1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 1:20-CV-21254-BLOOM/LOUIS

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

JUSTIN W. KEENER D/B/A JMJ FINANCIAL,

Defendant.

[ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED]

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE SEC’S 

OFFICE OF INTERPRETATION AND GUIDANCE AND THIRD PARTIES

I. INTRODUCTION 

This Motion seeks the production of communications between the SEC’s Office of 

Interpretation and Guidance (“OIG”) and members of the public about the specific question in 

this case—which persons must register as securities dealers. This Court has already ruled that 

such communications are relevant to Mr. Keener’s fair notice and lack of scienter defenses. The

communications will shed light on the understanding of the SEC and market participants of the 

dealer registration requirements and will show how this understanding was created by the SEC 

itself. In fact, the limited set of OIG communications the Court previously ordered the SEC to 

produce (11 document families that hit on two specific terms) already demonstrate that the SEC 

told market participants to analyze the law in a way that directly contradicts its current litigation 

posture. Specifically, the SEC did not tell market participants—as it does in this case—that a

dealer is anyone who buys and sells a large volume of securities for his own account. Instead, 

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021 Page 1 of 16
2

the SEC told market participants that the question of who is a securities dealer is a complex 

factual question that can only be answered by assessing the numerous factors listed on the SEC’s 

Guide to Broker Dealer Registration and set forth in prior case law and SEC no-action letters. 

Given the indisputable relevance of the few documents already produced, Mr. Keener seeks the 

production of OIG communications that hit on a limited set of additional search terms.

The SEC has not identified any specific burden associated with producing these 

documents. The OIG communications are stored in a single, searchable database. Mr. Keener’s 

requested searches could be conducted quickly, and the hits produced easily. The 

communications are with third parties, and the SEC has not identified any particular privileged 

information in the database. Despite having six months to articulate a specific burden, the SEC 

has been silent. Accordingly, Mr. Keener respectfully requests that the Court order the SEC to 

produce the limited set of additional OIG communications that he seeks. 

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

A. This Case Concerns the Correct Interpretation of the Definition of a 

Securities Dealer

On March 24, 2020, the SEC filed a single-count complaint against Mr. Keener. ECF 1. 

The Complaint’s sole allegation is that under the SEC’s current interpretation of the definition of 

a dealer under Section 3(a)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Mr. Keener was a 

securities dealer. Id. The essence of Mr. Keener’s defense is that under the plain statutory 

language, legislative history, judicial interpretations, and decades of SEC guidance, no-action 

letters, and statements to members of the public, the Exchange Act’s definition of a dealer cannot 

be and has never been interpreted as broadly as the SEC seeks to do in this case to encompass 

individuals like Mr. Keener who solely invest their own money and provide no services to the 

investing public. 

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021 Page 2 of 16
3

B. Mr. Keener’s Efforts to Obtain the SEC’s Documents Concerning the 

Dealer Registration Requirements

At the start of discovery in this case, Mr. Keener issued document requests to the SEC 

seeking all of the SEC’s internal and external statements concerning the dealer registration 

requirements, and in particular concerning which persons are obligated to register as securities 

dealers. ECF No. 36 (Notice of Hearing describing these requests). Other than copies of the 

Guide to Broker-Dealer Registration, which is currently posted to the SEC’s website, the SEC 

refused to produce any responsive documents. Mr. Keener noticed that discovery dispute for a 

hearing in December 2020. The Court found the initial request overbroad, but “recognize[d] the 

relevance” of the documents and suggested that Mr. Keener “could appropriately narrow and 

define” the request to include limitations on “where or when” the SEC had to search for 

documents. Dec. 17, 2020 H’rg Tr. at 21.

Shortly after that hearing, Mr. Keener issued an interrogatory and a document request 

seeking only communications between one office within the SEC—the OIG—and members of 

the public concerning the dealer registration requirements. See Exs. 1- 2 (Def’s First Set of 

Interrogs.; Def’s Second Req. for the Production of Docs.). The SEC’s Guide to Broker-Dealer 

Registration, which directs the public to consider nine complex factors in assessing whether a 

person is a securities dealer, itself solicits questions about the application of these factors from 

the public. See Ex. 3 at 3 (“The SEC staff stands ready to answer your questions and help you 

comply with our rules. After reading this guide, if you have questions, please feel free to contact 

the Office of Interpretation and Guidance.”). Mr. Keener’s discovery requests seek these

questions received by the OIG and answers provided by OIG to members of the public about the 

central question in this case—the definition of a dealer.

