*1 THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff Aatrix Software Inc.’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents (“Motion”) (Doc. 144), and Defendant's response in opposition thereto (“Response”) (Doc. 145). Upon consideration of the parties’ submissions and for the reasons stated herein, the Motion is due to be DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND[1]

Pursuant to Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 3.01, Plaintiff moves the Court for an order compelling Defendant to “supplement its document production responsive to several of Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 34, and to specific requests by Plaintiff's counsel during the depositions of Defendant's witnesses.” (Doc. 144 at 1-2.) Specifically, in a letter dated May 12, 2019, Plaintiff requested the following “categories of documents and information”:

(Doc. 144 at 2-3.) In addition, Plaintiff explains that although “[s]ource code for Defendant's accused products ‘Tax Filing Center’ (‘TFC’) and ‘Payroll Tax Service’ (‘PTS’) was made available for review previously, and is not part of the present Motion,” Plaintiff now “seeks source code for Defendant's recently launched and related product ‘Year End Forms’ (‘YEF’)[,] which according to Defendant's recent deposition testimony, appear to contain features similar to the accused features of the TFC and the PTS products.” (Id. at 3.)

Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that the materials requested are responsive to previously issued discovery requests and that it is merely requesting that Defendant supplement its discovery responses:

(Id. at 4.) Plaintiff claims that “Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff's [May 12, 2019] letter, and has not supplemented its production to date.” (Id.)

Although the Requests for Production of Documents referenced by Plaintiff were served in 2015, before the Federal Circuit Court appeal, once the case was remanded to this Court in mid-2018, the parties resumed the discovery process. (Id. at 4-5.) The Court also ruled on Plaintiff's first motion to compel discovery, overruling Defendant's objections and compelling the production of discovery materials in response to Plaintiff's Request Nos. 22 and 24-26. (Id. at 5; see also Doc. 96.) According to Plaintiff, Defendant produced documents pursuant to the Court's order in August 2018 and produced additional materials on March 28, 2019 and April 1, 2019. (Id. at 5.) According to Plaintiff, upon inspection it discovered that Defendant's production contained “likely privileged documents.” (Id.) Plaintiff claims it stopped reviewing Defendant's discovery materials and asked Defendant to inspect the August 2018 materials for privileged documents. (Id.) Defendant in turn “withdrew all but 10 documents produced on August 23, 2018, and replaced the productions of August 27 and 29, 2018, a total of more than 82,000 documents, on April 9, 2019.” (Id. at 6.) Because Plaintiff had to review the newly produced materials less than one week before the scheduled depositions of Defendant's witnesses, the parties agreed to reschedule depositions to April 22 through May 1, 2019, with the May 20, 2019 discovery cut-off date looming. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that “[d]uring the depositions of Defendant's witnesses and pursuant to testimony, Plaintiff's counsel requested additional documents and information” and that Defendant did not object. (Id.)

*3 In essence, Plaintiff argues that the basis for its Motion arose through newly discovered information during the depositions of Defendant's witnesses and as a result of newly discovered information, including the updated Javascript source code and SFW Capital Partners, LP's acquisition of a major interest in Defendant. (Id. at 17.) Additionally, Plaintiff argues that the Court has already overruled Defendant's objections to Requests No. 22 and 24-26, and that the Court should now overrule Defendant's objections to Requests No. 8, 20, and 40 since the Motion now requests documents responsive to those Requests. (Id. at 18.) Plaintiff also claims that “Defendant's objections to the remaining requests at issue here, Requests No. 8, 20, and 40, are also boilerplate objections nearly identical in substance to Defendant's objections to Requests No. 22 and 24-26, and should similarly be overruled.” (Id. at 8.)

Defendant, on the other hand argues that Plaintiff's Motion was filed at the “thirteenth hour,” less than one hour before the close of discovery, and, thus, should be denied as untimely. (Doc. 145 at 1.) Defendant alleges that “Plaintiff has known about the information it seeks for years, or at least by April 23-24, 2019, and waited” until the very last minute before filing its Motion with the Court. (Id.) Plaintiff also argues that the Motion should be denied for the following reasons:

(Id. at 2.)

II. STANDARD

It is clear that the parties may obtain discovery:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The rules “strongly favor full discovery whenever possible.” Farnsworth v. Procter & Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1543, 1547 (11th Cir. 1985). “The discovery process is designed to fully inform the parties of the relevant facts involved in their case.” United States v. Pepper's Steel & Alloys, Inc., 132 F.R.D. 695, 698 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 17, 1990) (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947)). “The overall purpose of discovery under the Federal Rules is to require the disclosure of all relevant information so that the ultimate resolution of disputed issues in any civil action may be based on a full and accurate understanding of the true facts, and therefore embody a fair and just result.” Oliver v. City of Orlando, No. 6:06-cv-1671-Orl-31DAB, 2007 WL 3232227, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2007) (citing United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682 (1958)). Discovery is intended to operate with minimal judicial supervision unless a dispute arises and one of the parties files a motion requiring judicial intervention. Furthermore, “[d]iscovery in this district should be practiced with a spirit of cooperation and civility.” Middle District Discovery (2015) at 3.

*4 Motions to compel discovery under Rule 37(a) 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).

