Filed: Feb. 05, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 05, 2018
Summary: ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART , Magistrate Judge . On January 25, 2018, the court convened an in-person discovery conference to discuss the parties' ongoing discovery issues. This conference afforded the parties a dedicated time and location to discuss and resolve the issues without court intervention and, failing that, receive a prompt order from the court as to all the issues raised. Prior to the conference, Plaintiff's counsel submitted hundreds of pages outlining the discovery requests, object
Summary: ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART , Magistrate Judge . On January 25, 2018, the court convened an in-person discovery conference to discuss the parties' ongoing discovery issues. This conference afforded the parties a dedicated time and location to discuss and resolve the issues without court intervention and, failing that, receive a prompt order from the court as to all the issues raised. Prior to the conference, Plaintiff's counsel submitted hundreds of pages outlining the discovery requests, objecti..
More
ORDER
CHERYL R. ZWART, Magistrate Judge.
On January 25, 2018, the court convened an in-person discovery conference to discuss the parties' ongoing discovery issues. This conference afforded the parties a dedicated time and location to discuss and resolve the issues without court intervention and, failing that, receive a prompt order from the court as to all the issues raised.
Prior to the conference, Plaintiff's counsel submitted hundreds of pages outlining the discovery requests, objections, and the parties' respective arguments. Defense counsel also submitted a brief summary of disputed discovery issues. Even after conferring with the court for an hour, and then among themselves for an additional two and a half hours, the parties were unable to resolve their discovery disputes. The court then presided over a discovery hearing that lasted nearly five hours, and ended with the parties needing my rulings in writing.
Below is that written order. All references to John H. Henry in the discovery requests were interpreted as referring to Defendant John L. Henry. To the extent the written ruling deviates from the oral rulings made on January 25, 2018, this written ruling controls and is the court's order.
IT IS ORDERED:
1) The court's rulings on the parties' discovery disputes are stated in the attached.
2) All responses or supplemental responses ordered shall be served on or before March 2, 2018.
Petersen v. Bitters et al, Case No. 8:16-cv-00183 (D. Neb.)
The moving party is: Defendants William Bitters and Robert Boland
The responding party is: Estate of Petersen
Discovery Request at Issue Dispute Court's Ruling
RFP NO. 1 (to Plaintiff): Please Plaintiff objected, stating Defendants The objection is overruled. Plaintitiff shall search its records for
produce all documents supporting a already have these documents and responsive information. Plaintiff shall describe what was searched,
partnership arrangement between have superior access to them. including the persons contacted and the requests made to facilitate
John Henry and William E. Bitters. a through search, whether a search of electronic information was
conducted and if so, what was searched, who searched it, how was
the search conducted, and what was found, if anything. Plaintiff
shall produce any responsive records found. If no records were
found, Plaintiff shall state that despite the search efforts made, no
responsive records were found. The statement of search efforts
made and the results of those efforts shall be signed under oath by
Plaintiff.
RFP NO. 2 (to Plaintiff): Please Plaintiff objected, stating Defendants The objection is overruled. Plaintiff shall search its records for
produce all documents supporting a already have these documents and responsive information. Plaintiff shall describe what was searched,
partnership arrangement between have superior access to them. including the persons contacted and the requests made to facilitate
John H. Henry and Robert W. Boland. a through search, whether a search of electronic information was
conducted and if so, what was searched, who searched it, how was
the search conducted, and what was found, if anything. Plaintiff
shall produce any responsive records found. If no records were
found, Plaintiff shall state that despite the search efforts made, no
responsive records were found. The statement of search efforts
made and the results of those efforts shall be signed under oath by
Plaintiff.
RFP NO. 16 (to Plaintiff): Please Defendant states Plaintiff must clarify Plaintiff shall explain, under oath, the distinction between the
produce all documents in support of why Bate No. Petersen 000020 does document image included in the complaint itself and Bate No.
your allegation in Paragraph 29 of the not include the handwritten "Personal Petersen 000020, including why the handwritten language was
First Amended Complaint in the Loan" language as shown in the image removed from the document produced in discovery, who removed it,
presence lawsuit. of the letter on Page 10 of Plaintiffs when that happened, and why it was done.
First Amended Complaint.
RFP NO. 26 (to Plaintiff): Please Defendant argues that rather than Plaintiff shall search its records for responsive information. Plaintiff
produce all documents evidencing that directly stating that Plaintiff has no shall describe what was searched, including the persons contacted
William E. Bitters or Robert W. Boland evidence of a "Kick-back", Plaintiff and the requests made to facilitate a through search, whether a
received any "kick-back" as stated in states that Plaintiff is waiting for search of electronic information was conducted and if so, what was
the Paragraph 44 of the First Amended Defendants to produce their bank searched, who searched it, how was the search conducted, and
Complaint from the loans involving records, so Plaintiff can search for the what was found, if anything. Plaintiff shall produce any responsive
John Henry and Clarence G. Nelson, alleged kick-back. records found. If no records were found, Plaintiff shall state that
Jr. and/or John Henry and Joyce despite the search efforts made, no responsive records were found.
Rosamond Petersen. The statement of search efforts made and the results of those
efforts shall be signed under oath by Plaintiff.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5 (to Plaintiff): Plaintiff responds: "Plaintiffs expert Plaintiff shall explain, under oath, its damage calculations and shall
Describe in detail the amount of report by Prof. Michael O'Hara provide a listing, with associated Bates numbers, of any documents
money you allege William E. Bitters discusses the range of typical supporting those calculations. If it cannot do so at this time, it must
and/or Robert W. Boland to have commissions earned by a financial state that fact under oath. This interrogatory must be promptly
received in form of kick back from advisor in the position of William supplemented upon receipt of additional information which may add
John L. Henry when Joyce Rosamond Bitters with respect to certain to, subtract from, further explain, or modify Plaintiff's damage
Petersen loaned money to John L. investments. Plaintiff believes a calculations.
Henry. minimum of $15,000 would have been
an extremely reasonable amount of
commission to obtain for arranging a
$150,000 loan without collateral. John
L. Henry has expressed the opinion
that Defendant Bitters wished to gain
additional business from him and his
business in exchange for arranging for
the Promissory Note and loan of
$150,000 from Ms. Petersen."
RFP NO. 35 (to Plaintiff): Please Plaintiff responds: "Plaintiff states that Plaintiff shall search its records for responsive information. Plaintiff
produce all documents evidencing a Plaintiff is not in possession of shall describe what was searched, including the persons contacted
contract between William Scoggins responsive documents and Plaintiff and the requests made to facilitate a through search, whether a
and William E. Bitters. expresses the view that it is possible search of electronic information was conducted and if so, what was
that the contract between Scoggins searched, who searched it, how was the search conducted, and
and Bitters was an oral contract rather what was found, if anything. Plaintiff shall produce any responsive
than a written contract." records found. If no records were found, Plaintiff shall state that
despite the search efforts made, no responsive records were found.
The statement of search efforts made and the results of those
efforts shall be signed under oath by Plaintiff.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4 (to Plaintiff): Plaintiff responds: "there was certainly Plaintiff shall explain, under oath, its basis for asserting there was
Describe in detail your basis for an agreement between Joyce an agreement between Joyce Petersen and UFIS/William Bitters,
alleging that there was a contract Petersen and UFIS/William Bitters to and shall provide a listing, with associated Bates numbers, of any
between William E. Bitters and/or supply honest and fair financial advice documents supporting this determination. If it cannot do so at this
Robert W. Boland with Joyce as to investing. For years, at least as time, it must state that fact under oath.
Rosamond Petersen when Joyce early as 2004, Ms. Petersen invested
Rosamond Petersen when loaned in extremely safe, conservative
money to John H. Henry. investments, until she became worried
she would not have enough income
and was convinced by Mr. Bitters to
loan money to Mr. John L. Henry,
unsecured. As the person who
inherited investments of her deceased
husband, Mr. Scoggins, Ms. Petersen
also inherited the contractual relations
between William Bitters/UFIS and Mr.
Scoggins."
RFP NO. 37 (to Plaintiff): Please Plaintiff responds that Plaintiff does Plaintiff shall search its records for responsive information. Plaintiff
produce all documents evidencing not have any responsive documents shall describe what was searched, including the persons contacted
William E. Bitters received and Defendant Bitters did not disclose and the requests made to facilitate a through search, whether a
compensation from William Scoggins to Plaintiff any commissions or fees search of electronic information was conducted and if so, what was
and/or Joyce Rosamond Petersen for that he earned from Plaintiff or Mr. searched, who searched it, how was the search conducted, and
any alleged services relating to the Scoggins's business. Plaintiff is waiting what was found, if anything. Plaintiff shall produce any responsive
loan that is the basis of this lawsuit. for Defendant Bitters to disclose records found. If no records were found, Plaintiff shall state that
documents of this nature pursuant to despite the search efforts made, no responsive records were found.
Plaintiff's own discovery requests. The statement of search efforts made and the results of those
efforts shall be signed under oath by Plaintiff.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3 (to Plaintiff): Plaintiff responds: "It is a reasonable Plaintiff shall explain, under oath, its basis for alleging William E.
Describe in detail any payment presumption that Bitters also earned Bitters and/or Robert W. Boland received a payment in connection
received by William E. Bitters and/or commissions for selling annuities to with any promissory note signed, or other financial transactions
Robert W. Boland in connection with Ms. Petersen and Mr. Scoggins and entered into, in connection between Joyce Rosamond Petersen and
any promissory note signed, or other for his role in drafting the Promissory John L. Henry, and shall provide a listing, with associated Bates
financial transactions entered into, in Note under which John L. Henry numbers, of any documents supporting this determination. If it
connection between Joyce Rosamond promised to repay $150,000 plus cannot do so, it must state that fact under oath.
Petersen and John L. Henry. interest to Ms. Petersen. In the very
least, John L. Henry has stated that
Defendant Bitters may have expected
to gain future business from John L.
Henry by arranging for the Promissory
Note and loan from Ms. Petersen."
RFP NO. 39 (to Plaintiff): Please Plaintiff responds that Plaintiff does not Plaintiff shall search its records for responsive information. Plaintiff
produce all documents showing Robert have any responsive documents. shall describe what was searched, including the persons contacted
W. Boland had any involvement with and the requests made to facilitate a through search, whether a
UFIS/United Financial Services at the search of electronic information was conducted and if so, what was
time Joyce Rosamond Petersen searched, who searched it, how was the search conducted, and
loaned money to John H. Henry. what was found, if anything. Plaintiff shall produce any responsive
records found. If no records were found, Plaintiff shall state that
despite the search efforts made, no responsive records were found.
