UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

AMERICAN POWER, LLC,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

DOUGLAS O. HARRIS, et al.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 3:17-cv-347

Case No. 3:21-cv-321

CONSOLIDATED

District Judge Michael J. Newman

Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.

DEKTRIX, LLC,

:

:

 Plaintiff, :

vs. :

:

ADIL BAGUIROV, et al., :

:

 Defendants. :

ORDER

This matter is currently before the Court upon two motions to compel discovery (Doc. #s 

141 and 162)

1

filed by Murray J. Crane, Dektrix LLC, Douglas O. Harris, and Michael T. Morley

(collectively, “Dektrix”), the memorandum in opposition to these motions filed by American 

Power, LLC, Adil Baguirov, and Islom Shakhbandrov (collectively, “the AMP Parties”) (Doc. 

#168), and the reply memorandum in support of the motions to compel filed by Dektrix (Doc. 

#172). 

1 Unless noted otherwise, all docket citations refer to the filings contained in American Power, LLC v. Douglas O. 

Harris, et al., case no. 3:17cv347. 

Case: 3:17-cv-00347-MJN-PBS Doc #: 186 Filed: 06/27/23 Page: 1 of 17 PAGEID #: 2736
2

I. BACKGROUND

This discovery dispute arises out of the litigation related to the demise of a shipping 

company, Dektrix LLC. (Doc. #162, PageID #s 2212-13). According to Dektrix, the principal 

members of American Power, LLC, Islom Shakhbandarov and Adil Baguirov, purchased 200,000 

membership units in Dektrix LLC for $1,000,000 in 2016 with the initial payment due in December 

2016 and the second payment due in January 2017. Id. at 2213. When Mr. Shakhbandarov and Mr. 

Baguirov failed to make the second payment in January 2017, the parties agreed to extend the time 

for payment until March 2017. Id. Ultimately, the full amount of the second payment was never 

made, which Dektrix alleges resulted in its inability to purchase flat decks to satisfy customer 

orders and the eventual demise of the company. Id. 

Mr. Shakhbandarov and Mr. Baguirov, in turn, assigned their claims to their business 

entity, American Power, LLC, and allege that Dektrix, among others, fraudulently induced their 

failed investment. Id. According to American Power, LLC, but for their investment in Dektrix, 

they could have invested in more profitable business opportunities that would have increased the

growth and expansion of American Power, LLC. (Id.; see also Doc. #162-2, PageID #2231). 

Because of the claims that American Power, LLC has asserted against Dektrix as well as 

the way it has computed its damages, Dektrix has sought to obtain discovery related to the AMP 

Parties’ financial information. The AMP Parties have resisted producing discovery responsive to 

several of these requests, leading Dektrix to file the two motions to compel at issue. For the reasons 

discussed below, Dektrix’s first motion to compel (Doc. #141) is DENIED AS MOOT, and 

Dektrix’s second motion to compel (Doc. #162) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN 

PART.

Case: 3:17-cv-00347-MJN-PBS Doc #: 186 Filed: 06/27/23 Page: 2 of 17 PAGEID #: 2737
3

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may “obtain discovery regarding 

any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the 

needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). In evaluating proportionality, the Court must 

“consider[ ] the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the 

parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the 

discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery 

outweighs its likely benefit.” Id. Evidence need not be ultimately admissible to be discoverable. 

Id.

When a party fails to respond to respond to discovery requests, Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 37 permits a discovering party to file a motion for an order compelling discovery, 

provided that the motion to compel includes a certification that the movant has, in good faith, 

conferred or attempted to confer with the party failing to respond to the requests. The party moving 

to compel “bears the burden of demonstrating [the] relevance” of the requested discovery. CSX 

Transp., Inc. v. Columbus Downtown Dev. Corp., No. 2:16-cv-557, 2019 WL 1760069, at *4 (S.D. 

Ohio Apr. 22, 2019) (citing Gruenbaum v. Werner Enter., Inc., 270 F.R.D. 298, 302 (S.D. Ohio 

2010)). If the moving party demonstrates that the requested material is relevant, “the burden shifts 

to the non-movant to show that to produce the information would be unduly burdensome.” Id. In 

the Sixth Circuit, district courts have generally found that the non-movant must demonstrate with 

specificity that a discovery request is unduly burdensome or that the discovery sought is not 

discoverable under the Federal Rules. See e.g., Kafele v. Javitch, Block, Eisen & Rathbone, No. 

2:03-cv-638, 2005 WL 5095186, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 20, 2005) (As a general rule, “[a]ll grounds 

for an objection ... shall be stated with specificity.... The mere statement by a party that an 

Case: 3:17-cv-00347-MJN-PBS Doc #: 186 Filed: 06/27/23 Page: 3 of 17 PAGEID #: 2738
4

interrogatory or request for production is overly broad, burdensome, oppressive and irrelevant is 

not adequate to voice a successful objection.”); Kline v. Mortgage Elec. Sec. Sys., No. 3:08-cv408, 2014 WL 4928984, at *13 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 1, 2014), on reconsideration in part, 2014 WL 

5460575 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 27, 2014) (“A responding party ‘must show’ specifically how each 

discovery request is burdensome and oppressive by submitting affidavits or offering evidence 

revealing the nature of the burden.’”) (citing In re Heparin Prods. Liab. Litig., 273 F.R.D. 399, 

411 (N.D. Ohio 2011)) (“where a party claims burdensomeness, it must explain why that is so” 

and offer alternatives if possible “that could enable some degree of production”) (quoting Kafele, 

2005 WL 5095186, *2 n. 8).

In this case, the Court is satisfied that the prerequisites to a motion to compel have been 

met in that Dektrix has attempted to resolve these issues with the AMP Parties in good faith before 

seeking the Court’s intervention. Accordingly, the Court will address the merits of Dektrix’s 

motions to compel.

III. DISCUSSION 

In its first motion to compel, Dektrix outlined several discovery disputes and requested that 

the Court issue an order compelling the AMP Parties to respond to the stated deficiencies. (Doc. 

#141). In order to afford the parties an opportunity to informally resolve these issues, the 

undersigned stayed briefing on this motion. (Notation Order dated Oct. 25, 2022). While the parties 

were able to resolve some of these issues without Court intervention, several outstanding disputes 

remained. Accordingly, Dektrix was instructed to file a second motion to compel that identified 

the remaining disputes. (Notation Order dated Feb. 3, 2023). As Dektrix has since filed a second 

motion to compel (Doc. #162) that encompasses all the remaining issues, the first motion to compel 

(Doc. #141) is hereby DENIED AS MOOT.

Case: 3:17-cv-00347-MJN-PBS Doc #: 186 Filed: 06/27/23 Page: 4 of 17 PAGEID #: 2739
5

In the second motion to compel, Dektrix requests that the Court issue an order compelling

the AMP Parties to (1) answer Dektrix’s Interrogatories Numbers 4 and 5; (2) produce documents 

responsive to Dektrix’s Requests for Production Numbers 2, 3, and 8; and (3) sign and verify their 

Answers to Interrogatories and sign their Response to Requests for Production. (Doc. #162, 

PageID #2212). In response, the AMP Parties maintain that they appropriately responded to these 

requests and that the verification pages were sent on October 27, 2022 and November 14, 2022. 

(Doc. #168, PageID #2564). In its reply brief, Dektrix continues to challenge the sufficiency of 

the responses to the interrogatories and requests for production of documents but does not address 

the AMP Parties’ claim that the signed verification pages were produced. (Doc. #172, PageID #s 

2608-12). While the AMP Parties reference an email demonstrating their compliance with this 

production, it is unclear whether the attachments to the referenced email actually contain the signed 

verification pages. (See Doc. #168-1). Accordingly, to the extent the email did not contain the 

referenced attachments, the AMP Parties are COMPELLED to produce the signed verification 

pages. 

