Andina Capital Management LLC et al v. Lowe et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:26-cv-00096-JCB Document110 Filed 10/16/26 PagelD.<pagelD> Pagel
of 22

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF UTAH
ANDINA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, MEMORANDUM DECISION
LLC, a Utah limited liability company; et AND ORDER
al.,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 1:26-cv-00096-JCB
V.

ZEB LOWE, an individual; et al.,

Defendants. Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett

INTRODUCTION!

Plaintiffs Andina Capital Management, LLC; Andina Capital Partners, LLC (collectively,
“Andina”’); Ryan Bohm; RMB Ventures, LLC; Tanner Dance; TD Wellington, LLC; Eric Barlow;
and Cottonwood Investment Management, LLC (collectively with Andina, “Plaintiffs”) moved
for expedited discovery.” Based upon the analysis set forth below, the court grants in part and
denies in part Plaintiffs’ motion.

BACKGROUND

Andina—which is a Utah-based registered investment advisor—filed this lawsuit on June

23, 2026. Andina alleges that it that developed a proprietary investment platform, which

" Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73, all parties have consented to Judge Jared C.
Bennett conducting all proceedings in this case, including entry of final judgment. ECF No. 53.

2 ECF No. 91.
3 ECF No. 1.

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

2
includes investment research, model portfolios, allocation methodologies, screen criteria, client
data, pricing information, and other confidential business information (collectively, “Andina
Proprietary Information”).4 Plaintiffs contend that Defendants Zeb Lowe; Brett Belliston; Penny
Paul; L3 Investments, LLC; Jeta Family, LLC; Tanara Wealth Management, LLC; and Tanara
Capital Partners, LLC (collectively, “Tanara Defendants”)—some of whom were managers,
members, officers, and fiduciaries of Andina—misappropriated the Andina Proprietary
Information.5 Plaintiffs claim that the Tanara Defendants shared the Andina Proprietary
Information with Defendants Joshua Flade and Park City Investment Solutions, LLC (“PCIS”)
(collectively, “PCIS Defendants”) and that the PCIS Defendants collaborated in the Tanara
Defendants’ misappropriation of the Andina Proprietary Information by using that information to
create an investment platform for the Tanara Defendants.6
Upon filing their complaint, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to prohibit the
Tanara Defendants and the PCIS Defendants from accessing, using, or disclosing the Andina
Proprietary Information.7 At a September 11, 2026 status conference, the court set a two-day
evidentiary and oral argument hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for November 5-6, 2026.8 The court
also required the parties to file their respective witness lists and submit their respective hearing
exhibits on or before October 21, 2026.9
4 See generally id.
5 See generally id.
6 See generally id.
7 See generally ECF No. 2.
8 ECF No. 84; see also ECF No. 85; ECF No. 86.
9 ECF No. 85.
Case 1:26-cv-00096-JCB Document 110 Filed 10/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 22

3
Two weeks after the status conference, Plaintiffs moved for expedited discovery related
to their motion for preliminary injunction.10 Plaintiffs seek: (1) leave to serve five requests for
production and three interrogatories on the Tanara Defendants, (2) leave to serve three requests
for production and two interrogatories on the PCIS Defendants, and (3) an order imposing
accelerated responses to those discovery requests.11 Plaintiffs propose the following discovery
requests for the Tanara Defendants:
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
REQUEST NO. 1
For each Model12 that Tanara13 has created, modified, tested, or used
during the Relevant Period,14 produce: the Model itself, as saved in
any medium or platform, and all versions thereof (identifying
specifically the version in current use), with any documents needed
to identify how the Model’s criteria, thresholds, weighting, and rules
are selected including any testing or analysis of how the Model
would 	have 	performed 	using 	historical 	market 	data; 	and 	all
documents reflecting any review or approval of the Model before it
was first used with client assets, including investment committee
minutes or materials.15
10 ECF No. 91.
11 See generally id.
12 Plaintiffs defined “Model” as “any investment model, stock or security screen, model
portfolio, allocation table, sleeve, style, investment policy statement, structured-note
methodology or sizing tool, rebalancing template, and any spreadsheet, workbook, or tool used
to allocate a new or existing client account, however named, labeled, or relabeled, and whether
or not currently in use.” ECF No. 91-1 at 3 of 13.
13 Plaintiffs defined “Tanara” as “Tanara Wealth Management, LLC and Tanara Capital Partners,
LLC, or either of them.” Id.
14 Plaintiffs defined “Relevant Period” as “October 1, 2025 through the date of response.” Id. at 4
of 13.
15 Id. at 10 of 13.
Case 1:26-cv-00096-JCB Document 110 Filed 10/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 22

