On May 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed the motion to compel (Dkt. #44). On May 31, 2012, Defendants Forest Park Medical Center, LLC (“Forest Park”) and Forest Park Medical Center at Frisco, LLC (“Forest Park Frisco,” and together with Forest Park, the “Forest Park Defendants”) filed a response (Dkt. #48). Plaintiff asks the Court to order the production of forensic images of the computer(s) and related electronic storage devices used by Defendant Cynthia A. Bledsoe (“Bledsoe”).[2] Plaintiff also requests that the Court order the production of documents that specifically relate to Baylor Frisco and the information allegedly misappropriated by Bledsoe. Plaintiff asserts that the requested documents and information are essential to prove Plaintiff's claims against the Forest Park Defendants.

First, Plaintiff requests a Court order that Forest Park make and produce forensic images of Bledsoe's Forest Park-issued computers[3] and electronic storage devices. Plaintiff asserts that the Protective Order establishes that certain material may be designated as “Highly Confidential –Attorneys' Eyes Only,” stating that the use of this restriction and an appropriate claw-back provision would protect any information that is not relevant to the lawsuit from disclosure.

To address concerns of production of highly sensitive or confidential information, the Forest Park Defendants proposed first that (1) Plaintiff and Forest Park agree to a reasonable set of search terms, a search methodology, and a forensic vendor; (2) the vendor would conduct a forensic search of Bledsoe's hard drive using the agreed-upon terms and methodology; and (3) Forest Park would review the resulting data and produce all non-privileged, responsive data. Plaintiff rejected this offer.

The Forest Park Defendants also suggest, secondly, in the case that the Court does not deny the motion with regard to production of the hard drive, that the Court should require, at most, that Forest Park Defendants surrender a copy of Bledsoe's hard drive to a court-appointed third party expert, who will (at Plaintiff's expense) conduct the analysis requested by Plaintiff and allow Forest Park to redact any results for privilege and responsiveness prior to providing the results to Plaintiff.

*2 The Court finds that Plaintiff should be able to conduct discovery, but does not find that providing a exact copy of the hard drive would properly safeguard confidential information. The Court finds that both options are reasonable. Therefore, Plaintiff can proceed under either or both options presented by the Forest Park Defendants. The Court would also suggest that the parties confer to determine if there are other options to achieve the discovery being requested by Plaintiff.

The Court denies the remainder of the requested relief because Plaintiff failed to confer with the Forest Park Defendants regarding certain requests or failed to adequately confer about certain requests. It appears that the parties may have reached some agreement regarding some of the requests, which appear to the Court to be reasonable, but the motion was filed without notification that there was no agreement and, no attempt was made to resolve the matter before filing the motion. Although the Court does not need to address the individual requests, the Court would note that it appears that these additional requests are overly broad and should be narrowed.

It therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff Frisco Medical Center, L.L.P. d/b/a Baylor Medical Center at Frisco's Motion to Compel Production from Forest Park Defendants (Dkt. #44) is hereby DENIED at this time.

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff Frisco Medical Center, L.L.P. d/b/a Baylor Medical Center at Frisco's Emergency Motion for Extension of Deadline to File Amended Complaint, or in the Alternative, Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. #46) is hereby GRANTED in part, and Plaintiff's amended complaint shall be due on or before July 6, 2012.

SIGNED this 5th day of June, 2012.