I. BACKGROUND[1]

On February 1, 2019, Defendants filed the present Motion, alleging that the discovery process had again stalled. (Doc. 218.) Defendants seek an order from the Court compelling Plaintiff to provide responses to their discovery requests, including Defendants’ Second Set of Interrogatories, Second Set of Requests for Production, as well as Defendants’ First and Second Sets of Requests for Admission. (Id. at 3.)

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. 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.

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).

*2 “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

A. Defendants’ Interrogatories

In their Second Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff, Defendants requested the following:

(Doc. 218 at 5.)

In its response, Plaintiff included 23 general objections as well as several overlapping objections to Interrogatory Nos. 20-24. (Doc. 218 at 7-10.) First, Plaintiff objected that the number of interrogatories exceeded the limit of 25. (Doc. 218 at 7; Doc. 218-8 at 7, 9, 11, 13, 14.) Second, Plaintiff argued that it was not “obligated to create a document which does not exist in its business records.” (Doc. 218 at 7; Doc. 218-8 at 7, 9, 11, 13.) Third, Plaintiff asserted that Defendants’ interrogatories violated Part IV.C.2 of the Handbook on Civil Discovery Practice for the Middle District of Florida and Rule 26(b)(1). (Doc. 218 at 7-8; Doc. 218-8 at 9, 11, 13, 15.) Next, Plaintiff objected that the interrogatories “require[d] legal conclusions and expert testimony, and implicate[d] issues of claim construction.” (Doc. 218 at 8; Doc. 218-8 at 8, 11, 13, 15.) Plaintiff also objected that the requested discovery is “subject to the attorney-client privilege, work product immunity, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity.” (Doc. 218 at 8; Doc. 218-8 at 8-9, 11, 13, 15.) Plaintiff further claimed that the interrogatories sought information for “machines and systems” that were not relevant “to the claims and defenses at issue in this litigation.” (Doc. 218 at 8; 218-8 at 8, 10-12, 13-14.) Plaintiff objected that Interrogatory Nos. 20-23 were “overly burdensome, overly expensive, oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case.” (Doc. 218 at 8-9 (internal quotations omitted); 218-8 at 8, 10-12, 13-14.)

*3 Defendants counter that Plaintiff's answers and objections were insufficient and improper. (Doc. 218 at 5.) Specifically, Defendants assert that the interrogatories sought information regarding “prior sales or public disclosure of [Plaintiff's] card personalization systems, or any such systems sold or used by [Plaintiff's] licensees or Gilles Leroux, S.A., which may provide additional support to Defendants’ invalidity claims.” (Id. at 6.) Defendants maintain that “[a] patent is invalid if a machine embodying the claimed invention was on sale, publicly used, or publicly disclosed prior to the priority date of the patent including, in some circumstances, the sale and public use/disclosure of the patentee's own machines.” (Id. (internal citations omitted).) Defendants also posit that “other machines sold by [Plaintiff] prior to the date of invention of the ‘205 patent (such as [Plaintiff's] 7000, 9000, and 500 Series machines) may embody the claims of the Patents-In-Suit, rendering the patents invalid.” (Id.)

Although Plaintiff also argues that Defendants’ requests are not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case, and that the Motion's purported late filing was retaliatory and oppressive[2] (Doc. 222 at 5-10), with respect to Interrogatory Nos. 20-21 and 23-24, the undersigned finds that the Motion is due to be granted and Plaintiff's boilerplate objections are due to be overruled.[3] First, Defendants have established the relevancy of the information sought in Interrogatory Nos. 20-21 and 23, namely facts and information to support their invalidity contentions as to prior art, and Interrogatory 24, the availability of non-infringing alternatives. (Doc. 218 at 5-10.) According to Defendants, they “have a good faith basis for suspecting that [Plaintiff's] prior IC card personalization machines may be prior art to the Patents-in-Suit.” (Doc. 218 at 13.) Defendants cite to the deposition transcript of Mr. Beech, Plaintiff's director of research and technology, in which he purportedly alluded that the 7000, 9000, and 500 Series machines “are modular IC card personalization machines that embody many, if not all, of the limitations of the ‘205 patent.” (Doc. 218 at 13-14.)

