Bloom v. Mader et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Steve Bloom, directly and derivatively,
Plaintiff,
v.
Gregory Alan Mader, individually and as Trustee
of The Mader Trust dated May 30, 2017; Ronda
Mader; Pragmatek Consulting Group, Ltd, a
Minnesota corporation; and Open Source
Integrators, Inc., a Wyoming corporation,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-3957 (NEB/SGE)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Steve Bloom’s Renewed Motion to
Compel Discovery. (Dkt. 47.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion is
GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
On June 4, 2026, the Court granted in part and denied in part Mr. Bloom’s Motion
to Compel Discovery. (Dkt. 41.) Among other things, the Court ordered the parties to
“participate in a robust meet and confer on any alleged deficiencies” to the production as
ordered by the Court. (Id.) The Court also ordered the parties to submit a meet and confer
statement by June 16, 2026. (Id.) Lastly, the Court ordered that if there were any
deficiencies in the production that could not be resolved via meet and confer, Mr. Bloom
could renew his motion to compel by the non-dispositive deadline of July 14, 2026. (Id.)
CASE 0:25-cv-03957-NEB-SGE Doc. 58 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 8

2
On June 16, 2026, the parties submitted a letter and lengthy joint summary of their
meet and confer process. (Oliver Decl. Ex. 7.) The letter states that the parties meet and
confer resulted in the “resolution or narrowing of numerous issues” and identified “several
categories of documents that Defendants have agreed to review for supplemental
production and/or produce by June 26, 2026.” (Id. at 1.) Based on the submission, it
appeared that the parties might be able to sort out their discovery issues without court
intervention.
However, on July 14, 2026, Mr. Bloom filed a renewed motion to compel, the
deadline for doing so. (Dkt. 47.) On September 10, 2026, Mr. Bloom filed his
memorandum and supporting papers. (Dkts. 50-53.) The newly filed meet and confer
statement echoes the June 16, 2026, meet and confer statement, which indicated that the
parties discussed the matter on June 15 and 16, 2026. (Dkt. 47.) The recently filed
Declaration of Amanda Oliver provides more detail, however. (Dkt. 50.) The declaration
states that the parties discussed Defendants’ supplemental productions and related
deficiencies on June 29, June 30, July 13, and July 14. (Oliver Decl. ¶¶ 22, 26, 34.) In
addition, Mr. Bloom sent deficiency letters to Defendants on August 14, 2026, and
September 2, 2026. (Id. ¶¶ 34, 35.) Still, the parties were unable to resolve their issues
and Mr. Bloom proceeded with the Motion.
The Court held a hearing September 24, 2026. (Dkt. 55.) At the hearing, Defendants
confirmed that they have not produced any additional documents, as they had agreed to in
June, and that the parties are essentially back to square one with respect to document
CASE 0:25-cv-03957-NEB-SGE Doc. 58 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 8

3
production.1 Counsel for Defendants stated that he has worked closely with his clients to
ensure a complete production and that he has received and reviewed all documents
responsive to the requests at issue. He also represented that he is undertaking another
review of the documents to ensure that responsive documents have not been withheld
unintentionally. Mr. Bloom believes that additional responsive documents remain
outstanding as evidenced by the recent deposition testimony of Defendants Gregory and
Ronda Mader and witnesses Sean Larkin and Christopher Cappelli. (See Oliver Decl. Ex.
17.)
Mr. Bloom also contends that certain of the documents identified on Defendants’
privilege log are not privileged because they contain business rather than legal advice. (Id.
Ex. 20.) As to that issue, the Court ordered Defendants to submit specific documents to
the Court for in camera review. (Dkt. 55.) The documents have been provided as ordered
and the Court will issue a separate ruling as it relates to them. This Order will address the
other responsive documents that Mr. Bloom believes are outstanding.
ANALYSIS
I. Motion to Compel
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). “Rule 26(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure is widely recognized as a discovery rule which is liberal in scope
1 The parties agree that third-party subpoena documents have been provided,
however.
CASE 0:25-cv-03957-NEB-SGE Doc. 58 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 8

