*1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and the district judge's Orders of Reference, before the Court for determination are several discovery-related motions.[1] For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing held on May 25, 2022:

The Company's Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Order Granting Motion to Compel and Awarding Fees, Doc. 104, warrants some discussion. The Company argues in its motion that Defendant cannot use the so-called Bedrock documents to establish a post-hoc retaliation claim and, thus, the requested documents are irrelevant. Doc. 104 at 6-7. Even accepting this argument, however, production of responsive information is warranted in this instance. Specifically, although the Company raised a number of objections to the discovery requests in question, it nevertheless produced a trove of responsive documents. See Doc. 68-2 at 5-8, 22-23 (RFP 3: “Subject to the foregoing objections, the Company has produced responsive documents” and, in their supplemental response, “the Company states that it is not withholding non-privileged, responsive documents.”; RFP 8: “In further response, the Company states that has [sic] produced responsive documents. The Company it [sic] is not withholding non-privileged, responsive documents.”; RFP 9: “In further response, the Company has produced responsive documents for the time period of May 1, 2016 to present. Subject to this temporal scope, the Company states that it is not withholding non-privileged, responsive documents.”; Interrogatory 4: “In further response, the Company has produced responsive documents in lieu of a written response. The Company is not withholding non-privileged, responsive documents.”).

Indeed, the parties' correspondence confirms that the Company has produced thousands of documents related to the Bedrock transaction. See Doc. 68-2 at 164 (11/8/2021 letter from counsel for the Company stating they have “already produced approximately 10,293 documents, which are mostly related to the Bedrock Sale” and “continued to produce more documents.”); Doc. 68-2 at 149-50 (1/18/2022 letter from counsel for the Company stating they “agreed to, and already produced, thousands of pages of documents related to Bedrock, the sale of product to Bedrock, and the Bedrock acquisition.”). The Company cannot selectively respond to discovery requests by cherry-picking the documents they wish to produce and then assert that other, potentially responsive documents are irrelevant. Cf. Varel v. Banc One Cap. Ptrs., Inc., No. CA3:93-CV-1614-R, 1997 WL 86457, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 1997 (Boyle, J.) (“[C]ourts treat any disclosure of confidential information as a waiver of the attorney-client privilege as to all communications relating to the same subject matter.”).

*2 At the hearing held in this matter, the parties further disputed the Company's ability to generate targeted reports from its Phocas and SPS databases. Defendant's evidence, however, appears to show the databases are readily searchable and can generate individualized reports. See Doc. 111 & attached exhibits. What's more, the Company's IT Process Improvement Manager averred that both sales reports and purchase order detail reports could be exported from Phocas and/or SPS. Doc. 104-4 (Decl. of Adriana Chavez). There is no apparent basis for the Company to thereafter concatenate or cross-check the reports as Chavez suggests.

For these same reasons explained supra, the Company's Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Order Granting Motion to Compel and Awarding Fees, Doc. 104, is DENIED.[2] The Court will address Defendant's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Doc. 109, in due course.

SO ORDERED on June 1, 2022.