1 

KUTAK ROCK LLP 

Jeremy S. Williams (VSB No. 77469) 

Brian H. Richardson (VSB No. 92477) 

901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1000 

Richmond, Virginia 23219 

Telephone: (804) 644-1700 

Facsimile: (804) 783-6192 

Jeremy.Williams@kutakrock.com 

Brian.Richardson@kutakrock.com

Counsel for Peter J. Barrett, Trustee

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

Richmond Division 

)

In re: ) Chapter 7

)

POTOMAC PILE DRIVER, LLC, ) Case No. 17-34078 (KRH)

)

Debtor. )

)

)

PETER J. BARRETT, TRUSTEE )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Adv. Proc. No. 19-03079 (KRH)

)

BRAD MARTIN, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST 

SET OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO DEFENDANTS 

 AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

Plaintiff, Peter J. Barrett, Chapter 7 Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Potomac 

Pile Driver, LLC (the “Trustee” or “Plaintiff”), by counsel, pursuant to Rules 37 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Civil Rule(s)”), as incorporated by Rule 7037 of the 

Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rule(s)”), moves this Court to (i) 

compel Brad Martin (“Mr. Martin”), Robin McCormack (“Ms. McCormack”), and Jacob 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 39
2 

Lillard (“Mr. Lillard” and together with Mr. Martin and Ms. McCormack, the “Individual 

Defendants”) to provide complete and verified responses to the Plaintiff’s interrogatories 

(collectively, the “Interrogatories” or individually, an “Interrogatory”); (ii) provide 

complete responses to the Plaintiff’s requests for the production of documents (the 

“Document Request(s)”); (iii) deem any request for admission (the “Admission 

Request(s)”) not previously responded to as admitted; and (iv) overrule the Individual 

Defendants’ objections (the “Objections”) to certain Interrogatories and Documents 

Requests. In support of this motion, the Plaintiff states as follows: 

Background 

1. On September 6, 2019, the Trustee initiated the above-captioned 

adversary proceeding against the Individual Defendants, among others, by filing his 

Complaint alleging that the Individual Defendants should be held liable for the debts 

and obligations of Potomac Pile Driver, LLC (the “Debtor”). The Individual 

Defendants filed answers in connection with the Complaint [Docket Nos. 8, 19 and 

20]. 

2. No answer to the Complaint was timely filed by the Debtor. APD3, 

LLC (“APD”) and Shoreline Service & Design, LLC (“Shoreline” and together with 

the Debtor and APD, the “Corporate Defendants”) filed responses, but failed to obtain 

counsel (despite representing to the Plaintiff an intent to do so). Subsequently, their 

answers were stricken from the docket and default was entered against the Corporate 

Defendants by the Clerk [Docket Nos. 28, 30 and 31]. 

3. Thereafter, the Trustee moved for default judgment against the 

Corporate Defendants [Docket No. 32]. Shoreline opposed the entry of default 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 39
3 

judgment and sought additional time to review the Complaint and respond, but such 

request was denied and default judgment was ultimately entered [Docket Nos. 45 and 

55]. 

4. Trial in this matter is currently set to begin with respect to the Individual 

Defendants on September 14, 2020. 

5. On April 3, 2020, via first-class mail, the Plaintiff served the Plaintiff’s 

First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for the Production of Documents, and Requests 

for Admissions (the “Discovery”) on the Individual Defendants. A copy of the 

Discovery is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

6. Pursuant to Rule 7026-1(B) of the Local Rules of Bankruptcy 

Procedure, objections to the Discovery were due on before April 17, 2020. None of the 

Individual Defendants timely submitted Objections to the Discovery Requests. 

7. Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rules 7033, 7034 and 7036, which incorporate 

Civil Rules 33, 34 and 36, the Individual Defendants’ responses (the “Discovery 

Responses”) to the Discovery were required to be submitted within 30 days after 

service, or May 4, 2020. 