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021 Page 3 of 16
4

The SEC acknowledged that the documents Mr. Keener seeks are stored in one database 

that can be searched with search terms to identify responsive documents. See Ex. 4 (May 11, 

2021 Letter from J. Braunstein). Yet the SEC refused to produce any documents because it 

alleged the documents were not relevant to any claim or defense in this case, and it asserted—

without any explanation—that the search and review process would take 470 hours to complete. 

See Ex. 5 (Apr. 30, 2021 Email from J. Braunstein). Counsel for Mr. Keener asked the SEC to 

provide the search terms it had applied in deriving its 470-hour estimate and offered to work with 

the SEC to narrow the search terms and reduce the alleged burden. See Ex. 6 (May 3, 2021

Email from V. Viswanatha). The SEC refused. See Ex. 4. Mr. Keener then noticed the dispute 

for a hearing.

C. June 18, 2021 Discovery Hearing and the SEC’s Subsequent Limited 

Production

At the June 18, 2021 hearing, the Court ruled as a preliminary matter “the information 

sought [by Mr. Keener concerning the OIG communications] is relevant; the request is intuitive 

with respect to Defendant’s due process argument and [to] scienter.” ECF No. 45 at 3. The 

Court further ordered the SEC to produce the documents that hit on the terms “apple” (referring 

to SEC v. Big Apple, 783 F.3d 786 (11th Cir. 2015), which the SEC essentially argues is the only 

case the Court need consider to grant it a total victory on the merits) and “convertible” (in light 

of the SEC’s focus on Mr. Keener’s investments in convertible notes as the basis for its claim 

that he should have registered as a securities dealer). ECF No. 45 at 3. Following the hearing, 

on June 25, the SEC only produced 11 document families that purportedly hit on those two 

terms.

The limited documents produced by the SEC demonstrate the following:

• Members of the public have asked the SEC for help in assessing whether they 

must register as a broker-dealer. See, e.g., Ex. 8 (SEC-JMJ-OIG-13); Ex. 9

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021 Page 4 of 16
5

(SEC-JMJ-OIG-51); Ex. 10 (SEC-JMJ-OIG-53); Ex. 11 (SEC-JMJ-OIG-02); Ex.

12 (SEC-JMJ-OIG-59); Ex. 13 (SEC-JMJ-OIG-62). 

• In response to such questions, the SEC routinely directs members of public to the 

Guide, and explains that the analysis is “a fact-specific assessment that involves 

consideration of a number of factors (which have been developed through SEC 

staff no action letters and case law).” Ex. 14 (SEC-JMJ-OIG-44); Ex. 15 (SECJMJ-OIG-50); Ex. 16 (SEC-JMJ-OIG-63). In none of these communications did 

the SEC ever tell market participants to read Big Apple or the Exchange Act’s 

dealer definition.

• The SEC created confusion in the marketplace after filing its case against 

Ibrahim Almagarby and his company Microcap Equity Group, another case 

concerning a convertible note investor. See, e.g., Ex. 8 (attorney for clearing firm 

asking questions about whether the SEC was now “deeming the acquisition of 

third-party debt, conversion of that debt, and sale into the public marketplace a 

business model . . . that requires registration as a dealer? We are aware that the 

definition of dealer excludes routine trading transactions for one’s own account 

as well as other potentially relevant carve outs. Here we are simply trying to gain 

our regulators posture.”) Based on the documents received thus far, the SEC did 

not provide any written guidance following this inquiry. 

During the June 18 discovery hearing, the Court also ordered the SEC to produce 

documents that hit on two additional terms of Mr. Keener’s choosing if the hits were “equal to or 

lesser than” the hits for “convertible.” ECF No. 45 at 3-4. Counsel for Mr. Keener asked the 

SEC to advise of the number of search hits for “apple,” “convertible,” and 14 other terms so that 

it could select terms with a similar number of hits. See Ex. 17 (June 21, 2021 Email from C. 

Regan listing the terms trader, factors, microcap, statute, discount, spread, 144, hold, advertise, 

business, penny, invest, investment, and conference).1

 The SEC refused. See Ex. 22 (June 21, 

2021 Email from J. Braunstein). Counsel for Mr. Keener then asked the SEC to run “trader” and 

“factors.” See Ex. 23 (June 21, 2021 Email from C. Regan). On June 25, the SEC asserted it 

would not produce documents for the terms “trader” and “factors” on the basis that “each 

1 Mr. Keener crafted these specific terms in order to target OIG communications with third parties concerning the 

allegations and facts the SEC has focused on in this case. 

