UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO

______________________________________

MELODY JOY CANTU AND DR. RODRIGO 

CANTU,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DR. SANDRA GUERRA and DIGITAL 

FORENSICS CORPORATION, LLC,

Defendants.

5:20-CV-0746 JKP – HJB

______________________________________

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT TO 

COMPEL DEFENDANTS' DISCOVERY

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP-HJB Document 78 Filed 06/09/22 Page 1 of 11
1

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 8, 2022, in the above-entitled Court, Plaintiffs

Melody Joy Cantu and Dr. Rodrigo David Cantu (“Plaintiffs”) move this Court for an order 

compelling Co-Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs' outstanding discovery requests by producing 

items they are withholding under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules 37. Notably, 

Plaintiffs have requested the contract between the Co-Defendants at the heart of this case.

1 They 

refuse to do so. And Co-Defendants are refusing to produce documents relating to their phishing, 

hacking, and investigation of the Plaintiffs, specifically those using “Detective.com” and other 

third-party vendors. Co-Defendant Dr. Guerra used various third party vendors against Plaintiffs, 

and we request the production of those documents.

In regards to the harm Co-Defendant Dr. Guerra asserts, we have requested; the 

production of all receipts and statements relating to this matter, for the hiring of all third parties 

investigating the Cantus and those allegedly protecting Dr. Guerra from the Cantus (i.e.,

attorneys and security guards); corporate documents from Co-Defendant DFC, LLC, specifically 

information regarding their company structure, as they state there is another company involved 

but have not responded. We want to know what, if any, association between DFC, LLC and the 

third party company(s) DFC claims Dr. Guerra hired to investigate the Cantus. As well as DFC, 

LLC’s licenses to conduct such business in the state of Texas.

1 See Decl. of T. Ekeland at ¶5.

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP-HJB Document 78 Filed 06/09/22 Page 2 of 11
2

Plaintiffs requested Co-Defendants provide the above documents in their request for 

production. Co-Defendants refused. Counsel for Co-Defendant Dr. Guerra offered to enter into 

an Agreed Confidentiality and Protective Order in place even to consider providing Plaintiffs 

with the documents.2 Upon Plainiffs’ request for the cause or explanation of the purpose of said 

order, Dr. Guerra’s counsel stated there was a confidentiality provision in the contract with DFC.

Plaintiffs’ counsel does not agree that an Agreed Confidentiality and Protective Order for the 

discovery is necessary to provide the discovery in this matter.3 As Co-Defendants otherwise 

refused to prove the requise information, this leaves Plaintiffs no other choice than to seek Court 

intervention. Plaintiffs, therefore, request that the Court enter an order compelling CoDefendants to produce the requested discovery responses and for their reasonable expenses 

incurred in making this motion, including attorney’s fees.

Additionally, due to the upcoming discovery deadline being June 15, we request this 

Court stay the discovery deadline until we Plaintiffs receive and review the outstanding 

discovery.

2 See Decl. of T. Ekeland at ¶6. 3 See Decl. of T. Ekeland at ¶7.

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP-HJB Document 78 Filed 06/09/22 Page 3 of 11
3

Dated: June 9, 2022 Stipulated and respectfully submitted,

/s/ Tor Ekeland

Tor Ekeland (NY Bar No. 4493631)

Pro Hac Vice

Tor Ekeland Law, PLLC

30 Wall Street, 8th Floor

New York, NY 

t: (718) 737 - 7264

f: (718) 504 - 5417

tor@torekeland.com

and

/s/ Rain Levy Minns

Rain Minns

State Bar No. 24034581

Minns Law Firm, P.C.

d/b/a Rain Minns Law Firm

4412 Spicewood Springs Rd., Suite 500

Austin, Texas 78759-8583

Tel.: 512-372-3222

Fax: 512-861-2403

rain@rainminnslaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs Melody Joy Cantu 

and Dr. Rodrigo Cantu

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP-HJB Document 78 Filed 06/09/22 Page 4 of 11
4

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

Background

On January 14, 2022, Plaintiffs, through counsel, served discovery requests on CoDefendants Dr. Sandra Guerra and Digital Forensics Corporation, LLC.4 Plaintiffs requested

discovery necessary to back their arguments and prepare for trial, as well as prepare to refute 

counterclaims. (January 14, 2022, Discovery: First Request for Production to Defendant Dr. 

Guerra; First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Dr. Guerra; First Set of Requests for 

Admission to Defendant Dr. Guerra; First Request for Production to Defendant DFC, LLC; 

First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant DFC, LLC; First Set of Requests for Admission to 

Defendant DFC, LLC.)

Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34, Co-Defendants had over 30 days to 

respond, with additional continuances. To date, Co-Defendants have refused to provide the 

aforementioned requested documents.5 Plaintiffs’ counsel made numerous good faith attempts to 

obtain the discovery responses from Defendants without court action. Following emails back and 

forth with both Co-Defendants, they have refused to provide sufficient documentation, claiming 

blanket confidentiality and that if they find something sufficient, they will supplement with the 

documents.

4 See Decl. of T. Ekeland at ¶3. 5 See Decl. of T. Ekeland at ¶4.

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP-HJB Document 78 Filed 06/09/22 Page 5 of 11
5

Argument

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit parties in litigation to “obtain discovery 

regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.”6.

