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

I. BACKGROUND.

This case was originally filed in state court. Doc. No. 2. On December 27, 2018, CST filed an Amended Complaint which added Roadwire LLC (“Roadwire”) as a plaintiff and Katzkin Leather, Inc. (“Katzkin”) as a defendant. Doc. No. 35. The Amended Complaint alleges causes of action against Katzkin, including: 1) violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; 2) violation of Ohio's Deceptive Trade Practices Act; 3) tortious interference with a contractual relationship and business relationships; 4) inducing breach of loyalty and fiduciary duties; 5) intentional interference with employee/employer relations; 6) injurious falsehood; 7) attempted monopolization in violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act; and 8) violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030. Doc. No. 35. On April 5, 2019, a Second Amended Complaint was filed which alleges similar causes of action against Katzkin. Doc. No. 104.

On June 18, 2019, Roadwire filed a motion to compel document production from Katzkin (the “Motion”). Doc. No. 127. Roadwire seeks discovery of financial information from Katzkin that relates to its performance in several specific markets – the city of Orlando; the State of Florida; the city of Cincinnati; the State of Ohio; and a nationwide market. Id. Roadwire argues that the information it seeks to compel would show a pattern of anticompetitive behavior that adversely affects the relevant product market, and ultimately consumers, which would support its claim that Katzkin and the other Defendants worked in concert to grow market share at the expense of other competitors resulting in a harm to competition generally. Id. at 5-6. Roadwire argues that it alleges behavior that began before 2007 so that a ten year look back is necessary to capture a full picture of Katzkin's market participation. Id. Roadwire also argues that while this is merits discovery, it is appropriate while motions to dismiss are pending. Id. at 6-7.

On July 2, 2019, Katzkin filed a response to the Motion (“Response”) arguing that any financial information prior to 2015 is not relevant or proportional because the statute of limitations for a Sherman Act claim is four years and the earliest assertion of violative behavior on Defendants’ part is alleged to be 2015. Doc. No. 129. Katzkin also argues that any discovery is premature because motions to dismiss based on jurisdiction are pending and case law supports a stay in discovery until the motions to dismiss are resolved.[1] Id.

II. ANALYSIS.

*2 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “strongly favor full discovery whenever possible.” Farnsworth v. Procter & Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545, 1547 (11th Cir. 1985). “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). A party is entitled to the facts relevant to the litigation. Dunkin’ Donuts, Inc. v. Mary's Donuts, Inc., 206 F.R.D. 518, 520 (S.D. Fla. 2002). Motions to compel are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Comm. Union Ins. Co. v. Westrope, 730 F.2d 729, 731 (11th Cir. 1984).

The Sherman Act seeks to protect the public from the failure of the market, not individual actors within the market. Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447, 459 (1993). Section Two of the Sherman Act prohibits monopolization, attempted monopolization, and conspiracy to monopolize. 15 U.S.C. § 2. A plaintiff must prove “that the defendant has engaged in predatory or anticompetitive conduct with ... a specific intent to monopolize and a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power. Spectrum Sports, Inc., 506 U.S. at 456; Allyn v. Am. Bd. of Med. Specialties, Inc., No. 5:18-cv-355, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10805, at *14-15 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2019). A plaintiff must allege a relevant market which must be defined with a specific set of geographic boundaries and a narrow delineation of the product involved. Thompson v. Metropolitan Multi-List, Inc., 934 F.2d 1566, 1572 (11th Cir. 1991). “The requisite specific intent may be shown by direct evidence or inferred from the defendant's conduct.” Tyntec Inc. v. Syniverse Techs., LLC, No. 8:17-cv-591, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97914, at *16 (M.D. Fla. June 26, 2017) (citing U.S. Anchor Mfg., Inc. v. Rule Indus., Inc., 7 F.3d 986, 1001 (11th Cir. 1993)). An “antitrust plaintiff must show harm to competition in general, rather than merely damage to an individual competitor.” Spanish Broadcasting Sys. of Fla., Inc. v. Clear Channel Commc'ns, 376 F.3d 1065, 1069 (11th Cir. 2004).

A. Relevant and Proportional

The Second Amended Complaint alleges Defendants attempted to monopolize the national market for aftermarket leather interiors for cars, trucks, and sports utility vehicles in violation of the Sherman Act. Doc. No. 104 at 81. Plaintiffs allege that Katzkin had been engaged in illegal predatory and anticompetitive practices as far back as 1998, but the current illegal schemes which also involved the other Defendants began in approximately 2015. Doc. No. 104 at 2-5. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ illegal conduct is ongoing. Id. at 5. Plaintiffs specifically allege that this most recent monopolization scheme was prompted by Katzkin's unsatisfactory net income from 2007 to 2013. Id. at 3-4.

