Zeek Rewards: Receiver Responds in Opposition to Gilmond et al Stay of Discovery Motion; Gilmond Files Reply in Support

The Receiver, though his attorney has filed Opposition to the Motion to Stay Discovery in the “Bell v Disner, et al” civil case. Part way down the fist page, we have this:

Over four months later and after receiving an agreed good faith extension of 30 days to provide their discovery,1 the Gilmond Defendants have moved (just before their discovery responses were due) to stay discovery until the Court resolves the pending motions to dismiss. Also, they have in effect unilaterally granted themselves the stay they have requested by refusing to produce the requested documents by the October 6 deadline in violation of the Scheduling Order, the Court’s specific oral directives at the case management conference, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Receiver has conferred with Gilmond Defendants’ counsel and requested that they reconsider their position and refusal to produce documents in light of the Court’s clear prior statements, but those efforts were unsuccessful. The Court should deny the motion to stay and require the moving defendants to produce the requested documents immediately.

A bit farther down it says:

Defendants base their motion on their argument that there may be no need for discovery because the Court may find that it must unwind the entire RVG Receivership because of an argued lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 83 at 4). As explained in detail in the Receiver’s filings on this issue, see (Doc. No. 78-1), this argument is meritless because federal courts plainly have jurisdiction over SEC actions that make claims under federal securities laws and can appoint equity receivers in those matters. 3 Consequently, there is no reason to stay discovery until the Court acknowledges its clear jurisdiction to appoint a Receiver in this matter.

There’s more and I have uploaded this filing and a Hearing Transcript attached to it onto the Files website.


And we also have a filing from the “Gilmond Defendants”, better known as Trudy Gilmond, Trudy Gilmond, LLC, Jerry Napier, and Darren Miller which postulates:

  • The Receiver’s Response does not provide legal justification for denying the Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery, and a favorable resolution of the Nexsen Pruet Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss would eliminate the need for discovery.
  • The discovery that the Receiver served on the Nexsen Pruet Defendants is principally relevant to his prosecution of the class claims. Therefore, the Nexsen Pruet Defendants should not bear the cost of responding to it.
  • Although (without a stay) the Receiver can conduct unbridled discovery, the Defendants cannot yet conduct discovery on behalf of a potential class. This is not equitable.
  • A stay of further discovery will not delay case resolution.

While I am not an attorney nor have I portrayed one on TV, it all sounds like complete blathering; but them, not of their filings make little sense to me. Lucky for them, I am not deciding this case.

I have uploaded this filing, which has a copy of the Receiver’s First questions and Document Production attachment with it. Lots of good info there.