United States v. Peters, 2:24-cv-00287

The United States sued Matthew Peters and various pharmacy and management entities, alleging False Claims Act violations, unjust enrichment, and payment by mistake.
On March 20, 2025, the Court ordered defendant Peters to fully comply with discovery requests, including the production of documents without objection.
Despite previous court orders and discovery agreements, Peters and the affiliate entities failed to provide adequate responses or produce required documents.
Plaintiff alleges significant deficiencies in discovery, including selective and incomplete searches, improper withholding, and noncompliance with a prior agreement.
The Court previously warned Peters that failure to participate in discovery could lead to sanctions, including the possibility of default judgment or contempt.
The Court heard arguments on May 21, 2025, and found ongoing deficiencies, ordering further compliance, a sworn declaration, supplemental briefing, and set an order to show cause hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Compliance with Discovery Orders	Peters and entities failed to fully respond and produce documents as required	Claimed all available documents were produced; order only applied to Peters individually	Order applied to Peters and entities; must comply fully
Adequacy of Document Search	Search was superficial, limited to Peters, not diligent or broad enough	Only Peters had relevant documents; other custodians not reasonable	Search must cover all agreed sources, broader than Peters alone
Breach of Discovery Agreement	Defendants breached commitment to conduct diligent, multi-custodian search	Did not agree to all search terms; complied as reasonably possible	Defendants bound by agreement, must comply and expand search
Withholding of Documents	Peters withheld responsive documents already produced in other forums	Produced everything available; some documents destroyed	Production incomplete; all responsive documents must be produced

Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 2002) (trial courts have broad discretion to deny or permit discovery)
Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2007) (affirming default judgment as sanction for discovery violations)
Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (discussing sanctions for discovery abuses)
Olivia v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272 (9th Cir. 1992) (sanctions are within court's discretion for discovery violations)