The parties dispute the sufficiency of the responses to the identified interrogatories and 

requests for production of documents. Broadly speaking, the discovery Dektrix seeks to compel

pertains to the financial condition of the AMP Parties during certain time frames. According to 

Dektrix, the AMP Parties have put their financial condition at issue in at least two ways. (Doc. 

#162, PageID #2214; Doc. #172; PageID #s 2608-09). 

First, Dektrix claims that the way in which the AMP Parties have calculated their damages

opens the door to discovery of their financial condition. Id. Specifically, the AMP Parties’ expert 

report calculates damages based on the potential business opportunities that they were unable to 

pursue as a result of their failed investment and loan to Dektrix. Id. As such, Dektrix claims that 

Case: 3:17-cv-00347-MJN-PBS Doc #: 186 Filed: 06/27/23 Page: 5 of 17 PAGEID #: 2740
6

it should be able to investigate what, if any, other business opportunities the AMP Parties actually 

pursued. Id. Dektrix’s argument is well taken. While the AMP Parties argue that their inability to 

use these funds is the basis of the damages’ calculation and would be true regardless of whether 

they had additional funds to invest, this argument ignores the fact that the AMP Parties are not 

calculating their damages solely on the amount of their lost investment but on the potential profits 

derived therefrom. By putting their financial condition at issue in this way, the AMP Parties have 

opened the door to Dektrix inquiring into the status of the AMP Parties’ assets and liabilities and 

how/if they chose to invest their available funds. 

Second, Dektrix contends that the AMP Parties’ financial condition is relevant to whether 

the AMP Parties knew when they initially entered into the agreement with Dektrix that they were 

or would be unable to perform on their agreement to pay the second investment to Dektrix. (Doc. 

#162, PageID #2214; Doc. #172; PageID #s 2608-09). Here, Dektrix argues that, if the AMP 

Parties knew that they were not able to make the second investment to Dektrix, a jury could infer 

that the AMP Parties are using their allegations of misconduct and fraud against Dektrix as a 

pretext for their own inability or unwillingness to perform. Id. In response, the AMP Parties argue 

that their ability or willingness to pay the second investment is irrelevant because they do not 

dispute that they did not make the second investment. (Doc. #168, PageID #2565). This argument, 

however, ignores the fact that Dektrix intends to use the financial information requested not as 

evidence of breach but, rather, as a potential defense to the AMP Parties’ own claims of misconduct 

and fraud against Dektrix. At this stage in the litigation, it is premature to determine the merits of 

this alleged defense. Instead, the Court finds that Dektrix has sufficiently set forth facts 

demonstrating that the information sought is relevant to its assertions of this potential defense. 

Case: 3:17-cv-00347-MJN-PBS Doc #: 186 Filed: 06/27/23 Page: 6 of 17 PAGEID #: 2741
7

Accordingly, to the extent that the AMP Parties object to the general relevance of discovery 

related to the financial condition of American Power, LLC, Mr. Shakhbandarov, and Mr. Baguirov, 

their objections are overruled. Dektrix has set forth sufficient reasons as to why this financial 

information is relevant to their defenses in this case. However, to the extent that the AMP Parties 

object to the scope of the requests based on an overly broad time frame, the objection is sustained. 

Several of the requests at issue seek information dating back to 2014 without any explanation as 

to why such information is relevant to Dektrix’s defenses. In fact, it appears that Mr.

Shakhbandarov and Mr. Baguirov were not even involved with Dektrix until June 2016. (See

Dektrix LLC v. Adil Baguirov, et al., case no. 3:21cv21, Doc. #1, PageID #5). Thus, in the absence 

of information showing the specific relevance of financial information predating June 2016, 

production of documents responsive to Dektrix’s requests should be dated June 2016 or later. 

