*1 This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court, and Standing Order 13-02.

Now before the Court is Plaintiff's Fifth Motion to Compel [Doc. 154]. Because the parties had not participated in a meet and confer to address the issues raised in the motion, the Court ordered [Doc. 155] the parties to meet and confer and file a joint status report regarding the results thereof. The parties participated in several meet and confer meetings and were able to resolve the issues raised in the motion, except Plaintiff's request for financial statements and trial balances.

Specifically, at dispute is Plaintiff's Request for Production (“RFP”) No. 3, and Defendants' response thereto, which state as follows:

Plaintiff has agreed to modify RFP No. 3 to the four (4) years prior to the filing of the Complaint. Plaintiff also states that RFP No. 3 is limited to the financial statements and trial balances for Defendants that were operating the business during 2016 to the present—that is, Prairie Technology, LLC, and Big Truck Parts, LLC. Plaintiff asserts that these documents are relevant to damages, which includes Defendants' sales, expenses, and profits.

Defendants respond [Doc. 181] that they objected to RFP No. 3 because the Complaint alleges trade dress infringement with respect to four (4) discrete products, all of which are day cab conversion kits. Defendants state, however, that they manufacture, sale, and distribute over six hundred (600) different products. Defendants state some of the products are completely separate from day cab conversion kits or components.

Defendants explain that they have produced all invoices for every single sale for the four (4) specific conversion cab products at issue in this case for the years 2008 through 2021, and they have also produced total compiled sales figures for those products at issue for the period of January 8, 2017, through January 21, 2022. Defendants state that Plaintiff has every single sales record for each and every sale Defendants have made of the specific products involved in this lawsuit since 2008. Defendants state that this information was produced to Plaintiff on or about January 13, 2022. Defendants assert that they have also produced all federal tax returns for Defendant Big Truck Parts, LLC, from 2016 to 2020, pursuant to the Court's Order [Doc. 167]. Defendants argue that RFP No. 3 seeks company-wide information, which is not relevant given that there are only four (4) products at issue.

In addition, Defendants state that they do not have profit and loss financial statements specific to the individual products at issue or trial balances with respect to the manufacturing and production of the specific products. Defendants explain that all accounting is on a company-wide basis, encompassing the entire catalogue of products that are manufactured, produced, and sold by Defendants.[1] Defendants argue that Plaintiff's request should be denied.

*2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides as follows:

Courts have explained that the “scope of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is traditionally quite broad.” Meredith v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., 319 F.R.D. 240, 242 (N.D. Ohio 2017) (quoting Lewis v. ACB Bus. Serv., Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 402 (6th Cir. 1998)). Courts have cautioned, however, that “[d]iscovery requests are not limitless, and parties must be prohibited from taking ‘fishing expeditions’ in hopes of developing meritorious claims.” Bentley v. Paul B. Hall Reg'l Med. Ctr., No. 7:15-CV-97-ART-EBA, 2016 WL 7976040, at *1 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 14, 2016). “[T]he [C]ourt retains the final discretion to determine whether a discovery request is broad or oppressive.” Id. (citing Surles v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 474 F.3d 288, 305 (6th Cir. 2007)).

The Court finds that Defendants' company-wide financial statements and trial balances are not relevant or proportional to the needs of this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Plaintiff submits that the information is relevant because it goes to damages. In the instant lawsuit, Plaintiff has alleged violations of the Lanham Act and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Under the Lanham Act, a prevailing plaintiff is entitled to recover (1) defendant's profits, (2) any damages sustained by the plaintiff, and (3) the costs of the action. 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). “In assessing profits the plaintiff shall be required to prove defendant's sales only; defendant must prove all elements of cost or deduction claimed.” 15 U.S.C. § 1117. Similarly, under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, a plaintiff is entitled to recover actual damages if a violation is found. Tenn. Ann. Code § 47-18-109(a)(1). Defendants' company-wide financial information will not establish Defendants' profits on the four (4) products at issue or establish Plaintiff's actual damages, and therefore, the Court finds RFP No. 3 seeks irrelevant information that is not proportional to the needs to this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Accordingly, the Court finds Defendants' production is sufficient, and the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [Doc. 154].

IT IS SO ORDERED.