I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Eversource Capital LP (“Eversource”) is an Idaho limited partnership in the business of providing and evaluating investment opportunities for its members. (Doc. 143 at 9.) Eversource also provides short-term private loans to individuals and entities. (Id.)

Defendant Douglas Fimrite (“Fimrite”) is a Canadian citizen who owns and operates Defendant EFG America, LLC (“EFG”), the primary decision maker for Defendants Gate Corporation Limited (“Gate Corporation”), Ocean Sky Finance (“Ocean Sky”), EF Global Corporation (“EF Global”), and EFG Polymers, LLC (“EF Polymers”), and owns and controls Defendants International Tejas, Texen Holdings, D&H Sophie Brown, LLC (“Sophie Brown”), Carey Holdings, Ltd. (“Carey Holdings”), Tex-Gas Holdings, LLC (Tex-Gas Holdings”), and Enviropark Texas, LLC (“Enviropark”). (Id. at 10.) Defendant Doris Fimrite is a Canadian citizen, who is married to Fimrite. (Id.) Defendants Don Carroll (“Carroll”) and Mark Boyd (“Boyd”) are residents of Arizona and are each a vice president of EFG. (Id. at 14.) Defendant Charles Niehaus (“Niehaus”) is an attorney licensed in Ohio with clients in Arizona and is the principal in Defendant Niehaus Kalas & Hinshaw, Ltd. (Id. at 15.)

Eversource filed the instant suit in federal district court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, alleging that as part of a scheme to defraud investors, Defendants Fimrite–using a network of entities related to Fimrite including EFG, Enviropark, EF Global, EFG Polymer, Sophie Brown, Ocean Sky, Tex-Gas Holdings, Carey Holdings, Texen Holdings, International Tejas, and Gate Corporation (collectively, “Fimrite Entities”) – and Carroll, Boyd, Niehaus, and Niehaus Kalas & Hinshaw, Ltd. (collectively, “EFG Associates”), and Doris Fimrite (collectively, “Defendants”), induced Eversource to make a series of loans to EFG totaling $1,200,000.00. (Id. at 1-2.) Eversource also alleges that Defendants induced Eversource to purchase royalty units in EFG based on false and fraudulent information. (Id. at 2.)

The Alleged Scheme

*2 In December 2012, Fimrite, using Excel Fortress– a Hong Kong company controlled by Fimrite and a nonparty in the instant suit – contracted with nonparty Mr. Li to purchase rubber devulcanization technology. (Id. at 18.) Rubber devulcanization is a process by which used rubber is broken down and reconstructed to make new items. (Id. at 17.) The contract called for a total of $3,000,000.00, with an initial payment of $1,000,000.00 for the technology formula, as well as the contract and staffing of a lab in China. (Id. at 18.) Pursuant to the contract, Excel Fortress would neither own nor have access to the rubber devulcanization technology until it made the initial payment. (Id.)

As a result, International Tejas made multiple payments to Mr. Li on behalf of Excel Fortress. (Id. at 19.) Despite International Tejas's efforts, its payments to Mr. Li did not amount to the $1,000,000.00 needed to satisfy the initial payment. (See id. at 18.)

To fulfill the balance remaining on the initial payment, Eversource alleges that Fimrite constructed a scheme whereby he would license the unowned rubber technology to his other entities to induce unsuspecting investors to ultimately fund Excel Fortress's purchase of the same. (Id.) First, as part of the scheme, Fimrite and Doris Fimrite, along with the assistance of EFG Associates, formed Gate Corporation and licensed Excel Fortress's unowned rubber devulcanization technology to Gate Corporation. (Id. at 19.) Next, they formed EFG. (Id.) Thereafter, EFG entered into a sublicense agreement with Gate Corporation for North American rights to the rubber devulcanization technology. (Id.)