Finally, to the extent that the AMP Parties broadly object to the production of financial 

information related to Mr. Shakhbandarov and Mr. Baguirov on the basis that such information is 

“personal and confidential in nature,” their objection is overruled. Like American Power, LLC, 

Mr. Shakhbandarov and Mr. Baguirov are counter-defendants in this litigation who have put their 

financial condition at issue. The fact that they are individuals as opposed to a business entity is 

immaterial as to whether their financial information is discoverable. Further, their concerns 

regarding any unnecessary public dissemination of their personal information can be accounted 

for by producing such information pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order (Doc. #17), which 

was entered in this case on March 30, 2022. Having set forth these generally applicable standards, 

the undersigned will now turn to the specific discovery disputes at issue. 

Interrogatories Number 4

Interrogatory Number 4 asks the following of the AMP Parties:

Case: 3:17-cv-00347-MJN-PBS Doc #: 186 Filed: 06/27/23 Page: 7 of 17 PAGEID #: 2742
8

Describe the financial condition of AMP, Shakhbandarov and/or Baguirov between 

August 2016 and May 2017. This request can be satisfied by [] providing a detailed 

description of the assets and liabilities of each on the following dates: August 5, 

2016[;] December 5, 2016[;] January 15, 2017; January 31, 2017; February 28, 

2017[;] March 31, 2017[;] April 30, 2017[;] and May 31, 2017. 

(Doc. #162-4, PageID #2245).

The AMP Parties provided the following answer to Interrogatory Number 4: 

ANSWER: AMP, Shakhbandarov, and Baguirov object to this Interrogatory on the 

basis that it is not relevant to any claim or defense in this case, and that the burden 

of producing the information (which is personal and confidential in nature) is not 

proportional to the needs of the case, especially with regard to the personal financial 

information of Shakhbandarov and Baguirov. 

Subject to and without waiving said objections, AMP has already produced 

year-end profit and loss statements and year-end balance sheets for 2016-2020 as 

Exhibit 5 to the Damages Study prepared by Flagel Huber Flagel.

In addition, see attached appraisals of the real estate and buildings located 

at 1819 Troy Street in Dayton, Ohio, which are dated as of May 2019, showing the 

real estate had a total market value of $1,065,000, which was available to be used 

as collateral for a loan (AMP does not have appraisals for prior years). Although 

the real estate is one parcel, there are two separate appraisals because there are two 

main buildings located on the parcel. This is the property that AMP uses for its 

business (though it is owned by an affiliated limited liability company for legal, 

tax, and accounting purposes). In addition, Shakhbandarov and Baguirov had other 

real estate holdings and interests in other entities, the aggregate value of which was 

in excess of the additional investment option amounts, and would have allowed 

them to make the optional investments and/or could have served as collateral for a 

loan to make the optional investments.

(Doc. #162-4, PageID #2245).

As previously noted, Dektrix’s discovery requests related to the financial condition of the 

AMP Parties fall within the ambit of discovery authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Accordingly, 

the AMP Parties bear the burden of demonstrating why this interrogatory is unduly burdensome 

and not proportional to the needs of the case. CSX Transp., Inc, 2019 WL 1760069, at *4. The 

AMP Parties boilerplate objections that Interrogatory Number 4 is overly burdensome and not 

proportional to the needs of the case are simply insufficient to relieve them from their obligation 

Case: 3:17-cv-00347-MJN-PBS Doc #: 186 Filed: 06/27/23 Page: 8 of 17 PAGEID #: 2743
9

of responding to an otherwise legitimate discovery request. See Kafele, 2005 WL 5095186, at *2

(As a general rule, “[a]ll grounds for an objection ... shall be stated with specificity.... The mere 

statement by a party that an interrogatory or request for production is overly broad, burdensome, 

oppressive and irrelevant is not adequate to voice a successful objection.”). 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the AMP Parties’ argument in their memorandum in 

opposition regarding the burden and expense required by Interrogatory Number 4 is well taken. 

