IN RE CONSOLIDATED DISCOVERY IN CASES FILED BY Alysson MILLS, in her Capacity as Receiver for Arthur Lamar Adams and Madison Timber Properties, LLC [Cases consolidated for discovery only: Mills v. Baker Donelson, et al., Mills v. BankPlus, et al., Mills v. The UPS Store, Inc., et al., Mills v. Trustmark, et al.,] CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:22-cv-36-CWR-FKB, Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-866-CWR-FKB, Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-196-CWR-FKB, Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-364-CWR-FKB, Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-941-CWR-FKB United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division, Northern Division Signed March 10, 2023 Counsel Alysson Leigh Mills, Kristen D. Amond, Pro Hac Vice, New Orleans, LA, Brent B. Barriere, Pro Hac Vice, Jeanette A. Donnelly, Pro Hac Vice, Kaja S. Elmer, Pro Hac Vice, Fishman Haygood, LLP, New Orleans, LA, Lilli Evans Bass, Brown Bass & Jeter, PLLC, Jackson, MS, for Alysson Mills. Benjamin W. Graham, Pro Hac Vice, Craig D. Singer, Pro Hac Vice, Hope Elizabeth Daily, Pro Hac Vice, William M. Schmidt, Pro Hac Vice, Williams & Connolly, LLP, Washington, DC, James J. Crongeyer, Jr., Watkins & Eager, PLLC, Jackson, MS, Mark R. McDonald, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC. Cody C. Bailey, R. David Kaufman, Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC, Jackson, MS, for Alexander Seawright, LLC, Brent Alexander, Jon Seawright. Alexander N. Breckinridge, V, Pro Hac Vice, Robert B. Bieck, Jr., Pro Hac Vice, Thomas E. Slattery, Pro Hac Vice, Jones Walker, LLP, New Orleans, LA, Kaytie M. Pickett, Jones Walker, LLP, Jackson, MS, Mark R. McDonald, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for BankPlus, BankPlus Wealth Management, LLC. Laura W. Givens, Robert P. Thompson, McAngus, Goudelock & Courie, LLC, Ridgeland, MS, Mark R. McDonald, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Gee Gee Patridge. James W. Newman, IV, Newman & Newman, Ridgeland, MS, Mark R. McDonald, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Stewart Patridge. Joseph Miles Forks, Timothy M. Peeples, Wilton V. Byars, III, Daniel, Coker, Horton & Bell, PA, Oxford, MS, Mark R. McDonald, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Jason Cowgill. Christopher B. Freeman, Pro Hac Vice, Carlton Fields, PA, Atlanta, GA, Markham R. Leventhal, Steven J. Brodie, Pro Hac Vice, Carlton Fields, PA, Miami, FL, for Federal Insurance Company. John A. Banahan, Bryan, Nelson, Schroeder, Castigliola & Banahan, Pascagoula, MS, for Continental Casualty Company. Adam J. Hunt, Pro Hac Vice, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, New York, NY, LaToya C. Merritt, Mallory K. Bland, Reuben V. Anderson, Phelps Dunbar, LLP, Jackson, MS, Mark R. McDonald, Pro Hac Vice, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for The UPS Store, Inc. Randall Scott Wells, William Lee Guice, III, Rushing & Guice, PLLC, Biloxi, MS, Mark R. McDonald, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Herring Ventures, LLC, Austin Elsen, Tammie Elsen, Courtney Herring, Diane Lofton, Chandler Westover. G. Todd Burwell, Richard A. Eisenberger, Jr., Burwell Eisenberger, PLLC, Madison, MS, Mark R. McDonald, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Rawlings & MacInnis, PA. G. Todd Burwell, Richard A. Eisenberger, Jr., Burwell Eisenberger, PLLC, Madison, MS, for Tammy Vinson, Jeannie Chisholm. J. Collins Wohner, Jr., James M. Tyrone, Paul H. Stephenson, III, Stephanie M. Rippee, William F. Ray, Watkins & Eager, PLLC, Jackson, MS, Robert B. Bieck, Jr.—PHV, Jones Walker, LLP, New Orleans, LA, for Trustmark National Bank. Cody C. Bailey, R. David Kaufman, Jacob A. Bradley, Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC, Jackson, MS, Mark R. McDonald, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Bennie Butts. Adrienne L. Baker, Pro Hac Vice, Charles T. Coleman, Pro Hac Vice, Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, LLP, Little Rock, AR, Michael Scott Jones, Adams and Reese, LLP, Ridgeland, MS, Mark R. McDonald, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Southern Bancorp Bank. Kelly D. Simpkins, Wells Marble & Hurst, PLLC, Jackson, MS, Walter D. Willson, Michael D. Anderson, Wells, Marble & Hurst, PLLC, Ridgeland, MS, Mark R. McDonald, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Robert B. Bieck, Jr.