4
REQUEST NO. 2
All Documents16 concerning or evidencing any deletion of, or
change 	to 	the 	name, 	label, 	classification, 	criteria, 	thresholds,
weightings, or structure of, any Model during the Relevant Period,
including the date of each and the person who made it, as reflected
in any Platform17 change history or audit log and in any file-storage
audit log (such as Microsoft 365, SharePoint, OneDrive, or Google
Drive). 	Such 	request 	encompasses, 	without 	limitation, 	all
communications concerning any such deletions or changes.18
REQUEST NO. 3
For each third party Platform that has been used by You19 in
connection with any Model, including without limitation Black
Diamond, iRebal, and Schwab, produce documents sufficient to
show, as of April 8, 2026[,] and as of the first day of each month
thereafter, each Model to which any client account was assigned, the
account number of each account assigned to it, and the assets under
management in each, produced in native or exportable spreadsheet
format; and, for each client account allocated to or funded into any
Model after April 8, 2026, the completed allocation spreadsheet or
worksheet used for that account and documents sufficient to show
the date of the allocation, the Model, and the resulting trades.20
REQUEST NO. 4
All documents concerning the process by which Tanara identifies,
prices, sizes, allocates, or monitors structured-note purchases for
client 	accounts, 	including 	any 	standard 	operating 	procedure,
investment 	policy 	statement, 	tracking 	spreadsheet, 	or 	sizing
16 Plaintiffs defined “Document” very broadly but generally stated that the term was
“synonymous in meaning and equal in scope to the usage of that term in” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. Id.
at 4 of 13.
17 Plaintiffs defined “Platform” as “any third-party software, service, or data source used to
screen, construct, allocate, rebalance, trade, report on, or monitor a Model, including Black
Diamond, iRebal, Equities Lab, and Schwab.” Id.
18 Id. at 10 of 13.
19 Plaintiffs defined “You,” “Your,” and “Yours” as the “Tanara Defendants.” Id. at 3 of 13.
20 Id. at 11 of 13.
Case 1:26-cv-00096-JCB Document 110 Filed 10/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 4
of 22

5
worksheet, including without limitation all communications during
the Relevant Period concerning the development of that process.21
REQUEST NO. 5
All documents concerning the acquisition, download, transfer,
copying, storage, possession, or deletion of any Andina Material,22
including any copy of the Investment Suite Dashboard,23 Investment
Suite,24 or the Andina Schwab SN25 process spreadsheet; documents
sufficient to show every location where any Andina Material has
been stored since November 1, 2025; and any communication
instructing that Andina Material be saved, moved, transmitted,
copied, or deleted.26
INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1
State whether any Tanara Defendant has accessed, downloaded,
stored, 	consulted, 	referenced, 	or 	used 	any 	Andina 	Material,
including the Investment Suite Dashboard, since November 1, 2025,
and for each item identify the item, who accessed or used it, for what
purpose, and where every copy is currently located.27
21 Id.
22 Plaintiffs defined “Andina Material” as “any document, file, spreadsheet, workbook, Model,
screen, formula, allocation table, procedure, or data created by or for Andina, or stored on any
Andina system, including Andina’s SharePoint, OneDrive, and OneNote environments and any
Andina account used by Tanner Dance or any Defendant, and any copy, extract, excerpt, or
derivative of any of them.” Id. at 3-4 of 13.
23 Plaintiffs defined “Investment Suite Dashboard” as “the multi-tab Andina workbook known as
the Investment Suite Dashboard, as distinct from the single-tab investment menu, and any copy,
tab, extract, or derivative of it.” Id. at 4 of 13.
24 Plaintiffs did not define “Investment Suite.”
25 Plaintiffs did not define “Andina Schwab SN.”
26 Id. at 11 of 13.
27 Id. at 12 of 13.
Case 1:26-cv-00096-JCB Document 110 Filed 10/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 5
of 22

6
INTERROGATORY NO. 2
For 	each 	Model Tanara currently 	uses, 	describe how 	it 	was
developed, built, or acquired, and how it is currently operated from
data inputs to the resulting trade or allocation, including the
Platforms, data sources, criteria, weightings, and allocation and sell
rules applied, and the persons involved in the development or
creation of such model, and state the date it was first used with client
assets.28
INTERROGATORY NO. 3
For each Model, state as of April 8, 2026, and as of the first day of
each month thereafter, the number of client accounts invested in or
managed under it, the unique identifier of each such account, and
the assets under management in each, and for each account allocated
to a Model after April 8, 2026, state the date of the allocation.29
Plaintiffs propose the following discovery requests for the PCIS Defendants:
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
REQUEST NO. 1
Each Model,30 style, allocation, portfolio structure, investment
menu, or other work product PCIS created for, delivered to, or
maintains for Tanara,31 including the version in use as of the date of
service of these requests, and all drafts and prior versions, including
without limitation all versions of the Tanara Investment Menu and
the GTE Plus Allocation Worksheet.32
28 Id.
29 Id.
30 Plaintiffs defined “Model” in the same manner as in their discovery requests to the Tanara
Defendants. ECF No. 91-2 at 3 of 11.
31 Plaintiffs defined “Tanara” in the same manner as in their discovery requests to the Tanara
Defendants. Id.
32 Id. at 9-10 of 11. Plaintiffs did not define “Tanara Investment Menu” or “GTE Plus Allocation
Worksheet.”
Case 1:26-cv-00096-JCB Document 110 Filed 10/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 6
of 22

