Symbria, Inc. v. Callen
Symbria, Inc. v. Callen
2022 WL 20508639 (N.D. Ill. 2022)
April 4, 2022

Weisman, M. David,  United States Magistrate Judge

Form of Production
Search Terms
Failure to Produce
Proportionality
Download PDF
To Cite List
Summary
The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to compel Plaintiffs to respond to certain requests for production of ESI. The Court overruled the Plaintiffs' objections to the requests on the grounds of overbreadth, relevance, and burden, and ordered them to produce a privilege log that complies with Rule 26. The Court also encouraged the parties to consider the mutual benefits of limiting ESI through the use of appropriate search terms.
Additional Decisions
SYMBRIA, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
John R. CALLEN, et al., Defendants
Case No. 20 C 4084
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division, Eastern Division
Filed April 04, 2022

Counsel

Jacob Deniro Rhode, Benjamin Guthrie Stewart, Carson Emens Miller, Collin L. Ryan, Michael L. Scheier, Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL, Cincinnati, OH, Matthew D. Anderson, Freeborn & Peters LLP, Chicago, IL, Matthew John O'Hara, Terrence Joseph Sheahan, Gia Fonte Colunga, James R. Figliulo, Katlyn DeBoer Krysan, Lillian Marie Grappe, Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, Chicago, IL, Jason Paul Stearns, Smith Gambrell & Russell LLP, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiffs.
Garry L. Wills, Joseph Ramos, Marc H. Kallish, Roetzel & Andress LPA, Chicago, IL, for Defendants John R. Callen, MedRehab Alliance, LLC, MedRehab Alliance Interstate, LLC, Illinois Ancillary Services Network, LLC, Pearl Health Care Services, Inc., MedRehab Therapy Associates of Illinois, LLC, Joint & Neuro Rehab Associates, LLC.
Kevin Michael O'Hagan, Lisa C. Burns, Paige Manley Canepari, Sean Gifford Rohan, O'Hagan Meyer, LLC, Chicago, IL, for Defendant United Methodist Homes & Services.
Brian J. Williams, Cozen O'Connor, Chicago, IL, for Defendant Christos V. Dilmas.
Michael John Scotti, III, Garry L. Wills, Joseph Ramos, Marc H. Kallish, Roetzel & Andress LPA, Chicago, IL, for Defendants MedRehab Alliance Holdings, Inc., Joint & Neuro Rehab Associates of Chicago LLC.
Thomas G. Griffin, Alla Cherkassky Galati, Caitlin Mallory McAuliffe, Matthew W. Casey, Walker Wilcox Matousek LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant Chicago Rehabilitation Collective PLLC.
Marc H. Kallish, Roetzel & Andress, LPA, Chicago, IL, for Defendant Kathleen Rice.
Weisman, M. David, United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

*1 The case is before the Court on defendant Chicago Rehabilitation Collective (“Chicago Rehab's”) motion to compel plaintiffs to respond to interrogatories 2-25 of Chicago Rehab's first set of interrogatories and requests 3-13, 15-17, 21, 35, and 37 of its first request for production of documents. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part and denies in part the motion [ECF 394 as amended by ECF 431].
Interrogatories
Interrogatory 2 states: “For each Plaintiff, specifically and separately identify each trade secret, including referencing them by bates number from Plaintiffs’ document production(s), that such Plaintiff claims CRC misappropriated, describe with specificity how CRC misappropriated each such trade secret and describe how CRC improperly used or disclosed each such trade secret.” (ECF 394 at 19.) Plaintiffs objected that this was a premature contention interrogatory, it was overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case. (Id. at 19-20.) Nonetheless, they “direct[ed] [Chicago Rehab] to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Answers to John Callen's First Set of Interrogatories served on counsel for CRC on March 12, 2021.” (Id. at 20.) The Court overrules plaintiffs’ objections. This interrogatory asks plaintiffs to identify the evidence they have to support the trade secret misappropriation claims they make in the complaint. Thus, it is not a contention interrogatory.[1] Moreover, it is not overly broad, unduly burdensome, or disproportional to the needs of the case. Rather, this information is essential to the resolution of the claims before the district court. As all sides continue to bombard the district court with motions, it would be beneficial to the prompt and efficient resolution of these claims to understand the bases for plaintiffs’ claims. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Finally, plaintiffs’ general reference to answers it gave to discovery propounded by another party is an insufficient response. Plaintiffs must answer interrogatory 2.
