*1 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Smithfield Packaged Meats Sales Corp.'s Motion to Compel (ECF 130) filed December 11, 2020. On December 21, 2020, Defendant Dietz & Watson, Inc., filed their Response to the Motion to Compel (ECF 132). Smithfield filed its Reply to the Response (ECF 137) on December 22, 2020. Defendant Chris Conrad did not file a Response to the Motion. A Status Conference with counsel was held on December 22, 2020, including oral argument on the Motion to Compel, and review of ongoing discovery issues. See ECF 135. After hearing oral arguments and reviewing the parties' filings, the Court grants in part and denies in part Smithfield's Motion to Compel.

Smithfield's Motion to Compel (ECF 130) requests that the Court order Dietz & Watson to provide discovery responses and supplement previous discovery responses for client information originated or maintained by Dietz & Watson through the present day. The Motion also asks the Court to compel Dietz & Watson to produce documents as previously agreed between the parties, including some that will be produced by January 8, 2021. Smithfield also asks the Court to compel Dietz & Watson to respond to Interrogatories Nos. 17 and 18 and requests an award of fees and costs associated with bringing this Motion to Compel.

Dietz & Watson resists the Motion to Compel, arguing Smithfield's request for information it generated through the present day is an “amorphous and interminable date,” so that the discovery requests are overbroad and not proportional to the needs of the case. ECF 132 at 3; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Dietz & Watson affirms that many of the documents it identified as “will produce” documents in its “meet-and-confer” exchanges with Smithfield have already been produced, and the remainder will be produced no later than January 8, 2021. Dietz & Watson also argues Interrogatory Nos. 17 and 18 are improper and not relevant to the present action because these interrogatories are an attempt to police an injunction entered in this case (ECF 45, entered on April 7, 2020; modified at ECF 82 on July 24, 2020) that applies only to Defendant Conrad, not Dietz & Watson. Dietz & Watson also requests an award of costs and fees incurred opposing Smithfield's Motion to Compel.

Smithfield's Motion to Compel (ECF 130) is granted in part and denied in part. Dietz & Watson shall produce responsive material and information which it originated or had between October 25, 2019, thru June 29, 2020. The Court finds, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b), Smithfield's request to compel production of Dietz & Watson material it had after June 29, 2020, is overbroad and not proportional to the needs of the case. Dietz & Watson also has until January 8, 2021, to produce discovery material in response to pending requests. The Court also finds Smithfield's Interrogatories Nos. 17 and 18 are overbroad and not proportional to the needs of this case. Dietz & Watson shall produce any discoverable information it generated or held between October 25, 2019, and June 29, 2020, regarding Dietz & Watson employees who had professional contact with the four entities Smithfield identified as the primary basis for its damages claims. Neither party is awarded costs or fees because such an award is not just, as each party was pursuing in good faith discovery or limitations it believed were substantially justified. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5).

*2 During the hearing on the Motion to Compel, and in discussion regarding the status of the case, the parties again raised issues related to the scope of discovery for Dietz & Watson electronically stored information (ESI) and what ESI is subject to search. Discussions regarding search terms and keywords continue. Smithfield proposed that a search of all Dietz & Watson's ESI should include the terms “Smithfield,” “Kretschmar,” and “Conrad.” Dietz & Watson disagrees with this approach as overbroad and not proportional to the needs of the case. Dietz & Watson proposed that any ESI subject to a keyword search should be “guided by the regular course of discovery,” with some threshold showing that Smithfield's information was stored or saved in a particular application or area, to limit the disclosure to Smithfield of proprietary Dietz & Watson material. The parties cannot agree as to the scope for searching ESI, but continue the meet-and-confer process; this issue needs to be resolved, and document discovery completed. The parties are focused on keyword searches and have been instructed to explore TAR (technology assisted review), predictive coding, or other appropriate methodology.

The parties have until December 30, 2020, to define and agree on ESI search terms and keywords, or other appropriate methodology. If the parties cannot agree on the scope of the keywords or methodology, they shall promptly file a Joint Agenda requesting the Court's assistance to resolve the impasse; if the parties agree Court intervention is needed, the Court will set a hearing before the January 26, 2021 Status Conference, and require the parties' technology consultants to attend in order to gain a better understanding of this issue. Dietz & Watson's ESI discovery search shall apply to material it managed or generated between October 25, 2019, and June 29, 2020, and include searches of ESI from Dietz & Watson employees who worked within the same sales division, or were responsible for any shared sales territory with Defendant Conrad. ESI searched shall include the personal files, network spaces, cloud storage, and any other location for ESI data Dietz & Watson maintains, including any corporate Share Drive used and accessed by sales representatives to store client and potential client information and data. The Court recognizes and appreciates Dietz & Watson's concerns regarding protection of its proprietary information. But the parties' Joint Protective Order, appropriate use of Confidential designations, and counsel's professional duties and obligations in addition to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence, are adequate safeguards to ensure all confidential and proprietary information maintains its protected status and is not misappropriated because it was produced in discovery in this case.

A Status Conference is set for 11:00 a.m. on January 26, 2021. Counsel shall call 866-590-5055 and dial 7013731. The parties shall file a Joint Agenda by 4:00 p.m. on January 22, 2021. The Discovery Deadline remains set as June 1, 2021. The Dispositive Motion Deadline remains set as July 1, 2021. The Final Pretrial Conference remains scheduled for 11:00 a.m. on November 2, 2021, before the Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger at the United States Courthouse in Council Bluffs, Iowa. A 10-day jury trial is scheduled to begin at the United States Courthouse in Council Bluffs, Iowa before the Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger on December 6, 2021.

IT IS SO ORDERED.