4
and interpretation, extending to those matters which are relevant and reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Hofer v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 981 F.2d 377,
380 (8th Cir. 1992).
Courts have broad discretion in handling pretrial procedure and discovery. See, e.g.,
Rowles v. Curators of Univ. of Mo., 983 F.3d 345, 353 (8th Cir. 2020) (“A district court has
very wide discretion in handling pretrial discovery . . ..” (quotation omitted)); Solutran,
Inc. v. U.S. Bancorp, No. 13-CV-2637 (SRN/BRT), 2016 WL 7377099, at *2 (D. Minn.
Dec. 20, 2016) (“[M]agistrate judges are afforded wide discretion in handling discovery
matters and are free to use and control pretrial procedure in furtherance of the orderly
administration of justice.”) (cleaned up).
Defendants argue at the outset that the Motion should be summarily denied because
it was filed as a placeholder to address issues that have not yet arisen and because the
parties have not met and conferred. The Court disagrees. This discovery dispute has been
ongoing for months. The parties are fighting over the same requests that were at issue in
the Court’s June 4, 2026, hearing and Order, and Defendants’ continued failure to produce
responsive documents. As set forth above, the parties robustly met and conferred after the
June hearing and exchanged numerous letters thereafter. The matter is therefore properly
before the Court as a renewed motion.
As to the documents themselves, the Court notes no disagreement between the
parties that they are responsive to pending document production requests. The question is
whether Defendants have any additional documents to provide. Ultimately, the Court
cannot order Defendants to produce documents that do not exist, and counsel for
CASE 0:25-cv-03957-NEB-SGE Doc. 58 Filed 10/09/26 Page 4 of 8

5
Defendants has said multiple times to the Court that it has produced all responsive
documents that exist. As an officer of the Court and an attorney subject to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 11 and 37, Defendants’ counsel should give the Court no reason to doubt
his sincerity. The problem here is that his own clients and witnesses have testified that
additional responsive documents exist that have not been produced. Under these
circumstances, the Court must do more than simply rely on the statements of counsel to
ensure that Mr. Bloom receives all responsive documents he is due.
The categories of missing documents are as follows: shareholder documents;
valuation materials from the Mark Debinski share repurchase; Mr. Bloom’s personnel file;
documents discussing Mr. Bloom’s termination at the company and board of director
levels; board meeting recordings, board packets, and PowerPoint presentations to the
board; documents responsive to Requests for Production Numbers 4 -7, 11-13, and 22,
which relate to Mr. Bloom’s alleged termination for cause, his alleged breach of the stock
purchase agreement, his alleged breach of the employment agreement, and the allegation
that he misrepresented material information during Defendant Open Source Integrators,
Inc.’s purchase of Defendant Pragmatek Consulting Group, Ltd. (Dkt. 53, at 17-18.) As
noted, there is deposition testimony supporting Mr. Bloom’s belief that documents in those
categories exist or at least existed at one time. (Id. at 20-21.) Defendants’ assertion that
they did not or no longer exist requires more scrutiny in light of the recent deposition
testimony of his clients and witnesses.
CASE 0:25-cv-03957-NEB-SGE Doc. 58 Filed 10/09/26 Page 5 of 8

6
Given the foregoing, the Court will grant Mr. Bloom’s Renewed Motion to Compel
and will order the following to enable him to fully and fairly explore whether the missing
documents exist and, if they no longer exist, the circumstances of their destruction :
1. Mr. Bloom shall have an additional twenty interrogatories limited to the topic
of whether the documents at issue in his Renewed Motion to Compel exist, who possesses
them, and if they were destroyed, when and by whom;
2. Defendants’ responses must be signed and verified by Defendants and
Defendants’ counsel;
3. Mr. Bloom shall have an additional four hours each in which to depose
Greogory Mader and Ronda Mader. This additional time does not include the time still
remaining on their originally noticed depositions; and
4. If the interrogatories and depositions reveal the existence of additional
documents currently missing from Defendants’ production, they must be disclosed and
produced immediately, barring any legitimate privilege concerns. If Defendants believe
any documents contain privileged information, they must be noted on Defendants’
privilege log in sufficient detail to allow for an initial assessment of whether they are indeed
privileged.
The Court declines to issue sanctions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure at
this time.
II. Informal Dispute Resolution
In addition to the Motion to Compel, the parties submitted letters to the Court on
September 15, 2026, seeking extensions and proposed changes to certain deadlines in the
CASE 0:25-cv-03957-NEB-SGE Doc. 58 Filed 10/09/26 Page 6 of 8

