IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

GREAT SOUTHLAND LIMITED, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. Civil Action 2:17-cv-719 

 Judge Sarah D. Morrison 

 Magistrate Judge Jolson 

LANDASH CORPORATION, et al., 

 Defendants. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on two discovery disputes: (1) Plaintiff’s request to depose 

Bradley Jacobs, the CEO of Defendant XPO Logistics, Inc. (“XPO”), along with his Chief of Staff, 

Catherine Friedman; and (2) XPO’s request for unredacted versions of Plaintiff’s Credit 

Committee meeting minutes. (See Docs. 180, 181). 

For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s request to depose Mr. Jacobs and Ms. Friedman is 

GRANTED. Neither deposition shall exceed four (4) hours, and Plaintiff must tailor them to be 

as efficient as possible. The parties shall meet and confer and schedule these depositions to take 

place within thirty (30) days of the date of this Opinion and Order. Further, XPO’s request for 

Plaintiff’s unredacted meeting minutes is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall produce these documents 

within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Opinion and Order. 

Given these findings, the parties are ORDERED to meet and confer and file a proposed 

revised case schedule within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Opinion and Order. The parties 

should note that, absent good cause, the case schedule will not be extended beyond what is 

Case: 2:17-cv-00719-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 182 Filed: 01/21/21 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: 2515
2 

necessary to complete this additional discovery. Further, the dispositive motion deadline should 

not change. 

I. BACKGROUND 

This case stems from an alleged Ponzi scheme involving the financing of off-the-road 

(“OTR”) tires retailing for roughly $100,000 each. (See generally Doc. 144). While the subject 

of the alleged scheme—giant, expensive tires—may be unusual, its basic premise is not. The 

alleged perpetrator, Jason Adkins, held his numerous entities out as tire brokerage companies. (Id, 

¶ 42). Adkins would approach potential investors or lenders to invest in his companies or finance 

lucrative tire deals with the promise of a high return on investment. (Id.). 

In March 2016, Plaintiff entered such a deal with Adkins’ company, Defendant Landash 

Corporation (“Landash”), fronting nearly 2.5 million dollars to fund the purchase of 36 tires. (Id., 

¶¶ 46–47). Before closing, however, Plaintiff performed some due diligence. One of its 

representatives visited the XPO warehouse in Houston, Texas (the “Warehouse”) where the OTR 

tires were to be stored. (Id., ¶ 49). Warehouse manager, Defendant Afif Baltagi, showed him the 

vacant storage space for Plaintiff’s 36 tires upon arrival. (Id.). In April 2016, Defendant Baltagi 

represented that Plaintiff’s tires had arrived. (Id., ¶ 65). 

Plaintiff says that was a lie. (Id., ¶ 68). Defendant Baltagi did store a set of tires in the 

Warehouse, but they were tires that Adkins had acquired earlier and that belonged to someone 

else. (Id.). And Adkins and his alleged co-conspirators did this again and again, telling different 

investors and lenders that those same tires were theirs. (Id.). Ultimately, Landash defaulted on its 

obligations, and Adkins and his co-conspirators allegedly divvied up Plaintiff’s investment. (Id., 

¶ 78). 

Numerous lawsuits like this one ensued. Pertinent here, Defendant XPO unequivocally 

Case: 2:17-cv-00719-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 182 Filed: 01/21/21 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID #: 2516
3 

claims that it was unaware of the scheme and that Defendant Baltagi acted alone. (See generally

Doc. 143). And much of the discovery in this case has focused on that. (See, e.g., Doc. 181-1). 

In the spring of 2020, the parties exchanged supplemental documents after the Court 

granted yet another extension. (See generally Docs. 180, 181). As part of the production, Plaintiff 

received email correspondence between Defendant Baltagi and Star Funding, Inc. (“Star 

Funding”), an early victim of Adkins’ alleged scheme. (See generally Docs. 180-2, 180-3). Mr. 

Jacobs and his assistant, Ms. Friedman, were among the few included on these emails. (See id.). 

Plaintiff now seeks to depose them both. (See generally Doc. 180). As for XPO’s request, XPO 

learned at Plaintiff’s reconvened 30(b)(6) deposition that Plaintiff had a Credit Committee that 

met monthly to discuss loans. (Doc. 181-1 at 1). Plaintiff produced the minutes with substantial 

redactions. (See generally Doc. 181-1). XPO now seeks unredacted versions. (See id.). 

II. DISCUSSION 

The Court turns first to Plaintiff’s deposition requests before turning to XPO’s document 

request. 

A. Depositions 

Plaintiff seeks to depose two individuals, including Bradley Jacobs, XPO’s CEO. And 

while courts rarely prohibit parties from deposing individuals, different considerations apply when 

that individual is a corporate officer like Mr. Jacobs. Plaintiff “must show that [Mr. Jacobs] has 

unique personal knowledge of the matters at issue and that there are no less burdensome ways of 

obtaining the same information.” Curtis v. Alcoa, Inc., No. 3:06-CV-448, 2008 WL 11342549, at 

*3 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 27, 2008) (collecting cases). 

Plaintiff has met its burden. Plaintiff relies on an email thread as evidence of Mr. Jacobs’ 

personal knowledge. In April 2015, Jo-Ann Erhard of Star Funding emailed Defendant Baltagi 

Case: 2:17-cv-00719-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 182 Filed: 01/21/21 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: 2517
4 

regarding the status of Star Funding’s 36 tires at the Warehouse. (See Doc. 180-2). Unable to get 

a direct answer from Mr. Baltagi, Ms. Erhard grew suspicious about the tires’ whereabouts. (See 

id.). The correspondence grew increasingly tense, and on May 6, 2016, Mr. Jacobs’ assistant, Ms. 

Friedman, forwarded the email chain to Mr. Baltagi’s supervisor, Dominick Muzi. (See Doc. 

180- 3). Mr. Muzi then wrote to Defendant Baltagi, “Please note Brad [Jacobs] is on this email 

chain and asked me to get involved. Can you please resolve this!!!” (See Doc. 180-2). Defendant 

Baltagi responded curtly, “I am.” (Id.). Another of his supervisors, Ian Oliver, Vice President of 

Operations, asked Defendant Baltagi whether he was “responding to Jo-Ann’s questions.” (Id.). 

Seemingly exasperated by Mr. Muzi’s and Oliver’s questioning, Defendant Baltagi wrote back, 

“Come on guys really?” (Id.). Mr. Oliver responded, “Afif when Brad [Jacobs] starts 

question[ing] us we have to question you. We need to be able to provide answers.” (Id.). 

Plaintiff says that these emails show that “Mr. Jacobs possesses knowledge regarding 

issues pertaining to Mr. Baltagi’s activities and the unauthorized release of tires that XPO was 

holding for Star Funding, Inc.” (Doc. 180 at 2; see also Doc. 180-1). 

XPO, for its part, relies on caselaw establishing that it is generally more difficult to depose 

a CEO. (See generally Doc. 181 at 1–2). That is true, but the heightened standard aims to prevent 

fishing expeditions or harassment. Bluewater Music Servs. Corp. v. Spotify USA Inc., No. 3:17-

CV-01051, 2019 WL 6904599, at *2–3 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 25, 2019) (citations omitted). For 

example, a party may not depose a CEO simply to probe his or her background or “foundational” 

knowledge about the company. Id. at *3 (denying plaintiff’s request to depose Spotify’s CEO 

regarding “foundational information related to the issues in these cases”). 

But that is not what Plaintiff seeks to do. To the contrary, the emails suggest that Mr. 

Jacobs read the correspondence, developed concerns, and raised those concerns with Defendant 

Case: 2:17-cv-00719-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 182 Filed: 01/21/21 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID #: 2518
5 

Baltagi’s supervisors. (See generally Docs. 180-2, 180-3). Plaintiff has a right to ask Mr. Jacobs 

about these emails and his knowledge of Defendant Baltagi’s actions. See Conti v. Am. Axle & 

Mfg., Inc., 326 F. App’x 900, 907 (6th Cir. 2009) (noting that courts deny or limit depositions of 

corporate officers who had “little if any interaction” with the individuals involved in the case). 

XPO additionally asserts that the members of its Global Forwarding Team have already 

been deposed, making Plaintiff’s request unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of 

the case (Doc. 181 at 2). Yet, the Court need not “credit [that] bald assertion . . ., especially when 

[Mr. Jacobs’] deposition could provide information critical to [Plaintiff’s] claims.” Conti, 326 F. 

App’x at 907 (reversing district court’s decision prohibiting deposition of CEO). While the Court 

agrees with XPO that Plaintiff should have noticed Mr. Jacobs’ deposition months ago, XPO does 

not explain how this timing prejudices it. (See Doc. 181 at 2). Indeed, XPO, too, is currently 

engaging in supplemental discovery. 