*2 Interrogatory 3 states: “For each trade secret identified in response to Interrogatory No. 2 above, (a) identify the individual who authored or otherwise created the trade secret material, (b) identify the date or date range of creation of the trade secret material, and (c) identify all sources used, consulted, and/or relied upon to create or author the trade secret material.” (Id.) Plaintiffs raised the same objections here as they did to interrogatory 2 and did not answer further. (Id.) For the reasons discussed above, the Court overrules plaintiffs’ objections and orders them to answer interrogatory 3.
Interrogatory 4 states: “For each trade secret identified in response to Interrogatory No. 2 above, identify with particularity each measure or precaution taken by Symbria Rehab or its affiliates to guard the alleged secrecy of the trade secret.” (Id.) Plaintiffs answered by describing the security measures in force at Symbria. (Id. at 20-23.) Because plaintiffs answered the interrogatory, Chicago Rehab's motion to compel as to interrogatory 4 is moot.
Interrogatory 5 states: “For each trade secret identified in response to Interrogatory No. 2 above, identify with particularity each person or entity that has or had access to or information about such trade secret, and for each such person or entity identify the agreement, including referencing them by bates number from Plaintiffs’ document production(s), by which such person or entity agreed to maintain the confidentiality of the trade secret.” (Id. at 23.) Plaintiffs asserted overbreadth, burden, relevance, and contention interrogatory objections and did not answer further. (Id. at 23-24.) Yet, a confidentiality agreement is generally considered a minimum effort necessary to show that a plaintiff took reasonable measures to keep its information secret, under the Defend Trade Secrets Act. See Abrasic 90 Inc. v. Weldcote Metals, Inc., 364 F.Supp.3d 888, 898-899 (N.D. Ill. 2019) (“the company's failure to require those with access to its supposed trade secrets to enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements has to be counted among the most fundamental omissions by the company,” and collecting cases for the same proposition). Thus, plaintiffs’ boiler plate objections ring hollow. For these reasons and those provided above, the Court overrules plaintiffs’ objections and orders them to answer interrogatory 5.
Interrogatory 6 states: “For each Plaintiff, specifically and separately identify each piece of confidential information (not including trade secrets identified in response to Interrogatory No. 2), including referencing them by bates number from Plaintiffs’ document production(s), that such Plaintiff claims CRC misappropriated, describe with specificity how CRC misappropriated such piece of confidential information and describe how CRC improperly used or disclosed each such piece of confidential information.” (Id. at 24.) Plaintiffs objected that the interrogatory was overly broad, unduly burdensome, and a premature contention interrogatory. However, they also said, “Plaintiffs direct CRC to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Answers to John Callen's First Set of Interrogatories served on counsel for CRC on March 12, 2021.” (Id.) For the reasons discussed above, the Court overrules plaintiffs’ objections and orders them to answer interrogatory 6.
Interrogatory 7 states: “For each piece of confidential information identified in response to Interrogatory No. 6 above, (a) identify the individual who authored or otherwise created the confidential material, (b) identify the date or date range of creation of the confidential material, and (c) identify all sources used, consulted, and/or relied upon to create or author the confidential material.” (Id.) Plaintiffs asserted overbreadth, burden, and contention interrogatory objections and did not answer further. (Id. at 24-25.) Yet, whether a piece of information is “publicly available,” or whether the “publicly available” information was compiled in such a way that it developed into trade secret status are fundamental to plaintiffs’ claims. See Abrasic 90, 364 F. Supp. 3d at 897. Thus, the information sought here will allow defendant to focus its further discovery efforts by determining relevant witnesses and deponents. For these reasons and the reasons discussed above, the Court overrules plaintiffs’ objections and orders them to answer interrogatory 7.
