*1 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion (Docket No. 45) for expedited consideration of its motion to compel, which is GRANTED. Also pending is Plaintiff's motion to compel (Docket No. 46). Defendant James Hardie Building Products, Inc. (the “Defendant”) filed responses to both motions (Docket Nos. 48 and 49), which the Court has also reviewed. For the reasons discussed in more detail below, Plaintiff's motion to compel (Docket No. 46) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

Because the parties are familiar with the factual circumstances that underlie Plaintiff's motion to compel, and for the sake of brevity and expeditious resolution, the Court recites only those facts that are necessary for explanation of the Court's ruling. Most critical to the determination of the parties' instant discovery dispute is the Court's prior order allowing expedited discovery on the limited issues raised in Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (the “Expedited Discovery Order”). See Docket No. 16.

Generally, Rule 26 allows 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). Proportionality is the touchstone of the rule's scope. The Court must consider the need for the information sought based upon “the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Id.[1] For purposes of the instant dispute, the scope of expedited discovery is expressly limited by the Expedited Discovery Order to the issues raised in the pending preliminary injunction motion. The Court's consideration of proportionality in resolution of the parties' discovery dispute is likewise limited to that same scope of discovery.

For the reasons argued by Defendant, with which the Court largely concurs, the additional expedited discovery requested by Plaintiff goes beyond the limited scope of discovery permitted by the Court in connection with Plaintiff's pending motion for injunctive relief. The Court finds that, for the most part, the discovery offered by Defendant extends to the limits of the Expedited Discovery Order.[2] The Court supposes that the discovery offered by Defendant, specifically that described in Defendant's response (Docket No.49 at 5-6), has been or will be produced. If not, Defendant must, as offered, produce the described documents and communications.

*2 Defendant also offered to search the custodial records of marketing employees Jamie Schultz and Heather Jones and to produce responsive documents, which the Court finds was both appropriate and reasonable. To the extent not already agreed to and produced, Defendant must also produce this information. Additionally, the Court finds as reasonable, and within the scope of limited expedited discovery, a search of two additional sales employee's records as a sampling. Accordingly, Defendant shall select the two employees with the highest sales of fiber cement siding in the last 12 months and must search those employees' work email accounts as custodians and produce responsive documents.

The limited expedited discovery described above, resolves the issues presented by the parties, and to that extent, Plaintiff's motion to compel is granted. See Docket No. 46-1 at 3. Any other discovery requested in Plaintiff's motion to compel is outside the scope of the permitted expedited discovery, and to that extent, Plaintiff's motion is denied. The responsive documents should be produced on a rolling basis as soon as compiled, and must all be produced by no later than 5:00 p.m. (CDT) on July 10, 2018.

Any future discovery disputes in this case must proceed in accordance with the following resolution procedures. No motions concerning discovery are to be filed until after lead counsel for the parties have met in-person in an attempt to resolve any dispute(s), and any certification of good faith efforts must reflect that lead counsel met in person. Such in-person meeting must occur within 48 hours of the first communication regarding the disputed discovery. Discovery disputes that cannot be resolved after good faith discussions in accordance with these procedures should be brought promptly to the attention of the Magistrate Judge, either by a request for a discovery conference or a discovery motion. In connection with any discovery conference or discovery motion, the parties must file a joint discovery dispute statement, which certifies lead counsel's in-person meeting, and must also describe the specific discovery request(s) in dispute and detail each party's position with respect to each specific discovery request presented. The joint discovery statement, any accompanying or subsequent discovery motion, and the response to any discovery motion are each limited to five pages, exclusive of the text of the disputed discovery requests, which may be appended as an exhibit to the joint statement and/or discovery motion.

The Court declines to award attorney's fees or other expenses to either party, as the Court finds that doing so would be unjust under all of the circumstances of the instant dispute.

It is SO ORDERED.