The background to this case has been set forth by the Court in previous orders. In summary, Plaintiff MNC Stribbons, Inc., f/k/a/ MNC Sourcing Solutions, Inc. (“Stribbons”) is a manufacturer, seller and distributor of decorative packaging products, such as ribbons, bows, tassels, bags, pet products, elastics, assemblies and display items. Defendant Angela Peelle (“Peelle”) became a sales representative for Stribbons, entering into an Independent Contractor Agreement and a Shadow Stock Plan Agreement. Both agreements contained restrictive covenants.

Plaintiff Stribbons brought suit alleging that its former sales representative, Peelle, and her company, Packaging, violated the restrictive covenants. In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff brings claims against Peelle for breach of the Independent Contractor Agreement and seeks to enjoin Packaging from aiding and abetting Peelle's breaches; against Peelle for breach of the Shadow Stock Plan Agreement and to enjoin Packaging from aiding and abetting Peelle's breach; against Peelle and Packaging for violations of the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act, section 688.001, et seq., Florida Statutes; and against Peelle for unjust enrichment, account stated, and breach of fiduciary duty. (ECF No. 49). Plaintiff alleges that it made Peelle a sales representative with access to its existing customers and its confidential customer information, and taught her about Plaintiff's business practices. Plaintiff claims that in 2010, it discovered that Peelle was secretly competing by soliciting orders and filling the orders herself, and had established a business relationship with a direct competitor. Based on this, Plaintiff claims that it terminated the Independent Contractor Agreement with Peelle on December 1, 2010, but that Peelle allegedly continued to compete throughout the year 2011, in violation of the Independent Contractor Agreement.

In the First Amended Counterclaim (ECF No. 37), Defendants bring claims against Plaintiff for breach of Independent Contractor Agreement; breach of Shadow Stock Plan Agreement; breach of an implied contract; and for money due as the procuring cause. Id. Defendants allege that the Independent Contractor Agreement expired on December 31, 2007, and from that date forward Peelle and Plaintiff proceeded under an implied contract. Further, Defendants allege that Plaintiff failed to pay Profit Sharing Amounts owed to Peelle under the Shadow Stock Plan Agreement.

Plaintiff served Defendants with Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants and a Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents to Defendants. Based on Defendants' responses, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants to produce better responses to Requests for Production Numbers 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24, and 29 and Interrogatories Numbers 3, 4, 5 and 7. Plaintiff also seeks an award of attorneys fees and costs.

*2 In Request Number 1, Plaintiff seeks all documents that refer or relate to Plaintiff.

In Request Number 2, Plaintiff seeks all documents that Defendants obtained while working as a salesperson for Plaintiff, or that refer or relate to Plaintiff's business or to any persons to whom Plaintiff sold products or provided services.

In Request Number 6, Plaintiff seeks all documents that refer or relate to any of its customers, former customers, or prospects.

In Request Number 7, Plaintiff seeks all documents that refer or relate to communications between Defendants and any of Plaintiff's customers, former customers, or prospects.

In Request Number 8, Plaintiff seeks all documents that refer or relate to communications, created after December 1, 2010, between Defendants and any of Plaintiff's customers, former customers, or prospects.

In response to the foregoing, Defendant objects in boilerplate fashion that the requests are overbroad and unduly burdensome. Objections to discovery must be “plain enough and specific enough so that the court can understand in what way the [discovery is] alleged to be objectionable.” Panola Land Buyers Ass'n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1559 (11th Cir. 1985). Defendants must explain specifically how requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome or irrelevant. Josephs v. Harris Corp., 677 F.2d 985, 992 (3d Cir. 1982) (“The mere statement by a party that the interrogatory was overly broad, burdensome, oppressive and irrelevant is not adequate to voice a successful objection to an interrogatory. On the contrary, the party resisting discovery must show specifically how ... each interrogatory is not relevant or how each question is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive.”). Nonspecific objections violate Local Rule 26.1(g)(3)(A), which provides “[w]here an objection is made to any interrogatory or sub-part thereof or to any document request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, the objection shall state with specificity all grounds.”

Defendants fail to describe how the requests are overbroad or why compliance would be unduly burdensome. Instead, Defendants claim that the requests violate this Court's Discovery Practices Handbook, section III.A(1), which states as follows:

Defendant's argument does not apply. Plaintiff did not request “each and every document supporting [the] claim,” but narrowed the requests.

In their Response to the Motion to Compel (ECF No. 38), Defendants argue undue burden because responding to these requests “would compel Defendants ... to look at every piece of paper, e-mail, or electronic documents in their custody or control and ask whether ‘it refers or relates to [Plaintiff],’ for whom Defendants did marketing and commission sales work for over six years.” I fail to see the undue burden. Indeed, during discovery Defendants are required to review every piece of paper, e-mail and electronically stored information in their possession, custody or control to determine whether the information is responsive. Defendants' irritation at engaging in this exercise is not a basis to object.