—PHV, Jones Walker, LLP, New Orleans, LA, for Riverhills Bank. Ball, F. Keith, United States Magistrate Judge ORDER Arising out of Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-252-CWR-FKB, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Arthur Lamar Adams and Madison Timber Properties, LLC *1 This case is before the Court on the Motion to Compel [342] filed against The UPS Store, Inc. (“TUPSS”) by Alysson Mills, in her capacity as the court-appointed receiver for Arthur Lamar Adams and Madison Timber Properties, LLC (the “Receiver”). TUPSS filed a response [368] in opposition, which was joined [375] by Trustmark National Bank. The Receiver filed a reply [382], and after the consolidated status conference and motion hearing on October 25, 2022 (“consolidated hearing”),[1] TUPSS filed a supplemental response [514] to the motion to compel. Having considered the matter, the Court finds that the Receiver's motion [342] should be granted in part and denied in part. INTRODUCTION The Receiver propounded four sets of discovery to TUPSS and initially sought to compel supplementation of responses to Request for Production No. 6 of the first set of discovery; responses to Request for Production Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the second set of discovery; responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 3 of the third set of discovery; and responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 3, and 4 and Request for Production Nos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the fourth set of discovery. At the consolidated hearing, the Receiver indicated that the instant motion [342] to compel is moot as to Request for Production No. 6 of the first set of discovery and Request for Production Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 of the fourth set of discovery. See [504] at 54-55; 72-73; see also [382] at 12. The Court here rules on the remaining discovery requests in dispute. RECEIVER'S SECOND SET OF DISCOVERY With respect to the Receiver's second set of discovery, the Court finds and orders as follows: Request for Production No. 1: The Receiver's motion is granted in part and denied in part as to Request for Production No. 1. Although the request is overly broad, the Receiver and counsel for TUPSS narrowed the scope of the request, and TUPSS represented to the Court at the consolidated hearing that it has performed a document search based on terms agreed by the Receiver and that no responsive documents were found beyond those already produced. See [504] at 55-59. Therefore, TUPSS is ordered to supplement its response to Request for Production No. 1 to confirm completion of the agreed search and to state that the search did not reveal any documents responsive to this request that have not already been produced. The motion is otherwise denied. Request for Production No. 2: The Receiver's motion is denied as to Request for Production No. 2. This request is overly broad. Request for Production No. 3: The Receiver's motion is granted in part and denied in part as to Request for Production No. 3. Previously, TUPSS produced documents in response to this request, including documents relating to an audit and the Quarterly Center Visits of the Herring Ventures, LLC franchise for the time period of December 1, 2014 through April 30, 2018. Subsequently and at the Receiver's request, TUPSS produced the Business Performance Reviews of Herring Ventures, LLC. In her motion, the Receiver now seeks documents relating to Herring Ventures, LLC with respect to the Center Evaluations Management System (“CEMS”) and Center Planning Tool (“CPT”). However, TUPSS represents that the CEMS was not introduced until 2019 (after the time period relevant to this case). [368] at 9; [368-1] at 2. And TUPSS represents that the CPT is an interactive web-based tool that a franchisee, like Herring Ventures, LLC, may access, but TUPSS would not and does not have any documents regarding Herring Venture, LLC's use of that tool. Id.; [504] at 59-61. The Court orders TUPSS to supplement its response to this request to state that CEMS was not introduced until 2019 and that TUPSS does not have any documents of Herring Ventures LLC's use of the CPT. The Receiver's motion is otherwise denied as to this request. RECEIVER'S THIRD SET OF DISCOVERY *2 As to the Receiver's third set of discovery, the Court finds and orders as follows:[2] Interrogatory No. 1: The Receiver's motion is granted as to Interrogatory No. 1. TUPSS is ordered to supplement its response and identify, as to each such contract and/or agreement, the following: (1) the existence of the agreement, (2) the parties to the agreement, (3) when the agreement was entered, and (4) the general scope of the agreement. See, e.g., Blackmon v. Bracken Const. Co., Inc., 338 F.R.D. 91, 94-97 (M.D. La. 2021) (acknowledging that even if joint defense agreement is privileged and not discoverable, these four areas of information would be discoverable to determine whether agreement is privileged). Amended Interrogatory No. 3:[3] The Receiver's motion is granted as to Amended Interrogatory No. 3. TUPSS is ordered to supplement its response to provide a reasonable response to this interrogatory. RECEIVER'S FOURTH SET OF DISCOVERY Regarding the Receiver's fourth set of discovery, the Court finds and orders as follows: Interrogatory No. 1: The Receiver's motion is granted as to Interrogatory No. 1. The Court orders TUPSS to supplement its response and provide, at a minimum: (1) the address, telephone number, and contact person(s) for Fleming Expansions, LLC (“Fleming”); (2) if known, the name and last known address(es) and telephone number(s) of any individuals who conducted the Center Visits of the Herring Ventures, LLC franchise; (3) the name and last known address(es) and telephone number(s) of the individuals who conducted any Center Audit Review and Evaluation (“CARE”) audits