“A party objecting to a request for production must: (1) ‘state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons;’ (2) ‘state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection;’ and (3) ‘[a]n objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.’ ” Local Access, LLC v. Peerless Network, Inc., No. 6:17-cv-236-Orl-40TBS, 2018 WL 2938393, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 12, 2018) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)). “The rules leave no place for boilerplate style objections.” Id. (citations omitted). Local Rule 3.04(a) provides:

M.D. Fla. R. 3.04(a). Local rules “have the force of law,” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (internal quotations and citation omitted), and “[t]he importance of these Rules cannot be overstated.” U.S. v. Fleming, No. 3:09-cv-153-J-34TEM, 2010 WL 5128293, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 2010).

III. DISCUSSION

The undersigned takes note that the Motion was filed on May 20, 2019, the same day as the discovery deadline. As recognized by Defendant, the Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order entered on August 10, 2018, setting the discovery deadline as April 22, 2019, specifically instructed as follows:

(Doc. 99 at 1.) On March 19, 2019, pursuant to the parties’ joint motion, the Court extended the discovery deadline by 28 days to May 20, 2019. Neither party moved to further extend the discovery deadline. Based on these clear instructions by the Court, the undersigned finds Plaintiff's Motion is due to be denied as untimely. Nevertheless, to the extent the undersigned has considered the parties’ substantive arguments, the Court also finds that the Motion is due to be denied for the following reasons.

A. CRM Software

*5 First, with respect to Plaintiff's request that “Defendant produce all of the data in all tables of [Defendant's] CRM from the years 2008 to the present,” the undersigned finds that, in addition to being untimely, it is overly broad. Plaintiff alleges that during the April 23 and 24, 2019 deposition of Mr. Kane, Defendant's Rule 30(b)(6) witness, it discovered that Mr. Kane conducted a “purported damage analysis in 2016,” which relied on information obtained from Defendant's Customer Research Management software (CRM). (See Doc. 144 at 2, 7-8). According to Plaintiff, Defendant's CRM “includes a substantial amount of financial data,” including:

(Id. at 2.)

However, Defendant asserts that it has already produced responsive documents and information to the initial Request for Production Nos. 22, 24. 25 and 26 “in such a way as to correspond to the requested categories.” (Doc. 145 at 16.) Defendant further argues:

(Id. at 16 n.16.) Moreover, Defendant disputes that Plaintiff's counsel requested additional documents and information during Mr. Kane's deposition, or that Plaintiff agreed to produce additional information. (Id. at 15.) Defendant's arguments are well-taken. Based on the foregoing, in addition to being untimely, the Motion is due to be denied as to Plaintiff's request for Defendant's CRM software program.

B. YEF Source Code & dowloadmyforms.com

According to Plaintiff, “[t]he software architecture of this module appears to be the same as that of the infringing software in the TFC and PTS.... Plaintiff has asked that Defendant produce all versions of downloadmyforms.com and YEF source code.” (Doc. 144 at 2.) However, according to Defendant, it “disclosed the YEF product and its functionality in Interrogatory Responses delivered to Plaintiff on or about January 15, 2016, more than three years ago.” (Doc. 145 at 14 (emphasis omitted).) Defendant also argues that Plaintiff had this information for years and waited “until fifty minutes before the fact discovery cutoff in this 4 year old case to raise the YEF Product ‘source code’ for the first time with the Court,” constituting waiver. (Id. at 17.) Moreover, Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to make a “timely discovery request for the requested [YEF product ‘source code’], so no motion to compel its production can lie.” (Id.)

Defendant also asserts that Plaintiff's experts previously examined the source code for the PTS and TFC products “and viewed the YEF module.” (Id.) According to Defendant:

*6 (Id. at 17-18.) In light of Defendant's arguments, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to show good cause for waiting until the close of discovery to move to compel Defendant to produce source code for all versions of a product not previously accused of infringing on the patents at issue.

C. Javascript Source Code

Based on Defendant's representation that it had already offered to produce the new Javascriopt version of the relevant source code, the Court finds that Plaintiff's request is due to be denied as moot. (Id. at 14 n.6 (“Lastly, Defendant need not address the new Javascript source code issue because Defendant's counsel already agreed to produce it and it should not[ ] be a subject in the Motion to Compel.”).)

D. SFW Capital Partners, LP Investment Records

With respect to Plaintiff's request for documents related to the recent acquisition of Defendant by SFW Capital Partners, LP, the undersigned also finds that the Motion is untimely. According to Plaintiff, it did not learn of the recent acquisition by SFW until Mr. Kane's April 23 and 24, 2019 deposition and requested the production of documents regarding the acquisition in its May 12, 2019 letter. (Doc. 144 at 2-3, 17-18.) According to Plaintiff, “SFW's acquisition of a major interest in Defendant's business appears to be positioned to have an impact on Defendant's Products-at-Issue, revenues, reseller/customer agreements, and even poised to export, adapt, or develop versions enabling the use of Defendant's ‘Editor’ modules to a greater range of existing and future products – magnifying Defendant's infringement of the patented features.” (Id. at 17-18.) However, Plaintiff waited almost one month, until less than one hour before the close of discovery, to file the Motion to Compel Defendant to produce such documents. As such, the Motion is due to be denied.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 144) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, on December 10, 2019.