*1 Presently before the Court is the Motion to Compel filed by Defendants DPAD Group, LLP (“DPAD”), John Manning (“Manning”) and Daniel Steele (“Steele”) (collectively, the “Defendants”). ECF No. 85. In the Motion to Compel, Defendants seek an Order from this Court requiring Plaintiff Profit Point Tax Technologies, Inc. (“PPTT”) to provide: (1) full and complete Rule 26(a) initial disclosures; (2) full and complete responses to identified responses to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents; and (3) an updates as to the status of responses to third party subpoenas issued by PPTT and the production of any responsive documents produced by the third parties to PPTT. Id. at 2.

PPTT filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion to Compel. ECF No. 94. In the Response, PPTT makes three arguments. First, PPTT has produced over 1,196 documents in this case. Second, PPTT's discovery responses are complete based on information currently available. Third, PPTT has complied with its obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 and has produced all of the documents that it has received in response to the third party subpoenas to date. Id. at 6 – 10. Furthermore, PPTT argues that the Motion to Compel has been rendered moot by PPTT's actions, service of Supplemental Responses and its significant production of documents in the weeks after the Motion to Compel was filed. Id. at 1. PPTT cites to substantial information and documentation that was provided between June 22, 2020 and July 7, 2020. Id. at 2 – 3.

Apparently still not completely satisfied, Defendants filed a Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Compel. ECF No. 97. Defendants make three narrowed arguments. First, they complain that PPTT continues to withhold documents, in particular as to Rockwater Energy. Id. at 1 – 3. Second, Defendants argue that PPTT refuses to supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 20. Id. at 3 – 4. Third, Defendants complain that it is unclear whether PPTT is withholding responsive documents information and documentation based on boilerplate objections. Id. at 4 – 5.

PPTT was granted leave to file a sur-reply brief. On July 16, 2020, PPTT filed a Sur-Reply Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Compel. ECF No. 98. In the Sur-Reply, PPTT states that it has produced the documents and information that Defendants seek to compel. Specifically, PPTT represents that on July 14, 2020, before Defendants filed their Reply Brief, PPTT served Defendants with the Rockwater Energy documents and a Second Supplemental Response in which it provided a “robust” Supplemental Answer to Interrogatory 20 concerning the Additional Company List. PPTT also addressed Defendants’ discovery deficiency letters dated June 2, 2020 and July 7, 2020. Id. at 1 - 4. PPTT further represents that it will continue to supplement its discovery responses as additional responsive documents are located. Id. at 4 – 5. Thus, PPTT asserts that the remaining three discovery issues complained of by Defendants in their Reply Brief have been resolved and are moot.

*2 As previously noted, federal courts have broad discretion in managing discovery. Alexander v. Roadway Express, Inc., No. 08-4591, 2009 WL 793022, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2009) (citing Sempier v. Johnson, 45 F.3d 724, 734 (3d Cir. 1995)). And while it is well recognized that the Federal Rules permit broad and liberal discovery, it is not without limits. Id. (citing Pacitti v. Macy's, 193 F.3d 766, 777 (3d Cir. 1999)); Huertas v. Beard, No. 1:10-cv-10, 2012 WL 3096430, at *2 (W.D. Pa. July 30, 2012)).

At the outset of consideration of the Motion to Compel presently before the Court, it is important to view Defendants’ complaints about PPTT's initial disclosures and discovery responses in the context of the dispute at issue. As set forth in the First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 27, the gist of PPTT's claims, is that, while acting as independent contractors for PPTT, Defendants usurped PPTT business and business profits by using PPTT's assets to solicit PPTT's clients and have kept all of the profits resulting from Defendants’ misconduct. As such, PPTT has asserted claims against Defendants for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, tortious interference with contractual relations, conversion, intentional misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. PPTT is aware of certain business that was usurped by Defendants and continues to try to determine whether other business or business opportunities were taken by Defendants.

The Court has conducted an exhaustive review of the Motion to Compel, the Response in Opposition, the Reply Brief in Support and the Sur-Reply Brief in Opposition, including the multitude of attachments including, but not limited to: the discovery responses, objections, letters, emails, and the supplemental responses and objections. Based on this review, it appears that the primary issues raised by Defendants in the Motion to Compel, and narrowed in the Reply Brief, have now been resolved by the parties and their counsel. Accordingly, the Motion to Compel is DENIED.

In light of the nature of PPTT's claims and continued investigation of Defendants’ conduct relative to usurping PPTT's business, there may be evidence that Defendants or third parties possess that PPTT subsequently discovers. There may also be evidence that Defendants discover that exonerates them from the alleged conduct. As such, all parties are reminded of the ongoing requirement to supplement their respective discovery responses.

Furthermore, as stated by the Court during the lengthy status conference on June 23, 2020, PPTT must make a rolling production of responsive documents provided by third parties in response to subpoenas within the three days of receipt. ECF No. 68 ¶ 10.

Finally, as also discussed during the status conference on June 23, 2020, counsel are again encouraged to engage in constructive conversations relative to addressing all discovery issues as they arise. If counsel are unable to do so, the Court will consider appointing a special master and each party will be required to pay half of such fees and costs. Id. ¶ 11.

In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rule 72.C.2 of the Local Rules of Court, the parties are allowed fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to file an appeal to the District Judge which includes the basis for objection to this Order. Any appeal is to be submitted to the Clerk of Court, United States District Court, 700 Grant Street, Room 3110, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Failure to file a timely appeal will constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.