Heil v. Belle Starr Saloon & Casino et al

Filing 219

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 176 Motion to Compel. Signed by Chief Judge Jeffrey L. Viken on 2/25/14. (SB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
WESTERN DIVISION
MISTY N. HEIL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BELLE STARR SALOON &
CASINO, INC.; ANGIE’S INC.;
Defendants,
and
THOMAS W. SHERWOOD, SR.,
d/b/a Sherwood Investments &
Trust Company, and
SHERWOOD FAMILY LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP,
Defendants/Third-Party
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JASON ORELUP,
Third-Party Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIV. 09-5074-JLV

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF HEIL’S MOTION
TO COMPEL

*******************************************************************************

CHELSEA LINTON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ANGIE'S INC.; BELLE STARR
SALOON & CASINO, INC.;
Defendants,
and
THOMAS W. SHERWOOD SR.,
d/b/a Sherwood Investments
and Trust Company, and
SHERWOOD FAMILY LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP,
Defendants/Cross
Claim Plaintiffs,
vs.
JASON ORELUP,
Defendant/Cross Claim
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIV. 09-5099-JLV

Pending before the court is plaintiff Misty Heil’s motion to compel
answers to her third set of interrogatories to defendants Sherwood Family
Limited Partnership and Thomas W. Sherwood, Sr., d/b/a Sherwood
Investments and Trust Company.1 (Docket 176). Ms. Heil seeks answers to

1

For convenience, Sherwood Family Limited Partnership will be referred to
as “SFLP,” Thomas W. Sherwood, Sr., will be referred to as “Mr. Sherwood, Sr.,”
and Sherwood Investments and Trust Company will be referred to as “SITC,”
and collectively the defendants shall be referred to as the “SITC defendants.”
2

interrogatories and the production of documents “consistent with
information available to Tom Sherwood, Sr. and his employees[.]”. Id. at p.
2. Defendants resist Ms. Heil’s motion. (Docket 181).
Ms. Heil complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and D.S.D. Civ. LR 37.1
by attempting, in good faith, to resolve her differences with defendants
before bringing the second motion to compel before the court. (Docket 176
at p. 2). Each of Ms. Heil’s interrogatories and requests for production will
be addressed separately.
INTERROGATORY NO. 1: List each and every entity owned inpart or in-whole by Thomas Sherwood, Jr., indicating each entity’s
owners, shareholders, directors, officers, employees, agents, and
independent contractors from January 1, 2008 to the present.
(Docket 177 at p. 7). Defendants response was:
The SITC Defendants object to this interrogatory on the [sic] it
seeks information concerning Thomas Sherwood Jr., who is not a
named defendant in these actions. The SITC Defendants cannot
answer an interrogatory on behalf of another person or entity. The
SITC Defendants further object to this interrogatory as it seeks
information which is not relevant and not designed to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. The SITC Defendants further
object to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and
unduly burdensome as to the time period requested and seeks
information that is not in the custody or control of the SITC
Defendants.
Id.
“Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is widely recognized
as a discovery rule which is liberal in scope and interpretation, extending to
those matters which are relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the

3

discovery of admissible evidence.” Hofer v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 981 F.2d
377, 380 (8th Cir. 1992). “While the standard of relevance in the context of
discovery is broader than in the context of admissibility (Rule 26(b)) clearly
states that inadmissibility is no grounds for objection to discovery. . . .” Id.
(referencing Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 350-51
(1978)). A party seeking discovery is merely required to make a threshold
showing of relevance, which is more relaxed than the showing required for
relevance in the context of admissibility. Id. at 351. The party resisting
production of discovery bears the burden of establishing lack of relevancy or
that complying with the request would be unduly burdensome. See St. Paul
Reinsurance Co. v. Commercial Financial Corp., 198 F.R.D. 508, 511 (N.D.
Iowa 2000). “[T]he mere statement . . . that [an] interrogatory [or request for
production] was ‘overly broad, burdensome, oppressive [or] irrelevant’ is not
adequate to voice a successful objection.” Id. (internal citation omitted).
“[T]he party resisting discovery must show specifically how . . . each
interrogatory [or request for production] is not relevant or how each
question is overly broad, burdensome, or oppressive.” Id. at 512 (internal
citation omitted). “Because the interrogatories themselves are relevant, the
fact that answers to them will be burdensome and expensive is not in itself
a reason for refusing to order discovery which is otherwise appropriate.”

4

In re Folding Carton Antitrust Litigation, 83 F.R.D. 260, 265 (N.D. Ill. 1979)
(internal citation omitted). “[T]he fact that answering the interrogatories will
require the objecting party to expend considerable time, effort and expense
consulting, reviewing and analyzing huge volumes of documents and
information is an insufficient basis to object.” Burns v. Imagine Films
Entertainment, Inc., 164 F.R.D. 589, 593 (W.D.N.Y. 1996) (internal citation
omitted).
Defendants argue Ms. Heil took Mr. Sherwood, Jr.’s, deposition in
2011 and could have asked him these same questions at that time. (Docket
181). However, both Ms. Heil’s and Ms. Linton’s second amended
complaints including Mr. Sherwood, Sr., and SFLP as additional defendants
were not filed until mid-2012. (Dockets 121 & 122).
While it is generally true a father cannot answer an interrogatory on
behalf of his son, Mr. Sherwood, Sr., can certainly answer interrogatory no.
1 to the extent of his personal knowledge as to his son’s involvement in the
business entities in which Mr. Sherwood, Sr., is also a participant. The
information is relevant as Mr. Sherwood, Jr., is identified as a business
associate with his father in a number of prior filings and rulings in this
consolidated case. (Dockets 1, 35, 96-15, 104-11, 111, 112, 154, & 155).
Defendants’ answer to the interrogatory also specifically limits their
response to the SITC defendants. (Docket 181 at p. 6). Defendants will

5

fully answer the question, identify all entities of Mr. Sherwood, Sr., in which
Mr. Sherwood, Jr., is a part-owner, and then respond to the remainder of
the interrogatory.
Defendants have not met their “burden under [Rule 33(b)(4)] of
making a specific showing of reasons why the interrogatories [and requests
for documents] should not be answered or documents not produced where
[it] merely made conclusory objections.” Burns, 164 F.R.D. at 593. To the
extent the same objections are made in subsequent interrogatories and
requests for production of documents, defendants’ objections on these
grounds are overruled.
Mr. Sherwood, Sr., shall answer interrogatory no. 1.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2: List each and every entity owned inpart or in-whole by Thomas Sherwood, Sr., indicating each entity’s
owners, shareholders, directors, officers, employees, agents, and
independent contractors from January 1, 2008 to the present.
(Docket 177 at p. 8). Defendants’ response was:
The SITC Defendants object to this interrogatory as overbroad,
unduly burdensome and seeking information that is not designed
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and
without waiving those objections, the SITC Defendants respond as
follows.
Id. at pp. 8-9 (listing 29 entities).
Ms. Heil seeks this information to prove “the existence of a single
integrated enterprise amongst the Sherwood owned companies.” Id. at p. 6.

