposes of a subsection 1962(a)
violation, identify, as the term is defined in the introductory portion of these
interrogatories, the racketeering income and how that income was used or invested
into All in One Oil Field Service.
ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as vague and undefined,
overly broad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable
information, and seeks an answer to a legal question to which no response is
required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants have not provided
information related to All in One's business activities, customers, communications,
or sales which are relevant to the inquiry. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement
this answer as discovery continues and Defendant's produce information in
response to Plaintiffs discovery requests.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5: If Eberline Oilfield Service is alleging injury
as a result of the use of racketeering income being invested in All in One Oil Field
Service, please describe in detail and not in summary fashion how that injury from
a use or investment is distinct or separate from the predicate acts you allege.
ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as vague and undefined,
overly broad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable
information, and seeks an answer to a legal question to which no response is
required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants have not provided
information related to All in One's business activities, customers, communications,
or sales which are relevant to the inquiry. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement
this answer as discovery continues and Defendant's produce information in
response to Plaintiffs discovery requests.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please describe in detail and not in summary
fashion how All in One Oil Field Service received income that would not otherwise
have been received as a result, and used those proceeds to acquire or operate an
enterprise in or whose activities have an impact on interstate or foreign commerce.
ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as vague and undefined,
overly broad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable
information, and seeks an answer to a legal question to which no response is
required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants have not provided
information related to Defendants' business activities, customers, communications,
or sales which are relevant to the inquiry. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement
Case 1:18-cv-00245-DMT-CRH Document 78 Filed 01/11/23 Page 6 of 21

7
this answer as discovery continues and Defendant's produce information in
response to Plaintiffs discovery requests.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Identify, as the term is defined in the
introductory portion of these interrogatories, the predicate offense(s) All in One Oil
Field Service committed which would support your basis for a RICO violation.
ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as vague and undefined,
overly broad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable
information, and seeks an answer to a legal question to which no response is
required.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please describe in detail and not in summary
fashion how the predicate offenses identified in your answer to the preceding
interrogatory are related and not simply isolated events.
ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as vague and undefined,
overly broad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable
information, and seeks an answer to a legal question to which no response is
required.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please describe in detail and not in summary
fashion how the predicate offenses identified in your Answer to Interrogatory No.
7 were committed under circumstances that suggest either a continuity of criminal
activity or the threat of such continuity.
ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as vague and undefined,
overly broad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable
information, and seeks an answer to a legal question to which no response is
required.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Please describe in detail and not in
summary fashion how the predicate offenses identified in your Answer to
Interrogatory No. 7 have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims,
or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing
characteristics and are not isolated events.
ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as vague and undefined,
overly broad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable
information, and seeks an answer to a legal question to which no response is
required.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Please describe in detail and not in
summary fashion how the predicate offenses identified in your Answer to
Interrogatory No. 7 forms the requisite related pattern required for a RICO
violation.
Case 1:18-cv-00245-DMT-CRH Document 78 Filed 01/11/23 Page 7 of 21

8
ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as vague and undefined,
overly broad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable
information, and seeks an answer to a legal question to which no response is
required.
INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please describe in detail and not in
summary fashion how the corrupt or corrupted enterprise engaged in interstate or
foreign commerce or engaged in activities that affected interstate or foreign
commerce.
ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as vague and undefined,
overly broad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable
information, and seeks an answer to a legal question to which no response is
required.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Please describe in detail and not in
summary fashion how Eberline Oilfield Service suffered an injury to its business
or property that is directly or proximately caused by the defendant's RICO
violation.
ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as vague and undefined,
overly broad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable
information, and seeks an answer to a legal question to which no response is
required.
(Doc. No. 66-2).
All in One’s Requests for Production
REQUEST NO. 16: A copy of the Bylaws and/or any other document
related to the management and ownership of Eberline Oilfield Service and any
amendments thereto.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to the request as overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information.
Reserving Plaintiff's objections, see attached. Plaintiff reserves the right to
supplement as discovery continues.
REQUEST NO. 18: Copies of the minutes of all meetings of Eberline
Oilfield Service.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to the request as overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information.
Reserving Plaintiff's objections, see attached. Plaintiff reserves the right to
supplement as discovery continues.
Case 1:18-cv-00245-DMT-CRH Document 78 Filed 01/11/23 Page 8 of 21