After forming Gate Corporation and EFG, Fimrite and EFG Associates began seeking investors for EFG. (Id. at 19.) In April 2015, EFG and EFG Associates met Ryan McHugh (“McHugh”). (Id. at 23.) McHugh is Eversource's manager and a nonparty to this suit. (Id. at 9.) McHugh was introduced to EFG when McHugh assisted a potential investor in evaluating EFG as a business and investment opportunity. (Id. at 23.) McHugh was also introduced to Fimrite and EFG Associates at that time. (Id.) On August 25, 2015, McHugh began consulting with EFG through MQ Management Group, and in September 2015 he “traveled to EFG to begin transitions accounting” and to perform financial functions for EFG. (Id. at 24.)

The Loans

Eversource alleges that on or around October 15, 2015, Fimrite knowingly and falsely represented to McHugh that EFG had $1,100,000.00 it was investing in a project, in which Fimrite would invest the profits from the project back into EFG. (Id. at 26.) Fimrite represented that EFG needed $400,000.00 to put a deposit down on the project, but EFG had other investment money with which EFG could repay the loan by the end of the year. (Id.) On or about October 19, 2015, McHugh, on behalf of Eversource, agreed to loan EFG $400,000.00 for the project. (Id.)

Then, on or around October 29, 2015, Fimrite again represented to McHugh that EFG needed an additional $400,000.00 because they were waiting for an investor to sign papers for an $800,000.00 investment that would cover the first $400,000.00 loan and a second $400,000.00 loan. (Id. at 27.) On or around October 30, 2015, Eversource loaned EFG a second $400,000.00. (Id.)

Based on the same representations, on or about December 2, 2015, Eversource entered into a third agreement with Fimrite and EFG to provide a loan for $100,000.00. (Id. at 28.) Eversource made the loan that day. (Id.)

In May 2016, Niehaus, whose law firm represented EFG, asked Eversource to loan EFG $250,000.00 to facilitate EFG's purchase of another rubber company out of bankruptcy. (Id.) To incentivize the loan, Fimrite, Boyd, and Carroll represented to McHugh that EFG had other investors that would allow EFG to pay back all previous loans. (Id. at 29.) Niehaus also represented that the $250,000.00 would be placed in a trust account and would not be transferred out without McHugh's knowledge or consent. (Id.) On or about June 3, 2016, McHugh, on behalf of Eversource, wired $250,000.00 to the trust account. (Id.) Over the next month, the full amount of the loan was transferred out of the trust account without McHugh's knowledge or consent. (Id. at 30.)

*3 Then, on or about June 9, 2016, Fimrite contacted McHugh and asked for a $50,000.00 loan to cover EFG's payroll needs. (Id. at 32.) Boyd, Carroll, and Fimrite sent McHugh detailed accounting of future funds to be paid to EFG that would repay the $50,000.00. (Id.) On or about June 10, 2016, Eversource loaned EFG $50,000.00. (Id.)

None of the loans made by Eversource have been repaid. (Id. at 87-88.) Instead, Eversource contends that Fimrite funneled the loans through EFG to his other entities, such as Carey Holdings and Texen Holdings, to pay himself. (Id. at 42.) Additionally, Eversource contends that Fimrite used the loans to repay prior debts, such as reimbursing International Tejas for its payments to Mr. Li. (Id. at 19.)

Based on the above, Eversource alleges claims against Defendants for fraud, conversion, conspiracy to commit fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, as well as claims of securities fraud and breach of good faith and fair dealing. (Id. at 78-94.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1),

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). However, the Court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed if it determines that:

“Broad discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery, and its decision to deny discovery will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that denial of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant.” Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.2d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Additionally, “it is not the province of the Court to rewrite discovery requests that seek irrelevant information, are overbroad, or are otherwise improper.” Excel Fortress Ltd. v. Wilhelm, No. CV-17-04297-PHX-DWL, 2018 WL 6067255, at *2 (D. Ariz. Nov. 20, 2018) (citing Mailhoit v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 2012 WL 12884129, *2 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (“[t]he court is not obligated to impose limiting constructions on interrogatories that are overbroad, vague, or seek irrelevant information, but may simply deny the request to compel further responses.”); Frieri v. Sysco Corp., 2017 WL 3387713, *7 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (“The Court declines to rewrite this discovery request to narrow the scope. Plaintiff's motion to compel any further production in response to this request is DENIED.”)).

