*1 Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Second Renewed Motion for Sanctions (Doc. #354). The Court, being duly advised of the premises, grants in part and denies in part said motion.

A court may impose sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A) for discovery violations pursuant to inherent authority. This inherent power also “includes the discretionary ability to fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.” Sherman v. Rinchem Co., Inc., 687 F.3d 996, 1006 (8th Cir. 2012). The analysis associated with the exercise of inherent authority is “relatively unstructured,” such that “the better practice is to apply Rule 37 where appropriate and not allow an exercise of inherent power to obscure the Rule 37 analysis.” Sentis Grp., Inc., Coral Grp., Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., 559 F.3d 888, 900 (8th Cir. 2009). Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 provides for sanctions based on a party's failure to obey discovery orders.

In this case, the Court has repeatedly issued discovery orders, particularly with respect to Defendant Engage Mobile Solutions, Inc. Most recently, the Court ordered Engage to produce to Plaintiffs the following categories of discoverable material: (a) zipped Trello file; (b) native export from Harvest; (c) Jira attachments, including the attachments' associated card; (c) productions relative to third-party subpoenas served on Nathan Haley and Liz Corbin; (e) Dropbox and Skype files; and (f) Google drive documents and/or pointer files. (Doc. #327). On February 21, 2017, consistent with the Court's constant refereeing of this litigation, the Court emailed the parties to inquire about the status of discovery with respect to the categories identified. The same categories are also the basis of the instant motion, which was fully briefed on February 6, 2017. (Docs. #354, #367 & #375).

(a) Zipped Trello

Engage does not dispute that it did not turn over the zipped Trello file in its entirety. Engage's failure to produce the zipped Trello file to Plaintiffs by February 20, 2017 is a basis for sanctions.

(b) Native Export from Harvest

Engage represented that its January 23, 2017 supplemental productions fully complied with the Court's order; however, the parties agree that there remains “80 hours of time in WRI-Corp[orate]” that Engage has yet to produce. This admitted failure to comply with the Court's order is a basis for sanctions.

(c) Jira Attachments

The parties agree that production of this category is complete.

(d) Productions Under Third-Party Subpoenas

The parties agree that production relative to the subpoena issued to Liz Corbin is complete. Engage asserts that it produced outstanding documents relative to the subpoena issued to Nathan Haley out of time. This late production is a basis for sanctions.

(e) Dropbox and Skype

The parties agree that production of Dropbox files is complete. To the extent Plaintiffs assert that all Skype files have not been produced, the Court relies on Engage's representation that Skype files have been produced through the agreed-upon third-party neutral to the extent these files are available.

(f) Google Drive / Pointer Files

*2 The Court relies on Engage's representation that it supplemented its production under this category on December 22, 2016, and production under this category is complete. To the extent that Engage has inadvertently failed to produce certain discovery within this category, the Court points to the continuing obligation to supplement discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).

These six discovery categories relate only to the most recent discovery dispute. However, the state of discovery with respect to these six categories is representative of ongoing discord between Plaintiffs and Engage about what the Court's orders mean. With respect to the findings above, Engage was instructed to produce certain categories of evidence by a particular date, and by its own admission, failed to do so. Although the Court is mindful of the nature of this case and the type of discovery at issue, Engage has previously failed to timely comply with discovery orders, thus justifying sanctions at this stage. Therefore, it is the Court's intent to fashion an appropriate sanction against Engage that reflects the entirety of counsels' conduct between February 22, 2016 (the date upon which the Court limited the scope of discovery) and the date of this order. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED Plaintiffs' Second Renewed Motion for Sanctions (Doc. #354) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is granted to the extent Plaintiffs assert that imposition of sanctions against Engage is warranted. The motion is denied, at least at this point, with respect to the type and amount of sanctions to be assessed against Engage. It is further

ORDERED Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation and Violations of Court Orders (Doc. #305) shall remain pending. The Court construes this renewed motion to subsume the arguments encapsulated in Plaintiff's previous sanctions motions (Docs. #204, #213, & #217), such that these previously-filed motions for sanctions are DENIED AS MOOT. It is further

ORDERED Plaintiffs' Motion for Hearing (Doc. #220) on the motions for sanctions is DENIED, though the Court does not foreclose the possibility of an evidentiary hearing related to Plaintiffs' renewed motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence, in the event the Court deems such a hearing necessary and appropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.