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021 Page 5 of 16
6

returned more hits than both apple and convertible.” See Ex. 18 (June 25, 2021 Email from A. 

Petrilla). 

Counsel for Mr. Keener followed up on Monday, June 28, seeking a number of 

clarifications regarding the limited production, including (i) the exact hit count for “apple” and 

convertible” as some of the document families appeared to hit on neither term, and (ii) whether 

documents were withheld on the basis of privilege or work product given the non-sequential 

nature of the Bates stamping. See Ex. 7 (June 28, 2021 Email from V. Viswanatha). Counsel for 

Mr. Keener further requested the hit counts for “trader” and “factors.” Id. The SEC did not 

respond. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD

 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, courts allow for liberal and broad 

discovery. See Powers v. Target Corp., No. 19-CV-60922-Bloom/Valle, 2020 WL 409534, at *1 

(S.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2020) (“[The] overall purpose of discovery under the Federal Rules is to 

require the disclosure of all relevant information.”) (quoting Shapiro v. Dynamic Recovery Sols., 

LLC, No. 18-CV-60035-BB, 2018 WL 8130559, at *4 (S.D. Fla. July 26, 2018)). The Rules 

grant district courts broad discretion to compel discovery, and “strongly favor full discovery 

whenever possible.” See Powers, 2020 WL 409534, at *1 (quoting Farnsworth v. Procter & 

Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545, 1547 (11th Cir. 1985)); Companhia Energetica Potiguar v. 

Caterpillar Inc., 307 F.R.D. 620, 627 (S.D. Fla. 2015). 

Thus, the burden rests on the party resisting discovery to “demonstrate with specificity” 

that a request is unreasonable or otherwise unduly burdensome. Id.; Alvar v. No Pressure Roof 

Cleaning, LLC, No. 17-80725-CV, 2018 WL 1187777, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2018). And 

where, as here, the discovery at issue is highly relevant, courts allow for a proportionally higher 

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021 Page 6 of 16
7

burden on the served party. See Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2007) (“The 

Defendants have failed to demonstrate a burden or an abuse of process sufficient to justify such 

limitations on discovery, especially in light of the highly relevant nature of the materials sought 

by [plaintiff].”).

IV. ARGUMENT

The SEC should be compelled to produce documents from its OIG database that hit on 

the 14 terms set forth above.2 The limited production the SEC has made to date demonstrates

that the documents are relevant. The SEC’s communications with third-party market participants 

about the exact question at issue here, namely which persons fit within the definition of a dealer, 

are relevant to claims and defenses in this litigation. Moreover, and despite having six months to 

do so, the SEC has not articulated any specific burden it would take to produce the requested 

communications, let alone a burden that would allow the SEC to withhold documents concerning 

the key question at issue in the case.

A. OIG Communications with Third Parties are Relevant to this Litigation. 

As this Court recognized during its June 18, 2021 hearing and subsequent Order, the OIG 

communications are relevant to several issues in this litigation: (i) Mr. Keener’s fair notice 

defense and (ii) Mr. Keener’s defense against the injunctive relief sought by the SEC.

Fair Notice. The communications are relevant to Mr. Keener’s fair notice defense. ECF 

No. 45 at 3 (“I find the information sought is relevant; the request is intuitive with respect to 

Defendant’s due process argument”). To comply with the mandates of due process, laws and 

agencies that regulate persons and entities must provide fair notice of conduct that is forbidden 

2 We ask that the terms be run on documents from 2013 to 2020. In particular, we ask for documents before and 

after Big Apple (which was decided in 2015), in order to assess the ways in which that case did or did not alter the 

SEC’s communications with members of the public about the dealer registration requirements.

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021 Page 7 of 16
8

or required. See FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239, 253 (2012). In determining 

whether a person has received adequate fair notice, industry understanding of permissible or 

impermissible conduct as communicated by a regulator such as the SEC to members of the 

public, as well as conflicting statements by the regulator, are relevant. See SEC v. Kovzan, No. 

11–2017–JWL, 2012 WL 4819011, at *5 (D. Kan. Oct. 10, 2012) (permitting discovery into nonpublic SEC communications with third parties because such documents were relevant to the 

defendant’s fair notice defense). 