8. On April 28, 2020, the Plaintiff received Discovery Responses from Mr. 

Martin (the “Martin Response”). The Martin Response was filed with the Court at 

Docket No. 64. A copy of the Martin Response is also attached hereto as Exhibit B. 

The Martin Response is defective in that Mr. Martin fails to sufficiently answer the 

Interrogatories, Mr. Martin failed to produce any documents and Mr. Martin did not 

comply with the Civil Rules regarding the admission or denial of the Trustee’s 

Admission Requests. As a result, on April 28, 2020, the Trustee sent a letter to Mr. 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 39
4 

Martin advising of the deficiencies in the Martin Response and requesting that a 

supplemental response be received by May 8, 2020. A copy of the correspondence is 

attached hereto as Exhibit C. 

9. No supplemental Discovery Responses were received from Mr. Martin. 

10. Ms. McCormack and Mr. Lillard also failed to timely respond to the 

Discovery. As a result, the Trustee sent a letter to Ms. McCormack and Mr. Lillard 

requesting that they provide their Discovery Responses by May 15, 2020. A copy of 

the correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit D. As of May 19, 2020, no 

Discovery Responses have been received from Ms. McCormack or Mr. Lillard.1

Motion to Compel 

11. The Individual Defendants have made clear by their actions in 

connection with this adversary proceeding and in the underlying bankruptcy 

proceedings that they have no intention of proceeding in good faith, but will continue 

to disregard judicial process in an effort to further delay these proceedings and escape 

their legal obligations. Indeed, the Individual Defendants serve as principals or 

registered agents of parties against whom judgment has already been granted in 

connection with this adversary proceeding, and also against whom sanctions were 

awarded in the underlying bankruptcy proceedings for failure to comply with discovery 

process. [Case No. 17-34078; Docket Nos. 74 and 77]. 

1

 On the last day for providing a Discovery Response in connection with the letter, counsel for the Trustee 

received an email and a voicemail from Ms. McCormack in which she asserts she was unaware of the 

Discovery and requests a further six-week extension of her response deadline in order to obtain counsel to 

represent her in these proceedings. Plaintiff notes that at the time the Discovery was issued, Ms. 

McCormack was represented by counsel, and a copy of the Discovery was sent both to her individually and 

also to her counsel when issued. Ms. McCormack’s counsel moved to be allowed to withdraw as counsel, 

given her failure to cooperate, and the motion was granted [Docket No. 61]. Furthermore, Ms. 

McCormack filed certain papers with this Court which indicate that she was, in fact, aware of the 

Discovery deadline [Docket No. 63]. 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 39
5 

12. The Individuals Defendants now continue to waste the resources of this 

Court and the Trustee through their failure to comply with the Discovery. The 

deadline for responding to the Discovery, as extended, has passed, and the Individual 

Defendants have not provided any valid reason for their failure to properly respond to 

the Discovery. 

13. In light of the history of the Individual Defendants’ delays, the noncompliance with judicial procedure in this Court, and the failure to comply with the 

Plaintiff’s request that each Individual Defendant respond to the Discovery as required 

by the Civil Rules, the Plaintiff has no option but to request that this Court compel 

responses to the Discovery, and to seek recovery of costs and fees in connection 

herewith. 

14. Under Civil Rule 37, courts have “wide discretion to sanction a party for 

failing to comply with discovery requests” in connection with adversary proceedings. 

Southern Management Corp. Retirement Trust v. Rood, 532 Fed. Appx. 370, 372 (4th 

Cir. 2013). Appropriate factors to consider in compelling discovery or awarding 

sanctions include bad faith, prejudice to other parties, importance of deterrence, or the 

effectiveness of less severe sanctions. Southern States Rack and Fixture, Inc. v. 

Sherwin-Williams Co., 318 F. 3d 592. 597 (4th Cir. 2003). 

15. Here, the record is clear that an order compelling complete and verified 

Discovery Responses from each of the Individual Defendants, including sanctions for 

continued non-compliance, would be appropriate. 