6

“The legal standard . . . for determining a parent corporation’s liability for a
subsidiary’s commission of practices prohibited by Title VII . . . . [is] a
four-part test treating related but distinct entities as an integrated
enterprise based on 1) interrelation of operations, 2) common management,
3) centralized control of labor relations, and 4) common ownership or
financial control.” Sandoval v. American Building Maintenance Industries,
Inc., 578 F.3d 787, 793 (8th Cir. 2009) (citing Baker v. Stuart Broad. Co.,
560 F.2d 389, 391 (8th Cir.1977)). The court’s “reliance upon, and the
continued viability of, Baker’s four-part test is supported by EEOC guidance
and Congressional intent.” Id. “Under the EEOC’s interpretation of Title
VII, ‘[t]he separate entities that form an integrated enterprise are treated as
a single employer for purposes of both coverage and liability,’ and ‘relief can
be obtained from any of the entities that form part of the integrated
enterprise.’ ” Id. (citing EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 2: Threshold
Issues, No. 915.003, at 44).
Defendants object to this interrogatory claiming “Tom Jr. does not
have an ownership interest in any of these entities, other than that as a
limited partner of SFP . . . .” (Docket 181) (emphasis in original). This
interrogatory specifically focuses on the ownership of Mr. Sherwood, Sr., not
his son. Defendants effort to deflect focus away from Mr. Sherwood, Sr., is
disingenuous.

7

The information requested by Ms. Heil is “relevant and reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Hofer, 981 F.2d
at 380. Defendants’ objections are overruled. Mr. Sherwood, Sr., shall
provide all the information requested by interrogatory no. 2 for all 29
entities identified.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3: List which individuals, whether
owners, shareholders, officers, directors, employees, or agents of
any Defendant or any Thomas Sherwood, Sr. or Thomas
Sherwood, Jr. owned or personally owned entity, that received
actual notice of Misty Heil’s claim, made to the Department of
Labor or filed with the United States District Court.
(Docket 177 at p. 9). Defendants’ response was:
The SITC Defendants object to this interrogatory to the extent that
it seeks information concerning Thomas Sherwood, Jr., who is not
a named defendant in these actions. The SITC Defendants cannot
answer an interrogatory on behalf of another person or entity. The
SITC Defendants further object to this interrogatory as the term
“actual notice” is vague and subject to differing interpretations.
Subject to and without waiving these objections and the objections
to definitions, no owner, shareholder, officer, director, employee,
or agent of the SITC Defendants received formal notice of Misty
Heil’s claim prior to the SITC Defendants being served in this
lawsuit.
Id. at pp. 9-10 (emphasis in original).
Defendants’ assertion the phrase “actual notice” is vague ignores the
context in which the phrase is used in this litigation. In the order granting
plaintiff’s motion to join and amend complaint, Magistrate Judge Veronica
L. Duffy specifically focused on the issue of notice. (Docket 115). SITC
asserted Ms. Heil should not be allowed to file a second amended complaint
8

adding Mr. Sherwood, Sr., and SITC because plaintiff’s “claim would be
time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations.” Id. at 30. “[T]he issue
to be determined is whether the claims against Sherwood Family ‘relate
back’ to the original date of the complaint, which was filed September 15,
2009.” Id. at p. 31. The amendment to Ms. Heil’s complaint would relate
back to the filing of her original complaint “if . . . the party to be brought in
by amendment . . . received such notice of the action that it will not be
prejudiced in defending on the merits. . . .” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(c)(1)(C)(i)). “The rationale of Rule 15(c) is that a party who has been
notified of litigation concerning a particular occurrence has been given all
the notice that statutes of limitations were intended to provide.” Id.
(referencing Plubell v. Merck & Co., Inc., 434 F.3d 1070, 1072 (8th Cir.
2006)).
“Sherwood Family does not address whether it had actual or
constructive notice of Ms. Heil’s complaint.” Id. at p. 32. “The question of
whether Ms. Heil’s claims against newly-added defendants will relate back
to the date of her original institution of this lawsuit hinges on whether those
defendants had notice of the lawsuit, actual or constructive. . . . The court
will allow the amendment and any discovery related to the statute of
limitations issue.” Id. at p. 33.

9

“Actual notice” is defined as “[n]otice given directly to, or received
personally by, a party.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 1164 (9th ed. 2009).
Defendant’s objection that Ms. Heil’s “request is vague in terms of what she
means by ‘actual notice.’ . . .” borders on bad faith, a close cousin of
contemptuous conduct. (Docket 181 at p. 7). Defendants well know Ms.
Heil is seeking information from Mr. Sherwood, Sr., so as to ensure her
second amended complaint survives defendants’ statute of limitation claim
by coming within the relation back provisions of Rule 15(c)(1)(C).
Ms. Heil’s interrogatory is clear and requires Mr. Sherwood, Sr., to
identify to the best of his personal knowledge when he, his son, and the
owners, shareholders, officers, directors, employees, or agents of any
Thomas Sherwood, Sr., owned or partially owned entity received actual
notice of Misty Heil’s claim as made to the Department of Labor or filed with
the United States District Court. Mr. Sherwood, Sr.’s, answer was
nonresponsive and evasive. Defendants’ objections are overruled.
Interrogatory no. 3 must be answered.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4: For each individual listed in
Interrogatory No. 3, list each individual’s position and the entity,
or entities the individual is/was employed by, working for, and/or
agent of, etc.
(Docket 177 at p. 10). Defendants’ response was:
The SITC Defendants object to this interrogatory to the extent that
it seeks information concerning Thomas Sherwood, Jr., who is not
a named defendant in these actions. The SITC Defendants cannot
10

