Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-00563/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-00563-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Nikola Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Trevor R Milton,

Defendant.

No. CV-24-00563-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Statement of Discovery Dispute 

and Status Report (Doc. 39) in connection with the Court’s order granting expedited 

discovery on eight requests for productions (“RFPs”) (Doc. 29 at 17). 

I. Background

This action arises out of the parties’ underlying arbitration proceedings, where the 

American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) rendered a November 17, 2023, award in favor 

of Plaintiff Nikola Corporation (“Nikola”) and against Defendant Trevor R. Milton 

(“Milton”) for over $165 million due to Milton’s breach of fiduciary duties 

(the “Arbitration Award”). See generally Nikola Corporation v. Milton, AAA Case No. 

01-21-0017-1964. To protect its ability to collect on the Arbitration Award, Nikola sought 

a temporary restraining order that restrained Milton from transferring or depleting his 

assets. (See generally Doc. 5). 

In its March 27, 2024, Order (Doc. 29) (the “March Order”) the Court denied 

Case 2:24-cv-00563-DJH Document 40 Filed 04/25/24 Page 1 of 5
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Nikola’s request for a temporary restraining order (id. at 4–9) but granted Nikola’s request 

for expedited discovery relating to its claim for fraudulent transfers under the Arizona 

Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“AUFTA”) (id. at 12–17). Milton was required to 

respond to Nikola’s eight (8) Court-approved RFPs:

1. All documents, communications, and correspondence relating to the 

Transfer.

2. Documents and communications sufficient to identify the recipient(s) 

of the Shares resulting from the Transfer, whether entities or natural 

persons.

3. Documents and communications sufficient to identify the entity(ies) 

or person(s) maintaining control over the Shares.

4. Documents and communications sufficient to show the ownership, 

affiliate, representative, or personal relationship, if any, between You 

and the recipient of the Shares.

5. Documents and communications sufficient to show the ownership, 

affiliate,

representative, or personal relationship, if any, between You and the 

entity(ies) or person(s) maintaining control over the Shares.

6. Documents and communications sufficient to show the value of the 

consideration You received in connection with the Transfers.

7. Documents and communications relating to any negotiation, 

discussion, or contemplation of the consideration to be received by 

You or an entity or another person resulting from the Transfers.

8. Documents and communications sufficient to show the entire extent 

of Your assets and liabilities, including but not limited to Your 

monthly income and expenses. For the avoidance of doubt, the 

relevant time period for this Request is from November 17, 2023 

through the date of this Order.

(Id. at 17). The term “Transfers” as used in the RFPs is defined as (1) “the transfer of over 

22 million shares of Nikola stock occurring between February 22, 2024 and February 29, 

2024,” (2) “the transfer of over 7.9 million shares of Nikola stock occurring between 

Case 2:24-cv-00563-DJH Document 40 Filed 04/25/24 Page 2 of 5
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

February 29, 2024 and March 6, 2024,” and (3) “the transfer of over 7.4 million shares of 

Nikola stock occurring between March 6, 2024 and March 13, 2024 as described in (Sealed 

Docs. 5-8; 5-10; 25).” (Id. at 12).

Mr. Milton was required to file a notice of service with the Court by April 3, 2024 

(id. at 9–11), which he did (Doc. 31). Nikola disputes the sufficiency of Mr. Milton’s 

responses.1

III. Discussion

Milton’s position is that (1) he adequately responded to RFP Nos. 1–6 by stating he 

would produce the requested documents subject to the parties negotiating and the Court 

entering a protective order; and (2) he properly objected to RFP Nos. 7 and 8 on relevance, 

privilege, proportionality, and privacy grounds. (Doc. 39 at 4–5); (See also Doc. 32-3 

(Milton’s “Responses and Objections to Plaintiff Nikola[’s] Expedited Discovery 

Requests”)). Milton further indicated he is willing to negotiate a more appropriate scope

for RFP Nos. 7 and 8. (Doc. 32-3 at 11–12). Nikola’s position is that the Court, in the 

March Order, already reviewed and overruled Milton’s objections to RFP Nos. 7 and 8 and 

held that the RFPs were reasonable tailored to Nikola’s AUFTA claim. (Doc. 39 at 2 

(citing Doc. 29 at 10)). Nikola reasons that Milton’s objections are therefore “untimely, 

inappropriate, [] baseless, and are nothing more than a ploy to further delay” the ordered 

expedited discovery. (Id. at 2–3). The Court agrees with Nikola. 

