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

ORDER 

Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES COMMODITY

FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES A. MAGGIO; TRADE RISK

MANAGEMENT, LLC (Washington); and

TRADE RISK MANAGEMENT, LLC 

(Oregon),

Defendants.

CASE NO. C05-5766RJB

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL DEFENDANTS’ [SIC]

TO PRODUCE DISCOVERY

DOCUMENTS

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants’ [sic] to

Produce Discovery Documents (Dkt. 28). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support

of and in opposition to the motion and the file herein.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

According to the complaint, the defendants sell a stock market analysis service known as

Sigma Band Charting through an internet website and materially misrepresent the risk and profitmaking ability of the service. Dkt. 1 at 2. The complaint alleges that the defendants’ conduct

violates the Commodity Exchange Act (“the Act”) and Commodities Futures Trading

Commission regulations. Id. at 7.

On December 15, 2006, the plaintiff requested “[a]ll documents relating or referring to

any and all algorithms, or mathematical or statistical calculations, utilized to calculate or to

Case 3:05-cv-05766-RJB Document 33 Filed 05/01/07 Page 1 of 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

ORDER 

Page 2

determine the ‘Sigma Bands’ referenced or described in any and all versions of the website

www.traderiskmanagement.com.” Dkt. 28 at 1. The defendants objected to this request on the

grounds that it sought trade secrets and proprietary information. Dkt. 29 at 2. The plaintiff also

contends that the discovery is irrelevant because the plaintiff’s claim is that the defendants

violated the Act as a matter of law and because the plaintiff does not “intend to call witnesses or

argue the merits of the claims from the website.” Dkt. 29 at 3. The plaintiff responded that it was

“willing to undertake all reasonable steps available to protect Maggio’s information from public

disclosure.” Dkt. 30, Exh. A at 4. Neither party has moved for a protective order.

II. DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides as follows

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the

claim or defense of any party. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any

matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not

be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. All discovery is subject to the limitations imposed by

Rule 26(b)(2)(I), (ii), and (iii).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). If a party fails to answer an interrogatory or a request for production,

the party may move to compel disclosure pursuant to Federal Rule 37. Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(a)(2)(B). The motion must certify that the parties have made a good faith effort to confer and

resolve the dispute themselves. Id. A good faith effort to confer “requires a face-to-face meeting

or a telephone conference.” Local Rule CR 37(a)(2)(A). In this case, the parties have conferred

but have been unable to resolve this discovery dispute. Dkt. 28 at 3.

This discovery dispute turns upon whether the truthfulness of the defendants’

representations on their internet website is relevant to the plaintiff’s claims. Relevant evidence is

“evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the

determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the

evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401.

The defendants contend that the truthfulness of statements posted on their website is

irrelevant to the plaintiff’s theory of the case. Dkt. 29 at 3. The defendants offer the plaintiff’s

responses to discovery requests as evidence of the plaintiff’s theory of the case. These responses

Case 3:05-cv-05766-RJB Document 33 Filed 05/01/07 Page 2 of 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

ORDER 

Page 3

demonstrate that the plaintiff’s case centers on whether the defendants “mislead actual and

prospective customers by falsely claiming that Sigma Band charts would enable customers to

achieve an extraordinary rate of trading success.” Dkt. 30, Exh. C at 8. The plaintiff’s responses

indicate that while it has “not identified any witnesses that it plans to present in connection with

the allegation in paragraph 25 of its complaint,” the plaintiff believes that all Trade Risk

Management customers and business partners are potential witnesses. Id. Finally, the plaintiff’s

responses admit that the issue of whether certain statements violate the Act is a legal issue for

which the plaintiff does not intend to call witnesses. Id. at 10. Taken as a whole, these responses

indicate that the plaintiff believes the truthfulness of the defendants’ statements to be an issue in

this case. While the question of whether the website representations violate the Act may be a

question of law, it appears that this issue rests upon resolution of factual issues, including whether

the representations were actually false. The Court should therefore conclude that the information

sought is relevant and should grant the motion to compel. 

The Court recognizes the defendants’ contention that complying with the discovery

request would lead to production of trade secrets because the information is part of a computer

program containing other research projects in various stages of development. Dkt. 29 at 4. The

plaintiff appears willing to enter into a protective order protecting the defendants’ proprietary

information from public disclosure. Dkt. 31 at 4. Neither party has moved for a protective order,

and it is not clear to the Court whether a protective order is warranted. The parties are

encouraged to work together to guard against the disclosure of trade secrets and other

proprietary information, meet and confer, attempt to resolve discovery and scheduling issues in

good faith, and use conference calls to chambers before filing further discovery motions.

III. ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants’ [sic] to Produce Discovery

Documents (Dkt. 28) is GRANTED.

The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel

Case 3:05-cv-05766-RJB Document 33 Filed 05/01/07 Page 3 of 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

ORDER 

Page 4

of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.

DATED this 30th day of April, 2007.AROBERT J. BRYAN

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05766-RJB Document 33 Filed 05/01/07 Page 4 of 4