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 

PLAINTIFF’S OMNIBUS MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM 

DEFENDANTS LONG LEAF TRADING GROUP, INC. AND JAMES DONELSON 

 Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) moves 

the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(iv) and Local Rule 37.2 for an 

order compelling Defendants Long Leaf Trading Group, Inc. (“Long Leaf”) and James A. 

Donelson (“Donelson”) to respond to various outstanding discovery requests.1 Some of the 

outstanding discovery was served nearly six months ago and Long Leaf and Donelson’s failure 

to provide timely responses may impede the Commission’s ability to complete fact discovery by 

the May 1, 2021, deadline. In support of the motion, the CFTC states: 

INTRODUCTION

1. Procedural background and summary of the Commission’s claims. 

The Commission filed its complaint against five defendants, including Long Leaf and 

Donelson, on June 26, 2020. Long Leaf was a company that sold a “trading program” pursuant 

to which it recommended options trades to its customers in return for commissions. Donelson 

 

1

 Long Leaf and Donelson are both represented by attorney James Falvey. (ECF No. 40.) 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 62 Filed: 02/13/21 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:428
2 

purchased Long Leaf from Defendant Timothy Evans in December 2017 and was its sole 

principal until December 2019. Long Leaf’s trading program resulted in consistent, disastrous 

losses for substantially all its customers across substantially all relevant time periods. 

As relevant to this motion, the Commission’s claims range from claims arising out of 

Long Leaf’s failure to register with the Commission as a commodity trading advisor (“CTA”), 

Long Leaf’s failure to provide prospective customers with performance-related disclosures that 

are required by CFTC regulations, Donelson’s failure to register as an associated person of an 

introducing broker, and Long Leaf’s and Donelson’s fraud.2 (See ECF No. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 79–

124.) 

The Commission anticipates at least the following defenses: (i) Long Leaf was not 

required to register as a CTA, since it was registered as an introducing broker, (ii) Donelson was 

not required to register as an associated person for the relevant time period, and (iii) Donelson 

and Long Leaf did not commit fraud despite the material misrepresentations and omissions 

littered throughout Long Leaf’s solicitation materials. The Commission expects part of 

Donelson’s defense to refer to his subjective belief that the trading program was successful for 

some undefined period of time for some undefined set of customer accounts. Long Leaf and 

Donelson also intend to attempt to assert an advice of counsel defense to the failure-to-register 

claims, notwithstanding that registration violations arising under the Commodity Exchange Act 

(“CEA”) and CFTC regulations are strict liability claims. (See Platt Decl. Ex. F (Donelson Resp. 

to Plf.’s First Interrogatories).) 

 

2

 The Commission has alleged that Donelson is liable for all of Long Leaf’s violations from the 

December 2017 through December 2019 period under a control person theory of liability. See 7 

U.S.C. § 13c(b). 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 62 Filed: 02/13/21 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:429
3 

There are a lot of moving parts to this case. The registration violations comprise some 

different factual predicates than the fraud claims, and among the alleged registration violations 

there are multiple discrete sub-issues. In an attempt to narrow the case for trial (and to 

streamline the CFTC’s summary judgment motions, which it anticipates filing on all claims 

against all Defendants), the Commission has served reasonable, targeted discovery to Long Leaf 

and Donelson, including requests for production, interrogatories, and requests for admission, 

summarized below. 

2. Status of discovery. 

On September 30, 2020, the parties jointly filed their Rule 26(f) scheduling report, which 

incorporates a fact discovery deadline of May 1, 2021. (ECF No. 18 at 5.) So far, the CFTC has 

served several discovery requests to Long Leaf, Donelson, and Defendant Jeremy Ruth, taken 

three depositions, served six Rule 45 document subpoenas to nonparties, and noticed five 

additional depositions to take place before the May 1 deadline. The outstanding document 

requests and interrogatories to Donelson and Long Leaf, detailed below, could significantly alter 

the course of the remaining discovery, including the depositions of Long Leaf, Donelson, and 

Long Leaf’s former attorney.3

 Outstanding discovery items include4: 

 

3

 The Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Long Leaf is noticed for April 6, 2021. Donelson’s deposition 

is noticed for April 13, 2021. The deposition of Long Leaf’s regulatory counsel is noticed for 

April 22, 2021. 

4

 The outstanding discovery items referenced in this motion are attached as Exhibits A through E 

to the declaration of Joseph Platt. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 62 Filed: 02/13/21 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:430
4 

Item Date 

Served 

Status 

First RFP to Long 

Leaf 

8/25/2020  Corporate emails, telephone recordings, and 

additional documents have been produced. 

 No written responses have been provided. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2). 

First RFP to 

Donelson 

8/25/2020  See status of First RFP to Long Leaf. 

Second RFP to 

Donelson 

10/1/2020  Document requests related to advice of counsel. 