A. Milton’s Objections to RFP Nos. 7 and 8

To the extent the March Order does not expressly overrule Milton’s objections to

RFP Nos. 7 and 8, the Court does so here. Milton objected to RFP No. 7 as irrelevant, 

overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking privileged information. (Doc. 32-3 at 11). 

RFP No. 7 is relevant and narrowly tailored to Nikola’s AUFTA claim because it is limited 

to documents and communications that go to the specific Transfers that took place in 

February and March and 2024—i.e., the allegedly fraudulent transfers at issue in this case. 

1 Nikola initially filed a Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 37), which the Court denied without 

prejudice and construed as a notice of discovery dispute. (See generally Doc. 32).

Case 2:24-cv-00563-DJH Document 40 Filed 04/25/24 Page 3 of 5
- 4 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(See Doc. 29 at 12 (definition of “Transfers”)). To the extent Milton finds that a document 

responsive to RFP No. 7 is otherwise privileged, he may identify that information as 

required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5).2

RFP No. 8 goes to documents demonstrating the extent of Milton’s assets (id. at 17), 

which Milton objects is irrelevant, unduly burdensome, seeks privileged information, and 

invades his privacy. (Doc. 32-2 at 11–12). The Court finds RFP No. 8 is relevant to 

Nikola’s AUFTA claim because the applicable timeframe spans from 

November 17, 2023—the date the AAA rendered the Arbitration Award at issue in this 

case—through the date of the March Order. (Id.) As stated above, Milton may identify 

any responsive document that is otherwise privileged as required by Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(b)(5). The Court further finds RFP No. 8 is appropriately tailored in scope 

because Milton does not expound on how the requests intrude on his privacy any more than

the manner in which typical discovery in a civil litigation intrudes upon litigants’ private 

affairs.

The Court will therefore overrule Milton’s objections to RFP Nos. 7 and 8 and order 

Milton to immediately respond to those RFPs.

B. Protective Order

The Court notes that both parties represent at least some willingness to negotiate the 

terms of a protective order, yet disagree on who is responsible for the initial drafting of a 

protective order. (See id. at 2 n.3 (Nikola stated that “[d]espite Milton’s insistence upon a 

court-ordered protective order, counsel for Milton did not contact Nikola after servicing its 

Responses and Objections to discuss a proposed protective order, nor provide Nikola with 

a draft proposed protective order for discussion”); id. at 5 (Mr. Milton stated that “[r]ather 

than circulating a protective order to expedite Mr. Milton’s production or taking Mr. Milton 

2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5) provides that “[w]hen a party withholds

information otherwise discoverable by claiming that the information is privileged or 

subject to protection as trial-preparation material, the party must: (i) expressly make the 

claim; and (ii) describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things 

not produced or disclosed—and do so in a manner that, without revealing information itself 

privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

25(b)(5)(A).

Case 2:24-cv-00563-DJH Document 40 Filed 04/25/24 Page 4 of 5
- 5 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

up on his invitation to meet and confer regarding [RFPs] 7 and 8, Nikola moved for 

sanctions without any prior notice or attempt at meeting and conferring”)). Because the 

parties are unable to coordinate a productive meet and confer process or agree on the proper 

way to proceed,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall meaningfully meet, confer, and jointly file 

a stipulated motion for a protective order no later than noon on Monday, April 29, 2024. 

If the parties cannot reach an agreement regarding the terms of a protective order, they 

shall jointly file a notice of discovery dispute and propose their respective proposed 

protective orders therein no later than noon on Monday, April 29, 2024. Alternatively,

if after meeting and conferring the parties find that a protective order is no longer necessary, 

then Defendant Trevor Milton shall immediately and no later than noon on Wednesday, 

May 1, 2024, respond to Plaintiff Nikola’s Request for Production Nos. 1–6.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any responsive documents the parties stipulate 

are not subject to a protective order shall be produced by Defendant Trevor Milton no later 

than noon on Wednesday, May 1, 2024.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Defendant Trevor Milton’s objections to 

Request for Production Nos. 7 and 8 are overruled. Defendant Trevor Milton shall 

produce any documents responsive to Plaintiff Nikola’s Request for Production Nos. 7 and 

8 immediately and no later than noon on Friday, April 26, 2024.

Dated this 24th day of April, 2024.

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge

Case 2:24-cv-00563-DJH Document 40 Filed 04/25/24 Page 5 of 5