answer an interrogatory on behalf of another person or entity. The
SITC Defendants further object to this interrogatory as the term
“etc.” is vague and subject to differing interpretations. Subject to
and without waiving these objections and the objections to
definitions, see answer to number 2.
Id. (emphasis in original).
Plaintiff’s use of the abbreviation “etc.” is not of sufficient clarity to
require the defendants to respond to the “etc.” However, for all the reasons
stated above, defendants’ answer was nonresponsive and evasive.
Defendants’ objections are overruled. Interrogatory no. 4 must be
answered.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5: List which individuals, whether
owners, shareholders, officers, directors, employees, or agents of
any Defendant or any Thomas Sherwood, Sr. or Thomas
Sherwood, Jr. owned or personally owned entity, that received
actual notice of Chelsea Linton’s claim, made to the Department
of Labor or filed with the United States District Court.
Id. Defendants’ response was:
The SITC Defendants object to this interrogatory to the extent that
it seeks information concerning Thomas Sherwood, Jr., who is not
a named defendant in these actions. The SITC Defendants cannot
answer an interrogatory on behalf of another person or entity. The
SITC Defendants further object to this interrogatory as the term
“actual notice” is vague and subject to differing interpretations.
Subject to and without waiving these objections and the objections
to definitions, no owner, shareholder, officer, director, employee
or agent of the SITC Defendants received formal notice of Chelsea
Linton’s claim prior to the SITC Defendants being served in this
lawsuit.
Id. (emphasis in original).

11

The court’s analysis of interrogatory no. 3 is applicable to defendants’
response to this interrogatory. Mr. Sherwood, Sr.’s, answer was
nonresponsive and evasive. Defendants’ objections are overruled.
Interrogatory no. 5 must be answered.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6: For each individual listed in
Interrogatory No. 5, list each individual’s position and the entity,
or entities the individual is/was employed by, working for, and/or
agent of, etc.
Id. at pp. 10-11. The defendants’ response was:
The SITC Defendants object to this interrogatory to the extent that
it seeks information concerning Thomas Sherwood, Jr., who is not
a named defendant in these actions. The SITC Defendants cannot
answer an interrogatory on behalf of another person or entity. The
SITC Defendants further object to this interrogatory as the term
“etc.” is vague and subject to differing interpretations. Subject to
and without waiving these objections and the objections to
definitions, see answer to number 2.
Id. at p. 11 (emphasis in original).
The court’s analysis of interrogatory no. 4 is applicable to defendants’
response to this interrogatory. Mr. Sherwood, Sr.’s, answer was
nonresponsive and evasive. Defendants’ objections are overruled.
Interrogatory no. 6 must be answered.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7: List all individuals in any Pennsylvania
office owned, operated, or managed by any Defendant or any
entity owned or partially owned or managed by Thomas Sherwood,
Sr. or Thomas Sherwood, Jr. who would have answered telephone
calls on behalf of Thomas Sherwood, Sr., Thomas Sherwood, Jr.,
Thomas W. Sherwood, Sr. d/b/a Sherwood Investments and Trust
Company, Sherwood Family Limited Partnership, “Sherwood
Management” or “Sherwood Investments” as used and described
12

in the memorandums and letters attached to Affidavit of Rebecca
L. Mann as Documents 66-13, 66-14, 66-15 and 66-16 in District
of South Dakota Case 5:09-cv-05099-JLV. Following each
individual’s name, indicate all entities that individual received
phone calls or took messages for, or would forward messages to,
for the time period of January 1, 2007 through the present.
Id. at p. 12. Defendants’ response was:
The SITC Defendants object to this interrogatory to the extent that
it seeks information concerning Thomas Sherwood, Jr., who is not
a named defendant in these actions. The SITC Defendants cannot
answer an interrogatory on behalf of another person or entity. The
SITC Defendants further object to this interrogatory on the
grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks
information which is not relevant and not designed to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. The SITC Defendants further
object to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information
not in the possession, custody or control of the SITC Defendants.
Subject to and without waiving these objections and the objections
to definitions, the following individuals answered the telephone for
the SITC Defendants:
Angie Sherwood
Earl Whittle
Maria Campbell
Each of these individuals answered the telephone for SITC, and
ADI, which later was renamed Mr. DVD.
Id. at p. 13.
Plaintiff’s interrogatory is proper to evaluate whether Mr. Sherwood,
Sr.’s, companies or interests constitute an integrated enterprise. Sandoval,
578 F.3d at 793. Mr. Sherwood, Sr.’s, answer was only partially responsive.
Defendants’ objections are overruled. Interrogatory no. 7 must be fully
answered.

13

INTERROGATORY NO. 8: List all businesses, entities,
individuals, and others who received mail, faxes, e-mails,
messages, and was registered to receive service of process for the
following addresses from January 1, 2007 until the present:
(a)
600 N. 3rd Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19123;
(b)
649
West
Glenwood
Avenue,
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19142;
(c)
P.O. Box 16420, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122;
(d)
1407 Main Street, #200, Longmont, Colorado 80501;
(e)
1420 S. Acoma Street, Denver, Colorado 80223; and
(f)
649 West Glenwood / 3500 N. Sixth, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19140.
(Docket 177 at p. 14). Defendants’ response was:
The SITC Defendants object to this interrogatory to the extent that
it seeks information other than as to the SITC Defendants. The
SITC Defendants cannot answer an interrogatory on behalf of
another person or entity. The SITC Defendants further object to
this interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome, seeking
information which is not relevant and not designed to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence and seeking information not in
the possession, custody or control of the SITC Defendants. Subject
to and without waiving these objections and the objections to
definitions, the SITC Defendants received mail at the following
addresses during the time period requested:
P.O. 16420, Philadelphia, PA 19122
649 West Glenwood/3500 N. Sixth, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19140.
The entities listed in response to Interrogatory No. 2 also received
mail at these addresses.
Id. at p. 15.
Mr. Sherwood, Sr.’s, answer was only partially responsive. To best of
his personal knowledge Mr. Sherwood, Sr., shall provide an answer for each