The statement of search efforts made and the results of those
efforts shall be signed under oath by Plaintiff.
Petersen v. Bitters et al, Case No. 8:16-cv-00183 (D. Neb.)
The moving party is: Petersen
The responding party is: Bitters and Boland
Discovery Request at Issue Dispute Court's Ruling
Plaintiff's Interrogatories to Defendant Defendant Bitters has provided a copy of Resolved.
Bitters were not signed at the bottom by his responses signed by both Mr. Bitters
Bitters and the objections were not certified and his counsel.
as having a good faith basis in law by
Defense counsel Zarghouni
Plantiff's Interrogatory Nos. 1 to 14 to Amended response dated Dec. 18, 2017: Objection sustained. Boland will serve responses to interrogatorries,
Robert Boland are not signed at the bottom no change. Interrogatorries still not signed signed by counsel as to any objections and signed by defendant under
by Boland. An earlier version of this chart at the bottom by Boland. oath as to all answers.
was emailed to Boland's defense counsel
on Nov. 15, 2017.
Plaintiff's Requests For Production ("RFP") Bitters and Boland combined only Defendants Bitters and Boland shall thoroughly search his records for
Nos. 1-51 (to Bitters and Boland): produced, initially, 17 pages. responsive documents. Defendants Bitters and Boland shall describe
On Dec. 15, 2017, an additional 71 pages what was searched, including the persons contacted, keeping in mind
were produced. With the amended that documents held by, e.g., accountants, bankers, and lawyers, may
response, Defendant added Bates be in his control even if not in his current possession or custody. If
numbers DEFENDANTPRODUCTION outside persons were contacted to obtain records, Defendants Bitters
000001 - 000088 to all of the 88 pages and Boland shall state what requests were made to facilitate a
produced. thorough search. Bitters shall also state whether a search of electronic
information (email, text messages, Facebook, computer hard drives,
Plaintiff contends the response remains etc) was conducted and if so, what was searched, who searched it,
incomplete. how the search was conducted, and what was found, if anything.
Defendants Bitters and Boland shall produce any responsive records
found. If no additional records were found, each Defendant shall state
that despite the search efforts made, no additional responsive records
were found. The statement of search efforts made and the results of
those efforts, and it shall be signed under oath by Bitters as to his
responses, and signed under oath by Boland as to his.
RFP Nos. 1 - 51 (to Bitters): These RFPs Plaintiff pointed out to Defendant that Objection overruled: Defendants shall place Bates numbers on the
(discussed individually below where Defendant must use Bates numbers and documents disclosed and shall reference which Bates-numbered
appropriate) discussed all aspects of reference specific pages in responses and documents are responsive to which of Plaintiffs Requests for
Plaintiff's claims and Bitters's defenses. No that Defendant could not make vague Production. If a document is to provide the answer to an interrogatory,
Bates numbers are referenced in any one references to "see attached" the Bates number of the document shall be referenced in the
of the responses to RFP Nos. 1-51. For interogatorry response.
numerous responses to RFPs, Defendant's
response said "see attached" without
referencing the specific pages or Bates
numbers at issue.
RFP Nos. 28, 29, 37, 38, 41: (to Boland):
Same
RFP Nos. 1, 3, 14, 15, 15, 17, 18, 19, 24, Bitters and Boland object that the RFPs did Objection overruled. The requests are sufficienty specific.
25, 26, 34, 35, 40, 42, 44, 47, 48 (to not state the requests with "particularity."
Bitters):
RFP Nos. 6 - 37 and 39-51: (to Boland)
RFP Nos. 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, Bitter's and Boland's objections do not say Defendants must state whether documents are being withheld and
19, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 42, 43, whether, or not, documents are being describe those documents with sufficient particularity to apprise the
45, 46, 51 (to Bitters). withheld on the basis of the objections. Plaintiff of the type of document withheld so a decision can be made
as to whether a motion to compel is warranted.
RFP Nos. 1-2, 5, 8, 9, 11-27, 30-32, 35, 39,
40, 42-51 (to Boland).
RFP Nos. 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 28, 29, 33, 34,
37, 38, 41 (to Boland): Plaintiff requested
information covering many aspects of her
claims (as addressed with each individual
RFP in the chart below) but, in amended
responses to these RFPs, Boland asserted
objections and did not specify if he was
withholding any documents (or identify
which ones) pursuant to those objections
RFP Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 (to Bitters): In his initial responses to RFPs, Bitters did Objections overruled. Asserting the opposing party has the "Burden of
these requests, respectively, each seek not provide any documents in response to Proof" is not a valid objection to discovery.
production of documents supporting these RFPs and he gave the invalid
Bitters's denial of liability to Plaintiff's First, objection of "burden of proof" in response
Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of to RFP Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19.
Action. In amended responses submitted to
Plaintiff on Dec. 15, 2017, Bitters did not
make any changes to his use of the
objection of "burden of proof." The same
objection still appears, as before, in
response to RFP Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19.
RFP Nos. 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, 25, In the amended responses submitted on Defendants Bitters and Boland shall thoroughly search his records for
27, 30, 31, 35, 41, 44, 46 (to Bitters):: Dec. 17, 2017, Bitters stated that he did not responsive documents. Defendants Bitters and Boland shall describe
produce documents to support Plaintiffs have "possession, custody, or control" of what was searched, including the persons contacted, keeping in mind
claims. Defendant's amended responses responsive documents regarding RPF Nos. that documents held by, e.g., accountants, bankers, and lawyers, may
assert that Bitters does not have . . . . .Plaintff believes Bitters has defined be in his control even if not in his current possession or custody. If
responsive documents "in his possession" this to mean in his own personal hands at a outside persons were contacted to obtain records, Defendants Bitters
or custody or control but appear to take a given moment in time rather than use the and Boland shall state what requests were made to facilitate a
very limited definition of these words rather legally required definition under which he thorough search. Bitters shall also state whether a search of electronic
than the legally broad definition that must check his computers, archives, information (email, text messages, Facebook, computer hard drives,
includes agents, bankers, accountants, secretary, banker, accountant, phone etc) was conducted and if so, what was searched, who searched it,
secretaries, computers, archives, etc. company, and other agents. how the search was conducted, and what was found, if anything.
RFP Nos. 1 - 51 (to Boland): Same. Defendants Bitters and Boland shall produce any responsive records
found. If no additional records were found, each Defendant shall state
that despite the search efforts made, no additional responsive records
were found. The statement of search efforts made and the results of
those efforts, and it shall be signed under oath by Bitters as to his
responses, and signed under oath by Boland as to his.
All (to Bitters); The Defendant objects on basis of Objection overruled. The requests are relevant.
relevance, under Rule 26(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, relevance
remains the touchstone of discoverability—
information remains discoverable if it is
"relevant to any party's claim or defense."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (2015).
The Promissory Note
RFA NO. 5 (to Bitters): Please admit that Bitters answered: "Admit to the extent that Read together, Bitters admits to the extent that the amount
the amount of the funds that Defendant the amount contemplated by the contemplated by the promissory note in question was $150,000, but
advised, persuaded, and/or encouraged promissory note in question was $150,000. denies that he advised, persuaded, and/or encouraged Ms. Petersen
Ms. Petersen to loan $150,000 to John L. Defendant denies that he advised, to loan $150,000.
Henry under a Promissory Note persuaded, and/or encouraged Ms. Bitters shall re-serve his responses to requests for admission so the
Petersen to loan $150,000. To the extent entire response is included in one document.
the issue is the loan amount. The
promissory note speaks for itself.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3 (to Bitters): Is it Defendant Bitters responds that he did not To the extent Defendant saw Henry sign the promissory note or
the contention of any of the defendants that observe John H. Henry signing the recognizes his signature, Defendant must answer the interrogatory.
the Promissory Note of February 8, 2008, a promissory note."
copy of which appears in the First
Amended Complaint in paragraph 13, was
not signed by John L. Henry?
PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORY NO. 5 (to Bitters answered: "Defendant objects to the Objection overruled. If Defendant has additional information
Bitters): State the time when and place interrogatory assumes facts not in responsive to this interrogatory, (e.g., date and time of signing), he
where John L. Henry signed the evidence, namely, that Defendant William must provide that information.
Promissory Note. E. Bitters has personal knowledge as to
whether John H. Henry (sic) signed the
promissory note and that Williams E.
Bitters is familiar with John H. Henry's (sic)
signature. Subject to, and without waiving
the aforementioned objections, Defendant
believes the note was executed at a branch
of Bank of Omaha.
PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORY NO. 12 Defendant Bitters responded that he is Defendant Bitters shall thoroughly search his records for responsive
(to Bitters): With respect to each unaware of any mail or correspondence information. Bitters shall describe what was searched, including the
communication of whatever type that was about the Promissory Note. persons contacted, keeping in mind that documents held by, e.g.,
mailed and/or received via the US Postal accountants, bankers, and lawyers, may be in his control even if not in
Service by You which related to the his current possession or custody. If outside persons were contacted
Promissory Note, please state: the date; to locate information, Bitters shall state what requests were made to
parties to the communication; substance of facilitate a thorough search. Bitters shall further state whether a search
the communication; whether the of electronic information was conducted and if so, what was searched,
communication is in Your possession. who searched it, how the search was conducted, and what was found,
if anything. If no additional information is found, Bitters shall state that
despite the search efforts made, no additional responsive information
was found. The statement of search efforts made and the results of
those efforts shall be signed under oath by Bitters.
PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORY NO. 18 Bitters responded. "Defendant did not Defendant Bitters shall supplement this response to include all means
(to Bitters): Describe all transactions in arrange for, advise any party on, and/or by which Bitters facilitated Henry's receipt of funds from an investor.
which You arranged for, advised any party otherwise facilitate for John Henry to
on, drafted documents for, and/or received funds. Defendant introduced John
otherwise facilitated John L. Henry's receipt Henry to Ms. Petersen and Mr. Nelson and
of funds from an investor through a when those parties decided to enter into
promissory note or another method. loan transaction, Defendant prepared
promissory notes for them by copying the
promissory note of the Bank of Omaha."
