*2 The Court referred the resulting discovery dispute to Magistrate Judge James C. Francis. On July 25, 2006, after reviewing letters from both parties, Judge Francis ordered Defendant to produce the documents in question on the ground that they are “plainly relevant” to the parties' dispute. (Id.
Ex. F.) In addition, Judge Francis warned that, while “[a]n award of costs is not yet warranted, ... KWI is on notice to cooperate in discovery.” (Id.
) A few days later, Defendant returned to Judge Francis and requested permission to “redact its prices and profit figures from the document production.” (Id.
Ex. G.) Judge Francis denied this request, explaining that “[t]he requested information is integral to the sublicensing agreement that is the subject matter of this litigation.” (Id.
) Finally, at a status conference on August 18, 2006, this Court ordered Defendant to comply with Judge Francis's ruling within one week or face sanctions.