*3 Interrogatory 8 states: “For each piece of confidential information identified in response to Interrogatory No. 6 above, identify with particularity each person or entity that has or had access to or information about such confidential information, and for each such person or entity identify the agreement, including referencing them by bates number from Plaintiffs’ document production(s), by which such person or entity agreed to maintain the confidentiality of the subject confidential information.” (Id. at 25.) Plaintiffs asserted overbreadth, burden, and contention interrogatory objections and did not answer further. (Id.) For the reasons discussed above, the Court overrules plaintiffs’ objections and orders them to answer interrogatory 8.
Interrogatory 9 states: “For each Plaintiff, specifically and separately identify each Registered Copyright Work defined or otherwise at issue in the Third Amended Complaint, including referencing them by bates number from Plaintiffs’ document production(s), that such Plaintiff claims CRC improperly copied, used or published in violation of the Copyright Act and describe with specificity how CRC improperly copied, used or published each such each Registered Copyright Work in violation of the Copyright Act.” (Id. at 25-26.) Plaintiffs asserted overbreadth, burden, and contention interrogatory objections, but set forth a table of documents identified by name and Bates stamp range. (Id. at 26-27.) The table identifies documents plaintiffs contend Chicago Rehab improperly copied or used, but it does not describe how Chicago Rehab did so. For the reasons discussed above, the Court overrules plaintiffs’ objections and orders it to answer this interrogatory fully.
Interrogatory 10 states: “Identify and describe with specificity the factual basis for Plaintiffs’ allegations and/or contentions that Dilmas was acting as an agent for CRC while employed by Symbria Rehab when Dilmas emailed materials to his personal email account(s).” (Id. at 27.) Plaintiffs asserted overbreadth, burden, and contention interrogatory objections and gave no other answer. (Id. at 27-28.) For the reasons discussed above, the Court overrules plaintiffs objections and orders them plaintiffs to answer this interrogatory.
Interrogatory 11 states: “Identify and describe with specificity the factual basis for Plaintiffs’ allegations and/or contentions that Irvine was acting as an agent for CRC while employed by Symbria Rehab when Irvine emailed materials to her personal email account(s).” (Id. at 28.) Plaintiffs asserted overbreadth, burden, and contention interrogatory objections and did not answer further. (Id.) For the reasons discussed above, the Court overrules plaintiffs objections and orders them to answer this interrogatory.
Interrogatory 12 states: “Identify every Symbria Rehab employee that has emailed themselves Symbria information or otherwise transferred Symbria information to a home or personal computer or device for any reason, including, without limitation, for convenience in working with the information on the home or personal computer or device, electronically signing documents, etc.” (Id.) Plaintiffs objected that this interrogatory is overly broad and seeks irrelevant information. (Id. at 28-29.) The Court overrules these objections. This interrogatory seeks information to rebut plaintiffs’ contention that it strictly controls dissemination of its alleged trade secrets and confidential information. Moreover, given plaintiffs’ allegations that: (1) their employees are forbidden to email company information to their personal emails; and (2) two of its employees emailed plaintiffs’ confidential information to their home emails just before they resigned, the interrogatory is not overly broad. Plaintiffs must answer interrogatory 12.
*4 Interrogatory 13 states: “For each Plaintiff and for each separate trade secret identified as misappropriated by CRC in response to Interrogatory No. 2 above, identify and provide calculations for each element of the damages claimed by such Plaintiff as a result of the alleged misappropriation of such trade secret by CRC.” (Id. at 29.) Plaintiffs objected that they are not required to itemize damages for each trade secret taken and that this is a premature contention interrogatory. (Id.) But they also said:
Plaintiffs state that they claim damages from the trade secrets that CRC misappropriated in the form of actual lost profits plus CRC's unjust enrichment not taken into account by actual loss, or a reasonable royalty for CRC's unauthorized disclosure or use of Symbria's trade secrets. Symbria also claims exemplary damages of two times damages awarded in the form of Symbria's actual loss plus CRC's unjust enrichment or a reasonable royalty. At this time, Symbria estimates its actual loss as lost profits relating to lost customers and prospective customers at $26,656,545, or alternatively as lost enterprise value at $25,061,383. See SYMBRIA 0001279-81, SYMBRIA0005519-5611 and SYMBRIA0005859. Plaintiffs will produce additional documents showing their damages calculations. In addition, Plaintiffs have suffered actual loss in the form of price erosion because of price concessions that they have given to clients they have retained as a result of CRC's misappropriation of Symbria's trade secrets, currently estimated at $330,000 per year over the expected remaining life of the business relationships. Plaintiffs have not yet determined those time periods or calculated the discounted present value of price erosion over those time periods and will supplement accordingly. Plaintiffs cannot determine CRC's unjust enrichment until CRC answers Plaintiffs’ pending discovery requests and other discovery is conducted.