III. DISCUSSION

Here, in their written submissions to the Court, the parties state that they have unresolved disputes concerning Defendants’ production of financial records, Eversource's responses to Defendants’ discovery requests, and the parties’ dispute concerning depositions.[2] (Docs. 214; 220; 225.) The Court will address each dispute in turn.

A. Financial Records Dispute

*4 Eversource requests that the Court compel Defendants to produce the records requested in Eversource's Request for Document Production numbers 8, 15, 16, 17, 20, and 37. (Doc. 214 at 3.) Eversource argues that the funds Defendants have acquired and their use of corporate forms to conceal those funds are central to the instant matter. (Id. at 2.) As a result, Defendants are required to produce bank records showing a complete picture of where Defendants’ acquired funds were diverted after received by Defendants. (Id.) In opposition, Defendants argue that they had provided sufficient documents in response to Eversource's discovery requests for financial and bank records. (Id. at 4.) Defendants further argue that Eversource's requests are overbroad beyond the issues in this matter. (Id.)

Here, for the reasons delineated below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Eversource's requests.

Document Request No. 8:

First, Eversource requests that Defendants provide all documents that show a detailed schedule of any and all revenue for EFG from April 1, 2012 to the present, including contracts or purchase orders from customers, invoices, and source documents including bank statements verifying receipt of payment and deposit. (Doc. 214-2 at 4.) In opposition, Defendants argue that Eversource's request is overbroad because Eversource seeks all documents showing any and all revenue beginning from April 1, 2012 to the present, not just revenue related to Eversource's claims. (Doc. 214 at 4.)

Here, the Court disagrees that Eversource's request is overbroad. EFG is central to the matters at issue in this suit as each loan at issue was made by Eversource to EFG. Thus, Eversource's request is relevant. Further, Eversource's most recent loan to EFG was on June 9, 2016, just over four years from the current date. Therefore, Eversource's request that seeks documents from April 1, 2012 to the present is not overbroad. Finally, because Eversource alleges that Defendants possessed funds to repay the loans at issue but failed to do so, Eversource is entitled to discover information regarding those funds coming into and out of EFG. As a result, the Court finds that Eversource's request is neither overbroad nor irrelevant. The Court grants Eversource's request.

Document Request No. 15:

Next, Eversource requests that Defendants provide all documents and communications relating to a transaction on or about October 2016 where EFG received funds of approximately $500,000.00, including the source of the funds, what account the funds were deposited into, an accounting for the disbursement of funds, and whether funds were ultimately transferred by any Fimrite entity. (Doc. 214-2 at 5.) In opposition, Defendants argue that it has produced redacted 2016 General Ledger records from July 1, 2016 to October 31, 2016, showing Defendants’ expenditures during that time and receipt of the $500,000.00 loan identified by Eversource. (Doc. 214 at 4.) Defendants further argue that additional records beyond what Defendants have already provided will not go to resolve an issue in this case. (Id.)

Here, the Court finds that Eversource is entitled to this discovery. Eversource alleges that EFG received sufficient funds to repay the monies it loaned to EFG. However, instead of repaying the loans, Eversource alleges that EFG dispersed the funds elsewhere. As a result, documents related to the funds received by EFG, specifically the $500,000.00, are related to the issues in this matter. Furthermore, Eversource is permitted to discover the source of the funds, what account the funds were deposited into, an accounting for the disbursement of funds, and whether funds were ultimately transferred by any Fimrite entity. Finally, Defendants have failed to allege that the documents Eversource seeks is privileged. Therefore, the Court grants Eversource's request.