7
REQUEST NO. 2
All documents and communications, during the Relevant Period,33
exchanged 	with 	any Tanara 	Defendant 	concerning 	investment
modeling, Model creation or construction, portfolio allocation,
structured 	notes, 	investment 	due 	diligence, 	Andina, 	Andina
Material,34 or Tanara’s investment platform or offerings[.]35
REQUEST NO. 3
All documents and communications, during the Relevant Period,
exchanged with any third party, including other advisers or
subadvisers, that reference Andina, Andina Material, Tanara, or
any Model received from or created for Tanara.36
INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1
Identify every person to whom PCIS transmitted, disclosed, or made
available any document received from a Tanara Defendant, or any
Model or work product derived in whole or in part from such a
document, and for each state the date and describe what was
transmitted.37
INTERROGATORY NO. 2
For the Andina Investment Suite, the March 11, 2026 GTE Plus
Allocation Worksheet, and any other document PCIS received from
a Tanara Defendant, describe how PCIS used it, including whether
and how it was incorporated into, relied on in, or used as a starting
point for any Model or deliverable, and state when and how Mr.
33 Plaintiffs defined “Relevant Period” in the same manner as in their discovery requests to the
Tanara Defendants. Id. at 4 of 11.
34 Plaintiffs defined “Andina Material” in the same manner as in their discovery requests to the
Tanara Defendants. Id. at 3-4 of 11.
35 Id. at 10 of 11.
36 Id.
37 Id.
Case 1:26-cv-00096-JCB Document 110 Filed 10/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 7
of 22

8
Flade or Mr. Goodale first understood that any such material
originated with Andina.38
The day before the Tanara Defendants’ and the PCIS Defendants’ responses to Plaintiffs’
motion for expedited discovery were due, Plaintiffs filed a document they referred to as
“supplementation to their original motion.”39 In that document, Plaintiffs generally sought “a
broadening of the information requested in their” motion for expedited discovery with respect to
the Tanara Defendants.40
The following day, the Tanara Defendants opposed Plaintiffs’ motion by contending that
it should be denied and that expedited discovery should not be permitted.41 The Tanara
Defendants further argued that if the court permits expedited discovery, that discovery should be
limited by: (1) permitting only discovery necessary to resolve Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary
injunction; (2) requiring that any expedited discovery be targeted and reciprocal; (3) permitting
the Tanara Defendants discovery responses to be designated as Attorneys’ Eyes Only (“AEO”)
under the court’s Standard Protective Order (“SPO”); and (4) providing a reasonable deadline for
the Tanara Defendants’ discovery responses.42 As to their second requested limitation, the Tanara
Defendants provided the following table of their proposed reciprocal discovery:43
38 Id. at 10-11 of 11.
39 ECF No. 97 at 5.
40 Id. at 1.
41 See generally ECF No. 100.
42 See generally id.
43 Id. at 10-11.
Case 1:26-cv-00096-JCB Document 110 Filed 10/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 8
of 22

Case 1:26-cv-00096-JCB Document 110

of 22

Filed 10/16/26

PagelD.<pagelD>

Tanara Defendants to Produce:

Plaintiffs to Produce:

Current copies of the investment model spreadsheets
Tanara has used from April 9, 2026 to the present (i.e.,
the analogue to the “Andina Investment Suite” filed as
Exhibit I to Plaintiffs’ reply in support of the motion
for preliminary injunction).

Current copies of the investment model
spreadsheets Andina has used from April 9,
2026 to the present.

Any copy of the “Andina Investment Suite” that is
identical or substantially similar to Exhibit I to
Plaintiffs’ reply in support of the motion for
preliminary injunction in Tanara’s possession, to the
extent it can be located by non-Tanara employees.

Tanara’s investment committee notes from April 8,
2026 to the present.

Andina’s investment committee notes from
April 8, 2026 to the present.