 Donelson’s counsel has stated no responsive 

documents exist. 

 No written responses have been provided. 

First Interrogatories 

to Long Leaf 

12/14/2020  Interrogatories concerning Long Leaf’s 

performance and risk disclosures. 

 No answers or objections have been provided. 

Third RFP to 

Donelson 

12/14/2020  One request for documents concerning Donelson’s 

supervision of his employees. 

 No documents have been produced (apart from 

Long Leaf’s productions). 

 No written responses have been provided. 

 Neither Long Leaf nor Donelson has timely objected to the outstanding discovery on any 

grounds at any time. (Platt Decl. ¶ 14.) 

3. Attempts to meet and confer. 

The CFTC has attempted to resolve these discovery issues in good faith. Long Leaf and 

Donelson’s original counsel withdrew from this matter at the end of October 2020. (See ECF 

No. 33.) Before withdrawing, Long Leaf and Donelson’s original lawyers did not produce any 

documents or seek any extensions of time for any of the then-outstanding discovery. On 

November 16, 2020, Long Leaf and Donelson’s current attorney filed his appearance. (ECF No. 

41.) 

 On November 23, 2020, CFTC counsel and Mr. Falvey emailed concerning an extension 

of time for Long Leaf’s and Donelson’s overdue document productions and interrogatory 

answers. (See Platt Decl. Ex. G.) 

 On December 1, 2020, CFTC counsel and Mr. Falvey met by telephone conference to 

discuss Long Leaf’s and Donelson’s outstanding discovery. The parties agreed to a 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 62 Filed: 02/13/21 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:431
5 

production date of December 4, 2020. Mr. Falvey also stated he expected to provide 

Long Leaf’s and Donelson’s written responses to the outstanding RFPs by December 4, 

2020. (See Platt Decl. Ex. H.) 

 On January 25, 2021, CFTC counsel emailed Mr. Falvey to highlight the outstanding 

discovery items (which as of that date exceeded the items that are the subject of this 

motion), given that the parties were beginning to take depositions. (See Platt Decl. Ex. I.) 

 On January 28, 2021, CFTC counsel and Mr. Falvey met a second time by telephone 

conference to discuss Long Leaf’s and Donelson’s outstanding discovery. During that 

telephone conference, Mr. Falvey advised that many of the outstanding discovery 

responses would be provided either that day or shortly thereafter. (See Platt Decl. Ex. J.)5

 

In the case of the CFTC’s first set of interrogatories to Long Leaf, which relate in part to 

the performance of Long Leaf’s trading system and risk disclosures provided to 

prospective clients, Mr. Falvey advised that Long Leaf’s responses would not contain 

substantive information. (See id.) 

ARGUMENT 

 The CFTC has attempted to negotiate with defense counsel in good faith to obtain 

necessary discovery and has refrained from filing this motion based on representations that 

responses would be provided. To avoid receiving the outstanding responses without enough time 

to review them in advance of depositions and to allow time to potentially litigate the sufficiency 

of any responses, the CFTC now seeks a Court order compelling Donelson and Long Leaf to 

comply with their obligations under the rules. 

 This case is relatively complex: the underlying subject matter involves an options trading 

advisory service provided over an approximately 4-year time period and the claims range from 

registration violations to outright fraud. To narrow the potential factual and legal issues 

presented at trial and to streamline summary judgment briefing, the CFTC has issued Donelson 

and Long Leaf targeted discovery. There have been no objections that that discovery is not 

relevant or is burdensome. Long Leaf and Donelson’s inability to respond to discovery requests 

 

5

 There have been many additional emails between the parties concerning outstanding discovery. 

To streamline the motion, the CFTC has attached a representative sample. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 62 Filed: 02/13/21 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:432
6 

even months after they are due may begin to prejudice the CFTC’s ability to properly prepare for 

the most important depositions in this case: those of Long Leaf and Donelson. 

Even more frustrating is Donelson’s and Long Leaf’s statement that some of the 

forthcoming interrogatory responses will be non-substantive, which will likely require additional 

litigation in advance of Donelson’s and Long Leaf’s depositions. (See Platt Decl. Ex. J 

(referencing Mr. Falvey’s description of Long Leaf’s planned answers to interrogatories 

concerning the critical issue of the trading system’s performance).) 

1. The Court should order Donelson and Long Leaf to respond to all outstanding 

discovery no later than Friday, February 26.