16. Less severe sanctions previously imposed by this Court regarding the 

conduct of the Individual Defendants, including a sanction of $2,000, and also 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 39
6 

awarding default judgment as to Corporate Defendants, have not resulted in any 

meaningful increased diligence on the part of the Individual Defendants in connection 

with these proceedings. Instead, Mr. Martin has supplied materially insufficient 

responses, Mr. Lillard continues to be nonresponsive, and Ms. McCormack seeks only 

to further delay these proceedings. Each of these is an indication that the Individual 

Defendants do not appreciate the significance of these proceedings, and are proceeding 

in bad faith. 

17. Such bad faith and general abuse of the bankruptcy system is further 

evidenced by the fact that Mr. Martin has caused the Debtor to file no fewer than four 

separate bankruptcy cases since 2014 and, Ms. McCormack attempted to frustrate this 

proceeding by filing a bankruptcy proceeding on behalf of Shoreline, which proceeding 

was summarily dismissed.2 It is clear that the Defendants will continue in their efforts 

to hinder the Trustee, delay and defraud the their creditors and waste this Court’s 

resources. Accordingly increasingly severe sanctions are appropriate. 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an order (i) 

compelling the Individual Defendants to provide complete and verified responses to the 

Interrogatories within 10 days of the entry of an Order; (ii) compelling the Individual 

Defendants to provide complete and full responses to the Document Requests within 

10 days of the entry of an Order; (iii) deeming as admitted all Admission Requests that 

have not been specifically denied by the Individual Defendants; (iv) overruling the 

Objections set forth in the Martin Response as untimely, unsupported, and unfounded; 

(v) imposing sanctions of $250 per day for each day following the tenth day that the 

2

 The Trustee is aware that Shoreline Service & Design, LLC attempted to file a chapter 13 proceeding in 

the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which case was dismissed for 

deficient filings, among other issues. [Case No. 20-31147]. 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 6 of 39
7 

Individual Defendants fail to comply with this Court’s Order; and (vi) awarding 

Plaintiff’s costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees associated with this matter together with 

any other relief as the Court may deem proper. 

PETER J. BARRETT, TRUSTEE 

By: /s/ Brian H. Richardson 

KUTAK ROCK LLP 

Jeremy S. Williams (VSB No. 77469) 

Brian H. Richardson (VSB No. 92477) 

901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1000 

Richmond, Virginia 23219 

Telephone: (804) 644-1700 

Facsimile: (804) 783-6192 

Jeremy.Williams@kutakrock.com 

Brian.Richardson@kutakrock.com

Counsel for Peter J. Barrett, Trustee 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 7 of 39
8 

Certificate of Service 

Pursuant to the Local Rules of this Court, I certify under penalty of perjury that a true and 

correct copy of the foregoing was served by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to all necessary 

parties on May 19, 2020, as follows: 

Brad Martin 

30 Lincoln Avenue 

Colonial Beach, VA 22443 

Robin McCormack 

214 Marshall Avenue 

Colonial Beach, VA 22443 

Jacob Lillard 

27 Third Street 

Colonial Beach, VA 22443 

/s/ Brian H. Richardson

Counsel 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 8 of 39
EXHIBIT A 

Discovery 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 9 of 39
KUTAK ROCK LLP 

Jeremy S. Williams (VSB No. 77469) 

Brian H. Richardson (VSB No. 92477) 

901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1000 

Richmond, Virginia 23219 

Telephone: (804) 644-1700 

Facsimile: (804) 783-6192 

Jeremy.Williams@kutakrock.com 

Brian.Richardson@kutakrock.com

Counsel for Peter J. Barrett, Trustee

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

Richmond Division 

)

In re: ) Chapter 7

)

POTOMAC PILE DRIVER, LLC, ) Case No. 17-34078 (KRH)

)

Debtor. )

)

)

PETER J. BARRETT, TRUSTEE )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Adv. Proc. No. 19-03079 (KRH)

)

