*1 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Centennial Bank’s Motion for Order Compelling Production of E-Hounds Images to DSG as Derived from the Identified Murrin Devices (“Motion”) (Dkt. 402), with Patrick Murrin’s response in opposition (Dkt. 415). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied.

BACKGROUND

Defendants Gregory Bryant, Patrick Murrin, Gwynn Davey and Jonathan Zunz were all officers at Bay Cities Bank. (Dkt. 199 ¶ 10.) In 2015, Plaintiff, Centennial Bank acquired Bay Cities Bank. (Dkt. 199 ¶ 10.) However, shortly after the acquisition, the individual defendants were hired by the corporate defendant, ServisFirst Bank. (Dkt. 199 ¶ 10.) In the Second Amended Complaint, Centennial alleges numerous “statutory, contractual, and common law causes of action tied to a pattern of wrongful conduct by the [d]efendants to deprive Centennial of the benefit of the bargain in acquiring Bay Cities and hiring” the individual defendants. (Dkt. 199 ¶ 10.)

On September 26, 2016, the Court entered an agreed order providing for the appointment of Dwayne Denny, a forensic expert, to inspect and image the electronic devices and accounts of Gwynn Davey and Patrick Murrin. (Dkt. 192.) A year later, Centennial filed a motion seeking relief from the agreed procedure established for the forensic examiner. (Dkt. 255.) After a lengthy stay in the case, on January 16, 2019, the Court granted in part the motion based on the parties’ agreed resolution. (Dkt. 381.) Specifically, the parties agreed to the additional production of files and reports from the forensic expert. (Dkt. 381 at 1–2.)

In the instant Motion, Centennial alleges that Adam Sharp of E-Hounds, Inc. conducted a separate inspection and imaging of Patrick Murrin’s devices and accounts. (Dkt. 402 at 4.) Centennial moves to compel the E-Hounds images. (Dkt. 402 at 1.)

APPLICABLE STANDARDS

The court has broad discretion in managing pretrial discovery matters and in deciding to compel. Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc., 662 F.3d 1292, 1306 (11th Cir. 2011); Perez v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 297 F.3d 1255, 1263 (11th Cir. 2002). Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the case’s needs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Proportionality requires counsel and the court to consider whether relevant information is discoverable in view of the needs of the case.” Tiger v. Dynamic Sports Nutrition, LLC, 2016 WL 1408098, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2016).

ANALYSIS

The process of imaging Patrick Murrin’s devices originated from allegations that e-mails were deleted in 2015. (Dkt. 171 at 2.) In June of 2016, E-Hounds was hired to advise Gwynn Davey and Patrick Murrin “on the appropriate steps for preserving and retrieving data from their personal devices.” (Dkt. 175 ¶ 5.) Accordingly, Adam Sharp imaged and preserved the data on Murrin’s devices. (Dkt. 175 ¶ 6.) Adam Sharp prepared to search the data (Dkt. 175 ¶ 7) but Centennial objected to Adam Sharp’s “unilateral selection.” (Dkt. 402 at 4; 415 at 2.) Centennial’s objection eventually led to the appointment of Dwayne Denny as a neutral forensic expert to image and search Patrick Murrin’s devices. (Dkt. 192.) The parties followed the agreed protocol for searching the preserved data, including agreed-upon search terms. (Dkt. 192; Dkt. 415 at 3.)

*2 Now, Centennial moves to compel the E-Hounds images of the same devices. (Dkt. 402 at 8.) However, the Court agrees with Patrick Murrin, that this is an inappropriate attempt “to restart the ESI examination, review, and production process with a new set of images after the close of discovery in this action.” (Dkt. 415 at 1.) Centennial has not established how the expense of reviewing a second set of images outweighs the likely benefit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

Following Dwayne Denny’s imaging, Centennial argues that it has obtained evidence that Patrick Murrin “deleted copious amounts of data.” (Dkt. 402 at 6.) Relying on this evidence, Centennial has filed a separate motion for spoliation sanctions (Dkt. 490), which remains pending. Notably, Centennial does not argue that Dwayne Denny’s imaging was in any way inefficient or incomplete. Nonetheless, Centennial demands the E-Hounds images, which were taken only a few months before. (Dkt. 402 at 4–5.) Centennial argues that Patrick Murrin’s testimony shows that he deleted data. (Dkt. 402 at 7.) However, Patrick Murrin testified that any deletions—which he generally denies—were done either before the E-Hounds imaging (Dkt. 402 at 81–82, 118) or after Dwayne Denny’s imaging (Dkt. 402 at 74–75). Thus, Centennial has not established that the E-Hounds images would reveal any new information.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Centennial Bank’s Motion for Order Compelling Production of E-Hounds Images to DSG as Derived from the Identified Murrin Devices (Dkt. 402) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on September 13, 2019.