*1 This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion:

I. BACKGROUND

On July 31, 2018, Defendant Ross Albert removed this action to federal court. Doc. No. 1. At that time, he was the only Defendant. Id. On April 5, 2019, a Second Amended Complaint was filed that alleged various claims against Albert, Katzkin Leather, Inc. (“Katzkin”), Clearlight Partners, LLC (“Clearlight”), and Clearlight Partners Management, LLC (“CPM”). Doc. No. 104. The Second Amended Complaint alleged a broad conspiracy to take over the Florida leather restyling market that began in July 2015 when Katzkin and Clearlight solicited Albert to assist them while he was employed by Plaintiff Classic Soft Trim (“CST”). Id. The Second Amended Complaint alleges causes of action against Albert for breach of fiduciary duty/breach of loyalty and violation of the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act based on actions taken both before and after he terminated his employment with CST on March 18, 2016. See id. at 20, 33, 69. Upon terminating his employment with CST, Albert became employed by Katzkin. Doc. No. 104. The Second Amended Complaint alleged causes of action against Katzkin, Clearlight and CPM for violation of the Sherman Act, violation of Ohio's and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, tortious interference, and violation of the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act among other things. Doc. No. 104. On August 13, 2020, the Court dismissed Clearlight and CPM as Defendants, and dismissed the Sherman Act and deceptive and unfair trade practices claims against Katzkin. Doc. No. 347. Plaintiffs’ tort claims against Katzkin remain.

On May 22, 2020, Roadwire served a Rule 34 request to produce which, in pertinent part, sought to have Albert produce devices for forensic imaging including cell phones, laptops, tablets, and desktops. Doc. No. 305. The first request spanned January 1, 2015 to March 21, 2016, the second request spanned March 22, 2016 to present. Id. Albert did not respond to the discovery. Id. at 1.

On June 25, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel (“Motion to Compel”) based on Albert's failure to respond to the discovery request. Doc. No. 305. On July 9, 2020, Albert filed a Motion to Strike the Motion to Compel (the “Motion to Strike”) because the Motion to Compel was untimely filed and because Plaintiffs falsely represented the parties conferred ahead of filing the Motion to Compel. Doc. No. 320. Albert also argued he did not provide written consent for email service. Id. Alternatively, Albert requested an additional five days to file a response. Id.

On July 23, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Response to the Motion to Strike (“Response to Motion to Strike”) arguing that the Motion to Compel was not untimely because the discovery deadline had been extended and that the parties had in fact conferred on the pending discovery in conjunction with other discovery in an attempt to reach a global resolution of the outstanding discovery requests to Albert. Doc. Nos. 339; 339-1 at 6. Plaintiffs also argued that the parties had regularly served each other via email and provided several instances where Albert had provided responses via email. Doc. No. 339. On August 11, 2020, the Court found no basis to strike the Motion to Compel but directed the parties to meet and confer prior to Albert filing his response to the Motion to Compel to attempt to resolve the outstanding discovery issues. Doc. No. 344. On August 18, 2020, this Court issued an order compelling Albert to respond to other related discovery requests many of which were similar to the requests related to the Motion to Compel. Doc. No. 350. The Court also found that Albert's argument regarding the failure to provide written consent for service via email was not well-taken, in part because Albert himself served his responses to the discovery at issue via email. Doc. No. 350 at 5.

*2 On August 25, 2020, Albert filed a Response to the Motion to Compel (the “Response”). Doc. No. 358. Albert indicates that based on this Court's related discovery order of August 18, 2020, the only remaining requests at issue are Requests 1 and 2 that seek forensic imaging of Albert's personal electronic devices and electronic devices of Katzkin and CST that he used. Doc. No. 358. Albert makes the following arguments in his Response: 1) he was not properly served with this discovery because it was only emailed to counsel; 2) counsel was unaware that the discovery had been served and did not know this request to produce existed until the Motion to Compel was filed; 3) the subject requests were made by Roadwire and Roadwire no longer has the right to request such discovery because it is a “nominal” Plaintiff and Albert did not work for Roadwire; and 4) the requests are overly broad and too intrusive. Doc. No. 358 at 1-2.

Request 1 seeks:

Doc. No. 305-1 at 8-9. Request 2 seeks:

Id. at 9.

II. APPLICABLE LAW.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “strongly favor full discovery whenever possible.” Farnsworth v. Procter & Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545, 1547 (11th Cir. 1985). “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case ....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). A party is entitled to the facts relevant to the litigation. Dunkin’ Donuts, Inc. v. Mary's Donuts, Inc., 206 F.R.D. 518, 520 (S.D. Fla. 2002). This includes discovery of documents located in available electronic systems, deleted emails, and computer files. Wynmoor Cmty. Council, Inc. v. QBE Ins. Corp., 280 F.R.D. 681, 685 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (citing Bank of Mongolia v. M & P Global Fin. Servs., 258 F.R.D. 514, 519 (S.D. Fla. 2009)). When determining whether a forensic examination is warranted, the Court considers both the privacy interests of the parties whose devices are to be examined and, also, whether the parties withheld requested discovery, will not search for requested discovery, and the extent to which the parties complied with past discovery requests. Garrett v. Univ. of S. Fla. Bd. of Trs., No. 8:17-cv-2874, 2018 WL 4383054, at *, 22018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156996, at *3-4 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2018) (citing Bradfield v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., No. 5:13-cv-222, 2014 WL 4626864, at *3-5, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128677, at *10-14 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 15, 2014)). “Mere speculation that electronic discovery must exist is insufficient to permit forensic examination of a party's personal computer or cellphone.” Id. at *, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128677, at *4 (citing Klayman v. City Pages, No. 5:13-cv-143, 2014 WL 5426515, at *5, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150253, at *13-14 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2014)). Motions to compel are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Comm. Union Ins. Co. v. Westrope, 730 F.2d 729, 731 (11th Cir. 1984).

III. ANALYSIS.

*3 The Court has considered and reviewed the Motion to Compel, the Response, the Second Amended Complaint, the District Court's order dismissing certain claims, and the previously filed Motion to Strike and Plaintiffs’ response thereto. The record reflects the parties’ practice was to serve discovery and responses thereto via email and Albert's counsel admits this request to produce was served via email. Doc. Nos. 339 at 3 n. 1; 339-1 at 6; 350 at 5; 358. Therefore, the Court rejects Albert's arguments regarding the insufficiency of service and/or the lack of notice.

Additionally, the Court finds that the discovery requested in Requests 1 and 2 seeking forensic imaging of Albert's electronic devices is relevant. However, the Court finds that the appropriate time frame for such searches was reduced by the dismissal of several claims against Defendants. While the Court finds that the time frame should still begins when Albert was employed by CST, and accepts January 1, 2015 as an appropriate start date for the search, the Court finds that the scope of the search after Albert's departure from CST should have a reasonable temporal connection to that event and the events that followed. As such, the Court finds that the appropriate time frame for the search should end on January 1, 2018. Thus, Request 1 is proportional but Request 2 will be limited to March 22, 2016 to January 1, 2018. The Court also finds that both requests are supported by more than mere speculation that electronic discovery must exist and the requests are not overly intrusive.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 305) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

DONE in Orlando, Florida on September 2, 2020.