1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

DEAN CHASE,

Plaintiff

v.

RYAN E. HODGE, HELPING 

HANDS CAPITAL, LLC, A TEXAS 

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY;

Defendants

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

 No. 1:20-CV-00175-RP

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Dean Chase’s Motion to Compel Production 

Against Defendant Ryan E. Hodge, Dkt. 92; Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Compel 

Against Defendants Ryan E. Hodge and Helping Hands Capital, LLC, Dkt. 107; and 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Take Deposition and to File an Expert 

Report, Dkt. 101; along with all related briefing and exhibits. The District Court 

referred these motions to the undersigned magistrate judge for disposition pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Rule 1(c) of 

Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Texas. The undersigned set the motions for a hearing, which took place 

on August 25, 2022. See Dkt. 112. For the reasons stated on the record in that 

hearing, along with those set out below, the Court rules as follows.

Case 1:20-cv-00175-RP Document 121 Filed 09/01/22 Page 1 of 10
2

I. DISCUSSION

A. Chase’s Motion to Compel and Amended Motion to Compel

The bulk of the parties’ dispute over Chase’s discovery requests revolve 

around two categories of interrogatories and document requests. The first is Chase’s 

attempt to obtain interrogatory responses and document production regarding the 

entities, in addition to Defendant Helping Hands, which Defendant Hodge 

“control[s]/manage[s] or in which [he has] an interest, including but not limited to, 

Chase I Trust, Chase II Trust, Fidelity Finance, Fund Five Partners, Velocity Fund 

Five Partners, Velocity Medical Receivables, and HMR Holdings.” See, e.g., Dkt. 92-

1, at 34 (Hodge Rog 3). Unless stated otherwise, the Court will refer to any 

combination of these non-Helping Hands, Hodge-affiliated entities as the “related 

entities.” The next main disputed category of request is Chase’s RFPs seeking “[a]ny 

and all statements, correspondence, invoices, payments, documents, and 

electronically stored information” substantiating the transactions that appear in the 

statements and ledgers already or soon-to-be produced by Defendants, referred to 

here as the “backup materials.” See, e.g., Dkt. 92-1, at 57 (Hodge RFP 14). The 

Court addresses each of these in turn, along with the sundry other disputes 

identified in Chase’s motion and amended motion.1

1 As stated on the record at the hearing, the Court declines to reject Plaintiff’s amended 

motion as untimely or as beyond the scope set by the original motion to compel. The Court 

will rule on each of Plaintiff’s requests here on their merits.

Case 1:20-cv-00175-RP Document 121 Filed 09/01/22 Page 2 of 10
3

Requests seeking information regarding the “related entities”2

In several of its Interrogatories and RFPs to Hodge and Helping Hands, 

Chase seeks discovery regarding transactions Hodge and Helping Hands made with 

the various entities (in addition to Helping Hands) that Chase contends are

controlled by Hodge. To the extent the requests sought information or documents 

regarding transactions between the Hodge and Helping Hands, Defendants 

responded (primarily with bank statements and recently with a general ledger). 

Defendants objected to producing information and documents regarding the related 

entities, contending those transactions bear no relation to the handful of Chase’s 

live claims remaining following the District Court’s ruling on Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss. See, e.g., Dkt. 92-1, at 18 (Hodge Rog 6).3 While neither Chase’s motion nor 

his amended motion spell out a specific need for this material, beyond conclusorily 

stating that it is “necessary to prosecute [his] remaining claims,” Dkt. 107, at 5, at 

the hearing Chase’s counsel explained that the information was necessary for his 

expert to analyze potential misdirection of funds from Defendants to these related 

entities.

2 Hodge Interrogatories (Dkt. 92-1, at 31) 3-9, 13, 14, 18, 21, 22, 24;

Hodge Requests for Production (Dkt. 92-1, at 48) 3-4, 6-10, 14, 17, 18;

Helping Hands Interrogatories (Dkt. 107-1, at 6) 3-6, 11, 13; and 

Helping Hands Requests for Production (Dkt. 107-1, at 10) 3, 5-9, 11, 13-15.

3 “The only claims and defenses remaining in this lawsuit following this Court’s June 23, 

2021 order on Defendants’ motion to dismiss [Dkt. 77] concern: (i) a claim by Mr. Chase 

against Mr. Hodge individually for breach of fiduciary duty arising out of an alleged 

attorney-client relationship during the formation of Helping Hands; (ii) a claim by Mr. 

Chase against Mr. Hodge individually for alleged breach of a contract to form a commonlaw partnership; (iii) certain requests for declaratory relief regarding Helping Hands 

Capital, LLC and its operations; and (iv) a request to appoint a receiver for Helping Hands 

Capital, LLC.”

