Johnson v. Standard Registrar and Transfer

Filing 84

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 81 Motion for Short Form Discovery. No later than March 21, 2025, Defendants' shall file a Declaration on the court docket indicating they do not have in their possession, custody or control, any documents that are responsive to Plaintiffs' disputed discovery requests. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 3/11/2025. (mh)

Case 2:22-cv-00591-AMA-DBP

Document 84
of 4

Filed 03/11/25

PageID.1627

Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH

ROBERT RYAN JOHNSON, as Executor
and Representative of the Estate of
Terrence Blair Hunter, WHITEHALL
TRUST, a Bahamian private trust
company, and TROPICAL II VENTURES
LTD.,

RULING & ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFFS’ SHORT FORM DISCOVERY
MOTION

Plaintiffs,
vs.
STANDARD REGISTRAR &
TRANSFER COMPANY, INC., a Utah
Corporation, THE DEPOSITORY
TRUST COMPANY, and CEDE AND
COMPANY,

Case No. 2:22-cv-00591
United States District Judge Ann Marie McIff
Allen
Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead

Defendants.
This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A). 1 Currently before the court is Plaintiff Robert Ryan Johnson, Whitehall Trust
and Tropical II Ventures Limited’s (collectively “Plaintiffs”) Short Form Discovery Motion
(“Motion”) to Compel Defendant Standard Registrar & Transfer Company (“Standard
Registrar”), The Depository Trust Company (“Depository Trust”) and Cede and Company
(“Cede”) (collectively “Defendants”) to respond to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production 8, Request
for Production 21 and Request for Production 22 (referred to as “disputed discovery matters”). 2
1

ECF No. 13, Order Referring Case.

2

ECF No. 81, Plaintiffs’ Short Form Discovery Motion.

-1-

Case 2:22-cv-00591-AMA-DBP

Document 84
of 4

Filed 03/11/25

PageID.1628

Page 2

DISPUTES
This discovery dispute is framed by conflicting interpretations and an absence of
meaningful communication between the parties. First, Plaintiffs certify they met and conferred
with Defendants to address the disputed discovery matters on January 22 and January 23, 2025. 3
However, while Defendants agree they spoke with Plaintiffs on January 23 to discuss the
existence of a formal agreement between Standard Registrar and Depository Trust (i.e. Request
for Production 22), Defendants indicate Plaintiffs did not raise concerns about any other disputed
discovery matters at that time.
Next, Plaintiffs assert Standard Registrar “has produced only 5 pages documenting
transfers of approximately 3 % of the shares.” 4 Defendants, on the other hand, contend Standard
Register has produced “nearly 600 documents in this case, not 5.” 5
Finally, and perhaps the issue at the crux of this Motion, is Plaintiffs’ claim that
Defendants have not provided any written contracts between the individual Defendants. 6
Plaintiffs reason because no contracts were provided, Defendants must be improperly
withholding information. Defendants counter they “have no other documents to produce” and
argue they do “not have a copy of any formal agreement” between Standard Registrar and
Depository Trust.

3

ECF No. 81 at 4.

4

Id. at 3.

5

ECF No. 83 at 2.

6

ECF No. 81 at 3.

-2-

Case 2:22-cv-00591-AMA-DBP

Document 84
of 4

Filed 03/11/25

PageID.1629

Page 3

RULING & ORDER
Given the divergent viewpoints, sending the case back to the parties for more fulsome
compliance with Rule 37-1 seems unproductive. 7 That said, the court cannot order the
production of documents that Defendants assert do not exist. Under these circumstances, it is this
court’s practice to request Defendants to file a Declaration indicating they do not have, within
their possession, custody or control, any documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ disputed discovery
matters. 8 Accordingly, the court ORDERS as follows:
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Short Form Discovery is DENIED. 9
No later than March 21, 2025, Defendants’ shall file a Declaration on the court docket
indicating they do not have in their possession, custody or control, any documents that are
responsive to Plaintiffs’ disputed discovery requests.

7

DUCivR 37-1. Local Rule 37-1 governs short form discovery disputes and requires the parties to make

“reasonable efforts to resolve a discovery dispute . . . before seeking court assistance . . . At a minimum,
reasonable efforts must include a prompt written communication sent to the opposing party:
(A) identifying the discovery disclosure or request at issue, the response, and specifying why the
response or objection is inadequate; and
(B) requesting to meet and confer, either in person or by telephone, and include suggested
dates and times . . . Importantly, any motion filed must “include a certification that states (i) the parties
made reasonable efforts to reach agreement on the disputed matters; (ii) the date, time, and method of the
reasonable efforts; and (iii) the names of all participating parties or attorneys”.
8

The parties are reminded of their continuing obligation of supplementation with respect to the discovery

of documents responsive to a party’s existing discovery requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).
9

ECF No. 81.

-3-

Case 2:22-cv-00591-AMA-DBP

Document 84
of 4

Filed 03/11/25

PageID.1630

Dated this 11th day of March 2025.
BY THE COURT:
Dustin B. Pead
U.S. District Magistrate Judge

-4-

Page 4