*1 Pursuant to Judge Kearney's Order of January 5, 2022, by which I was appointed the designated discovery master under Fed.R.Civ.P. 53, I have reviewed the latest motion to be filed in the above captioned case, that is, Defendants’ Motion to Compel Allscripts to Answer Discovery (D.I. 419), as well as Plaintiffs’ memorandum in opposition to such motion (D.I. 422).

1. In this motion, Defendants seek documents regarding the finances of Plaintiff Allscripts Healthcare, LLC (“Allscripts”), to support Defendants’ requested award of punitive damages. Defendants also seek information regarding Allscripts’ contacts with a company called Northwell, to explore their relationship for evidence of control or bias. (D.I. 419 at 1)

2. With respect to the requested financial information, Defendants served its fifth set of requests for production (“RFP”) seeking detailed financial information specific to Allscripts Healthcare, LLC for 2020, 2021, and 2022.[1] Plaintiffs timely objected to these requests as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tied to the claims or defenses in this case. (D.I. 387)

3. More specifically as to RFP 1, Allscripts contends that its business encompasses products and services that have no bearing or relation to the claims or defenses asserted. Moreover, as a wholly-owned subsidiary of a publicly traded company called Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., Plaintiff Allscripts does not prepare financial statements in the form requested, and already provided substantial financial information about the business unit at issue. Likewise, with respect to RFP 2, documents sufficient to establish Allscripts'net worth, Allscripts responds that the information already produced about, inter alia, the products and business at issue, is “sufficient to show” net worth. RFP 3 requests documents containing financial information of Allscripts submitted to any financial institution or potential investor in the years 2020-2022 to date. Allscripts responds that such information does not exist, as it did not prepare and submit separate financials in connection with any such request. (D.I. 422)

4. Defendants argue in their motion that such information must exist (i.e., Allscripts must keep separate statements of its revenue), because Allscripts’ corporate representative “testified at deposition regarding the annual revenue of Allscripts and confirmed that she was providing revenue for Allscripts and not the parent corporation.” (D.I. 419) According to Allscripts, however, “just because [the deponent] was able to provide her understanding of [Allscripts’ annual revenue], does not mean the specifically requested reports exist. They do not, and Defendants know from reviewing and questioning Allscripts’ witnesses about Allscripts’ public filings that Allscripts does not report its financials in the manner Defendants wish they were reported.” (D.I. 422 at 2) As noted by Plaintiffs, Defendants did not request the information in an interrogatory but first through a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition and the RFPs at issue.

*2 5. I note that the relevance of a party's net worth to establish the amount of punitive damages has not been contested by Plaintiffs. Rather, the issue presented through the papers is whether the specific information that Defendants requested through their fifth set of RFPs numbered 1-3 can be produced without undue burden (because it does not exist in the format requested in the ordinary course of business), or whether such information exists at all. I am not convinced that the financial information requested by Defendants exists as requested. The fact that the corporate representative gathered sufficient information to answer questions helpfully does not prove that more extensive and detailed information is readily available in the ordinary course.

6. Defendants suggest that, if Allscripts’ position had merit, it should be willing to sign a declaration that “responsive documents are not in their possession or control.” (D.I. 419 at 5) Allscripts responds that Defendants actually requested Allscripts to aver that “the financials data (e.g., revenue, costs, profits) for Allscripts are the same as for its parent company, Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc.. Allscripts cannot provide this declaration because that statement is not accurate.” (D.I. 422) In other words, the Parties are past trying to accommodate each other or the Court in this regard. Despite the fact that Allscripts could have provided a declaration to clarify matters and declined to do so, I am still not persuaded by the deposition testimony that Allscripts maintains the requested financial information in the format requested.

7. Defendants’ interrogatory numbered 39 asks Plaintiffs to “[i]dentify all contracts between Northwell and any Allscripts entity, including identifying which Allscipts entity signed each contract.” Defendants argue that their intent through this interrogatory is to get information “regarding Allscripts’ entire relationship with Northwell, to determine the extent of Allscripts’ influence over Northwell.” (D.I. 419 at 5) Plaintiffs objected on the grounds that such an interrogatory was overly broad and unduly burdensome. In this regard, Plaintiffs argue that there are multiple agreements and business dealings with Northwell that are not related to the claims and defenses in this case, and that are not located in any centralized location. Moreover, Defendants have had access to Allscripts’ documents responsive to Defendants’ claims, as well as to Northwell documents and witnesses. (D.I. 422 at 4-5)

8. Once again, Plaintiffs do not dispute that “[a] party's relationship with a third party is relevant to a defamation claim.” (D.I. 419 at 5) The issue at bar is whether the breadth of the information requested is reasonably related to Defendants’ need of such information to prove the relationship when weighed against the burden on Plaintiffs to provide the information. When the discovery already taken in this regard is seen in light of the admissions by Allscripts that Northwell is Allscripts’ largest customer (see, e.g., D,I. 422 at 5), I find that the discovery requested is not reasonably related to Defendants’ need for such information, and unduly burdensome for Plaintiffs to collect and produce.

THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED this 6th day of May, 2022, that:

1. Defendants’ Motion to Compel Allscripts to Answer Discovery (D.I. 419) be denied.

2. As per Judge Kearney's January 5, 2022 Order, the Parties have 24 hours to submit objections not exceeding five pages to this recommended order.