Case 1:20-cv-00175-RP Document 121 Filed 09/01/22 Page 3 of 10
4

The Court agrees with Defendants that their production in response to these 

contested requests is adequate in light of the remaining claims in the case and the 

late stage of this litigation. The bank statements, detailed ledger,4 and other 

documents produced by Defendants to date provide sufficient material for Chase’s 

expert to build his damages model. To the extent Chase wishes to explore the role of 

these related entities in Defendants’ alleged wrongdoing, he can accomplish this 

through the newly ordered deposition of Hodge (infra Part I.B) and with cross 

examination at trial. The Court, therefore, sustains Defendants’ objections to these 

discovery requests and denies Chase’s motions to compel responses to them.

Requests seeking “backup materials”5

In addition to the bank statements, ledger, and other documents Defendants 

have produced, Chase also seeks any backup materials—e.g., emails, text messages, 

calendar entries, receipts, invoices—underlying every single transaction reflected in 

the financial records already produced. See, e.g., Dkt. 107-1, at 11 (Helping Hands 

RFP 5). Like the request for information regarding the related entities, Chase’s 

motion and amended motion do not bother to explain how these materials would be 

4 At the hearing, counsel for Chase noted that the 300+ page ledger produced by Defendants 

did not have a viewable comments field, which would have described the nature of each 

transaction. Counsel for Defendants committed on the record to promptly producing a 

reformatted version of the ledger with this field fully viewable.

5 Hodge RFPs 5-7, 9, 10, 13-15, 17; Helping Hands RFPs 5, 6, 10-15. Defendants also 

asserted attorney-client privilege and work-product objections to Hodge RFP 13 and 

Helping Hands RFP 10, to the extent those requests sought the billing records underlying 

the materials already produced. As noted at the hearing, because the Court concludes the 

billing records need not be produced under the same reasoning as the other backup 

materials, the Court does not reach the privilege objections.

Case 1:20-cv-00175-RP Document 121 Filed 09/01/22 Page 4 of 10
5

used.6 But at the hearing, Chase’s counsel explained that his expert needed this 

information to substantiate the validity of the thousands of transactions detailed in 

the materials already produced. 

During the hearing, counsel for Defendants offered to provide further backup 

material for transactions that Chase identified as suspect, but Chase balked, 

contending it would take too much time for his expert to determine which 

transactions might merit further exploration, not to mention the back-and-forth in 

negotiating just what should be produced in connection with those transactions, and 

the time needed for his expert to digest the information.

The Court agrees. As with the related-entities requests, Chase’s request for 

voluminous backup materials underlying every transaction conducted by Hodge and 

Helping Hands since 2013 seeks too much too late. The Court, therefore, sustains 

Defendants’ overbroad and unduly burdensome objections to these requests and 

denies Chase’s motions to compel responses to them.7

6 Chase argued in his amended motion that by failing to specifically object to the requests, 

Defendants forfeited their objections to Hodge RFPs 6 and 7, and Helping Hands RFPs 5 

and 6. As noted on the record, the Court disagreed that Defendants failed to specifically 

object to these requests.

7 At the hearing, Defendants withdrew the objection to Hodge RFP 5, to the extent it seeks 

correspondence, and agreed to produce the responsive correspondence. Defendants also 

agreed to respond to Hodge RFP 7 with respect to Hodge and Helping Hands, subject to 

their related-entities and backup materials objections, which the Court sustained.

Case 1:20-cv-00175-RP Document 121 Filed 09/01/22 Page 5 of 10
6

Other disputes

Details for people with discoverable information and 

details related to Requests for Admission8

Defendants’ counsel withdrew his objections to these requests on the record 

at the hearing.

Personal financials and expenses9

The Court concludes that the reasoning regarding backup materials and 

related entities above applies here. At this stage, Defendants’ production on these 

matters is sufficient and avenues to explore these transactions remain available to 

Chase. The Court, therefore, sustains Defendants’ objections and denies Chase’s 

motions to compel regarding these requests.

Helping Hands’ annual profits10

Defendants’ counsel withdrew his objections to these requests on the record 

at the hearing.

Tax documents11

Subject to their objections to related-entities and backup materials, which the 

Court has already sustained, Defendants’ counsel withdrew his objection to 

producing tax forms showing payments from Helping Hands to Hodge, Mark 

Guedri, and Chase.

8 Hodge and Helping Hands Rogs 1 and 2.

9 Hodge Rogs 18, 21; Hodge RFPs 17, 19-20; Helping Hands Rog 14; Helping Hands RFPs

14, 16.

