Court filing

Exhibit 15 — Oto Analytics, LLC v. Benworth Capital Partners PR LLC (Dkt. 182.16)

No. 3:23-cv-01034-GMM · Doc. 182-16 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

Bernardo Navarro's Answers and Objections to Oto Analytics LLC's First Requests for Production of Documents, filed December 6, 2024 as Doc. 182-16 in Oto Analytics, LLC v. Benworth Capital Partners PR, LLC, No. 3:23-cv-01034-GMM, consolidated with Civil No. 24-01313 (GMM), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Made under Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the responses open with general objections that include attorney-client privilege and work product. To Requests No. 1 to 4, on the LSA, the ALSA, the 2021 Transfer and payments from Benworth FL, he objects to each as overbroad under Rule 26(b)(1) and to the extent it seeks documents under the marital communications privilege. He states he will produce the LSA and ALSA, a table of transfers between Benworth FL and Benworth PR and a table of payments from Benworth FL to him.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM Document 182-16 Filed 12/06/24 Page 1 of 19

EXHIBIT 1
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM Document 182-16 Filed 12/06/24 Page 2 of 19

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

OTO ANALYTICS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
BENWORTH CAPITAL PARTNERS PR,
LLC; BENWORTH CAPITAL
Civil No. 23-01034 (GMM) cons.
PARTNERS, LLC; BERNARDO
NAVARRO and CLAUDIA NAVARRO, Civil No. 24-01313 (GMM)
Defendants.

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN
FRANCISCO,
Plaintiff-Intervenor
v.
OTO ANALYTICS, LLC; BENWORTH
CAPITAL PARTNERS PR, LLC; et al.,
Defendants in Intervention.
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN
FRANCISCO,
Consolidated Plaintiff,
v.
BENWORTH CAPITAL PARTNERS PR,
LLC, et al.,
Consolidated Defendants.

BERNARDO NAVARRO’S ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO OTO ANALYTICS
LLC’S FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

FROM: Bernardo Navarro
Through its attorneys:
Ferraiuoli LLC
Roberto A. Cámara-Fuertes
USDC-PR 219002
rcamara@ferraiuoli.com
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM Document 182-16 Filed 12/06/24 Page 3 of 19
Mr. Navarro’s Responses and Objections to Womply’s First Request for Production of Documents
Oto Analytics, LLC v. Benworth Capital Partners PR LLC, et al.
Civil No. 23-01034 (GMM) cons. Civil No. 24-01313 (GMM)
Page 2 of 18

Jaime A. Torrens-Dávila
USDC-PR 223810
jtorrens@ferraiuoli.com

Mónica Ramos-Benítez
USDC-PR 308405
mramos@ferraiuoli.com

TO: OTO ANALYTICS, LLC (“Womply”)
Through its attorneys:

Of Counsel:
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
Alexander L. Cheney (admitted pro hac vice)
333 Bush Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 858-7400
acheney@willkie.com

Stuart R. Lombardi (admitted pro hac vice)
787 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
(212) 728-8882
slombardi@willkie.com

Joshua S. Levy (admitted pro hac vice)
1875 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 303-1000
jlevy@willkie.com

Alejandro J. Cepeda Diaz
USDC-PR 222110
McConnell Valdés LLC
270 Muñoz Rivera Ave.
Hato Rey PR 00918
Tel: (787) 250-5637
Email: ajc@mcvpr.com

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Bernardo Navarro

(hereinafter, “Mr. Navarro”) hereby furnishes, through his attorneys, his Answers and Objections

to Womply’s First Requests for Production of Documents (“Answers and Objections”), as follows:
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM Document 182-16 Filed 12/06/24 Page 4 of 19
Mr. Navarro’s Responses and Objections to Womply’s First Request for Production of Documents
Oto Analytics, LLC v. Benworth Capital Partners PR LLC, et al.
Civil No. 23-01034 (GMM) cons. Civil No. 24-01313 (GMM)
Page 3 of 18

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

These Answers and Objections are based only upon the information currently available to

and specifically known as of the date hereof. Mr. Navarro reserves the right to amend or

supplement these Answers and Objections at any time in light of future investigation, research, or

analysis, and also expressly reserves the right to rely on, at any time, including in any other

proceeding, subsequently discovered information, or information omitted from these Answers and

Objections as a result of mistake, error, or inadvertence. Mr. Navarro has made reasonable efforts

to respond to the requests, to the extent they have not been objected to, as Mr. Navarro understands

and interprets the requests. If Womply subsequently asserts a meritorious interpretation of the

requests that differs from Mr. Navarro’s interpretation, Mr. Navarro reserves the right to

supplement these Answers and Objections.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

Mr. Navarro incorporates the following objections into each of its specific responses:

Mr. Navarro objects to each Requests insofar as it (a) seeks information that is subject to

legal privileges, (b) seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses in this action

or is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, (c) is vague,

ambiguous, overbroad or unduly burdensome, (d) seeks information that is not reasonably

accessible to Mr. Navarro, or is not within Mr. Navarro’s knowledge, (e) seeks information not in

