*1 This matter is before this Court on Defendant's Motion for Protective Order, ECF No. 236. The Honorable Robin L. Rosenberg referred the instant motion to the undersigned for appropriate disposition. ECF No. 240; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636; S.D. Fla. L.R., Mag. R. 1. Upon thorough and careful review of the record, the applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the undersigned DENIES Defendant's Motion, ECF No. 236, for the reasons set forth below.

I. Background

100 Plus Animal Rescue Inc. and Amy Roman (“Plaintiffs”) brought this defamation action against Darcy Butkus (“Defendant”) alleging that Defendant routinely engaged in defamatory conduct harmful to Plaintiffs’ reputation. ECF No. 36. Defendant moved for summary judgment. ECF No. 90. The Court denied Defendant's motion for summary judgment and requested that Plaintiffs file supplemental briefing so that the Court could enter summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, the non-movant. ECF No. 137.

On September 30, 2020, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and administratively closed the case. ECF No. 160. However, the Parties’ issue regarding damages remains. Chief Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga set the damages issue for trial and ordered the Parties to complete financial discovery on November 18, 2022. ECF No. 232.

Defendant filed the instant motion seeking a stay of discovery pending resolution of her petition to the Eleventh Circuit for a writ of mandamus seeking review of the District Court's summary judgment rulings before the Parties continue to a damages trial. ECF Nos. 235, 236. The District Court granted the stay in part, stayed discovery for 30 days, and referred the portion of the motion seeking a protective order to the undersigned. ECF No. 240. Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition. ECF No. 241. The Eleventh Circuit denied Defendant's petition for a writ of mandamus. ECF No. 242. As a result, the District Court vacated the stay on financial discovery. ECF No. 242. The Motion is now ripe for disposition.

II. Parties’ Arguments

Defendant argues that the District Court's Order granting summary judgment without review would not be a proper basis for entitlement to financial discovery. Defendant contends that, if no protective order or stay is entered, only current financial records are relevant to a claim for punitive damages. Defendant also requests that proper safeguards be entered to protect her financial information from being publicly disclosed.

Plaintiffs respond that Defendant's motion is not a motion for protective order but rather one asking the court to reconsider its Order allowing financial discovery. In that regard, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant cannot meet its burden to justify reconsideration. Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to financial worth discovery because they have demonstrated facts that established an evidentiary basis for financial worth discovery.

III. Discussion

“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). Rule 26, however, also protects those from whom discovery is sought from “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). The party moving for a protective order must show that “good cause” exists for the court to grant such an order. Id. In addition, the court must be satisfied that, on balance, the interests of the party moving for the protective order outweigh the interests of the non-moving party. McCarthy v. Barnett Bank of Polk Cnty., 876 F.2d 89, 91 (11th Cir. 1989).

*2 Section 768.72 of the Florida Statutes contains a discovery component that requires a plaintiff to proffer evidence showing a reasonable basis for punitive damages before the court can allow financial worth discovery to proceed. Cervenec v. Borden Dairy Co. of Fla., No. 14-62876-CIV-COHN/SELTZER, 2015 WL 13567434, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 16, 2015). However, Courts within the Middle District have held that § 768.72 is inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Lynch v. Rose Rad. Cetrs. Inc., 2022 WL 1015815, at *2 (M.D. Fla. 2022) (collecting cases that found § 768.72 inconsistent with federal discovery rules). Moreover, courts within this district have held that an evidentiary showing is not necessary before discovering a defendant's relevant financial documents. Cervenec, 2015 WL 13567434, at *5; see also McGennis v. Sedgwick Claims Management Servs., Inc., No. 21-60470-CIV-COHN/STRAUSS, 2021 WL 4170455, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2021) (“[W]here there is a claim for punitive damages, a defendant's financial condition becomes relevant because the wealth of the defendant is a factor for consideration in determining the reasonableness of a punitive award.”).

Financial net worth discovery is relevant to a claim for punitive damages, but the scope of such discovery is within the discretion of the court. Alexander v. Allen, No. 2:13-cv-885-FtM-29CM, 2014 WL 3887490, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 7, 2014) (citing Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1368 n.37 (11th Cir. 1997)). “[O]nly current financial documents are relevant to a claim for punitive damages.” Cervenec, 2015 WL 13567434, at *5. Nevertheless, recognizing this principle, courts have allowed up to three years of financial discovery. See McGennis, 2021 WL 4170455, at *1 (collecting cases allowing up to three years of financial discovery).

Turning to the instant action, Defendant's argument regarding the evidentiary basis for financial discovery is moot due to the Eleventh Circuit having denied review. This argument is also inconsistent with federal discovery rules. Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint sets forth a claim for punitive damages. ECF No. 36. Thus, federal discovery rules trump any state statute purporting to regulate discovery. However, the scope of discovery is well within this Court's discretion. The undersigned will exercise that discretion and limit the breadth of discovery to the most recent three years. Turning to Defendant's request to enact safeguards to protect Defendant's financial information from disclosure, such safeguards are better established by the Parties rather than the Court. Therefore, the undersigned orders the Parties to confer and submit an agreed protective order that establishes appropriate safeguards to limit the public disclosure of the financial information. Defendant's Motion is otherwise DENIED.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order, ECF No. 240, is DENIED. The undersigned further orders that: