Defendants' Opposition to Federal Reserve's Motion to Enforce QuickBooks Order (D.E. 242) — OTO Analytics v. Benworth

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico · No. 3:23-cv-01034-GMM · Doc. 242 · 2025-05-19 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

A joint opposition filed May 19, 2025 as Document 242 in Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco v. OTO Analytics, LLC, et al., No. 3:23-cv-01034-GMM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, by defendants Benworth Capital Partners PR, LLC, Benworth Capital Partners, LLC, and Bernardo and Claudia Navarro. It opposes the Reserve Bank's motion (D.E. 238) to enforce the order at ECF No. 224, which let defendants either export QuickBooks data from January 1, 2020 or allow a Reserve Bank representative access to the database. The defendants state that they chose supervised access and have complied, and argue the Reserve Bank is seeking to modify the order rather than enforce it. They cite privacy concerns and ask the court to deny any request to compel an export.

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 
 
 
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN 
FRANCISCO,  
 
 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
OTO ANALYTICS, LLC; BENWORTH 
CAPITAL 
PARTNERS 
PR, 
LLC; 
BENWORTH 
CAPITAL 
PARTNERS, 
LLC; 
BERNARDO 
NAVARRO 
and 
CLAUDIA NAVARRO, 
 
 
 
Defendants. 
 
 
Civil No. 23-01034 (GMM) cons. 
 
Civil No. 24-01313 (GMM) 
 
 
 
 
 
JOINT OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR  
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO’S  
MOTION TO ENFORCE ORDER AT ECF NO. 224 
 
TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 
 
 
COME NOW Benworth Capital Partners PR, LLC (“Benworth PR”), Benworth Capital 
Partners, LLC (“Benworth FL”), and Bernardo and Claudia Navarro (“Mr. and Mrs. Navarro” and, 
jointly with Benworth PR and Benworth FL, the “Defendants”), through the undersigned counsel, 
and very respectfully file this opposition to the Motion to Enforce Order at ECF No. 224 Granting 
the Motion to Compel Benworth’s Quickbooks Accounting Data (the “Motion”) (D.E. 238) filed 
by Plaintiff-Intervenor the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (the “Reserve Bank”):1  
 
 
 
 
1 Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms have the same meaning as in the Motion.  
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM     Document 242     Filed 05/19/25     Page 1 of 6

2 
 
Defendants have fully complied with the Order. The Court ordered Defendants “to either 
(1) provide Plaintiff-Intervenor with exported data from their Quickbooks database for period of 
January 1, 2020, to the present, or (2) allow a representative for Plaintiff-Intervenor to have access 
to the Quickbooks database at reasonable times for a reasonable period of time.” D.E. 224. 
Defendants opted for the latter and engaged in several meet and confers with the Reserve Bank to 
workout the details of its representative accessing the Quickbooks database. There is nothing left 
of the Order for this Court to enforce. 
The Reserve Bank is not actually asking the Court to enforce the Order but rather seeks a 
second bite at the relief requested in its Quickbooks Motion to Compel. See D.E. 200. In the 
Quickbooks Motion to Compel, the Reserve Bank told the Court that an order from von Kahle v. 
Cargill, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-08532, ECF No. 194 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2023) was “instructive” and 
that this Court should grant similar access to the Quickbooks database as was provided in von 
Kahle. See D.E. 200, at 10. The Reserve Bank concedes in the instant Motion that the Order does 
just that. But now the Reserve Bank is unsatisfied with getting what it asked for. 
The Court should deny the Reserve Bank’s request to retroactively modify the Order to 
deprive Defendants of the right granted to them by the Court. This Court could have ordered 
Defendants to solely provide the Reserve Bank with an export of the Quickbooks database. It did 
not. The Court instead gave Defendants the option to allow the Reserve Bank to access the 
Quickbooks database at reasonable times for a reasonable period of time. Choosing that option 
does not mean Defendants have refused to comply with the Order. 
None of the arguments raised by the Reserve Bank justify modifying the Order. First, the 
Reserve Bank argues that Supervised Access is inconvenient and expensive because it may lead 
to disputes “regarding the completeness of the Reserve Bank’s access to the Quickbooks data” or 
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM     Document 242     Filed 05/19/25     Page 2 of 6

3 
 
“over which files were disclosed or how they were presented during supervised sessions,” which 
may require the Parties to return to the Court with “complicated, fact-intensive issues.” Motion at 
¶ 11. But the Reserve Bank would not have a basis to raise such issues with the Court as a result 
of Supervised Access. Supervised Access would allow the Reserve Bank to directly log into the 
Quickbooks database, so there would be no dispute over the completeness of the access or how 
data is presented during a session. In fact, Supervised Access avoids these issues entirely because 
it would be the Reserve Bank, not Defendants, who are collecting the Quickbooks data. 
The Reserve Bank further points to the current status of discovery and the need to schedule 
multiple Supervised Access sessions. Although the Reserve Bank mischaracterizes the current 
status of discovery, including the scope of what remains to be produced by Defendants, ongoing 
discovery between the parties is irrelevant here. The Court already contemplated that the Reserve 
Bank would need to access the Quickbooks database more than once. Hence, the Order gives the 
Reserve Bank the right to access the Quickbooks database at reasonable times for a reasonable 
period of time. Defendants will fully comply with that Order. The only issue here is that the 
Reserve Bank is unable to articulate a plan for what it would do during the Supervised Access. 
Defendants expect (and the Court should, too) that the Reserve Bank has already spoken with its 
financial experts or consultants and developed a plan for retrieving data from Quickbooks. Indeed, 
in the Quickbooks Motion to Compel, the Reserve Bank argued that there was no issues with 
“undue burden or cost” in the relief requested “because Benworth need only provide the Reserve 
Bank access to its Quickbooks platform in order to satisfy the relevant requests[.]” D.E. 200 at 8. 
And any concerns around scheduling conflicts should be minimal. Defendants’ counsel is not 
permitted to attend the Supervised Access, so the Reserve Bank would need to coordinate only 
with the Defendants’ representative, not counsel from the three different law firms representing 
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM     Document 242     Filed 05/19/25     Page 3 of 6

4 
 
the Defendants. 
The Reserve Bank next complains that Supervised Access would be impractical. However, 
the Reserve Bank need only export reports generated by search queries in the Quickbooks database 
to resolve all their concerns. Defendants do not dispute that the Reserve Bank may export such 
reports during Supervised Access sessions, which will effectively allow it to review such reports 
and develop the “connections” it wants to make on its own time.  
The Reserve Bank also takes issue with Defendants’ reason for electing the Supervised 
Access option. The Order, however, does not state that Defendants may choose Supervised Access 
only upon a showing of good cause. The Order allows Defendants to freely elect one of two 
options. Beyond that, Defendants are justified in choosing the Supervised Access option. As 
alleged in their affirmative defenses, Defendants will show that the Reserve Bank’s motives in 
pursuing this lawsuit are improper and discriminatory. The Reserve Bank may dispute those 
allegations, but that does not mean that Supervised Access provides no benefit to Defendants. And 
the fact that an export may be less burdensome than Supervised Access does not mean that the 
Court should disregard Defendants’ privacy concerns over the Reserve Bank having unfettered 
access to their highly sensitive financial information for a five-year period. To the contrary, the 
Supervised Access option strikes an appropriate balance of providing the Reserve Bank with 
access to the financial discovery it deems necessary while preserving Defendants’ privacy. 
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court deny the 
Motion to the extent it requests that the Court compel Defendants to produce an export of their 
Quickbooks database. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: We hereby certify that on this same date the foregoing 
reply was filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification 
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM     Document 242     Filed 05/19/25     Page 4 of 6

5 
 
of such filing to all attorneys and participants of record. 
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. 
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 19th day of May 2025. 
 
PO Box 195168 
San Juan, PR 00919-5168 
Tel.: 787.766.7000 
Fax: 787.766.7001 
 
s/ Roberto A. Cámara-Fuertes 
USDC-PR 219002 
rcamara@ferraiuoli.com 
 
s/ Jaime A. Torrens-Dávila 
USDC-PR 223810 
jtorrens@ferraiuoli.com 
 
s/ Mónica Ramos Benítez 
USDC-PR 308405 
mramos@ferraiuoli.com 
 
KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON 
2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Fl. 
Miami, FL 33134 
(305) 372-1800 
 
Jorge L. Piedra (admitted pro hac vice) 
jpiedra@kttlaw.com 
Michael R. Lorigas (admitted pro hac vice) 
mlorigas@kttlaw.com 
Rasheed K. Nader (admitted pro hac vice) 
rnader@kttlaw.com 
 
Counsel for Benworth Capital Partners LLC and Bernardo Navarro 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM     Document 242     Filed 05/19/25     Page 5 of 6

6 
 
CASELLAS ALCOVER & BURGOS PSC 
PO Box 364924 
San Juan, PR 00936-4924 
Tel. (787) 756-1400 
Fax. (787) 756-1401 
rcasellas@cabprlaw.com 
cloubriel@cabprlaw.com  
/s/ Ricardo F. Casellas 
USDC-PR Bar No. 203114 
/s/ Carla S. Loubriel Carrión 
USDC-PR Bar No. 227509 
 
Counsel for Benworth Capital Partners PR LLC and Claudia Navarro  
 
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM     Document 242     Filed 05/19/25     Page 6 of 6

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.prd.175040.242.0.pdf

Size

206,505 bytes

SHA-256

601f63f54be8a6b5c1bf59841786076055a0d2034aea5ada75deb5cbfa2d37fb

Our copy

gov.uscourts.prd.175040.242.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)