Ballast Advisors v. Scott A. Peterson
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:23-cv-03769
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 10
In Ballast Advisors, LLC v. Scott A. Peterson, et al., Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty granted in part and denied in part Ballast's motion to compel the defendants to produce emails, text messages, and phone records related to claims that Peterson violated his employment contract and misappropriated trade secrets after leaving the firm.
Investment advisory firms and their former employees who are subject to non-compete and confidentiality agreements; parties in civil litigation who face discovery disputes and delays; litigants who may face sanctions warnings for non-compliance with discovery obligations.
What happened
In Ballast Advisors, LLC v. Scott A. Peterson, et al. (Case No. 23-CV-3769), Ballast Advisors, LLC sued its former investment advisor Scott A. Peterson, his colleague Melinda M. Bradley, and MMX Wealth Partners, LLC, alleging that Peterson violated his employment contract by using confidential information, soliciting Ballast clients, and breaching a non-compete agreement after he resigned in February 2023. Ballast also alleged trade secret misappropriation, breach of fiduciary duty, and other claims. Peterson filed counterclaims against Ballast and its founding partner, including defamation and invasion of privacy claims.
Ballast filed a motion to compel the defendants to respond to discovery requests after months of alleged delays, broken promises to produce documents, and incomplete responses. The defendants largely did not dispute Ballast's description of the discovery process. Notably, the day after the court held oral argument, the defendants sent a letter to the court saying they now planned to produce most of the documents Ballast was seeking — a concession the court read as an acknowledgment that the requested discovery was relevant and that the defendants had been improperly withholding it.
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty ordered the defendants to produce the disputed documents within 14 days, including emails from specified accounts covering 2022 and 2023, text messages between Peterson and Bradley, and Peterson's 2022 cell phone records. The court declined to impose financial sanctions at this time but warned the defendants that continuing to force expensive motion practice before complying with discovery obligations could result in a fee award in the future. The court denied Ballast's request for a discovery deadline extension as moot because the parties had already agreed to extend that deadline through a separate stipulation.
The detailed version
- Ballast Advisors, LLC v. Scott A. Peterson, et al., Case No. 23-CV-3769 (PJS/JFD), United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
- Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty
- October 21, 2025
Background and Claims
Ballast Advisors, LLC is an investment advisory firm. It hired Scott A. Peterson as an investment advisor in 2017 and Melinda M. Bradley as a Client Services Manager in 2019. In September 2022, Peterson signed an employment agreement containing confidentiality and non-solicitation clauses. Bradley left Ballast in June 2022 and joined MMX Wealth Partners, LLC, a company owned by Peterson's friend Mark Marxer. Peterson resigned from Ballast in February 2023 and began providing investment advisory services through MMX alongside Bradley.
Ballast filed suit in December 2023 asserting claims for: (1) breach of contract (confidentiality and non-solicitation provisions); (2) trade secret misappropriation; (3) breach of fiduciary duty and duty of loyalty; (4) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage; and (5) aiding and abetting the above conduct against Bradley and MMX. Peterson filed counterclaims including defamation, malicious injury, intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation of name and likeness, and false endorsement under 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (the Lanham Act) against Ballast and its founding partner Paul Parnell.
Procedural History: The case experienced significant delays. A discovery stay was granted in late 2024 and lifted on January 7,
- A Pretrial Scheduling Order was not entered until March 3, 2025, setting a fact discovery deadline of November 1, 2025 (later extended by stipulation to January 9, 2026). Ballast re-served discovery requests on January 10,
- Peterson's first substantive responses did not arrive until February 26, 2025 (99 pages). Bradley and MMX did not respond substantively until May 30,
- Ballast alleged a recurring pattern: defendants would promise document production and then fail to follow through, throughout the summer of
- Ballast filed the motion to compel on September 18, 2025.
The Motion to Compel
Ballast sought production of four categories of discovery: (1) emails to, from, or including Peterson's personal Gmail account (advisorpete@gmail.com), allegedly used to set up a competing business; (2) communications among key players including Peterson, Bradley, Marxer, and representatives of ASN (an investment advisory network the defendants allegedly use); (3) communications between defendants and Ballast clients; and (4) documents evidencing Peterson's retention and use of Ballast's confidential information and trade secrets. Ballast also sought a 90-day extension of the fact discovery deadline, applying only to itself.
Defendants did not substantively contest the relevance of the requested discovery at the hearing. Instead, they raised legal arguments about vagueness and the court's authority, and their objections focused on the specific wording of Ballast's proposed order rather than the underlying substance. The court characterized these arguments as 'dubious, at least.'
Significantly, the day after oral argument (October 3, 2025), defendants submitted a letter to the court stating they intended to produce most of the contested documents voluntarily, including emails from specified accounts, Peterson-Bradley communications, certain emails involving the @advservnet.com domain and Mark Marxer's account, emails between Bradley and Ballast clients, and Peterson's 2022 cell phone records — all covering 2022 and 2023. The court treated this post-hearing letter not as mooting the motion, but as a concession of the relevance and proportionality of Ballast's requests and of the impropriety of defendants' prior refusals.
Ruling: The court granted the motion to compel in part and denied it in part. It ordered defendants to produce the following within 14 days:
- All non-privileged emails (including attachments) to, from, or including the email accounts identified in defendants' post-hearing letter, for all of 2022 and 2023;
- All non-privileged emails between Peterson and Bradley for all of 2022 and 2023 from those accounts, regardless of content;
- All text messages between Peterson and Bradley from 2022 and 2023;
- All emails between any @advservnet.com email address and Mark Marxer's email account for 2022 and 2023;
- All emails between Bradley and any Ballast Client (as defined by Ballast during meet-and-confers) for 2022 and 2023;
- Peterson's 2022 cell phone records.
The parties were ordered to file a joint status report on compliance within 21 days.
Sanctions
The court declined to order sanctions at this time but expressly warned defendants that changing course only after forcing the opposing party through expensive formal motion practice will not shield them from a future fee award. The court noted it would not entertain a fee motion from Ballast at this stage.
Spoliation Warning
The court did not rule on any spoliation motion (none was pending), but noted Ballast's concern that text messages produced appeared not to have come from Peterson's own phone. The court reminded defendants of the 'severe consequences of intentional spoliation of evidence,' citing Paisley Park Enterprises, Inc. v. Boxill, 330 F.R.D. 226, 232 (D. Minn. 2019), and reminded all parties of their obligations to preserve electronically stored information (ESI) and to retrieve it from alternative sources if originals were destroyed.
Discovery Deadline Extension
The court denied Ballast's request for a 90-day extension of the fact discovery deadline as moot, because the parties had already stipulated to an extension of that deadline to January 9, 2026.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.