For all trades for clients from April 9, 2026 to
September 30, 2026, a report showing the transaction
type (buy or sell), the account number (masked), the
trade date, and the ticker for the following styles:

Glbl Target Equity 60 + Select Dividend

Glbl Target Equity 100 + Select Quality

Glbl Target Equity 80 + Select Quality

Glbl Target Equity 60 + Select Quality

For all trades for clients from April 9, 2026
to September 30, 2026, a report showing the
transaction type (buy or sell), the account
number (masked), the trade date, and the
ticker for the following styles:
Glbl Target Equity 60 + Focused Quality
Glbl Target Equity 80 + Focused Quality
Glbl Target Equity 100 + Focused Quality

Global Target Equity 100 Glbl Target Equity 60 + Focused Dividend
Global Target Equity 20 Glbl Target Equity 80 + Focused Dividend
Global Target Equity 40 Glbl Target Equity 100 + Focused Dividend
Global Target Equity 60 Glbl Target Equity 60 + Focused Large Cap
Global Target Equity 80 Glbl Target Equity 80 + Focused Large Cap
Select Dividend Glbl Target Equity 100 + Focused Large Cap
Select Large Cap Global Target Equity 100
Select Quality Global Target Equity 20

Global Target Equity 40

Global Target Equity 60

Global Target Equity 80

Focused Dividend Growth Portfolio

Focused Large Cap Portfolio

Focused Quality US Portfolio

A report showing a snapshot of the aggregate of the
client holdings in the investments listed immediately
above as of April 9, 2026 and September 30, 2026.

A report showing a snapshot of the aggregate
of the client holdings in the investments
listed immediately above as of April 9, 2026
and September 30, 2026.

Tanara’s structured notes standard operating procedure.

Andina’s structured notes standard operating
procedure.

Tanara’s worksheets for each structured note trade
from April 9, 2026 to October 1, 2026.

Andina’s worksheets for each structured note
trade from April 9, 2026 to October 1, 2026.

A sample email exchange between Tanara and a
structured-note issuer dated after April 9, 2026, and a
preliminary and final prospectus for the trade, showing
how Tanara sizes and tracks structured note investments.

A sample email exchange between Andina
and a structured-note issuer dated after April
9, 2026, and a preliminary and final
prospectus for the trade. showing how

Page 9

10
Andina sizes and tracks structured note
investments.
File deletion report for Zeb Lowe, Brett Belliston, and
Penny Paul for January 1, 2026 through June 30, 2026.
MoveBot data transfer logs, showing all
Andina digital information transferred to the
Tanara Defendants.
All Teams messages containing
communications to or from Brett Belliston,
Zeb Lowe, or Penny Paul.
A description, in the form of an interrogatory response,
of what stock screeners Tanara is currently using.
A description, in the form of an interrogatory response,
of what Tanara has done with client investment
holdings in Tanara’s “Dynamic Allocation Model”
since April 8, 2026.
The PCIS Defendants also opposed Plaintiffs’ motion, contending that the court should
deny the motion and not permit any expedited discovery.44 Similar to the Tanara Defendants, the
PCIS Defendants further argue that in the event the court permits expedited discovery, the court
should narrow its scope by: (1) limiting any discovery requests to the PCIS Defendants’ most
recent version of the investment platform they created for the Tanara Defendants; (2) requiring
Plaintiffs to produce reciprocal discovery; (3) permitting the PCIS Defendants’ discovery
responses to be designated AEO under the SPO; and (4) providing a longer period for the PCIS
Defendants to provide discovery responses.45
Plaintiffs’ reply memorandum in support of their motion for expedited discovery accepted
the Tanara Defendants’ list of proposed discovery requests as that list applies to the Tanara
Defendants but proposed the following seven additions that would require the Tanara Defendants
to: (1) produce “[n]ative files, metadata, and version history from October 1, 2025,” to the date
of production for the Tanara Defendants’ investment model spreadsheets, rather than only current
44 See generally ECF No. 99.
45 See generally id.
Case 1:26-cv-00096-JCB Document 110 Filed 10/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
10 of 22

11
copies of the investment model spreadsheets;46 (2) produce the “model files and trades” for the
Tanara Defendants’ Dynamic Allocation Model, rather than only “a narrative description written
by counsel” in response to the Tanara Defendants’ proposed interrogatory about the Dynamic
Allocation Model;47 (3) produce “[t]rades and holdings, with consistent account identifiers
through the date of production, for every style and model” in the Tanara Defendants’ “Black
Diamond and iRebal environment,” rather than only the styles identified in the Tanara
Defendants’ proposal;48 (4) produce audit and deletion records “through the date of production,”
rather than audit and deletion records only until June 30, 2026;49 (5) produce “[e]very version of
the Investment Suite” located by the Tanara Defendants’ forensic vendor, with metadata;50
(6) provide in response to the Tanara Defendants’ “proposed screener interrogatory,” “the inputs
data sources, and first-use date of each screen”;51 and (7) answer an additional interrogatory
“identifying each outside consultant, firm, or individual who helped build or run” the Tanara
Defendants’ “models or structured-note process,” and what each received.52
In addition to those seven items, Plaintiffs also request that the court order the Tanara
Defendants to “[e]xport the full Microsoft 365 unified audit log for” the Tanara Defendants’
“tenant” and “[s]erve a sworn certification” “stating what was exported,” the Tanara Defendants
46 ECF No. 105 at 6.
47 Id. at 7.
48 Id.
49 Id.
50 Id. at 8.
51 Id.
52 Id.
Case 1:26-cv-00096-JCB Document 110 Filed 10/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
11 of 22

