SEC v. SPARTAN TRADING COMPANY; and THE ESTATE OF RICHARD MYRE, No. 0:23-cv-01997, Southern District of New York (July 5, 2023)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

United States Securities and Exchange
Commission,

  Plaintiff,
v.

Spartan Trading Company, LLC,
The Estate of Richard Myre,

  Defendants,

and

The Estate of Dale Dahmen, and
The Estate of Dominick Dahmen,

  Relief Defendants.

         Civ. No. 23-1997 (JWB/DTS)

ORDER ON EMERGENCY
MOTION FOR ANCILLARY RELIEF

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on June 29,
2023, sought emergency ancillary relief in a case involving Spartan Trading Company,
LLC (“Spartan Trading”), an investment fund alleged to be fraudulent. (See Doc. No. 3.)
The founders of the fund were Richard Myre, Dale Dahmen, and Dominick Dahmen. The
Court convened counsel for the SEC, the Defendants, and the Relief Defendants for a
conference call also on June 29, 2023. The parties agreed to propose a joint interlocutory
asset freeze order pertaining to assets held by both sets of Defendants by June 30, 2023.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
The SEC in its Complaint contends that investments in the Spartan Trading fund
qualify as securities in the form of investment contracts. (See generally Doc. No. 1.)

2
Spartan Trading, through its founder Richard Myre, is alleged to have knowingly
engaged in an elaborate scheme of materially false representations to investors and
omitting important facts to obtain investor funds, all in violation of federal securities
laws. The alleged scheme deteriorated internally in late 2022. The three founders were
found dead in a murder-suicide in Bloomington, Minnesota, reportedly stemming from a
business dispute.
The SEC claims that Spartan Trading and Richard Myre committed securities
fraud, while Dale Dahmen and Dominick Dahmen unjustly enriched themselves with
investor funds obtained through the investor fraud scheme. The estates of the Dahmens
(which are named in the Complaint as Relief Defendants) are not charged with
wrongdoing but with receiving and possessing ill-gotten investor funds.
The SEC makes the following additional material allegations:
• From 2019 to 2023, Richard Myre, Dale Dahmen, and Dominick Dahmen
convinced investors to invest in Spartan Trading based on a pooled day
trading approach. Investors were told that Myre would manage the
investments and that the investors would receive half of all profits.
• Most of the investment fund’s assets were held in cash, and Myre provided
fraudulent accounting records to the investors, showing consistently
positive monthly returns and false “profit” distributions.
• Despite the presumption of pooled trading, Myre made few actual
investments and those that were made often lost money.
• Myre and the Dahmens collectively withdrew over $1.9 million from the
Spartan Trading accounts for personal use, with no legitimate claim to the
money.
• The aftermath of the fraudulent scheme led to severe financial difficulties
for many investors, including loss of retirement savings and inheritances,
and at least one investor had to sell the family home.

3
FACTUAL FINDINGS
Based on the arguments of counsel, and all the papers filed in support of the request
for relief, the Court makes the following factual findings:
1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case and there is
good cause to believe it will have jurisdiction over all parties.
2. The SEC has made a prima facie showing that Defendants and Relief
Defendants (hereinafter “Defendants”) have engaged in acts, practices, and transactions
that constitute violations of federal securities laws or potentially hold funds obtained
through a fraudulent scheme that was in violation of federal securities laws.
3. There is good cause to believe that investor funds will be dissipated,
concealed, or transferred from the jurisdiction of this Court—assets which could be
subject to an order of disgorgement.
4. There is good cause to believe that, unless restrained or enjoined by order
of this Court, Defendants may alter or destroy documents relevant to this action.
DISCUSSION
The SEC seeks emergency ancillary relief, attendant to an equitable claim of relief
for disgorgement and prejudgment interest, on Defendants’ ill-gotten gains. See S.E.C. v.
Wyly, 860 F. Supp. 2d 275, 282–83 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (equitable disgorgement is remedial
in nature and survives because it prevents unjust enrichment). The SEC seeks to freeze
Defendants’ assets corresponding to the sums of wrongfully obtained investor funds, and
it seeks expedited discovery.
“It is well settled that a district court has authority to enter an asset freeze order in