Specifically relating to documents in their possession, parties subject to a request must produce:

Any designated documents or electronically stored information- including writings, 

drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or 

data compilations- stored in any medium from which information can be obtained 

either directly or, if necessary, after translation by the responding party into a 

reasonably usable form; or (B) any designated tangable things...7

The purpose of discovery requests is to support your claims or defense in good faith.

Without discovery, supporting one’s statements would be on a “she said he said” basis with 

conflicting statements.

Generally, the scope of discovery is broad and permits the discovery of "any 

nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." FED. R. 

CIV. P. 26(b)(1); see Wyatt v. Kaplan, 686 F.2d 276, 283 (5th Cir. 1982). A 

discovery request is relevant when the request seeks admissible evidence or "is 

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Wiwa v. 

Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 392 F.3d 812, 820 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation and 

internal marks omitted); see Murphy v. Deloitte & Touche Group Ins. Plan, 619 

F.3d 1151, 1157, 1162 (10th Cir. 2010) (applying Rule 26(b)(1) discovery rules in 

an ERISA action).8

[The Fifth Circuit] recognizes broad and liberal treatment of the federal discovery 

rules. U.S. v. Holley, 942 F.2d 916, 924 (5th Cir. 1991). In civil cases, parties are 

6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 7 Id. at 34(a)(1). 8 Crosby v. La. Health Serv. & Indem. Co., 647 F.3d 258, 262 (5th Cir. 2011).

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP-HJB Document 78 Filed 06/09/22 Page 6 of 11
6

entitled to discover all information relevant to any party's claim or defense that is 

not privileged. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).9

In light of these rules, their broad construction, and Plainitffs’ repeated requests for 

relevant discovery items, Co-Defendants stand in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure.

I. Co-Defendants’ Evasive Responses Are Unjustified

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4), “an evasive or incomplete disclosure, 

answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer or respond.” Plaintiffs duly 

served their discovery requests, specifically production requests, to Co-Defendants who refused 

to substantially produce.

Dr. Guerra’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Productions: “Defendant will produce 

responsive, non-privileged documents (if any) within her custody, possession, or control after a 

diligent search of Defendant’s records.”

DFC, LLC Responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Productions: Defendant objects to this 

request for the reason that and to the extent it seeks Defendant’s private and confidential 

information, seeks documents that are protected by the work-product privilege and/or attorneyclient privilege, seeks documents that are subject to a confidentiality agreement, assumes facts 

not in evidence, and is not properly limited in scope and amounts to nothing more than an 

9 Davis v. United States Marshals Serv., 849 F. App'x 80, 86-87 (5th Cir. 2021).

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP-HJB Document 78 Filed 06/09/22 Page 7 of 11
7

impermissible “fishing expedition,” Defendant objects to this request for the reason that it asks 

for information that is not proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the requested 

discovery is of low importance to resolving the issues, and the requested discovery places a 

burden or expense on Defendant that outweighs its likely benefit.

Co-Defendants have produced a single document following our requests for production to 

both parties.

Defendant Dr. Guerra’s responses claimed they would supplement if they find anything, 

which in itself is a non-response and not an actual supplement under the letter and spirit of the 

Civil Rules. Defendant DFC, LLC’s responses all cite to an alleged “Confidentiality Clause” in 

their contract with Dr. Guerra as a blanket excuse to avoid production.

II. Co-Defendants’ Failure to Produce Prejudices Plainitiffs

Co-Defendants' dilatory tactics prejudice Plaintiffs by leaving them inadequate time to 

follow up on any production with additional requests, as well as timely prepare for upcoming 

depositions and trial.10 Plaintiffs suspect that Co-Defendants are withholding numerous 

documents, including their contract between them, and records, exhibits and other documents 

and audio recordings that may require substantial time to review and forensically examine. The 

Co-Defendants have produced no documents following our requests. Dr. Guerra did provide 

10 See Decl. of T. Ekeland at ¶8.

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP-HJB Document 78 Filed 06/09/22 Page 8 of 11
8

some documents following the filing of her counterclaims, most of those documents we already 

had.

Conclusion

For the above reasons, Plaintiffs request that this Court grant their Motion to Compel and 

stay the discovery deadline until Plaintiffs receive and review the outstanding discovery.

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP-HJB Document 78 Filed 06/09/22 Page 9 of 11
9

Dated: June 9, 2022 Stipulated and respectfully submitted,

/s/ Tor Ekeland

Tor Ekeland (NY Bar No. 4493631)

Pro Hac Vice

Tor Ekeland Law, PLLC

30 Wall Street, 8th Floor

New York, NY 

t: (718) 737 - 7264

f: (718) 504 - 5417

tor@torekeland.com

and

/s/ Rain Levy Minns

Rain Minns

State Bar No. 24034581

Minns Law Firm, P.C.

d/b/a Rain Minns Law Firm

4412 Spicewood Springs Rd., Suite 500

Austin, Texas 78759-8583

Tel.: 512-372-3222

Fax: 512-861-2403

rain@rainminnslaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs Melody Joy Cantu 

and Dr. Rodrigo Cantu

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP-HJB Document 78 Filed 06/09/22 Page 10 of 11
10

Certificate of Service

I certify that on this 9th of June 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically 

filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send electronic 

notification of such filing to the parties on record.

/s/ Tor Ekeland

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP-HJB Document 78 Filed 06/09/22 Page 11 of 11