of the Herring Ventures, LLC franchise. The Court observes that TUPSS's current response to Interrogatory No. 1 contains the statement that “No person was responsible for monitoring or evaluating Herring Ventures, LLC's compliance with the Franchise Agreement or Center Operations Manual.” [368] at 13. Despite this current response, TUPSS is further ordered to provide a supplemental response either identifying such person(s) or explaining why no such person(s) can be identified. Interrogatory No. 3: The Receiver's motion is granted in part and denied in part as to Interrogatory No. 3. The phrase “other evaluations” in this interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad. TUPSS's initial and supplemental responses are, however, insufficient. In its initial response, TUPSS simply stated that Fleming conducted quarterly “Center Visits” and TUPSS conducted a CARE audit of the Herring Ventures LLC franchise location, “[d]uring the time period December 1, 2014 through April 30, 2018.” [368-15] at 7. And although TUPSS's supplemental response states that the “timing and process” for the Center Visits and CARE audit “are set forth in the Center Operations Manual” and cites to “TUPSS0000143-152,” TUPSS only submitted TUPSS0000144 to the Court in its response. Id.; see [368-4, 368-10]. The Court, therefore, lacks sufficient evidence to determine whether TUPSS0000143-152 sufficiently describe the timing or process of any inspections or audits. Accordingly, TUPSS is ordered to supplement its response and provide the requested information. In its supplemental response, TUPSS must state when any such inspections and/or audits occurred and provide a general description of the procedure used in those inspections and audits. *3 Interrogatory No. 4: The Receiver's motion is granted as to Interrogatory No. 4. TUPSS is ordered to supplement its response and provide all information requested. The supplemental response must include information regarding where TUPSS keeps its records relating to audits and inspections of Herring Ventures, LLC. Requests for Production Nos. 1 and 5: The Receiver's motion is granted as to Request for Production Nos. 1 and 5. In its supplemental response [514] to the Receiver's motion, TUPSS stated that it “will produce non-privileged documents responsive to these Requests that can be located through a reasonable search.” [514] at 2. TUPSS is ordered to complete the search and supplement its responses to state that the search has been completed. Further, TUPSS is ordered, as to each request, to: (1) produce all documents responsive to the request which it has not already produced, if any, and to which it does not assert a claim of privilege, protection, or prohibition from disclosure; (2) supplement its response to: (a) organize and label (by identifying by Bates number) the documents responsive to the request, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i); (b) state either that it has produced all responsive documents or that it is withholding from production responsive documents, and (c) if it is withholding responsive documents, state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, as to those documents, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B) and (C). The Court also orders that if TUPSS is withholding documents responsive to these requests, it must produce a privilege log that identifies the responsive documents being withheld and provides the information required by L.U.Civ.R. 26(e). RECEIVER'S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS The Receiver's request for sanctions against TUPSS is denied. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Receiver's Motion to Compel [342] is granted in part and denied in part as set forth above and as follows: The Receiver's motion is denied as moot as to Request for Production No. 6 of the first set of discovery and Request for Production Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 of the fourth set of discovery. The Receiver's motion is granted as to Interrogatory No. 1 and Amended Interrogatory No. 3 of the third set of discovery and as to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 4 and Request for Production Nos. 1 and 5 of the fourth set of discovery. The Receiver's motion is granted in part and denied in part as to Request for Production Nos. 1 and 3 of the second set of discovery and Interrogatory No. 3 of the fourth set of discovery. The Receiver's motion is denied as to Request for Production No. 2 of the second set of discovery. The Receiver's request for sanctions against TUPSS is denied. TUPSS must comply with this Order by March 24, 2023. SO ORDERED on the 10th day of March, 2023. Footnotes [1] The transcript of this status conference and motion hearing is docketed at [504]. [2] In its response, TUPSS addressed Request for Production Nos. 5 and 6 in Receiver's third set of discovery. However, the Receiver did not raise these requests in her motion, and therefore, these requests are not before the Court. [3] The “Amended” Interrogatory No. 3 of Receiver's third set of discovery is set forth in Receiver's memorandum, [343] at 15, and in TUPSS's response, [368] at 12.