14

of the addresses identified in plaintiff’s interrogatory. Defendants’
objections are overruled. Interrogatory no. 8 must be fully answered.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10: List all businesses, entities,
individuals, and others who are included in the description of “We
have approximately 60 separate companies with interests in
Manufacturing, Distribution, Video Production and of course
approximately 95 Retail Stores similar to Video Blues” as
described in the Sherwood Investment Memorandum dated May
17, 2002 attached to Affidavit of Rebecca L. Mann as Document
66-15 in District of South Dakota Case 5:09-cv-05099-JLV. For
each of these companies, stores, etc., list their address, telephone
and fax numbers used, and number of employees for each year
from January 1, 2007 to January 31, 2011.
(Docket 177 at pp. 15-16). Defendants’ response was:
The SITC Defendants object to this interrogatory on the grounds
that the term “we” is vague and subject to differing
interpretations. The SITC Defendants further object to this
interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly
burdensome and seeking information which is not relevant and
not designed to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it
seeks information that is outside the time period of this lawsuit.
The SITC Defendants further object to this interrogatory to the
extent that it seeks information not in the possession, custody or
control of the SITC Defendants. Subject to and without waiving
these objections and the objections to definitions, the SITC
Defendants refer Plaintiff to the list of entities provided in
response to interrogatory no. 2. The SITC Defendants’
investigation is continuing and updated information will be
provided as appropriate.
Id. at p. 16.
The document referred to in this interrogatory is a memorandum on
letterhead of Sherwood Investment and Trust. (09-5099, Docket 66-15).
The letterhead identifies Gregory B. Shearer as the contact person at the

15

address of the company and the memorandum identifies Mr. Shearer as
“Sherwood Management.” Id. at pp. 1-2. The memorandum makes
reference to “our Company,” and includes the statement “[w]e have
approximately 60 separate companies with interests in Manufacturing,
Distribution, Video Production, and of course approximately 95 Retail
Stores similar to Video Blues.” Id. at p. 1. The term “we” is not vague as
suggested by defendants. Rather, “we” clearly refers to Sherwood
Investment and Trust, the company which will be assuming the loan
referenced in the memorandum.
Defendants assert Mr. Shearer “is not and was not then a[] SITC
employee.” (Docket 181 at p. 8). For purposes of this analysis, the court
must assume that statement is accurate as it was made under oath. That
being said, defendants’ answer is vague as to whether Mr. Shearer was an
employee of one or more of Mr. Sherwood, Sr.’s, other businesses.
Defendants’ objections are overruled. Interrogatory no. 10 must be fully
answered.
INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Has Thomas W. Sherwood, Sr., d/b/a
Sherwood Investments and Trust Company and Sherwood Family
Limited Partnership owned, from 2008 to the present, any interest
in any real property? If so, for each piece of property state:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

The date of acquisition.
The nature of the property, the title thereto, and the
extent of your interest therein.
The postal address of the property.
The legal description of the property.
16

(e)
(f)
(g)

(h)

(i)
(j)

(k)
(l)

(m)

The date and method of acquisition by you, whether
by purchase, gift, inheritance or otherwise.
The purchase price, or, if otherwise acquired, the
value at the time of acquisition.
The portion of the purchase price which was paid in
cash, and the portion(s) which were traded or
financed.
The name and address of sellers or persons from
whom title was acquired, and the relationship
between them and you.
The approximate current market value and income
tax basis thereof.
The extent of each encumbrance, the name of the
secured party and the amount and rate of periodic
payments.
The amount of the current year’s real estate taxes.
If sold by you or on your behalf, the date sold and
consideration therefore. If you still receive payments
for same, or hold a note or other security, state the
current balance, manner of payment and nature of
security.
Do you receive any rental or lease from any property?
If so, state for each the amount and source and
nature of rental or lease agreement. The name and
address of any person who has made an appraisal or
has for any reason stated the approximate value of
the property within the last two years?

(Docket 177 at pp. 15-16). Defendants’ response was:
The SITC Defendants object to this interrogatory as overbroad,
unduly burdensome, seeking information which is not relevant
and not designed to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,
and seeking information not in the possession, custody or control
of the SITC Defendants. Subject to and without waiving these
objections, see documents regarding real property for Belle Starr
and Angie’s that will be produced in response to the Request for
Documents below.
Id. at p. 18 (emphasis in original).

17

Plaintiff argues “[e]vidence that other Sherwood owned businesses
were located on SFLP and SITC land will help prove that the Belle Starr and
Angie’s were set up as pieces in the Sherwoods’ larger integrated enterprise,
not as standalone businesses.” (Docket 177 at p. 19). The interrogatory is
proper to evaluate whether Mr. Sherwood, Sr.’s, companies constitute an
integrated enterprise. Sandoval, 578 F.3d at 793.
Mr. Sherwood, Sr.’s, answer was only partially responsive and was
evasive. Defendants’ objections are overruled. Interrogatory no. 15 must be
fully answered.
INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Has Thomas W. Sherwood d/b/a
Sherwood Investments and Trust Company and Sherwood Family
Limited Partnership at any time within the last five (5) years made
or caused to be made any financial statement resume of
Defendants’ financial worth or list of assets for any purpose? If so,
state the date made, the purchase for which it was made, and the
name and address of the institution to which it was provided.
Attach a copy of such statement to your answers to these
Interrogatories. In the alternative, please state your financial net
worth for the last five (5) years.
(Docket 177 at p. 19). Defendants’ response was:
The SITC Defendants object to this interrogatory as overbroad,
unduly burdensome, seeking information which is not relevant
and not designed to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,
and seeking information not in the possession, custody or control
of the SITC Defendants. The SITC Defendants further object to
this interrogatory as it seeks information that is confidential and
proprietary to the SITC Defendants.
Id.

