San Juan Prods., Inc. v. River Pools & Spas, Inc.
San Juan Prods., Inc. v. River Pools & Spas, Inc.
2022 WL 2356968 (M.D. Fla. 2022)
June 30, 2022
JULIE S. SNEED, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Summary
The court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel the Defendants to respond to discovery requests. The court ordered the parties to meet and confer with each other's technology experts to confirm which emails were received and opened, as well as to identify and agree upon key words for subsequent searches. A discovery status conference was also ordered for August 2022.
Additional Decisions
SAN JUAN PRODUCTS, INC. and AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAINER CORP., Plaintiffs,
v.
RIVER POOLS & SPAS, INC., RIVER POOLS FRANCHISING, INC., THURSDAY POOLS LLC, JASON HUGHES, JIM SPIESS, CRISTIAN SHIRILLA, ALEX PLANES, MARCUS SHERIDAN and DOES 1- 10, Defendants
v.
RIVER POOLS & SPAS, INC., RIVER POOLS FRANCHISING, INC., THURSDAY POOLS LLC, JASON HUGHES, JIM SPIESS, CRISTIAN SHIRILLA, ALEX PLANES, MARCUS SHERIDAN and DOES 1- 10, Defendants
Case No: 8:21-cv-2469-TPB-JSS
United States District Court, M.D. Florida
June 30, 2022
Counsel
Matthew A. Newboles, Gregory K. Clarkson, Stetina Brunda Garred & Brucker, PC, Aliso Viejo, CA, Jay Stephen McClaugherty, Pro Hac Vice, McClaugherty & Associates, Monrovia, CA, Mark David Bowen, Dale Paul DiMaggio, Malin, Haley, DiMaggio & Bowen, PA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiffs.Christopher Albert Cazin, Michael E. Reed, Wicker Smith O'Hara McCoy & Ford PA, Tampa, FL, George Gasper, Pro Hac Vice, Ice Miller LLP, Indianapolis, IN, John A. Camp, McCarter & English, LLP, Coral Gables, FL, for Defendants River Pools & Spas, Inc., River Pools Franchising, Inc.
Kathy J. Maus, Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendant Thursday Pools LLC
JULIE S. SNEED, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ORDER
*1 Plaintiff San Juan Products, Inc. moves the court to compel Defendants River Pools & Spas, Inc., River Pools Franchising, Inc., and Thursday Pools LLC to respond to discovery requests pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. (Motion, Dkt. 55). The court held a hearing on the Motion on June 28, 2022. Upon consideration and for the reasons stated during the hearing:
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Dkt. 55) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
2. The scope of discovery concerning Plaintiff's Requests for Production is limited to one year prior to the date of the defamatory statements alleged in the complaint.
3. Plaintiff's Motion is granted as to Requests Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8 of Plaintiff's Requests for Production concerning Defendants River Pools & Spas, Inc. and River Pools Franchising, Inc. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.”).
4. Plaintiff's Motion is denied as to Requests Nos. 28, 38 of Plaintiff's Requests for Production concerning Defendants River Pools & Spas, Inc. and River Pools Franchising, Inc. Notwithstanding, the parties shall meet and confer with each other's technology experts regarding these requests to confirm which allegedly defamatory emails were received and opened.
5. Plaintiff's Motion is denied as to Requests Nos. 26, 27, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 45, 46 of Plaintiff's Requests for Production concerning Defendants River Pools & Spas, Inc. and River Pools Franchising, Inc. The parties shall meet and confer to identify and agree upon key words that may be utilized in subsequent searches to target the specific information requested.
6. Plaintiff's Motion is denied as to Request No. 9 of Plaintiff's Request for Production concerning Defendants River Pools & Spas, Inc. and River Pools Franchising, Inc. as it is neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of the case. See, e.g., Benz v. Crowley Logistics, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-728-J-25MCR, 2016 WL 11587289, at *3 (M.D. Fla. June 17, 2016) (concluding plaintiff had not met her initial burden of showing how the information sought is relevant to her claims); Jones v. Z.O.E. Enterprises of Jax, Inc., No. 3:11-CV-377-J-32MCR, 2012 WL 3065384, at *2 (M.D. Fla. July 27, 2012) (denying a motion to compel when the moving party failed to make an adequate initial showing of relevancy).
7. Plaintiff's Motion is denied as to Request No. 24 of Plaintiff's Requests for Production concerning Defendants River Pools & Spas, Inc. and River Pools Franchising, Inc. as the information requested is encompassed by Request Nos. 4–8, which Defendants River Pools & Spas, Inc. and River Pools Franchising, Inc. are now directed to produce.
8. Plaintiff's Motion is granted as to Request No. 32 of Plaintiff's Requests for Production concerning Defendants River Pools & Spas, Inc. and River Pools Franchising, Inc. Defendant shall produce responsive information related to the allegations in the complaint.
*2 9. Plaintiff's Motion regarding Defendant Thursday Pools LLC is denied as the Requests for Production at issue are neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of the case.
10. The court will hold a discovery status conference in this case in August 2022. The discovery status conference will be noticed in a separate order.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on June 30, 2022. Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record