CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. PLAINTIFF v. TED MATTHEWS DEFENDANT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19CV353-LG-RHW United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division Filed June 16, 2020 Counsel Michael J. Bentley, Michael Casey Williams, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP, Jackson, MS, Emily M. Ruzic, Pro Hac Vice, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff. J. Scott Corlew, The Corlew Law Firm, PLLC, Pascagoula, MS, for Defendant. Walker, Robert H., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL *1 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Chevron U.S.A., Inc.'s motion to compel discovery responses. Doc. [32]. Chevron filed suit against Defendant Ted Matthews alleging he participated in a scheme, along with contractors under his supervision at the Chevron Pascagoula Refinery, to fraudulently bill Chevron for work not performed and to collect impermissible kickbacks from contractors. According to Chevron, the scheme occurred for at least ten years prior to Matthews' July 2016 termination from employment. Chevron now seeks discovery regarding Matthews' communications with alleged co-conspirators and key witnesses, as well as financial information that might disclose the whereabouts of Matthews' alleged ill-gotten gains. Interrogatories Nos. 3, 4 & 5 Chevron requests the telephone numbers, email accounts, and chat/instant messenger services used by Matthews from January 1, 2008, through the date of his interrogatory responses. Matthews objects to the interrogatories because they are not relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of relevant information and seek information personal and private to Matthews. The motion to compel is granted as to these interrogatories; however, the time frame is limited to January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2016. According to the complaint, Chevron terminated Matthews from employment in July 2016; therefore, Chevron is entitled to information only for a reasonable time subsequent to Matthews' termination. In this interrogatory, Chevron merely seeks information regarding Matthews' modes of communication during the relevant time frame. In commission of the alleged fraud, Matthews presumably would have communicated with co-conspirators or key witnesses. The requested information falls within the scope of discoverable information. To allay any privacy concerns as to this interrogatory, and as to any other discovery requests covered by this order, Matthews production may be conditioned on the entry of a protective order. Interrogatory No. 7 Chevron seeks an order compelling Matthews to identify all bank or other financial institution accounts used by him from January 1, 2008, through the date of his response. Chevron argues that Matthews enriched himself through the alleged fraudulent acts; therefore, the financial account information is discoverable. Matthews did not address this specific interrogatory in his response in opposition. Nevertheless, the information is discoverable. According to Chevron's complaint, Matthews enriched himself through participation in the fraudulent scheme. Chevron's discovery request is related to allegations that Matthews received improper payments. The motion to compel is granted to the extent Matthews is directed to identify all bank or other financial institution accounts used by him from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2016. Interrogatory No. 8 Chevron requests the identity of all businesses owned by Matthews or a member of his immediate family, including businesses in which he was a part owner or investor, from January 1, 2008, through the date of his response. Matthews responded that his only business involvement was a restaurant called Brackish Waters. Matthews appears to have answered the interrogatory in full; therefore, the motion to compel is denied as to this interrogatory. Interrogatory No. 10 *2 Chevron requests the identity of all real property owned by Matthews or a member of his immediate family from January 1, 2008 through the date of his response. The motion to compel is granted as it relates to Chevron's allegation that Matthews received improper payments from his participation in the fraudulent scheme. Matthews should identify said properties from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2016. Interrogatory No. 12 Chevron requests the identity of all sources of Matthews' income from January 1, 2008, through the date of his response. The motion to compel is granted as it relates to Chevron's allegation that Matthews received improper payments from his participation in the fraudulent scheme. Matthews should identify all sources of income from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2016. Interrogatory No. 17 Chevron requests the identity of any person who has received financial support from Matthews—including cash, tangible gifts, or deposits in a bank, savings, or investment account—from January 1, 2008, through the date of his response. The motion to compel is denied as to this interrogatory. The request is overly broad and not proportional to the needs of the case. As drafted, the interrogatory would require Matthews to disclose every gift ever provided to anyone since January 1, 2008. To comply, Matthews would be required to disclose even the smallest monetary gifts or tangible gifts provided to family members and friends. Interrogatory No. 20 Chevron seeks the amount and location of all cash in Matthews' possession or under his control. The motion to compel is granted as it relates to Chevron's allegation that Matthews received improper payments from his participation in the fraudulent scheme. Request for Production No. 2 Chevron requests production of all documents that contain, include, or reflect any telephone numbers or telephone service providers—including any invoices, bills, records of calls, or call logs—used by Matthews from January 1, 2008, through the date of his response. The motion to compel is granted to the extent Matthews should produce records reflecting telephone calls or call logs for the period from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2016. The call logs are discoverable to allow Chevron to determine the extent of Matthews' communication with co-conspirators or other key witnesses during the relevant time frame. Request for Production Nos. 3, 4, 6 & 7 In these requests, Chevron seeks Matthews' bank and financial records, federal and state tax returns, and financial and accounting records for businesses and properties owned by Matthews. Matthews argues the request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information which is personal and private to Matthews. Chevron seeks evidence reflecting Matthews' alleged ill-gotten gains from the scheme that is the underlying subject of this lawsuit. As a general matter, such information is discoverable. The motion is granted to the extent Matthews shall produce records from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2016, responsive to Chevron's discovery requests. Request for Production No. 5 Chevron also requests all of Matthews' personal and accounting records—including ledgers, bank statements, online or electronic accounting records, credit card statements, cancelled checks, notes, and files. Although Chevron is entitled to copies of Matthews' bank statements, the remainder of the request is overly broad and not proportional to the needs of case. The Court already has given Chevron access to Matthews banking and financial records, as well as his tax returns and income sources. To require Matthews to produce a record of essentially every expenditure he has made since January 1, 2008, is not proportional to the needs of the case. Requests for Production Nos. 8, 9, 10 & 11 *3 In these requests, Chevron seeks communications between Matthews and alleged co-conspirators. The information clearly is discoverable. Matthews merely argues he does not have any of the requested records. The motion to compel is granted to the extent Matthews is directed to amend his response to clarify whether he has ever possessed records of the communications sought by Chevron, and if so, to provide an explanation for why he no longer possesses the records. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Chevron's [32] Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, subject to the provisions outlined in this Order. Because the discovery material contains personal and private information, Matthews may produce the information pursuant to a protective order. Matthews is directed to serve Chevron with supplemental discovery responses on or before July 20, 2020. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 16th day of June 2020.