Specifically, the AMP Parties contend that the burden and expense of obtaining an exhaustive list 

of the assets and liabilities of two individuals and one entity for eight separate dates—when such 

information is not of the kind that the parties would regularly maintain—is not proportional to the 

needs of the case. (Doc. #168, PageID #2568). While Dektrix maintains that the eight dates 

requested reflect “key dates” that correspond to certain meetings or promises made by Mr. 

Shakhbandarov and Mr. Baguirov, Dektrix has not demonstrated the need for such detailed 

information on these key dates so as to overcome the burden and expense of obtaining such 

information. Instead, the information that the AMP Parties did provide, including the year-end 

profit and loss statements for 2016 through 2020, the year-end balance sheets for 2016 through 

2020, and the May 2019 real estate appraisals appear to adequately address Interrogatory Number 

4 as it pertains to American Power, LLC. With that being said, there does appear to be some 

disagreement as to whether these documents were provided as stated in the answer to Interrogatory 

Number 4. As such, the AMP Parties are COMPELLED to supplement their response to 

Interrogatory Number 4 to provide the Bates numbers for the documents referenced as being 

produced in their answer.

Finally, the AMP Parties’ answer to Interrogatory Number 4 is not sufficient as it pertains 

to Mr. Shakhbandarov and Mr. Baguirov. Unlike the information provided on behalf of American 

Case: 3:17-cv-00347-MJN-PBS Doc #: 186 Filed: 06/27/23 Page: 9 of 17 PAGEID #: 2744
10

Power, LLC, the answer to Interrogatory Number 4 only provides a generic reference to the assets 

held by Mr. Shakhbandarov and Mr. Baguirov and provides no mention of liabilities. Such a 

response is inadequate to address the otherwise relevant information sought by Interrogatory 

Number 4. As such, the AMP Parties are COMPELLED to supplement their response to 

Interrogatory Number 4 by providing a detailed description of the assets and liabilities held by 

each Mr. Shakhbandarov and Mr. Baguirov during the timeframe of August 2016 and May 2017. 

Interrogatory Number 5

In Interrogatory Number 5, the Dektrix Parties ask the AMP Parties to “[d]escribe every 

fact that shows, or would support an inference that, on December 5, 2016, You were, or expected 

to be, able to pay $650,000.00 to Dektrix by January 15, 2017 or that on January 31, 2017 You 

were, or expected to be, able to pay $850,000.00 to Dektrix by March 1, 2017.”

2

(Doc. #162-4, PageID #2246).

In response, the AMP Parties provided the following answer to Interrogatory Number 5: 

ANSWER: Objection. This interrogatory seeks personal and confidential

information that is not relevant nor proportional to the needs of the case. In addition, 

the request is overly burdensome and overbroad, as it requests “every fact.”

Notwithstanding these objections, AMP and its members had assets available to 

them that would have enabled them [to] exercise their option to invest these 

additional sums into Dektrix, including the ability to use the real estate located at 

1819 Troy Street as collateral for a loan, as well as other equipment, assets, and 

funds available to AMP and its members. AMP’s unwillingness to make any further 

monetary transfers to Dektrix was not related to AMP’s ability (or lack thereof) to 

obtain the funds to invest; rather, AMP elected not to exercise its options to 

purchase any additional membership units, due to concerns it developed after

witnessing significant mismanagement by Dektrix. The payments referenced in 

Interrogatory Number 5 were optional additional investments that AMP was 

entitled to make, but was not obligated to make under the parties’ written 

agreements. Additionally, see response to Interrogatory Number 4 above.

(Doc. #162-4, PageID #2246).

2 The Interrogatories define “You” in the request to mean “American Power, LLC, its members, managers and any 

person acting on its behalf.” (Doc. #141-9, PageID #1913).

