CFTC Ex. 528

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 82-2 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1844
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT 

OF ILLINOIS EASTERN 

DIVISION

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission,

Plaintiff,

v.

Long Leaf Trading Group, Inc., 

James A. Donelson, Timothy M. 

Evans, Jeremy S. Ruth, and 

Andrew D. Nelson,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 20-3758

Hon. Thomas A. 

Durkin

Defendant Long Leaf Trading’s Answers and 

Objections to Plaintiff CFTC’s First Set of Requests for Admission

Pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Defendant Long 

Leaf Trading Group, Inc. ("Defendant" or “Long Leaf”), by and through its attorney, 

James M. Falvey, Falvey Law Office, responds to Plaintiff CFTC’s (“Plaintiff” or 

“CFTC”) First Set of Requests for Admission (“Request” or “Requests”) as follows:

General Statement & Objections

The following responses are based upon information presently available to 

Long Leaf and are made without prejudice to the right to utilize subsequently 

discovered facts or witnesses or documents or things or legal arguments. Long Leaf 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 82-2 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:1845
2

specifically reserves the right to modify and/or supplement these discovery responses

if and to the extent required or permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In certain Requests for Admission, below, Long Leaf made reasonable inquiry 

and the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit 

or deny the Request because, as to the time period prior to Mr. James Donelson 

becoming a principal of Long Leaf, there is limited information available. Mr. 

Donelson became a principal in December 2017. Where possible, for the period of 

time prior to Donelson becoming a principal, Long Leaf relied on its books and 

records to admit or deny such Request. Long Leaf is of the view that a prior principal,

and founder of Long Leaf, Tim Evans, may be the only person able to answer certain 

Requests. Tim Evans’ present location is thought to be in Mexico. However, thus far, 

he has yet to be contacted by Long Leaf, as well as the CFTC (as acknowledged by 

the CFTC in the Court hearing today, January 19, 2021). Accordingly, should Evans 

become available and willing to shed light on certain Requests, Long Leaf will 

supplement its responses. Also, if Long Leaf discovers additional facts, perhaps via a

witness that has knowledge of facts currently unknown to Long Leaf, then Long Leaf 

will supplement its responses.

Specific Objections and Answers

Request for Admission No. 1: Admit that Long Leaf’s trading program included 

options trade recommendations provided by Long Leaf Trading to customers.

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 82-2 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:1846
3

Answer: Long Leaf admits ¶ 1 that its trading program included options trade 

recommendations provided by Long Leaf Trading to customers.

Request for Admission No. 2: Admit that Long Leaf Trading recommended 

trades to customers as part of the trading program because Long Leaf Trading 

believed those trades to be valuable or advisable.

Answer: Long Leaf admits ¶ 2 that it recommended trades to customers as 

part of the trading program because Long Leaf Trading believed those 

trades to be valuable or advisable for the specific period that Mr. Donelson 

was a principal of Long Leaf, but otherwise lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the admission as it 

relates to the period of time prior to his becoming a principal. Mr. 

Donelson has been a principal of Long Leaf from December 2017 to the 

present (the “Donelson Period”). However, Long Leaf ceased operations in 

December 2019, although it is a company that is still in good standing in 

the state of Illinois. As to the period prior to Mr. Donelson’s ownership (the 

“Pre-Donelson Period”), Long Leaf has made reasonable inquiry to attempt 

to enable it to admit or deny the Request, but was unable to do so as the 

information was not readily attainable in Long Leaf company records, nor 

was there any individual available to Long Leaf with knowledge sufficient 

to enable Long Leaf to answer this Request.

Request for Admission No. 3: Admit that, as part of the Long Leaf Trading

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 82-2 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:1847
4

trading program, a customer could either approve or disapprove of the trade

recommendation.

Answer: Long Leaf admits ¶ 3 that as a part of its trading program, a 

customer could either approve or disapprove of the trade recommendation 

for the Donelson Period, but otherwise lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the admission as it relates to 

Pre-Donelson Period. Furthermore, as to the Pre-Donelson Period, Long 

Leaf has made reasonable inquiry to attempt to enable it to admit or deny 

the Request, but was unable to do so as the information was not readily 

attainable in Long Leaf company records, nor was there any individual 

available to Long Leaf with knowledge sufficient to enable Long Leaf to 

answer this Request.

Request for Admission No. 4: Admit that, as part of the Long Leaf Trading 

trading program, if a customer approved the recommended trade then Long Leaf 

Trading would cause the trade to be executed on the customer’s behalf.

Answer: Long Leaf admits ¶ 4 that, as part of the Long Leaf Trading 

trading program, if a customer approved the recommended trade then 

Long Leaf Trading would cause the trade to be executed on the customer’s

behalf for the Donelson Period, but otherwise lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the admission as it 

relates to the Pre-Donelson Period. Furthermore, as to the Pre-Donelson 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 82-2 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:1848
5

Period, Long Leaf has made reasonable inquiry to attempt to enable it to 

admit or deny the Request, but was unable to do so as the information was 

not readily attainable in Long Leaf company records, nor was there any 

individual available to Long Leaf with knowledge sufficient to enable 

Long Leaf to answer this Request.