RFP NO. 1 (to Bitters): Produce documents Bitter responded that he did not manage Defendant Bitters shall thoroughly search his records for responsive
related in any way to the Promissory Note, annuity. Plaintiffs investments were in documents. Bitters shall describe what was searched, including the
Ms. Petersen, and Ms. Petersen's former Fixed Index Annuity Contracts and did not persons contacted, keeping in mind that documents held by, e.g.,
husband (Mr. Scoggins) including all require managing. Plaintiff is in possession accountants, bankers, and lawyers, may be in his control even if not in
statements made by You to any one or of said Fixed Index Annuity Contracts and his current possession or custody. If outside persons were contacted
more of them, any investments and/or the Estate of Joyce Peterson has liquidated to obtain records, Bitters shall state what requests were made to
annuities made or managed by You on those contracts."Defendant did not manage facilitate a thorough search. Bitters shall further state whether a search
their behalf, and any financial transactions. investments/annuities for Ms. Petersen of electronic information was conducted and if so, what was searched,
and/or Ms. Petersen's husband. Plaintiff's who searched it, how the search was conducted, and what was found,
investments were in fixed indexed annuities if anything. Bitters shall produce any responsive records found. If no
contracts and did not require records were found, Bitters shall state that despite the search efforts
managing.Prior to this litigation and during made, no responsive records were found. The statement of search
the probate of the Estate of Joyce efforts made and the results of those efforts shall be signed under oath
Rosamond Petersen, Defendant released by Bitters.
Ms. Petersen and Mr. Scoggins' entire
investment file to Plaintiff's counsel, James
H. McMenamy, and did not retain any
copies. The Estate of Joyce Rosamond
Petersen liquidated the aforementioned
investments. Plaintiff should therefore be in
possession of all documents related to the
fixed indexed annuities contracts. All other
`statements' made by Defendant to Ms.
Petersen and/or Mr. Scoggins were made
orally, and Defendant has no record of
such statements."
He guided Ms. Petersen through the
Promissory Note that he drafted but has
not produced even drafts of that document
or any correspondence with any party
about it.
RFP NO. 27 (to Bitters): Produce all On Dec. 17 2017, Bitters amended his Defendant Bitters shall thoroughly search his records for responsive
instructions that You and/or Robert W. response as follows: "Defendant contacted documents. Bitters shall describe what was searched, including the
Boland gave to John L. Henry with respect John L. Henry via phone on multiple persons contacted, keeping in mind that documents held by, e.g.,
to making repayments to Ms. Petersen, Mr. occasions and demanded that he repay Mr. accountants, bankers, and lawyers, may be in his control even if not in
Nelson, and/or any other investor. Nelson and Ms. Petersen. However, his current possession or custody. If outside persons were contacted
Defendant has no documents in his to obtain records, Bitters shall state what requests were made to
possession, custody, or control that are facilitate a thorough search. Bitters shall further state whether a search
responsive to this request." of electronic information was conducted and if so, what was searched,
who searched it, how the search was conducted, and what was found,
if anything. Bitters shall produce any responsive records found. If no
records were found, Bitters shall state that despite the search efforts
made, no responsive records were found. The statement of search
efforts made and the results of those efforts shall be signed under oath
RFP NO. 41 (to Bitters): Produce a copy of Bitters responded, "None in Defendant's Defendant Bitters shall thoroughly search his records for responsive
all of your receipts—or other documents possession." documents. Bitters shall describe what was searched, including the
showing proof—of your stay at the Comfort persons contacted, keeping in mind that documents held by, e.g.,
Inn & Suites at 7007 Grover Street in accountants, bankers, and lawyers, may be in his control even if not in
Omaha, Nebraska from December 2008 to his current possession or custody. If outside persons were contacted
June 2012. to obtain records, Bitters shall state what requests were made to
facilitate a thorough search. Bitters shall further state whether a search
of electronic information was conducted and if so, what was searched,
who searched it, how the search was conducted, and what was found,
if anything. Bitters shall produce any responsive records found. If no
records were found, Bitters shall state that despite the search efforts
made, no responsive records were found. The statement of search
efforts made and the results of those efforts shall be signed under oath
by Bitters.
RFP NO. 49 (to Bitters): Produce a copy of Bitters responded, "None." Defendant Bitters shall thoroughly search his records for responsive
any document related to Your search for a In an amended response dated Dec. 17, documents. Bitters shall describe what was searched, including the
guarantor, or the need for one, to protect 2017, Bitters responded: "Defendant is not persons contacted, keeping in mind that documents held by, e.g.,
Ms. Petersen's interests in the Promissory in possession, custody, or control of any accountants, bankers, and lawyers, may be in his control even if not in
Note issued by John L. Henry. documents that are responsive to this his current possession or custody. If outside persons were contacted
request." to obtain records, Bitters shall state what requests were made to
facilitate a thorough search. Bitters shall further state whether a search
of electronic information was conducted and if so, what was searched,
who searched it, how the search was conducted, and what was found,
if anything. Bitters shall produce any responsive records found. If no
records were found, Bitters shall state that despite the search efforts
made, no responsive records were found. The statement of search
efforts made and the results of those efforts shall be signed under oath
by Bitters.
Communications
PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORY NO. 10 Bitters answered: "I have reviewed Defendant Bitters shall thoroughly search his records for responsive
(to Bitters): Have You had any Plaintiff's allegations in this lawsuit with information. Bitters shall describe what was searched, including the
conversations with the each of John L. Robert W. Boland and our attorney." persons contacted, keeping in mind that documents held by, e.g.,
Henry and Robert W. Boland in regard to Amended response: "I have reviewed accountants, bankers, and lawyers, may be in his control even if not in
the Promissory Note? Plaintiff's allegations in this lawsuit with his current possession or custody. If outside persons were contacted
PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORY NO. 11 Robert W. Boland and our attorney. to locate information, Bitters shall state what requests were made to
(to Bitters): If the answer to the preceding Furthermore, prior to this lawsuit I asked facilitate a thorough search. Bitters shall further state whether a search
interrogatory is in the affirmative, state in, John Henry to repay his debt to Ms. Joyce of electronic information was conducted and if so, what was searched,
detail the entire contents of each such Petersen and Mr. Clarence Nelson." who searched it, how the search was conducted, and what was found,
correspondence or conversation between if anything. If no additional information is found, Bitters shall state that
You and the each of John L. Henry and despite the search efforts made, no additional responsive information
Robert W. Boland including the date, time, was found. The statement of search efforts made and the results of
and place, contents, and witnesses thereto. those efforts shall be signed under oath by Bitters.
Bitters need not describe, or list on any privilege log, conversations
with counsel or in counsel's presence regarding the claims and
defenses raised in this case, but as to conversations between only the
defendants, such conversations are not attorney-client privileged
communications. These conversations must be described as
requested in the interrogatory unless Defendants claim the
conversations are entitled to work product protection. Any such work
product conversations must be identified on a privilege log.
PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORY NO. 12 Bitters responded that he thinks there Defendant Bitters shall thoroughly search his records for responsive
(to Bitters): With respect to each might have been emails, but Defendant information. Bitters shall describe what was searched, including the
communication of whatever type that was was not able to locate any of them after persons contacted, keeping in mind that documents held by, e.g.,
mailed and/or received via the US Postal diligence search. accountants, bankers, and lawyers, may be in his control even if not in
Service by You which related to the his current possession or custody. If outside persons were contacted
Promissory Note, please state: the date; to locate information, Bitters shall state what requests were made to
parties to the communication; substance of facilitate a thorough search. Bitters shall further state whether a search
the communication; whether the of electronic information was conducted and if so, what was searched,
communication is in Your possession. who searched it, how the search was conducted, and what was found,
if anything. If no additional information is found, Bitters shall state that
despite the search efforts made, no additional responsive information
was found. The statement of search efforts made and the results of
those efforts shall be signed under oath by Bitters.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7 (to Boland): Boland responded, "Defendant has Defendant Boland shall thoroughly search his records for responsive
Have You had any conversations with the reviewed Plaintiffs allegations in this information. Boland shall describe what was searched, including the
each of John L. Henry and William Bitters lawsuit with William Bitters and the persons contacted, keeping in mind that documents held by, e.g.,
in regard to the Promissory Note? undersigned attorney. I have never spoken accountants, bankers, and lawyers, may be in his control even if not in
INTERROGATORY NO. 8 (to Boland): If with John L. Henry." his current possession or custody. If outside persons were contacted
the answer to the preceding interrogatory is Amended response dated Dec. 18, 2017: to locate information, Boland shall state what requests were made to
in the affirmative, state in detail the entire "Defendant objects to this request on basis facilitate a thorough search. Boland shall further state whether a
contents of each such correspondence or of attorney client privilege. Subject to the search of electronic information was conducted and if so, what was
conversation between You and the each of foregoing objections, Defendant has searched, who searched it, how the search was conducted, and what
John L. Henry and William Bitters including reviewed Plaintiffs allegations in this was found, if anything. If no additional information is found, Boland
the date, time and place, contents, and lawsuit with William Bitters and the shall state that despite the search efforts made, no additional
witnesses thereto. undersigned attorney. I have never spoken responsive information was found. The statement of search efforts
with John L. Henry." made and the results of those efforts shall be signed under oath by
Boland.
Boland need not describe, or list on any privilege log, conversations
with counsel or in counsel's presence regarding the claims and
defenses raised in this case, but as to conversations between only the
defendants, such conversations are not attorney-client privileged
communications. These conversations must be described as
requested in the interrogatory unless Defendants claim the
conversations are entitled to work product protection. Any such
purported work product conversations must be identified on a privilege
log.
RFA NO. 27 (to Bitters): Please admit that Bitters answered: "Deny. Defendant is not Reading Bitters' separate responses together, Bitters has fully
Defendant has exchanged communications in possession of any email between him responded the Request for Admission, but he shall further state and
by email with John L. Henry at any time and John Henry. Notably, John Henry does explain how his email was searched, what email accounts were
over the past 10 years. not even have an email." searched, who searched them, how that search was conducted, and
In amended response of Dec. 15, 2017, what was found, if anything.
Defendant wrote "admit to the extent that Bitters shall re-serve his responses to requests for admission so the
Defendant thinks he could have exchanged entire response is included in one document.
emails with John L. Henry at some point
over the pats 10 years; however,
Defendant made a reasonable inquiry by
searching through his emails and found no
records of such communication."
RFP NO. 2 (to Bitters): Produce all Bitters responded, Defendant is not in Defendant Bitters shall thoroughly search his records for responsive
communications exchanged between You possession of any written or electronic documents. Bitters shall describe what was searched, including the
and John L. Henry from February 1, 2007 communication with John Henry." persons contacted, keeping in mind that documents held by, e.g.,
to the present. accountants, bankers, and lawyers, may be in his control even if not in
his current possession or custody. If outside persons were contacted
to obtain records, Bitters shall state what requests were made to
facilitate a thorough search. Bitters shall produce any additional
responsive records found. Bitters shall further state whether a search
of electronic information was conducted and if so, what was searched,
who searched it, how the search was conducted, and what was found,
if anything. If no additional records were found, Bitters shall state that
despite the search efforts made, no additional responsive records
were found. The statement of search efforts made and the results of
those efforts shall be signed under oath by Bitters.