9
REQUEST NO. 19: Copies of all stock certificates issued by Eberline
Oilfield Service at any time since its formation.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to the request as overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information.
Reserving Plaintiff's objections, see attached. Plaintiff reserves the right to
supplement as discovery continues.
REQUEST NO. 20: Copies of all documents evidencing loans from any
person to Eberline Oilfield Service.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to the request as overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information.
Reserving Plaintiff's objections, see attached. Plaintiff reserves the right to
supplement as discovery continues.
REQUEST NO. 21: Copies of all documents evidencing loans to any
person from Eberline Oilfield Service.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to the request as overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information.
Reserving Plaintiffs objections, see attached. Plaintiff reserves the right to
supplement as discovery continues.
REQUEST NO. 22: Copies of all documents evidencing loans from Rich
Eberline or any family member, relative, or friend of Rich Eberline or any business
affiliated with Rich Eberline or Eberline Oilfield Service.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to the request as overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information.
Reserving Plaintiffs objections, see attached. Plaintiff reserves the right to
supplement as discovery continues.
REQUEST NO. 23: Copies of all documents evidencing loans by Eberline
Oilfield Service to any family member, relative, or friend of Rich Eberline or to any
business affiliated with Eberline Oilfield Service.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to the request as overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information.
Reserving Plaintiffs objections, see attached. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement
as discovery continues.
REQUEST NO. 24: Copies of corporate records or ledgers evidencing the
identity and address of each person or entity who has owned any interest in Eberline
Oilfield Service during the past five years, the consideration paid or promised for the
interest, and the date(s) on which the consideration was paid or promised.
Case 1:18-cv-00245-DMT-CRH Document 78 Filed 01/11/23 Page 9 of 21

10
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to the request as overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information.
Reserving Plaintiffs objections, see attached. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement
as discovery continues.
REQUEST NO. 25: Copies of corporate records or ledgers evidencing the
payment of dividends to any stockholder since the formation of Eberline Oilfield
Service, to whom the dividends were paid, the amounts paid, and the date(s) of
payment.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to the request as overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information.
Reserving Plaintiffs objections, see attached. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement
as discovery continues.
REQUEST NO. 26: For each bank account maintained in the name of
Eberline Oilfield Service , a copy of the monthly statement for the period beginning
June 1, 2011 to the present.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to the request as overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information.
Reserving Plaintiff's objections, see attached. Plaintiff reserves the right to
supplement as discovery continues.
REQUEST NO. 27: Copies of documents or ledgers evidencing the
compensation paid to any current or former officer or director of Eberline Oilfield
Service since its formation.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to the request as overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information.
Reserving Plaintiff's objections, see attached. Plaintiff reserves the right to
supplement as discovery continues.
REQUEST NO. 28: Copies of reports, appraisals or audits prepared by
investigators or consultants for or on behalf of Eberline Oilfield Service since the
date of its formation.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to the request as overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information.
Reserving Plaintiff's objections, see attached. Plaintiff reserves the right to
supplement as discovery continues.
REQUEST NO. 29: Copies of documents prepared to secure financing or
obtain any loan or credit extended to Eberline Oilfield Service.
Case 1:18-cv-00245-DMT-CRH Document 78 Filed 01/11/23 Page 10 of 21

11
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to the request as overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information.
Reserving Plaintiff's objections, see attached. Plaintiff reserves the right to
supplement as discovery continues.
REQUEST NO. 30: Copies of any invoices and/or any summary invoices
related to accounts receivable, accounts collected or moneys paid to Eberline
Oilfield Service from any Eberline Oilfield Service customer from January 1, 2011
to the Present.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to the request as overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information.
Reserving Plaintiff's objections, see attached. Plaintiff reserves the right to
supplement as discovery continues.
REQUEST NO. 31: Copies of any documents evidencing the assets and
liabilities of Eberline Oilfield Service and the disposition of any assets or liabilities
from January 1, 2011 through the Present.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to the request as overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information.
Reserving Plaintiffs objections, see attached. Plaintiff reserves the right to
supplement as discovery continues.
REQUEST NO. 32: Copies of all documents evidencing any and all
income of Eberline Oilfield Service from January 1, 2011 to the present.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to the request as overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information.
Reserving Plaintiffs objections, see attached. Plaintiff reserves the right to
supplement as discovery continues.
(Doc. No. 66-2).
Chad’s Requests for Production
REQUEST NO. 3: Produce a copy of all insurance policies insuring
Eberline 	Oilfield 	Service, 	Inc. 	and/or 	its 	agents, 	officers, 	directors, 	or
representatives since its formation.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as vague and undefined,
overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to
discoverable information.
Case 1:18-cv-00245-DMT-CRH Document 78 Filed 01/11/23 Page 11 of 21