Request for Admission No. 5: Admit that zero Long Leaf Trading customers that 

participated in the Long Leaf Trading trading program executed options trades 

through Long Leaf Trading other than options trades recommended to the customer 

by Long Leaf Trading as part of the trading program.

Answer: Mr. Donelson admits ¶ 5 that zero Long Leaf Trading customers 

that participated in the Long Leaf trading program executed options trades 

through Long Leaf Trading other than options trades recommended to the 

customer by Long Leaf Trading as part of the trading program for the 

Donelson Period, but otherwise lacks knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief about the truth of the admission as it relates to the PreDonelson Period. Furthermore, as to the Pre-Donelson Period, Long Leaf 

has made reasonable inquiry to attempt to enable it to admit or deny the 

Request, but was unable to do so as the information was not readily 

attainable in Long Leaf company records, nor was there any individual 

available to Long Leaf with knowledge sufficient to enable Long Leaf to 

answer this Request.

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 82-2 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:1849
6

Request for Admission No. 6: Admit that Long Leaf Trading had at least 319

customers.

Answer: Long Leaf admits ¶ 6 that it had at least 319 customers.

Request for Admission No. 7: Admit that at least 195 of Long Leaf Trading’s 

customers participated in Long Leaf Trading’s trading program.

Answer: Long Leaf admits ¶ 7 that that at least 195 of Long Leaf 

Trading’s customers participated in Long Leaf Trading’s trading

program.

Request for Admission No. 8: Admit that at least 79 Long Leaf Trading 

customer accounts were opened or initially funded after December 1, 2017.

Answer: Long Leaf admits ¶ 8 that at least 79 Long Leaf Trading 

customer accounts were opened or initially funded after December 1, 

2017.

Request for Admission No. 9: Admit that all of the at least 79 Long Leaf Trading 

customer accounts that were opened or initially funded after December 1, 2017, 

participated in the Long Leaf Trading trading program.

Answer: Long Leaf admits ¶ 9 that all of the at least 79 Long Leaf 

Trading customer accounts that were opened or initially funded after 

December 1, 2017, participated in the Long Leaf Trading trading program.

Request for Admission No. 10: Admit that Long Leaf Trading marketed its trading 

program to the general public through the Long Leaf Trading website.

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 82-2 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:1850
7

Answer: Long Leaf admits ¶ 10 that Long Leaf Trading marketed its 

trading program to the general public through the Long Leaf Trading

website.

Request for Admission No. 11: Admit that Long Leaf Trading marketed its 

trading program to the general public through oral or written solicitations of 

prospective customers.

Answer: Long Leaf admits ¶ 11 that Long Leaf Trading marketed its 

trading program to the general public through oral or written solicitations 

of prospective customers.

Request for Admission No. 12: Admit that Long Leaf Trading employed a staff 

of associated persons whose duties included soliciting members of the general 

public to participate in the trading program.

Answer: Long Leaf admits ¶ 12 that Long Leaf Trading employed a 

staff of associated persons whose duties included soliciting members 

of the general public to participate in the trading program.

Request for Admission No. 13: Admit that Long Leaf Trading did not limit 

participation in the trading program to existing customers.

Answer: Long Leaf objects to this Request as it is vague, ambiguous, 

and unintelligible. Subject to, and without waiving the foregoing

objections, Long Leaf denies this Request. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 82-2 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:1851
8

Request for Admission No. 14: Admit that Long Leaf Trading received 

compensation from its Time Means Money customers in the form of

commissions.

Answer: Long Leaf admits ¶ 14 that Long Leaf Trading received 

compensation from its Time Means Money customers in the form of

commissions.

Request for Admission No. 15: Admit that commissions earned by Long Leaf 

Trading in connection with the trading program would not have been paid to 

Long Leaf Trading absent Long Leaf Trading’s trade recommendations.

Answer: Long Leaf denies ¶ 15 because the customer was required to 

agree to the trade and its execution, otherwise Long Leaf would not have 

earned commissions. As noted in ¶ 3, above, the customer had the right to 

approve or disapprove any trade recommendation.

Request for Admission No. 16: Admit that the commissions earned by Long Leaf 

Trading in connection with its trading program were are [sic] a result of its trading

recommendations.

Answer: Long Leaf denies ¶ 16 because the customer was required to 

agree to the trade and its execution, otherwise Long Leaf would not have 

earned commissions. As noted in ¶ 3, above, the customer had the right to 

approve or disapprove any trade recommendation.

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 82-2 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:1852
9

Request for Admission No. 17: Admit that Long Leaf Trading’s trading 

program’s trade recommendations were conceived of and structured by Long Leaf

Trading.

