*1 This cause came on for consideration with oral argument on March 14, 2023, on the following motion:

I. Background

On August 15, 2022, Plaintiff Liquid Consulting, Inc., filed a Complaint in Florida state court against Defendants Roberto Herrera and Global Process Consultants LLC (GPC LLC), alleging causes of action resulting from an alleged breach of non-compete terms in a December 2019 contract between Plaintiff and Defendant Herrera. The contract was terminated in June 2020. Doc. No. 1-1. Herrera, with two others, created GPC LLC in July 2021.

With the filing of the Complaint in State Court on August 15, 2022, Plaintiff served discovery requests on the Defendants. These discovery requests were captioned: Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories (10 interrogatories); Plaintiff's First Request for Production to Defendant Roberto Herrera (27 requests); and Plaintiff's First Request for Production to Defendant Global Process Consultants (22 requests). Doc. No. 1-4 at 6-19. Doc. There was no Motion to Compel filed relating to this first set of discovery requests.

On September 7, 2022, GPC LLC filed in state court, a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and to compel arbitration and stay the action, or in the alternative, to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Doc. No. 1-4 at 26-57.

On September 26, 2022, while still in state court, Plaintiff served GPC LLC with “Jurisdictional” Interrogatories and “Jurisdictional Requests for Production” (captioned as Notice of Service of Jurisdictional Interrogatories to Defendants; Plaintiff's [17] Jurisdictional Requests for Production to Defendant Global Process Consultants LLC; and Plaintiff's [4] Jurisdictional Interrogatories to Defendant Global Process Consultants LLC. Doc. No. 1-4 at 58-61; Doc. No. 43-2 at at 6-8. Plaintiff did not limit the scope of its requests to any particular dates when Plaintiff alleges that GPC LLC interfered with its business prospects or contracts, such as during the contract's time period with Herrera, or during the time Plaintiff and Herrera had a covenant not to compete, or any time afterward, to the present.

On October 12, 2022, while still in state court, GPC LLC served its objections and responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Discovery Requests that it propounded on August 15, 2022: Plaintiff's First Set of 10 Interrogatories and First 22 Requests for Production. Doc. No. 1-4 at 68-69; Doc. Nos. 43-3 at 2-21.

On October 26, 2022, GPC LLC served its objections and responses to Plaintiff's Second Set of discovery requests, propounded on September 26, 2022. Doc. No. 43-4 at 2-14. Defendant GPC LLC preserved its objections to jurisdiction and other issues raised in its Motion to Dismiss, and it also provided responses to certain Interrogatories and Requests for Production, subject to its objections. For other requests, it objected to scope.

*2 Herrera has not been personally served, although on December 28, 2022, he provided some information regarding jurisdiction (over him as an individual, and GPC LLC, of which he is a member) to support his Removal of the state case to this Court, in response to this Court's Order to Show Cause Regarding Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Doc. Nos. 14-1 through 14-5.

On November 16, 2022, Plaintiff served its “Second [11] Jurisdictional Request[s] for Production” to GPC LLC. Doc. No. 1-4 at 74-76. It is this discovery request that is the subject of Plaintiff's pending Motion to Compel. Doc. No. 39.

On December 13, 2022, Defendant Herrera removed the case to this Court, asserting complete diversity of citizenship amongst the parties (at that time there were only two Defendants: Herrera and GPC LLC), and that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.00. Doc. Nos. 1, 14.

With his Removal of the action, Defendant Herrera also filed a “Motion to Quash [Service] and to Dismiss.” Doc. No. 2. Plaintiff filed a resistance on December 29, 2022. Doc. No. 15. On March 14, 2023, it was recommended that, due to lack of personal service of the Complaint, Defendant Herrera's “Motion to Quash and Dismiss” (Doc. No. 2) be denied as moot, as Plaintiff indicated that alternative service of process on Herrera is being pursued. Doc. No. 48. This Report and Recommendation was adopted on March 29, 2023. Doc. No. 53.

On January 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against Defendants Herrera and GPC LLC and added a third Defendant: Global Process Consultants SRL (GPC SRL) which is a business entity created in Costa Rica. Doc. No. 28 ¶ 3. A summons to GPC SRL was issued on January 25, 2023. Doc. No. 31.

