SEC v. Pryor
SEC v. Pryor
2021 WL 5203151 (D. Ariz. 2021)
August 6, 2021
Humetewa, Diane J., United States District Judge
Summary
The Court ordered Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests within seven days, including providing accurate and complete responses to interrogatories, producing documents in native format, and amending any inaccurate or incomplete written responses. The Court also ordered Defendants to review all of their other responses to Plaintiff's document requests for accuracy and completeness.
United States Securities and Exchange Commission, Plaintiff,
v.
Gary F Pryor, et al., Defendants
v.
Gary F Pryor, et al., Defendants
No. CV-20-01782-PHX-DJH
United States District Court, D. Arizona
Signed August 06, 2021
Counsel
Emily Ann Rothblatt, Timothy Stewart Leiman, Jason Schmidt, Angela D. Dodd, US Securities & Exchange Commission, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.Mark Douglas Chester, Law Offices of Mark D. Chester PC, Scottsdale, AZ, for Defendants Gary F. Pryor, ZipRemit Incorporated, Lendaily Incorporated.
Stephen Brower, Brentwood Law Group, Tempe, AZ, for Defendant Rebecca Cleary Pryor.
Humetewa, Diane J., United States District Judge
ORDER
*1 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 66), and Memorandum in Support (Doc. 67). Defendants has filed no response, and the time in which the Court allowed Defendants to do so has expired. (Doc. 60).
I. Background
On May 20, 2021, the Court held a hearing to discuss the parties’ discovery dispute related to the production of discovery in this matter. (Doc. 48). Therein the Court ordered Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests by June 1, 2021. On June 23, 2021, after seeking the Court's permission and putting Defendants on notice (Doc. 59), Plaintiff filed this Motion to Compel Discovery. Plaintiff represents that “Defendants have dribbled out some responsive documents over the past few months, [but] they still have failed to provide information and documents that (a) the SEC requested back in March 2021 and (b) that are central to the claims and defenses of this case.” (Doc. 67 at 2) (original emphasis).
II. Legal Standard
Parties “may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.... Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevance for purposes of discovery is defined very broadly.” Garneau v. City of Seattle, 147 F.3d 802, 812 (9th Cir. 1998). A party may move to compel a discovery response if a party only provides “an evasive or incomplete disclosure,” which “must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). The party moving to compel production bears the burden of showing the information sought is relevant. Miller v. York Risk Servs. Grp., 2014 WL 12656714, at *2 (D. Ariz. June 23, 2014). “Resolution of a motion to compel discovery is a matter within the Court's discretion.” Id.
III. Analysis
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. (Doc. 32 at ¶¶ 81–89). The information Plaintiff seeks is the amount invested in Defendants’ companies, how that money was spent, to identify other sources of revenue, and to provide monthly bank account statements. (Doc. 67). The Court finds that this information is relevant to Plaintiff's claims.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 66) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:
1. Within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, Defendant Pryor shall serve Plaintiff SEC with accurate and complete responses to SEC's Interrogatory #4 to Gary Pryor.
2. Within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, Defendant ZipRemit shall serve Plaintiff with accurate and complete responses to the SEC's Interrogatories to ZipRemit ## 3, 6, and 9.
3. Within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, Defendant Lendaily shall serve Plaintiff with accurate and complete responses to the SEC's Interrogatories to Lendaily ## 3 and 8.
4. As required by Federal Rule 33(b), each Defendant's amended interrogatory responses must be answered separately and fully in writing under oath. For each set of amended interrogatory responses, each Defendant must review its responses for accuracy and completeness and the responses must be signed by the person furnishing the information available to that Defendant.
*2 5. Within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, Defendants Pryor, ZipRemit, and Lendaily shall produce to Plaintiff all documents within their possession, custody, or control that are responsive to the SEC's Document Requests ## 9 and 13. To the extent the responsive documents are in electronic format (e.g., spreadsheets, word documents, emails, powerpoint slide presentations, etc.), Defendants must produce those electronic documents in native format. Defendant must also review all of their other responses to Plaintiff's document requests for accuracy and completeness.
6. Within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, Defendants Pryor, ZipRemit, and Lendaily shall serve Plaintiff with amended written responses to SEC's Document Requests ## 9 and 13. Defendants must also amend any other written response to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Documents that is inaccurate or incomplete.
7. With seven (7) days of the date of this Order, each of the Defendants shall separately confirm to Plaintiff's counsel in writing that all requirements of this order have been met.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that within seven (7) days of this Order's entry, Defendants shall file notice with the Court indicating that they have complied with this Order and showing cause why Defendants and/or Defendants’ counsel should not be required to pay Plaintiff's reasonable expenses incurred in making its Motion to Compel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5).