Answer: Long Leaf admits ¶ 17 that Long Leaf Trading’s trading 

program’s trade recommendations were conceived of and structured by 

Long Leaf Trading during the Donelson Period, but otherwise lacks 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of 

the admission as it relates to the Pre-Donelson Period. Additionally, for 

the month of December 2017, Long Leaf engaged a Series 3 broker to 

develop the trades which were reviewed by Long Leaf before being sent 

to clients. Furthermore, as to the Pre-Donelson Period, Long Leaf has 

made reasonable inquiry to attempt to enable it to admit or deny the 

Request, but was unable to do so as the information was not readily 

attainable in Long Leaf company records, nor was there any individual 

available to Long Leaf with knowledge sufficient to enable Long Leaf 

to answer this Request.

Request for Admission No. 18: Admit that Long Leaf Trading did not receive 

trade recommendations from third parties that Long Leaf Trading would then pass 

along to Long Leaf Trading customers as part of the trading program.

Answer: Long Leaf admits ¶ 18 that Long Leaf Trading did not receive 

trade recommendations from third parties that Long Leaf Trading would 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 82-2 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:1853
10

then pass along to Long Leaf Trading customers as part of the trading

program during the Donelson Period, but otherwise lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the admission 

as it relates to the Pre-Donelson Period. Additionally, for the month of 

December 2017, Long Leaf engaged a Series 3 broker to develop the 

trades which were reviewed by Long Leaf before being sent to clients.

Furthermore, as to the Pre-Donelson Period, Long Leaf has made 

reasonable inquiry to attempt to enable it to admit or deny the Request, 

but was unable to do so as the information was not readily attainable in 

Long Leaf company records, nor was there any individual available to 

Long Leaf with knowledge sufficient to enable Long Leaf to answer this

Request.

Request for Admission No. 19: Admit that Long Leaf Trading has not at any time 

provided prospective customers with accurate information concerning Long Leaf 

Trading’s trading performance in connection with soliciting participation in the 

trading program.

Answer: Long Leaf denies ¶ 19 that Long Leaf Trading has not at any 

time provided prospective customers with accurate information 

concerning Long Leaf Trading’s trading performance in connection with 

soliciting participation in the trading program during the Donelson Period, 

but otherwise lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 82-2 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:1854
11

about the truth of the admission as it relates to periods prior to his 

ownership. Furthermore, as to the Pre-Donelson Period, Long Leaf has 

made reasonable inquiry to attempt to enable it to admit or deny the 

Request, but was unable to do so as the information was not readily 

attainable in Long Leaf company records, nor was there any individual 

available to Long Leaf with knowledge sufficient to enable Long Leaf 

to answer this Request.

Request for Admission No. 20: Admit that Long Leaf Trading has not at any time 

disclosed to prospective clients any information described in 17 C.F.R. § 4.35(b), 

including but not limited to disclosure that neither Long Leaf Trading nor any of its 

trading principals had ever previously directed any accounts.

Answer: Long Leaf objects to this Request as it is vague, ambiguous, 

and unintelligible specifically as to the meaning of “directed any 

accounts.” Subject to, and without waiving the foregoing objections, 

Long Leaf denies ¶ 20.

Request for Admission No. 21: Admit that James Donelson was the owner of 

Long Leaf Trading from December 2017 through the date Long Leaf Trading 

ceased business operations.

Answer: Long Leaf admits ¶ 21 that Donelson was a principal of Long 

Leaf. Furthermore, Long Leaf is and was owned by Donelson 

Enterprises, Inc., from December 2017 through the date Long Leaf 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 82-2 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:1855
12

ceased business operations

Request for Admission No. 22: Admit that from December 2017 through the date 

Long Leaf Trading ceased business operations, James Donelson held authority to 

hire, discipline, or fire Long Leaf Trading employees or agents.

Answer: Long Leaf admits ¶ 22 that Mr. Donelson was a principal of 

Long Leaf and therefore had those authorities.

Request for Admission No. 23: Admit that from December 2017 through the 

date Long Leaf Trading ceased business operations, James Donelson held 

authority to approve trade recommendations sent to Long Leaf Trading customers 

as part of the Time Means Money program.

Answer: Long Leaf admits ¶ 23 that Mr. Donelson was a principal of 

Long Leaf and therefore had those authorities.

Dated: January 19, 2021 /s/ James M. Falvey

James M. Falvey

Falvey Law Office

200 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3100

Chicago, Illinois 60606

312.404.5839 (office & mobile)

jimfalvey@yahoo.com

Attorney for Defendants

James A. Donelson & 

Long Leaf Trading

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 82-2 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:1856
13

Certificate of Service

I, James M. Falvey, hereby certify that on January 19, 2020, I provided service 

to the persons listed below via email:

Commodity Futures Trading

Chicago Regional Office

Andrew D. Nelson Ashley J. Burden

267 May St. E. Senior Trial Attorney

Elmhurst, IL 60126 aburden@cftc.gov

adnelson0503@gmail.com 

Joseph C. Platt

Pro se Trial Attorney

jplatt@cftc.gov

Andrew S. May

Partner Elizabeth M. Streit

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP Chief Trial Attorney

151 North Franklin Street, Suite 2500, estreit@cftc.gov

Chicago, IL 60606

amay@hinshawlaw.com Joseph J. Patrick

Investigator

jpatrick@cftc.gov

/s/ James M. Falvey

James M. Falvey

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 82-2 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:1857