*1 THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 212) and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Respondent to Produce Actual Damages or Dismiss its Motion for Contempt (ECF No. 221). These matters were referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and the Magistrate Rules of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida, by the Honorable Federico A. Moreno for all proceedings supplementary (ECF No. 220). Having considered the motions, Defendant's responses, the underlying record, a hearing held on January 24, 2020, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Court DENIES both motions for the reasons below.[1]

In Petitioner's Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 212) Inversiones Y Procesadora Tropical Inprotsa, S.A. (“Inprotsa”) seeks an order compelling from Del Monte International GMBH's (“Del Monte”) information about its sales and business practices. Specifically Inprotsa moves to compel the deposition of a designated corporate representative, the deposition of Rodrigo Jimenez, the production of documents identified in its Request for Production of Documents, and to enlarge the discovery period. Inprotsa avers that the discovery it seeks is required so that it may show cause as to why it should not be held in contempt as ordered by the Court. It seeks such information to prove that Del Monte has not been damaged, which it claims is a key element of finding contempt. In its response in opposition, Del Monte argues that the Court permitted discovery only into the proceedings supplementary but not into the contempt proceeding; moreover, Del Monte avers that the information sought by Inprotsa is not relevant to that contempt proceeding because the compensatory fine should be based not on its own lost sales but rather should be calculated by the total sales revenue derived by Inprotsa from prohibited sales.

In its Motion to Compel Respondent to Produce Evidence of Actual Damages or Dismiss its Motion for Contempt (ECF No. 221) Inprotsa similarly moves to compel Del Monte to produce actual damages it sustained as a result of Inprotsa's alleged contemptuous actions or to dismiss its Motion for Contempt. Del Monte again responded averring that Del Monte's damages are not relevant based on the Court's ruling and therefore it should not be compelled to produce any evidence relating thereto.

The thrust of both of Motions is to compel evidence of Del Monte's damages suffered as a result of Inprotsa's contemptuous behavior and both Motions are premised on Inprotsa's insistence that any order of contempt in this case must be reflective of Del Monte's injuries. Del Monte however does not advance any loss theory based on lost sales; Del Monte represented at the hearing that there are no documents or information on which it intends to rely to prove losses which have not yet been turned over to Inprotsa. Because Del Monte will not advance argument or evidence to show that its sales actually suffered as a result of Inprotsa's conduct, the discovery into Del Monte's sales is not relevant for the reason proffered. While Del Monte disputes Inprotsa's right to seek this information under the Court's order allowing discovery into the proceedings supplementary, the Court need not reach that issue upon finding that the discovery is not relevant for the proffered purposes. Accordingly, and as stated at the hearing, both motions to compel are DENIED.

*2 Where a motion to compel or avoid discovery is denied, the court “must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the movant, the attorney filing the motion, or both to pay the party or deponent who opposed the motion its reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including attorney's fees” unless “the motion was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B). Now that these motions have been decided, the issue of fees is ripe.

Del Monte may present an application for its expenses incurred in the opposition of this Motion by no later than March 20, 2020 by filing a notice (not a motion) of expenses incurred, including as appropriate time records, and any other support as may be required. Any award of fees pursuant to Rule 37 will be limited to that which is reasonably expended; if a fee applicant does not exercise billing judgment by excluding excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary hours, then the court must do it for him. Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ga. v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423, 428 (11th Cir. 1999)(“it is as much the duty of courts to see that excessive fees and expenses are not awarded as it is to see that an adequate amount is awarded.”)

Inprotsa may respond and object both to an award of any expenses under Rule 37, and more specifically to the reasonableness of the expenses demanded; those objections shall also satisfy the specificity required by Local Rule 7.3. Any such responsive memorandum to the notice shall be filed on or before April 3, 2020.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this 10th day of March 2020.