*3 Although I appreciate defendants' concern about plain tiffs' production, I do not believe that there is any basis for an award of sanctions. Defendants do not point to any specific evidence suggesting that additional responsive documents exist and have not been produced. Litigants commonly suspect that they are not getting all the documents they have requested and that an adversary is holding something back. That suspicion, however, will not sustain the imposition of sanctions. “Under ordinary circumstances, a party's good faith averment that the items sought simply do not exist, or are not in his possession, custody or control, should resolve the issue of failure of production ....“ Zervos v. S.S. Sam Houston, 79 F.R.D. 593, 595 (S.D.N.Y.1978); see
Golden Trade S.r.L. v. Lee Apparel Co., 143 F.R.D. 514, 525 n. 7 (S.D.N.Y.1992) (“In the face of a denial by a party that it has possession, custody or control of documents, the discovering party must make an adequate showing to overcome this assertion.”); 8A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2213 at 425–26 (2d ed.1994) (footnotes omitted); see also
Jackson v. Edwards, 99 Civ. 982(JSR)(HBP), 2000 WL 782947 at *3–*4 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2000); Morris v. DeMarzo, 98 Civ. 7353(RLE), 2000 WL 1608719 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 12, 2000); Doe v. Karadzic, 93 Civ. 878(PKL)(HBP), 93 Civ. 1163(PKL) (HBP), 1997 WL 45515 at *6–*7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 1997). Since defendants do not cite any specific evidence impugning plaintiffs' assertions that their production is complete, there is no basis for a finding of misconduct on the part of the plaintiffs or an award of sanctions.