UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-CV-81913-CANNON/REINHART

OASIS CAPITAL, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

NASON, YEAGER, GERSON, 

HARRIS & FUMERO, P.A. and 

BRIAN S. BERNSTEIN, ESQ., 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL BETTER RESPONSES TO 

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND INTERROGATORIES (ECF NO. 38) 

On August 21, 2023, Defendants Nason, Yeager, Gerson, Harris & Fumero, 

P.A. and Brian S. Bernstein (“Defendants”) filed a Motion to Compel Better 

Responses to Requests for Production and Interrogatories (“Motion”). ECF No. 38. I 

have reviewed the Motion, Plaintiff Oasis Capital, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) response, and 

Defendants’ reply. ECF Nos. 38, 40, 46. I also conducted a hearing on September 21, 

2023. ECF No. 49. This order memorializes my rulings during the hearing and 

resolves the remaining matters that I took under advisement. 

I. Defendant Bernstein’s First Set of Interrogatories

The Motion challenges Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant Bernstein’s First Set 

of Interrogatories Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 9. Interrogatory No. 2 requests a description of 

Plaintiff’s business model and a statement regarding “whether [Plaintiff] buys and 

sells securities for its own account, and what precent of its net revenue such activity 

Case 9:22-cv-81913-AMC Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2023 Page 1 of 5
2

accounts for.” ECF No. 38-4. For the reasons stated on the record, I overruled 

Plaintiff’s objections to Defendants’ request for information regarding Plaintiff’s 

business model and I sustained Plaintiff’s objections to the remainder of

Interrogatory No. 2. Accordingly, Defendants’ request to compel a better response to 

Interrogatory No. 2 is granted in part and denied in part.

Interrogatory No. 4 seeks information regarding whether Plaintiff, or its 

member Mr. Adam Long, have been charged with criminal conduct. I sustained in 

part and overruled in part Plaintiff’s objection to providing information regarding 

Mr. Long’s criminal conduct. For the reasons stated on the record, Plaintiff shall 

provide information regarding Mr. Long’s prior criminal convictions, if any, but is not 

required to provide information regarding whether Mr. Long has been otherwise 

charged with criminal conduct. Accordingly, Defendants’ request to compel a better 

response to Interrogatory No. 4 is granted in part and denied in part.

Interrogatory No. 5 seeks information regarding whether Plaintiff or Mr. Long 

have been parties to any civil litigation other than the current matter. Plaintiff 

agreed to amend its response to Interrogatory No. 5 with respect to Plaintiff’s civil 

litigation history. For the reasons stated on the record, I sustained Plaintiff’s 

objection to providing information regarding Mr. Long’s civil litigation history. 

Accordingly, Defendants’ request to compel a better response to Interrogatory No. 5 

is granted in part and denied in part. 

Interrogatory No. 9 seeks information regarding the loans provided by Plaintiff 

and/or non-party L2 Capital Management, LLC (“L2”) in the last five years. During 

Case 9:22-cv-81913-AMC Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2023 Page 2 of 5
3

the hearing, I took the parties’ arguments regarding Interrogatory No. 9 under 

advisement. Upon further review, I find that Defendants have articulated a sufficient 

theory that some of the requested information is relevant to the claims and defenses 

in the case and is proportional to the needs of the case. A crucial issue in this case is 

whether the parties had a mutual unwritten understanding that Defendant would 

file a UCC-1. As Defendants argued at the hearing, Plaintiff’s history of filing UCC-1s

is circumstantial evidence of whether Plaintiff expected Defendants to file one, here. 

For that reason, Plaintiff shall respond to Interrogatory 9 by identifying all loans 

Plaintiff has made in the last five years, the date of the loan, the borrower, and

whether a UCC-1 or other similar financing form was filed for each loan. Plaintiff 

need not provide the other information requested in Interrogatory 9 (i.e., repayment 

status, default status, and default penalties).

Plaintiff’s objections regarding the loans provided by L2 are sustained. 

Defendants have not shown that L2’s conduct is imputable to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff objects that any such evidence would not satisfy Federal Rule of 

Evidence 406. But, Rule 406 is a rule of admissibility, and information within the 

scope of discovery (i.e., relevant and proportional) “need not be admissible in evidence 

to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The admissibility of this evidence at trial 

is not before me.

In addition, I find that Plaintiff has failed to support its argument that it 

should not have to produce the requested information because the production could 

“potentially cause” Plaintiff to breach confidentiality requirements related to the 

Case 9:22-cv-81913-AMC Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2023 Page 3 of 5
4

transactions at issue in the request. Plaintiff has not shown that answering the 

interrogatory as narrowed by the Court will necessarily require it to disclose 

confidential information.

Accordingly, Defendants’ request to compel a better response to Interrogatory 

No. 9 is granted in part and denied in part. 

II. Defendants’ First Request for Production

Next, the Motion challenges Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ First Request 

for Production No. 34, which seeks copies of all UCC-1 financing statements filed by 

Plaintiff in connection with any loan identified in response to Interrogatory No. 9. 

During the hearing, I took the parties arguments regarding Request No. 34 under 

advisement. Upon further review, and for the reasons stated above, only the dates of 

the UCC-1s and the borrower’s identity are relevant. That information is being 

provided in response to Interrogatory 9. So, Request No. 34 is cumulative and not 

proportional to the needs of the case, at this stage of the litigation. Therefore,

Defendants’ request to compel a better response to Request No. 34 is denied. 

III. Defendants’ Second Request for Production

Finally, the Motion challenges Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ Second 

Request for Production Nos. 1-6, which seek documents related to Plaintiff’s 

interactions with the Securities and Exchange Commission. For the reasons stated 

on the record, I sustained Plaintiff’s objections to Request Nos. 1-6. Therefore, 

Defendants’ request to compel better responses to Request Nos. 1-6 is denied.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, it is ORDERED THAT:

Case 9:22-cv-81913-AMC Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2023 Page 4 of 5
5

1. Defendants’ Motion to Compel Better Responses to Requests for Production 

and Interrogatories (ECF No. 38) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED 

IN PART.

2. Plaintiff shall provide amended responses to Defendant Bernstein’s First 

Set of Interrogatories Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 9 by October 10, 2023. The parties 

may mutually agree to extend this deadline without further Court 

intervention.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach in the Southern 

District of Florida, this 26th day of September, 2023.

BRUCE E. REINHART

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 9:22-cv-81913-AMC Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2023 Page 5 of 5