18

Plaintiff seeks financial information from Mr. Sherwood, Sr., in
support of her punitive damage claim and as part of “her integrated
enterprise theory.” Id. at p. 18. Defendants object to this interrogatory
asserting “[a] corporation’s net worth is irrelevant to the assessment of
punitive damages against it.” (Docket 181 at p. 9) (citing TXO Production
Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., 509 U.S. 443, 491 (1993) (O’Connor,
White and Souter, JJ., dissenting). Defendants also argue “Heil cannot
show by clear and convincing evidence that the SITC Defendants acted
maliciously.” Id. at p. 10.
There is no privilege for “confidential or proprietary” documents.
Simply because a document may be “proprietary” or “confidential” does not
protect it from discovery. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1), it is defendants’
duty to move for a protective order. “[T]he party opposing discovery must
show that the information is a ‘trade secret or other confidential research,
development, or commercial information,’ under Rule 26(c)(7) and that its
disclosure would be harmful to the party’s interest in the property.” In re
Remington Arms Co., Inc., 952 F.2d 1029, 1032 (8th Cir. 1991). “The
burden then shifts to the party seeking discovery to show that the
information is relevant to the subject matter of the lawsuit and is necessary
to prepare the case for trial.” Id. “If the party seeking discovery fails to
show both the relevance of the requested information and the need for the

19

material in developing its case, there is no reason for the discovery request
to be granted, and the [confidential materials] are not to be revealed.” Id.
“If the party seeking discovery shows both relevance and need, the court
must weigh the injury that disclosure might cause to the property against
the moving party’s need for the information.” Id. The court then fashions
the manner or conditions under which the particular documents are
disclosed to plaintiff or are available for other purposes. Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(c).
“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that
is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. . . . Broad discovery is an
important tool for the litigant, and so ‘[r]elevant information need not be
admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence.’ ” WWP, Inc. v. Wounded Warriors
Family Support, Inc., 628 F.3d 1032, 1039 (8th Cir. 2011) (citing Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). Rule 26 confers broad discretion on the court to decide
when discovery is appropriate and how to manage discovery issues.
Assertion of a privilege or protection from discovery is governed by
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. The rule requires in part:
When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable by
claiming that the information is privileged or subject to protection
as trial-preparation material, the party must:
(i)

expressly make the claim; and

20

(ii)

describe
the
nature
of
the
documents,
communications, or tangible things not produced or
disclosed--and do so in a manner that, without
revealing information itself privileged or protected,
will enable other parties to assess the claim.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). This rule contemplates a party must file its privilege
log simultaneously with the assertion of a privilege in response to a
discovery request. See St. Paul Reinsurance Company, Ltd., 197 F.R.D. at
628 (“The party asserting the privilege meets its burden of providing a
factual basis for asserting the privileges when it produces a detailed
privilege log stating the basis of the claimed privilege for each document in
question, together with an accompanying explanatory affidavit of its . . .
counsel.”) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).
Defendants did not assert a qualified privilege as the basis for nondisclosure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5(a)(I). The court concludes defendants
waived all privileges related to the answers and documents requested by
failing to assert a valid privilege claim in a timely or effective manner. St.
Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd., 197 F.R.D. at 641.
Defendants have not moved for a protective order in support of their
objection to interrogatory no. 16. However, there is already a protective
order in place in this litigation. See Docket 105. SITC was a party to the
joint motion requesting the court to enter a protective order. Id. at p. 17.
Certainly defendants Mr. Sherwood, Sr., and the SFLP are aware of this

21

protective order because the same attorneys who represent SITC also
represent these additional defendants which are closely affiliated with SITC.
Id. The defendants could request confirmation from both plaintiffs’ counsel
that any information released in response to Ms. Heil’s discovery demands
is subject to the terms of the protective order. Refusing to answer the
interrogatory is without merit. All objections on this basis are denied.
Defendants’ brief argues Ms. Heil cannot prove her punitive damages
claim. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 authorizes an award of punitive
damages for Title VII actions when an employer has engaged in intentional
discrimination and acted “with malice or with reckless indifference to the
federally protected rights” of an employee. Kolstad v. American Dental
Association, 527 U.S. 526, 534 (1999) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1)) (“A
complaining party may recover punitive damages under this section against
a respondent (other than a government, government agency or political
subdivision) if the complaining party demonstrates that the respondent
engaged in a discriminatory practice or discriminatory practices with malice
or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved
individual.”) (emphasis in original). “Punitive damages are appropriate for
victims of Title VII if the plaintiff has shown that the employer engaged in
intentional discrimination and acted with ‘malice or with reckless

22

indifference’ to the plaintiff's federally protected rights.” Dominic v.
DeVilbiss Air Power Co., 493 F.3d 968, 974 (8th Cir. 2007) (citing 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981a(b)(1); Kolstad, 527 U.S. at 526). “Malice and reckless indifference
can be shown by demonstrating that an employer discriminated ‘in the face
of a perceived risk that its actions will violate federal law.’ ” Id. (citing
Kolstad, 527 U.S. at 536). “This standard refers to the employer’s state of
mind regarding its knowledge that it ‘may be acting in violation of federal
law, not its awareness that it is engaging in discrimination.’ ” Id. (citing
Kolstad, 527 U.S. at 535). “Even if the plaintiff can show that individuals in
the company demonstrated the requisite intent, punitive damages are only
appropriate if such intent can be imputed to the employer.” Id. (citing
Kolstad, 527 U.S. at 539).
The right to punitive damages is a jury question. E.E.O.C. v.
Siouxland Oral Maxillofacial Surgery Associates, L.L.P, 578 F.3d 921, 926
(8th Cir. 2009). Based on the extensive record and prior orders in this case,
the court finds plaintiff is allowed to complete discovery of the worth of Mr.
Sherwood, Sr., and his companies in support of plaintiff’s punitive damages
claim. See Dockets 67, 72, 115, 120 & 145.
Defendants also resist disclosure of Mr. Sherwood, Sr.’s, historical
financial information as irrelevant to plaintiff’s punitive damages claim.
(Docket 181 at p. 10 n. 3). Mr. Sherwood, Sr.’s, financial information is

23

relevant to determine whether his companies are part of an integrated
enterprise. Sandoval, 578 F.3d at 793. Defendants’ objections are
overruled. Interrogatory no. 16 must be answered.
INTERROGATORY NO. 17: State whether any of the entities
described in Interrogatories No. 1 and 2 have adopted a personnel
policy covering sexual harassment and state the date that policy
was enacted. Attach a copy of such policy or policies to your
answers to these Interrogatories.
(Docket 177 at p. 21). Defendant’s response was:
The SITC Defendants object to this interrogatory on the ground
that it seeks information concerning entities other than the SITC
Defendants. The SITC Defendants cannot answer an interrogatory
on behalf of another person or entity. Subject to and without
waiving these objections and the objections to definitions, the
SITC Defendants have not adopted a sexual harassment policy.
Id.
Ms. Heil seeks the information as part of her integrated enterprise
claim. Id. Plaintiff’s interrogatory is proper to evaluate whether Mr.
Sherwood, Sr.’s, companies constitute an integrated enterprise. Sandoval,
578 F.3d at 793. Mr. Sherwood, Sr., must respond to this interrogatory as
the owner of the 29 companies identified in his response to interrogatory no.
2. Defendants’ objections are overruled.
INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Identify:
(a)
(b)

