Plaintiff and Defendants, Count VIPs claim for accounting is not appropriate. Additionally, where the plaintiff has the opportunity to obtain information during discovery and “does not explain why these deficiencies could not have been adequately addressed through discovery,” the court may deny an accounting. Border State Bank, N.A. v. AgCountry Farm Credit Servs., 535 F.3d 779, 785 (8th Cir.2008). Discovery in this case is closed. (D.E. No. 130 at 8:23-24). Plaintiff did not seek discovery against the Defendants. (D.E. No. 130 at 44:13-18). Further, where a request for accounting is premised on liability in other counts, and “those claims warrant dismissal, the claim for ac counting also fails.” Cox v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 794 F.Supp.2d 1060, 1065 (D.Minn.2011) (<HOLDING>). As such, the Court’s grant of Defendants’
holding that the information the plaintiffs seek is available through discovery if they can plead any valid claim and the existence of this legal remedy renders an accounting unwarranted holding that while as a general matter discovery should be freely permitted  j jurisdictional discovery is justified only if the plaintiff reasonably demonstrates that it can supplement its jurisdictional allegations through discovery holding that an accounting is an extraordinary remedy holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law holding that a thwarted remedy is not available