Case: 3:17-cv-00347-MJN-PBS Doc #: 186 Filed: 06/27/23 Page: 10 of 17 PAGEID #: 2745
11

The AMP Parties’ objections to Interrogatory Number 5 are insufficient to avoid their 

obligation of providing a complete response. Again, the financial information sought by 

Interrogatory Number 5 is relevant to Dektrix’s defenses in this litigation, and the fact that the 

financial information of Mr. Shakhbandarov and Mr. Baguirov is personal and confidential is not 

an appropriate basis for withholding such relevant information. Additionally, the AMP Parties’ 

statement that Interrogatory Number 5 is not proportional to the needs of the case, without any 

explanation as to why the request is not proportional, is inadequate to state a successful objection. 

See Kafele, 2005 WL 5095186, at *2. 

Nonetheless, the answer provided by the AMP Parties does set forth several facts that 

purport to support their position that they had the assets available to make the second investment. 

The response also reiterates the AMP Parties’ position that the decision to not make a second 

investment was made without regard to the availability of funds. Thus, despite their improper 

objections, the AMP Parties appear to have provided a satisfactory response to Interrogatory 

Number 5. Accordingly, any additional facts or clarifications that Dektrix seeks to obtain from 

the AMP Parties on this issue are better suited for a deposition. 

In short, to the extent that the AMP Parties withheld responsive facts to Interrogatory 

Number 5 on the basis that the information is personal and confidential or not proportional to the 

needs of the case, the AMP Parties are COMPELLED to supplement their response with such 

information. If no such information was withheld, the AMP Parties must clarify to Dektrix that 

they did not withhold any such facts on the basis of these objections. 

Requests for Production Number 2

Dektrix also seeks to compel the AMP Parties to respond to three of its requests for 

production of documents. In particular, Dektrix seeks to compel a response to its Request for 

Case: 3:17-cv-00347-MJN-PBS Doc #: 186 Filed: 06/27/23 Page: 11 of 17 PAGEID #: 2746
12

Production Number 2, which asks for “[a]ny and all financial records for AMP including monthly 

balance sheets, profit and loss statements and tax returns from 2014 through 2017.”

3

(Doc. #141-

9, PageID #1914). In response, the AMP Parties provided the following answer to Request for 

Production Number 2: 

RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague because “financial records” is 

undefined and could mean many different things. In its broadest interpretation, this 

request is overbroad and unduly burdensome. Notwithstanding these objections, 

AMP will produce non-privileged, responsive documents for American Power 

LLC.

(Doc. #162-3, PageID #2236). 

As noted previously, the Court has already determined that the AMP Parties have put their 

financial condition at issue and, therefore, the request for financial records is, in fact, relevant. As 

for the AMP Parties’ objection that the reference to “financial records” is vague and undefined, 

the undersigned agrees that Dektrix’s failure to define the term makes the scope of the request 

unclear; however, the request itself provides that “financial records” were meant to include at least 

“monthly balance sheets, profit and loss statements and tax returns[.]” (Doc. #141-9, PageID

#1914). Therefore, the AMP Parties’ failure to provide any such responsive documents (such as, 

monthly balance sheets, profit and loss statements, and tax returns) on the basis that Dektrix did 

not exhaustively define “financial records” is without merit. 

Further, the AMP Parties’ statement that it “will produce non-privileged, responsive 

documents for American Power LLC” fails to properly identify which documents are being 

withheld on the basis of their objections versus which documents are being produced. Rule 

34(b)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[f]or each item or category, the 

response must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or 

3 The Request for Production of Documents define “AMP” in the request to mean “American Power, LLC, its 

members, managers and any person acting on its behalf.” (Doc. #141-9, PageID #1913).

