Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02066/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02066-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 12:635 Breach of Insurance Contract

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF ILLINOIS

Plaintiffs,

v.

VFORCE INC., ET AL.,

Defendant.

No. 2:18-cv-02066-DAD-CKD

DISCOVERY ORDER

VFORCE INC., a California corporation; 

Cross-Claimant, v. CORTECH, LLC, a 

Georgia limited liability company; BEAN 

TEAM NETWORK 2 LLC

Cross-claimant,

v.

CORTECH, LLC, a Georgia limited 

liability company; BEAN TEAM 

NETWORK 2 LLC,

Cross-defendants.

////

////

Case 2:18-cv-02066-DAD-CKD Document 155 Filed 09/01/23 Page 1 of 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

2

Defendant VForce’s motion to compel and request for sanctions and attorney’s fees is 

presently pending before this court. (ECF No. 151.) The parties appeared for a hearing on 

defendant’s motion on August 30, 2023. Attorney Brad McDowell appeared for defendant 

VForce; attorney John Shoreman appeared for cross-defendants Bean Team Network 2 LLC, 

Accuire, LLC, Kaiserkane Consulting, LLC, Michael DiManno, Melissa Oglesby, and Richard 

Gardner; and attorney Patrick Cory Barnwell appeared for cross-defendant Cortech, LLC. 

For the readers’ ease, the court uses only the name “Accuire” to refer to the crossdefendants/non-movants.

I. Background

The following background is highly summarized. In 2018, VForce was sued by plaintiff 

Zurich American Insurance for breach of contract after failing to pay a premium adjustment on a 

workers’ compensation policy. (See generally, ECF No. 6.) VForce then sued Accuire for breach 

of contract, false promise, intentional misrepresentation, conspiracy, and unfair competition based 

on an agreement between VForce and Accuire dated December 22, 2014. (ECF No. 119.) 

VForce alleges that on April 1, 2016, Accuire dissolved without informing VForce of its

dissolution and sold off the debts owed to VForce. (Id. at ¶ 26.) The sale is alleged to have 

occurred around January 2017. (Id. at ¶ 30.) 

VForce served requests for production of documents on July 30, 2021 and November 16, 

2021, seeking financial records from 2014 to the present. (ECF No. 153, 13-53 and 115-121.) 

Acquire timely objected to the November 16, 2021 request on the basis that the records sought are 

not reasonably related, unduly burdensome, and are not proportional. (Id. at 121-131.) 

The parties contemplated limiting the time period for the financial records sought but were 

ultimately unable to reach an agreement. (Id. at 5.) VForce filed the instant motion to compel 

after the parties satisfied their meet and confer obligations. (ECF No. 151; ECF No. 153 at 5.) 

II. Motion to Compel Hearing and Parties’ Stipulation

During the hearing on VForce’s motion to compel, the parties informed the court that the 

only requests at issue were VForce’s request for Accuire’s financial records from 2014 through 

Case 2:18-cv-02066-DAD-CKD Document 155 Filed 09/01/23 Page 2 of 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

3

the present. Accuire maintained its objection that the scope of the records sought is not 

proportional and is overly burdensome. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties agreed that Accuire would produce to VForce

the following documents from 2016 through the present: General Ledgers in their native source 

format, Profit and Loss Statements, and Balance Statements. The parties also agreed that the 

production would occur within 30 days of the court’s order.

III. Sanctions and Attorney’s Fees

The only remaining issues are sanctions and attorney’s fees. Under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 37, the court may sanction parties that fail to adequately respond to requests for 

production of documents. Where a motion is granted in part, awards of attorney’s fees are 

discretionary. Id. 

Here, Accuire timely objected to VForce’s request based on proportionality, but VForce 

refused to narrow the request by shortening the time period for the records sought. (ECF No. 153 

at 135-136) (emails between parties from February 2023 wherein VForce refuses to narrow the 

time span for the general ledgers requested). Given Accuire’s timely and reasonable objection

and participation in meet and confer efforts, neither sanctions nor attorney’s fees are warranted 

here. Accordingly, VForce’s requests for sanctions and attorney’s fees is denied.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant VForce’s motion to compel is granted in part. Within thirty days, Accuire shall 

produce to VForce the following documents 2016 through the present: General Ledgers in 

their native source format, Profit and Loss Statements, and Balance Statements. Accuire 

shall inform VForce in writing if any of these documents does not exist or is otherwise not 

in Accuire’s custody or control.

2. Defendant VForce’s request for sanctions and attorney’s fees is denied. 

Dated: September 1, 2023

21,zuri.2066

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:18-cv-02066-DAD-CKD Document 155 Filed 09/01/23 Page 3 of 3