Jefferies Funding LLC v. Dasagroup Holdings Corp., et al.

Background

The case was referred to Judge Kang for discovery matters. Jefferies Funding LLC and Third-Party Defendant Silo Technologies Inc., collectively referred to as “Jefferies,” submitted a letter brief disputing the sufficiency of Defendant Dasagroup Holdings Corp.’s responses to certain interrogatories and requests for admission. Dasagroup opposed the request and asked the court to defer its decision until after a pending motion to withdraw was decided. The court also noted that the parties had not filed a joint discovery letter brief as required by the court’s standing order.

Interrogatory No. 5

Interrogatory No. 5 asked Dasagroup to explain circumstances that increased or decreased the amount London Fruit owed on the affected receivables after the invoices were issued. Dasagroup’s original response reportedly referred to or repeated the response to an unrelated interrogatory. Dasagroup acknowledged the error but had not served an amended response.

The court found that Dasagroup had failed to provide an adequate response. It granted Jefferies’ motion regarding Interrogatory No. 5 and ordered Dasagroup to serve an amended response that corrected the error and answered in good faith, subject to any specific and justified objections, by October 31, 2025.

Interrogatory No. 12

Interrogatory No. 12 asked Dasagroup to state the amount, if any, that it contended London Fruit currently owed on the affected receivables. Dasagroup’s original response referred to documents. The court explained that referring to business records can be proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), but the court did not have the response itself and therefore could not determine whether Dasagroup had properly invoked that rule.

Jefferies represented that the referenced documents did not concern the affected receivables identified in the interrogatory. Dasagroup did not dispute that characterization. Based on that representation, the court found the original response inadequate, granted Jefferies’ motion regarding Interrogatory No. 12, and ordered Dasagroup to serve a good-faith amended response, subject to any specific and justified objections, by October 31, 2025.

Request for Admission No. 22

Request for Admission No. 22 asked Dasagroup to admit that London Fruit had paid Dasagroup in full for the affected receivables. Dasagroup objected that the request was vague and ambiguous and that it assumed the payments accurately reflected the true price earned on London’s sale of avocados. Dasagroup admitted that it received what was purported to be full payment on the receivables but denied the request to the extent other evidence could show that Dasagroup had been underpaid.

The court concluded that this response was not evasive or nonresponsive. It explained that the response admitted and denied different parts of the request, which Rule 36 permits when good faith requires a qualified answer. The court made no finding about which side was factually correct regarding the payments. Because Jefferies’ counsel reported that Dasagroup had agreed to serve an amended response, and Dasagroup did not dispute that representation, the court treated the dispute as moot as to the merits.

The court denied without prejudice as moot Jefferies’ motion to compel an amended response to Request for Admission No. 22. The court nevertheless ordered Dasagroup to honor its agreement and serve an amended response by November 14, 2025.

Disposition

Judge Peter H. Kang granted in part and denied in part Jefferies’ motion to compel. The court resolved the discovery dispute identified in Docket No. 146.