Each stock, bond, security, real estate, or financial
instrument you own and its current value;
Each bank or credit union you currently utilize
identifying from each institution the type of account
utilized, its purpose, location (whether domestic or
24

(c)
(d)

offshore or foreign) and the current value of each
account;
Any other investment, REIT, or other financial tool
you utilize or hold which has value or is an asset.
Each account, as referenced in Interrogatory No. 19
that you have held since 2007.

(Docket 177 at p. 22). Defendants’ response was:
The SITC Defendants object to this interrogatory on the ground
that it seeks information concerning entities other than the SITC
Defendants. The SITC Defendants cannot answer an interrogatory
on behalf of another person or entity. The SITC Defendants further
object to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad,
unduly burdensome and seeks information which is not relevant
and not designed to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
The SITC Defendants further object to this interrogatory as it
seeks information that is confidential and proprietary to the SITC
Defendants.
Id.
This interrogatory specifically requests information from Mr.
Sherwood, Sr., as “you.” Defendants’ objection is without merit. For the
reasons stated in the analysis of interrogatory no. 16, the remainder of
defendants’ objection is overruled. Interrogatory no. 19 must be answered.
INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Identify and describe all other formal
or informal complaints of sexual harassment which have been
asserted against any of the entities described in Interrogatories
No.1 and 2 or their employees. Include at minimum: The name,
address, and telephone number of complainant, the name(s) of
alleged harasser(s), the job titles and departments of alleged
harassers and victims, the date of each complaint, the description
of alleged harassment, and the outcome of complaint proceedings.
(Docket 177 at p. 23). Defendants’ response was:

25

The SITC Defendants object to this interrogatory on the ground
that it seeks information concerning entities other than the SITC
Defendants. The SITC Defendants cannot answer an interrogatory
on behalf of another person or entity. The SITC Defendants further
object to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad,
unduly burdensome, as it does not specify a time period, and
seeks information which is not relevant and not designed to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without
waiving these objections and the objections to definitions, there
have been no complaints of sexual harassment filed against either
of the SITC Defendants other than the instant action.
Id.
Ms. Heil seeks the information as part of her integrated enterprise
claim. Id. “Evidence of harassment of nonparties can be probative in a
hostile work environment case, because it can bolster the plaintiffs’
credibility and assist the jury in evaluating the company’s motives as it
determines the appropriateness of punitive damages.” Bennett v. Nucor
Corp., 656 F.3d 802, 813 (8th Cir. 2011). “Whether this probative value is
substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice is a fact-intensive question
that must be answered by the district court in the course of trial.” Id.
Mr. Sherwood, Sr.’s, answer was only partially responsive and was
evasive. The interrogatory requests information about “formal or informal
complaints of sexual harassment” and is not limited to “filed” complaints to
which defendants limited their answer. Defendants’ objections are
overruled. Interrogatory no. 20 must be fully answered.

26

INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Identify what person or entity owns
(in whole or part) the Diving Horse Cabaret and Steakhouse in
Atlantic City, New Jersey. For each entity, please state:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)

(h)

(i)
(j)

(k)
(l)

(m)

(n)

The date of acquisition.
The nature of the property, the title thereto, and the
extent of your interest therein.
The postal address of the property.
The legal description of the property.
The date and method of acquisition by you, whether
by purchase, gift, inheritance or otherwise.
The purchase price, or, if otherwise acquired, the
value at the time of acquisition.
The portion of the purchase price which was paid in
cash, and the portion(s) which were traded or
financed.
The name and address of sellers or persons from
whom title was acquired, and the relationship
between them and you.
The approximate current market value and income
tax basis thereof.
The extent of each encumbrance, the name of the
secured party and the amount and rate of periodic
payments.
The amount of the current year’s real estate taxes.
If sold by you or on your behalf, the date sold and
consideration therefore. If you still receive payments
for same, or hold a note or other security, state the
current balance, manner of payment and nature of
security.
Do you receive any rental or lease from any property?
If so, state for each the amount and source and
nature of rental or lease agreement.
The name and address of any person who has made
an appraisal or has for any reason stated the
approximate value of the property within the last two
years.

(Docket 177 at pp. 24-25). Defendants’ response was:
The SITC Defendants object to this interrogatory on the ground
that it seeks information concerning entities other than the SITC
Defendants. The SITC Defendants further object to this
27

interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly
burdensome and seek information which is not relevant and not
designed to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject
to and without waiving these objections and the objections to
definitions, the SITC Defendants did not and do not own the
business that goes by the fictitious name of “Diving Horse Cabaret
& Steakhouse.”
Id. at p. 25.
In their response to plaintiff’s motion to compel, defendants represent
“[i]t is the understanding of the SITC Defendants that the Diving Horse
Cabaret & Steakhouse is a fictitious name and that the business is owned
solely by Angie Sherwood.” (Docket 181 at p. 11). This declaration is a
representation of counsel and not a sworn answer by Mr. Sherwood, Sr.
The interrogatory asked Mr. Sherwood, Sr., if he knows who owns the
business in question, not solely whether he or the SITC defendants owned
any interest in the business. If the declaration of counsel is the extent of
Mr. Sherwood, Sr.’s, knowledge, he shall provide that answer in response to
this interrogatory.
Mr. Sherwood, Sr.’s, answer was only partially responsive and
appears to be evasive. Defendants’ objections are overruled. Interrogatory
no. 21 must be fully answered.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Produce all written
messages, recorded telephone messages including voicemails, and
all telephone records for Terry Blood’s Denver office from January
1, 2007 to September 30, 2008.
(Docket 177 at pp. 26-27). Defendants’ response was:
28