7
Pretrial Scheduling Order (Dkt. 21). In their letters, the parties disagree as to the extension
of deadlines as follows:
Current Deadline Def Proposed
Deadline
Pl Proposed
Deadline
Depositions: July 31, 2026 Nov. 15, 2026 Oct. 30, 2026
Non-Disp. Mot. (Fact): July 14, 2026 Dec. 15, 2026 No Change
Disp. Mot.: Oct. 30, 2026 Feb. 26, 2026 No Change
Expert Discl.: Aug. 14, 2026 Oct. 30, 2026 Sept. 30, 2026
Rebuttal Expert Discl.: Oct. 15, 2026 Nov. 30, 2026 Oct. 30, 2026
Non-Disp. Mot. (Expert): Nov. 13, 2026 Jan. 1, 2026 Dec. 15, 2026
All Expert Disc.: Nov. 30, 2026 Jan. 15, 2027 Dec. 14, 2026
Trial: Feb. 22, 2027 TBD No Change
Mr. Bloom also seeks to set deadlines for (1) issuing third-party subpoenas on Oct.
30, 2026, and (2) motions to enforce third-party subpoenas on October 30, 2026. Mr.
Bloom notes, however, that because time has elapsed since making these recommendations
to Defendants, the dates may need to be extended.
Defendants argue that non-cooperative third parties from whom discovery is being
sought, the continued depositions of Greg and Rhonda Mader, noticed third-party current
and former board member depositions, outstanding discovery responses and documents
owed by Plaintiff to Defendants, Plaintiff’s repeated requests to extend expert disclosure
deadlines and related discovery, and the repeated rescheduling of Plaintiff’s deposition all
support their suggested extensions. Mr. Bloom argues that the dates he suggests strike the
right balance between what still needs to be accomplished and maintaining a reasonable
litigation schedule without rewarding Defendants with additional time for causing the
delay. The Court agrees with Mr. Bloom. The Court will extend certain deadlines as
follows:
CASE 0:25-cv-03957-NEB-SGE Doc. 58 Filed 10/09/26 Page 7 of 8

8
Current Deadline New Deadline
Depositions: July 31, 2026 November 16, 2026
Non-Disp. Mot. (Fact): July 14, 2026 CLOSED
Disp. Mot.: Oct. 30, 2026 December 16, 2026
Expert Discl.: Aug. 14, 2026 Oct. 30, 2026
Rebuttal Expert Discl.: Oct. 15, 2026 Nov. 30, 2026
Non-Disp. Expert Mot.: Nov. 13, 2026 December 16, 2026
Expert Disc.: Nov. 30, 2026 Jan. 15, 2027
Trial: Feb. 22, 2027 TBD
Additionally, all third-party subpoenas shall be issued by October 23, 2026, all third-
party subpoena productions shall be due on November 12, 2026, and all motions seeking
to enforce third-party subpoenas must be filed by November 30, 2026.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing and the file, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Compel (Dkt. 47) is GRANTED as set forth
above; and
2. The Informal Dispute Resolution brought before the Court is resolved as set
forth above. The Court will issue an Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order accordingly.
Dated: October 9, 2026 s/ Shannon G. Elkins
SHANNON G. ELKINS
United States Magistrate Judge
CASE 0:25-cv-03957-NEB-SGE Doc. 58 Filed 10/09/26 Page 8 of 8