BRAD MARTIN, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUESTS FOR THE 

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS 

Plaintiff, Peter J. Barrett, Chapter 7 Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Potomac Pile 

Driver, LLC (the “Trustee”), by counsel, pursuant to Rules 26, 33, 34 and 36 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Rule(s)”), as incorporated by Rules 7026, 7033, 7034 and 7036 of 

the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, propounds the following as his first request for 

admissions, set of interrogatories, and request for production of documents to Brad Martin, 

Robin McCormack, and Jacob Lillard (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”). 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 10 of 39
2

Definitions 

1. “Adversary Proceeding” means that particular case styled Peter J. Barrett, 

Trustee v. Brad Martin, et al., Case No. 19-03079, which is pending in the United States 

Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division. 

2. “Answer” refers to the Answer filed by you in the Adversary Proceeding. 

3. “Communicate” or “communication” is defined to include every manner of 

disclosure or exchange, and every disclosure or exchange, of information, whether orally or by 

document or whether face-to-face, by telephone, mail, personal delivery, facsimile, e-mail, voice 

mail, or otherwise. 

4. “Complaint” refers to the initial Complaint filed by Peter J. Barrett, Trustee for 

the Bankruptcy Estate of Potomac Pile Driver, LLC, in the Adversary Proceeding. 

5. “Corporate Defendants” refers to Potomac Pile Driver, LLC, Shoreline Service 

and Design LLC, and APD3 LLC, collectively. 

6. “Defendants” refers to the Individual Defendants and the Corporate Defendants, 

collectively. 

7. “Describe,” when used in reference to facts, means to state those relevant facts to 

the extent of your present knowledge and those which you can ascertain by a reasonable search. 

8. “Document” or “documents” is defined to include anything within the scope of 

Federal Rule of Evidence 1001 and Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including, 

but not limited to, the original, drafts, revisions and non-duplicate copies of any written, typed, 

printed, recorded, magnetic, graphic or other form of memorialization or communication and 

also specifically including all of your internal memoranda, whether or not such documents are 

claimed to be privileged against discovery on any ground. 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 11 of 39
3

9. “Identify” or “identification,” when used in reference to a communication, means 

to state the parties to such communication, the medium of such communication, i.e., telephonic, 

letter, etc., the date of such communication, and the subject matter and substance of such 

communication. 

10. “Identify” or “identification,” when used in reference to a document, means to 

state the type of documents, e.g., letter, memoranda, telegram, chart, etc., and some means of 

identifying it, its present location and custodian. If any such document was but is no longer in 

your possession or subject to your control, state what disposition was made of it. Whenever an 

interrogatory asks for the description or identification of a document, a copy of such document 

may be attached to the answer to the interrogatory rather than describing it in accordance with 

the foregoing definition. 

11. “Identify” or “identification,” when used in reference to facts, means to identify 

all persons with knowledge of such facts and all documents relating to such facts. 

12. “Identify” or “identification,” when used in reference to a person, means to state 

his full name and his present or last known positions and business affiliation, his present home 

and business addresses, and his present business and home telephone numbers. 

13. “Individual Defendants” refers to Brad Martin, Robin McCormack, and Jacob 

Lillard, collectively. 

14. “Person” is defined to include individual persons and all entities, including, but 

not limited to, firms, associations, partnerships, corporations, companies, joint ventures, trusts, 

estates, or other legal, business or governmental entities. 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 12 of 39
4

15. “Relating to” or “relates to” means, without limitation, discussing, embodying, 

mentioning, concerning, pertaining, referring or relating directly or indirectly to the subject 

matter identified in the interrogatory or request. 

16. “You” or “your” is defined to mean the Defendants, individually and collectively, 

along with their agents, representatives, officers, advisors, attorneys, experts, investigators, 

insurers, or anyone acting on their behalf. 

17. The singular includes the plural number and vice versa. The masculine includes 

the feminine and neuter genders. 

18. Unless separately defined herein, all capitalized terms shall have the meaning 

ascribed in the Complaint. 