In sum, Plaintiff has met its burden to show Mr. Jacobs’ potential “knowledge of 

information relevant to [Plaintiff’s] claims.” Conti, 326 F. App’x at 907. While Plaintiff need not 

satisfy the same standard to depose Ms. Friedman, Plaintiff has shown that she may be deposed, 

too. Plaintiff’s request is, therefore, GRANTED. 

Because, however, Plaintiff identifies no other basis supporting Ms. Friedman’s or Mr. 

Jones’ knowledge apart from the Star Funding emails, the Court expects Plaintiff’s questions to be 

tailored accordingly. Said differently, the subject matter supporting Plaintiff’s request is narrow—

so, too, should be the depositions. Accordingly, the Court limits each deposition to four (4) 

hours. Less time will likely be necessary should Plaintiff, as directed, structure each deposition 

to be as efficient as possible. See, e.g., E.E.O.C. v. Cintas Corp., No. 04-40132, 2015 WL 

1954476, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 29, 2015) (permitting four-hour deposition of Cintas CEO). The 

Case: 2:17-cv-00719-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 182 Filed: 01/21/21 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID #: 2519
6 

parties shall meet and confer and schedule these depositions to take place within thirty (30) days 

of the date of this Opinion and Order. 

B. Redacted Meeting Minutes 

Plaintiff produced hundreds of pages of minutes from its Credit Committee meetings. (See

Doc. 18-1 at 56–206). The documents, however, are heavily redacted. (See id.). Plaintiff contends 

that the redactions are proper as they have nothing to do with this lawsuit or XPO’s discovery 

requests. (Doc. 180 at 1). Yet “‘[i]t is a rare document that contains only relevant information.’” 

Ewalt v. GateHouse Media Ohio Holding II, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-4262, 2020 WL 4782860, at *2 

(S.D. Ohio Aug. 18, 2020) (quoting Bartholomew v. Avalon Capital Grp., Inc., 278 F.R.D. 441, 

451 (D. Minn. 2011)). And the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “provide no support for the 

redaction of irrelevant information.” Ewalt, 2020 WL 4782860, at *2 (citing Bartholomew, 278 

F.R.D. at 451 (“Redaction is an inappropriate tool for excluding alleged irrelevant information 

from documents that are otherwise responsive to a discovery request.”)). 

As XPO notes, the purportedly irrelevant information from the meeting minutes “‘may be 

highly useful to providing context for the relevant information.’” Ewalt, 2020 WL 4782860, at *2 

(quoting Bartholomew, 278 F.R.D. at 451). Thus, “[t]he Court sees no compelling reason for 

[Plaintiff] not to disclose information solely on the grounds that [it] thinks the non-disclosed 

materials are not relevant or responsive where that information appears in a document that contains 

otherwise relevant or responsive information.” ArcelorMittal Cleveland Inc. v. Jewell Coke Co., 

L.P., No. 1:10-CV-00362, 2010 WL 5230862, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 16, 2010) (citing Orion 

Power Midwest, L.P. v. Am. Coal Sales Co., No. 2:05-CV-555, 2008 WL 4462301, at *2 (W.D. 

Pa. Sept. 30, 2008) (“There is no express or implied support [in the Federal Rules] for the insertion 

of another step in the process . . . in which a party would scrub responsive documents of nonCase: 2:17-cv-00719-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 182 Filed: 01/21/21 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID #: 2520
7 

responsive information.”)); see also Tween Brands Inv., LLC v. Bluestar All., LLC, No. 2:15-cv2663, 2015 WL 6955177, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 10, 2015) (compelling production of unredacted 

documents where defendant had initially redacted portions of documents it characterized as 

“highly confidential” and “not relevant”). 

XPO’s request for unredacted versions of Plaintiff’s meeting minutes is GRANTED as a 

result. Plaintiff shall produce these documents within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Opinion 

and Order. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s request to depose Mr. Jacobs and Ms. Friedman is 

GRANTED. Neither deposition shall exceed four (4) hours, and Plaintiff must tailor them to be 

as efficient as possible. The parties shall meet and confer and schedule these depositions to take 

place within thirty (30) days of the date of this Opinion and Order. Further, XPO’s request for 

Plaintiff’s unredacted meeting minutes is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall produce these documents 

within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Opinion and Order. 

Given these findings, the parties are ORDERED to meet and confer and file a proposed 

revised case schedule within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Opinion and Order. The parties 

should note that, absent good cause, the case schedule will not be extended beyond what is 

necessary to complete this additional discovery, and the Court intends for the dispositive motion 

deadline to remain the same. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: January 21, 2021 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson 

 KIMBERLY A. JOLSON 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case: 2:17-cv-00719-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 182 Filed: 01/21/21 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: 2521