*1 This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion:

The latest offensive in this ongoing discovery war among the remaining parties comes in the form of a Motion to Compel and for Sanctions including Default Judgment against Defendant Ross Albert (the “Renewed Motion for Sanctions”) filed by Plaintiff Classic Soft Trim, Inc. (“Classic”) that is part motion for reconsideration, part motion for sanctions, but oddly not part motion to compel.[1] Doc. No. 454. Rather than seeking enforcement of this Court's earlier order directing Albert to produce his current iPad for forensic imaging (Doc. No. 437) (the “Sanctions Order”), Classic is asking this Court to enter a default judgment against Albert for not submitting the iPad for imaging, despite Classic's acknowledgement that the information it seeks is definitely not on the iPad. Doc. No. 454 at 4. This leads to Classic's additional request that further spoliation sanctions be imposed on Albert for the destruction of “all” 2016 electronically stored information (“ESI”). Id. at 10. For his part, Albert, having a fresh chance to reargue the issue of submitting the iPad for forensic search, presents additional evidence that the iPad which was the subject of the Sanctions Order was not in use during the relevant time period so it should not have been ordered produced, and argues that Plaintiff Roadwire, LLC's departure from this case means the Sanctions Order can no longer be enforced. Doc. No. 459.

The Court has considered Classic's Renewed Motion for Sanctions, Albert's response to the Renewed Motion for Sanctions (Doc. No. 459), and this Court's previous discovery orders. For the following reasons, the Renewed Motion for Sanctions (Doc. No. 454) is DENIED:

1. Classic suffered no prejudice when Albert failed to comply with the Sanctions Order as Classic concedes there is no discoverable information on the iPad and Classic no longer seeks to compel Albert to disclose the iPad. Doc. No. 454 at 4, 9-10. Further, Classic's counsel ceased communicating with opposing counsel on routine topics of confidentiality and privilege, choosing instead to end communications and threaten sanctions rather than work to resolve the problem. Doc. No. 459-1 at 11, 13. Thus, any harm to Classic was self-inflicted. As such, the Court declines to award sanctions against Albert for his failure to submit the iPad for forensic imaging in compliance with the Sanctions Order;

*2 2. The lost data identified by Classic in its Renewed Motion for Sanctions was subsumed within this Court's prior Sanctions Order, the Court imposed sanctions on Albert for that loss, and Classic fails to present a compelling reason to revisit that decision or to impose any additional sanctions; and

3. Classic's argument that Albert's failure to reproduce documents during discovery in 2020 that were previously produced in discovery in 2018 proves Albert's nefarious destruction of “all” 2016 ESI (see Doc. No. 454 at 6-7, 9) is specious and unsupported by the record in this case.

DONE in Orlando, Florida on June 23, 2021.