4
an SEC enforcement action.” S.E.C. v. Petters, No. 09-cv-1750 (ADM/JSM), 2009 WL
3379954, at *2 (D. Minn. Oct. 20, 2009) (collecting cases). The SEC has a legitimate
interest in ensuring the alleged ill-gotten profits are not dissipated beyond the reach of the
Court. However, the Court must balance the equities in ruling on this request for
expedited equitable relief and consider the burden that the asset freeze places on the
Defendant estates and families involved. See S.E.C. v. Quan, No. 11-cv-723
(ADM/JSM), 2011 WL 1667985, at *5 (D. Minn. May 3, 2011) (citing S.E.C. v. Manor
Nursing Ctrs., Inc., 458 F.2d 1082, 1106 (2d Cir. 1972)).
An asset freeze requires a lesser showing than is required for a temporary
restraining order or a typical preliminary injunction; “the SEC must establish only that it
is likely to succeed on the merits” of its claims. See S.E.C. v. Cavanagh, 155 F.3d 129,
132 (2d Cir. 1998); see also S.E.C. v. Unifund SAL, 910 F.2d 1028, 1041 (2d Cir. 1990)
(upholding asset freeze even though evidence was insufficient to uphold preliminary
injunction). A more substantial showing is required “whenever the relief sought is more
than preservation of the status quo.” Unifund SAL, 910 F.2d at 1039.
The SEC seeks disgorgement and return of ill-gotten investor funds and argues
that unless Defendants’ assets are frozen, investors may be harmed if remaining assets are
not preserved. The SEC contends that Spartan Trading has nearly no business operations
currently and that it is uncertain who has access to Spartan Trading’s accounts today.
The SEC and Defendants have agreed on the terms of an interlocutory asset freeze
order. They do not disagree on the entry of the order generally nor on the maximum
dollar value of assets to be frozen for each of the Defendants. They disagree on specific

5
instances, such as whether real property belonging to Dale Dahmen should be subject to
the freeze; whether carve-outs from the asset freeze will be necessary to meet reasonable
living expenses of family members; and the timing of expedited discovery.
The Court issues an interlocutory freeze order setting forth general terms and
addressing the parties’ points of contention. The Court does not believe that the SEC is
entitled to maintain an interlocutory freeze order indefinitely up to and perhaps including
the time of trial without a proper showing of good cause. In view of the SEC’s minimum
showing on the merits at this very preliminary stage, it should not be entitled to interfere
with unrestricted use of the Defendants’ accounts for more than a brief interval without a
showing of good cause. The time interval is set forth in the Court’s Order below.
ORDER
Based on these findings, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the SEC’s Motion for
Emergency Ancillary Relief (Doc. No. 3) is GRANTED as follows:
I. INTERLOCUTORY ASSET FREEZE ORDER
 1. All funds and other assets of Defendants Spartan Trading Company, LLC
and Estate of Richard Myre (collectively “Defendants”), and Relief Defendants Estate of
Dale Dahmen and Estate of Dominick Dahmen (collectively “Relief Defendants”) are
hereby frozen up to the following amounts:
  a.   Estate of Richard Myre: $1,143,263
  b. Estate of Dale Dahmen: $648,747
  c.   Estate of Dominick Dahmen: $173,113
  d. Spartan Trading Company, LLC: $3,722,365

6
 2. Accordingly, Defendants and Relief Defendants and their officers, agents,
servants, employees, attorneys, trustees, and those persons in active concert or
participation with any one or more of them, and each of them, who receive notice of this
Order or of the terms of these asset freeze provisions are restrained from, directly or
indirectly, withdrawing, transferring, selling, pledging, encumbering, assigning,
dissipating, concealing, or otherwise disposing of, in any manner, any funds, assets,
accounts, or other property belonging to any Defendant or Relief Defendant.
 3. Any bank, financial or brokerage institution, or other person or entity
holding any such funds or other assets referred to in this Order, in the name of, for the
benefit of, or under the control of Defendants or Relief Defendants which receives notice
of this Order or its asset freeze provisions, shall hold and retain within its control, and
shall prohibit the withdrawal, removal, transfer, disposition, pledge, encumbrance,
assignment, set off, sale, liquidation, dissipation, concealment, or other disposal, of any
such funds or other assets.
 4. This Order shall be imposed for an initial term of 60 days, except that the
interest in the following real property belonging to Dale Dahmen is frozen for 14 days:
a.   Lot 4, Block B, Kapsner’s Addition the Village of Pierz, Morrison
County, Minnesota; and
  b. Lot 17 of Crappie Beach, Morrison County, Minnesota.
5. This Order shall be renewable upon a showing of good cause for the need
for continuing or additional relief. Any party may seek to modify this Order or seek leave
from this Order upon a proper showing.