Upon review of the Second Amended Complaint, the Motion, the Response, and the pending motions to dismiss, the Court finds that requests 1-5 and 7 are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and proportional to the needs of the case. Requests 1-4 seeks financial information from Katzkin that relates to its performance in several specific markets – the city of Orlando; the State of Florida; the city of Cincinnati; the State of Ohio. Doc. No. 127 at 7, 10, 12, and 14. Request 5 seeks national sales figures from 2007-2017 for each market in which Katzkin is selling leather kits. Doc. No. 127 at 16. Request 7 seeks consolidated financial statements for Katzkin from 2007 to present. Doc. No. 127 at 21. Katzkin has provided the requested financial information from 2014 to 2018, and 2015 to 2017 for the consolidated financial statements, but argues that the four year statute of limitations precludes discovery of such information before 2014. Doc. Nos. 127 at 16, 21; 129. However, an antitrust plaintiff must prove that defendants engaged in predatory or anticompetitive conduct with an intent to monopolize and a dangerous probability of achieving this monopoly power. Spectrum Sports, Inc., 506 U.S. at 456. Plaintiffs have alleged that this most recent round of predatory and anticompetitive conduct was prompted by Katzkin's unsatisfactory net income from 2007 to 2013. Doc. No. 104 at 3-4. Plaintiffs also allege that Katzkin's predatory practices prior to 2015 were adopted by Defendants in a bid to push Roadwire, the only other competitor in the market, out of the market. Doc. No. 104 at 29, 79-84. Thus, the discovery sought is both relevant to the markets at issue and proportional.

B. Katzkin's Request for Sanctions

*3 Katzkin's Response includes five pages of argument regarding Roadwire's “clear fabrications,” “attempt[s] to mislead the Court,” and “Plaintiffs’ Continued History of Misrepresentations to the Court.” Doc. No. 129 at 11-15. Katzkin suggests that the Motion should be denied on this basis. Doc. No. 129 at 15. Katzkin argues that this “kind of conduct has to stop” and that the misrepresentations in the Motion “constitute a clear and direct violation of” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Doc. No. 129 at 15. For example, Katzkin argues that Roadwire “erroneously claims that Request No. 6 concerns ‘Katzkin's financial reports from specified markets (Dkt. 127 at 4) and that Katzkin has “not produced” responsive documents[’] (id. at 20). These statements are clear fabrications, and represent an attempt to mislead this Court.” (Emphasis added). Doc. No. 129 at 11-12.

A review of the Motion indicates that requests 1-5 and 7 concern financial reports from specified markets, and request 6 does not. Doc. No. 127. In one part of the Motion, Roadwire does indeed indicate that requests 1-7 relate to ‘Katzkin's financial reports from specified markets’ instead of making clear that request 6 relates to Katzkin's corporate by-laws. Doc. No. 127 at 4. However, the Motion also includes the text of request 6, Katzkin's full response to request 6, and Roadwire's argument with respect to disclosure of the corporate by-laws sought in request 6. Doc. No. 127 at 19-20. Having reviewed the Motion, there is clearly no confusion that request 6 relates to a request to produce Katzkin's corporate by-laws. And, having read the Motion and Response, there is clearly no confusion that request 6 was resolved on the eve of filing the Motion.[2] Doc. Nos. 127 and 129. Roadwire's representation was that “Katzkin has agreed to produce the requested documents at ‘a mutually agreeable time’ but has not produced them in compliance with Plaintiff's Rule 34 request.” Doc. No. 127 at 20. Katzkin's Response includes an email that was sent attaching documents responsive to certain requests, which included request 6, on June 17, 2019 at 12:24 p.m, the afternoon before the Motion was filed. Doc. No. 129-1 at 13.

Even a cursory review of these statements, and the context in which they were made, does not support Katzkin's assertion that Roadwire's representations are “clear fabrications” made in an attempt to “mislead the Court” that would in any way necessitate denial of the Motion. Further, Katzkin offers other examples of Plaintiffs’ alleged misrepresentations and malfeasance that have nothing to do with the Motion. Doc. No. 129 at 11-15. Katzkin's argument is not helpful to the resolution of the Motion, nor is it necessary.[3]

III. CONCLUSION.

*4 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion (Doc. No. 127) is GRANTED as follows:

DONE in Orlando, Florida on August 9, 2019.