The Court also finds Plaintiff's objections to Interrogatories 20-24 based on attorney-client or work product privilege to be conclusory as Plaintiff failed to provide any support for this objection. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(4) (“The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity.”) As such, Plaintiff's objections based on privilege are overruled.

Plaintiff specifically objected to Interrogatory No. 20 as “excessive and abusive” because it had “sold card personalization systems since at least 1991, and the scope of this request presumably covers at least 27 years ....” (Doc. 218-8 at 9.) Defendants counter that Plaintiff's sale of machines “since 1991 provides justification for Defendants’ interrogatories.” (Doc. 218 at 9.) Defendants argue that “the filing date of the ‘205 patent is September 22, 2000, and the filing date of the ‘925 patent is August 17, 1999. [Plaintiff's] sale (or public disclosure) of certain machines before these filing dates—including dating back to 1991—may provide evidence of additional invalidating prior art.” (Id. (citing 35 U.S.C. § 102; Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 628, at 634 (Jan. 22, 2019) (discussing the on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102).). Defendants’ arguments provide sufficient justification for the requested information in Interrogatory No. 20; thus, Plaintiff's objections are overruled.

*4 Additionally, the Court rejects, as conclusory, Plaintiff's objections that Interrogatory Nos. 20-21 and 23 would impose an undue burden and expense. While “[t]he party moving to compel discovery bears the initial burden of proving the requested discovery is relevant,” “the responding party must then specifically demonstrate how the requested discovery is unreasonable or unduly burdensome.” Bodo v. GeoVera Specialty Ins. Co., No. 8:18-cv-678-T-30AAS, 2018 WL 6019200, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2018) (internal citations omitted); see also Panola Land Buyers Ass'n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1559-60 (11th Cir. 1985); Martin v. Zale Delaware, Inc., No. 8:08-cv-47-T-27EAJ, 2008 WL 5255555, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 15, 2008) (“A party objecting on these grounds must explain its reasoning in a specific and particularized way.”) Here, Plaintiff's objections based on undue burden and expense were asserted without any specificity and are due to be overruled.

Plaintiff's objections to Interrogatory No. 22, requesting the identity of “all card personalization system(s) or machine(s) sold or offered for sale in the United States by [Plaintiff], any licensee(s) to U.S. Patent No. 6,474,925, and/or Gilles Leroux S.A., that include an elevator with multiple programming heads or programming stations,” will be sustained. Plaintiff objected to this interrogatory, in part, as follows:

(Doc. 218 at 13.) In its Response, Plaintiff further argues that,

(Doc. 222 at 8 (emphasis added).)

“Regardless of the propriety of a responding party's objection, when the relevancy of a discovery request is not readily apparent, the propounding party bears the burden of demonstrating that its discovery request is relevant.” Lorenzano v. Sys., Inc., No. 6:17-cv-422-ORL-37DCI, 2018 WL 3827635, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2018). Here, the Court finds that Interrogatory No. 22 is vague and its relevancy not readily apparent. Defendants ultimately failed to establish the relevancy of this Interrogatory and did not address Plaintiff's specific objections regarding the phrase “an elevator with multiple programming heads or programming stations.” Thus, the Motion is due to be denied as to Interrogatory No. 22.

*5 Plaintiff's boilerplate objections to Interrogatory No. 23, seeking information for all “card personalization system(s) or machine(s) sold or offered for sale in the United States by [y]ou, any licensee(s) to U.S. Patent No. 6,474,925, and/or Gilles Leroux S.A. that are covered by U.S. Patent No. 6,474, 925,” are due to be overruled. See Asphalt Paving Sys., Inc. v. Gen. Combustion Corp., No. 6:15-cv-49-ORL-41TBS, 2016 WL 3167712, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 7, 2016) (“The Court does not consider frivolous, conclusory, general, or boilerplate objections.”). In addition to its boilerplate objections, Plaintiff also reasserted its objections as to relevancy, proportionality, and undue burden and expense without any specificity. (Doc. 218-8 at 13-14.) As noted above, Defendants have established that the requested information is relevant to its defenses. (Doc. 218 at 8.) The Court is also unpersuaded by Plaintiff's specific objection that the terms “covered by U.S. patent No. 6,474,925” are vague and ambiguous. (Doc. 218-8 at 14; Doc. 222 at 9.) To the extent Plaintiff argues that these terms are unclear, the Court notes that Plaintiff answered Interrogatory No. 24, which included the terms “covered by U.S. Patent Nos. 6,474,925 and/or 6,665,205,” without objecting to them as vague and ambiguous. (Doc. 218-8 at 14-15; 222 at 9-10.) Defendants’ argument that “the phrase ‘covered by’ is a term of art in patent law that means that the machine or system embodies the limitations of the claim” is well-taken. (Doc. 218 at 15.) As such, Plaintiff's objections to Interrogatory No. 23 are overruled.