At the Status Conference held on March 14, 2023, Plaintiffs indicated that they were now proceeding with service on Herrera and GPC SRL via the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (the Hague Service Convention); Plaintiff expects that obtaining service of process and receiving a return of service may take as long as September 30, 2023, for both of these Defendants.

On February 7, 2023, GPC LLC filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and a Motion to Compel Contractual Arbitration between Herrera and the Plaintiff. Doc. No. 36. Plaintiff opposed these Motions on February 28, 2023. Doc. No. 42. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss was supported by an Affidavit from Rodolfo Ardón (Doc. No. 36-1 at 1-4), who is a Member of GPC LLC; in his affidavit, Ardón provided some of the information that Plaintiff sought in its first and second discovery requests to GPC LLC.

On February 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed the pending Motion to Compel Documents from Global Process Consultants LLC, which was docketed as Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Response to Second Jurisdictional Request for Production to Global Process Consultants LLC. Doc. No. 39. Plaintiff attached to the Motion to Compel the same Second Request for Production that it served on GPC LLC on November 16, 2022. Compare Doc. 1-4 at 74-76 (11 requests) with Doc. No. 39 at 5-7.

GPC LLC filed an untimely response to this Motion to Compel on March 3, 2023. Doc. No. 43; see Doc. No. 9 (standing order on discovery motions mandating seven-day deadline for response to discovery motion). In its response, GPC LLC objected to the scope of this discovery, as much of it lacked limitations on dates that relate to the Herrera contract and subsequent actions by Herrera, and the burden of completing general merits or damage discovery while its dispositive motion is pending. GPC LLC asked that the Motion to Compel be overruled and that discovery be stayed pending the ruling on its Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff resisted the Motion to Stay and the objections to discovery. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss and to Compel Arbitration is now set for April 19, 2023, at 10:00 A.M. before District Court Judge Dalton at the U.S. Courthouse in Orlando, Florida. Doc. No. 52.

*3 On March 14, 2023, the undersigned held a hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 39). Doc. Nos. 46-47. Because of the length of time that this case and discovery issue have been pending, and due to confusion caused by docketing the Motion to Compel as Defendant GPC LLC's objections to Plaintiff's Second Request for Production of Jurisdictional Documents, the Court determined that it should hear arguments on this discovery motion. The Court also discussed the status of the case with counsel (including counsel for Herrera) regarding efforts to obtain service of process on Herrera and GPC SRL. Counsel for Herrera stated that by March 24, 2023, he anticipated being able to report as to whether either of these Defendants were likely to now accept service of process. The Court set a deadline of March 24, 2023, for a report on that issue. [Note: as of March 24, neither of the remaining Defendants agreed to accept service, see Doc. No. 50]. On March 31, 2023, Plaintiff reported that Herrera had agreed to accept service and would respond to the Amended Complaint by April 11, 2023. Doc. No. 54.

On January 31, 2023, Plaintiff provided its Initial Disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Doc. No. 43-5. Defendant GPC LLC attached these to its response to the Motion to Compel, in support of its argument that Plaintiff has sufficient information on the arguments it made in response to its Motion to Dismiss, and to support its Motion to Stay further discovery at this time. In its Initial Disclosures Plaintiff identified 14 people with knowledge of the case, including Defendant Herrera; Mr. Ardón, who is a member of GPC LLC and GPC SRL, and who provided declarations in support of GPC LLC's Motions to Dismiss (Doc. No. 14-4 at 22-24 (state court); Doc. No. 36-1 at 1-4); and Fabio Espinoza, the third member of GPC LLC. However, in its Initial Disclosures, Plaintiff does not state whether all of the people it identifies can provide information about GPC LLC's activities, if any, in Florida.

