*1 This multi-district litigation involves dozens of defendants who allegedly aided and abetted a fraudulent pyramid scheme run by TelexFree. Plaintiffs move to compel more complete answers to interrogatories, (Docket No. 1582), and certain documents, (Docket No. 1586), from Gerald Nehra and Nehra PLLC (“Nehra Defendants”). For the reasons below, the motion to compel more complete responses to interrogatories is granted in part and denied in part as moot. The motion to compel document production is denied.

The plaintiffs allege in the operative complaint (“5CAC”) that the Nehra defendants provided TelexFree with legal advice, helped design the TelexFree scheme, and helped to defend TelexFree during state investigations, all while knowing that TelexFree was an illegal Ponzi scheme. (5CAC, at ¶¶ 948-77). The Nehra Defendants claim that their representation was “limited and sporadic” and that their peripheral role “focused on advising about the requirements for creating a compensation plan that was compliant with U.S. multilevel marketing laws.” (Docket No. 1645, at 3). The parties have come to an impasse on discovery, though the Nehra Defendants have supplemented the initial responses and document production the plaintiffs found deficient.

The Nehra Defendants argue that the plaintiffs have subdivided the interrogatories in an improper manner, violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), and argue they have no duty to respond to them. This Court has serious concerns with the length and breadth of the plaintiffs’ interrogatories. However, because the plaintiffs have not attempted to compel complete compliance with their interrogatories, this Court declines to rule against them on that ground, especially given looming discovery deadlines. Furthermore, the portions of the interrogatories at issue in this motion are all plainly relevant to the claims and defenses of the plaintiffs and the requested information is proportional to the needs of the case. Cf. Bonner v. Triple-S Mgmt. Corp., 68 F.4th 677, 684-85 (1st Cir. 2023). The plaintiffs, however, are on notice that in future phases of the discovery process the Court will enforce similar procedural rules strictly.

This Court finds that, largely, the supplemental responses to the plaintiffs’ interrogatories satisfy the objections made in the motion to compel and denies the motion as moot with the exceptions discussed below.

In Interrogatory No. 5 plaintiffs request the Nehra Defendants to describe the services they provided TelexFree and in Interrogatory No. 6 to describe their knowledge of the services provided by others to TelexFree. In Interrogatory No. 8 the plaintiffs request the Nehra Defendants describe their knowledge of TelexFree's response to governmental investigations. The Nehra Defendants do not mention their interactions with state investigators from states other than Massachusetts in their responses. Exhibits provided by the plaintiff strongly suggests that the Nehra Defendants played some role in the response to other state agencies. With respect to Interrogatory No. 5 and Interrogatory No. 8, the Nehra Defendants are ordered to supplement their responses with additional detail about their engagement with state agencies, including any advice given to TelexFree about how to respond to those investigations. Similarly, in their supplemental answer to Interrogatory No. 6, the Nehra Defendants admit they responded to the Massachusetts SEC in “late 2013,” but no reference is made to this late-2013 response in Interrogatory No. 5, which concerns the services the Nehra Defendants provided TelexFree. The Nehra Defendants are ordered to describe the scope of the services in responding to the Massachusetts SEC in late 2013.

*2 In Interrogatory No. 13, the plaintiffs request a description of the Nehra Defendants’ internal document policy and practice. The Nehra Defendants argue there was no such policy to describe, but they at the least kept a system of hard-copy back up files. On January 26, 2014, Nehra responded to an email in which Craft, the CPA and CFO of TelexFree, requested documents Nehra had sent to the Massachusetts SEC. Nehra responded that he had a computer crash in 2013 that destroyed many of this files, but that “I have a paper file back-up – but it is in my Michigan home office {I am in Sarasota} – I will have a friend go to my office – find the file and FedEx it to me.” (Docket No. 1587-6, at 2).[1] The Nehra Defendants argue that they only have hard-copy back up files for some of their documents. The Nehra Defendants must describe what the system was for deciding which files to back up—and which to not.

In Interrogatory No. 6, the plaintiffs request that the Nehra Defendants describe their knowledge of services provided by others to TelexFree and in Interrogatory No. 17 request the Nehra Defendants to describe their relationships with the co-defendants and Greenberg Traurig. The plaintiff has provided emails that suggest Nehra was acquainted with TelexFree, to the extent that Weaver, a co-defendant, remarked that “Gerry has been extremely helpful to us in getting quickly up to speed.” (1583-7, at 6). Similarly, Babener, another co-defendant, described Nehra on February 10, 2014 as a “a valued team member,” but went on to clarify that “[i]n terms of the immediate proceedings, view Gerry something like an adjunct professor emeritus advisor as I know he has significant travel plans in the near future.” (Docket No. 1583-7, at 18). The Nehra Defendants failed to describe those relationships in any detail and are ordered to supplement their responses to Interrogatory Nos. 6 and 17 to more fully describe their relationship with Babener and Weaver in relation to TelexFree.

In Interrogatory No. 11 the plaintiffs request the Nehra Defendants describe their knowledge of any offshore accounts. The Nehra Defendants claim no knowledge of such accounts. The plaintiff has provided an email that demonstrates the Nehra was involved in the early stages of setting up TelexFree and appears to have attended a meeting discussing offshore accounts. The Nehra Defendants are ordered to supplement their responses discussing the details of this meeting as they relate to the establishment of any offshore accounts.

The Nehra Defendants have supplemented their document productions with documents in the possession of their former lawyer. Therefore, to the extent that the motion is based on that objection, it is moot. Although the Nehra Defendants included a boilerplate privilege objection in their initial responses, they have clarified in their supplemental responses that the claimed privilege is only between the Nehra Defendants and their lawyers and does not cover the lawyer-client relationship between the Nehra Defendants and TelexFree, which has been waived by the Bankruptcy Trustee. This Court declines to order a privilege log because plaintiffs’ arguments were made under the assumption the privilege claims referred to the latter relationship. The remaining argument is simply that the Nehra Defendants must have additional documents. The Nehra Defendants deny that any more documents exist. The Court discusses the Nehra Defendants’ credibility below, but at this point declines to compel documents. The motion to compel production of documents is denied.

The plaintiffs move for sanctions against the Nehra Defendants. Many of the Nehra Defendants’ explanations for not producing more fulsome responses or documents boil down to an argument that Nehra did no research on behalf of his client, did not review in any manner the documents he submitted to regulatory agencies on his client's behalf, took no efforts to log the services he provided to his client, and kept nearly no documentation of meetings or indeed of almost anything related to his client. He avers that in 2014, he received no compensation other than travel renumeration for his services. Although this Court is skeptical, one of the principal disputes between the parties is the proximity of the Nehra Defendants to the inner workings of TelexFree. The exhibits provided by the plaintiffs do not definitively show that the Nehra Defendants played a “long-running and integral role” in furthering the fraud (though they do not definitively show the Nehra Defendants representation as “limited and sporadic,” either). Keeping in mind that the Nehra Defendants are ordered to supplement their responses as described above, the Court declines at this juncture to institute sanctions. However, if it appears in light of further discovery from other defendants that the Nehra Defendants have withheld relevant information or made misrepresentations to this Court, sanctions will issue. With that in mind, the Nehra Defendants are free to supplement their responses and documents beyond what is ordered here.

*3 For the reasons above, the motion to compel responses is granted in part and denied in part as moot and the motion to compel document production is denied.

SO ORDERED