Specifically, a defendant may prove his fair notice defense by demonstrating that industry 

practice was inconsistent with the government’s litigation posture. See Diebold Inc. v. Marshall, 

585 F.2d 1327, 1336 (6th Cir. 1978) (finding no fair notice when purported requirement was 

rarely fulfilled or enforced in the industry). And a defendant may also prove his fair notice 

defense by highlighting confusion and inconsistent interpretations within an agency as to the 

rules at issue. General Elec. Co. v. EPA, 53 F.3d 1324, 1332 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (finding no fair 

notice when agency regulations were internally inconsistent, the agency had difficulty clarifying 

which section of the regulations should apply to the defendant’s activity, and conflicting 

interpretations of the regulatory requirements came from different agency regional offices).

The limited communications already provided by the SEC prove their relevance. For 

instance, the documents demonstrate that the SEC has generated confusion in the industry 

through its recent lawsuits against individual convertible note investors. Within weeks of filing 

the complaint in SEC v. Almagarby, anxious counsel for a clearing firm contacted OIG begging 

for an explanation of whether its understanding of the dealer registration requirements had now 

changed. See Ex. 19 (SEC-JMJ-OIG-13 - SEC-JMJ-OIG-31). These documents directly support

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021 Page 8 of 16
9

Mr. Keener’s contention that the industry had a different understanding of the dealer registration 

requirements than the one the SEC is now advancing in this litigation. 

The communications are also relevant for what is not there. The SEC never directed

market participants that their questions could be answered simply by referring to Big Apple

and/or the relevant portion of the Exchange Act. Instead, the SEC routinely directed members of 

the public to the Guide, and to conduct “a fact-specific assessment that involves consideration of 

a number of factors (which have been developed through SEC staff no action letters and case 

law).” Ex. 14; Ex. 15; Ex. 16. However, the SEC has only produced eleven document families 

from this database—an apparently miniscule percentage given the SEC’s representations as to 

how long it would take to review all the documents in the database concerning the dealer 

registration requirements. The more documents Mr. Keener obtains, the stronger his arguments 

may become.

SEC v. Kovzan also supports production here. In Kovzan, the defendant sought the SEC’s 

communications with third parties to prove his fair notice defense and demonstrate that the SEC 

had not given adequate guidance to the industry about the rules at issue. Kovzan, 2012 WL 

4819011, at *5. The court agreed with the defendant that the communications were 

discoverable, and overruling a magistrate’s decision to the contrary, ordered production. Id. 

SEC v. Ripple Labs, a case in the Southern District of New York that presented the exact 

same issue earlier this year, also supports production. In SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., defendants

argued that SEC communications with third parties regarding certain forms of cryptocurrency 

were relevant to their fair notice defense because the communications were relevant to assessing

(i) the SEC’s awareness of the practices at issue, and (ii) whether market participants lacked a 

clear understanding as to the SEC’s position on the practices. See Def’s Letter Re Mot. to 

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021 Page 9 of 16
10

Compel at 4, SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., No. 20 Civ. 10832 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2021) Dkt. No. 81. 

Again, the court agreed, ordering production of the requested communications between the SEC 

and “all market participants.” See Ex. 20 (H’rg Tr. at 51, SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., No. 20 Civ. 

10832 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2021))). 

The SEC cannot plausibly claim that the requested communications are not relevant to 

this litigation. The primary argument the SEC has articulated for refusing to produce the 

communications is that Mr. Keener “lacks a cognizable Due Process argument in this case.” See

Ex. 21 (May 6, 2021 Letter from J. Braunstein and A. Petrilla). But that is an argument on the 

merits of Mr. Keener’s defense—not one that can be resolved through a discovery dispute. Mr. 

Keener has pled a fair notice defense and that defense has not been struck; thus, he is entitled to

discovery relevant to proving that defense. ECF No. 45 at 3 (“Despite the SEC’s protestations to 

the contrary, I also find that Judge Bloom’s denial of the motion to dismiss on the basis of 

Defendant’s due process claim is not synonymous with rejecting Defendant’s due process claim 

altogether.”); see also Wachovia Fin. Servs. v. Birdman, No. 09-81252-Civ-Marra/Johnson, 2010 

WL 11506043, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 2010) (rejecting party’s discovery objections which were 

based on substantive issues yet to be decided); Kovzan, 2012 WL 4819011, at *5 (“[T]he SEC 

has responded to this argument solely by arguing the merits of the fair notice defense in this case. 

The Court is not inclined to consider those merits in this context of a motion for review of a

discovery ruling, however.”).

