*1 ASI, Inc., formally known as Aviva Sports, Inc. (“ASI” or “Aviva”), previously won a judgment in an action against Manley Toys, Ltd (“Manley”). ASI brought this action alleging that several Defendants, working as a RICO enterprise, engaged in a series of fraudulent transfers in order to evade paying the judgment Manley owed Aviva.

The Special Master appointed to this case recently held a hearing to entertain various motions to compel by the parties. The Special Master denied the Hong Kong Defendants’ Motion to Compel answers to all of its interrogatories and granted ASI's motions to compel the production of financial records and the Manley email server. Each Defendant group objected to the Special Master's order and the Fifth Amended Schedule.

First, the Court concludes that the Special Master did not err in its interpretation of the Pretrial Scheduling Order (“PSO”) by finding that the Hong Kong Defendants exceeded their allotment of interrogatories and accordingly denying their motion to compel. Second, the Court concludes that Special Master also did not err by finding that ASI had met the meet and confer requirement in relation to ASI's motions to compel because the parties have had ample time to discuss and seek a resolution without intervention by the Court on these issues. Third, the Court further concludes that the Special Master did not err by granting ASI's motion to compel the production of financial records by each Defendant because they are plainly relevant in this litigation. And fourth, the Court concludes that the Special Master did not err by granting ASI's motion to compel the Manley email server because its production was previously mandated by the District of Minnesota and because ASI followed the proper procedure to request the production. Therefore, the Court will affirm the Special Master's order and only resubmits to clarify which parties are subject to the order to produce the Manley email server and to update the relevant deadlines for the parties.

The Court has previously detailed the facts in this case and will only provide a brief summary of the relevant facts for the present motion. See ASI, Inc. v. Aquawood, LLC, No. 19-763, 2022 WL 980398, at *1–4 (D. Minn. Mar. 31, 2022). Aviva brought this action seeking to collect on a $8.5 million underlying judgment against Manley from Defendants. (See generally Compl. at 10, Mar. 19, 2019, Docket No. 1.) Defendants are an allegedly interconnected group of individuals and corporations primarily based in Hong Kong and led by three individuals—Chan Ming Yiu (also known as Samson Chan), Liu Yi Man (also known as Lisa Liu), and Brian Dubinsky—that sell toys and electronics in the United States. (Id. at 2, 5, 16.) ASI alleges that Defendants use the corporations interchangeably and shift resources among them to obfuscate legal proceedings. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 3–10.)

A Special Master was appointed in this case, at the request of the parties, because of its complexity, the heavy caseload of this district, and the parties’ need for extraordinary levels of judicial intervention. (Appointing Special Master, Aug. 5, 2022, Docket No. 589.) Since being appointed, the Special Master has issued a number of scheduling orders to help discovery progress. (E.g., 3rd Am. Scheduling Order, Sept. 2, 2022, Aug. 31, 2022, Docket No. 612; 4th Am. Scheduling Order, Dec. 27, 2022, Docket No. 667.) Defendants previously objected to the 3rd Amended Scheduling Order in part because the Special Master ordered that each Defendant produce general ledgers, bank statements, and tax records (collectively, “financial records”) and the Manley email server—two of the issues now before the court. See ASI, Inc. v. Aquawood, LLC, No. 19-763, 2023 WL 186064, at *1–2 (D. Minn. Jan. 13, 2023).

*2 With regard to the financial records, the Court resubmitted to the Special Master because it was not clear if the Special Master required each Defendant produce them, or just Defendant Aquawood, LLC. Id. at *3. With regard to the Manley email server, the Court concluded that ASI had not moved to compel its production and remanded to the Special Master for further consideration. Id.

ASI subsequently moved to compel the unredacted financial documents from all Defendants and the production of the Manley email server. (See Mot. Compel Unredacted Financial Docs., Feb. 2, 2023, Docket No. 688; Mot. Compel Regarding Manley's Servers, Feb. 2, 2023, Docket No. 697.) With each motion, ASI submitted the required meet and confer certification. (See Pl.’s 1st Meet and Confer Statement, Feb. 2, 2022, Docket No. 696; Pl.’s 2nd Meet and Confer Statement, Feb. 2, 2023, Docket No. 701.) Defendants opposed both motions and argued that ASI failed to meaningfully meet and confer on the issues. (See Defs.’ Letter to Special Master, Feb. 3, 2023, Docket No. 707; Pl.’s Letter to Special Master, Feb. 8, 2023, Docket No. 708.)

The Special Master held a hearing on February 16, 2023. (Mem. Op. Order (“5th Am. Scheduling Order”) at 1, Mar. 17, 2023, Docket No. 732.) The Special Master entertained a number of motions, including a motion by the Hong Kong Defendant to compel answers to its interrogatories and ASI's motions to compel the financial records and the Manley email server. (See generally id.)