Defendants also contend that Plaintiff's answer to Interrogatory No. 24 is incomplete because it only listed Defendants’ accused machines, but claim that “there are numerous other companies that sell personalization machines that compete with [Plaintiff][;] Plaintiff's own limited document production shows that Plaintiff competes with several other companies in the IC card personalization business.” On the other hand, Plaintiff argues that “Defendants’ interrogatory specifically requested competing card personalization systems that are also ‘covered’ by” the ‘925 and/or ‘205 patents and, based on its interpretation of the interrogatory, Plaintiff responded with information for the accused machines. (Doc. 222 at 9.) Without more, it appears that Defendants construe their own interrogatory too broadly and fail to recognize that the interrogatory asks for information regarding Plaintiff's competitors in the IC card personalization business whose products are also “covered by” the ‘925 and ‘205 patents. (See Doc. 218 at 9.) Defendants failed to substantiate this part of their Motion with an adequate explanation as to why Plaintiff's response was deficient. Nevertheless, to the extent Plaintiff's response created ambiguity (by including conclusory objections as well as a specific response, thus making it unclear whether its response was complete or if it was withholding information based on its objections), Plaintiff shall update its response if necessary, or provide Defendants with certification that its answer is complete.

B. Requests for Production

Defendants also move for an order compelling Plaintiff to produce responsive documents and materials to their Second Request for Production (Request Nos. 79-95). (Doc. 218 at 10-11.) In Request Nos. 79-91, Defendants requested technical documents for: (a) each system or machine identified [by Plaintiff] in response to Interrogatory Nos. 20, 22, and/or 23; (b) Plaintiff's 7000 Series Central Issuance System machines; (c) Plaintiff's 9000 Series Central Issuance System machines; and (d) Plaintiff's 500 Series Central Issuance System machines.[4] (Doc. 218 at 10-11; Doc. 218-1 at 4-6.) Defendants also requested the following:

(Doc. 218 at 11.) Defendants allege that Plaintiff failed to produce any documents in response to these requests and argue that Plaintiff's objections are without merit. (Id. at 10-15.)

In addition to incorporating its general objections and objections to Defendants’ definitions, Plaintiff also objected to each request based on “attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, party communications privilege, investigative privilege, consulting expert privilege, self-critical analysis privilege, and any other applicable privilege, doctrine or exemption that would make the information immune or exempt from discovery.” (Doc. 218-9 at 7-21.) When a party asserts attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine to withhold information or documents otherwise discoverable, the party must “describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed ... without revealing information itself privileged or protected.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5)(A); see also Curley v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., No. 2:18-cv-9-FTM-99CM, 2018 WL 6829727, at *10 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 28, 2018) (finding that the responding party violated Rule 26 by failing to provide a “privilege log or other support for the claim of privilege, aside from the general assertions that all communications and documents” at issue were privileged). Furthermore, “an objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(C). According to Defendants, Plaintiff failed to show that the requests for “technical documents (such as user guides and manuals that [Plaintiff] presumably distributes to its customers) relating to [Plaintiff's] IC card personalization machines,” are privileged or fall under these doctrines. (Doc. 218 at 12-13.) Defendants also claim that Plaintiff failed to produce a privilege log “substantiating its purported privilege objections.” (Id. at 12 n.7.) Defendants’ arguments are well taken with respect to Plaintiff's objections to Requests Nos. 79-91 based on privilege; thus, Plaintiff's blanket objections regarding privilege are overruled.[5]

