I. BACKGROUND.

On March 12, 2020, Plaintiff Armstrong Air Conditioning & Heating of Central Florida, Inc.’s (“Armstrong”) Complaint against Defendant Lennox Industries, Inc. (“Lennox”) was removed to this Court. Doc. No. 1. Armstrong alleges causes of action against Lennox for: 1) breach of contract; 2) breach of express warranty; 3) breach of warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; 4) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; 5) and tortious interference with business relationships. Doc. No. 1-1. Armstrong claims that Lennox has failed to honor a warranty provided to Armstrong with respect to Lennox air conditioning units that Armstrong installs and services. Id. Armstrong alleges that Lennox's units have a problem with copper tubing which has to be repaired and customers require Freon to resolve the problem, Armstrong has done the work under warranties extended to customers, and Lennox has failed to reimburse Armstrong for those services pursuant to the warranty Lennox provided to Armstrong. Id. Armstrong also alleges that Lennox has communicated directly with Armstrong's customers to dissuade them from using Armstrong's services. Id. As a result, Armstrong alleges damage to its business relationships and reputation, a loss of business, refund of prepaid labor costs, increased overhead and lost profits.

On May 5, 2020, Lennox served requests to produce on Armstrong that included several requests for documents related to Armstrong's financial condition from 2015 to present. Doc. No. 33-1 at 6 and 7. Lennox requested balance sheets, income statements, profit and loss statements, tax returns, business plans, marketing plans, and strategic plans. Id. at 6. Lennox also sought all documents discussing or referring to the reasons why sales, revenues and or profits were falling, decreasing or remaining flat and all documents discussing or referencing whether sales, revenues, and/or profits were below, at or above expectations or projections. Id. at 6-7.

On August 20, 2020, Lennox filed a Motion to Compel (the “Motion”) production related to one specific set of documents – Armstrong's “credit and loan applications.” Doc. No. 33. Lennox does not identify which request the “credit and loan applications” falls under, and Lennox fails to include Armstrong's responses to the requests to produce with the Motion. Doc. Nos. 33; 33-1. Lennox argues that the credit and loan applications are relevant because data about Plaintiff's financial condition, including its assets, receivables and liabilities, a narrative about the company's business, its competition, and its estimated future profits, and a discussion as to why the company needs or how it intends to use the requested funds may be included in such applications. Doc. No. 33 at 1.

*2 On August 27, 2020, Armstrong filed a response to the Motion which included its responses and objections to the request to produce. Doc. Nos. 34; 34-1. Armstrong argues that the only remaining request at issue is Request 24 which seeks: “For the years 2015 to the present, please produce all Documents discussing or referencing whether your sales, revenues, and/or profits were below, at or above Your expectations or projections.” Doc. No. 34-1 at 8. Armstrong objects to this request on the basis that the information sought was vague and overly broad and that it “forces the Plaintiff Armstrong to speculate as to what documents it is being asked to produce,” and may contain confidential, proprietary business records. Id. Armstrong argues that this is nothing more than a fishing expedition and Lennox has failed to demonstrate such information, which had been framed as credit applications and loan documents, is necessary given all the other financial information Armstrong has already disclosed. Doc. No. 34.

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). “The discovery process is designed to fully inform the parties of the relevant facts involved in their case.” U.S. v. Pepper's Steel & Alloys, Inc., 132 F.R.D. 695, 698 (S.D. Fla. 1990). “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 request for production must state “with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(A).

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). The proponent of a motion to compel discovery bears the initial burden of proving that the information sought is relevant. Bright v. Frix, No. 8:12-cv-1163-T-35MAP, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192512, 2016 WL 1011441, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2016). The scope of permissible, relevant discovery is determined by the parties’ claims and defenses. Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1368 n.37 (11th Cir. 1997).

The discovery sought must also be proportional. “The proportionality analysis begins with a review of the actual claims and defenses in the case, ‘and a consideration of how and to what degree the requested discovery bears on those claims and defenses.’ ” Foster v. Fresh Mkt., Inc., 2:18-cv-191, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223377, at *3-4 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 28, 2018) (quoting Koster v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co., No. 5:14-cv-689, 2016 WL 3014605, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2016)). A party's private, financial records are discoverable where they are “relevant” pursuant to Rule 26. Rail Trusts Locomotive Leasing, LLC v. Suncoke Energy, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-1112, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187958, at *10-11 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 25, 2016) (citing Maddow v. Procter & Gamble Co., Inc., 107 F.3d 846, 853 (11th Cir. 1997) (affirming district court's order compelling production of tax records because they were “arguably relevant to the case” and declining to adopt higher standard for discoverability of financial information)).

Lennox requested all documents “discussing or referencing” whether sales, revenues, and profits were below, at, or above expectations or projections. Armstrong's financial condition is relevant to its claim of loss of business and profits due to Lennox's alleged tortious interference with Armstrong's relationships with its customers, thus the request is relevant. The request is also proportional to the issue of lost profits. Therefore, the objections to the request are overruled.

From what the parties have provided it is unclear whether Armstrong has any credit or loan applications from the relevant period that expressly discuss or reference whether sales, revenues, and profits were below, at, or above expectations or projections. However, any such documents should be produced.

*3 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion (Doc. No. 33) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

DONE in Orlando, Florida, on October 6, 2020.