Document Request No. 16

*5 Eversource next requests that Defendants provide a complete copy of the monthly bank statements for each Fimrite entity from January 2012 to present. (Doc. 214-2 at 6.) In opposition, Defendants argue that Eversource's request is overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the instant matter and the loans at issue. (Doc. 214 at 4.)

Here, the Court agrees that Eversource's request is overbroad. In addition, the Court finds that the scope of the request is disproportional to the issues in this matter. “It is proper to deny discovery of matter that is relevant only to ... events that occurred before an applicable limitations period, unless the information sought is otherwise relevant to issues in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352(1978). Pursuant to Eversource's amended complaint, Defendants’ alleged scheme began in December 2012 when Excel Fortress, a company controlled by Fimrite, entered a contract with Mr. Li to purchase devulcanization technology. (Doc. 143 at 18.) Eversource became involved with Defendants in October 2015 when, as Eversource alleges, Defendants knowingly and falsely induced Eversource to begin making loans to EFG, and the circumstances surrounding the relevant loans in this matter concluded in October 2016. (Id. at 26; 31.) As a result, Eversource's request for monthly bank statements beginning in January 2012 is overbroad regarding the issues in the instant matter. Further, Eversource's request is overbroad as it calls for financial information from each Fimrite entity, not just Fimrite entities relevant to the instant matter. As it is not the province of the Court to rewrite discovery requests that seek irrelevant information or are overbroad, the Court denies Eversource's request.

Document Request No. 17

Eversource next requests that Defendants provide a complete copy of the monthly bank statements for EFG American Revenue Trust, LLC from inception to present. (Doc. 214-2 at 6.) In opposition, Defendants argue that EFG American Revenue Trust, LLC “has nothing to do with [Eversource's] alleged loans and is only potentially relevant to [Eversource's] new and disputed alleged royalty claims.” (Doc. 214 at 5.)

Here, the Court finds that Eversource's request is overbroad and disproportional to the issues in this matter as Eversource's request calls for documents from EFG American Revenue Trust, LLC's inception to the present. See Oppenheimer Fund, Inc., 437 U.S. at 352 (“It is proper to deny discovery of matter that is relevant only to ... events that occurred before an applicable limitations period, unless the information sought is otherwise relevant to issues in the case.”). The instant matter spans from December 2012 to October 2016. Eversource requests documents from EFG American Revenue Trust, LLC from inception to the present; however, as it is not clear, nor has it been stated, the date of the entities’ inception, Eversource's request is overbroad regarding the issues in this matter. Therefore, the Court denies Eversource's request.

Document Request No. 20

Next, Eversource requests that Defendants provide all communications and documents regarding the bagging system purchased by EFG between 2014 and 2016 including purchase order, asset description, purchase price, deposits, payment schedule communications regarding delay in delivery of the asset, final payoff amount, and return of any funds. (Doc. 214-2 at 8.) In opposition, Defendants argue that Eversource's request “seeks information neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of the case given the lack of importance of this discovery in resolving any of the issues.” (Id.) Defendants further state that Eversource's request is overbroad in time, scope, and subject matter. (Id.)

*6 Here, the Court finds that Eversource's request is neither irrelevant nor overbroad in time, scope, or subject matter. Eversource alleges that while it made loans to EFG for business purposes, investor funds were not used for business purposes or in accordance with EFG's Private Placement Memorandum. (Doc. 143 at 38.) However, Eversource alleges, Fimrite has asserted that he purchased a bagging system for production purposes. (Id.) Thus, the information regarding the bagging system purchased by Fimrite is discoverable to Eversource as the information would tend to make a fact at issue in this matter more or less probable–specifically, it would help Eversource to discover whether the monies lent to EFG went to a bagging system for production purposes. Therefore, the Court grants Eversource's request.

