*1 THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants’ Compliance with [the] Court’s Order for Production of Source Code (“Motion”) (Doc. 269) and Defendants’ response in opposition thereto (“Response”) (Doc. 271). Upon consideration of the parties’ submissions to the Court, Plaintiff’s Motion is due to be DENIED for the reasons stated herein.

I. Background[1]

On March 26, 2019 the Court ruled on Plaintiff’s motions to compel source code and related discovery disputes and ordered Defendants to produce source code, as well as related materials, to Plaintiff’s expert within ten days of the order.[2] (Doc. 250 at 17-18.) Specifically, Defendants were instructed to produce the following:

(Id.) The Court also specified: “All of the foregoing shall be produced in native format, with all source code repository information and software for the same.” (Id. at 18.) On April 5, 2019, Defendants filed an emergency motion requesting an extension to produce the source code and related materials. (Doc. 257.) The Court ordered Defendants to comply with the March 26, 2019 order by April 17, 2019. (Doc. 262 at 3.)

According to Plaintiff, Defendant failed to comply with the Court’s orders by failing to timely produce relevant materials and by allegedly continuing to withhold responsive materials. (Doc. 269.) Plaintiff now moves the Court to compel Defendants’ compliance with the March 26, 2019 Order. (Id.)

II. Standard

Motions to compel discovery under Rule 37(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. See Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Westrope, 730 F.2d 729, 731 (11th Cir. 1984). The trial court’s exercise of discretion regarding discovery orders will be sustained absent a finding of abuse of that discretion to the prejudice of a party. See Westrope, 730 F.2d at 731. The party bringing a motion to compel discovery “bears the burden of demonstrating that the information it seeks is relevant.” Costa v. Metro. Life. Ins. Co., No. 6:17-CV-714-ORL-40TBS, 2018 WL 1635642, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 5, 2018). For the Court to be able to rule on a motion to compel, it must “be specifically targeted to specific requests and must have reasons why the motion should be granted.” Newman v. Sun Capital, Inc., No. 2:09-cv-445-FtM-29SPC, 2010 WL 11470980, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 15, 2010).

III. Discussion

*2 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants only produced three versions of source code by the April 17, 2019 deadline and that Defendants claimed that “no other source code was ‘relevant’ and ‘the source code information produced by Innovative included the versions of the code that were installed on machines delivered to and used in the United States.’ ”[3] (Doc. 269 at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “lied” when they confirmed that they had produced all relevant versions of the source code, when in fact they had failed to produce “Version 18—the version of the machine software used during the [2016] test runs, conducted in discovery, with those tests captured on video by a Court videographer.”[4] (Id. at 7.) According to Plaintiff, Defendants produced Version 18 on May 20, 2019, as well as repository information, but only after being informed that Version 18 had not been produced.[5] (Id. at 8.)

Plaintiff claims that Defendants have failed to provide any “additional source code (other than Version 18), firmware, native repository information, SDKs—or any excuse for failing to provide version 18 or any other software in the timeframe provided in the Court’s Order.” (Id. at 8 (footnote omitted).) Plaintiff requests that Defendants be compelled to produce additional source code, native repository information, and SDKs. (Id. at 14.) Plaintiff also requests that Defendants “catalog and explain why each of the at least 63 versions of software, firmware, and the associated source code has not been produced; and identify the specific versions and timeframe where each version resided on the PERSOMASTER and INNO/6000 machines in the United States ....” (Id.) In addition, Plaintiff also requests that it be awarded reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees for bringing the Motion. (Id. at 14-15.)

Defendants, on the other hand contend that they have complied with the Court’s March 26, 2019 order. Defendants claim that, on April 17, 2019, they produced the “SDK and .dll information ordered by the Court[,]” as well as the following source code: “(1) Version 3 (the version originally installed in the PERSOMASTER bearing serial number PMR001 delivered into the United States; (2) Version 25(f) (the version currently installed in the PERSOMASTER machines in the United States); and (3) Version 63 (the most recent version of the InnoMotion software).” (Doc. 271 at 6-7.) Defendants allege that they “did not intentionally withhold any materials that the Court ordered to be produced” and that “[a]s soon as Plaintiff identified the fact that Version 18 had been omitted from Defendants’ first production, Defendants immediately produced Version 18 before Plaintiff filed [its] Motion.” (Id. at 19.) Defendants also agreed to provide Plaintiff with an additional 28 days from the date of the production of Version 18 to supplement its Infringement Contentions. (Id.) Defendants claim they also produced “repository information showing the bug fixes/changes made to every version of the InnoMotion source code available for release and produced the relevant software development kit (‘SDK’) and .dll files.” (Doc. 271 at 2.) Defendants claim that the “InnoMotion software is also used on machines not at issue to this lawsuit” and that “[n]one of the changes made to the InnoMotion software from Version 25(f) to Version 63 relate to any issue in this lawsuit[,] [and that] Version 63 contains all of the changes made to the software.” (Id. at 7.)

*3 Moreover, Defendant Innovatime’s manager, Jean Michel Jousson, affirmed in his sworn declaration that Defendants have produced all materials in response to the Court’s March 26, 2019 order, including “all of the versions of the source code that it knows were delivered to and used in the United States ....” (Doc. 271-7 at ¶ 10.) Mr. Jousson explained that “the InnoMotion software between Versions 25(f) and 63 that have not been produced to Entrust do not have any effect on: (a) how IC cards (or non-IC cards) are loaded, unloaded, or otherwise moved into and/or out of an IC programming station; or (b) the order in which the IC programming stations are loaded.” (Id. at ¶ 8.) Mr. Jousson also asserted that the repository information that had been produced was not modified and was produced as it is kept in the ordinary course of business.

(Id. at ¶ 4.) With respect to source code versions omitted from the repository list, Mr. Jousson explained: “[f]or any version not listed in the version list, such version was not released to any customer because it was a temporary version made during development work in France. In other words, any version not listed in the repository information was not released to any customer.” (Id. at ¶ 7.)

The undersigned finds that Defendants have complied with the Court’s March 26, 2019 order. Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary, based on Defendants’ own identification of Version 18 in their response to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, it does not appear Defendants intentionally attempted to “hide” its existence from Plaintiff. Immediately upon being informed that Version 18 had been omitted from the production materials, Defendants produced these materials. Mr. Jousson’s sworn declaration establishes that the relevant materials have been produced as ordered by the Court and also explains that certain materials have not been produced because they are not relevant or not available. As such, Plaintiff’s Motion is due to be denied.

Furthermore, in light of the legitimate concerns raised by Defendants and the well-reasoned arguments made in response to the Motion, the undersigned finds that Defendants were substantially justified so as to deny Plaintiff’s request for costs under Rule 37. See, e.g., Suboh v. Bellsouth Bus. Sys., Inc., No. 1:03-cv-0996-CC-CCH, 2004 WL 5550100, at *11 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 17, 2004) (declining to award attorney’s fees because “[t]he Court conclude[d] that Defendant was, in part, substantially justified in refusing to produce some of the material requested by Plaintiff.”). The Court also declines to grant Defendants request for costs given its untimely production of relevant materials.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

The Motion (Doc. 269) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida on July 9, 2019.