Klair et al v. Long et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
PATTI KLAIR, ROBERT MERS, ROBERT
BARNES, ERIC CARNRITE, ELIZABETH
HILL-D’ALESSANDRO, ROBERT
TANNEHILL, DITAS TANNEHILL, JOSE
REMENTERIA, TEENA REMENTERIA,
CHARLES BRAUER, LAURA BRAUER,
KAREN MARION, KATHERINE MADERA,
CARL MCQUEARY, LYNN MCQUEARY,
DONALD PATTERSON, KURTIS TRENT
MANNING, TONY SCHAKER, PATRICK
WHITE, HILDEGARD WHITE, QUEST
REALTY TRUST, SECURE STORAGE,
LLC, KURTIS TRENT MANNING LIVING
TRUST,
Plaintiffs,
V.
KEVIN LONG, MILLCREEK
COMMERCIAL LLC, COLLIERS
INTERNATIONAL, ANDREW BELL,
TREVOR WEBER, SPENCER TAYLOR,
BLAKE MCDOUGAL, SCOTT
RUTHERFORD, EQUITY SUMMIT
GROUP, ELEVATED SUMMIT GROUP,
ELEVATED 1031, MILLROCK
INVESTMENT FUND 1, LLC, MILLROCK
INVESTMENT FUND 1 MANAGEMENT,
LLC, KGL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
PLLC, BRENT SMITH, MARY STREET,
CAMS REALTY, LLC, MOUNTAIN WEST
COMMERCIAL REALTY, LLC, STEVE
CATON, SARC US, INC., SCOTT KING,
MERIT COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE,
LLC, MARK MACHLIS, LADY MIRA
BLUE MACHLIS, HELLO BELLO, LLC,
SAMUEL DUKE, KGL ADVISORS, LLC
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING IN PART AND
GRANTING IN PART DISCOVERY
MOTION [137]
Case No. 2:23-cv-00407-AMA-CMR
Judge Ann Marie McIff Allen
Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero
Case 2:23-cv-00407-AMA-CMR Document 151 Filed 11/03/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 5

2
This matter is referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (ECF 13).
Before the court is Defendant Trevor Weber’s (Defendant Weber or Weber) Short Form Discovery
Motion (Motion) (ECF 137). The court has also reviewed Plaintiffs’ response (ECF 139). The
court finds that oral argument is not necessary and decides this matter on the written memoranda.
See DUCivR 7-1(g). For the reasons set forth below, the court, having carefully considered the
parties’ relevant filings and case law, enters the following Memorandum Decision and Order.
I. 	BACKGROUND
This case arises from an investment opportunity led by Defendants who are alleged to have
used fraudulent omissions, misstatements, lies, and other tactics to secure investors (ECF 114 at
1–6). The present motion arises from Defendant Weber’s allegation that Plaintiffs have engaged
in ongoing delays in the discovery process (ECF 137 at 2).
On March 14, 2025, the parties met and conferred to discuss issues regarding the adequacy
of Plaintiffs’ responses to Weber’s discovery requests (ECF 137 at 4). At issue are Interrogatories
Nos. 4–5, 8–10; and RFP Nos. 1, 4, and 6–11 (ECF 137). Plaintiffs agreed to supplement their
responses by March 31, 2025 (ECF 137-2 at 4). Plaintiffs then requested and were granted an
extension of the deadline to supplement to April 7, 2025 (id.), and then again to April 14, 2025
(id. at 5). Weber filed this Motion on May 12, 2025, asserting that Plaintiffs had yet to supplement
their responses despite an agreement to do so and numerous extensions. Weber argues Plaintiffs’
ongoing delays warrant an award of fees pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5) (ECF 137 at 4).
In their response, regarding Interrogatory Nos. 4, 5, 8, and 9, Plaintiffs assert that they
sought clarification from Weber, and although clarification was not given, they intended to
supplement Interrogatories Nos. 4 and 5 within 14 days from the date of their response and within
7 days for Interrogatories Nos. 8 and 9 (ECF 139 at 3). With respect to Interrogatory No. 10,
Case 2:23-cv-00407-AMA-CMR Document 151 Filed 11/03/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 5

