*1 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Response to Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production of Documents, ECF No. 98, and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Responses to Second Set of Interrogatories and Second Request for Production, ECF No. 97. Having carefully reviewed the Motions, the Responses and Replies thereto, the argument of counsel at September 1, 2021, and September 3, 2021 hearings, the Court file, and applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the undersigned hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motions as outlined below.

At the outset, the Court notes that attorneys “have a duty to deal honestly and fairly with opposing counsel .... Our judicial machinery is dependent upon the full support of all members of the bench and bar. Advocacy does not include ‘game playing.’ ” Pesaplastic, C.A. v. Cincinnati Milacron Co., 799 F.2d 1510, 1522–23 (11th Cir. 1986). Specifically with regard to discovery, “Rule 26(g) imposes an affirmative duty to engage in pretrial discovery in a responsible manner that is consistent with the spirit and purposes of Rules 26 through 37.” Advisory Committee Note, Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 (1983). Indeed, “[t]his Court fully expects all parties to this action to honor their [discovery] agreements and will not permit any party, absent a proper showing, to break such agreements.” In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litig., 2000 WL 33180835, at *2 (C.D. Ill. July 19, 2000). A “request for documents ... shall be read or interpreted reasonably in recognition that the attorney serving it generally does not have knowledge of the documents being sought and the attorney receiving the request ... generally does have such knowledge or can obtain it from the client.” Discovery Practices Handbook, Section III.A.(3), cited in Zamber v. Am. Airlines, Inc., Case No. 16-23901-CIV-MARTINEZ/GOODMAN, 2017 WL 5202748, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 17, 2017).

On February 4, 2021, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ initial Motion to Compel Production of Documents, ECF No. 48. The undersigned, as explained at the hearing, granted the Motion in part, ordering that production go forward and that the Parties meet and confer regarding outstanding discovery issues. ECF No. 60. Initially, discovery appeared to proceed apace and without issue, so much so that this Court, with the Parties’ agreement, found no need to continue its regularly scheduled discovery conferences in the matter.

However, the honeymoon would not last, and the undersigned finds himself in the unenviable position of having to mediate what might be generously called a misunderstanding that has presented itself near the close of the discovery period. Plaintiffs now assert that although Defendants agreed to produce documents for tenants at all 65 class member malls, they have instead unilaterally limited production to only three malls while misrepresenting to Plaintiffs that the production was backloaded to prevent Plaintiffs from uncovering their discovery misconduct. ECF No. 98 at 2. Defendants, on the other hand, claim that Plaintiffs have known, or at least should have known, since January 2021 that the class, by Plaintiffs’ own definition and this Court's Order, was limited to three properties. ECF No. 102 at 2

*2 Defendants appear to have, at least initially, taken the position that because the Court in its Order referred to M.S. Management, the Court limited discovery to just three malls and relieved Defendants of any other discovery obligations. Plaintiffs contend that no reasonable attorney would interpret this Court's February Order as in any way limiting the scope of discovery in this case or limiting the discovery agreed to separately by the Parties. Following a contentious hearing during which the undersigned expressed significant skepticism at Defendants’ argument, Defendants have subsequently agreed to produce the requested documents posthaste. The undersigned is appreciative of the efforts of both Parties to belatedly resolve this issue amicably, but nonetheless finds it necessary to sanction Defendants for what has amounted to an impermissible delay in discovery.

This Court reminds counsel that, as written in the Introduction to the Local Rules of this Court, “it is a fundamental tenet of this Court that attorneys in this District be governed at all times by a spirit of cooperation, professionalism, and civility.... [I]t remains the Court's expectation that counsel will seek to accommodate their fellow practitioners ... whenever reasonably possible and that counsel will work to eliminate disputes by reasonable agreement to the fullest extent permitted by the bounds of zealous representation and ethical practice.” If at any point there is any question in either Party's mind about either the letter or the spirit of their obligations, counsel should immediately confer with opposing counsel openly and forthrightly. The undersigned fully expects the Parties henceforth to govern themselves accordingly.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:

DONE and ORDERED at Fort Lauderdale, Florida this 3rd day of September, 2021.