RFP NO. 14 (to Bitters): Produce any Bitters responded, "None at this time, Defendant Bitters shall thoroughly search his records for responsive
communication to Ms. Petersen, Robert Defendant reserves the right to documents. Bitters shall describe what was searched, including the
Boland, or any other person in which You supplement." persons contacted, keeping in mind that documents held by, e.g.,
discussed John L. Henry's ability and/or accountants, bankers, and lawyers, may be in his control even if not in
willingness to pay Plaintiff the amount due his current possession or custody. If outside persons were contacted
under the Promissory Note. to obtain records, Bitters shall state what requests were made to
facilitate a thorough search. Bitters shall further state whether a search
of electronic information was conducted and if so, what was searched,
who searched it, how the search was conducted, and what was found,
if anything. Bitters shall produce any additional responsive records
found. If no additional records were found, Bitters shall state that
despite the search efforts made, no additional responsive records
were found. The statement of search efforts made and the results of
those efforts shall be signed under oath by Bitters.
RFP NO. 30 (to Bitters): Produce any Bitters responded that this Request is Objection sustained in part. Defendant Bitters shall thoroughly search
communication in which You and/or Robert directed at documents which may contain his records for responsive documents. Bitters shall describe what was
Boland asked John L. Henry to provide: personal and financial information of searched, including the persons contacted, keeping in mind that
proof of financial ability to repay the individuals who are not parties to this documents held by, e.g., accountants, bankers, and lawyers, may be
Promissory Note, credit history, proof of lawsuit, and which may be protected by in his control even if not in his current possession or custody. If outside
salary, proof of wages, and/or references. privilege. To the extent that Defendant is in persons were contacted to obtain records, Bitters shall state what
possession of documents responsive to requests were made to facilitate a thorough search. Bitters shall further
this Request, he would agree to produce state whether a search of electronic information was conducted and if
them upon the entry of an Order from the so, what was searched, who searched it, how the search was
Court, or upon the receipt of a valid written conducted, and what was found, if anything.
consent from all interested parties.
Bitters shall produce any additional responsive records found subject
In amended responses on Dec. 17, 2017, to a protective order if the personal information of third parties is
Bitters stated: "Defendant does not have included within the responsive document. If no additional records were
any documents in his possession, custody, found, Bitters shall state that despite the search efforts made, no
or control that are responsive to this additional responsive records were found. The statement of search
request." efforts made and the results of those efforts shall be signed under oath
by Bitters.
Any information which may include personal anfd financial information
of third parties must not be disclosed absent a protective order.
Counsel shall submit a proposed protective order to the court for
consideration.
RFA NO. 28 (to Bitters): Please admit that Defendant's amended response of Dec. 15, Bitters has fully responded the Request for Admission, but he shall
Defendant has exchanged communications 2017 wrote "Admit to the extent that there further state and explain how his email was searched, what email
by email with Robert Boland at any time are privileged communications between accounts were searched, who searched them, how that search was
over the past 10 years regarding Ms. Defendant, Robert Boland and the conducted, and what was found, if anything.
Petersen, John L. Henry, and/or the undersigned counsel that postdate the Bitters shall re-serve his responses to requests for admission so the
transaction by which Ms. Petersen loaned present lawsuit. Otherwise deny." entire response is included in one document.
funds to John L. Henry.
RFP NO. 3 (to Bitters): Produce all Defendant Bitters shall thoroughly search his records for responsive
communications exchanged between You documents. Bitters shall describe what was searched, including the
and Robert W. Boland from February 1, persons contacted, keeping in mind that documents held by, e.g.,
2007 to the present that discussed, directly accountants, bankers, and lawyers, may be in his control even if not in
or indirectly, any aspect of transactions his current possession or custody. If outside persons were contacted
involving Ms. Petersen, Clarence Nelson, to obtain records, Bitters shall state what requests were made to
and any other investor or client who facilitate a thorough search. Bitters shall further state whether a search
provided any form of Consideration to John of electronic information was conducted and if so, what was searched,
L. Henry. who searched it, how the search was conducted, and what was found,
if anything.
Bitters shall produce any additional responsive records found. If no
additional records were found, Bitters shall state that despite the
search efforts made, no additional responsive records were found. The
statement of search efforts made and the results of those efforts shall
be signed under oath by Bitters.
RFA NO. 44 (to Bitters): Please admit that In an amended response of Dec. 15, 2017, Bitters must state whether he advised Ms. Peterson to use funds from
Defendant advised Ms. Henry (sic) to use Defendant wrote, "Deny to the extent that her annuity to make a loan to John L. Henry through a Promissory
funds from her annuity to make a loan to "Ms. Henry' is meant to be read Ms. Note.
John L. Henry through a Promissory Note. Petersen." Bitters shall re-serve his responses to requests for admission so the
entire response is included in one document.
RFA NO. 46 (to Bitters): Please admit that In an amended answer dated Dec. 15, Bitters must state whether he advised Ms. Petersen to protect her
Defendant did not advise Ms. Petersen to 2017, Defendant wrote, "Defendant cannot interests in the Promissory Note through a guarantor.
protect her interests in the Promissory Note deny or admit because Defendant had no Bitters shall re-serve his responses to requests for admission so the
through a guarantor. duty to Ms. Petersen with respect to the entire response is included in one document.
alleged loan transaction."
RFP NO. 21 (to Bitters): Produce any and In an amended response dated Dec. 17, Defendant Bitters shall thoroughly search his records for responsive
all communications from You to Ms. 2017, Bitters answered as follows: documents. Bitters shall describe what was searched, including the
Petersen and/or her deceased husband "Defendant is not in possession of any persons contacted, keeping in mind that documents held by, e.g.,
from February 1, 2005 to present. written or otherwise recorded accountants, bankers, and lawyers, may be in his control even if not in
communications between Defendant and his current possession or custody. If outside persons were contacted
Ms. Petersen and/or her deceased to obtain records, Bitters shall state what requests were made to
husband from February 1, 2005 to facilitate a thorough search. Bitters shall further state whether a search
present." of electronic information was conducted and if so, what was searched,
who searched it, how the search was conducted, and what was found,
if anything. Bitters shall produce any responsive records found. If no
records were found, Bitters shall state that despite the search efforts
made, no responsive records were found. The statement of search
efforts made and the results of those efforts shall be signed under oath
by Bitters.
RFP NO. 31 (to Bitters): Produce telephone Defendants state they do not have any Plaintiff shall promptly collect and serve on defense counsel any
records and/or logs, in Your possession or documents in his possession, custody, or telephone numbers relevant to this request (e.g. Ms. Peterson's
obtained by You from your telephone control which are responsive to this number(s), her daughter(s)'s numbers, etc.).
service provider, showing any calls to or request. Additionally, Defendants do not Defendants Bitters and Boland shall thoroughly search his records for
from You and John L. Henry, Ms. Petersen, recall which phone lines would have been responsive documents. Defendants Bitters and Boland shall describe
Ms. Petersen's daughter, and/or Robert W. used to call or receive calls from John L. what was searched, including the persons contacted, keeping in mind
Boland. Henry, Ms. Petersen, Ms. Petersen's that documents held by, e.g., a telephone company, accountants,
Henry, Ms. Petersen, Ms. Petersen's that documents held by, e.g., a telephone company, accountants,
daughter, and/or Robert W. Boland." bankers, and lawyers, may be in his control even if not in his current
RFP NO. 31 (to Boland): Produce possession or custody. If outside persons were contacted to obtain
telephone records and/or logs, in Your records, Defendants Bitters and Boland shall state what requests were
possession or obtained by You from your made to facilitate a thorough search.
telephone service provider, showing any After comparing the relevant telephone numbers to Bitters' and Boland's
calls to or from You and (a) John L. Henry telephone records, Defendants Bitters and Boland shall produce any
at any time; (b) Ms. Petersen at any tine responsive records found. If no records were found, each Defendant
[sic]; (c) Ms. Petersen's daughter at any shall state that despite the search efforts made, no responsive records
time; and/or (d) William Bitteres [sic] with were found. The statement of search efforts made and the results of
respect to John L. Henry, Clarence Nelson, those efforts, and it shall be signed under oath by Bitters as to his
and/or Ms. Petersen responses, and signed under oath by Boland as to his.
Production pursuant to these requests should cover the period between
January 1, 2007 and present.
RFP NO. 35 (to Bitters): Produce a copy of None in Defendant's possession Defendant Bitters shall thoroughly search his records for responsive
any journal, blog, diary, notebook, Word To the extent that Ms. Petersen's documents. Bitters shall describe what was searched, including the
document, or other document in which you investments are related to the Promissory persons contacted, keeping in mind that documents held by, e.g.,
recorded notes that were related in any Note, prior to this litigation and during the accountants, bankers, and lawyers, may be in his control even if not in
way to the Promissory Note including but probate of the Estate of Joyce Rosamond his current possession or custody. If outside persons were contacted
not limited to conversations with Ms. Petersen, Defendant released Ms. to obtain records, Bitters shall state what requests were made to
Petersen and/or her daughter. Petersen and Mr. Scoggins' entire facilitate a thorough search. Bitters shall produce any responsive
investment file to Plaintiff's counsel, James records found. If no records were found, Bitters shall state that despite
H. McMenamy, and did not retain any the search efforts made, no responsive records were found. The
statement of search efforts made and the results of those efforts shall
copies. Defendant does not have any be signed under oath by Bitters.
documents in his possession, custody, or
control that are responsive to this request."
RFP NO. 45 (to Bitters): Produce a copy of None in Defendant's possession. Defendant Bitters shall thoroughly search his records for responsive
all communications that you have sent to or In an amended response on Dec. 17, 2017, documents. Bitters shall describe what was searched, including the
received from the estate of Ms. Petersen, Bitters answered: "Prior to this litigation and persons contacted, keeping in mind that documents held by, e.g.,
her heirs, and/or her children after Ms. during the probate of the Estate of Joyce accountants, bankers, and lawyers, may be in his control even if not in
Petersen passed away. Rosamond Petersen, Defendant released his current possession or custody. If outside persons were contacted
Ms. Petersen and Mr. Scoggins' entire to obtain records, Bitters shall state what requests were made to
investment file to Plaintiff's counsel, James facilitate a thorough search. Bitters shall search his email, explaining
H. McMenamy, and did not retain any who performed the search, how the search was done, and what
copies. The Estate of Joyce Rosamond documents were found.
Petersen liquidated the aforementioned Bitters shall produce any responsive records found. If no records were
investments. Plaintiff should therefore be in found, Bitters shall state that despite the search efforts made, no
possession of all documents relating to the responsive records were found. The statement of search efforts made
communications with Ms. Petersen, her and the results of those efforts shall be signed under oath by Bitters.
heirs, and/or her children.
