The default judgment was issued under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(vi) after months in which the Court said Raveendran treated binding discovery orders as optional.
The judge found that even after multiple extensions, Raveendran’s responses were evasive and incomplete and not even remotely satisfactory or consistent with what the Court would expect a legitimate and good faith document production would be.
He failed to appear for hearings, ignored deadlines, provided four documents that were all public and irrelevant, and refused to produce financial or transactional records necessary to trace more than half a billion dollars. His conduct, the Court said, was not neglect but deliberate.
“The facts and circumstances of this case indicate that Raveendran’s continuing failure to adequately respond to the pending discovery requests is a personal decision by Raveendran, himself,” the judge ruled.