12
“audit tier,” and “the earliest date still available.”53 As for reciprocal production, Plaintiffs
contend that they should be required to produce only “Andina’s trades and holdings from April 9,
2026[,] through the date of production for the Andina styles corresponding to the . . . styles and
models produced” by the Tanara Defendants and “Andina’s models and structured-note process
as of April 8, 2026.”54 Plaintiffs also maintain that the court should not permit the Tanara
Defendants and the PCIS Defendants to designate any of their expedited discovery responses as
AEO under the SPO.55 Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the PCIS Defendants should be required to
respond to Plaintiffs’ proposed discovery requests.56
Because of the unusual nature of Plaintiffs’ supplement to their motion for expedited
discovery, the court convened a status conference on October 9, 2026.57 After hearing argument
from counsel, the court ordered Plaintiffs to submit any additional proposed discovery requests
related to the supplement by no later than October 10, 2026, and permitted the Tanara
Defendants to file a response to those discovery requests by October 14, 2026.58 Within hours
after the conclusion of the status conference, Plaintiffs withdrew their supplement, indicating that
they no longer sought expedited discovery on the issues identified in the supplement.59
53 Id. at 9.
54 Id. at 11.
55 Id. at 10.
56 Id. at 11.
57 ECF No. 108.
58 Id.
59 ECF No. 106.
Case 1:26-cv-00096-JCB Document 110 Filed 10/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
12 of 22

13
Consequently, Plaintiffs asked the court to decide their motion for expedited discovery based on
the submitted briefing.60
ANALYSIS
The court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ motion for expedited discovery. For
the reasons explained below, the court (I) court permits expedited discovery because Plaintiffs
have established good cause but (II) limits the scope of expedited discovery. Additionally, the
court (III) denies the parties’ requests concerning AEO designations under the SPO and
(IV) extends the deadline for the parties to file their respective witness lists and submit their
respective exhibits to be used at the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
I. 	Plaintiffs Have Established Good Cause to Permit Expedited Discovery.
Because Plaintiffs have shown good cause, the court permits expedited discovery.
Generally, “[a] party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred
as required by [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 26(f).”61 However,
a court may exercise its broad discretion to alter the timing,
sequence, and volume of discovery, including granting expedited
discovery. The party seeking expedited discovery has the burden to
show good cause for the requested departure from usual discovery
procedures. Good cause may be found where the plaintiff’s need for
expedited discovery outweighs the possible prejudice or hardship to
the defendant. For example, good cause may exist where a party
seeks a preliminary injunction or where physical evidence may be
consumed or destroyed with the passage of time.62
60 ECF No. 107.
61 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1).
62 Am. Equip. Sys., LLC v. Chester, No. 2:23-CV-00680-DBB-DBP, 2023 WL 8261427, at *2 (D.
Utah Nov. 29, 2023) (citation modified); see also Vivint, Inc. v. Sunrun, Inc., No. 2:24-CV-0034-
JNP-DBP, 2024 WL 3069228, at *1 (D. Utah June 20, 2024) (same).
Case 1:26-cv-00096-JCB Document 110 Filed 10/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
13 of 22

14
District courts in the Tenth Circuit consider the following factors to determine whether
good cause exists to support a motion for expedited discovery: “(1) whether [a motion for]
preliminary injunction is pending; (2) the breadth of the discovery requests; (3) the purpose for
requesting the expedited discovery; (4) the burden on the defendants to comply with the requests;
and (5) how far in advance of the typical discovery process the request was made.”63 “These
factors are not binding, and the court has discretion on whether to authorize expedited
discovery.”64 Each factor is considered in turn below.
First, Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction is pending. Thus, this factor weighs in
favor of permitting expedited discovery.
Second, as demonstrated below, some of Plaintiffs’ discovery requests are overbroad and
seek information that falls outside the scope of permissible discovery under Rule 26(b)(1).
Although that typically weighs against allowing expedited discovery, the court will limit any of
Plaintiffs’ improper discovery requests in Section II below. Consequently, this factor is neutral.
Third, Plaintiffs have provided a legitimate reason for permitting expedited discovery.
The Tanara Defendants have raised the defense that although they may have copied Andina’s
materials and placed the materials in their possession, they did not use the materials. This is
precisely the justification for the court allowing expedited discovery in American Equipment
63 Am. Equip. Sys., LLC, 2023 WL 8261427, at *2 (citation modified); see also Vivint, Inc., 2024
WL 3069228, at *1 (same).
64 Am. Equip. Sys., LLC, 2023 WL 8261427, at *2 (citation modified); see also Washington v.
Correia, 546 F. App’x 786, 787 (10th Cir. 2013) (recognizing that the decision about whether to
permit expedited discovery is “within the court’s discretion”).
Case 1:26-cv-00096-JCB Document 110 Filed 10/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
14 of 22