Instructions 

1. These discovery requests shall be deemed continuing so as to require 

supplemental responses if you and/or your attorneys obtain further information between the time 

responses are served and the time of the trial on this matter. 

2. For each interrogatory, identify the person or persons who participated and/or 

assisted in providing information to you in responding to the interrogatory, and describe each 

such person’s relationship to you and the manner in which each person so identified assisted. 

3. If you consider any document called for in these interrogatories or document 

requests to be privileged from production, then you should include in the answer to these 

interrogatories and document requests a list of documents withheld from production, identifying 

each document by date, addressee(s), author, title, and subject matter and stating the ground(s) 

upon which each such document is considered privileged. In addition, you should identify those 

persons who have seen the document or who were sent copies. Finally, for any documents or 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 13 of 39
5

communications that are privileged only in part, produce the unobjectionable parts and redact the 

privileged portions complying with Rule 7034 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. 

4. If any responsive document is no longer in existence, cannot be located or is not 

in your possession, custody or control, identify it, describe its subject matter and describe its 

disposition (including, without limitation, identifying the person or persons having knowledge of 

the disposition). 

5. Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, you are required to 

produce all responsive documents in the possession, custody or control of you or any of your 

agents, employees or attorneys. 

6. Whenever you are requested to give specific information such as a date or a figure 

and you cannot give the exact information, give your best estimate thereof. 

7. The documents must be produced at the law offices of Kutak Rock LLP, 901 East 

Byrd Street, Suite 1000, Richmond, Virginia 23219. 

[Remainder of page intentionally left blank] 

 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 14 of 39
6

INTERROGATORIES 

1. Identify all persons who assisted in the response to these discovery requests. 

Your response should include each such person’s name, address, telephone number and the 

specific discovery request(s) with which such person assisted. 

ANSWER: 

2. Identify each person you expect to call as an expert witness at the trial on this 

matter and with respect to each such person, give a summary of the expert’s expertise, the 

subject matter, factual basis, and grounds for each opinion about which the expert is expected to 

testify. 

ANSWER: 

3. Identify all persons with knowledge of the statements, denials and defenses in the 

Answer. Your response should include each such person’s name, address, telephone number and 

a description of the scope and extent of such person’s knowledge. 

ANSWER: 

4. Identify all business entities owned or operated by Brad Martin, Robin 

McCormack, or Jacob Lillard, regardless of whether any such entity is currently operating. 

ANSWER: 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 15 of 39
7

5. For each entity identified in response to Interrogatory No. 4 above, describe your 

understanding of the business it conducts. Your response should include a description of the 

day-to-day operations, target customers, and the approximate date on which such entity began 

operations. 

ANSWER: 

6. For each entity identified in response to Interrogatory No. 4 above that you assert 

is no longer in operation, state the approximate date that such entity ceased operations. 

ANSWER: 

7. Describe your interaction and/or involvement with each of (i) Potomac Pile 

Driver, LLC; (ii) Shoreline Service and Design LLC; or (iii) APD3 LLC, including your 

knowledge of the officers, directors, and principle customers for each, and any services 

performed by you on behalf of each. 

ANSWER: 

8. Identify all persons authorized to sign financial documents on behalf of Potomac 

Pile Driver, LLC, Shoreline Service and Design LLC, or APD3 LLC, and for each such person, 

identify all such entities for which he or she has signatory authority. 

ANSWER: 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 16 of 39
8

9. Describe with specificity when you first became aware of the Potomac Pile 

Driver, LLC, bankruptcy filing. Your response should include when you first became aware that 

a bankruptcy petition was being prepared, and also when you first were made aware that the 

bankruptcy petition had been filed. 

ANSWER: 

10. State with particularity your basis for denying that each of the defendants was 

subject to the same credit limitations in connection with conducting business with Wood 

Preservers, Inc. 

ANSWER: 

11. Identify all persons holding membership interests in each of Potomac Pile Driver, 

LLC, Shoreline Service and Design LLC, and/or APD3 LLC. 