7
II. DIRECTIVES TO FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND OTHERS
1. Pending further order of this Court, any financial or brokerage institution,
business entity, or person that holds or has held, controls or has controlled, or maintains
or has maintained custody of any assets of the Defendants or Relief Defendants, shall:
a. prohibit all other persons from withdrawing, removing, assigning,
transferring, pledging, encumbering, disbursing, dissipating,
converting, selling, or otherwise disposing of assets, except as
directed by further order of the Court; and
b. deny all other persons access to any safe deposit box that is owned,
controlled, managed, or held by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of
any of the Defendants and/or Relief Defendants, either individually
or jointly.
III. ORDER PROHIBITING DESTRUCTION OF RECORDS
 1. Defendants and Relief Defendants and all of their agents, servants,
employees, attorneys, depositories, banks, and those persons in active concert or
participation with any of them, are restrained and enjoined from, directly or indirectly,
destroying, mutilating, concealing, altering, disposing of, or otherwise rendering illegible
in any manner any of the books, records, documents, correspondence, ledgers, accounts,
financial transactions, statements, electronic files, computers, or any other property or
data of any kind, and wherever located or stored:
a.   pertaining in any way to any matter described in the Complaint, or
any amendment thereto, filed by the SEC in this action; or

8
b. that were created, modified or accessed by Defendants and/or Relief
Defendants.
(These documents and data are collectively referred to as “Evidence.” )
2. Such Evidence includes both “hard copy” versions and electronically stored
information in Defendants’ or Relief Defendants’ possession, custody, or control,
including text files, data compilations, word processing documents, spreadsheets, email,
voicemail, databases, calendars and scheduling information, log, file fragments and
backup files, letters, text messages, instant messages, memoranda, notes, drawings,
designs, correspondence, or communication of any kind. Evidence that is stored
electronically may be maintained on shared network files, computer hard drives, servers,
DVDs, CD-ROMs, flash drives, thumb drives, laptops, digital recorders, netbooks, cloud
storage, social media, websites, personal digital assistants (PDA), or other handheld or
smartphone devices.
3. The obligations set forth in this Section include an obligation to provide
notice to all Defendants’ and/or Relief Defendants’ employees, custodians, agents, or
contractors who may be in possession of Evidence. This duty also extends to the
preservation and retention of Evidence in the possession or custody of third parties, such
as an internet service provider or a cloud computing provider, if such Evidence is within
Defendants’ and/or Relief Defendants’ control.
4. Defendants and Relief Defendants are ordered to act affirmatively to
prevent the destruction of Evidence. This duty may necessitate:
a.   quarantining Evidence to avoid its destruction or alteration; or

9
b. discontinuing the recycling of backup tapes or other storage media,
and the deletion of emails, “trash,” “recycling,” “drafts,” “sent,” or
“archived” folders.
5. Defendants and Relief Defendants are directed not to run or install any
drive cleaning, wiping, encrypting, or defragmenting software on hard disks of computers
that may contain Evidence.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are to contact the
chambers of Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz by close of business on Wednesday, July
5, 2023, to schedule an initial appearance to address any remaining issues pertaining to
this Order, whether related to a request for expedited discovery or issues concerning
which assets are subject to the Interlocutory Asset Freeze Order.

  Date: June 30, 2023    s/ Jerry W. Blackwell
    JERRY W. BLACKWELL
    United States District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 

 
 
United States Securities and Exchange 
Commission,   
 
  Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
Spartan Trading Company, LLC, 
The Estate of Richard Myre,   
 
  Defendants, 
 
and 
 
The Estate of Dale Dahmen, and  
The Estate of Dominick Dahmen, 
 
  Relief Defendants. 

 
         Civ. No. 23-1997 (JWB/DTS)  

 
 
ORDER ON EMERGENCY  

MOTION FOR ANCILLARY RELIEF 
 

  
 

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on June 29, 

2023, sought emergency ancillary relief in a case involving Spartan Trading Company, 

LLC (“Spartan Trading”), an investment fund alleged to be fraudulent. (See Doc. No. 3.) 