15
Systems, LLC v. Chester.65 Additionally, Plaintiffs have proffered some evidence indicating that
the information they seek through expedited discovery is at some risk of being lost unless it is
produced quickly, which is a valid purpose too.66 Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of
expedited discovery.
Fourth, the court acknowledges that Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, as drafted, would
impose a significant burden on the Tanara Defendants and the PCIS Defendants. However, as
previously indicated, the court will impose limits on Plaintiffs’ discovery requests in Section II
below. Although that will not eliminate the burden on the Tanara Defendants and the PCIS
Defendants, the court’s limitations will significantly reduce that burden. Accordingly, this factor
is neutral.
Finally, although Plaintiffs’ motion for expedited discovery came several months after
they moved for a preliminary injunction, the motion for expedited discovery was filed well in
advance of the typical discovery process. Under the court’s Order to Propose Schedule, the
procedures for scheduling in a civil case—including the requirement that the parties conduct
their Rule 26(f) conference—are not triggered until the first answer to the complaint is filed.67
Here the Tanara Defendants and the PCIS Defendants have moved to dismiss68 and,
65 Am. Equip. Sys., LLC, 2023 WL 8261427, at *3 (allowing expedited discovery because the
plaintiff sought “information to better identify allegedly misappropriated trade secrets, the
location of such information, and the extent of [the defendants]’ unfair competitive activity”
(citation modified)).
66 Id. at *2 (providing that good cause for expedited discovery “may exist . . . where physical
evidence may be consumed or destroyed with the passage of time” (citation modified); see also
Vivint, Inc., 2024 WL 3069228, at *1 (same).
67 ECF No. 25.
68 ECF No. 51.
Case 1:26-cv-00096-JCB Document 110 Filed 10/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
15 of 22

16
consequently, have not answered Plaintiffs’ complaint. Thus, Plaintiffs requested expedited
discovery far in advance of the typical discovery process. On balance, the court’s consideration
of the foregoing factors weighs in favor of permitting expedited discovery. Therefore, the court
grants Plaintiffs’ request for expedited discovery.
II. 	The Court Limits the Scope of Expedited Discovery.
Although the court permits expedited discovery, the scope of any disputed discovery will
be limited in some respects. Below, the court (A) addresses the discovery the Tanara Defendants
must provide to Plaintiffs. Thereafter, the court (B) rules on the scope of the parties’ remaining
proposed discovery requests. For any expedited discovery permitted below, all discovery
responses must be served by no later than October 28, 2026. Additionally, to the extent
necessary, the parties are obviously free to place any appropriate confidentiality designations on
their responses under the SPO.
A. Discovery the Tanara Defendants Must Provide to Plaintiffs
As indicated above, with the exception of seven additions, Plaintiffs have accepted the
Tanara Defendants’ list of proposed discovery requests to which the Tanara Defendants will
respond in expedited discovery. In doing so, Plaintiffs have effectively abandoned the proposed
discovery requests to the Tanara Defendants contained in Plaintiffs’ motion for expedited
discovery. Thus, the court will not consider Plaintiffs proposed discovery requests to the Tanara
Defendants and orders the Tanara Defendants to provide responses to the proposed discovery
requests in the table above.
Case 1:26-cv-00096-JCB Document 110 Filed 10/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
16 of 22

17
B. Remaining Proposed Discovery Requests
In the tables below, the court rules on the scope of: (1) Plaintiffs’ proposed additions to
the Tanara Defendants’ discovery requests; (2) the Tanara Defendants’ proposed discovery
requests to Plaintiffs; (3) Plaintiffs’ proposed discovery requests to the PCIS Defendants; and
(4) the PCIS Defendants’ proposed discovery request to Plaintiffs.
In reaching the rulings below, the court is mindful of several principles. First, the
requirements of Rule 26(b)(1) apply to all discovery requests, which requires the court to
consider both the relevance and proportionality of the proposed discovery as it relates to the
motion for preliminary injunction.69 Second, when considering document requests, the court
must apply Rule 34(b)(1)(A), which provides that a document request “must describe with
reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected.” Finally, when
considering any discovery request, Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) requires the court to “limit the . . . extent
of discovery” if “the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).”
1. 	Plaintiffs’ Proposed Additions to the Tanara Defendants’ Discovery Requests
Discovery Request 	Ruling
Native files, metadata, and version history from
October 1, 2025, to the date of production for the
Tanara Defendants’ investment model
spreadsheets, rather than only current copies of
the investment model spreadsheets
Plaintiffs fail to show that all the information
sought through this request is relevant to the
limited relief sought in their motion for
preliminary injunction. Additionally, the request is
overbroad, and the additional information sought
is not proportional to the needs of the motion for
preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the court
limits this request by requiring the Tanara
Defendants to produce the native files and
metadata of the version of their investment model
69 Am. Equip. Sys., LLC, 2023 WL 8261427, at *3 (stating that expedited discovery related to a
motion for preliminary injunction “should center on the issues raised by the motion for
preliminary injunction”).
Case 1:26-cv-00096-JCB Document 110 Filed 10/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
17 of 22