ANSWER: 

12. Identify all known vendors conducting business with each of Potomac Pile Driver, 

LLC, Shoreline Service and Design LLC, and/or APD3 LLC. 

ANSWER: 

13. Identify all bank accounts for which Potomac Pile Driver, LLC, Shoreline Service 

and Design LLC, and/or APD3 LLC is an account holder or authorized signatory. 

ANSWER: 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 17 of 39
9

14. State with particularity the date of purchase and prior owner of any vessel, truck, 

Caterpillar, Hitachi and any other equipment used by Shoreline Service and Design LLC. 

ANSWER: 

15. Identify all equipment in the possession of or owned by Potomac Pile Driver, 

LLC, Shoreline Service and Design LLC, and/or APD3 LLC. 

ANSWER: 

16. Identify the source of all funds used to acquire any equipment you identify in 

response to interrogatory number 15 above. 

ANSWER: 

17. Identify the source of funds used for any food truck business in which you held an 

interest between 2016 and 2020. 

ANSWER: 

18. Describe the purchase and disposition of the food truck used by the entity known 

as “Beach Taco.” Your response should include a description of the source of funding for Beach 

Taco and the terms of sale, if any, of equipment to the entity known as “Lala’s Kitchen on 

Wheels.” 

ANSWER: 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 18 of 39
10

19. Identify all work projects, jobs or services provided by Potomac Pile Driver, LLC, 

Shoreline Service and Design LLC, and/or APD3 LLC for the years 2016 through 2019. Your 

response should include the name of the customer or client, and a brief summary of what work 

was performed and by whom. 

ANSWER: 

20. State with particularity your basis for denying that Brad Martin previously 

conducted pile-driving businesses including Mid Atlantic Building Group, Marine Contractors, 

and Martin Marine. 

ANSWER: 

21. Identify any conversations you had, written or oral, regarding the bankruptcy 

filing of Potomac Pile Driver, LLC, including any parties to such conversation, the date of the 

communication, the medium of the communication and the substance of the communication. 

ANSWER: 

22. Identify the location of any storage facility where equipment or other assets or 

personal property of each of the Corporate Defendants is stored. 

ANSWER: 

23. Describe your understanding of when Shoreline Service and Design LLC, first 

began operating. 

ANSWER: 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 19 of 39
11

24. If you deny any of the requests for admission below, state the basis for such 

denial. 

ANSWER: 

 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 20 of 39
12 

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Please produce the following documents: 

1. All documents referred to or relied upon in your responses to the 

interrogatories contained herein. 

2. For each response to every request for admission, provide every document 

that relates to, supports or contradicts your response. 

3. All documents that refer to, relate to, support or contradict any of the 

allegations contained in the Complaint. 

4. All documents that refer to, relate to, support or contradict any of the 

allegations, statements, denials, admissions or defenses contained in the Answer. 

5. All documents containing information about, relating to, or reflecting any 

communications between you and Wood Preservers, Inc. 

6. All documents containing information about, relating to, or reflecting the 

organizational structure of Potomac Pile Driver, LLC, Shoreline Service and Design LLC, 

and/or APD3 LLC. 

7. All bank statements for each of the Individual Defendants and Corporate 

Defendants for the period from January 2016 through March 2020.. 

8. All invoices issued by each of the Corporate Defendants between January 

2016 and March 2020. 

9. All contracts for which any of the Defendants is a party. 

10. All documents, including any correspondence, about, relating to, or reflecting 

the relationship between any of the Defendants. 

11. All tax records for each of the Defendants for the years 2016 – 2019. 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 21 of 39
13 

12. All documents containing information about, relating to, or reflecting any 

business transacted by you with the following entities: Landmark Yacht Club, Auia Harbor 

Marina, Colonial Beach Yacht Club, Gas Light Village, Times River Shore, Hoffmasters 

marina, Canterbury Estates HOA, Riverloop Charters, EZ Cruz Marina, Sun Builders, 

Bayside Marina, Mansion House Yacht Club, Nightingale Marina, Paynes Point Marina, 

Oasis Marina at CBYC, and Whelans Marina. 