With respect to Plaintiff's objections regarding the relevancy and proportionality of Request Nos. 79-91, the Court is also unpersuaded by Plaintiff's arguments. As noted above, Defendants referenced the deposition transcript of Mr. Beech, Plaintiff's director of research and development, in support for their contention that the documents requested may demonstrate that Plaintiff's own machines constitute prior art. (Doc. 218 at 13-14 (citing Doc. 121-1).) Although Plaintiff claims that Defendants mischaracterized Mr. Beech's testimony (Doc. 222 at 12), the undersigned finds that Defendants allegations regarding Mr. Beech's deposition testimony provide sufficient justification for their requests. (Doc. 218 at 13-14.) The undersigned also finds that Plaintiff's general objections to Request Nos. 79-91 regarding relevancy are not well-founded given Defendants’ specific arguments as to how these requested materials are relevant to their defenses. (Doc. 218 at 5-7, 11.) Similarly, the Court finds Plaintiff's general objections regarding proportionality and undue expense or burden to be insufficient with respect to Request Nos. 79-91, given Defendants’ specific claims that Plaintiff's “sale or public disclosure of machines that embody the claims of the Patents-In-Suit could lead to admissible evidence that may be used to support Defendants’ invalidity defenses.” (Id. at 13.) Rule 34(b)(2)(B) provides that a “response must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reason.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(B). “Objections which state that a discovery request is ‘vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome’ are, by themselves, meaningless, and are deemed without merit by this Court.” Siddiq v. Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp., No. 6:11-cv-69-Orl-19GJK, 2011 WL 6936485, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2011). The undersigned finds Plaintiff's objections to be conclusory and are due to be overruled. Asphalt Paving Sys., 2016 WL 3167712, at *2.

*7 In its response to Request No. 92, Plaintiff incorporated its general objections, its objections to Interrogatory Nos. 22 and 23, and reasserted its objection based on privilege. (See Doc. 218-9 at 19.) The Court again overrules Plaintiff's boilerplate objections as discussed supra, and finds that the Request is relevant to Defendants’ invalidity defenses. Plaintiff also specifically objected to the terms “systems or machines covered by U.S. Patent No. 6,474,925” as vague and ambiguous. (Id.) Defendants, however, argue that “covered by” “is a term of art in patent law that means that the machine or system embodies the limitation of a claim.” (Doc. 218 at 15.) Defendants further argue that Plaintiff failed to “ma[ke] an effort to attribute ordinary definitions to the terms and phrases” used. (Id.) The Court agrees with Defendants and also notes, as discussed supra, that Plaintiff responded to Interrogatory No. 24 which included similar terms, but failed to object to the terms as vague—instead Plaintiff appears to have attributed a reasonable interpretation of the terms to answer the interrogatory. As such, the Court directs Plaintiff to supplement its response to Request No. 92 and, if appropriate, produce responsive documents. See Stoneeagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Sols., Inc., No. 8:13-cv-2240-T-33MAP, 2015 WL 12843844, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2015) (directing the responding party to “define” allegedly vague and ambiguous terms “as they are normally used and to provide their own reasonable interpretation to them”). If Plaintiff continues to object based on privilege, Plaintiff must provide a basis for such objection and must provide Defendants with a privilege log.

Plaintiff provided identical responses to Request Nos. 93-95, incorporating its general objections and objections to definitions, its objections to Interrogatory Nos. 22 and 23, and reasserting its conclusory objection based on privilege. (Doc. 218 at 19.) Plaintiff also asserted that, because “no systems or machines were identified in Interrogatory Nos. 22 and 23,” there were no documents to be produced. The Court overrules Plaintiff's conclusory objections and directs Plaintiff to supplement its response to Request Nos. 93 and 94, while taking into account the Court's ruling on Plaintiff's objections to Interrogatory No. 22.

However, the Court finds Request No. 95, requesting “[d]ocuments identifying the date(s) of each sale for each system and machine identified in response to Interrogatory Nos. 22 and/or 23 since the system and machine was first introduced for sale,” to be burdensome and its relevancy not readily apparent. “Even when a party fails to object with specificity and the court compels a response to a discovery request, the court's order should compel only what is reasonable under the circumstances.” Siddiq, 2011 WL 6936485, at *3. Because the Court lacks sufficient information to narrow the scope of the request, and because Defendants failed to provide sufficient justification for this request, the Motion is due to be denied as to Request No. 95.

