Richardson, Monte C., United States Magistrate Judge
The court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel seeking direct access to any of defendant’s computers and email addresses because plaintiff showed neither that defendant had engaged in any improper conduct nor that the documents sought were unobtainable through specific production requests.
Plaintiff sought permanent injunctive relief enjoining defendant from breaching the non-compete, non-solicitation, and confidentiality provisions in his Territory Agreement, misappropriating plaintiff's trade secrets, and illegally accessing plaintiff's computer system. The court directed the parties "to cooperate in the taking of limited discovery" in advance of a hearing on a motion plaintiff had filed for preliminary injunction. Defendant accordingly agreed to respond to plaintiff's interrogatories, request for production, and request for admissions.
However, defendant objected to plaintiff's request for inspection on the ground that it was overbroad and covered matters that were “personal, private, and otherwise not part of any targeted request for discovery.” Specifically, plaintiff’s request sought “(i) any computers, hard drives, and/or electronic devices used by Defendant at any time between August 1, 2012 and present; and (ii) all email addresses and log-in information to all email accounts used by Defendant at any time between August 1, 2012 and present.” Upon defendant’s objection, plaintiff filed the Motion to Compel Defendant’s Compliance with Plaintiff’s Request for Inspection at issue before the court.
Rule 26(b)'s broad discovery allowances are subject to a number of limitations, one of which is a judicial determination under Rule 26(b)(2)(C) that the burden of discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Furthermore, while Rule 34(a) allows parties to request inspection of “any designated documents or electronically stored information” within the scope of Rule 26(b), the access Rule 34 grants to a respondent’s database compilations is not unlimited. Rather, to gain direct access to respondent's databases, a court must make a factual finding of non-compliance with discovery rules. Courts must also protect respondents with respect to preservation of their records, confidentiality of non-discoverable matters, and costs.
In this case, plaintiff made no showing that defendant had engaged in discovery misconduct. Defendant in fact had largely agreed to cooperate with discovery but balked only at the prospect of providing plaintiff direct access to personal and private information unrelated to plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff also made no showing that the documents sought could not be obtained through specific document requests. Thus, plaintiff's request "hardly qualif[ied] as limited discovery" as directed by the court, and the proposed discovery's likely benefit did not outweigh its burden related to defendant’s privacy concerns.
v.
DARREN DOWNEN, Defendant
Counsel
Kevin Douglas Zwetsch, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff.Kenneth B. Wright, Bledsoe, Schmidt & Wilkinson, P.A., Jacksonville, FL, for Defendant.