Unopposed Motion To Extend Time To Produce Documents
- Date
- 2025-04-24
Summary
An unopposed motion by the United States, filed April 25, 2025 as Document 75 in United States ex rel. Paul Pietschner v. Kathryn Petralia, Robert Frohwein and Spencer Robinson, Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-110-SDJ, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division. The motion asks the court to extend the deadline for the government's document production accompanying its initial disclosures, set by the Order Governing Proceedings (ECF No. 69), until two days after entry of the protective order the parties jointly requested on April 24, 2025 (ECF No. 73). It describes the action as a False Claims Act case under 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733 against former Kabbage, Inc. executives relating to the Paycheck Protection Program. It states that the production includes sensitive personal, financial and Bank Secrecy Act information and that defendants do not oppose the request.
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 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ Document 75 Filed 04/25/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 836
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ex rel. PAUL PIETSCHNER,
Plaintiff, Civil Action No.: 4:21-cv-110-SDJ
v.
KATHRYN PETRALIA;
ROBERT FROHWEIN; and
SPENCER ROBINSON,
Defendants.
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS
ACCOMPANYING INITIAL DISCLOSURES
Plaintiff the United States of America (the “United States”), by and through its undersigned
counsel, files this unopposed motion requesting an extension of the Court’s deadline for the United
States to serve its document production accompanying its initial disclosures, see the Court’s Order
Governing Proceedings (“Order”), ECF No. 69, within two days after the Court has entered the
requested Protective Order in this case, ECF Nos. 73, 73-1. Because the United States’ production
includes documents containing sensitive information, the United States requests an extension to
serve its initial document production until after the Court has entered the Protective Order
submitted by the parties on April 24, 2025. ECF No. 73.
BACKGROUND
This is an action against Defendants, former executives of a financial technology company,
Kabbage, Inc., to recover treble damages and civil penalties under the False Claims Act (“FCA”),
31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733, and to recover money for common law claims for payment by mistake
Case 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ Document 75 Filed 04/25/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 837
and unjust enrichment, relating to Kabbage’s participation in the Government’s Paycheck
Protection Program (“PPP”) as a PPP lender and loan service provider.
On March 25, 2025, the Court entered an Order Governing Proceedings and ordered that
the parties conduct a Rule 26(f) Conference on or before April 16, 2025; complete initial
mandatory disclosures required by the Order by April 28, 2025; and file a joint Rule 26(f) Report
by May 2, 2025. ECF No. 69, at 1. As part of the initial disclosures required by the Order, the
Court ordered the parties to produce “[a] copy of all documents, ESI, witness statements, and
tangible things in the possession, custody, or control of the disclosing party that are relevant to the
claim or defense of any party.” Id. at 4. The initial document production that the United States
intends to make pursuant to the Order will include documents containing sensitive information,
including but not limited to sensitive personal identification or financial information and information
that may be subject to protections under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). 1 To protect information
entitled to be kept confidential, the parties jointly requested on April 24, 2025 that the Court enter
a Protective Order governing the handling and use of confidential information. ECF No. 73.
ARGUMENT
Courts “may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1), and have broad
discretion to decide when a Protective Order is appropriate and what degree of protection is
required. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984). A court also has “broad
discretion . . . to control its docket.” Nevada v. United States Dep’t of Lab., 227 F. Supp. 3d 696,
1 The BSA is codified at 12 U.S.C. §§ 1829b, 1951–1960, and 31 U.S.C. §§ 310,
5311–5314, 5316–5336, and including notes thereto, with implementing regulations at 31 C.F.R.
Chapter X.
2
Case 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ Document 75 Filed 04/25/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 838
698 (E.D. Tex. 2017) (Mazzant, J.); see also Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)
(noting “the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket
with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”).
Due to the nature of the claims in this case, the United States’ initial document production
required by the Court’s Order will contain sensitive personal identification or financial information
and/or information subject to the BSA that will require protections under a protective order. To
protect information entitled to be kept confidential, the parties have jointly requested that the Court
enter a Protective Order governing the handling and use of confidential information. ECF No. 73-
1. As such, the United States respectfully submits that there is good cause to extend its time to
produce its documents until a protective order has been entered in this action. Defendants are
unopposed to the relief requested herein.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully requests that this Court
extend its time to produce its initial document production within two days after the Court has
entered the Protective Order in this case. The United States is prepared to make its document
production upon entry of a Protective Order, and undersigned counsel represents that the relief
requested herein is for good cause and not to cause any undue delay in this proceeding. A proposed
order accompanies this motion.
3
Case 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ Document 75 Filed 04/25/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 839
Dated: April 25, 2025 Respectfully submitted,
MICHAEL D. GRANSTON
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
ABE MCGLOTHIN, Jr.
Acting United States Attorney
Eastern District of Texas
/s/ Betty Young____________
JAMES G. GILLINGHAM, Texas Bar
#24065295
BETTY S. YOUNG, Texas Bar #24102498
Assistant U.S. Attorneys
Eastern District of Texas
110 N. College Street, Suite 700
Tyler, Texas 75702
E-mail: James.Gillingham@usdoj.gov
E-mail: Betty.Young@usdoj.gov
(903) 590-1400
(903) 590-1436 (facsimile)
JAMIE ANN YAVELBERG
COLIN M. HUNTLEY
SARAH E. LOUCKS
KELLY E. PHIPPS
Attorneys, Civil Division
United States Department of Justice
P.O. Box 261
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
E-mail: Sarah.E.Loucks@usdoj.gov
E-mail: Kelly.E.Phipps@usdoj.gov
(202) 616-4203
(202) 514-0280 (facsimile)
ATTORNEYS FOR THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
4
Case 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ Document 75 Filed 04/25/25 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 840
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 25, 2025, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document to be transmitted through the Court’s electronic mailing service (CM/ECF) to all counsel
of record who have consented to electronic service by the Court’s electronic mailing service
(CM/ECF).
/s/ Betty Young__________
BETTY S. YOUNG
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I hereby certify that on April 25, 2025, I conferred with counsel for Relator and Defendants
pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(h). Counsel for relator and defendants have represented that they are
unopposed to the relief sought herein.
/s/ Betty Young__________
BETTY S. YOUNG
5
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.txed.204031.75.0.pdf
- Size
- 160,963 bytes
- SHA-256
- 5e5b3ffaf76aa3d300b4a3928110ecff6b0f6e4042d234bec2e54860a7348cd2
- Original
- PACER (login required)