13. The business records of the entity known as “Beach Taco.” 

14. The business records of the entity known as “Lala’s Kitchen on Wheels.” 

15. All documents reflecting contracts with Beach Taco or Lala’s Kitchen on 

Wheels. 

16. The financing statements for any equipment held or used by any of the 

Defendants. 

17. All documents reflecting any financial obligations for any of the Defendants 

between January 2016 through March 2020. 

18. All documents reflecting the ownership or acquisition of equipment or other 

assets or personal property used by the Corporate Defendants. 

19. A list of current or former employees of the Corporate Defendants between 

January 2016 through March 2020. 

20. A list of contractors engaged by any of the Corporate Defendants between 

January 2016 through March 2020. 

21. All work orders, bids, or project designs submitted or used by the Corporate 

Defendants between January 2016 through March 2020. 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 22 of 39
14 

22. A copy of the Depreciation Schedules for any assets of each of the Corporate 

Defendants. 

23. A copy of the General Ledger for each of the Corporate Defendants. 

24. All documents reflecting outstanding accounts receivable for each of the 

Corporate Defendants. 

25. All documents reflecting materials purchased by each of the Corporate 

Defendants. 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 23 of 39
15 

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 

1. The registered primary place of business for Potomac Pile Driver, LLC, 

was the home address of Brad Martin. 

2. The registered primary place of business for Shoreline Service and 

Design LLC was the home address of Robin McCormack. 

3. The registered primary place of business for APD3 LLC was the home 

address of Jacob Lillard. 

4. Potomac Pile Driver, LLC operated between 2011 and 2016. 

5. Potomac Pile Driver, LLC operated on a cash basis. 

6. Potomac Pile Driver, LLC did not maintain a bank account. 

7. Potomac Pile Driver, LLC did not file a tax return for the years 2011 

through 2016. 

8. Brad Martin was a founder or was involved in the formation of 

Shoreline Service and Design LLC. 

9. Brad Martin was a founder or was involved in the formation of APD3 

LLC. 

10. Brad Martin conducted business on behalf of and interacted directly 

with vendors for Shoreline Service and Design LLC. 

11. Brad Martin conducted business on behalf of and interacted directly 

with vendors for APD3 LLC. 

12. Shoreline Service and Design LLC is primarily in the business of 

providing pile driving services. 

13. APD3 LLC is primarily in the business of providing pile driving 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 24 of 39
16 

services. 

14. Shoreline Service and Design LLC does not maintain separate operating 

and capital accounts. 

15. APD3 LLC does not maintain separate operating and capital accounts. 

16. Brad Martin conducted business on behalf of Shoreline Service and 

Design LLC with Mansion House Yacht Club in 2017 and/or 2018. 

17. As of March 1, 2016, Potomac Pile Driver, LLC had customers and 

scheduled projects under development. 

18. Prior customers of Potomac Pile Driver, LLC engaged Shoreline 

Service and Design LLC after April 2016. 

19. Shoreline Service and Design LLC currently holds itself out to the 

public as having been in operation for more than 17 years in the Colonial Beach area. 

20. Shoreline Service and Design LLC lists past projects actually completed 

by Potomac Pile Driver, LLC and other businesses operated by Brad Martin among its 

advertised list of satisfied customers. 

21. Assets of Potomac Pile Driver, LLC, and/or Shoreline Service and 

Design LLC were used to obtain or finance personal property of the defendants, 

including a taco truck business venture. 

22. Equipment used by Shoreline Service and Design LLC was previously 

used by or titled in the name of Brad Martin and/or Potomac Pile Driver, LLC. 