18
spreadsheets as they: (1) existed on October 1,
2025; and (2) exist on the date of production.
Model files and trades for the Tanara Defendants’
Dynamic Allocation Model, rather than only a
narrative description written by counsel in
response to the Tanara Defendants’ proposed
interrogatory about the Dynamic Allocation
Model
Plaintiffs fail to show that the information sought
through this request is relevant to the limited
relief sought in their motion for preliminary
injunction. This request is also overbroad and
seeks information that is not proportional to the
needs of the motion for preliminary injunction.
Therefore, the Tanara Defendants are not required
to respond to this proposed addition.70
Trades and holdings, with consistent account
identifiers through the date of production, for
every style and model in the Tanara Defendants’
Black Diamond and iRebal environment, rather
than only the styles identified in the Tanara
Defendants’ proposal
Plaintiffs fail to show that the information sought
through this request is relevant to the limited
relief sought in their motion for preliminary
injunction. This request is also overbroad and
seeks information that is not proportional to the
needs of the motion for preliminary injunction.
Accordingly, the Tanara Defendants are not
required to respond to this proposed addition.
Audit and deletion records through the date of
production, rather than audit and deletion records
only until June 30, 2026
The information sought through this request is
relevant and proportional to the needs of
Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. The
Tanara Defendants are ordered to respond to this
request.
Every version of the Investment Suite located by
the Tanara Defendants’ forensic vendor, with
metadata
The information sought through this request is
relevant and proportional to the needs of
Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. The
Tanara Defendants are ordered to respond to this
request.
In response to the Tanara Defendants’ proposed
screener interrogatory, the inputs, data sources,
and first-use date of each screen
The information sought through this request is
relevant and proportional to the needs of
Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. The
Tanara Defendants are ordered to respond to this
request.
Interrogatory identifying each outside consultant,
firm, or individual who helped build or run the
Tanara Defendants’ models or structured-note
process, and what each received
The information sought through this request is
relevant and proportional to the needs of
Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. The
Tanara Defendants are ordered to respond to this
request.
70 Jensen v. Utah Cnty., No. 2:24-CV-00887-JNP-CMR, 2025 WL 42150, at *4 (D. Utah Jan. 7,
2025) (“It is counsel’s responsibility, not the court’s, to frame an appropriately broad discovery
request. To conclude otherwise ‘would encourage attorneys to abdicate this responsibility in
favor of phrasing their discovery requests in the broadest possible terms and placing the burden
on the district court of coming up with an appropriately limited request.’” (quoting Punt v. Kelly
Servs., 862 F.3d 1040, 1047 (10th Cir. 2017)) (citation modified)).
Case 1:26-cv-00096-JCB Document 110 Filed 10/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
18 of 22

19
Full export of the Microsoft 365 unified audit log
for the Tanara Defendants’ tenant and a sworn
certification stating what was exported, the Tanara
Defendants audit tier, and the earliest date still
available
The information sought through this request is
relevant and proportional to the needs of
Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. The
Tanara Defendants are ordered to respond to this
request.
2. 	The Tanara Defendants’ Proposed Discovery Requests to Plaintiffs
Discovery Request 	Ruling
Current copies of the investment model
spreadsheets Andina has used from April 9, 2026,
to the present
The information sought through this request is
relevant and proportional to the needs of
Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
Plaintiffs are ordered to respond to this request.
Andina’s investment committee notes from April
8, 2026, to the present
The information sought through this request is
relevant and proportional to the needs of
Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
Plaintiffs are ordered to respond to this request.
For all trades for clients from April 9, 2026, to
September 30, 2026, a report showing the
transaction type (buy or sell), the account
number (masked), the trade date, and the ticker
for the following styles:
Glbl Target Equity 60 + Focused Quality
Glbl Target Equity 80 + Focused Quality
Glbl Target Equity 100 + Focused Quality
Glbl Target Equity 60 + Focused Dividend
Glbl Target Equity 80 + Focused Dividend
Glbl Target Equity 100 + Focused Dividend
Glbl Target Equity 60 + Focused Large Cap
Glbl Target Equity 80 + Focused Large Cap
Glbl Target Equity 100 + Focused Large Cap
Global Target Equity 100
Global Target Equity 20
Global Target Equity 40
Global Target Equity 60
Global Target Equity 80
Focused Dividend Growth Portfolio
Focused Large Cap Portfolio
Focused Quality US Portfolio
The information sought through this request is
relevant and proportional to the needs of
Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
Plaintiffs are ordered to respond to this request.
A report showing a snapshot of the aggregate of
the client holdings in the investments listed
immediately above as of April 9, 2026, and
September 30, 2026
The information sought through this request is
relevant and proportional to the needs of
Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
Plaintiffs are ordered to respond to this request.
Andina’s structured notes standard operating
procedure
The information sought through this request is
relevant and proportional to the needs of
Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
Plaintiffs are ordered to respond to this request.
Case 1:26-cv-00096-JCB Document 110 Filed 10/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
19 of 22