The Special Master then ruled:

(Id. at 2, 14–15.) The Special Master then issued the Fifth Amended Schedule. (Id. at 15.) On March 31, 2023, each group of Defendants objected to the Special Master's order. (See Hong Kong Defs.’ Objs., Docket No. 736; Aquawood, LLC's Objs., Docket No. 738; MGS Int'l and Toth's Objs., Docket No. 740.)

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 governs the appointment and authority of special masters. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 53. Rule 53 specifies that the District Court may “adopt or affirm, modify, wholly or partly reject or reverse, or resubmit to the master with instruction.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(1). Findings of fact by the Special Master are typically reviewed for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(3)(A). But, if the master is appointed under Rule 53(a)(1)(A) (consent of the parties) or Rule 53 (a)(1)(C) (to address pretrial and posttrial maters), the factual findings of the master are final. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(3)(B). All legal conclusions must be reviewed de novo, but procedural matters are typically reviewed for an abuse of discretion, unless the appointing order establishes otherwise. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(4)–(5). An abuse of discretion includes when a decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Lopez v. United States, 790 F.3d 867, 871 (8th Cir. 2015).

II. ANALYSIS

*3 Each of the following objections concerns discovery disputes, over which the Court has ample discretion. See Williams v. TESCO SERVICES, Inc., 719 F.3d 968 (8th Cir. 2013) (“[D]istrict Courts have broad discretion in maintaining compliance with discovery and pretrial orders.”). Additionally, the Special Master's factual findings in this case are final because the appointment was by consent of the parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(3)(B)

A. Hong Kong Defendants’ interrogatories

The Hong Kong Defendants argue that the Special Master erred by interpreting the PSO to limit each Defendant group to 15 individual interrogatories on Plaintiff. (Hong Kong Defs.’ Objs. at 4–6.) The Hong Kong Defendants assert this interpretation will prejudice Defendant groups with more defendants.

As the Special Master noted, the PSO in this case plainly states that “[e]ach Defendant Group may also serve up to 15 individual interrogatories on Plaintiff.” (See Pretrial Scheduling Order at 3, Nov. 5, 2020, Docket No. 215 (emphasis altered).) The Special Master found that the Hong Kong Defendants have exceeded the number permitted and therefore denied their Motion to Compel. The Court will affirm the Special Master on this issue.

B. Meet and Confer Requirement

Defendants each argue that the Special Master did not enforce the rules regarding meet and confer obligations as established by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and District of Minnesota Local Rules. ASI asserts that the parties discussed the issues raised in the motions to compel both before and after the motions were filed.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) requires parties to certify that they conferred or attempted to confer “in good faith.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Local Rule 7.1(a) adds that the parties must meet and confer “if possible,” but that they need not meet in person. LR 7.1(a). The moving party must file a meet and confer statement together with the motion it relates to. LR 7.1(a)(1)(A). However, if the parties are unable to meet and confer before the motion is filed, the moving party must “promptly meet and confer with the opposing party after filing the motion” and supplement the motion with a meet and confer statement. Id. However, Courts have found that the meet and confer requirement can be met where a party formally or informally requests discovery but is denied. See Pierce v. Fremar, LLC, No. 09-4066, 2010 WL 3420169, at *1 (D.S.D. Aug. 27, 2010) (“Before the court grants a Rule 37 motion, the parties, at a minimum, must have informally requested the information and been denied access by the other party.”). And Courts have opted not to enforce the meet and confer requirement based on the parties’ history of discovery disputes. Oleson v. Kmart Corp., 175 F.R.D. 570, 571 (D. Kan. 1997) (“Based upon the number and tenor of the discovery disputes in this case, it is unlikely that the issues before the court would have been resolved by additional efforts to confer between counsel.”)

The Special Master heard extensive arguments from the parties regarding whether ASI provided Defendants with a meaningful opportunity to meet and confer. The Special Master then addressed Defendants’ arguments and stated that “the record reflects that nearly all meet and confer sessions have been used to delay and increase plaintiff's cost,” and that the rule is not “meant to substitute for good faith activity in the discovery process, or to be an abuse of process as has often been the case in this litigation.” (5th Am. Scheduling Order at 14.)

*4 The purpose of the meet and confer requirements is to prevent the unnecessary expenditure of judicial resources. Parties must confer in good faith with the hope that disputes are resolved before judicial intervention is necessary. See e.g., Shuffle Master, Inc. v. Progressive Games, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 166, 171 (D. Nev. 1996) (“a moving party must personally engage in two-way communication with the nonresponding party to meaningfully discuss each contested discovery dispute in a genuine effort to avoid judicial intervention”) (emphasis added). Unfortunately, even rules meant to facilitate resolution of disputes can be abused.