12
REQUEST NO. 9: Produce a copy of any contracts between Eberline
Oilfield Service, Inc. and any other person that you are claiming that Chad Eberline
interfered.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as vague and undefined,
overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to
discoverable information. Reserving Plaintiffs objection, see previously produced
documents as well as the attached.
REQUEST NO. 10: Produce a copy of any documents reflecting any
business expectancy between Eberline Oilfield Service, Inc. and any other person
that you are claiming that Chad Eberline interfered.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as vague and undefined,
overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to
discoverable information. To the extent Plaintiff understands the request, see
attached.
(Doc. No. 66-4).
B. 	Motion to Compel
In their motion, Defendants complain generally about EOS’s responses to all of their
discovery requests and then fixate primarily upon the above-enumerated discovery requests. With
respect to the All in One’s interrogatories, Defendants acknowledge that counsel for EOS
addressed some of their inquiries regarding EOS’s RICO claim when responding to their “good
faith” letter. However, they assert that counsel’s responses were never formally incorporated into
EOS’s answers to All in One’s interrogatories. 	They further assert that EOS has yet to
substantively answer Interrogatory Nos. 2-13 and 16-19, that these interrogatories pertain to issues
of fact, that EOS’s objection to these interrogatories on ground that they are legal questions is
specious, and that EOS’s boilerplate objections on grounds of relevance, overbreadth, and undue
burden are inappropriate, and deserving of sanction.
In regard to their requests for production, Defendants first assert that EOS has yet to
substantively respond to All in One’s Request Nos. 16, 18-27, 29, and 30-32 and Chad’s Request
Case 1:18-cv-00245-DMT-CRH Document 78 Filed 01/11/23 Page 12 of 21

13
Nos. 3, 9, and 10. Second, they assert that they have not received the attachments referenced by
EOS in its responses to All in One’s Request Nos. 16, 18, 19, 20-25 and that Plaintiff otherwise
failed to produce requested 1099s, federal and state tax returns, Chad’s W-2s, bank statements,
payroll information for EOS’s employees, invoices, and the contracts or purported contracts of
EOS’s with which they allegedly interfered. Finally, they assert that EOS’s boilerplate objections
on grounds of relevance, overbreadth, and undue burden are invalid, inappropriate, and deserving
of sanction.
In response, EOS first asserts that Defendants have not made a threshold showing of
relevancy to warrant the production of, among other things, the loan documents, contracts,
insurance policies, documents regarding business expectancy, corporate minutes, and loan
applications that they have requested. Second, it maintains that its insurance policies, copies of its
contracts, documents regarding expectancy, corporate records, and loan applications have no
bearing on Defendant’s claims or defenses and are therefore irrelevant. Third, it advises at it has
produced approximately 2,800 pages of documentation responsive to Defendants’ requests. In an
effort to illustrate the breadth of its production, it cites tax records and financial statements it
asserts are responsive to All In One Request Nos. 31 and 32, copies of financial records showing
payments made by EOS made to Chad and other EOS employees, copies of work tickets and
accounts receivable that it asserts are responsive to All in One Request No. 30, and copies of
invoices that it asserts are responsive to All in One Request No. 31. Fourth, it asserts that many
of the financial documents requested by Defendants were in the possession of its now deceased
accountant and have yet to be recovered and that it does not retain any insurance policies relevant
to the claims or issues in this case. Fifth, with respect to All in One’s interrogatories regarding the
RICO claim, it stands on its objection and in so doing asserts that “whether a specific person or
Case 1:18-cv-00245-DMT-CRH Document 78 Filed 01/11/23 Page 13 of 21

