Court filing

Exhibit 16 — Oto Analytics, LLC v. Benworth Capital Partners PR LLC (Dkt. 182.17)

No. 3:23-cv-01034-GMM · Doc. 182-17 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

Exhibit 16, filed December 6, 2024 as Doc. 182-17 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, is defendant Claudia Navarro's Answers and Objections to Oto Analytics, LLC's First Set of Requests for Production. She objects to requests on the LSA, the ALSA, the 2021 Transfer and payments from Benworth FL and Benworth PR as overbroad under Rule 26(b)(1) and invokes the marital communications privilege. She states she will produce copies of the LSA and ALSA and a document identifying transfers between herself and Benworth PR, and that she has no documents responsive to the requests on the 2021 Transfer and payments from Benworth FL. She objects to a request on payments to a C. Navarro Entity as harassing and overly broad.

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 182-17 Filed 12/06/24 Page 1 of 17

EXHIBIT 16
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM Document 182-17 Filed 12/06/24 Page 2 of 17

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.

CLAUDIA NAVARRO’S ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO
OTO ANALYTICS, LLC’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rules 26 and 34, Claudia Navarro (“Mrs. Navarro”), through the

undersigned counsel, hereby submits her Answers and Objections to Plaintiff Oto Analytics,

LLC’s (“Womply”) First Set of Requests for Production, as follows:
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM Document 182-17 Filed 12/06/24 Page 3 of 17

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Discovery and trial preparations in this matter have not been completed. Therefore, these

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

known as of the date hereof. Mrs. 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. Mrs. Navarro has made reasonable efforts to respond to the

requests, to the extent they have not been objected to, as Mrs. Navarro understands and interprets

the requests. If Mrs. Navarro subsequently asserts a meritorious interpretation of the requests that

differs from Plaintiff interpretation, Mrs. Navarro reserves the right to supplement these Answers

and Objections.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

Mrs. Navarro incorporates the following objections into each of the specific numbered

responses below to avoid unnecessary redundancy.

Mrs. Navarro objects to each Request 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 Mrs. Navarro, or is not within Mrs. Navarro’s knowledge, (e) seeks information not

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

Reserve Bank, or is equally or more easily accessible to Womply than to Mrs. Navarro, and (g)

purports to impose upon Mrs. Navarro an obligation beyond what is required by the Federal

2
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM Document 182-17 Filed 12/06/24 Page 4 of 17

Rules of Civil Procedure.

Specifically, Mrs. Navarro objects to the requests to the extent they expressly or

impliedly 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. Mrs. Navarro intends to and

does assert any and all such privileges with respect to all such information.

Mrs. 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 request is used in responding to the requests, it is not accepted or conceded

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

Mrs. 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.

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

3
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM Document 182-17 Filed 12/06/24 Page 5 of 17

Mrs. 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 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.

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

objections set forth herein. To the extent that Mrs. Navarro provides responses to the specific

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

Civil Procedure.

4
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM Document 182-17 Filed 12/06/24 Page 6 of 17

RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO SPECIFIC REQUESTS

The following specific and particularized responses are made subject to and without

waiving the foregoing objections:

Request No. 1

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

the LSA.

Response to Request No. 1:

Mrs. 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. 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 Mrs. 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. Mrs. Navarro further objects to this request to the

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

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

work-product doctrine. Mrs. 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.

5
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM Document 182-17 Filed 12/06/24 Page 7 of 17

Notwithstanding, and without waiving any rights or objections, Mrs. Navarro does not

have in her possession, custody or control any documents responsive to this request other than a

copy of the LSA, which will be produced. If any additional, non-privileged responsive

documents are found by Mrs. Navarro they will be supplemented.

Request No. 2

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

the ALSA.

Response to Request No. 2:

Mrs. 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. 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 Mrs. 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. Mrs. Navarro further objects to this

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

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

attorney work-product doctrine. Mrs. 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.

6
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM Document 182-17 Filed 12/06/24 Page 8 of 17

Notwithstanding, and without waiving any rights or objections, Mrs. Navarro does not

have in her possession, custody or control any documents responsive to this request other than

copy of the ALSA itself, which will be produced. If any additional, non-privileged responsive

documents are found by Mrs. Navarro they will be supplemented.

Request No. 3

3. All Documents and Communications Concerning the 2021 Transfer.

Response to Request No. 3:

Mrs. 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 Mrs. 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. Mrs. 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.

Mrs. 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, subject to and without waiving any objections or rights, there are

7
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM Document 182-17 Filed 12/06/24 Page 9 of 17

no responsive documents in Mrs. Navarro’s possession, custody or control. If any non-privileged

responsive documents are found by Mrs. Navarro they will be supplemented.

Request No. 4

4. All Documents and Communications Concerning any payments or transfers You

received from Benworth FL.

Response to Request No. 4

Mrs. 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 Mrs. 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. Mrs. 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.

Mrs. 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, subject to and without waiving any objections or rights, there are

8
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM Document 182-17 Filed 12/06/24 Page 10 of 17

no responsive documents in Mrs. Navarro’s possession, custody or control. If any non-privileged

responsive documents are found by Mrs. Navarro they will be supplemented.

Request No. 5

5. All Documents and Communications Concerning any payments or transfers You

received from Benworth PR.

Response to Request No. 5:

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

“Concerning” “any” payments she received from Benworth PR 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

Mrs. 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. Mrs.

Navarro further objects to this request to the extent it requires disclosure of documents and

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

accountant-client privilege or the attorney work-product doctrine.

Mrs. 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, Mrs. Navarro will

9
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM Document 182-17 Filed 12/06/24 Page 11 of 17

produce a document identifying the transfers made to and from herself and Benworth PR for the

period requested.

Request No. 6

6. All Documents and Communications Concerning any payments or transfers made

to a C. Navarro Entity by Benworth FL.

Response to Request No. 6:

Mrs. Navarro objects to this request as it relates to “any” payments or transfers received

by “a C. Navarro Entity” from Benworth FL on the grounds that it is harassing and overly broad

to the extent it seeks information related to third persons or entities who are not parties to this

litigation and that are thus irrelevant to the matters in controversy. The request is speculative in

nature and amounts to an improper fishing expedition, seeking information that has no bearing

on the claims or defenses at issue in this case. Womply has not established the need or relevance

of any information pertaining to any other entities, besides Benworth FL and Benworth PR. Mrs.

Navarro also 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.

Request No. 7

7. All Documents and Communications Concerning any payments or transfers made

to a C. Navarro Entity by Benworth PR.

Response to Request No. 7:

Mrs. Navarro objects to this request as it relates to “any” payments or transfers received

by “a C. Navarro Entity” from Benworth Capital Partners PR, LLC (“Benworth PR”) on the

grounds that it is harassing and overly broad to the extent it seeks information related to third

10
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM Document 182-17 Filed 12/06/24 Page 12 of 17

persons or entities who are not parties to this litigation and that are thus irrelevant to the matters

in controversy. The request is speculative in nature and amounts to an improper fishing

expedition, seeking information that has no bearing on the claims or defenses at issue in this

case. Womply has not established the need or relevance of any information pertaining to any

other entities, besides Benworth FL and Benworth PR. Mrs. Navarro also 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.

Request No. 8

8. All Documents and Communications Concerning the Solicitation Process.

Response to Request No. 8:

Mrs. 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, there are no

responsive documents in Mrs. Navarro’s possession, custody or control, other than any produced

by Benworth PR in response to the same discovery request. If any non-privileged responsive

documents are found by Mrs. Navarro they will be supplemented.

Request No. 9

9. All contracts and agreements between You and Benworth FL, including without

limitation all employment agreements, consulting agreements, services agreements, ownership

agreements, and voting agreements.

Response to Request No. 9:

Mrs. 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

11
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM Document 182-17 Filed 12/06/24 Page 13 of 17

work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving any objections or rights, there are no

responsive documents in Mrs. Navarro’s possession, custody or control.

Request No. 10

10. All contracts and agreements between You and Benworth PR, including without

limitation all employment agreements, consulting agreements, services agreements, ownership

agreements, and voting agreements.

Response to Request No. 10:

Mrs. 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, Mrs. Navarro

will produce a copy of the Benworth PR Operating Agreement. If any additional, non-privileged

responsive documents are found by Mrs. Navarro they will be supplemented.

Request No. 11

11. All contracts and agreements between a C. Navarro entity and Benworth FL.

Response to Request No. 11:

Mrs. Navarro objects to this request as it relates to “all” contracts and agreements

between a “C. Navarro Entity” and Benworth FL on the grounds that it is harassing and overly

broad to the extent it seeks information related to third persons or entities who are not parties to

this litigation and that are thus irrelevant to the matters in controversy. The request is speculative

in nature and amounts to an improper fishing expedition, seeking information that has no bearing

on the claims or defenses at issue in this case. Womply has not established the need or relevance

of any information pertaining to any other entities, besides Benworth FL and Benworth PR. Mrs.

Navarro also objects to this request to the extent it seeks confidential documents protected by the

12
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM Document 182-17 Filed 12/06/24 Page 14 of 17

marital communications privilege, the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work-product

doctrine. Subject to and without waiving any objections or rights, there are no responsive

documents in Mrs. Navarro’s possession, custody or control.

Request No. 12

12. All contracts and agreements between a C. Navarro entity and Benworth PR.

Response to Request No. 12:

Mrs. Navarro objects to this request as it relates to “all” contracts and agreements

between a “C. Navarro Entity” and Benworth PR on the grounds that it is harassing and overly