*3 Further, Defendants raise boilerplate privilege objections to the above requests, stating that the requests seek “discovery of privileged attorney work product and attorney-client communications.” Plaintiff states that Defendants have not produced a privilege log and request that Defendants be ordered to produce one accordingly. Defendants object to producing details in any privilege log provided that go beyond those specified in Local Rule 26.1(g). Defendants' objection is SUSTAINED. Defendants are ordered to produce a privilege log as set forth within Local Rule 26.1(g) and shall abide by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules in preparing a privilege log.

Additionally, in their Response to Request Number 2, Defendants state that they are prepared, when convenient, to make their files and images of their computers available for inspection, upon completion of a privilege review.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' objections to Requests 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8 are OVERRULED.

In Request Number 3, Plaintiff seeks all documents that refer or relate to the Confidential Information. Plaintiff defines “Confidential Information” as:

Defendants objects to this definition of “Confidential Information” as an improper attempt to expand the scope of permissible discovery. Ignoring Plaintiff's definition, Defendants narrow the scope of their discovery responses by utilizing the statutory definition of “trade secret” found in section 688.002(4), Florida Statutes, instead of the Plaintiff's definition. Plaintiff contends that this case is broader than the narrow trade secrets claims, and the Court agrees. The other issues in this case are breaches of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, implied contract, accounts stated and unjust enrichment. Further, Plaintiff seeks information in Defendant's possession regarding Plaintiff's customers and information that Defendant gained from Plaintiff's allegedly confidential database. This is not a situation where Defendants object to producing their own trade secrets or other protected information. Plaintiff's request for discovery is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Defendant also raises privilege and overbroad and unduly burdensome objections identical to those discussed supra. Those objections are likewise overruled.

Defendants' objections to Plaintiff's “Confidential Information” definition and Request 3 are OVERRULED.

In Request Number 9, Plaintiff seeks invoices, purchases orders, receipts, or other documents that Defendants created, received or sent in the course of any business involving Plaintiff's products after December 1, 2010.

In Request Number 18, Plaintiff seeks contracts executed on or after January 1, 2010, between Defendants and any buyer or seller of Plaintiff's products.

*4 Defendants responded to both that they had “identified no documents responsive to the request in their custody or control.”

Plaintiff contends that Defendant falsely responded to Requests Number 9 and 18. Plaintiff argues that Defendant is not utilizing Plaintiff's definition of the term “Plaintiff's products,” which Plaintiff defined in the Request for Production as “ribbons, bows, tassels, bags, pet products, cords, elastics, assemblies, and POP display items and other items manufactured or sold by Plaintiff.”

Upon reviewing Defendants' Answers to Interrogatories Number 3, the Court notes that Defendants sets forth numerous occasions after December 1, 2010, where they may have sold products that may fit within Plaintiff's definition of “Plaintiff's products.” Notably, Defendants have raised no other objection to these Requests for Production.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED as to Requests 9 and 18. The Court orders Defendant to review Plaintiff's definition for “Plaintiff's products” and, if necessary, amend its responses.

In Request Number 10, Plaintiff seeks all documents reflecting Packaging's total revenues, income, profits, expenses, or financial performance.

In Request Number 11, Plaintiff seeks all documents reflecting Peelle's total income, profits, expenses, or financial performance.

In Request Number 14, Plaintiff seeks all of Defendants' credit card statements, bank statements (including cancelled checks), financial services firm statements, or other documents reflecting payments made by Defendant for business purposes, or business revenue received.

In Request Number 15, Plaintiff seeks documents showing the identities of Defendants' customers.

In Request Number 16, Plaintiff seeks documents showing the identities of Defendants' suppliers.

Defendants raised identical boilerplate objections to these requests, with no explanation for how each request was overbroad or what was irrelevant about the request. See Shuman, 762 F.2d at 1559; Josephs, 677 F.2d at 992. Defendants contended that the requests were overbroad and exceeded the scope of discovery because they were not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of documents relevant to the subject matter of this litigation.

In their Response to the Motion to Compel (ECF No. 38), responsive to Requests 10 and 11, Defendants indicate that they will produce computer images (including Quickbook records) showing Defendants' business revenue from the wholesale ribbon and decorative wrapping business during the relevant time periods. Accordingly, Defendants have waived their objections to 10 and 11.

In their Response to request 15, Defendants argue that this request is overly broad because it seeks all documents. (ECF No. 38). Defendants do not raise additional grounds in response to Request for Production 14 or 16. Id.

These objections are insufficient. For the reasons set forth supra, Defendants' objections to Requests 10, 11, 14, 15, and 16 are OVERRULED.

In Request for Production Number 12, Plaintiff seeks federal and state tax returns filed by Peelle in the years 2009, 2010, and 2011.

*5 In Request for Production Number 13, Plaintiff seeks federal and state tax returns filed by Packaging in the years 2009, 2010, and 2011.