14
party meets a legal definition outlined under federal statute is within the purview of the Court and
no response is required.” (Doc. No. 72). It further asserts that, to the extent further response to
these interrogatories may be required, Defendants’ failure to respond to its discovery requests has
prevented it from formulating a meaningful response.
1. 	All in One’s Contention Interrogatories
The interrogatories at issue can be fairly characterized contention interrogatories; they in
essence ask EOS to elaborate on the factual basis for its RICO claim and to otherwise explain how
the law applies to the facts in this case. See Zubrod v. Hoch, No. C15-2065, 2016 WL 1752770,
at *6 (N.D. Iowa May 2, 2016) (“In a contention interrogatory, one party asks another party to
indicate what it contends, to state all the facts on which it bases its contentions, to state all evidence
on which it bases its contentions, or to explain how the law applies to the facts.” (internal quotation
marks omitted)); see also Helmert v. Butterball, LLC, No. 4:08CV00342 JLH, 2010 WL 4537096,
at *1 (E.D. Ark. Nov. 3, 2010) (distinguishing contention interrogatories from interrogatories
requesting the identification of witnesses or documents bearing upon the allegations).
“True contention interrogatories may be helpful ‘in that they may narrow and define the
issues for trial and enable the propounding party to determine the proof required to rebut the
responding party's claim or defense.’” Helmert, No. 4:08CV00342 JLH, 2010 WL 4537096, at *1
(quoting Moses v. Halstead, 236 F.R.D. 667, 674 (D. Kan. 2006)). “Unfortunately, they also may
be unduly burdensome, particularly when they seek ‘all facts’ supporting a claim or defense ‘such
that the answering party is required to provide a narrative account of its case.’” 	Id. 	(quoting
Moses, 236 F.R.D. at 674).
Case 1:18-cv-00245-DMT-CRH Document 78 Filed 01/11/23 Page 14 of 21

15
Having reviewed the interrogatories, the court is not convinced that they are unnecessarily
broad and unduly burdensome given the nature of EOS’s claim. 	The court also finds EOS’s
objection to the interrogatories on the ground of relevance to be specious.
Finally, the court is not inclined to conclude at this point that Defendants’ interrogatories
improperly pose a question of law. Having reviewed the interrogatories along with Defendants’
“good faith” letter, it appears to the court that Defendants’ inquiries relate to facts or the application
of law to the facts, which is permissible under Rule 33(a)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2) (“An
interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates
to fact or the application of law to fact….”). 	EOS chose to play the RICO card. 	Defendants’
efforts to now flesh out the basis for EOS’s claim should come as no surprise. With that being
said, the court appreciates Defendants’ interrogatories may be difficult for EOS to fully answer at
this point as discovery is still ongoing.
Due to the nature of contention interrogatories, some courts have taken the position that
they need not be answered until discovery is completed or nearing completion. Id. (citing Vishay
Dale Elecs., Inc. v. Cyntec Co., No. 8:07CV191, 2008 WL 4868772, at *5 (D. Neb. Nov. 6, 2008)
(denying the motion to compel answers to contention interrogatories until the end of discovery);
Lucero v. Valdez, 240 F.R.D. 591, 594 (D.N.M. 2007) (“[T]here is considerable support for
deferring answers to contention interrogatories until after a substantial amount of discovery has
been completed.”); In re Convergent Techs. Sec. Litig., 108 F.R.D. 328, 348 (N.D. Cal. 1985)
(denying motion to compel and ordering plaintiffs to answer contention interrogatories 60 days
after completion of defendants' document production).
This court is inclined to take a similar tack and will not require Defendants to immediately
respond to the interrogatories. 	In so doing it notes that delay of answers to the contention
Case 1:18-cv-00245-DMT-CRH Document 78 Filed 01/11/23 Page 15 of 21