20
Andina’s worksheets for each structured note trade
from April 9, 2026, to October 1, 2026
The information sought through this request is
relevant and proportional to the needs of
Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
Plaintiffs are ordered to respond to this request.
A sample email exchange between Andina and a
structured-note issuer dated after April 9, 2026,
and a preliminary and final prospectus for the
trade, showing how Andina sizes and tracks
structured note investments
The information sought through this request is
relevant and proportional to the needs of
Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
Plaintiffs are ordered to respond to this request.
MoveBot data transfer logs, showing all Andina
digital information transferred to the Tanara
Defendants
The information sought through this request is
relevant and proportional to the needs of
Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
Plaintiffs are ordered to respond to this request.
All Teams messages containing communications
to or from Brett Belliston, Zeb Lowe, or Penny
Paul
This request is overbroad and fails to describe the
documents sought with reasonable particularity
because it uses the omnibus term “all”71 and fails
to include any time limitation. Therefore,
Plaintiffs are not required to respond to this
request.
3. 	Plaintiffs’ Proposed Discovery Requests to the PCIS Defendants
Discovery Request 	Ruling
Request for Production No. 1 	This request is overbroad and fails to describe the
documents sought with reasonable particularity
because it employs omnibus terms, seeks broad
categories of information, and contains no time
limitation. Accordingly, the PCIS Defendants are
not required to respond to this request.
Request for Production No. 2 	This request is overbroad and fails to describe the
documents sought with reasonable particularity
because it uses the omnibus term “all documents
and communications” and seeks broad categories
of information. Consequently, the PCIS
Defendants are not required to respond to this
request.
Request for Production No. 3 	This request is overbroad and fails to describe the
documents sought with reasonable particularity
because it uses the omnibus term “all documents
and communications” and seeks broad categories
71 Schmelzer v. IHC Health Servs., Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00965-TS-JCB, 2022 WL 16646456, at *6
& n.54 (D. Utah Feb. 10, 2022) (citing numerous cases “condemning the use of . . . omnibus
terms and broad categories of information” in discovery requests), objections overruled, No.
2:19-CV-965-TS, 2022 WL 1224976 (D. Utah Apr. 26, 2022).
Case 1:26-cv-00096-JCB Document 110 Filed 10/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
20 of 22

21
of information. Therefore, the PCIS Defendants
are not required to respond to this request.
Interrogatory No. 1 	The information sought through this request is
relevant and proportional to the needs of
Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. The
PCIS Defendants are ordered to respond to this
request.
Interrogatory No. 2 	The information sought through this request is
relevant and proportional to the needs of
Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. The
PCIS Defendants are ordered to respond to this
request.
4. 	The PCIS Defendants’ Proposed Discovery Request to Plaintiffs
Discovery Request 	Ruling
Current versions of the Andina models that
Andina claims resemble the PCIS Defendants
models
The information sought through this request is
relevant and proportional to the needs of
Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
Plaintiffs are ordered to respond to this request.
III. 	The Court Denies the Parties’ Requests Concerning AEO Designations Under the
SPO.
Plaintiffs, the Tanara Defendants, and the PCIS Defendants each make requests
concerning the designation of information as AEO under the SPO. Those issues are not properly
before the court. The SPO has a specific process for challenging a party’s designation of
information as AEO, and that process has not been utilized here. Although the court expects that
the parties’ counsel will make AEO designations properly and in good faith, any challenge to an
AEO designation must be brought before the court pursuant to the procedure for such challenges
contained in the SPO. Accordingly, the parties’ requests concerning AEO designations under the
SPO are denied.
Case 1:26-cv-00096-JCB Document 110 Filed 10/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
21 of 22

22
IV. 	The Court Extends the Deadline for the Parties to File Their Respective Witness
Lists and Submit Their Respective Exhibits to Be Used at the Hearing on Plaintiffs’
Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
The court acknowledges that the deadline for discovery responses set above postdates the
parties’ current deadline of October 21, 2026, for filing witness lists and submitting exhibits to
be used at the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the court
extends the deadline for the parties to file their respective witness lists and submit their
respective exhibits to October 30, 2026.
O RDER
Based upon the foregoing analysis, the court HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ motion
for expedited discovery72 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as detailed above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 16th day of October 2026.
BY THE COURT:
JARED C. BENNETT
United States Magistrate Judge
72 ECF No. 91.
Case 1:26-cv-00096-JCB Document 110 Filed 10/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
22 of 22