Defendants ask the Court to compel Plaintiff to comply with Defendants' request for inspection of the competing products at issue in this case by producing the products unaltered, with the original metadata intact, and in native format. A joint inspection of the competing products occurred on June 23, 2014, but Defendants contend that Plaintiff provided altered products rather than copies of the products provided to Plaintiff's customers and/or end-users.

Defendants also request that the Court compel Plaintiff to produce documents and information in the possession of Global Medical-VR Inc. (“Global Medcial”), a nonparty, that are responsive to certain requests and interrogatories. (Defendants' Requests for Documents Nos. 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 33, 34, 35, 37, 42, 43 & 44; Defendants' Interrogatories Nos. 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 23.) Defendants contend that Plaintiff created Global Medical to market a similar product to Defendants' product, and Plaintiff owns a 25 percent stake in the company. Defendants argue that because Plaintiff “is an employee and shareholder of Global Medical, Plaintiff controls documents in the possession of Global Medical and should be compelled to provide these documents.” (Defs.' Brief p. 4.)

A partial ruling on the motion was entered on the record during the hearing on August 15, 2014. As provided in a Text Order (Doc. No. 116) entered later the same day, Plaintiff was directed to submit to the Court by August 22, 2014, an affidavit from the computer programmer or technician verifying whether the software products at issue and presented to Defendants for inspection were altered in any manner from the products provided to Plaintiffs customers and/or end-users. (Id.) The affidavit was to provide a detailed explanation of any such alterations. (Id.) Plaintiff also was directed to make a formal request, in writing, for Global Medical to produce all documents and information in its possession which are responsive to Defendants' discovery requests and have not already been produced in this case. (Id.) Plaintiff was to submit to the Court by August 22, 2014, verification the request was made and the response by Global Medical as to the existence of any additional responsive documents and information to be produced to defendants. (Id.)

Plaintiff complied by submitting the materials to the Court as directed. Plaintiff provided a Declaration of Emad Saadany who is a computer programmer, 3D modeler and designer. (Id. ¶ 2.) He has assisted in the development of Anatomy VR products for Plaintiff and Global Medical. (Id. ¶ 3.) Mr. Saadany states that the software products at issue “operate on their own executable files, which cannot be altered or modified by anyone including [him]self.” (Id. ¶¶ 4, 5.) He also verifies that he “did not alter the software of the ... products in copying the executable files onto [Plaintiff's] laptop computer.” (Id. ¶ 7.) Mr. Saadany further addresses other matters raised by Defendants in their motion related to whether the products on Plaintiff's laptop were altered versions of the products. (Id. ¶¶ 8-12.)

*2 Based on Mr. Saadany's Declaration, and the other submissions by the parties to date, the Court is satisfied the current record shows that products produced by Plaintiff for inspection were not altered versions of the software products at issue. Defendants have not shown sufficient good cause or reason for the Court to compel Plaintiff to produce any additional products for inspection. The Motion to Compel is, therefore, denied on this issue.

Plaintiff also submitted to the Court a letter from counsel for Global Medical which is located in Quebec and was incorporated under Canadian law on May 15, 2012. Counsel explains that Plaintiff is a minority shareholder of Global Medical and has certain limited rights with respect to the company's corporate and financial affairs. Counsel states that it is Global Medical's position that it is not included within the scope of persons identified in the discovery requests at issue and is not required to produce the documentation. Without waiving its position, counsel indicates Global Medical will provide those documents in its possession which Plaintiff is entitled to request and receive as a minority shareholder. Counsel then indicates, however, that Plaintiff is not entitled to access or obtain copies of documents or information responsive to nearly all the discovery requests at issue. It is noted that some documents which would be responsive to certain requests were provided to Global Medical by Plaintiff. Finally, counsel states that neither Global Medical, “nor its directors, were involved directly or indirectly in the development, manufacture or marketing of the Anatomy-VR product.”

After reviewing the letter, and under the current record, the Court does not believe there is any valid basis, or that it has proper authority at the present time, to compel Global Medical to produce any documents or information in response to discovery requests which have been served in this case. The Court is satisfied that Plaintiff is entitled to access and copy only certain, limited information from Global Medical as a minority shareholder. Any responsive documents or information which may be in the possession of Global Medical does not appear to be controlled or obtainable by Plaintiff.

Nevertheless, Plaintiff must produce all documents, and provide any information, within his own possession that are responsive to Defendants' Requests for Documents Nos. 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 33, 34, 35, 37, 42, 43 and 44, and Defendants' Interrogatories Nos. 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 23. To the extent the discovery has not already been produced, Plaintiff shall fully complete the production by August 29, 2014.

As set forth herein, and in the Court's prior rulings, Defendants' Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 100) is granted in part and denied in part.

IT IS SO ORDERED.