*1 Plaintiff Profit Tax Technologies, Inc. (“PPTT”) filed this action against Defendants DPAD Group, LLP (“DPAD”), John Manning (“Manning”), and Daniel Steele (“Steele”) (collectively, “Defendants”) on June 14, 2019. (ECF No. 1). Discovery commenced on March 23, 2020. (ECF Nos. 36 and 37). PPTT filed a Motion to Compel on December 3, 2020 (ECF No. 129), and the motion was referred to Special Master Michael J. Betts on December 7, 2020 (ECF No. 132). After briefing on the Motion to Compel concluded, Special Master Betts issued a December 22, 2020 Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the Motion to Compel (ECF No. 129) be denied without prejudice, and the parties’ respective requests for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs be denied. (ECF No. 137).

PPTT filed Objections on January 12, 2021. (ECF No. 139). While it agrees that the Court should adopt the portion of Special Master Betts’ relevancy determination concerning the documents which Defendants allegedly failed to produce, it argues that the Court should reject the conclusion that Defendants had no obligation to preserve documents prior to the inception of this lawsuit. They believe that the destruction of documents coupled with the “circumstantial evidence of hundreds of responsive documents produced by third parties warrants a forensic audit.” (ECF No. 139, p. 11). Defendants filed a Response to PPTT's Objections on January 25, 2021. (ECF No. 146). They note that they have not “deleted or destroyed any documents or communications relevant to this case in any manner whatsoever [...].” (ECF No. 146, p. 2). They fault PPTT for submitting “new evidence” in its Objections, and argue that it does not further its claims. Lastly, Defendants submit that the evidence demonstrates that they conducted a thorough, comprehensive and reliable search for the documents at issue. (ECF No. 146, p. 2). Defendants request that the Court adopt Special Master Betts’ Report and Recommendation in its entirety. (ECF No. 146, p. 2).

After its independent de novo review of the entire record, including the pleadings at issue and the parties’ respective arguments, the Court hereby DENIES PPTT's Objections (ECF No. 139) and ADOPTS Special Master Betts’ Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 137) as its opinion. The Court agrees with the analysis of the issues and legal conclusions reached by Special Master Betts. His analysis is in concert with how the Court analyzed the issues and reached its decision in its de novo review. At this particular juncture, the Court will not grant a forensic audit of Defendants’ computer system. However, the Court is fully aware of a separate dispute percolating before Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly regarding emails exchanged between Defendants and/or third parties that were received by Plaintiff's counsel in late October or early November, and that Plaintiffs may file a motion seeking a forensic examination of DPAD's computer system. (ECF No. 147). The Court views that as an entirely separate discovery dispute from the discovery dispute at issue herein.

*2 AND NOW, this 27th day of January 2021, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that PPTT's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 129) is DENIED without prejudice. The parties’ respective requests for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs is DENIED.