The SITC Defendants object to this document request as it
requests documents about an individual who was not an employee
of the SITC Defendants and, therefore, such documents are not in
the possession, custody or control of the SITC Defendants. The
SITC Defendants further object to this request as it seeks
information which is not relevant and not designed to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving
these objections and the objections to definitions, there are no
documents in the possession, custody or control of the SITC
Defendants that are responsive to this request.
Id. at p. 27.
Jason Orelup, the manager of Belle Starr, was supervised by Terry
Blood. (Docket 67 at p. 3). Mr. Blood reported to Mr. Sherwood, Sr. Id.
The status of the record is that Mr. Sherwood, Sr., operated Belle Starr
through SITC. Id. at p. 20; see also Docket 115 at p. 2. “Ms. Heil asserted
that several of her co-workers told her they had ‘repeatedly reported [Jason
Olerup’s] behavior to the regional manager in Denver, Terry [Blood].’ ”
(Docket 35 at p. 11) (internal citation omitted). “Mr. Blood participated in a
high-level meeting shortly after Ms. Heil filed a criminal complaint against
Mr. Olerup, to discuss Ms. Heil’s allegations against Mr. Olerup.” Id. at p.
12 (internal citation omitted). “In connection with the DHR’s [South Dakota
Department of Human Rights] investigation, the defendants provided an
affidavit from Mr. Blood, dated January 15, 2009, in which Mr. Blood
described his role in the investigation into Ms. Heil’s allegations and how he
learned of her accusations against Mr. Olerup.” Id. (internal citations

29

omitted). Mr. Blood worked for Sundial Distributors, which was owned by
Mr. Sherwood, Sr. (Docket 177 at p. 27) (internal citations omitted).
Defendants assert “any telephone records maintained by the SITC
Defendants at the Denver Officer were destroyed [by water damage].”
(Dockets 181 at p. 12 & 182 at ¶¶ 2-5). Defendants argue they “cannot be
compelled to produce documents that are not in their possession, custody
or control. Plaintiff could have and should have subpoenaed [records from]
the phone company.” (Docket 181 at p. 12). Ms. Heil counters the
defendants never disclosed the name of the company in whose name the
telephone records would exist or the name of the telephone company used.
(Docket 183 at p. 10).
Production of documents is required when those materials are in a
party’s “possession, custody, or control . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1).
“Inspection can be had if the party to whom the request is made has the
legal right to obtain the document, even though in fact it has no copy.” 8B
Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice
and Procedure § 2210 (2010). “ ‘Control’ is defined as the legal right,
authority or ability to obtain documents upon demand.” United States
International Trade Commission v. ASAT, Inc., 411 F.3d 245, 254 (D.C. Cir.
2005) (citing Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure

30

§ 2210, other citations omitted). There is no question Mr. Sherwood, Sr., as
the owner of both SITC and Sundial Distributors, has the authority to
obtain telephone records from the telephone company for Sundial’s Denver
office. “[T]he overlapping . . . structure of the two companies weighs heavily
in favor of a finding of control for the purpose of document production. . . .
the two companies have ‘interlocking management structures’ which is a
key factor in determining control.” Orthoarm, Inc. v. Forestadent USA, Inc.,
4:06-CV-730 CAS, 2007 WL 1796214 at * 2 (E.D. Mo. June 19, 2007)
(internal citation omitted).
Defendants’ objection to request no. 2 is overruled. Defendants are
required by Rule 34 to produce the records requested.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Produce all written and
electronic documents sent to or received from the Belle Starr
Saloon and Casino, Angie’s, Inc., Thomas Sherwood, Jr., and
Thomas Sherwood, Sr. from January 1, 2007 through December
31, 2010.
(Docket 177 at p. 28). Defendants’ response was:
The SITC Defendants object to this document request to the extent
that it seeks documents from individuals and entities other than
the SITC Defendants. The SITC Defendants cannot produce
documents on behalf of another person or entity. The SITC
Defendants further object to this request as it is overbroad,
unduly burdensome and seeks information which is not relevant
and not designed to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving those objections and the objections
to definitions, there are no documents in the possession, custody
or control of the SITC Defendants that are responsive to this
request.
Id.
31

Plaintiff argues a number of witnesses “testified to the existence of
correspondence between the Belle Starr and Tom Sherwood Sr.” Id.
Plaintiff moves the court to compel production of the requested documents
from Mr. Sherwood, Sr., wherever those documents may be retained, stored
or possessed. Id. at p. 29.
Defendants’ response is limited to the SITC defendants. (Docket 181
at p. 12). Defendants’ objections are overruled. For the reasons stated
above, if Mr. Sherwood, Sr., possesses any of the requested documents in
any one or more of the other 29 entities which he owns or controls, a further
response and production is required.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Produce all invoices,
contracts, requests or payments for services, independent
contractor agreements, and other documents relevant to services
provided to or for the Belle Starr Saloon & Casino, Inc., and
Angie’s, Inc. for the time period of January 1, 2007 through
January 31, 2011.
(Docket 177 at p. 29). Defendants’ response was:
The SITC Defendants object to this document request as it
requests documents about entities that are not owned by the
SITC Defendants and, therefore, such documents are not in the
possession, custody or control of the SITC Defendants. The SITC
Defendants further object to this request as it seeks information
which is not relevant and not designed to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving these
objections and the objections to definitions, there are no
documents in the possession, custody or control of the SITC
Defendants that are responsive to your request.
Id.