Document Request No. 37

Finally, Eversource requests that Defendants provide complete copies of the EF Global Corporation bank statements for October 2015, July 2016, and July 2017 supporting the cash transfer of $8,499,145.00, $1,808,602.00, and $5,063,952.00. (Doc. 214-3 at 5.) Eversource states that it seeks information about these specific transfers to uncover the accuracy of Defendants’ financial records from which it relied upon to make loans to EFG. (Doc. 214 at 3.) In opposition, Defendants state that the three cash transfers surrounding Eversource's request are isolated transfers, the relevancy of which Eversource has failed to expand upon. (Id. at 5.)

Here, the Court finds that Eversource's request is neither overbroad nor irrelevant. Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1), the scope of discovery is “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. 26(b)(1). Eversource has stated that the relevance of the three cash transfers is based on Eversource's reliance upon financial documents created by Defendants to make loans to EFG. Therefore, in order to find the accuracy of the financial documents upon which Eversource relied, it seeks the disclosure of these three cash transfers. Having found Eversource's request neither irrelevant nor overbroad, the Court grants Eversource's request.

B. Discovery Requests Dispute

The Court now turns to the parties’ Discovery Requests dispute. (Doc. 220.) Defendants assert that McHugh was EFG's chief financial officer and represented to Defendants that Eversource's investors provided the funds that Eversource ultimately used to make loans to EFG. (Id. at 2.) Defendants further assert that McHugh negotiated the terms of the funds with the investors. (Id.) As a result, Defendants request that Eversource provide the identities or financial involvement of Eversource's investors. (Id.) In opposition, Eversource argues that Defendants intend to use discovery to add Eversource's investors to their current counterclaims. (Id. at 3.) Eversource next argues that it did not disclose the identities of its investors because McHugh did not discuss the propose terms of the loans at issue with any of Eversource's investors. (Id.) Eversource finally argues that Defendants’ request is overbroad because Defendants request concerns the identities “of all of [Eversource's] investors regardless of whether [Eversource] spoke to the investor about the loans at issue.” (Id.)(emphasis in original).

Here, for the reasons delineated below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ requests.

Interrogatory No. 5

First, Defendants request that Eversource identify all persons holding an equity or ownership interest, including percentage ownership, in Eversource. (Doc. 220-3 at 3.) In opposition, Eversource states that the information Defendants seek is irrelevant to any claim or defense at issue in this litigation. (Id.)

Here, the Court disagrees that the information Defendants seek is irrelevant. See Fed. R. Civ. 26(b)(1) (“any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.”). Defendants have asserted that Eversource's investors may hold information regarding the loans at issue due to McHugh's conversations with the investors. This makes the identities of the investors and the information they may hold regarding the loans at issue relevant to the matter at hand. As a result, the Court grants Defendants’ interrogatory.

Interrogatory No. 6

*7 Next, Defendants request that Eversource identify all persons holding an equity or ownership interest, including percentage ownership, in McHugh Holdings, Inc. (Doc. 220-3 at 4.) Defendants assert that McHugh Holdings, Inc. is Eversource's general partner. (Id.) In opposition, Eversource asserts that the information Defendants seek is irrelevant to any claim or defense at issue in this litigation. (Id.)

Here, the Court agrees that Defendants’ request is irrelevant to the issues in this matter because “[d]iscovery of a matter not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence is not within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1).” Oppenheimer Fund, 437 U.S. 340, 352. Defendants have failed to state the relevance of McHugh Holdings, Inc., nor have Defendants stated the relevance of the information pertaining to McHugh Holdings, Inc.’s investors. Further, as there is no indication from any party in this matter that McHugh Holdings, Inc. made any loans to EFG, the Court finds that the names of McHugh Holdings, Inc.’s investors does not tend to make a fact at issue in this matter more or less probable. Therefore, the Court denies Defendants’ interrogatory.