Defendants object that there is no compelling need for this intrusion and any information contained in the tax returns relevant to the subject matter of this litigation may be obtained from records less intrusive than disclosure of Defendant's tax returns. In the response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants argue that public policy weighs against disclosure “unless (1) it clearly appears that they are relevant to the subject matter of the action, and (2) a compelling need is shown because the information contained therein is not otherwise available.” Dunkin' Donuts, Inc. v. Mary's Donuts, Inc., 01-0392-CIV-GOLD, 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2001). Although the Eleventh Circuit has not adopted such a standard, Maddow v. Procter & Gamble Co., 107 F.3d 846, 853 (11th Cir. 1997), assuming that a compelling need analysis applies, the tax returns in question are discoverable.

Defendants' tax returns from 2009, 2010, and 2011 will reflect Defendants' financial performance, which Plaintiff contends is based on its illicit competition with Plaintiff and forms the basis for Plaintiff's damages. Additionally, Defendants' tax returns will reflect the extent to which Defendants competed with Plaintiff by showing income that was not derived from Plaintiff. Defendants' argument that it is producing its business records to Plaintiff and its revenue information will be contained therein is outweighed by Plaintiff's need to take discovery on damages. Further, any confidentiality concerns will be allayed by the parties' confidentiality agreement.

Accordingly, Defendants' objections to Requests 12 and 13 are OVERRULED.

In Request Number 17, Plaintiff seeks documents that refer or relate to income to Defendants from any source other than Plaintiff from 2002 to the present, including, but not limited to, unemployment compensation and federal or state aid.

Although Defendants raise their boilerplate objections to this request, on its face, Request Number 17 appears to be overly broad. The parties do not allege that they began their relationship until 2004, but Plaintiff seeks Defendants' financial documents back to 2002 without any indication of the relevance of these earlier years.

Accordingly, Defendants' objection to Request 17 is SUSTAINED in part as the Court limits the scope of this request to 2004, and OVERRULED in part as Defendants shall produce responsive documents from 2004 to the present.

In Request Number 24, Plaintiff seeks exact and complete copies of all hard drives or other storage devices of any and all computers used by Defendants for the purpose of transmitting, viewing, downloading or otherwise accessing files relating to Plaintiff, Plaintiff's documents, Confidential Information, or Plaintiff's customers, former customers, prospects, or Plaintiff's products. Defendants have waived their objection to Request Number 24 by stating that they will produce their computer images.

Accordingly, Defendants' objection to Request 24 is OVERRULED.

*6 In Request Number 29, Plaintiff seeks Defendants' phone records for December 1, 2010 through the completion of this case. Defendants raise their boilerplate objection that this request is overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of documents relevant to the subject matter of this litigation.

In its Response to the Motion to Compel (ECF No. 38), Defendants indicate that they are willing to reach an agreement to produce a subset of their telephone records that show calls to or from customers for wholesale ribbon or decorative packaging. Defendants could have discussed this resolution prior to the instant motion to compel. For failing to set forth a reason why the phone records are overly broad or unduly burdensome, Defendants's objections are OVERRULED, but parties may agree to narrow the scope of their request without violating this Order.

Further, any confidentiality concerns will be allayed by the parties' confidentiality agreement.

In Interrogatory Number 3, Plaintiff requests that Defendants identify each of Plaintiff's customers or prospects that Defendants contacted or that have contacted Defendants. Defendants only identified those customers that contacted them, but failed to identify those customers that Defendants contacted. In their Response to the Motion to Compel (ECF No. 38), Defendants agreed to amend their response. Accordingly, Defendants' objection is OVERRULED.

In Interrogatory Number 4, Plaintiff requests that Defendants identify each person to whom Defendant sold Plaintiff's Products after December 1, 2010.

In Interrogatory Number 5, Plaintiff requests that Defendants state their total sales, revenue, expenses and profits, that were derived from any business related to Plaintiff's products on or after December 1, 2010.

Defendants answered “none” to both Interrogatories.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant is not utilizing Plaintiff's definition of the term “Plaintiff's products,” which Plaintiff defined in the Interrogatories as “ribbons, bows, tassels, bags, pet products, cords, elastics, assemblies, and POP display items and other items manufactured or sold by Plaintiff.”

Upon reviewing Defendants' Answers to Interrogatories Number 3, the Court notes that Defendants sets forth numerous occasions after December 1, 2010, where they may have sold products that may fit within Plaintiff's definition of “Plaintiff's products.” Notably, Defendants have raised no other objection.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED as to Interrogatories Numbers 4 and 5. The Court orders Defendant to review Plaintiff's definition for “Plaintiff's products” and, if necessary, amend its responses.

In Interrogatory Number 7, Plaintiff requests that Defendant identify the nature and amount of each item of damages they allegedly incurred in connection with the subject matter of this case.

Defendants indicate that they will supplement this answer upon timely receipt of Plaintiff's outstanding business records. The Court accepts Defendants' representations that they require further discovery to complete this Interrogatory. Defendants are ordered to supplement their response within seven days of receipt of outstanding records.

Plaintiff seeks an award of attorneys fees and costs against Defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d)(1)(A)(ii). The Court denies this motion without prejudice.

*7 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Complete Responses to Discovery Requests (ECF No. 33) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth in this Order. Defendants shall produce all responsive documents, amended responses and interrogatory answers, and privilege logs within seven days from the date of this Order.

DONE AND ORDERED.