23. Shoreline Service and Design LLC was formed for the purpose of taking 

over the business dealings and services previously provided by Potomac Pile Driver, 

LLC in the Colonial Beach area. 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 25 of 39
17 

24. Prior to 2017, Robin McCormack had little, if any, prior experience in 

the pile driving services industry. 

25. Brad Martin introduced Robin McCormack to vendors previously 

dealing with Potomac Pile Driver, LLC. 

26. Vendors of Potomac Pile Driver, LLC, treated each of the Defendants as 

one and the same entity. 

27. Shoreline Service and Design LLC and Robin McCormack were 

previously sanctioned by the Court for failure to respond to the Trustee’s requests for 

information. 

28. The Defendants, individually and collectively, constitute the alter ego, 

alias, stooge or dummy of Potomac Pile Driver, LLC, Shoreline Service and Design 

LLC, and APD3 LLC. 

29. The Defendants, individually and collectively, should be held personally 

responsible and accountable for the debts of Potomac Pile Driver, LLC, as each has 

acted, individually and in concert, as a devise or sham to disguise wrongs, obscure 

fraud, unduly and unjustly enrich themselves, and possibly conceal criminal conduct. 

30. The Defendants used Potomac Pile Driver, LLC, Shoreline Service and 

Design LLC, and APD3 LLC to shield fraud, hinder creditors, unduly enrich 

themselves, and otherwise advance an inequitable result. 

31. The Defendants, individually and collectively, have pursued additional 

credit financing and encumbered assets of Potomac Pile Driver, LLC for the purpose of 

hindering and defrauding creditors. 

32. The Defendants, individually and collectively, and prior to the Petition 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 26 of 39
18 

Date, had knowledge that Potomac Pile Driver, LLC was preparing to file a bankruptcy 

petition. 

33. The Defendants, individually and collectively, aided and abetted Brad 

martin in hiding or removing assets of Potomac Pile Driver, LLC. 

34. Brad Martin continues to operate businesses using assets that should 

have been included as part of the Potomac Pile Driver, LLC bankruptcy estate. 

35. Robin McCormack aided and abetted Brad Martin in converting, 

removing or hiding assets of Potomac Pile Driver, LLC. 

36. Brad Martin breached his fiduciary duties with respect to Potomac Pile 

Driver, LLC. 

PETER J. BARRETT, TRUSTEE 

 By: /s/ Brian H. Richardson 

KUTAK ROCK LLP 

Jeremy S. Williams (VSB No. 77469) 

Brian H. Richardson (VSB No. 92477) 

901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1000 

Richmond, Virginia 23219 

Telephone: (804) 644-1700 

Facsimile: (804) 783-6192 

Jeremy.Williams@kutakrock.com 

Brian.Richardson@kutakrock.com

Counsel for Peter J. Barrett, Trustee 

 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 27 of 39
19 

Certificate of Service 

 Pursuant to the Local Rules of this Court, I certify under penalty of perjury that a true and 

correct copy of the foregoing was served by electronic mail and/or first-class mail, postage 

prepaid, to all necessary parties on April 3, 2020, as follows: 

Brad Martin 

30 Lincoln Avenue 

Colonial Beach, VA 22443 

Robin McCormack 

214 Marshall Avenue 

 Colonial Beach, VA 22443 

AND 

c/o Charles H. Krumbein, Esq. 

Krumbein & Associates, PLLC 

1650 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 201 

Richmond, VA 23230 

Jacob Lillard 

27 Third Street 

Colonial Beach, VA 22443 

 /s/ Brian H. Richardson 

 Counsel 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 28 of 39
EXHIBIT B 

Martin Response 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 29 of 39
Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 30 of 39
Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 31 of 39
Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 32 of 39
Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 33 of 39
EXHIBIT C 

Correspondence to Mr. Martin 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 34 of 39
Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 35 of 39
Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 36 of 39
EXHIBIT D 

Correspondence to Ms. McCormack and Mr. Lillard 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 37 of 39
Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 38 of 39
Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 67 Filed 05/19/20 Entered 05/19/20 21:30:37 Desc Main

Document Page 39 of 39