The founders of the fund were Richard Myre, Dale Dahmen, and Dominick Dahmen. The 

Court convened counsel for the SEC, the Defendants, and the Relief Defendants for a 

conference call also on June 29, 2023. The parties agreed to propose a joint interlocutory 

asset freeze order pertaining to assets held by both sets of Defendants by June 30, 2023. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

The SEC in its Complaint contends that investments in the Spartan Trading fund 

qualify as securities in the form of investment contracts. (See generally Doc. No. 1.) 

CASE 0:23-cv-01997-JWB-DTS   Doc. 13   Filed 06/30/23   Page 1 of 9



2 

Spartan Trading, through its founder Richard Myre, is alleged to have knowingly 

engaged in an elaborate scheme of materially false representations to investors and 

omitting important facts to obtain investor funds, all in violation of federal securities 

laws. The alleged scheme deteriorated internally in late 2022. The three founders were 

found dead in a murder-suicide in Bloomington, Minnesota, reportedly stemming from a 

business dispute.  

The SEC claims that Spartan Trading and Richard Myre committed securities 

fraud, while Dale Dahmen and Dominick Dahmen unjustly enriched themselves with 

investor funds obtained through the investor fraud scheme. The estates of the Dahmens 

(which are named in the Complaint as Relief Defendants) are not charged with 

wrongdoing but with receiving and possessing ill-gotten investor funds.  

The SEC makes the following additional material allegations: 

• From 2019 to 2023, Richard Myre, Dale Dahmen, and Dominick Dahmen 
convinced investors to invest in Spartan Trading based on a pooled day 
trading approach. Investors were told that Myre would manage the 
investments and that the investors would receive half of all profits.  

• Most of the investment fund’s assets were held in cash, and Myre provided 
fraudulent accounting records to the investors, showing consistently 
positive monthly returns and false “profit” distributions. 

• Despite the presumption of pooled trading, Myre made few actual 
investments and those that were made often lost money.  

• Myre and the Dahmens collectively withdrew over $1.9 million from the 
Spartan Trading accounts for personal use, with no legitimate claim to the 
money.  

• The aftermath of the fraudulent scheme led to severe financial difficulties 
for many investors, including loss of retirement savings and inheritances, 
and at least one investor had to sell the family home.   

CASE 0:23-cv-01997-JWB-DTS   Doc. 13   Filed 06/30/23   Page 2 of 9



3 

FACTUAL FINDINGS 

Based on the arguments of counsel, and all the papers filed in support of the request 

for relief, the Court makes the following factual findings: 

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case and there is 

good cause to believe it will have jurisdiction over all parties. 

2. The SEC has made a prima facie showing that Defendants and Relief 

Defendants (hereinafter “Defendants”) have engaged in acts, practices, and transactions 

that constitute violations of federal securities laws or potentially hold funds obtained 

through a fraudulent scheme that was in violation of federal securities laws. 

3. There is good cause to believe that investor funds will be dissipated, 

concealed, or transferred from the jurisdiction of this Court—assets which could be 

subject to an order of disgorgement. 

4. There is good cause to believe that, unless restrained or enjoined by order 

of this Court, Defendants may alter or destroy documents relevant to this action.  

DISCUSSION 

The SEC seeks emergency ancillary relief, attendant to an equitable claim of relief 

for disgorgement and prejudgment interest, on Defendants’ ill-gotten gains. See S.E.C. v. 

Wyly, 860 F. Supp. 2d 275, 282–83 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (equitable disgorgement is remedial 

in nature and survives because it prevents unjust enrichment). The SEC seeks to freeze 

Defendants’ assets corresponding to the sums of wrongfully obtained investor funds, and 

it seeks expedited discovery. 

“It is well settled that a district court has authority to enter an asset freeze order in 

CASE 0:23-cv-01997-JWB-DTS   Doc. 13   Filed 06/30/23   Page 3 of 9



4 

an SEC enforcement action.” S.E.C. v. Petters, No. 09-cv-1750 (ADM/JSM), 2009 WL 

3379954, at *2 (D. Minn. Oct. 20, 2009) (collecting cases). The SEC has a legitimate 

interest in ensuring the alleged ill-gotten profits are not dissipated beyond the reach of the 

Court. However, the Court must balance the equities in ruling on this request for 

expedited equitable relief and consider the burden that the asset freeze places on the 

Defendant estates and families involved. See S.E.C. v. Quan, No. 11-cv-723 

(ADM/JSM), 2011 WL 1667985, at *5 (D. Minn. May 3, 2011) (citing S.E.C. v. Manor 

Nursing Ctrs., Inc., 458 F.2d 1082, 1106 (2d Cir. 1972)). 

