I. Legal Standard

Rule 26 permits “discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case ... Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The term “relevant” is “construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). “When discovery appears relevant on its face, the party resisting the discovery has the burden to establish facts justifying its objections by demonstrating that the requested discovery (1) does not come within the scope of relevance as defined under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); or (2) is of such marginal relevance that the potential harm occasioned by the discovery would outweigh the ordinary presumption in favor of broad disclosure.” Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Clear Vision Windshield Repair, L.L.C., No. 6:16-cv-2077-Orl-28TBS, 2017 WL 7370979, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 20, 2017) (citation omitted).

II. Discussion

Defendant Essentium, Inc. propounded its Fourth Request for Production of Documents on Plaintiff on December 1, 2020 (“RFP”). Defendants’ motion to compel concerns RFP Request No. 8 that seeks “[a]ll electronically stored information responsive to all prior requests for production served on Jabil in this case and found in Jabil's email accounts and other systems identifying the following people as the custodians of those accounts or systems: [list of custodians omitted]” (Doc. 159-2, pp.6-7). Plaintiff objected to the request as vague, ambiguous, overbroad in time and scope, oppressive, calling for efforts and expenditures disproportionate to the needs of the case, and seeking information not relevant to any parties’ claims or defenses (Doc. 159-3, pp. 4-5). Plaintiff also objected that the “completely untailored” request “calls for the production of potentially highly confidential business information and communications with third parties and customers concerning matters entirely unrelated to this case.” Id. After conferring with Defendant, however, Plaintiff agreed to collect and search electronic documents from 17 of the 29 custodians listed in the request.

In the pending motion to compel, Defendants seek to compel Plaintiff to collect and search electronic documents from 9 of the remaining 12 custodians: Gary Cantrell, HH Chiang, Brett Lyons, Mike Loparco, Luis Montiel, Samantha Kennedy, Jim Reznicek, Xavier Thomas, and David Wahl. Defendants assert these nine custodians were “involved with the TenX project and each of them has information that will give the whole story, not just the self-serving narrative Jabil has presented thus far” (Doc. 159, p.4). Defendants claim Plaintiff's objections are mere boilerplate ones based on sheer conjecture and speculation, and say Plaintiff's objection based on duplicity is pointless given its ESI database that allows de-duplication with a click of a few buttons (Doc. 159, p.18).

*2 While the threshold for showing relevance is relatively low, the “proponent of a motion to compel discovery [still] bears the initial burden of proving that the information sought is relevant.” Cardenas v. Toyota Motor Corp., 2020 WL 5291936 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 3, 2020) (citing Diamond State Ins. Co. v. His House, Inc., No. 10-20039-CIV, 2011 WL 146837, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2011)). Defendants generally assert in their motion that items already produced by Plaintiff or others “show the Disputed Custodians’ involvement in the underlying facts and circumstances” (Doc. 159, p.2).[1] Defendants vaguely claim that the documents comprising exhibits A-J “substantiate the involvement of the Disputed Custodians warranting that their own custodial files be searched for additional responsive data,” but they fail to identify which of the 222 pages of documents relate to which Disputed Custodians or how these documents show these Disputed Custodians’ involvement clarifying the need for more discovery (Doc. 159, p.2)

Plaintiff, in response, indicates it has diligently participated in discovery, collecting 1.7 million electronic documents from 27 custodians and producing 18,000 documents to date (with more coming soon). Plaintiff disagrees with Defendants’ claim that the nine custodians were “involved with the TenX project,” stating instead that these individuals are “unlikely to have information that is relevant to the claims or defenses in the case.” (Doc. 159, pp. 7-8). More specifically, the Declaration of John Dulchinos, Jabil's Vice President of Digital Manufacturing, establishes that none of the nine custodians are likely to have relevant information. In sum, Dulchinos declares:

Plaintiff states that it is unlikely that these nine custodians are in possession of responsive electronic documents not previously collected. And while Plaintiff has not specified the expense involved, Plaintiff estimates that searching the nine custodians’ electronic documents would entail collecting 1.4 million emails and attachments (doubling the number of electronic documents collected to date) (Doc. 179, p.19). Hence, Plaintiff concludes that the discovery sought by Defendants is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case.

Upon consideration, the Court finds Request No. 8, with respect to the nine custodians at issue, is not proportional to the needs of the case. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Additionally, considering the parameters set forth in Rule 26(b)(2)(C), the Court finds Defendants’ Request No. 8 as to the nine listed custodians to be unreasonably cumulative, duplicative, and burdensome. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on March 4, 2021.

Because Plaintiff had designated these documents Confidential pursuant to the parties’ joint protective order, Defendants attached placeholders for exhibits A-J to their motion, and subsequently filed exhibits A-J as sealed documents S-184 pursuant to this Court's Order (Doc. 183).