16
interrogatories until the completion or near completion of discovery is contemplated by Rule 33(a).
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2) (“[T]he court may order that the interrogatory need not be answered
until designated discovery is complete, or until a pretrial conference or some other time.”). It
further notes that discovery is ongoing and that EOS, by its account, is waiting on Defendants’
production of requested documents. Accordingly, it shall deny Defendants’ motion as it pertains
to EOS’s responses to their interrogatories without prejudice. However, in so doing, it does not
excuse Defendants of their obligation to supplement their responses. 	It shall now move on to
address Defendants’ request for production of documents.
2. 	All in One’s Production Requests
a. 	Request Nos. 16, 18, 19, 24, and 25
Request Nos. 16, 18, 19, 24, and 25 pertain to documentation regarding the formation,
ownership, and management structure of EOS. 	The court finds that Defendants, in their “good
faith” letter, have made a threshold showing that this documentation may have some bearing on
the parties’ pending claims. EOS’s objections to these requests on the grounds of overbreadth and
undue burden are presently unsupported. See Wagner v. Dryvit Sys., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 606, 610
(D. Neb. 2001) (“[A]n objection that discovery is overly broad and unduly burdensome must be
supported by affidavits or offering evidence revealing the nature of the burden and why the
discovery is objectionable.”); see also Cold Spring Granite Co. v. Matthews Int'l Corp., No. CV
10-4272 (JRT/LIB), 2012 WL 13026738, at *12 (D. Minn. Aug. 20, 2012) (describing these
objections as “boilerplate”). In any event, the court is unconvinced that Defendants’ requests are
overly broad or the production of the requested documents will be unduly burdensome. 	Any
concerns that EOS may have regarding the sensitivity of this information can be addressed in a
protective order.
Case 1:18-cv-00245-DMT-CRH Document 78 Filed 01/11/23 Page 16 of 21

17
Its objections aside, EOS indicated in its response to these requests that it was producing
responsive documents insofar as it directed Defendants to “see attached.” Based on the parties’
respective submissions, there appears to be some question as to what EOS actually attached to its
responses to these requests. For the sake of clarity, the court shall require EOS to produce within
thirty days of this order copies of its bylaws, documentation that identifies everyone with an
ownership interest in it in the last five years, and any documentation that sets forth its management
structure, chain of command, and the responsibilities of those in the chain of command. If EOS
has produced these documents, then its work with respect to Request Nos. 16, 18, 19, 24, and 25
is done. 	If no documents responsive to Defendants’ requests exist, then EOS should amend its
responses to reflect this.
b. 	Request Nos. 20, 21, 23, 26, 29, 30, 31, and 32
Request Nos. 20, 21, and 23 pertain to loans made by any persons to EOS and to loans
made by EOS to any persons. Request Nos. 26 and 29-32 pertain to EOS’s financing, assets and
income; they request the production of: monthly bank statements, copies of ledgers evincing
payment to its officers since its formation; copies of documents prepared to secure financing or
obtain any loan or financing; copies of invoices related to accounts receivable, accounts collected,
or monies paid to EOS by its customers since January 1, 2011; and documents evincing any and
all of EOS’s income since January 1, 2011.
EOS has apparently produced some but not all of the requested documents. 	Defendants
maintain the requested documents that will shed light on EOS’s capitalization and by extension its
operation and the contributions Chad allegedly made to EOS in exchange for an ownership stake
and are therefore relevant. At this point, the court is not prepared to conclude that EOS’s bank
statements, loans, loan applications, and documents regarding its capitalization have no bearing
Case 1:18-cv-00245-DMT-CRH Document 78 Filed 01/11/23 Page 17 of 21

18
on the claims and will therefore require the requested documents dating back to June 2011 (the
approximately date on which Chad alleges he and Rich agreed to partner) be produced within thirty
days of this order. 	All in One and Chad should keep in mind that their records regarding their
finances and All in One’s capitalization may also have some bearing on the parties’ claims and
should therefore be prepared to reciprocate without objection should EOS make similar requests
of them.
In regards to tax documents, namely, 1099s, W-2s, federal income tax returns, state income
tax returns, All in One’s thirty-two requests for production do not explicitly mention them let alone
call for their production. Defendants are presumably operating under the belief that these
documents are encompassed in Request No. 32—the request that EOS produce all documents
evincing any and all of its income since January 1, 2011.
“While tax returns ‘do not enjoy an absolute privilege from discovery,’ there is a ‘public
policy against unnecessary disclosure.” Curtis Markson, et al. v. CRST Int'l, Inc., et al. Additional
Party Names: CRST Expedited, Inc., No. EDCV171261SBSPX, 2021 WL 4027541, at *3 (C.D.
Cal. Apr. 14, 2021) (quoting Premium Serv. Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229
(9th Cir. 1975).” Buchl v. Gascoyne Materials Handling & Recycling, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-048,
2019 WL 2603081, at *6 (D.N.D. June 25, 2019) (discussing the split in authority regarding the
standard applied in determining the discoverability of tax returns).
Most district courts in the Eighth Circuit have adopted the two-prong test in an effort to
balance the liberal scope of discovery and the policy favoring the confidentiality of tax returns.
Buchl, No. 1:17-CV-048, 2019 WL 2603081, at *6 (citing Catipovic v. Turley, No. C11–3074,
2013 WL 1718061 at *5 (N.D. Iowa Apr. 19, 2013)). 	Under this test, the court must find that: (1)
the tax returns are relevant; and (2) there is a compelling need for the returns because the
Case 1:18-cv-00245-DMT-CRH Document 78 Filed 01/11/23 Page 18 of 21