C. Requests for Admission

On August 17, 2018, Defendants served Plaintiff with its First Set of Requests for Admission (Request Nos. 1-32) (Doc. 218-3), to which Plaintiff responded on September 17, 2018 (Doc. 218-10) (Request Nos. 33-42). On August 22, 2018, Defendants served Plaintiff with their Second Set of Requests for Admission (Doc. 218-4), to which Plaintiff responded on September 21, 2018 (Doc. 218-11). Defendants claim that Plaintiff's responses were insufficient and now move the Court for an order compelling Plaintiff “to either admit or deny Request for Admission Nos. 1-42.” (Doc. 218 at 15-24.)

Under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] party may serve on any other party a written request to admit ... the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to: (A) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either, and; (B) the genuineness of any described documents.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(1). Rule 36(a)(4) provides: “If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it.” Under Rule 36(a)(6), a party may move to determine the sufficiency of an answer or objection. “Unless the court finds an objection justified, it must order that an answer be served.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(6); Stoneeagle, 2015 WL 12843844, at *1. However, “the Court cannot order a party to admit something it denies. That is a question for the trier of fact.” Carper v. Twc Servs. Inc., No. 11-60132-CIV, 2011 WL 13096631, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 10, 2011) (internal citation and alterations omitted).

*8 According to Defendants, Plaintiff “failed to serve compliant infringement contentions that provide specific details as to how Defendants purportedly infringe the Patents-In-Suit.” (Doc. 218 at 19.) Defendants claim they sought to “identify[ ] the boundaries of [Plaintiff's] amorphous infringement contentions” and obtain “narrow and specific admissions (or denials) from [Plaintiff] [at] the very heart of [Plaintiff's] infringement allegations” through their First Set of Requests for Admission.[6] (Id. at 19-20.) Defendants argue that “[d]iscovery requests seeking facts regarding a party's infringement allegations are proper.” See Arthrex, 2012 WL 12904172, at *4. To the extent Defendants seek to clarify Plaintiff's infringement contentions through the discovery process, Courts have allowed parties to update their discovery responses, particularly with non-infringement contentions once expert opinions on the matter have been rendered. Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC v. Linvatec Corp., No. 6:12-CV-1379-ORL-22, 2014 WL 186123, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 16, 2014) (“Once the expert opinions on invalidity are disclosed and analyzed, the invalidity issues may well narrow and change. Accordingly, requiring Bonutti to answer Interrogatory No. 16 now is likely to result in a waste of time and resources. With the benefit of the expert witness opinions, Bonutti should be able to more efficiently and meaningfully answer the interrogatory.”)

After reviewing Plaintiff's response to Defendants’ First Set of Requests for Admission (Request Nos. 1-32), the Court finds that Plaintiff's responses complied with the requirements of Rule 36. See Reilly v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 15-23425-CIV, 2016 WL 10646561, at *8 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 22, 2016) (“As long as a responding party's answer is adequate to satisfy the technical requirements of Rule 36, the court is not empowered to compel the responding party to change an answer to conform to the ‘truth’ or to any particular theory or other evidence.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The Court is unpersuaded by Defendants’ assertions that Plaintiff failed to admit or deny its requests given that Plaintiff denied most of the requests and provided detailed objections, while also admitting some of the requests in part. (See Doc. 218-10.) “In effect, Defendant[s] seek[ ] a different answer than the one provided, but ‘Rule 36(a) does not authorize a Court to prospectively render determinations concerning the accuracy of a denial to a Request for Admission, or to order that the subject matter of the request be admitted because the opposing party's unequivocal denial is asserted to be unsupported by the evidence.’ ” Reilly, 2016 WL 10646561, at *8. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion as to Plaintiff's responses to Request for Admission Nos. 1-32 is due to be denied. Nevertheless, to the extent Plaintiff's review of Defendants’ source code and Plaintiff's experts’ opinions have altered Plaintiff's original responses to Defendants’ Requests to Admit, Plaintiff shall supplement its responses. Bonutti, 2014 WL 186123, at *4.