RFP NO. 25 (to Bitters): Produce any and None at this time, Defendant reserves the Defendant Bitters shall thoroughly search his records for responsive
all faxes, emails, and letters—or copies right to supplement. documents. Bitters shall describe what was searched, including the
thereof—sent to or received from John L. Defendant did not communicate with persons contacted, keeping in mind that documents held by, e.g.,
Henry and/or Robert W. Boland. Robert W. Boland regarding the accountants, bankers, and lawyers, may be in his control even if not in
transactions involving Ms. Petersen, his current possession or custody. If outside persons were contacted
Clarence Nelson, or any other person to obtain records, Bitters shall state what requests were made to
involved in a transaction with John L. Henry facilitate a thorough search. Bitters shall search his email, explaining
prior to the commencement of this lawsuit. who performed the search, how the search was done, and what
This is because Robert W. Boland is not a documents were found.
partner of William E. Bitters and had no Bitters shall produce any responsive records found. If no records were
involvement with the events giving rise to found, Bitters shall state that despite the search efforts made, no
this suit. All such privileged responsive records were found. The statement of search efforts made
communications occurring after the and the results of those efforts shall be signed under oath by Bitters.
commencement of this lawsuit are being Production pursuant to this request should cover the period between
withheld pursuant to the attorney-client January 1, 2007 to present.
privilege. With respect to John L. Henry,
Defendant does not have any documents in
his possession, custody, or control that are
responsive to this request."
RFP NO. 26 (to Bitters): Produce any and None at this time, Defendant reserves the Defendants shall thoroughly search their records for responsive
all faxes, emails, and letters—or copies right to supplement." documents. They shall describe what was searched, including the
thereof—sent to or received from Robert Defendant did not communicate with persons contacted, keeping in mind that documents held by, e.g.,
W. Boland that had any connection, direct Robert W. Boland regarding the accountants, bankers, and lawyers, may be in their control even if not
or indirect, to any one of John L. Henry, transactions involving Ms. Petersen, in their current possession or custody. If outside persons were
Ms. Petersen, Clarence Nelson, and any Clarence Nelson, or any other person contacted to obtain records, they shall state what requests were made
other investor who provided Consideration involved in a transaction with John L. Henry to facilitate a thorough search. They shall further state whether a
to John L. Henry. prior to the commencement of this lawsuit. search of electronic information was conducted and if so, what was
RFP NO. 26 (to Boland): Produce any and This is because Robert W. Boland is not a searched, who searched it, how the search was conducted, and what
all faxes, emails, and letters—or copies partner of William E. Bitters and had no was found, if anything. They shall produce any responsive records
thereof—sent to or received from William involvement with the events giving rise to found. If no records were found, each Defendant shall state that
Bitters that had any connection, direct or this suit. All such privileged despite the search efforts made, no responsive records were found.
indirect, to any one of John L. Henry, Ms. communications occurring after the The statement of search efforts made and the results of those efforts,
Petersen, Clarence Nelson, and any other commencement of this lawsuit are being and it shall be signed under oath by Bitters as to his responses, and
investor who provided Consideration to withheld pursuant to the attorney-client signed under oath by Boland as to his.
John L. Henry. privilege." Production pursuant to this request should cover the period between
January 1, 2007 to present.
General Income.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13 (to Boland): Amended response dated Dec. 18, 2017: " Defendant Boland appears to have fully responded to the
Identify by name and address of each bank None because I have never received or interrogatory.
that you used to transfer, deposit, or given money to William Bitters and John L.
withdraw funds received from or given to Henry."
the each of William Bitters and John L. However, Defendant Boland shall thoroughly search his records for
Henry. responsive information. Boland shall describe what was searched,
including the persons contacted, keeping in mind that documents held
by, e.g., accountants, bankers, and lawyers, may be in his control
even if not in his current possession or custody. If outside persons
were contacted to locate information, Boland shall state what requests
were made to facilitate a thorough search. Boland shall further state
whether a search of electronic information was conducted and if so,
what was searched, who searched it, how the search was conducted,
and what was found, if anything. If no additional information is found,
Boland shall state that despite the search efforts made, no additional
responsive information was found. The statement of search efforts
made and the results of those efforts shall be signed under oath by
Boland.
RFP NO. 6 (to Bitters): Produce Your W-2 Plaintiff has provided no basis, other than Objection sustained. Plaintiff has failed to show the documentation of
forms from 2007 to the present. You may unsubstantiated allegations, that Defendant specific payments does not sufficiently address the issue of money
redact any financial account numbers or received payment from Ms. Petersen, Mr. received from the Ms. Petersen, Mr. Scoggins, the Nelsons, or anyone
Social Security Numbers. Scoggins, the Nelsons, or anyone else else allegedly defrauded by John L. Henry.
RFP NO. 6 (to Boland): Produce Your W-2 allegedly defrauded by John L. Henry." This request is not proportionate to the needs of the case.
forms from 2007 to the present. You may
redact any financial account numbers or
Social Security Numbers.
RFP NO. 7 (to Bitters): Produce Your Defendant further objects to this request as Objection sustained. Plaintiff has failed to show the documentation of
income tax returns from 2007 to the it constitutes an impermissible fishing specific payments does not sufficiently address the issue of money
present. You may redact any financial expedition, as Plaintiff has provided no received through Defendant's alleged misconduct.
account numbers or Social Security basis, other than unsubstantiated This request is not proportionate to the needs of the case.
Numbers. allegations, that Defendant received
RFP NO. 7 (to Boland): Produce Your payment from the Ms. Petersen, Mr.
income tax returns from 2007 to the Scoggins, the Nelsons, or anyone else
present. You may redact any financial allegedly defrauded by John L. Henry."
account numbers or Social Security
Numbers.
RFP NO. 9 (to Bitters): Produce financial In an amended response on Dec. 17, 2017, Objection sustained. Plaintiff has failed to show the documentation of
statements showing profits and/or revenue Bitters wrote: "Defendant objects on the specific payments does not sufficiently address the issue of money
for United Financial Information Services, basis of relevance, under Rule 26(b) of the received through Defendant's alleged misconduct.
UFIS, and United Financial Services from Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; relevance This request is not proportionate to the needs of the case.
remains the touchstone of discoverability—
February 1, 2007 to the present. information remains discoverable if it is
"relevant to any party's claim or defense."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Defendant further objects to this request as
it constitutes an impermissible fishing
expedition.
RFP NO. 10 (to Bitters): Produce all pay In an amended response on Dec. 17, 2017, Objection sustained. Plaintiff has failed to show the documentation of
stubs and documents showing any salary, Bitters wrote: "Defendant objects on the specific payments does not sufficiently address the issue of money
profits, or revenue earned by You from basis of relevance, under Rule 26(b) of the received through Defendant's alleged misconduct.
February 1, 2007 to present. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; relevance This request is not proportionate to the needs of the case.
RFP NO. 10 (to Boland): Produce all pay remains the touchstone of discoverability-information
stubs and documents showing any salary, remains discoverable if it is
profits, or revenue earned by You from "relevant to any party's claim or defense."
February 1, 2007 to present. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Defendant further
objects to this request as it constitutes an
impermissible fishing expedition.
Payments
RFP NO. 5 (to Bitters): Produce a copy of Bitters responded that he did not receive Bitters must confirm this response and, if true, sign under oath that no
Your bank account statements showing any funds from Ms. Petersen, Mr. Nelson, such documents exist.
funds received from Ms. Petersen, Mr. and/or any investor or lender who provided
Nelson, and any investor or lender who Consideration in any manner to John L.
provided Consideration in any manner to Henry. Defendant therefore has not
John L. Henry. documents in his possession, custody, or
control that are responsive to this request."
RFP NO. 8 (to Bitters): Produce documents Defendants state they have no documents Defendants must confirm this response and, if true, sign under oath
showing any payments and/or in their possession, custody, or control that no such documents exist.
Consideration made to You by John L. responsive to this request, as they have
Henry including amount paid; dates of never received any payments and/or
payment; whether payments were made by consideration from John L. Henry."
cash, check, money order, or otherwise;
and whether a receipt was given for any
such payments.
RFP NO. 8 (to Boland): Produce
documents showing any payments and/or
Consideration made to You by John L.
Henry including amount paid; dates of
payment; whether payments were made by
cash, check, money order, or otherwise;
and whether a receipt was given for any
such payments.
RFA NO. 63 (to Bitters): Please admit that Bitters's amended response of Dec. 15, Bitters must state whether he received commissions, kickback, and/or
Defendant received commissions, 2017 says, "Deny as written and deny to Consideration from Mr. Henry for his role in arranging for Ms.
kickback, and/or Consideration from Ms. the extent that `Ms. Petersen' should read Petersen's loan of $150,000 to John L. Henry.
Petersen (sic) for his role in arranging for as Mr. Henry Bitters shall re-serve his responses to requests for admission so the
Ms. Petersen's loan of $150,000 to John L. entire response is included in one document.
Henry.
RFA NO. 78 (to Bitters): Please admit that In his amended response of Dec. 15, 2017, Bitters states he neither received nor intended to receive consideration
Defendant did not inform Ms. Petersen that Defendant wrote "Deny to the extent that from John Henry and therefore admits he did not inform Ms. Petersen
Defendant was receiving or going to Defendant neither received nor intended to that Defendant was receiving or going to receive Consideration from
receive Consideration from John L. Henry receive consideration from John Henry." John L. Henry.
Bitters shall re-serve his responses to requests for admission so the
entire response is included in one document.
RFP NO. 11 (to Bitters): Produce any On Dec. 17, 2017, Bitters responded: Defendant Bitters shall thoroughly search his records for responsive
document showing any payment of any "Defendant has no documents in his documents. Bitters shall describe what was searched, including the
Consideration made by You to Ms. possession, custody, or control responsive persons contacted, keeping in mind that documents held by, e.g.,
Petersen at any time. to this request, as Defendant has never accountants, bankers, and lawyers, may be in his control even if not in
made any payments and/or consideration his current possession or custody. If outside persons were contacted
to Ms. Petersen." to obtain records, Bitters shall state what requests were made to
facilitate a thorough search. Bitters shall further state whether a search
of electronic information was conducted and if so, what was searched,
who searched it, how the search was conducted, and what was found,
if anything. Bitters shall produce any responsive records found. If no
records were found, Bitters shall state that despite the search efforts
made, no responsive records were found. The statement of search
efforts made and the results of those efforts shall be signed under oath
by Bitters.