19
information in them is not obtainable from another source. Id. The party seeking production has
the burden of showing relevancy. Id. Upon such a showing, the burden shifts to the party opposing
production to show that other sources exist from which the information is readily obtainable. Id.
Here, the tax returns from the year in which EOS was apparently formed to the year in
which it was apparently incorporated may contain relevant information regarding how the
relationship among the parties was treated or not treated. 	It is not clear at this point that the
information these documents contain are discoverable from another source. 	Consequently, the
court shall require the production of the requested tax returns for these years but on an “attorneys
eyes only” basis.
c. 	Request No. 22
Request No. 22 pertain to loans made by Rich, Rich’s family members, Rich’s friends, or
any businesses affiliated with Rich or EOS. EOS and Rich have responded they produced at least
some documents in response to this request.
The court is not inclined at this point to require EOS or Rich to provide anything more than
what they have produced to date in response to this request. This request as presently framed is
overbroad, unduly burdensome on its face, and otherwise inappropriate to the extent it seeks
production from nonparties.
d. 	Request No. 28
Request No. 28 pertains to reports, appraisals, and audits prepared by investigators or
consultants on behalf of EOS since its formation. 	Although it asserted a number of objections,
EOS apparently produced some documents as it directed Defendants to “see attached.” 	It also
reserved the right to supplement its response as discovery continued. Having reviewed the parties’
respective submissions, the court cannot conclude that EOS’s response to this request is deficient.
Case 1:18-cv-00245-DMT-CRH Document 78 Filed 01/11/23 Page 19 of 21

20
In reaching this conclusion, the court notes that Defendants motion is devoid of any explicit
discussion regarding EOS’s response to this request, which arguably suggests that EOS’s response
to this request sufficed or was not otherwise of any particular concern in the whole scheme of
things.
3. 	Chad’s Request for Production
Chad’s has requested production of insurance policies insuring EOS and its agents,
officers, directors, or representatives since its formation, EOS’s contracts with customers it alleges
Defendants interfered with, and documents reflecting EOS’s business expectancy.
If EOS has insurance polices that provide coverage for the matters presently in dispute, it
shall produce them within 30 days. Obviously, it will have nothing to produce if it has no such
coverage.
Regarding the requested contracts and documents regarding business expectancy, it
appears from the parties’ submissions that EOS has produced all of the responsive documents.
Defendants have otherwise indicated they have turned over everything in their possession. The
court takes them at their word.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 64) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED
IN PART. 	Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties in writing, the parties shall fully comply
with the court’s rulings as set forth above within 30 days. Any documents or other information
that the court has stated may be designated “attorney eyes only” may only be viewed by the
attorneys for the party to whom the documents are produced or that party’s experts and, in all other
respects, shall be treated as confidential. 	The parties are free, however, to agree to some other
treatment of the “attorney eyes only” documents and information, all or in part, provided it is done
Case 1:18-cv-00245-DMT-CRH Document 78 Filed 01/11/23 Page 20 of 21

21
in writing. The court declines to award Defendants’ costs and expenses associated with its motion.
Defendants’ request for attorney fees (Doc. No. 67) is therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 11th day of January, 2023.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
Case 1:18-cv-00245-DMT-CRH Document 78 Filed 01/11/23 Page 21 of 21