Interrogatory No. 18

Defendants next request that Eversource describe the financial source of each loan advanced to EFG by Eversource. (Doc. 220-3 at 7.) In opposition, Eversource argues that the information Defendants seek is irrelevant to any claim or defense at issue in this litigation. (Id.)

Here, the Court finds that the information Defendants seek is relevant to the claims at issue in this matter, or to Defendants’ defense. As stated above, Defendants have asserted that Eversource's investors may hold information regarding the loans in issue due to McHugh's conversations with the investors. This makes the identities of the investors, the source of each of the loans made by Eversource to EFG, and the information they may hold regarding the loans at issue relevant to the matter at hand. As a result, the Court grants Defendants’ interrogatory.

Interrogatory No. 30

Next, Defendants request that Eversource describe the financial source of any loan or advance provided to Ocean Sky, EF Global, or any other Fimrite entity involving an airplane purchase transaction with Synergy Aerospace Corporation. (Doc. 220-3 at 8.) In opposition, Eversource argues that the information Defendants seek is irrelevant to any claim or defense at issue in this litigation. (Id.)

Here, the Court finds that the information Defendants seek is relevant to the matter at hand. As part of the instant suit, Ocean Sky and EF Global have asserted counterclaims against Eversource alleging that Eversource and its investors, through McHugh, promised to fully fund the joint purchase, along with Ocean Sky and EF Global, of several planes from Synergy Aerospace Corporation. (Doc. 178 at 65.) As a result, Defendants are entitled to discovery surrounding their claims against Eversource, including the financial source of any loan provided to Ocean Sky, EF Global, or any other Fimrite entity involving an airplane purchase transaction with Synergy Aerospace Corporation. Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ interrogatory.

Document Request No. 2

Defendants next request that Eversource provide all documents that contain or describe financial or business transactions between and among Eversource and McHugh from January 1, 2015 to the present that relate to the loans at issue. (Doc. 220-4 at 3.) In opposition, Eversource argues that Defendants’ request seeks information that is irrelevant to any claim or defense at issue in this litigation. (Id.)

*8 Here, the Court finds that Defendants’ document production request is relevant to the instant matter. Defendants seek information related to the loans at issue and information that transpired between Eversource and McHugh. Moreover, Defendants allege that McHugh assisted in obtaining the alleged loans from Eversource for EFG. Therefore, information related to those communications, such as financial or business transactions between and among Eversource and McHugh is relevant to the issues at hand. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ request.

Document Request No. 3

Defendants next request production of all documents containing or describing financial or business transactions between and among Eversource and any of its equity interest owners from January 1, 2015 to the present that relate to the loans at issue. (Doc. 220-4 at 3.) In opposition, Eversource argues that the information that Defendants seek is irrelevant to any claim or defense at issue in this litigation. (Id.)

Here, the Court finds that Defendants’ document production request is relevant to the claims and defenses at issue in this litigation. As stated above, Defendants have asserted that Eversource's investors may hold information regarding the loans at issue due to McHugh's conversations with the investors. This makes all documents containing or describing financial or business transactions between and among Eversource and any of its equity interest owners, and the information they may hold regarding the loans at issue, relevant to the matter at hand. As a result, the Court grants Defendants’ request.

Document Request No. 11

Next, Defendants request that Eversource provide all documentation demonstrating the source of any funds loaned or advanced to any Fimrite Entities. (Doc. 220-4 at 4.) In opposition, Eversource argues that the document production that Defendants seek is irrelevant to any claim or defense at issue in this litigation. (Id.)

Here, the Court finds that Defendants’ document production request is relevant to the issues at hand. As stated above, pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1), the scope of discovery is “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. 26(b)(1). Defendants’ allegations that McHugh communicated with Eversource's investors regarding the loans make the source of those loans relevant to the issue of this case. Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ request.