10 Helping Hands Rog 12.

11 Hodge RFP 5; Helping Hands RFP 4.

Case 1:20-cv-00175-RP Document 121 Filed 09/01/22 Page 6 of 10
7

Trips taken by Hodge12

As with the personal financials, the Court concludes that the reasoning 

regarding backup materials and related entities above applies here. At this stage, 

Defendants’ production on these matters is sufficient and avenues to explore these 

transactions remain available to Chase. The Court, therefore, sustains Defendants’ 

objections and denies Chase’s motions to compel regarding these requests.

Lawsuits13

Subject to their objections to related-entities and backup materials, which the 

Court has already sustained, Defendants’ counsel withdrew his objection to 

responding to Chase’s interrogatory regarding lawsuits involving Hodge and/or 

Helping Hands.

Date of the Hodges’ divorce14

Defendants’ counsel withdrew his objections to this request on the record at 

the hearing.

B. Chase’s Motion for an Extension of Time to Take Deposition 

and to File an Expert Report

Under the current scheduling order, this case is set for trial on October 11, 

2022. Dkt. 87. The deadline to complete discovery was May 27, 2022, and Chase’s 

deadline to serve expert materials was February 11, 2022. Id. Citing Defendants’ 

alleged dilatory tactics in discovery—which Chase characterizes “gamesmanship”15

12 Hodge Rog 22; Hodge RFP 18; Helping Hands Rog 15; Helping Hands RFP 15.

13 Hodge Rog 24; Helping Hands Rog 24.

14 Hodge Rog 17.

15 Dkt. 101, at 3.

Case 1:20-cv-00175-RP Document 121 Filed 09/01/22 Page 7 of 10
8

with “very suspicious intent”16—Chase seeks an extension of time to take Hodge’s 

deposition and to file an expert report. Dkt. 101. Defendants’ response, which Chase 

contends “forsakes the truth, misleads the Court, and allows the Court to be 

misled,”17 essentially argues that Chase’s own delay, along with his multiple 

requests for new scheduling orders and deadline extensions, have led the parties to 

this point. Dkt. 109. In the Court’s view, neither side is blameless, and going 

through the exercise of assigning blame is not productive.18

The Court agrees with Chase that a limited extension of these deadlines, 

along with a brief continuation of the trial date is appropriate. As noted on the 

record, the undersigned does not intend to extend any of the other deadlines in the 

Second Amended Scheduling Order, beyond those specifically addressed below.

Accordingly, the Court modifies the following dates in the parties’ Second Amended 

Scheduling Order19:

Discovery: The Court extends the deadline for non-expert discovery (Dkt. 87, 

at ¶ 5) for the limited purposes of providing time for Defendants to produce the 

materials they agreed to produce or were ordered to produce as discussed above, 

supra Part I.A, and to allow Chase to depose Hodge, for up to four hours.

Defendants are ordered to produce the materials discussed above by September 9, 

2022. Plaintiffs must depose Hodge on or before October 7, 2022.

16 Dkt. 111, at 1.

17 Dkt. 111, at 3.

18 Nor was Chase’s counsel’s rhetorical choice to accuse Defendants’ counsel of misleading 

the Court, which is a serious accusation to lob at another attorney. As the undersigned 

admonished counsel during the hearing, such attacks, more often than not, reflect more 

poorly on the accuser than the accused.

19 A separate, supplemental scheduling order setting out these dates will follow this order.

Case 1:20-cv-00175-RP Document 121 Filed 09/01/22 Page 8 of 10
9

Expert(s): The Court extends the deadline for Chase to file the materials 

required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) (Dkt. 87, at ¶ 3) to October 

28, 2022. This extension necessarily requires an extension of Defendants’ deadline 

to serve rebuttal expert report(s) and materials. Defendants are ordered to serve 

rebuttal expert materials by November 18, 2022. Any expert depositions must be 

conducted by December 9, 2022. Finally, any Daubert motions (Dkt. 87, at ¶ 4) must 

be filed by January 6, 2023.

The parties may agree between themselves to extend the deadlines for 

serving expert materials and for expert depositions. The Court will not, however, 

extend the Daubert motion deadline, except on a motion for leave demonstrating 

exceptionally extenuating circumstances.

Trial: The trial date is set for March 6, 2023.

II. CONCLUSION

The Court DENIES Chase’s original and amended motion to compel, Dkts. 

92, 107. The Court ORDERS Hodge to produce the additional discovery his counsel 

agreed to produce no later than September 9, 2022.

The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Chase’s Motion for 

an Extension of Time to Take Deposition and to File an Expert Report, Dkt. 101.

The Court will enter a separate supplemental scheduling order setting out the 

deadlines addressed above, supra Part I.B.

Case 1:20-cv-00175-RP Document 121 Filed 09/01/22 Page 9 of 10
10

SIGNED September 1, 2022.

DUSTIN M. HOWELL

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATGE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00175-RP Document 121 Filed 09/01/22 Page 10 of 10