II. Discussion

Plaintiff seeks to compel more complete responses by GPC LLC to Plaintiff's “Second Jurisdictional Request for Production” (11 requests). Doc. No. 39. GPC LLC argues that the Second Jurisdictional Request for Production “is not limited to documents relevant to the jurisdictional issues in this case, which GPC already provided to Plaintiff in response to its previous discovery requests, but also to many other areas of the action,” such as speculation about its damages by asking for production of a significant amount of material unbounded by date range. Doc. No. 43 at 3. According to GPC LLC, “Plaintiff does not narrow or specify in this Second Jurisdictional Request, in any way, the scope of the requirement, and not even the dates, year periods, or geographic location of the activities or matters connected to such a request.” Id. at 4. GPC LLC contends that the Second Jurisdictional Request is unduly burdensome; it does not provide specifics as to the cost in time or expense to find documents responsive to the request, or the complexity of determining what Plaintiff seeks, other than to note the broadness of the scattershot requests. Id. at 9-10. GPC LLC argues that a stay of merits or damages discovery pending the resolution of its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint would ensure efficient and cost-effective pretrial case management. Id. at 5, 7, 10-12, 15, 18.

At the hearing on March 14, 2023, Plaintiff agreed that, although its Motion to Compel was docketed as relating to its Second Jurisdictional Request for Production of Documents, this docket entry is incorrect. Plaintiff noted that its Second Request for Production of Documents simply identifies documents it would like to receive in discovery, and not documents that must be produced before the Court can resolve Defendant's pending Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. A review of the Plaintiff's Second Request for Production of Documents shows that Plaintiff seeks information that impacts its damage claims and in order to bolster its claims that GPC LLC interfered with its potential business development or expectations through transactions in Florida at some point in time, and in some yet to be specified way.

*4 Parties may receive discovery of non-privileged matter that is relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues, relative access to the information, importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and weighing whether the burden or expense outweigh the likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). This is the standard that the Court uses to review objections to discovery requests and motions to compel. The previous test of whether the discovery would be “likely to lead to admissible evidence” no longer applies. Plaintiff notes that, because GPC LLC relied upon the old test in its objections, they should be overruled. The Court finds that the objections as to undue burden included elements that the Court uses in determining proportionality of a discovery requests and the relevance of the discovery sought as to pending issues. To the extent that the Defendant relies on an argument that the discovery is not likely to lead to admissible evidence, the Court ignored that argument.

Although counsel met repeatedly about the scope of discovery requested and the objections made, relating to the second Set of Requests for Production of Documents from GPC LLC, they could not agree on any way to resolve or narrow this discovery dispute. This is disappointing. The Court has carefully reviewed the Plaintiff's Second Request for Production from GPC LLC, and the information provided by Defendant in response to these discovery requests, or elsewhere in the record. The Court finds that Plaintiff's Second Set of Discovery Requests is overbroad and burdensome, because it is not bounded by time, place, scope, or relevance to the issues in this case. The discovery requests are not proportional to the likely burden and expense, and are not narrowed to the issues raised in the Complaint. There was no effort to stage discovery by providing narrowly focused follow-up to information provided in earlier discovery requests or other material filed in this case. In its present form, Plaintiff's Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents from GPC LLC is not proportional to the issues, and outweighs any likely benefit, particularly in relation to business operations purportedly carried out in Florida by GPC LLC, considering Defendant's answers to other discovery requests and material included in other pleadings. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Compel the Second Set of Documents from GPC LLC (Doc. No. 39). Counsel shall continue the meet-and-confer process in order to keep the lines of communication open.

The Court gave serious consideration to Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery in this action, pending ruling on its Motion to Dismiss, which is now set for hearing on April 19, 2023. The Motion to Stay Discovery is DENIED. Counsel shall personally meet and confer to determine whether their discovery issues can be resolved or narrowed after the District Court rules on the pending Motion to Dismiss. Before filing any subsequent Motion to Compel, counsel shall personally confer (not just communicate via letter or email), and indicate what material has been offered or tendered for production, and what material is alleged to be privileged (this requires a Privilege Log), once a hearing has been held on scope. No changes to the Pretrial deadlines or Case Management Order have been made. Once the remaining Defendants are served and appear, counsel shall confer and submit a joint proposal regarding pretrial deadlines, if any adjustments are requested.

IT IS SO ORDERED on April 3, 2023.