An asset freeze requires a lesser showing than is required for a temporary 

restraining order or a typical preliminary injunction; “the SEC must establish only that it 

is likely to succeed on the merits” of its claims. See S.E.C. v. Cavanagh, 155 F.3d 129, 

132 (2d Cir. 1998); see also S.E.C. v. Unifund SAL, 910 F.2d 1028, 1041 (2d Cir. 1990) 

(upholding asset freeze even though evidence was insufficient to uphold preliminary 

injunction). A more substantial showing is required “whenever the relief sought is more 

than preservation of the status quo.” Unifund SAL, 910 F.2d at 1039. 

The SEC seeks disgorgement and return of ill-gotten investor funds and argues 

that unless Defendants’ assets are frozen, investors may be harmed if remaining assets are 

not preserved. The SEC contends that Spartan Trading has nearly no business operations 

currently and that it is uncertain who has access to Spartan Trading’s accounts today.   

The SEC and Defendants have agreed on the terms of an interlocutory asset freeze 

order. They do not disagree on the entry of the order generally nor on the maximum 

dollar value of assets to be frozen for each of the Defendants. They disagree on specific 

CASE 0:23-cv-01997-JWB-DTS   Doc. 13   Filed 06/30/23   Page 4 of 9



5 

instances, such as whether real property belonging to Dale Dahmen should be subject to 

the freeze; whether carve-outs from the asset freeze will be necessary to meet reasonable 

living expenses of family members; and the timing of expedited discovery. 

The Court issues an interlocutory freeze order setting forth general terms and 

addressing the parties’ points of contention. The Court does not believe that the SEC is 

entitled to maintain an interlocutory freeze order indefinitely up to and perhaps including 

the time of trial without a proper showing of good cause. In view of the SEC’s minimum 

showing on the merits at this very preliminary stage, it should not be entitled to interfere 

with unrestricted use of the Defendants’ accounts for more than a brief interval without a 

showing of good cause. The time interval is set forth in the Court’s Order below. 

ORDER 

Based on these findings, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the SEC’s Motion for 

Emergency Ancillary Relief (Doc. No. 3) is GRANTED as follows: 

I. INTERLOCUTORY ASSET FREEZE ORDER 

 1. All funds and other assets of Defendants Spartan Trading Company, LLC 

and Estate of Richard Myre (collectively “Defendants”), and Relief Defendants Estate of 

Dale Dahmen and Estate of Dominick Dahmen (collectively “Relief Defendants”) are 

hereby frozen up to the following amounts: 

  a. Estate of Richard Myre: $1,143,263 

  b. Estate of Dale Dahmen: $648,747 

  c. Estate of Dominick Dahmen: $173,113 

  d. Spartan Trading Company, LLC: $3,722,365 

CASE 0:23-cv-01997-JWB-DTS   Doc. 13   Filed 06/30/23   Page 5 of 9



6 

 2. Accordingly, Defendants and Relief Defendants and their officers, agents,  

servants, employees, attorneys, trustees, and those persons in active concert or 

participation with any one or more of them, and each of them, who receive notice of this 

Order or of the terms of these asset freeze provisions are restrained from, directly or 

indirectly, withdrawing, transferring, selling, pledging, encumbering, assigning, 

dissipating, concealing, or otherwise disposing of, in any manner, any funds, assets, 

accounts, or other property belonging to any Defendant or Relief Defendant.   

 3. Any bank, financial or brokerage institution, or other person or entity 

holding any such funds or other assets referred to in this Order, in the name of, for the 

benefit of, or under the control of Defendants or Relief Defendants which receives notice 

of this Order or its asset freeze provisions, shall hold and retain within its control, and 

shall prohibit the withdrawal, removal, transfer, disposition, pledge, encumbrance, 

assignment, set off, sale, liquidation, dissipation, concealment, or other disposal, of any 

such funds or other assets. 

 4. This Order shall be imposed for an initial term of 60 days, except that the 

interest in the following real property belonging to Dale Dahmen is frozen for 14 days: 

a. Lot 4, Block B, Kapsner’s Addition the Village of Pierz, Morrison 

County, Minnesota; and 

  b. Lot 17 of Crappie Beach, Morrison County, Minnesota. 