RFP NO. 12 (to Bitters): Produce any In an amended response on Dec. 17, 2017, Defendant Bitters shall thoroughly search his records for responsive
document showing any payment of any Bitters wrote: "Defendant has no documents. Bitters shall describe what was searched, including the
Consideration from You to Robert W. documents in his possession, custody, or persons contacted, keeping in mind that documents held by, e.g.,
Boland at any time with respect to any control responsive to this request, as accountants, bankers, and lawyers, may be in his control even if not in
aspect of any transaction involving Ms. Defendant has never made any payments his current possession or custody. If outside persons were contacted
Petersen, Clarence Nelson, and any other and/or consideration to Robert W. Boland to obtain records, Bitters shall state what requests were made to
investor who gave Consideration to John L. at any time with respect to any aspect of facilitate a thorough search. Bitters shall further state whether a search
Henry. any transaction involving Ms. Petersen, of electronic information was conducted and if so, what was searched,
Clarence Nelson, and any other person who searched it, how the search was conducted, and what was found,
who gave consideration to John L. Henry." if anything. Bitters shall produce any responsive records found. If no
records were found, Bitters shall state that despite the search efforts
made, no responsive records were found. The statement of search
efforts made and the results of those efforts shall be signed under oath
by Bitters.
RFP NO. 13 (to Bitters): Produce any On Dec. 17, 2017, Bitters submitted the Defendant Bitters shall thoroughly search his records for responsive
document showing any payment or receipt following amended response: "Defendant documents. Bitters shall describe what was searched, including the
of any Consideration by You to or from has no documents in his possession, persons contacted, keeping in mind that documents held by, e.g.,
John L. Henry at any time. custody, or control responsive to this accountants, bankers, and lawyers, may be in his control even if not in
request, as Defendant has never made any his current possession or custody. If outside persons were contacted
payments and/or consideration to John L. to obtain records, Bitters shall state what requests were made to
Henry at any time nor has he received any facilitate a thorough search. Bitters shall further state whether a search
payments and/or consideration from John of electronic information was conducted and if so, what was searched,
L. Henry at any time." who searched it, how the search was conducted, and what was found,
if anything. Bitters shall produce any responsive records found. If no
records were found, Bitters shall state that despite the search efforts
made, no responsive records were found. The statement of search
efforts made and the results of those efforts shall be signed under oath
by Bitters.
RFP NO. 24 (to Bitters): Produce all bank Defendant states: As written, the request is Objection sustained. The request is overbroad.
statements showing transfers, deposits, vague and overly broad, as `associated in
and/or withdrawal of funds in connection any manner with John L. Henry' is not
with any investor or client of Yours who defined.
was associated in any manner with John L. Subject to and without waiving the
Henry. foregoing objections, the only connection
between John L. Henry and Defendant's
clients and investors occurred in
approximately 2007 when John L. Henry
told Defendant that he was seeking a
business loan and needed an accountant
to perform an audit as part of the loan
application process. John L. Henry hired
one of Defendant's clients, Jane Strong,
who was an accountant to perform the
audit. From time to time, Defendant would
visit Henry's office where the audit was
taking place and saw the financial
documents the accountant was compiling,
and also spoke with the accountant about
the audit and John L. Henry's financial
condition. However, Defendant has not
documents in his possession, control, or
custody responsive to this request.
Denial of claims
PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORY NO. 14 Bitters objects, stating "Plaintiff has the Objection overruled. Bitters must fully respond to this interrogatory.
(to Bitters): If You deny liability on the burden of proof."
breach of fiduciary duty claim of the
Plaintiff, as alleged in the First Cause of
Action in the First Amended Complaint,
state fully and in detail the reasons
therefore and any and all facts in support
thereof.
PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORY NO. 15 Bitters objects, stating: "Plaintiff has the Objection overruled. Bitters must fully respond to this interrogatory.
(to Bitters): If You deny liability on the burden of proof."
negligence and gross negligence claim of
the Plaintiff, as alleged in the Second
Cause of Action in the First Amended
Complaint, state fully and in detail the
reasons therefore and any and all facts in
support thereof.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11 (to Boland): If Boland objects, stating: "Plaintiff has the Objection overruled. Boland must fully respond to this interrogatory.
You deny liability on the negligence and burden of proof."
gross negligence claim of the Plaintiff, as
alleged in the Second Cause of Action in
the First Amended Complaint, state fully
and in detail the reasons therefore and any
and all facts in support thereof.
RFP NO. 15 (to Bitters): If You deny Bitters and Boland object, stating: "Plaintiff Objection overruled. Defendants must fully respond to this request for
liability on the breach of fiduciary duty claim has the burden of proof." production.
of the Plaintiff, as alleged in the First Cause
of Action in the First Amended Complaint,
produce all documents that detail the
reasons therefore and any and all facts in
support thereof.
RFP NO. 15 (to Boland): As a partner
and/or business associate of William
Bitters, if You deny liability on behalf of any
defendant for the breach of fiduciary duty
claim of the Plaintiff, as alleged in the First
Cause of Action in the First Amended
Complaint, produce all documents that
detail the reasons therefore and any and all
facts in support thereof
RFP NO. 16 (to Bitters): If You deny liability Bitters objects, stating: "Plaintiff has the Objection overruled. Bitters must fully respond to this request for
on the negligent misrepresentation claim of burden of proof." production.
the Plaintiff, as alleged in the Third Cause
of Action in the First Amended Complaint,
produce all documents that detail the
reasons therefore and any and all facts in
support thereof.
RFP NO. 17 (to Bitters): If You deny liability Bitters objects, stating: "Plaintiff has the Objection overruled. Bitters must fully respond to this request for
on the breach of contract claim of the burden of proof." production.
Plaintiff, as alleged in the Fourth Cause of
Action in the First Amended Complaint,
produce all documents that detail the
reasons therefore and any and all facts in
support thereof.
RFP NO. 18 (to Bitters): If You deny Bitters objects, stating: "Plaintiff has the Objection overruled. Bitters must fully respond to this request for
liability on the breach of implied duty of burden of proof." production.
good faith and fair dealing claim of the
Plaintiff, as alleged in the Fifth Cause of
Action in the First Amended Complaint,
produce all documents that detail the
reasons therefore and any and all facts in
support thereof.
RFP NO. 19 (to Bitters): If You deny liability Bitters objects, stating: "Plaintiff has the Objection overruled. Bitters must fully respond to this request for
on the fraud claim of the Plaintiff, as burden of proof." production.
alleged in the Sixth Cause of Action in the
First Amended Complaint, produce all
documents that detail the reasons therefore
and any and all facts in support thereof.
Nelson Files
INTERROGATORY NO. 19 (to Bitters): Bitters responded, "Defendant did not Defendant appears to have fully responded to this interrogatory.
Describe Your role in facilitating John L. arrange for, advise any party on, and/or
Henry's receipt of funds from Clarence G. otherwise facilitate for John Henry to However, Defendant Bitter shall thoroughly
Nelson. received funds. Defendant introduced John responsive information. Bitters shall
Henry to Ms. Petersen and Mr. Nelson and including the persons contacted, keeping
when those parties decided to enter into by, e.g., accountants, bankers, and
loan transaction, Defendant prepared even if not in his current possession
promissory notes for them by copying the were contacted to locate information,
promissory note of the Bank of Omaha." were made to facilitate a thorough
whether a search of electronic information
what was searched, who searched
and what was found, if anything. If
Bitters shall state that despite the search
responsive information was found
made and the results of those efforts
Bitters.
RFP NO. 22 (to Bitters): Produce any Bitters answered: "All the requested Defendant Bitters shall thoroughly
document that relates to Clarence Nelson documents are available under the Cause documents. Bitters shall describe
including but not limited to any promissory No. 15-CV-4077-CJW in the United States persons contacted, keeping in mind
note and/or repayment obligation signed by District Court for the Northern District of accountants, bankers, and lawyers,
John L. Henry, any Nondurable Power of Iowa Western Division. his current possession or custody.
Attorney, emails/letters/faxes to or from In an amended response on Dec. 17, 2017, to obtain records, Bitters shall state
You and Mr. Nelson, emails/letter/faxes to Bitters responded: " All the requested facilitate a thorough search. Bitters shall
or from You and John L. Henry, documents are available under Cause No. of electronic information was conducted
emails/letters/faxes to or from You and 15-CV-4077-CJW in the United States who searched it, how the search was
Robert Boland, and other documents. District Court for the Northern District of if anything. Bitters shall produce any
Iowa Western Division. In said case, the found. If no additional records are found,
plaintiff alleged claims identical to the ones the search efforts made, no additional
in the presence lawsuit. The only The statement of search efforts made
documents in Defendant's possession, shall be signed under oath by Bitters.
custody, or control which are responsive to
this request are Defendant's discovery
responses in the aforementioned lawsuit:
William E. Bitters' Answers to Plaintiffs'
Interrogatories, William E. Bitters'
Responses to Plaintiffs' Request for
Production of Documents and associated
productions, and William E. Bitters'
Responses to Plaintiffs' Request for
Admissions. See attached."
RFP NO. 23 (to Bitters): Produce all bank Bitters responded, "None at this time, Defendant Bitters shall thoroughly search his records for responsive
statements showing transfers, deposits, Defendant reserves the right to documents. Bitters shall describe what was searched, including the
and/or withdrawal of funds in connection supplement." persons contacted, keeping in mind that documents held by, e.g.,
with Clarence Nelson. "Defendant does not have any documents accountants, bankers, and lawyers, may be in his control even if not in
in his possession, custody, or control that his current possession or custody. If outside persons were contacted
are responsive to this request." to obtain records, Bitters shall state what requests were made to
facilitate a thorough search. Bitters shall further state whether a search
of electronic information was conducted and if so, what was searched,
who searched it, how the search was conducted, and what was found,
if anything. Bitters shall produce any responsive records found. If no
records were found, Bitters shall state that despite the search efforts
made, no responsive records were found. The statement of search
efforts made and the results of those efforts shall be signed under oath
by Bitters.
RFP NO. 50 (to Bitters): Produce a copy of Bitters responded, "None in Defendant's Defendant Bitters shall thoroughly search his records for responsive
any emails/faxes/letters to or from You and possession." documents. Bitters shall describe what was searched, including the
Aaron Rodenburg regarding Clarence Defendant is not in possession, custody, or persons contacted, keeping in mind that documents held by, e.g.,
Nelson. control of any documents that are accountants, bankers, and lawyers, may be in his control even if not in
responsive to this request. his current possession or custody. If outside persons were contacted
to obtain records, Bitters shall state what requests were made to
facilitate a thorough search. Bitters shall further state whether a search
of electronic information was conducted and if so, what was searched,
who searched it, how the search was conducted, and what was found,
if anything. Bitters shall produce any responsive records found. If no
records were found, Bitters shall state that despite the search efforts
made, no responsive records were found. The statement of search
by Bitters.