Defendants’ argument that ASI did not provide a meaningful opportunity to resolve these two specific production issues rings hollow. After all, Defendants have made their positions known on these issues by protesting against the productions repeatedly. The parties have litigated over these issues to both the Special Master and the Court. In the meantime, there have been ample opportunities for the parties to resolve these issues without intervention, but to no avail. The Special Master was well within their discretion to determine that the spirit of the meet and confer rule has been sufficiently met, and that further meet-and-confer on these specific motions was not necessary. The Special Master did not err, and the Court will not overrule that determination.[1]

C. Motion to Compel Financial Records

Defendants argue that the Special Master erred by compelling the production of financial records by all Defendants as requested by ASI.

First, the Hong Kong Defendants assert that ASI's Motion to Compel the financial records was untimely because it was officially filed two years after the issuance of its related discovery requests. Although the Special Master did not specifically address the issue, the Court does not find that ASI's Motion to Compel the financial records is untimely. Defendants previously objected to an order of the Special Master to produce these records because ASI had not yet officially moved to compel the production of these documents from each Defendant. (See Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Objs. Special Master at 7–9, Sept. 13, 2022, Docket No. 616.) Defendants cannot now claim prejudice because Plaintiff has followed the proper procedure requested by Defendants. Though Defendants point to instances where courts denied a motion based on untimeliness, no authority cited by Defendants compels that outcome here. See In re Baycol Prods. Litig., 596 F.3d 884, 888 (8th Cir. 2010) (“District courts have broad discretion in establishing and enforcing deadlines and in maintaining compliance with discovery and pretrial orders.”) (citation omitted).

Second, Defendants argue that ASI has not shown the relevance of the financial records as to each individual Defendant. The Court previously found Defendant Aquawood's financial records relevant. See ASI, Inc. v. Aquawood, LLC, No. 19-763, 2022 WL 3020503, at *2 (D. Minn. July 29, 2022). The Court explained that the documents were relevant because ASI/Aviva had alleged that Aquawood was “involved in a RICO enterprise that intentionally passed money among various entities to prevent Aviva from collecting a valid Judgment.” Id. The Court concluded that Aviva had shown compelling reasons for the documents. Id. In a separate order, the Court instructed the Special Master to consider whether the same reasons apply to other Defendants. See ASI, Inc., 2023 WL 186064, at *3.

*5 The Special Master entertained arguments by all parties with regard to the relevancy of the financial records from each Defendant. In part relying on the Court's previous determination that the financial records were relevant as to Aquawood, the Special Master concluded that all Defendants must produce them, and that they should be in an unredacted form “absent a compelling reason.” (5th Am. Scheduling Order at 7–8.) The Court agrees with the Special Master because the allegations made against Aquawood are also made against the other Defendants. ASI alleges that Defendants are conspiring together to hide assets, so the relevance of each Defendant's financial records logically follows.

Lastly, Defendants object to the financial records being produced in an unredacted manner. The Court finds that both the Protective Order in place, and the procedures established by the Special Master, sufficiently ameliorate Defendants’ privacy or abuse concerns. The Court will therefore affirm the Special Master's order in this regard.

D. Motion to Compel the Manley Email Server

The Court finds that the Special Master thoroughly and adequately explained the history of the Manley Server and will not repeat it here except to note that the production of the server was previously ordered by the Court. (See 5th Am. Scheduling Order at 9–13.) ASI also served an interrogatory on each Defendant asking them to “identify each computer server used to store electronic information by each SLB Company from 2012 to the present.” (Decl. Shelli Calland (“Calland Decl.”), Ex. 2, at 2, Feb. 2, 2023, Docket No. 699-2.) In that request, ASI defined “SLB Company” to include Manley and other related entities. (Id. at 10.) Defendants replied with boilerplate objections and declared that the source of the documents was irrelevant. (Calland Decl., Ex. 5, at 3, Feb. 2, 2023, Docket No. 699-5.)

Because Defendants have obfuscated the very existence of the Manley email server, the Special Master ordered that—in addition to the production of the server itself—each individual Defendant must submit a declaration regarding the Manley server. The Special Master also ordered each Defendant to respond to ASI's interrogatory.

Defendants object to these instructions and argue that Plaintiffs did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) because the Manley server was never requested during discovery via a declaration, and therefore, Defendants never had an opportunity to object to its production. But the Court finds that ASI's interrogatory provided adequate notice to Defendants that information about the servers themselves was being requested. The interrogatory is therefore sufficient to serve as the basis for the Motion to Compel the production of the Manley Server. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii). The Special Master did not err, and the objections related to the Manley Server will be denied.

Defendants Dollar Empire, Wu, and Wellmax also argue that the Special Master erred in ordering them to produce these items because ASI did not direct the motion to compel to them. The Court will resubmit to the Special Master to clarify whether the order related to the Manley server is meant to apply to Defendants Dollar Empire, Wu, and Wellmax.

Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: