Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Its Motion to Compel the Production of Documents — United States v. Iseman & Associates, LLC et al., No. 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV (Dkt. 13, E.D. Va.)
Summary
In this reply filed 07/31/25 in United States v. Iseman & Associates, LLC et al., No. 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV (E.D. Va.), the United States presses its motion to compel the production of documents. The government contends that Iseman & Associates was "primarily engaged" in "lobbying activities" and so was categorically ineligible for the PPP loans it received, which the defendants deny in their Answer. The reply says the defendants withheld all documents responsive to several requests, such as appointment books and bank statements for 2019 to 2022, without timely objecting or stating a reasonable scope. It adds that, for requests on income and expenses, the defendants produced a single sheet listing total income, payroll and total expenses for the four years and gave no information about their search. Assistant United States Attorney John E. Beerbower signed the reply.
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 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV Document 13 Filed 07/31/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 122
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. No.: 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV
ISEMAN & ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al.
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS
MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
If Iseman & Associates was “primarily engaged” in “lobbying activities,” it was
categorically ineligible for the PPP loans it received. The United States contends that it was so
engaged (and, therefore, was ineligible). In their Answer, Defendants deny this. See Answer
(ECF No. 3), ¶¶ 40, 49. Accordingly, the United States served requests for production seeking,
inter alia, documents directly relevant to determining what (if any) other business Iseman &
Associates, or its principal, engaged in.
Defendants have largely failed to comply with these requests. Despite failing to timely
object—something that Defendants’ opposition ignores—Defendants have withheld all
documents responsive to certain requests on the grounds that the requests are overbroad and have
produced such a paucity of documents in response to other requests so as to raise a clear
inference that Defendants have failed to conduct an adequate search of their records, even where
they made no objection to the scope or terms of the request. To date, Defendants have not
produced any records showing the specific nature of Iseman & Associates’ work, other than the
publicly available Lobbying Disclosure Act reports.
Case 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV Document 13 Filed 07/31/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID# 123
The Court should order Defendants to promptly comply with their discovery obligations
and require a complete production of all responsive documents forthwith.
ARGUMENT
I. Defendants’ Objections to the Requests Are Unavailing
Defendants have refused to produce any documents responsive to I&A RFP Nos. 6, 11,
15, and 27 and Iseman RFP Nos. 1-5 and 15-16. 1 In their (untimely) objections, Defendants
maintained that these requests were irrelevant, unduly burdensome, and overly broad. In their
Opposition, Defendants appear to have abandoned their relevance and burden objections, arguing
only that these requests are “facially objectionable because they lack a reasonable limitation as to
scope, temporal period, or subject matter,” Opp. (ECF No. 12) at 4, 2 and further arguing that
Defendants have no obligation to respond at all to such requests. Not so.
First, while a party may object to a request as overbroad, “if the objection recognizes that
some part of the request is appropriate the objection should state the scope that is not overbroad.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 (comment to 2015 Amendment); see also Daedalus Blue, LLC v.
MicroStrategy, Inc., 2:20-cv-551, 2021 WL 11709428, at *5 (E.D. Va. May 3, 2021) (objections
“run[] afoul” of Rule 34 due to, inter alia, “failure to indicate MicroStrategy’s interpretation of
the non-objectionable scope of the requests”). While Defendants suggest that these requests are
unreasonable in scope, they fail to identify what the appropriate scope would be. See Daedalus
Blue, 2021 WL 11709428, at *6.
1
Defendants originally withheld all documents responsive to I&A RFP Nos. 7-10.
Defendants made a supplemental production on July 15, 2025, of limited materials responsive to
these requests.
2
The requests are clearly limited in “temporal scope” as they are limited on their face to
the period 2019 to 2022. The United States does not understand Defendants to be contending
otherwise.
2
Case 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV Document 13 Filed 07/31/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID# 124
Second, Defendants “facial” objections are misplaced. Consider the sole example in
Defendants’ Opposition: I&A RFP No. 6: “All appointment books, logs, diaries, or calendars
used by Iseman & Associates, LLC, during 2019 to 2022, inclusive.” See Opp. (ECF No. 12) at
5. This request is limited in scope, subject, and time—it seeks the appointment books used by the
business for a four-year period. Although Defendants have abandoned their relevance objection,
the relevance of this material is likewise apparent: The corporate calendars bear directly on the
question of what business Iseman & Associates and its employees were engaged in during the
relevant time-period and where the company’s revenues came from. 3 So too with the other
requests were Defendants refused to respond. See, e.g., I&A RFP No. 11 (“All documents that
discuss or describe the engagement of [Iseman & Associates] by any individuals, businesses, or
entities for financial or other compensation for any purpose between 2019 and 2022, inclusive.”);
I&A RFP No. 15 (“All bank statements for Iseman & Associates, LLC from 2019 to 2022,
inclusive.”); I&A RFP No. 27 (“All communications with any accountant or tax preparer
concerning Iseman & Associates, LLC from 2019 through the Present.”).
Perhaps recognizing their obligations under Rule 34, Defendants change tack and claim
that they “narrow[ed] several overly broad requests to reasonable scope and produc[ed]
responsive documents within those narrowed parameters.” Opp. (ECF No. 12) at 5. As
Defendants concede, this was not the case with the requests for which refused to comply entirely.
See id. at 4 (acknowledging that Defendants “withheld all documents responsive to certain
3
The United States has also alleged that Iseman & Associates used the PPP loan funds to
pay employees who were engaged in “lobbying activities,” which is an impermissible use. See,
e.g., Compl.(ECF No. 1) ¶¶ 95, 105. The corporate calendars and appointment books also bear
directly on this issue.
3
Case 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV Document 13 Filed 07/31/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID# 125
requests”). And significantly, Defendants only proposed a “narrowed” scope for four of the I&A
requests. 4
Critically, however, none of the above discussion (and nothing in Defendants’
opposition) addresses the other requests which the United States discussed in its Motion to
Compel.
II. Defendants Have Failed to Conduct an Adequate Search of their Records
Similarly, Defendants make no effort to justify their paltry production, even to requests
where they raised no objections at all. As more fully set forth in the United States’ Memorandum
in Support of its Motion, Defendants’ limited production in response to several of the requests is
facially implausible. See Mem. in Supp. at 7-10 (ECF No. 10). For example, in response to
requests seeking documents showing all of the business’s income and expenses, Defendants
produced a single sheet that purported to simply list “total income,” “payroll,” and “total
expenses” for the four years. Defendants produced few, if any, documents showing the origins of
these numbers. It is beyond belief to suggest that Defendants did not generate (or have not
retained) supporting documents.
In their opposition, Defendants do not attempt to defend the search that they conducted in
response to the Requests. Instead, they are silent on the subject. “The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure impose a duty upon companies responding to discovery to conduct a reasonable
4
Defendants purported to “narrow” the scope I&A RFP Nos. 13, 14, 16, and 18. Of those
requests, the United States is only challenging Defendants response to I&A RFP No. 13. See Mem.
in Supp. at 8-10. In response to I&A RFP No. 13 (seeking “[a]ll invoices” “submitted by [Iseman
&Associates] to any individuals, businesses, or entities who retained [Iseman & Associates] for
financial or other compensation for any purpose between 2019 and 2022”), Defendants limited the
scope of their response to certain business activities. See Opp. (ECF No. 12) at 5-6 The effect (and
likely purpose) of this limitation to deprive the United States from conducting discovery into
Defendants’ contention that they were engaged in some business other than lobbying.
4
Case 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV Document 13 Filed 07/31/25 Page 5 of 5 PageID# 126
investigation, make reasonable inquiries of its employees, and fully respond to . . . document
requests.” Selee Corp. v. McDanel Adv. Ceramic Tech., LLC, No. 1:15-cv-129, 2016 WL
4546446, at *3 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 31, 2016) (internal quotations omitted). Defendants have
provided no information regarding the search conducted of their files. And, significantly,
Defendants have produced very few communications at all. “A party conducting a search of
electronically stored information (ESI) has the burden of demonstrating that its methodology was
reasonable. An explanation of the search terms and procedures used would be a large step in that
direction.” E. Bridge Lofts Prop. Owners Ass’n., Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., No.
2:14-cv-2567, 2015 WL 12831731, at *3 (D.S.C. June 18, 2015). Here, neither Defendants
Responses to the requests nor their Opposition to the United States’ Motion provide any
information regarding the search that was conducted.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the United States requests that its Motion to Compel be
granted.
Dated: July 31, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
ERIK S. SIEBERT
United States Attorney
By: _/s/ John E. Beerbower_____________
JOHN E. BEERBOWER
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney’s Office
Counsel for the United States of America
2100 Jamieson Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22314
Tel: 703.299.3841
Fax: 703.299.3898
john.beerbower@usdoj.gov
5
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.vaed.570076.13.0.pdf
- Size
- 141,940 bytes
- SHA-256
- 880e55c831c4bac5254515f6c46d847a942c6a35714a4c1863763649f546e43c
- Original
- archive.org