Mr. Navarro’s possession, custody, or control, (f) seeks information that is already known by

Womply, or is equally or more easily accessible to Womply than to Mr. Navarro, and (g) purports

to impose upon Mr. Navarro an obligation beyond what is required by the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

Specifically, Mr. Navarro objects to the requests to the extent they expressly or impliedly
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM Document 182-16 Filed 12/06/24 Page 5 of 19
Mr. Navarro’s Responses and Objections to Womply’s First Request for Production of Documents
Oto Analytics, LLC v. Benworth Capital Partners PR LLC, et al.
Civil No. 23-01034 (GMM) cons. Civil No. 24-01313 (GMM)
Page 4 of 18

seek information protected from disclosure by the Attorney-Client Privilege, the Attorney Work-

Product Doctrine, the Common Interest Privilege, or any other applicable privileges, doctrines, or

immunities protecting information from disclosure. Nothing in these Answers and Objections is

intended as, nor shall in any way be deemed, a waiver of any of these privileges, doctrines, or

immunities. Information protected by these privileges, doctrines, or immunities is not subject to

disclosure, and will not be provided. Mr. Navarro intends to and does assert any and all such

privileges with respect to all such information.

Mr. Navarro objects to each definition, instruction, and request to the extent it seeks

information that is confidential or proprietary in nature, or requests detailed information

concerning impressions, opinions and/or statements of factual witnesses. To the extent any term

defined or used in the requests is used in responding to the requests, it is not accepted or conceded

that any such term or definition is appropriate, descriptive, or accurate.

Mr. Navarro objects to the requests to the extent that they require the search of archives,

backup files, or any information not readily accessible, including but not limited to any audio,

video, electronic recordings, telephone records, calendar entries, text messages or similar forms of

electronic messaging, which would be unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of

this case.

Mr. Navarro’s responses to each request are given without prejudice to Mr. Navarro’s right

to use or rely at any time, including trial, on subsequently discovered facts, information or

documents that may have been omitted from these responses by inadvertence, oversight or

otherwise.

Mr. Navarro generally objects to the requests insofar as they raise questions of law rather

than fact or are contention requests, normally reserved until the end of the discovery period. A
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM Document 182-16 Filed 12/06/24 Page 6 of 19
Mr. Navarro’s Responses and Objections to Womply’s First Request for Production of Documents
Oto Analytics, LLC v. Benworth Capital Partners PR LLC, et al.
Civil No. 23-01034 (GMM) cons. Civil No. 24-01313 (GMM)
Page 5 of 18

party may not be compelled to respond to such contention requests at the early stages of discovery

other than to state the party’s current knowledge.

These Answers and Objections should not be construed as: (a) an admission as to the

propriety of any request, (b) an agreement as to erroneous assumptions or incorrect factual

predicates contained in any request, (c) an acknowledgement that documents or other items

responsive to any request exist, (d) a waiver of the General Objections or the objections asserted

in response to specific requests, (e) an admission as to the relevance or admissibility into evidence

of any documents, item or information, (f) an admission, concession, or waiver as to the validity

of any claim or defense asserted in this litigation, or (g) an agreement that requests for similar

documents, items or information will be treated in a similar manner.

Mr. Navarro states that these general objections are incorporated to all specific objections

set forth herein. To the extent that Mr. Navarro provides responses to the specific requests, the

stated objections are not waived by such responses pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS

Request No. 1

All Documents and Communications Concerning the drafting and negotiation of the LSA.

Response to Request No. 1:

Mr. Navarro objects to the request for “all” “Documents” and “Communications”

“Concerning” the drafting and negotiation of the LSA, on the grounds that it is overbroad, vague,

unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case, as it fails to specify the scope

or particular category of documents and communications reasonably related to the claims and

defenses in this matter. Moreover, Womply’s definition of both “Communications” and
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM Document 182-16 Filed 12/06/24 Page 7 of 19
Mr. Navarro’s Responses and Objections to Womply’s First Request for Production of Documents
Oto Analytics, LLC v. Benworth Capital Partners PR LLC, et al.
Civil No. 23-01034 (GMM) cons. Civil No. 24-01313 (GMM)
Page 6 of 18

“Concerning” is extremely broad, and therefore would require extensive compilation and review

of an unbounded universe of information, much of which is irrelevant, confidential, and/or

unrelated to any issue at hand, inuring to undue effort and expense upon Mr. Navarro. Such a broad

request exceeds what is allowed by Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which

requires discovery to be both relevant and proportional.

Further, Mr. Navarro objects to this request to the extent it seeks confidential documents

protected by the marital communications privilege, the attorney-client privilege or the attorney

work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving any objections or rights, Mr. Navarro refers

to Benworth Capital Partner, LLC’s (“Benworth FL”) Answer to Womply’s Interrogatory No. 3

submitted on this same date, which is adopted and incorporated herein by reference, and informs

that he will be producing a copy of the LSA.

Request No. 2

All Documents and Communications Concerning the drafting and negotiation of the

ALSA.