Case: 3:17-cv-00347-MJN-PBS Doc #: 186 Filed: 06/27/23 Page: 12 of 17 PAGEID #: 2747
13

state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request including the reasons.” The 

obligation to provide specificity when asserting an objection is further elaborated in the 

commentary to Rule 34, which states:

Rule 34(b)(2)(B) is amended to require that objections to Rule 34 requests be stated 

with specificity. This provision adopts the language of Rule 33(b)(4), eliminating 

any doubt that less specific objections might be suitable under Rule 34. The 

specificity of the objection ties to the new provision in Rule 34(b)(2)(C) directing 

that an objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld 

on the basis of the objection. An objection may state that a request is overbroad, 

but if the objection recognized that some part of the request is appropriate the 

objection should state the scope that is not overbroad. Examples would be a 

statement that the responding party will limit the search to documents or 

electronically stored information created within a given period of time prior to the 

events in suit, or to specified sources. When there is such an objection, the statement 

of what has been withheld can properly identify as matters ‘withheld’ anything 

beyond the scope of the search specified in the objection.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, Commentary to 2015 Amendment.

In this case, the AMP Parties appear to acknowledge that a portion of thisrequest is relevant 

by stating that they will produce non-privileged, responsive documents for American Power, LLC. 

However, the response fails to provide sufficient information to identify which documents are 

being withheld on the basis of the stated objection. Further, by only referencing American Power, 

LLC, this response seems to imply that responsive documents from Mr. Shakhbandarov and Mr. 

Baguirov are being withheld. The AMP Parties have not asserted a valid objection for withholding 

documents on the basis that they are from Mr. Shakhbandarov and Mr. Baguirov as opposed to 

American Power, LLC. 

Thus, to the extent that they are withholding documents, the AMP Parties are 

COMPELLED to supplement their response to Request for Production Number 2 by (1) 

specifying what has been withheld versus what has been produced and (2) producing any 

documents for which a valid objection has not been raised. 

Case: 3:17-cv-00347-MJN-PBS Doc #: 186 Filed: 06/27/23 Page: 13 of 17 PAGEID #: 2748
14

Requests for Production Number 3

In Dektrix’s Request for Production Number 3, the AMP Parties were asked to produce 

“[a]ny and all bank and credit card statements for AMP from 2014 through the date of response or 

supplemental response.” (Doc. #141-9, PageID #1914). In response, the AMP Parties provided:

RESPONSE: Objection. This request is overbroad and unduly burdensome. It 

requests financial information that is duplicative of the information contained in 

AMP’s tax returns, its profit and loss statements, and its balance sheets. Therefore, 

AMP will not produce documents in response to this request.

(Doc. #162-3, PageID #2236). 

Once again, Dektrix has already carried its burden in demonstrating the relevance of the 

AMP Parties’ financial information dating back to June 2016. Therefore, the burden shifts to the 

AMP Parties to specifically articulate why this request is objectionable and to offer possible 

alternatives to enable some degree of production. Here, the AMP Parties’ bare assertions that the 

request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and duplicative is insufficient to relieve them of their 

obligation to respond to this otherwise valid request. Further, while the AMP Parties complain 

that the Request for Production Number 3 is duplicative of the information contained in the tax 

returns, profit and loss statements, and balance sheets produced, Dektrix alleges that it has not 

even received the tax returns. (See Doc. #172, PageID #2610). Additionally, as with the other 

requests, to the extent that the AMP Parties are withholding documents from Mr. Shakhbandarov 

and Mr. Baguirov, they have not asserted a valid objection to do so. 

Accordingly, to the extent that they are withholding documents, the AMP Parties are 

COMPELLED to supplement their response to Request for Production Number 3 by (1) 

specifying what has been withheld versus what has been produced and (2) producing any 

documents for which a valid objection has not been raised. 

Case: 3:17-cv-00347-MJN-PBS Doc #: 186 Filed: 06/27/23 Page: 14 of 17 PAGEID #: 2749
15

Requests for Production Number 8

Finally, in Dektrix’s Request for Production Number 8, the AMP Parties were asked for 

the following:

Any and all Documents related to loans made to, or loans applied for by, AMP or 

its members between June 2016 and October 2017. This request includes but is not 

limited to Documents related to efforts to obtain a loan between August 5, 2016 

and December 5, 2016; any loan from which AMP or its members funded any 

money to Dektrix; and any loan documents purporting to use equipment (e.g. 

forklift) as collateral. Please include communications between any AMP 

representative and any lender/financing institution or its representative; 

applications for loans/financing; approvals or denials; underwriting documents; 

credit scores; documents (e.g. check or wire transfer receipts) reflecting funding on 

any loan/financing.