Federal litigation is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provide 

detailed instructions to parties concerning written and oral discovery. Among those instructions 

are time limits for providing discovery responses or lodging objections. E.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 

33(b)(2); 34(b)(2). Courts routinely enforce these basic rules. See Davis v. City of Springfield, 

2009 WL 268893 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2009). In Davis, the plaintiff served discovery requests on 

September 5, 2008 and sent defense counsel a letter on October 15 requesting information 

concerning a complete lack of response. Id. at *1. Defense counsel did not respond to that 

communication and the plaintiff followed up again on October 27 highlighting that she could not 

schedule oral discovery without the defendant’s document production. Id. at *2. Defense 

counsel ultimately produced some discovery responses on November 6 (about a month late) but 

the plaintiff filed a motion to compel complete responses to all requests for production. Id. The 

court ordered the defendant to provide complete discovery responses to all requests at issue. Id.

at *3–4. 

The outstanding discovery referenced in this motion was served in August, October, and 

December 2020. The latest-in-time deadline to respond to these items was January 13, 2021—a 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 62 Filed: 02/13/21 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:433
7 

month ago. There have been no objections and, to the extent Donelson or Long Leaf sought 

extensions of time either formally or informally, any agreed-upon extensions lapsed in midJanuary. While Long Leaf and Donelson have produced some material and provided some 

responses, they are obliged to follow the rules as they defend themselves. The CFTC requests 

the Court enter an order directing Long Leaf and Donelson to properly respond to all outstanding 

discovery referenced in this motion no later than February 26, 2021. 

2. The Court should find that all Donelson’s and Long Leaf’s objections have been 

waived. 

Donelson and Long Leaf have not timely objected to any outstanding discovery on any 

grounds, nor have any objections been preserved through timely requests for extensions of time.6 

Donelson and Long Leaf have been represented by counsel at all relevant times. Accordingly, 

any objections have been waived. 

Rule 33(b) states that “[a]ny ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the 

court, for good cause, excuses the failure.” And Rule 34 incorporates this automatic waiver 

provision. See, e.g., Autotech Techs. Ltd. P’ship v. Automationdirect.Com, Inc., 236 F.R.D. 396, 

398 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (discussing 1970 Committee Note to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, which incorporates 

Rule 33’s waiver language). Because Donelson and Long Leaf cannot show good cause for their 

failure to object or even ask for extensions of time in a timely manner, the Court should find that 

all objections to the outstanding discovery have been waived. 

 

6

 On January 12, 2021, Donelson and Long Leaf sought an extension of time until January 15, 

2021 to respond to the CFTC’s first set of requests for admission to Long Leaf, first set of 

interrogatories to Long Leaf, second set of interrogatories to Donelson, and third set of RFPs to 

Donelson. (Platt Decl. ¶ 21.) The CFTC agreed to that extension. (Id.) On January 15, 2021, 

Donelson and Long Leaf sought another extension until January 19, 2021 to respond to the same 

items, to which the CFTC agreed. (Id.) On January 19, Long Leaf responded to the CFTC’s first 

set of requests for admission. (Id.) 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 62 Filed: 02/13/21 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:434
8 

LOCAL RULE 37.2 CERTIFICATION 

 As described above, the CFTC and counsel for Long Leaf and Donelson have met and 

conferred at least two times concerning outstanding discovery. Despite repeated assurances that 

responses may be forthcoming, responses to the items referenced in this motion are all months

late at this time and critical depositions are approaching. Moreover, at least some of their 

forthcoming responses will not contain substantive information, likely requiring further litigation 

in advance of certain depositions. 

CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons stated above, the CFTC respectfully requests the Court enter an order (i) 

requiring Long Leaf and Donelson to respond to outstanding discovery no later than February 

26, 2021 and (ii) finding that all Long Leaf’s and Donelson’s objections have been waived. 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 62 Filed: 02/13/21 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:435
9 

Dated: February 13, 2021. 

/s/ Joseph C. Platt

Counsel to Plaintiff Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission 

Ashley J. Burden 

aburden@cftc.gov 

Elizabeth M. Streit 

estreit@cftc.gov 

Joseph C. Platt 

jplatt@cftc.gov 

Scott R. Williamson 

swilliamson@cftc.gov 

Robert T. Howell 

rhowell@cftc.gov 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Division of Enforcement 

525 W. Monroe St., Ste. 1100 

Chicago, IL 60661 

Phone: (312) 596-0700 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 62 Filed: 02/13/21 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:436
10 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on February 13, 2021, I provided service to all parties via CM/ECF or by the 

alternative means described below: 

Jim Falvey 

Falvey Law Office 

200 S. Wacker Dr., Ste. 3100 

Chicago, IL 60606 

312-404-5839 

jimfalvey@yahoo.com 

Counsel to Defendants Long Leaf Trading Group, Inc. 

and James A. Donelson 

By email: 

Defendant Jeremy Ruth 

jeremysruth@hotmail.com 

Pro se

By email: 

Defendant Andrew D. Nelson 

adnelson0503@gmail.com 

Pro se

Joseph C. Platt

Joseph C. Platt 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 62 Filed: 02/13/21 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:437