Document Request No. 19

Next, Defendants request that Eversource provide all nonprivileged communication or other documentation between Eversource and any party regarding repayment of loans or advances to any Fimrite entities, including any status updates, demands for repayment, repayment options, calculation of interest, and accounting records related thereto. (Doc. 220-4 at 5.) In opposition, Eversource argues that the document production that Defendants seek is irrelevant to any claim or defense at issue in this litigation. (Id.)

Here, the Court finds that Defendants’ document production request is relevant to the issues in this matter. See Fed. R. Civ. 26(b)(1) (“any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.”). As Defendants are seeking information relevant to the loans made by Eversource, Defendants’ request is aligned with the issues in this case and, therefore, the Court finds Defendants’ request relevant. Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ request.

Interrogatory No. 4

Finally, Defendants request that Eversource describe in a list all outstanding royalty units of EFG including certificate number, issue date, type of unit, number of units, face value, actual amount paid or invested, method of payment, account proceeds deposited into, minimum return on investment accrual by certificate from issue date to present, type of investor, and any royalty payment paid out from January 2012 to present. (Doc. 220-7 at 3.) In opposition, Eversource argues that Defendants’ request seeks information neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of the case given the lack of importance of this discovery in resolving any of the issues in this matter. (Id.) Eversource further states that Defendants’ request is overbroad in time, scope, and subject matter and seeks irrelevant information about nonparties and issues not subject to the claims or defenses in this matter. (Id.)

*9 Here, the Court finds that Defendants’ interrogatory request is neither overbroad nor irrelevant to the issues in this case. One of Eversource's claims is that Defendants induced Eversource to purchase royalty units in EFG based on false and fraudulent information. (Doc. 143 at 2.) Now, Defendants seek information surrounding the purchase of the royalty units. Further, Defendants seek investor information based on McHugh's alleged conversations with the investors. Therefore, the information sought by Defendants is relevant to the matter at hand and not overbroad to the needs of the claims or defenses in this case. As a result, the Court grants Defendants’ interrogatory.

C. Depositions Dispute

Finally, the Court turns to the parties’ depositions dispute. (Doc. 225.) Eversource asserts that due to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (“COVID-19”) and to avoid any deposition cancellations, all depositions in this matter should be taken using Zoom video conferencing. (Id. at 2.) In opposition, Defendants argue that due to the seriousness of the claims alleged against them, Defendants are entitled to fully and fairly defend against those claims. (Id. at 3.) Defendants assert that fully and fairly defending against Eversource's claims includes taking and defending in-person depositions. (Id.)

Here, the Court is very concerned about the parties’ seemingly inability to reach any kind of common-sense resolution of contested matters such as this. Thus, the Court will deny as moot the parties’ motion and only state that the parties may find it helpful to review the Center for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines regarding COVID-19 when determining whether to hold depositions via video teleconferencing or in person.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting in part and denying in part the parties’ Joint Written Summary of Discovery Dispute Related to Financial Records, as discussed above. (Doc. 214.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part the parties’ Joint Written Summary of Discovery Dispute Regarding Plaintiff's Responses to Fimrite Entities’ Discovery Requests, as discussed above. (Doc. 220.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot the parties’ Joint Written Summary of Discovery Dispute Related to Depositions. (Doc. 225).

Dated this 3rd day of November, 2020.

The Court finds it important to note that the parties’ most recent discovery dispute is the two hundredth and twenty-fifth document in this matter; however, the parties are still attempting to complete discovery. (See Doc. 225.) Moreover, there have been six discovery disputes in this matter. (See Docs. 88; 91; 197; 214; 220; 225.) The Court urges the parties to stay on theme with the relevant issues in this case–the loans Eversource alleges to have made to Defendants without repayment–and refrain from submitting filings that are irrelevant or not focused on the instant issues.

It is not clear from the parties’ motions if these ongoing disputes include all Defendants or merely some Defendants. As a result, and as not to guess about which Defendants the disputes include, the Court will proceed under the assumption that the disputes include all Defendants.