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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Vanguard Specialized Funds, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

VEREIT Incorporated, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-15-02157-PHX-JAS

ORDER 

 Pursuant to the May 2, 2018 Order, the parties filed joint summaries of two 

discovery disputes. (Docs. 281, 282.) The Court has considered both the public and the 

sealed documents. Based on these documents and the applicable law, the Court orders the 

following: 

 First as to ARCP’s Chief Accounting Officer Gavin Brandon, ARCP shall produce 

some of Mr. Brandon’s documents. ARCP argues that Mr. Brandon’s documents should 

be limited as to time and search term; specifically, ARCP believes that Mr. Brandon’s 

documents should be limited to the period after October 28, 2014, when he was promoted 

to his current position. ARCP further contend that Mr. Brandon was not even aware of 

the merger until it was publically announced in 2013. Plaintiffs assert that “Mr. Brandon 

was involved with the Cole merger in 2013 and throughout 2014[.]” (Doc. 281 at 2.) 

Therefore, Plaintiffs believes that ARCP’s proposed limitations would omit relevant 

documents. 

 If ARCP is to be believed, it is clear that any documents prior to the public 

Case 2:15-cv-02157-JAS Document 289 Filed 06/08/18 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

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 

announcement of the merger would be irrelevant or disproportionate at this time. It is also 

clear from the exhibits that Mr. Brandon was involved to some extent in the merger (Doc. 

285-1, ex 5, at 12.) Therefore, ARCP shall disclose Mr. Brandon’s relevant document 

after the merger was publically announced in October of 2013. The Court acknowledges 

that the parties also disagree what search terms would provide relevant documents in 

connection to Mr. Brandon without being overbroad. The Court declines to make a ruling 

on the appropriate search terms at this time. The Court instead orders the parties to meet 

and confer in an attempt to meet an appropriate compromise in light of the rulings in this 

Order and, further, the parties shall update the Court regarding this issue on or before 

June 29, 2018. 

 Second as to the requested nineteen search terms, the Court orders that the 

following agreed-to search terms be applied: 5-9, 12-14, 17-19.1

 (Doc. 282-1, ex 4, at 27, 

ex. 9, at 92-94, ex 10, 100-02.) The Court further approves search term 4. These 

documents are not disproportionate and are likely to provide relevant material. The Court 

believes that ARCP’s compromise for search term 102

 is appropriate and that Plaintiffs’ 

proposal is disproportionate. The Court also believes that search terms 11, 15, and 16 are 

disproportionate and unlikely to result in sufficient relevant documents given the high 

number of matches. Therefore, the Court does not approve search terms 11, 15, and 16. 

The only remaining contested search terms are 1-3. The Court believes that a reasonable 

compromise exists between the parties’ proposals. While, the Court understands Plaintiffs 

need to discovery regarding the Arizona connection, the Plaintiffs’ proposal is overly 

broad and disproportionate. The Court instead orders the parties to meet and confer in an 

attempt to meet an appropriate compromise in light of the rulings in this Order and, 

further, the parties shall update the Court regarding this issue on or before June 29, 2018. 

 Failure to work toward a reasonable compromise may result in an arbitrary 

decision by the Court that neither side would find satisfactory. The parties are more 

 1

 The Court is using the numbering from the Letter to Antonia Apps and Jonathan Ohring from Beko Richardson dated January 11, 2018 (Doc. 282-1, ex. 1, at 7-8). 2

 This compromise may be found in Letter to Beko Richardson from Jonathan Ohring dated January 9, 2018 (Doc. 282-1, ex. 10 at 101). 

Case 2:15-cv-02157-JAS Document 289 Filed 06/08/18 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

familiar with the history of this matter and possess a more-detailed knowledge as to the 

needs of this particular matter than the Court at this time. 

 Dated this 7th day of June, 2018. 

Case 2:15-cv-02157-JAS Document 289 Filed 06/08/18 Page 3 of 3