5. This Order shall be renewable upon a showing of good cause for the need 

for continuing or additional relief. Any party may seek to modify this Order or seek leave 

from this Order upon a proper showing. 

CASE 0:23-cv-01997-JWB-DTS   Doc. 13   Filed 06/30/23   Page 6 of 9



7 

II. DIRECTIVES TO FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND OTHERS 

1. Pending further order of this Court, any financial or brokerage institution, 

business entity, or person that holds or has held, controls or has controlled, or maintains 

or has maintained custody of any assets of the Defendants or Relief Defendants, shall:  

a. prohibit all other persons from withdrawing, removing, assigning, 

transferring, pledging, encumbering, disbursing, dissipating, 

converting, selling, or otherwise disposing of assets, except as 

directed by further order of the Court; and 

b. deny all other persons access to any safe deposit box that is owned, 

controlled, managed, or held by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of 

any of the Defendants and/or Relief Defendants, either individually 

or jointly. 

III. ORDER PROHIBITING DESTRUCTION OF RECORDS 

 1. Defendants and Relief Defendants and all of their agents, servants, 

employees, attorneys, depositories, banks, and those persons in active concert or 

participation with any of them, are restrained and enjoined from, directly or indirectly, 

destroying, mutilating, concealing, altering, disposing of, or otherwise rendering illegible 

in any manner any of the books, records, documents, correspondence, ledgers, accounts, 

financial transactions, statements, electronic files, computers, or any other property or 

data of any kind, and wherever located or stored:  

a. pertaining in any way to any matter described in the Complaint, or 

any amendment thereto, filed by the SEC in this action; or  

CASE 0:23-cv-01997-JWB-DTS   Doc. 13   Filed 06/30/23   Page 7 of 9



8 

b. that were created, modified or accessed by Defendants and/or Relief 

Defendants.  

(These documents and data are collectively referred to as “Evidence.”) 

2. Such Evidence includes both “hard copy” versions and electronically stored 

information in Defendants’ or Relief Defendants’ possession, custody, or control, 

including text files, data compilations, word processing documents, spreadsheets, email, 

voicemail, databases, calendars and scheduling information, log, file fragments and 

backup files, letters, text messages, instant messages, memoranda, notes, drawings, 

designs, correspondence, or communication of any kind. Evidence that is stored 

electronically may be maintained on shared network files, computer hard drives, servers, 

DVDs, CD-ROMs, flash drives, thumb drives, laptops, digital recorders, netbooks, cloud 

storage, social media, websites, personal digital assistants (PDA), or other handheld or 

smartphone devices. 

3. The obligations set forth in this Section include an obligation to provide 

notice to all Defendants’ and/or Relief Defendants’ employees, custodians, agents, or 

contractors who may be in possession of Evidence. This duty also extends to the 

preservation and retention of Evidence in the possession or custody of third parties, such 

as an internet service provider or a cloud computing provider, if such Evidence is within 

Defendants’ and/or Relief Defendants’ control. 

4. Defendants and Relief Defendants are ordered to act affirmatively to 

prevent the destruction of Evidence. This duty may necessitate: 

a. quarantining Evidence to avoid its destruction or alteration; or 

CASE 0:23-cv-01997-JWB-DTS   Doc. 13   Filed 06/30/23   Page 8 of 9



9 

b. discontinuing the recycling of backup tapes or other storage media, 

and the deletion of emails, “trash,” “recycling,” “drafts,” “sent,” or 

“archived” folders. 

5. Defendants and Relief Defendants are directed not to run or install any 

drive cleaning, wiping, encrypting, or defragmenting software on hard disks of computers 

that may contain Evidence. 

 

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are to contact the 

chambers of Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz by close of business on Wednesday, July 

5, 2023, to schedule an initial appearance to address any remaining issues pertaining to 

this Order, whether related to a request for expedited discovery or issues concerning 

which assets are subject to the Interlocutory Asset Freeze Order.   

  
  Date: June 30, 2023    s/ Jerry W. Blackwell    
    JERRY W. BLACKWELL 
    United States District Judge 
 

CASE 0:23-cv-01997-JWB-DTS   Doc. 13   Filed 06/30/23   Page 9 of 9