The SEC has also argued that the communications are irrelevant because they constitute 

“informal,” “non-binding” guidance, and came with the caveat that individuals may need to 

consult private lawyers to fully assess whether they qualify as dealers. Ex. 5. But the SEC does 

not get a free pass for making conflicting statements and creating confusion in the marketplace 

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021 Page 10 of 16
11

just by claiming its statements are not binding. It had an option to stay silent, and it chose not to 

do so.

Injunctive Relief: The documents are also relevant to Mr. Keener’s defense against the 

SEC’s request for injunctive relief. ECF No. 45 at 3. Judge Bloom ruled that she will consider 

Mr. Keener’s scienter, or lack thereof, in ruling on the SEC’s request for injunctive relief. ECF 

No. 29 at 11. Thus, Mr. Keener can defend against SEC’s injunction request by showing he did 

not act with scienter. One way he can prove that he did not act with scienter is by demonstrating 

he acted in line with industry custom and practice. See Kovzan, 2012 WL 4819011, at *5 (ruling

that industry practice is relevant to the degree of a defendant’s scienter); see also See Garfield v. 

NDC Health Corp., 466 F.3d 1255, 1264 (11th Cir. 2006) (explaining that scienter requires a 

showing of recklessness; an extreme departure from standards of ordinary care). 

For the reasons explained above in connection with Mr. Keener’s fair notice defense, the 

OIG communications are also relevant to demonstrating industry understandings in connection 

with the lack of scienter defense. If the documents demonstrate that market participants did not 

understand that individuals who were engaged in activities similar to Mr. Keener were securities 

dealers, that would further support Mr. Keener’s claims that he did not act with scienter. See

Kovzan, 2012 WL 4819011, at *5 (“[I]ndustry practice, guidance given to other companies, and 

confusion within the SEC itself may be relevant to the degree of defendant’s scienter”); Ex. 20

(Ripple Labs ruling granting defendants discovery into SEC’s communications with third parties 

as relevant to scienter component of charge). 

The SEC’s argument to the contrary makes no sense. The SEC claims the documents are 

not relevant because the SEC “will not make any [] argument” that “Mr. Keener recklessly 

disregarded industry practice.” See Ex. 4. But that is beside the point because the SEC never 

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021 Page 11 of 16
12

claims that it will forgo its request for injunctive relief, or even forgo any argument that Mr. 

Keener acted with scienter when it comes to arguing for injunctive relief. There can be no 

dispute that the Court will consider Mr. Keener’s level of scienter at that time. Thus, Mr. Keener 

is entitled to discovery that is relevant to proving that he lacked scienter, and that his conduct 

was consistent with the standard industry practice. See ECF No. 45 at 3.

B. The SEC Has Failed to Demonstrate the Burden of Production Outweighs 

the Documents’ Relevance. 

The SEC has had nearly six months to substantiate any claims of alleged burden. It has 

failed to do so. ECF No. 45 at 3 (noting that the SEC provided no way “to contextualize [its]

unexplained statement that to fulfill the request would require 470 staff hours.”). Based on the 

limited information the SEC itself provided, these documents are housed in a single, searchable 

database. See Ex. 4. The documents are communications with members of the public, and thus 

cannot be privileged. ECF No. 45 at 3 (“Further, as also noted at the hearing, I do not entirely 

understand the SEC’s proffer as to why the documents or information would be privileged.”). 

The SEC has not provided any clear reason why the documents could not be quickly produced 

without further review. Courts routinely overrule burden objections in such circumstances. See

SEC v. Creative Cap. Consortium, LLC, Case No. 08-81565-Civ-Hurley/Hopkins, 2009 WL 

10664429, at *3 (S.D. Fla. May 20, 2009) (denying a protective order resisting discovery on the 

basis of “undue expense” where the party did not support the claim with “any affidavits or other 

evidence, as many courts require”); see also In re: Takata Airbag Prods. Liability Litig., MDL 

No. 15-2599, 2016 WL 5795347, at *4 (S.D. Fla. June 24, 2016) (ordering document database 

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021 Page 12 of 16
13

search and production even where burden and expense was shown to be “considerable” when 

considering the documents’ relevance and amount in controversy).