Trial Exhibits
RFA NO. 1 (to Bitters): Please admit that Bitters responded that Defendant can Except to the extent that there are actual and currently known issues
all documents produced by Defendant—or neither admit nor deny the authenticity of as to, e.g., the authenticity of signatures, etc., the parties agree that
that will be produced—are true and unknown, unidentified documents that have the authenticity of documents will be resolved when the trial exhibits
authentic copies not yet been produced." are listed at the pretrial conference.
Bitters admits the documents received thus
far are authentic.
RFA NO. 17 (to Bitters): Please admit that Bitters answered: "Defendant can neither Except to the extent that there are actual and currently known issues
the image of the Promissory Note copied in admit nor deny this request, as pleadings as to, e.g., the authenticity of signatures, etc., the parties agree that
paragraph 13 of Plaintiff's First Amended are not evidence." the authenticity of documents will be resolved when the trial exhibits
Complaint is a true and accurate In amended response of Dec. 15, 2017, are listed at the pretrial conference.
representation of the Promissory Note Defendant says "Deny."
signed by John L. Henry and that it
contains Mr. Henry's signature.
RFA NO. 18 (to Bitters): Please admit the Bitters answered: "Defendant can neither Except to the extent that there are actual and currently known issues
image of the check copied in paragraph 18 admit nor deny this request, as pleadings as to, e.g., the authenticity of signatures, etc., the parties agree that
of Plaintifs First Amended Complaint is a are not evidence." the authenticity of documents will be resolved when the trial exhibits
true and accurate representation of the Defendant kept the same answer that he are listed at the pretrial conference.
check issued to John L. Henry by Ms. "can neither admit nor deny this request"
Petersen as Defendant observed it. but elaborated further that Defendant has
not seen the check before this proceeding.
RFA NO. 1 (to Boland): Please admit that Boland answered: "Defendant can neither Except to the extent that there are actual and currently known issues
all documents produced by Defendant—or admit nor deny the authenticity of unknown, as to, e.g., the authenticity of signatures, etc., the parties agree that
that will be produced—are true and unidentified documents that have not yet the authenticity of documents will be resolved when the trial exhibits
authentic copies. been produced." are listed at the pretrial conference.
In an amended response submitted on
Dec. 15, 2017, Boland wrote, "Admit with
respect to the documents already
produced; otherwise, Defendant cannot
admit nor deny because Defendant is not in
possession of any documents responsive
to Plaintiffs discovery requests."
PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORY NO. 8 (to Bitters answered: " See the attached. Bitters shall serve copies of all exihibits he intends to use at trial, and
Bitters): Identify each document or tangible Defendant reserve the right to supplement he shall promptly supplement his disclosures as additional information
thing that you intend to present as an this response." is received.
exhibit at the trial of this action.
Witness Locations
INTERROGATORY NO. 6 (to Bitters): Bitters answered: "See Defendant William All parties shall exchange the most current address known for each
State the name and address of each Bitters' disclosures." potential witness.
person now known by You to be familiar Amended response: Added (Aaron
with any of the matters referred to in the Rodenburg and Torri Criger) (lawyers) and
First Amended Complaint, other than those Rose Bush (Allianz Life Insurance
of the defendants specifically named in the Company underwriter) and Jane Strong
First Amended Complaint. (current address unknown—I/k/a/ not
provided) who audited Henry
INTERROGATORY NO. 4 (to Boland): Boland answered: " See Defendant Robert All parties shall exchange the most current address known for each
State the name and address of each W. Boland's Disclosures." potential witness.
person now known by You to be familiar
with any of the matters referred to in the
First Amended Complaint, other than those
of the defendants specifically named in the
First Amended Complaint.
RFP NO. 28 (to Bitters): Produce any utility Defendants disclosed their current The court finds this request for utility bills is disproportionate to the
bill showing Your current name and addresses. needs of the case. Defendants shall provide their residential and
residential address as well as your name business addresses dating back to February 8, 2008.
and residential address as of February 8,
2008. You may redact any financial
account numbers and Social Security
Numbers.
RFP NO. 28 (to Boland): Produce any
utility bill showing Your current name and
residential address as well as your name
and residential address as of February 8,
2008. You may redact any financial
account numbers and Social Security
Numbers.
RFP NO. 29 (to Bitters): Produce any utility Bitters responded that he does not have a The court finds this request for utility bills is disproportionate to the
bill or financial account statement showing business address. needs of the case. Defendants shall provide their residential and
Your current business address as well as Boland disclosed his business address. business addresses dating back to February 8, 2008.
your business address as of February 8,
2008. You may redact any financial
account numbers and Social Security
Numbers.
RFP NO. 29/to Boland) Produce any utility
bill or financial account statement showing
Your current business address as well as
your business address as of February 8,
2008. You may redact any financial
account numbers and Social Security
Numbers
RFP NO. 36 (to Bitters): Produce the Bitters responded, see Defendant's All parties shall exchange the most current address known for each
phone number, contact information, disclosures. potential witness.
address, and name of any witness who has
—or might have—information relevant to
the allegations in Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint.
RFP NO. 42 (to Bitters): Produce a copy of Defendants provided their current The court finds this request is disproportionate to the needs of the
all documents that state any and all residential address and Boland's business case. Defendants shall provide their residential and business
addresses that You possess for Robert W. address. addresses dating back to February 8, 2008.
Boland.
RFP NO. 41 (to Boland): Produce a copy of
all documents that state any and all
addresses that You possess for William
Bitters.
Other litigation, claims, and losses
RFP NO. 32 (to Bitters): Produce any On Dec. 17, 2017, Bitters submitted Bitters shall draft a written response which identifies every lawsuit for
pleadings (including but not limited to the mended responses as follows: "The which he was a party.
complaint, answer, etc.) filed in any court or requested pleadings are associated with The response shall state the name of the case, the forum, the
administrative tribunal in which You were Cause No. 15-CV-4077-CJW in the United approximate date and the case number. Bitters is not required to
sued or prosecuted by any party for any States District Court for the Northern collect and serve documents from those cases. If none exist, he shall
matter. District of Iowa Western Division. Plaintiff state so under oath.
has equal access to any matter that is
public record."
RFP NO. 33:(to Bitters) Produce a copy of Defendants state that Cause No. 15-CV-4077-CJW Bitters and Boland shall draft a written response which identifies every
any settlement or release by which You 4077-CJW in the United States District settlement for which he was a party.
settled, terminated, or resolved any Court for the Northern District of Iowa The response shall state the name of the case, the forum, the
litigation that was pending or prosecuted Western Division was dismissed with approximate date and the case number. Defendants are not required
against You. prejudice. Plaintiff has equal access to any to collect and serve documents from those cases. If none exist, he
RFP NO. 33 (to Boland): Produce a copy of matter that is public record. shall state so under oath.
any settlement or release by which You
and/or William Bitters settled, terminated,
or resolved any litigation that was pending
or prosecuted against You.
RFP NO. 34 (to Bitters): Produce a copy of Defendants state that Cause No. 15-CV-4077-CJW Bitters and Bolland shall draft a written response which identifies every
any verdicts, judgments, convictions or in the United States District verdict, judgment, conviction or other judicial determination against
other judicial determination made against Court for the Northern District of Iowa them.
You. Western Division was dismissed with The response shall state the name of the case, the forum, the
RFP NO. 34 (to Boland): Produce a copy of prejudice. Plaintiff has equal access to any approximate date and the case number. Defendants are not required
any verdicts, judgments, convictions or matter that is public record. to collect and serve documents from those cases.
other judicial determination made against
You and/or William Bitters.
RFP NO. 40 (to Bitters): Produce a copy of Bitters responded, "None in Defendant's Bitters shall draft a written response which identifies every complaint,
any complaints, grievances, and/or possession." grievance, and/or investigation filed against him.
investigations against You that were filed Subject to and without waiving the The response shall state the name of the case, the agency, the
with, processed by, investigated by, foregoing objections, Defendant is not in approximate date and the case number. Bitters is not required to
directed by, or submitted to any Iowa or possession, custody, or control of any collect and serve documents from those cases. If none exist, he shall
Nebraska state agency or authority. documents responsive to this request as state so under oath.
Defendant's licenses have never been
suspended or revoked.
RFA NO. 80 (to Boland): Please admit that Boland answered: "Defendant can neither Boland denies, explaining neither Ms. Petersen nor Mr. Nelson were
Ms. Petersen and Mr. Nelson are not the admit nor deny this request because clients of Defendant, and Defendant is not aware of any of his clients
only clients of Defendant and William Defendant was not involved in any way in suffering losses from money loaned to third parties with a Promissory
Bitters who suffered losses from money the alleged events giving rise to this suit. Note.
loaned to third parties with a Promissory To the extent that the request contemplates Boland shall re-serve his responses to requests for admission so the
Note. Case No. 15-CV-4077-CJW, Defendant entire response is included in one document. The response shall
refers Plaintiff to Document 58 of the include clients of Defendants who suffered losses from money loaned
aforementioned case, wherein plaintiffs in to third parties with a Promissory Note for the period between 2005
that case took nothing and the action was and 2010.
dismissed with prejudice."
In amended response on Dec. 15, 2017,
Boland wrote, "Deny to the extent that
neither Ms. Petersen nor Mr. Nelson were
clients of Defendant and Defendant is not
aware of any of his clients suffering losses
from money loaned to third parties with a
Promissory Note."
Licenses
RFP NO. 37 (to Bitters): Produce a copy of Bitters answered: "Attached." Bitters shall collect from Nebraska Department of Insurance historical
your license or registration as a Nebraska In an amended response on Dec. 17, 2017 information and documentation dating back to 2007 which confirms he
insurance broker as provided by the was licensed.
Nebraska Department of Insurance or other Bitters wrote: "See attached active license."
division or agency.
RFP NO. 38 (to Bitters): Produce a copy of Bitters answered: "Plaintiff is in possession Bitters shall collect historical information and documentation dating
the license that entitled You to sell of the list of fixed index annuity to contracts back to 2007 which confirms he was licensed.
annuities to Ms. Petersen and/or her former that Ms. Peterson purchased. The estate
husband (Mr. Scoggins). has liquidated all of those."
On Dec. 17, 2017, Bitters provided an
amended response: "See attached active
license. Defendant is not in possession,
custody, or control of the licenses from
earlier periods."
RFP NO. 39 (to Bitters): Produce a copy of Bitters answered: "Attached." Bitters shall collect historical information and documentation dating
your license, certificate, and/or registration In an amended response on Dec. 17, 2017, back to 2007 which confirms he was licensed.
with the Iowa Insurance Division. Bitters wrote: "See attached active license."