Response to Request No. 2:

Mr. Navarro objects to the request for “all” “Documents” and “Communications”

“Concerning” the drafting and negotiation of the ALSA, on the grounds that it is overbroad, vague,

unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case, as it fails to specify the scope

or particular category of documents and communications reasonably related to the claims and

defenses in this matter. Moreover, Womply’s definition of both “Communications” and

“Concerning” is extremely broad, and therefore would require extensive compilation and review

of an unbounded universe of information, much of which is irrelevant, confidential, and/or

unrelated to any issue at hand, inuring to undue effort and expense upon Mr. Navarro. Such a broad
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM Document 182-16 Filed 12/06/24 Page 8 of 19
Mr. Navarro’s Responses and Objections to Womply’s First Request for Production of Documents
Oto Analytics, LLC v. Benworth Capital Partners PR LLC, et al.
Civil No. 23-01034 (GMM) cons. Civil No. 24-01313 (GMM)
Page 7 of 18

request exceeds what is allowed by Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which

requires discovery to be both relevant and proportional.

Further, Mr. Navarro objects to this request to the extent it seeks confidential documents

protected by the marital communications privilege, the attorney-client privilege or the attorney

work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving any objections or rights, Mr. Navarro refers

to Benworth FL’s Answer to Womply’s Interrogatory No. 3 submitted on this same date, which is

adopted and incorporated herein by reference, and informs that he will be producing a copy of the

ALSA.

Request No. 3

All Documents and Communications Concerning the 2021 Transfer.

Response to Request No. 3:

Mr. Navarro objects to the request for “all” “Documents” and “Communications”

“Concerning” the 2021 Transfer on the grounds that it is overbroad, vague, unduly burdensome,

and not proportional to the needs of the case, as it fails to specify the scope or particular category

of documents and communications reasonably related to the claims and defenses in this matter.

Moreover, Womply’s definition of both “Communications” and “Concerning” is extremely broad,

and therefore would require extensive compilation and review of an unbounded universe of

information, much of which is irrelevant, confidential, and/or unrelated to any issue at hand,

inuring to undue effort and expense upon Mr. Navarro. Such a broad request exceeds what is

allowed by Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires discovery to be

both relevant and proportional. Mr. Navarro further objects this request to the extent it requires

disclosure of documents and communications protected by the marital communications privilege,

the attorney-client privilege, accountant-client privilege or the attorney work-product doctrine.
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM Document 182-16 Filed 12/06/24 Page 9 of 19
Mr. Navarro’s Responses and Objections to Womply’s First Request for Production of Documents
Oto Analytics, LLC v. Benworth Capital Partners PR LLC, et al.
Civil No. 23-01034 (GMM) cons. Civil No. 24-01313 (GMM)
Page 8 of 18

Mr. Navarro is willing to meet and confer with Womply to narrow the scope of this request

to specific search terms and categories of documents relevant to the claims and defenses in this

action. Notwithstanding, and without waiving any rights or objections, Mr. Navarro informs that

he will be producing a table detailing all transfers made by and between Benworth FL and

Benworth PR from 2021 to present.

Request No. 4

All Documents and Communications Concerning any payments or transfers You received

from Benworth FL, including without limitation the Dividend Payments.

Response to Request No. 4

Mr. Navarro objects to the request for “all” “Documents” and “Communications”

“Concerning” “any” payments received from Benworth FL on the grounds that it is overbroad,

vague, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case, as it fails to specify the

scope or particular category of documents and communications reasonably related to the claims

and defenses in this matter. Moreover, Womply’s definition of both “Communications” and

“Concerning” is extremely broad, and therefore would require extensive compilation and review

of an unbounded universe of information, much of which is irrelevant, confidential, and/or

unrelated to any issue at hand, inuring to undue effort and expense upon Mr. Navarro. Such a broad

request exceeds what is allowed by Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which

requires discovery to be both relevant and proportional. Mr. Navarro further objects this request

to the extent it requires disclosure of documents and communications protected by the marital

communications privilege, the attorney-client privilege, accountant-client privilege or the attorney

work-product doctrine.

Mr. Navarro is willing to meet and confer with Womply to narrow the scope of this request
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM Document 182-16 Filed 12/06/24 Page 10 of 19
Mr. Navarro’s Responses and Objections to Womply’s First Request for Production of Documents
Oto Analytics, LLC v. Benworth Capital Partners PR LLC, et al.
Civil No. 23-01034 (GMM) cons. Civil No. 24-01313 (GMM)
Page 9 of 18

to specific search terms and categories of documents relevant to the claims and defenses in this

action. Notwithstanding, and without waiving any rights or objections, Mr. Navarro refers to his

Answer to Womply’s Interrogatory No. 1 submitted on this same date, and informs that he will be

producing a table showing all payments made by Benworth FL to Mr. Navarro from 2021-present.

Request No. 5

All Documents and Communications Concerning any payments or transfers You received

from Benworth PR.

Response to Request No. 5:

Mr. Navarro objects to the request for “all” “Documents” and “Communications”

“Concerning” “any” payments received from Benworth PR on the grounds that it is overbroad,