At the June 18, 2021 hearing, the SEC for the first time suggested that the documents 

may contain work product information or information purportedly protected under the 

whistleblower laws. See June 18, 2021 Hr’g Tr. at 31:23-25; 32:12-13. The SEC never revealed 

this information to counsel for Mr. Keener over more than a dozen meet and confer 

communications prior to the hearing. The SEC has not substantiated any part of those bald 

assertions. The communications are between the Office of Interpretation and Guidance and 

members of the public; they do not involve the SEC’s Enforcement Division or any other SEC 

division involved in litigation. In fact, the limited communications produced by the SEC to date 

demonstrate that OIG refused to discuss ongoing litigation. See Ex 19.

3

Moreover, there is no protection under the whistleblower laws for questions submitted to 

OIG. In order to benefit from the confidentiality protections provided in the SEC’s 

whistleblower program, an individual must comply with certain procedures and processes. See

17 C.F.R § 240.21F-2(c) (“To qualify for the confidentiality protections...you must comply with 

the procedures and the conditions described in Rule 21F–9(a).”). These procedures and 

processes require whistleblowers to submit their information through the SEC’s Tip, Complaint, 

or Referral (“TCR”) portal or the SEC’s Office of the Whistleblower. See 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F–

9. This law does not grant confidentiality protections to information provided to OIG. 

3 Despite the apparent non-privileged nature of these documents, the SEC’s limited production contains gaps in its 

Bates numbering, suggesting that some documents were withheld either on the basis of privilege or work product. 

As noted above, when counsel for Mr. Keener requested further information regarding the non-sequential Bates 

stamping and whether some documents were withheld as privilege, the SEC did not respond. See Ex. 7 (June 28 V. 

Viswanatha email). 

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021 Page 13 of 16
14

Because the SEC has failed to demonstrate any specific burden, the production should not 

be limited to search terms that had the same or fewer hits than “apple” or “convertible.” Those 

terms together hit on only eleven document families. Given the minimal, if any, review that 

would be required of additional OIG documents, the burden of producing more documents—

even substantially more—is also minimal. And while Mr. Keener is willing to negotiate search 

terms, the SEC has refused to even identify the number of documents that hit on Mr. Keener’s 

proposed terms and has never suggested any alternate terms. Furthermore, during the course of 

this litigation, the parties have produced nearly 300,000 documents to date. The burden of 

producing a few hundred or few thousand additional documents would be entirely proportional 

to the issues in this case, where the SEC seeks to extract tens of millions of dollars from Mr. 

Keener and restrict his ability to earn a living far into the future. In such circumstances, the SEC 

cannot hide behind an unsubstantiated burden objection to withhold such key documents. See

Powers, 2020 WL 409534, at *2. 

V. CONCLUSION 

OIG’s communications with third-party market participants regarding dealer registration 

requirements are highly relevant to Mr. Keener’s fair notice and lack of scienter defenses, both in 

theory and in practice, as demonstrated by the few communications already produced. And the 

SEC has failed to identify a particular burden associated with running searches against an 

identified universe of documents and producing the responsive ones to Mr. Keener. 

Accordingly, this Court should compel SEC to run searches on the additional terms provided by 

Mr. Keener and produce all responsive documents.

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021 Page 14 of 16
15

Dated: July 2, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP

/s/ Benjamin G. Greenberg

Benjamin G. Greenberg 

Florida Bar No. 192732

greenbergb@gtlaw.com

333 SE 2nd Avenue Suite 4400

Miami, FL 33131

Telephone: (305) 579-0850

Facsimile: (305) 579-0717

RASKIN & RASKIN, P.A.

Jane Serene Raskin

Florida Bar No. 848689

201 Alhambra Circle Suite 1050

Coral Gables, Fl. 33134

Telephone: (305) 444-3400

jraskin@raskinlaw.com

-andBUCKLEY LLP

Christopher F. Regan (pro hac vice)

Veena Viswanatha (pro hac vice)

2001 M Street NW, Suite 500

Washington, DC 20036

Telephone: (202) 349-8000

Facsimile: (202) 349-8080

cregan@buckleyfirm.com

vviswanatha@buckleyfirm.com

Counsel for Defendant Justin W. Keener

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021 Page 15 of 16
16

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day served via ECF a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing Motion to Compel Communications Between the SEC’s Office of Interpretation and 

Guidance and Third Parties to the following:

Joshua E. Braunstein (Special Bar No. A5502640)

Antony Richard Petrilla (Special Bar No. A5502641)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

100 F Street NE

Washington, DC 20549

Telephone: (202) 551-8470

Braunsteinj@sec.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

This, the 2nd day of July, 2021

/s/ Benjamin G. Greenberg

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021 Page 16 of 16