3
Plaintiffs state that they will supplement their response “after all Defendants have filed their
answers to the First or Second Amended Complaint” (id. at 4). Regarding RFP Nos. 1, 4, 6–11,
Plaintiffs claim that they have produced all available communications with Weber and will
continue to produce supplemental responses on a rolling basis (id. at 4–6).
II. 	DISCUSSION
The primary issue is whether Plaintiffs have violated their duty to timely supplement their
discovery responses. Rule 26(e)(1) requires that supplementation must be made “in a timely
manner,” or as ordered by the court. “The obligation to supplement arises when the disclosing
party reasonably should know that its prior discovery responses are incomplete, e.g. because the
party has now obtained information it did not previously have.” Jama v. City & Cnty. of Denver,
304 F.R.D. 289, 299–300 (D. Colo. 2014) (citing Robbins & Myers, Inc. v. J.M. Huber Corp., 274
F.R.D. 63, 75 (W.D.N.Y. 2011)). While “timely manner” is not defined by Rule 26(e)(1), the
timeliness of supplemental disclosures “is driven largely by the question of when the Plaintiffs
came into possession of the documents” needing to be disclosed. Id.
The required Rule 26(e) supplementation “should be made at appropriate intervals during
the discovery period.” Rule 26(e), Advisory Committee Note, 1993 Amendments. “A party cannot
wait until all discovery is completed to respond to a request of another party.” Bartley v. Isuzu
Motors, 158 F.R.D. 165, 167-68 (D. Colo. 1994). Furthermore, the duty to supplement is
continuous, and a “party may not free itself of the burden to fully comply’ by placing ‘a heretofore
unrecognized duty of repeated requests for information on its adversary.” AVX Corp. v. Cabot
Corp., 251 F.R.D. 70, 76 (D. Mass. 2008) (quoting Arthur v. Atkinson Freight Lines Corporation,
164 F.R.D. 19, 20 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)).
Case 2:23-cv-00407-AMA-CMR Document 151 Filed 11/03/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 5

4
In their response, Plaintiffs mainly argue that they have met their duty to disclose by
providing Weber with all requested documents and plan to keep updating on a rolling basis as new
information becomes available (ECF 139). Plaintiffs’ claim that no further supplementation is
needed at this time conflicts with their communications with Weber, in which they stated that
additional information would be provided by the date of the last extension. In fact, on March 27,
2025, Andy Miller, Plaintiffs’ counsel, explicitly stated that he was “working on getting [the
supplements] ready” (ECF 137-2 at 4). Plaintiffs then sought two extensions of time to supplement
their responses and were granted until April 14, 2025, to do so (see ECF 137-2 at 4–5). Weber
filed the present Motion asserting that, despite Plaintiffs’ multiple assertions that they would
supplement and numerous extensions to do so, Plaintiffs have yet to supplement any of their
responses (ECF 137).
It is unclear whether Plaintiffs have fulfilled their discovery obligations, as they initially
told Weber they were working on supplements and then, when Weber sought a motion to compel
those supplements, argued that supplementation was unnecessary. If Plaintiffs believed they had
produced all available communications with Weber, they should have clarified that during the meet
and confer on March 14, 2025, and certainly should not have confused the issue by requesting
additional extensions.
That said, it is still unclear to the court whether Plaintiffs’ discovery responses are
sufficient, or if Plaintiffs possess information that should have been disclosed under Rule 26(e).
Therefore, the court cannot determine the “timeliness” of Plaintiffs’ disclosures, and therefore
whether fees are appropriate at this time. Given Plaintiffs’ response to this Motion, however, a
court-imposed deadline for producing supplements is necessary in this action. With a court-
imposed deadline in place, Plaintiffs can no longer delay their disclosures or make general,
Case 2:23-cv-00407-AMA-CMR Document 151 Filed 11/03/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 5

5
indeterminate claims that they will supplement responses after “all Defendants have filed their
answers” (ECF 139 at 4). As stated above, the duty to disclose is continuous, and Plaintiffs must
supplement in a “timely” manner, not when it is most convenient for them. If extensions are
needed, the parties must meet and confer, but further delays may result in an award of fees and
costs attributable to those delays.
III. 	CONCLUSION
For these reasons stated above, the court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART
Defendant Weber’s Short Form Discovery Motion (ECF 137), and HEREBY sets the following
deadlines:
(1) Plaintiffs must supplement their disclosures or discovery responses to make it clear
that all information has been produced or supplement the outstanding responses
within 15 days of this order.
(2) At this time, the court declines the request for fees, but should the issue continue,
Weber may bring the issue before the court to address.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 3 November 2025.
Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero
United States District Court for the District of Utah
Case 2:23-cv-00407-AMA-CMR Document 151 Filed 11/03/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 5