In their Second Set of Requests for Admission, Defendants requested that Plaintiff admit or deny the authenticity of certain documents. (Doc. 218-11.) Defendants noted that “[p]rior to serving its Requests, Defendants attempted to reach a stipulation as to authenticity with [Plaintiff], but Plaintiff's counsel would not agree to a stipulation.” (Doc. 218 at 24.) However, Plaintiff responded that it was “willing to meet and confer with Defendants in order to reach a global agreement on the authenticity of documents.” (Doc. 218-11.) Given the parties’ representations about their willingness to stipulate to the authenticity of documents, the parties are instructed to meet and confer within seven days of this Order and make a good faith effort to reach an agreement on the authenticity of documents. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, then, within 14 days of this Order, Plaintiff shall supplement its responses to Defendants’ Second Requests for Admission. Swofford v. Eslinger, No. 6:08-cv-66-ORL-35DAB, 2009 WL 961115, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2009) (“To the extent the authenticity or provenance of a particular document is truly at issue, it may be the subject of a Request for Admission, with each document separately stated, as set forth in the Rules.”) (emphasis in the original).

IV. CONCLUSION

*9 In light of the legitimate concerns by Plaintiff and the well-reasoned arguments made in response to the Motion, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff was substantially justified and will deny Defendants’ request in the alternative that the Court strike Plaintiff's Infringement Contentions and award damages under Rule 37. See, e.g., Suboh v. Bellsouth Bus. Sys., Inc., No. 1:03-cv-0996-CC-CCH, 2004 WL 5550100, at *11 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 17, 2004) (declining to award attorney's fees because “[t]he Court conclude[d] that Defendant was, in part, substantially justified in refusing to produce some of the material requested by Plaintiff.”).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

DONE and ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida on May 9, 2019.

The parties are familiar with the facts in this case, therefore, they are not restated here in length.

While the Court notes that the Motion was filed four weeks before the close of discovery, the Court rejects Plaintiff's claim that the Motion was untimely where the discovery process has repeatedly stalled due to the parties’, including Plaintiff's, inability to resolve discovery disputes without judicial intervention, even after being reminded that “[d]iscovery in this district should be practiced with a spirit of cooperation and civility.” (See Doc. 184 at 3 (citing Middle District Discovery (2015) (internal quotations omitted)); see also Doc. 218-14 at 5-6.)

The Court overrules Plaintiff's objection that the number of interrogatories was improper. See Arthrex, Inc. v. Parcus Med., LLC, No. 2:11-cv-694-FTM-29SPC, 2012 WL 12904172, at *4 (M.D. Fla. June 25, 2012) (overruling a party's conclusory objection that the interrogatories exceeded the limit of 25 where the party failed to specifically demonstrate how the limit was exceeded). The Court also finds that Plaintiff failed to establish how these interrogatories violated Part IV.C.2 of the Handbook on Civil Discovery Practice for the Middle District of Florida and Rule 26(b)(1); the objection is conclusory and, thus, overruled. The Court also overrules, as conclusory, Plaintiff's objection that it would be required to create a record not in its business records.

Specifically, for “each system or machine” identified by Plaintiff in response to Defendants’ Interrogatory Nos. 20, 22, and/or 23, as well as for Plaintiff's 7000, 9000, and 500 Series machines, Defendants requested:

However, to the extent Plaintiff continues to assert any of these privileges, Plaintiff must provide Defendants with a privilege log in accordance with their Stipulation for Discovery and the Rules.

In their first Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 159), Defendants requested an order compelling Plaintiff to supplement or update its Preliminary Infringement Contentions (Doc. 63-3), while Plaintiff countered that it could not meaningfully update its contentions until Defendants produced additional discovery (Doc. 160 at 5.). The undersigned found that Defendants’ request was premature in light of the Court's order compelling Defendant to produce additional discovery, including relevant source code. (See Doc. 253.) To the extent the parties have raised their infringement and non-infringement contentions in their discovery motions, the Court will direct the parties to meet and confer in order to submit a joint notice to the Court as to their respective positions on amending their contentions.