*1 This matter is before this Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court's Omnibus Order and for Sanctions (“Motion to Compel Compliance”), ECF No. 98, and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Documents Improperly Withheld as Privileged and to Produce a Complaint Privilege Log (“Motion to Compel Documents”), ECF No. 112. The Honorable Aileen M. Cannon referred this case to the undersigned for all pretrial discovery. ECF. No. 110; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636; S.D. Fla. L.R., Mag. R. 1. Upon thorough and careful review of the record, the applicable law, the March 16, 2021 hearing that took place on the Motions, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Compliance, ECF No. 98, is GRANTED in part and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Documents, ECF No. 112, is DENIED as moot for the reasons set forth below.

I. Background

This action arises from a trademark infringement dispute where Marksman Security Corporation (“Plaintiff”) accuses P.G. Security Inc. and Cameron Underwood (“Defendants”) of infringing on its trademark by creating an Instagram page account that bore Plaintiff's name, as well as purchasing domain names similar to Plaintiff's that when accessed, sent consumers to Defendants’ website instead of Plaintiff's. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff brought its Motion to Compel Compliance because of Defendants’ alleged failure to comply with this Court's previous Omnibus Order, ECF No. 84, that dealt with several discovery issues. ECF No. 98. The main arguments raised in the Motion revolve around the scope or the definitions of the devices to be searched that the Parties agreed to in the Omnibus Order. ECF Nos. 84-1, 98. Plaintiff's second motion, the Motion to Compel Documents, alleges that Defendants have improperly withheld documents on the basis of privilege and have not provided a compliant privilege log. ECF No. 112. Defendants filed responses in opposition to both motions, and Plaintiff filed replies in support of both motions. ECF Nos. 106, 109, 113, 116. The Court held a hearing on both Motions on March 16, 2021. ECF No. 117.

II. Discussion

A. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Compliance

During the hearing, the Parties continued to work together to come to an amicable resolution to the Motion and agreed to the following:

Also, during the hearing, Plaintiff proposed that its forensic expert could confer with Defendants’ forensic expert to identify additional devices that may have additional information that can be searched. While the undersigned will not address devices outside of the Omnibus Order, Plaintiff's proposal may provide a more fruitful result as the experts are in a better position to be able to identify which devices may contain additional relevant information.

*2 In regard to Ms. Van Middlesworth's phone, the Omnibus Order is clear, any device that Ms. Van Middlesworth used to access the Instagram account is to be searched. Defendants have represented that the only device Ms. Van Middlesworth used to access the Instagram account was her laptop, which was searched pursuant to the Omnibus Order. Thus, Defendants complied with the Court's Order.

Plaintiff next points out that while Mr. Underwood's’ current phone was searched, the underlying allegations occurred in 2019 and Mr. Underwood could have had multiple phones within that time. The undersigned agrees. If Mr. Underwood had multiple phones after the date of the allegations, and if those devices exist and are within Defendants’ possession, then Defendants should have Mr. Underwood search those phones as ordered in the previous Omnibus Order.

The final issue in Plaintiff's motion involves text messages that were allegedly produced not in their native format and without the surrounding conversation. Plaintiff argues that Defendants have provided 101 text messages and have only provided the surrounding conversation to a limited number of the messages. Plaintiff argues that it needs the surrounding conversations to give the messages context and Defendants should not unilaterally decide which conversations require context. Defendants respond that they provided the surrounding conversation to the messages where the context of the conversation was not apparent. However, the meaning of some messages is apparent and does not require the surrounding conversation to provide context. Defendants maintain that this surrounding text is irrelevant and therefore need not be produced. The undersigned finds that Defendants are in the best position to determine which text message conversations require additional context and which do not, and therefore which texts require the surrounding conversation to be produced. However, if Plaintiff takes issue with any specific texts, then Plaintiff should notify Defendants and Defendants can determine whether the surrounding text is necessary for production.

Defendants’ response contends that they have provided some of the withheld documents and provided a compliant privilege log for others making the motion moot. ECF No. 106. During the hearing, Plaintiff confirmed that Defendants provided the documents and privilege log. Accordingly, the undersigned denies the second motion as moot.

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Compliance, ECF No. 98, is GRANTED in part as follows:

*3 Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion Compel Documents, ECF No. 112, is DENIED as moot. Further, no fees or sanctions shall be awarded in regard to either motion.

DONE and ORDERED at Fort Lauderdale, Florida this 19th day of March 2021.