Brunero v. Vukasinovic

Background

Nicholas Brunero brought a breach-of-promissory-note action against Novak Vukasinovic, who was representing himself. Brunero alleged that he loaned Vukasinovic $100,000 and that Vukasinovic failed to repay the amount and interest after the note matured. This opinion addressed discovery, not the underlying breach-of-contract dispute.

Brunero served 31 document requests and 10 interrogatories. He argued that Vukasinovic’s responses were incomplete and that Vukasinovic had failed to comply with discovery obligations discussed at two case-management conferences. Vukasinovic maintained that he had provided all responsive information and documents in his possession or control. He also objected to some requests by describing the information as private.

Discovery Ruling

The court held that Brunero had shown that additional responsive documents might be in Vukasinovic’s possession or control. The court also held that the refinancing-related requests were relevant to the maturity of the promissory note and that describing information as private was not, by itself, a valid objection to producing it.

The court therefore granted Brunero’s motion to compel. Vukasinovic was directed to produce any responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control concerning Brunero’s document requests, including documents relating to communications between Brunero and Vukasinovic. To the extent they had not already been produced, he also had to provide relevant documents concerning document requests 2, 7, 9, and 28, which addressed the refinancing, related communications, debt, and agreements.

The court also required Vukasinovic to answer interrogatories 2 through 6 directly or identify the records to be reviewed with enough detail for Brunero to locate them. Vukasinovic was required to answer each interrogatory separately and fully under oath, including interrogatory 7’s request for both the names of knowledgeable individuals and descriptions of the information each person was believed to possess.

Attorney Fees and Costs

Brunero also sought attorney fees and costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5), which generally requires expense awards when a motion to compel is granted unless an exception applies. Because Vukasinovic had not been given an opportunity to address that request, the court declined to treat his failure to respond as conceding the issue.

The court denied Brunero’s request for attorney fees and costs without prejudice. It directed Vukasinovic to file a sworn statement, limited to 10 pages, explaining why he should not be required to pay those expenses, by October 14, 2024. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion.