Ballast Advisors v. Scott A. Peterson
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:23-cv-03769
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 10
In Ballast Advisors v. Peterson, Magistrate Judge Docherty granted in part and denied in part Ballast's motion to compel defendants to produce emails, texts, and phone records.
Former employees and investment advisors who have signed confidentiality and non-solicitation agreements with employers, companies litigating misappropriation of trade secrets or breach of employment contracts, and parties in civil litigation who face discovery disputes — particularly those who have received warnings about discovery delays and potential sanctions.
What happened
Ballast Advisors, LLC v. Scott A. Peterson, et al. (Case No. 23-CV-3769) is a breach of contract lawsuit in which Ballast alleges that its former investment advisor, Scott Peterson, violated his employment agreement by misusing confidential information, soliciting clients he agreed not to solicit, and working with former colleague Melinda Bradley and a competing firm, MMX Wealth Partners, LLC. Peterson has filed counterclaims against Ballast and its founding partner, alleging defamation, invasion of privacy, and related claims. The dispute before the court was not about the merits of those claims, but about whether defendants had adequately responded to Ballast's requests for documents and communications.
Ballast filed a motion to compel after months of alleged delays, broken promises to produce documents, and incomplete responses from the defendants. The requested discovery included emails from key accounts used during the period when defendants allegedly planned their departure from Ballast, text messages between Peterson and Bradley, communications with Ballast clients, and Peterson's 2022 cell phone records. Defendants largely did not dispute Ballast's description of the discovery problems and, notably, sent a letter to the court the day after oral argument stating they would voluntarily produce most of the requested materials — a move the court interpreted as a concession that the discovery was relevant and that their earlier refusals were improper.
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty granted the motion to compel in part, ordering defendants to produce six specific categories of documents within 14 days and requiring the parties to file a joint status report on compliance within 21 days. The court declined to award sanctions or fees at this time, but warned defendants that changing course after forcing Ballast to go through formal motion practice would not protect them from a future fee award. The motion for an extension of the fact discovery deadline was denied as moot because the parties had already agreed to an extension by stipulation.
The detailed version
- Ballast Advisors v. Scott A. Peterson · No. 0:23-cv-03769
- Patrick Schiltz
- Oct. 21, 2025
Background
Ballast Advisors, LLC ("Ballast") filed this action against former employee Scott A. Peterson, former employee Melinda M. Bradley, and MMX Wealth Partners, LLC ("MMX"). Ballast alleges that Peterson violated his September 2022 employment agreement, which included confidentiality and non-solicitation clauses, by improperly using and disclosing Ballast's confidential information after resigning in February 2023. Ballast further alleges misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty and duty of loyalty, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. Ballast contends that Bradley and MMX aided and abetted Peterson in these actions.
Peterson has filed counterclaims against Ballast and its founding partner, Paul Parnell, including defamation, malicious injury, intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation of name and likeness, and false endorsement under 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (the Lanham Act).
Procedural History
The original complaint was filed in December 2023. The case proceeded slowly: a motion to dismiss was argued in April 2024, discovery was stayed until January 7, 2025, and a pretrial scheduling order was not issued until March 3, 2025. The fact discovery deadline was subsequently extended to January 9, 2026, by stipulation of the parties.
Ballast re-served its first set of discovery requests on January 10, 2025. It received Peterson's first substantive responses — 99 pages of documents — on February 26, 2025, and did not receive substantive responses from Bradley and MMX until May 30, 2025. Ballast contended that throughout the spring and summer of 2025, defendants made repeated promises to produce additional documents and consistently failed to follow through. Defendants largely did not dispute this characterization of events; instead, they raised legal arguments about vagueness and objected to the scope of Ballast's proposed order.
The day after oral argument on October 2, 2025, defendants sent a letter to the court stating they would voluntarily produce most of the requested materials. The day after that, defendants also withdrew a pending motion for partial dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (which allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim).
Legal Standards
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), which permits discovery of any nonprivileged matter relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Proportionality is assessed by weighing factors including the importance of the issues, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to information, and whether the burden of discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a), a party may move to compel discovery if an opposing party fails to answer interrogatories, produce requested documents, or designate a witness for deposition. An evasive or incomplete response is treated the same as no response at all. Objections to discovery requests must be stated with specificity; objections not timely raised are generally waived.
Ruling on the Motion to Compel
The court found that all four categories of requested discovery — (1) emails from Peterson's "advisorpete@gmail.com" account and other accounts, (2) communications among the key participants in the alleged scheme, (3) communications and notes between defendants and Ballast clients, and (4) documents showing Peterson's retention of Ballast's confidential information — were "foundationally relevant" and proportional to the needs of the case. The court noted that defendants' post-hearing letter, in which they offered to produce most of the requested materials, functioned as a concession of relevance and proportionality, and as an implicit acknowledgment that their prior refusals were improper.
The court ordered defendants to produce the following within 14 days of the order:
- All non-privileged emails (including attachments) to, from, or including the email accounts listed in defendants' post-hearing letter for all of 2022 and 2023, regardless of content or recipients.
- All non-privileged emails between Peterson and Bradley for all of 2022 and 2023 from those accounts, regardless of content and including third parties.
- All text messages between Peterson and Bradley from 2022 and 2023, regardless of content and whether they include third parties.
- All emails to, from, or including any "@advservnet.com" email address and Mark Marxer's email account for all of 2022 and 2023, regardless of content and whether they include third parties.
- All emails between Bradley and any Ballast Client (as defined during discovery conferences) for all of 2022 and 2023, regardless of content and whether they include third parties.
- Peterson's 2022 cell phone records.
The parties were directed to file a joint status report on compliance within 21 days.
Sanctions
The court declined to award fees or sanctions at this time, citing defendants' stated intention to correct their behavior going forward. However, the court issued a pointed warning that defendants cannot avoid a future fee award simply by reversing course after forcing Ballast through months of delay and the expense of formal motions practice.
Spoliation Warning
The court did not rule on any spoliation motion (none was pending), but addressed Ballast's concern — raised in its post-hearing letter — that some text messages produced did not originate from Peterson's phone, suggesting possible destruction or loss of evidence. The court reminded defendants of their obligation to preserve electronically stored information and to retrieve such information from alternative sources if originals have been destroyed, and warned of the severe consequences of intentional spoliation under Paisley Park Enterprises, Inc. v. Boxill, 330 F.R.D. 226 (D. Minn. 2019).
Discovery Deadline Extension
Ballast's request for a 90-day extension of the fact discovery deadline applicable only to Ballast (without any extension for defendants) was denied as moot, because the parties had already agreed by stipulation to extend the deadline to January 9, 2026.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.