RFP NO. 37 (to Boland): Produce a copy of In an amended response on Dec. 15, 2017, Boland shall collect historical information and documentation dating
all your professional licenses, certificates, Boland wrote: "See attached". back to 2007 which confirms he was licensed.
or registrations as provided by any state
division or agency including but not limited
to legal practice, insurance services, and/or
financial services
Partnership
INTERROGATORY NO. 7 (to Bitters): Defendant Robert Boland had no Bitters shall fully respond to this interrogatory, by explaining the
Describe in detail Your business and involvement whatsoever with the loan that business relationship between Bitters and Boland and the
professional relationship with Robert W. is the basis of this lawsuit. Robert W. compensation paid.
Boland including Consideration paid to him, Boland had no involvement with Plaintiff or
his role and duties, and his involvement in John Henry whatsoever. Robert W Boland
Promissory Notes signed by Your clients. is not a partner of William E. Bitters. Robert
W. Boland is listed on United Financial
Information Services' website solely for
advertising purposes. Robert W. Boland
was not listed on the website or ever
referred by William E. Bitters at the time
Joyce Peterson loaned money to John
Henry.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3 (to Boland) Boland answered: "Defendant objects to Boland shall fully respond to this interrogatory, by explaining the
Describe in detail your professional the interrogatory assumes facts not in business relationship between Bitters and Boland and the
relationship and partnership with William evidence, namely, that Defendant Robert compensation paid.
Bitters including services that you W. Boland provides services for William
performed for William Bitters d/b/a United Bitters d/b/a United Financial Information
Financial Information Services, UFIS, Services, UFIS, and/or United Financial
and/or United Financial Services and his Services and his clients and, in particular,
clients and, in particular, Ms. Petersen. Ms. Petersen. Defendant Robert W. Boland
had no involvement whatsoever with the
loan made basis of this lawsuit. Robert W.
Boland had no involvement with Plaintiff or
John Henry whatsoever. Robert W Boland
is not a partner of William E. Bitters. Robert
W. Boland is listed on United Financial
Information Services' website solely for
advertising purposes. Robert W. Boland
was not listed on the website or ever
referred by William E. Bitters at the time
Joyce Peterson loaned money to John
Henry."
RFP NO. 46 (to Bitters): Produce a copy of Defendants answered, "None, explaining Defendants have fully responded to this request for production. Their
any partnership agreement, contract, Boland is not a partner of Bitters and they responses shall be signed under oath.
corporate formation agreement, and/or have no documents in their possession,
other document that describes and/or custody, or control responsive to this
defines the professional and/or business request."
relationship between You and Robert W.
Boland.
RFP NO. 46 (to Boland): Produce a copy of
any partnership agreement, contract,
corporate formation agreement, and/or
other document that describes and/or
defines the professional and/or business
relationship between You and William
Bitters.
Due Diligence
RFA NO. 42 (to Bitters): Please admit that Bitters answered: "Defendant objects to Bitters must state whether he conducted a due diligence evaluation
Defendant did not conduct due diligence this request as it seeks information that is into the financial ability of John L. Henry to repay his Promissory Note
into the financial ability of John L. Henry to not relevant. To the extent that the request to Mr. Nelson.
repay his Promissory Note to Mr. Nelson. contemplates Case No. 15-CV-4077-CJW, Bitters shall re-serve his responses to requests for admission so the
Defendant refers Plaintiff to Document 58 entire response is included in one document.
of the aforementioned case, wherein
plaintiffs in that case took nothing and the
action was dismissed with prejudice."
In his amended answer of Dec. 15, 2017,
Defendant wrote "cannot admit or deny
because Defendant had no duty to any of
parties involved in the alleged loan
transaction."
RFA NO. 42 (to Boland): Please admit that Boland answered: "Admit to the extent that Boland must state whether he conducted a due diligence evaluation
Defendant did not conduct due diligence Defendant was not involved in any way in into the financial ability of John L. Henry to repay his Promissory Note
into the financial ability of John L. Henry to the alleged events giving rise to this suit. to Mr. Nelson.
repay his Promissory Note to Mr. Nelson. Otherwise, deny. To the extent that the Boland shall re-serve his responses to requests for admission so the
request contemplates Case No. 15-CV-4077-CJW, entire response is included in one document.
Defendant refers Plaintiff to
Document 58 of the aforementioned case,
wherein plaintiffs in that case took nothing
and the action was dismissed with
prejudice."
In amended response dated Dec. 15, 2017,
Boland wrote, Admit to the extent that
Defendant was not involved in any way in
the alleged events giving rise to this suit."
RFP NO. 47 (to Bitters): Produce a copy of In an amended response on Dec. 17, 2017, Defendant Bitters shall thoroughly search his records for responsive
any analysis and/or document that You Bitters wrote: in approximately 2007, John documents. Bitters shall describe what was searched, including the
relied on in making an assessment that it L. Henry told Defendant that he was persons contacted, keeping in mind that documents held by, e.g.,
would be a sound and reasonable financial seeking a business loan and needed an accountants, bankers, and lawyers, may be in his control even if not in
decision for Ms. Petersen to withdraw accountant to perform an audit as part of his current possession or custody. If outside persons were contacted
$150,000 from an annuity and invest the the loan application process. John L. Henry to obtain records, Bitters shall state what requests were made to
same amount with John L. Henry. hired one of Defendant's clients, Jane facilitate a thorough search. Bitters shall further state whether a search
Strong, who was an accountant to perform of electronic information was conducted and if so, what was searched,
the audit. From time to time, Defendant who searched it, how the search was conducted, and what was found,
would visit Henry's office where the audit if anything. Bitters shall produce any responsive records found. If no
was taking place and saw the financial records were found, Bitters shall state that despite the search efforts
documents the accountant was compiling, made, no responsive records were found. The statement of search
and also spoke with the accountant about efforts made and the results of those efforts shall be signed under oath
the audit and John L. Henry's financial by Bitters.
condition. Based on this audit and John L.
Henry's financial information, particularly
his credit scores and debt ratios, Defendant
believed that John L. Henry's financial
condition was sound. However, Defendant
is not in possession, custody, or control of
any documents responsive to this request."
Peterson Investment portfolio
INTERROGATORY NO. 4 (to Bitters): Bitters responded that he sold Fixed Index Bitters shall thoroughly respond to this interrogatory.
Describe in detail the services that you Annuity Contracts to Ms. Peterson.
performed for the Plaintiff and her former
husband.
RFP NO. 43 (to Bitters): Produce document On Dec. 17, 2017, Bitters provided an Defendant Bitters shall thoroughly search his records for responsive
by which William Scoggins initially retained amended response: "Prior to this litigation documents. Bitters shall describe what was searched, including the
Your services and any subsequent and during the probate of the Estate of persons contacted, keeping in mind that documents held by, e.g.,
addenda and/or superseding documents Joyce Rosamond Petersen, Defendant accountants, bankers, and lawyers, may be in his control even if not in
that authorized You to act on behalf of Mr. released Ms. Petersen and Mr. Scoggins' his current possession or custody. If outside persons were contacted
Scoggins and, after his death, Ms. entire investment file to Plaintiffs counsel, to obtain records, Bitters shall state what requests were made to
Petersen. James H. McMenamy, and did not retain facilitate a thorough search. /Bitters shall produce any additional
any copies. The Estate of Joyce Rosamond responsive records found. Bitters shall further state whether a search
Petersen liquidated the aforementioned of electronic information was conducted and if so, what was searched,
investments. who searched it, how the search was conducted, and what was found,
if anything. If no additional records were found, Bitters shall state that
despite the search efforts made, no additional responsive records
were found. The statement of search efforts made and the results of
those efforts shall be signed under oath by Bitters
RFP NO. 44 (to Bitters): Produce financial On Dec. 17, 2017, Bitters provided an Defendant Bitters shall thoroughly search his records for responsive
statements, bank statements, and/or other amended response: Prior to this litigation documents. Bitters shall describe what was searched, including the
documents showing any and all and during the probate of the Estate of persons contacted, keeping in mind that documents held by, e.g.,
Consideration that you received at any time Joyce Rosamond Petersen, Defendant accountants, bankers, and lawyers, may be in his control even if not in
from Ms. Petersen and/or from investments released Ms. Petersen and Mr. Scoggins' his current possession or custody. If outside persons were contacted
and/or funds that You managed on behalf entire investment file to Plaintiffs counsel, to obtain records, Bitters shall state what requests were made to
of Ms. Petersen. James H. McMenamy, and did not retain facilitate a thorough search. Bitters shall further state whether a search
any copies. The Estate of Joyce Rosamond of electronic information was conducted and if so, what was searched,
Petersen liquidated the aforementioned who searched it, how the search was conducted, and what was found,
investments. Plaintiff should therefore be in if anything. Bitters shall produce any additional responsive records
possession of all documents related to the found. If no additional records were found, Bitters shall state that
fixed indexed annuities contracts. despite the search efforts made, no additional responsive records
Additionally, Defendant did not receive any were found. The statement of search efforts made and the results of
payments from Ms. Petersen relating to the those efforts shall be signed under oath by Bitters.
fixed indexed annuities contracts.
Therefore, Defendant does not have any
documents in his possession, custody, or
control that are responsive to this request."
RFP NO. 51 (to Bitters): Produce a copy of In an amended response dated Dec. 17, Defendant Bitters shall thoroughly search his records for responsive
any correspondence to or from You and 2017, Bitters wrote: "Prior to this litigation documents. Bitters shall describe what was searched, including the
Sun Life Insurance Company annuities and during the probate of the Estate of persons contacted, keeping in mind that documents held by, e.g.,
regarding Ms. Petersen. Joyce Rosamond Petersen, Defendant accountants, bankers, and lawyers, may be in his control even if not in
released Ms. Petersen and Mr. Scoggins' his current possession or custody. If outside persons were contacted
entire investment file to Plaintiffs counsel, to obtain records, Bitters shall state what requests were made to
James H. McMenamy, and did not retain facilitate a thorough search. Bitters shall further state whether a search
any copies. The Estate of Joyce Rosamond of electronic information was conducted and if so, what was searched,
Petersen liquidated the aforementioned who searched it, how the search was conducted, and what was found,
investments. Plaintiff should therefore be in if anything. Bitters shall produce any additional responsive records
possession of all documents related to the found. If no additional records were found, Bitters shall state that
fixed indexed annuities contracts." despite the search efforts made, no additional responsive records
were found. The statement of search efforts made and the results of
those efforts shall be signed under oath by Bitters.