(Doc. #141-9, PageID #s 1914-15).

As their response to Request for Production Number 8, the AMP Parties provided:

RESPONSE: Objection. This request is overbroad and unduly burdensome. 

Notwithstanding these objections, AMP will produce nonprivileged, responsive 

documents. AMP did not obtain or formally apply for any loans during the time 

period of June 2016 and October 2017, but did make inquiries with multiple 

lenders.

(Doc. #162-3, PageID #2236). 

The scope of this request also falls within the ambit of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). The AMP 

Parties appear to recognize this relevance by stating that they will produce non-privileged, 

responsive documents. Despite this acknowledgement, the AMP Parties fail to explain how the 

request is overbroad and unduly burdensome and to articulate which documents are being withheld 

versus being produced. 

In their memorandum in opposition, the AMP Parties further explain that they never 

applied for any loans but did provide Dektrix with the names of the lenders they communicated

with informally regarding the possibility of obtaining loans. The AMP Parties do not address, 

however, whether there is any of documentation evincing these communications. Thus, to the 

Case: 3:17-cv-00347-MJN-PBS Doc #: 186 Filed: 06/27/23 Page: 15 of 17 PAGEID #: 2750
16

extent that there is such documentation, the AMP Parties must produce it as responsive to Request 

for Production Number 8.

Additionally, in response to Dektrix’s claims that they have not produced documentation 

regarding a leased forklift, the AMP Parties explain that the forklift was financed pursuant to a 

lease and not a loan. As such, information pertaining to the leased forklift is not responsive to 

Request for Production Number 8, and the AMP Parties have adequately addressed why it was not 

produced. 

However, the AMP Parties have failed to demonstrate why loans taken out by Mr. 

Shakhbandarov and Mr. Baguirov are not relevant. As discussed above, Mr. Shakhbandarov and 

Mr. Baguirov have put their financial condition at issue in this case just as American Power, LLC

has. The fact that they are individuals as opposed to a business entity is not a valid reason for 

withholding otherwise relevant information. Dektrix has reasonably limited the scope of this 

request to loans made or applied for during June 2016 and October 2017. Thus, absent a valid 

objection explaining why this documentation should be withheld, such responsive information is 

relevant and should be produced. 

Accordingly, to the extent that they are withholding documents, the AMP Parties are 

COMPELLED to supplement their response to Request for Production Number 8 by (1) 

specifying what has been withheld versus what has been produced and (2) producing any 

documents for which a valid objection has not been raised. 

Based on the foregoing, Dektrix’s second motion to compel discovery (Doc. #162) is 

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The AMP Parties are COMPELLED to produce 

the discovery outlined above WITHIN 7 DAYS of this Order.

Case: 3:17-cv-00347-MJN-PBS Doc #: 186 Filed: 06/27/23 Page: 16 of 17 PAGEID #: 2751
17

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

1. Dektrix’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. #141) is DENIED AS 

MOOT; 

2. Dektrix’s Motion to Compel Discovery from American Power, LLC, Adil 

Baguirov and Islom Shakhbandarov (Doc. #162) is GRANTED IN PART

and DENIED IN PART; and

3. The AMP Parties are COMPELLED to produce the discovery outlined 

above WITHIN 7 DAYS of this Order.

June 27, 2023 s/Peter B. Silvain, Jr.

Peter B. Silvain, Jr.

United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 3:17-cv-00347-MJN-PBS Doc #: 186 Filed: 06/27/23 Page: 17 of 17 PAGEID #: 2752