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

I. BACKGROUND.

On July 18, 2019, Roadwire filed a motion to compel Katzkin to produce unredacted versions of documents Katzkin had previously produced (the “Motion”). Doc. No. 134. Roadwire argues that Katzkin provided the documents with redactions in violation of this Court's standing order and the parties’ confidentiality agreement. Doc. No. 134. Roadwire specifically identifies twenty-eight pages with various blackouts of names, dates, columns of financial information, unit information and entire other sections. Doc. No. 134. Roadwire then states that “When asked in phone conferences why these items were redacted, Defense counsel explained that his client delivered them in that manner.” Doc. No. 134 at 4. Roadwire argues that a privilege log was required, and that Katzkin should have filed a motion for protective order if necessary. Doc. No. 134 at 5-6.[1]

On July 24, 2019, Katzkin filed a response to the Motion (“Response”) arguing that it made no redactions and that it received the documents in question in the form those documents were produced to Roadwire. Doc. No. 137. Katzkin states that it explained this to Roadwire's counsel on multiple occasions, but that Roadwire continued to insist Katzkin had to comply with the Court's standing order. Doc. No. 137. Katzkin argues that the Motion was filed in bad faith and frivolous. Doc. No. 137 at 2.

II. ANALYSIS.

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). 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).

Rule 34, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that a party may serve a request to produce documents upon another party that are within that party's “possession, custody, or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). The party producing the documents “shall produce them as they are kept in the usual course of business or shall organize and label them to correspond with the categories in the request ...” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(i). “Control is defined not only as possession, but as the legal right to obtain the documents requested upon demand.” Searock v. Stripling, 736 F.2d 650, 653 (11th Cir. 1984).

*2 A party objecting to production on the grounds of privilege must produce of privilege log. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). To preserve the privilege, the objecting party must provide a log or index of withheld materials that includes for each separate document, the authors and their capacities, the recipients (including copy recipients) and their capacities, the subject matter of the document, the purpose for its production, and a detailed, specific explanation of why the document is privileged or immune from discovery. See Universal City Dev. Partners, Ltd. v. Ride & Show Eng'g, 230 F.R.D. 688, 695 (M.D. Fla. 2005).

Upon review of the Motion and Response, the Court finds that there is no basis to compel Katzkin to produce unredacted copies of the documents nor identify them in a privilege log. Katzkin represents to this Court, and has apparently advised Roadwire on multiple occasions, that Katzkin “does not possess, and has never possessed, unredacted versions of these documents.” Doc. Nos. 137 at 2, 137-1. Roadwire offers no evidence showing that Katzkin has mischaracterized the form in which the documents were received from ClearLight. Doc. No. 134. If Katzkin received the documents in question from ClearLight with the redactions already present, then Katzkin has provided the documents in its possession, custody and control. As such, Katzkin is not required to provide unredacted copies that it does not have, nor is Katkzin required to complete a privilege log for information it does not know and over which it claims no privilege. See Karhu v. Vital Pharms., Inc., No. 13-60768-CIV, 2014 WL 11532403, at *7, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198904, at *19 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 4, 2014) (under ordinary circumstances, a party's good faith averment that the items sought do not exist, or are not in his possession, custody, or control, should resolve the issue of failure of production) (citations omitted). Roadwire's attempt to use the undersigned's Standing Order as a basis for arguing Katzkin had to seek a protective order before redacting the information at issue is unavailing because Katzkin did not redact the documents.

Further, while counsel conferred on this matter, they clearly did not communicate. There is no reason that this Motion should have come before this Court. “Discovery is intended to operate with minimal judicial supervision” and “should be practiced with a spirit of cooperation and civility.” (Citations omitted.) Stovall v. MRS BPO, LLC, No. 6:11-cv-941, 2012 WL 12898983, at *1, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194211, at *3-4 (M.D. Fla. July 30, 2012). First, there is no excuse for Roadwire's lack of candor in its Motion regarding Katzkin's explanation of why the documents produced by Katzkin were redacted. While it may be technically correct to say that Katzkin's counsel advised the documents “were sent by the client with the redactions. Based on that, no redactions have been removed,” Katkzin's Response reflects that is not the whole story. Doc. Nos. 134 at 9; 137. Katzkin's counsel advised Roadwire's counsel on several occasions that Katzkin did not make the redactions, and that Katzkin received the documents from ClearLight with the redactions already present.[2] Roadwire then filed a Motion in this Court stating that Katzkin refused to comply with the undersigned's Standing Order without explaining why Katzkin refused to comply. As with previous discovery issues brought before this Court, this Motion and Response reflect that the parties have become adept at building narratives that exist in isolation from what is actually happening in this case. The Court would again suggest the parties engage in a recalibration of perspective and focus on developing a professional discourse that allows discovery to progress as intended under the rules.

III. CONCLUSION.

*3 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion (Doc. No. 134) is DENIED.

DONE in Orlando, Florida on August 12, 2019.