32

Plaintiff argues “[r]ecords of invoices bills, and payments between the
Belle Starr and Angie’s to the Sherwoods’ other companies are particularly
relevant to the interrelation of operations element of Plaintiff’s integrated
enterprise theory.” Id. Defendants assert no records are in the possession
of the SITC defendants. (Docket 181 at p. 12). Defendants’ objections are
overruled. For the reasons stated above, if Mr. Sherwood, Sr., possesses
any of the requested documents in any one or more of the other 29 entities
which he owns or controls, a further response and production is required.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: All telephone records for
outgoing and incoming calls and faxes, indicating the outgoing
and incoming telephone number or fax number, from the Belle
Starr Saloon & Casino, Inc. and Angie’s, Inc., from January 1,
2007 through January 31, 2011.
(Docket 177 at p. 31). Defendants’ response was:
The SITC Defendants object to this document request as it
requests documents from entities that are not owned by the SITC
Defendants and, therefore, such documents are not in the
possession, custody or control of the SITC Defendants. The SITC
Defendants further object to this request as it seeks information
which is not relevant and not designed to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving these
objections and the objections to definitions, there are no
documents in the possession, custody or control of the SITC
Defendants that are responsive to your request.
Id.
Plaintiff seeks production of documents “between the Companies in
the Sherwoods’ empire and the Belle Starr or Angie’s.” Id. at p. 32.
Defendants assert no records are in the possession of the SITC defendants.
33

(Docket 181 at p. 12). Defendants’ objections are overruled. For the
reasons stated previously, if Mr. Sherwood, Sr., possesses any of the
requested documents in any one or more of the other 29 entities which he
owns or controls, a further response and production is required.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Produce any and all
documents exchanged between Belle Starr Saloon & Casino, Inc.,
Angie’s, Inc., or any of its’ employees and Sherwood Family
Limited Partnership, Thomas W. Sherwood, Sr. d/b/a Sherwood
Investments and Trust Company, Thomas Sherwood, Sr., Thomas
Sherwood, Jr., TWS, Sherwood Enterprises, Sherwood
Management, ADI, and Sundial, from January 1, 2007 through
January 31, 2011.
(Docket 177 at p. 31). Defendants’ response was:
The SITC Defendants object to this request to the extent that it
seeks documents from any individual or entity other than the
SITC Defendants. The SITC Defendants cannot produce
documents on behalf of another person or entity. The SITC
Defendants further object to this request as it is overbroad,
unduly burdensome and seeks documents that are not relevant
and not designed to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
The SITC Defendants further object to this request to the extent
that it is duplicative of request no. 3. Subject to and without
waiving those objections and the objections to definitions, see
documents that will be produced in response to request no. 3.
Id.
Plaintiff seeks production of documents “between the Companies in
the Sherwoods’ empire and the Belle Starr or Angie’s.” Id. at p. 32.
Defendants argue this request for production is not only duplicitous of the
earlier request but, in addition, the same documents “will be produced in
response to request no. 3.” Id. at p. 31. Interestingly, however, defendants’
34

response to request no. 3 was “there are no documents in the possession,
custody or control of the SITC Defendants that are responsive to this
request.” Id. at p. 28.
Defendants’ objections are overruled. While some parts of requests
no. 3 and no. 10 may result in a duplication of production, for the reasons
stated above, if Mr. Sherwood, Sr., possesses any of the requested
documents in any one or more of the other 29 entities which he owns or
controls, and which are not produced in response to request no. 3, a further
response and production is required.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Produce a true and
correct balance sheet setting forth therein in detail all assets and
liabilities or any financial statement identified in your answer to
Interrogatory No. 16.
(Docket 177 at p. 32). Defendants’ response was:
The SITC Defendants object to this request to the extent that it
seeks documents regarding any entity other than the SITC
Defendants. The SITC Defendants cannot produce documents on
behalf of another person or entity. The SITC Defendants further
object to this request as it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and
seeks documents that are not relevant and not designed to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence, and seeks documents that
are confidential and proprietary to the SITC Defendants.
Id.
The SITC defendants provide no further argument or legal authority to
support their objections. See Docket 181. Defendants’ objections are
overruled. For all the reasons stated in the analysis of interrogatory no. 16,

35

Mr. Sherwood, Sr., is required to produce the documents indicated in
request no. 15.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Produce “your” tax
returns for 2008-2013.
(Docket 177 at p. 32). Defendants’ response was:
The SITC Defendants object to this request to the extent that it
seeks documents regarding any entity other than the SITC
Defendants. The SITC Defendants cannot produce documents on
behalf of another person or entity. The SITC Defendants further
object to this request as it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and
seeks documents that are not relevant and not designed to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence and seeks documents that
are confidential and proprietary to the SITC Defendants.
Id.
The SITC defendants provide no further argument or legal authority to
support their objections. See Docket 181. Defendants’ objections are
overruled. For all the reasons stated in the analysis of interrogatory no. 16,
Mr. Sherwood, Sr., is required to produce his complete tax returns for the
years indicated.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Produce any document
that “you” have relied upon or utilized for purposes of filing an
income tax return since 2008 including any and all financial
statements.
(Docket 177 at p. 32). Defendants’ response was:
The SITC Defendants object to this request to the extent that it
seeks documents regarding any entity other than the SITC
Defendants. The SITC Defendants cannot produce documents on
behalf of another person or entity. The SITC Defendants further
object to this request as it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and
seeks documents that are not relevant and not designed to lead to
36

the discovery of admissible evidence and seeks documents that
are confidential and proprietary to the SITC Defendants.
Id. at pp. 32-33.
The SITC defendants provide no further argument or legal authority to
support their objections. See Docket 181. Defendants’ objections are
overruled. For all the reasons stated in the analysis of interrogatory no. 16,
Mr. Sherwood, Sr., is required to produce the documents indicated in
request for production no. 17.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: Produce any document,
including but not limited to financial statements for each of the
entities identified in Interrogatories No. 1 and 2 above, that would
list, identify, or reference “your” net worth or assets since 2008.
(Docket 171 at p. 33). Defendants’ response was:
The SITC Defendants object to this request to the extent that it
seeks documents regarding any entity other than the SITC
Defendants. The SITC Defendants cannot produce documents on
behalf of another person or entity. The SITC Defendants further
object to this request as it is overbroad, unduly burdensome,
seeks documents that are not relevant and not designed to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence and seeks documents that
are confidential and proprietary to the SITC Defendants.
Id.
The SITC defendants provide no further argument or legal authority to
support their objections. See Docket 181. Defendants’ objections are
overruled. For all the reasons stated in the analysis of interrogatory no. 16,
Mr. Sherwood, Sr., is required to produce the documents indicated in
request for production no. 18.
37

ORDER
Based on the above analysis, it is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel (Docket 176) is granted in
part and denied in part consistent with this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before March 11, 2014, Mr.
Sherwood, Sr., shall provide answers and produce the documents requested
by plaintiff’s interrogatories and requests for production required by this
order.
Dated February 25, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Jeffrey L. Viken
JEFFREY L. VIKEN
CHIEF JUDGE

38