Plaintiffs cannot determine a reasonable royalty until discovery is concluded, including expert discovery. Plaintiffs will seasonably supplement the answer to this interrogatory. Investigation continues.
(Id. at 29-30.) Though plaintiffs will have to supplement this answer in the future, for now it is sufficient.
Interrogatory 14 states: “For each Plaintiff and for each separate piece of confidential information identified as misappropriated by CRC in response to Interrogatory No. 6 above, identify and provide calculations for each element of the damages claimed by such Plaintiff as a result of the alleged misappropriation of such confidential information by CRC.” (Id. at 30.) Plaintiffs made the same objections and gave the same answer as they did for interrogatory 13. (Id. at 30-31.) Again, for now, plaintiffs’ answer is sufficient.
Interrogatory 15 states: “For each Plaintiff and for each Registered Copyright Work identified as improperly copied, used or published by CRC in violation of the Copyright Act in response to Interrogatory No. 9 above, identify and provide calculations for each element of the damages claimed by such Plaintiff as a result of the alleged copyright infringement by CRC.” (Id. at 31.) Plaintiffs asserted that this was a premature contention interrogatory, but said:
Symbria states that it seeks damages for copyright infringement to the full extent permissible under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b). With respect to copyright infringement, Symbria seeks recovery of infringer's profits under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b). Under statute, Symbria is only required to show the gross revenue reasonably related to infringement and CRC is required to show off-sets, such as deductible expenses. Symbria expects that the revenues claimed will include CRC's gross revenues from the from the provision of management and staffing services for rehabilitation services to other defendants. Symbria will supplement its answer as to those amounts after CRC answers Plaintiffs’ pending discovery requests concerning its gross revenues and claimed deductible expenses. Symbria reserves the right to seek actual damages, see 17 U.S.C. § 504(a), and to elect statutory damages if it is entitled to do so. Symbria will seasonably supplement the answer to this interrogatory. Investigation continues.
*5 (Id. at 32.) For now, plaintiffs’ response is sufficient.
Interrogatory 16 states:
For each Plaintiff, describe with particularity the factual and legal basis for your contention that CRC tortiously interfered with any of UMHS's agreements or covenants in the Stock Purchase Agreement (“SPA”), including in your response without limitation (a) the date and manner in which you contend that CRC became aware of UMHS's subject agreements or covenants in the SPA; (b) whether You ever put CRC on notice of UMHS's subject agreements or covenants in the SPA, and if so the date and manner in which you provided such notice to CRC; (c) the specific conduct by UMHS, including the date(s) of such conduct and the UMHS employees or agents engaged in the conduct, that breached the SPA; (d) the specific conduct by CRC, including the date(s) of such conduct and the CRC employees that participated in such conduct, that tortiously interfered with and/or caused UMHS to breach the subject agreements or covenants in the SPA; and (e) any benefit allegedly flowing to CRC by inducing UMHS to breach the SPA.
(Id.) Plaintiffs objected that this was a premature contention interrogatory. (Id. at 32-33.) The Court overrules plaintiffs’ objection. This interrogatory asks plaintiffs for the bases of their tortious interference claim. Plaintiffs must answer this interrogatory.
Interrogatory 17 states: “For each Plaintiff, identify and provide calculations for each element of the damages claimed by such Plaintiff as a result of the tortious interference by CRC with UMHS's agreements or covenants in the SPA.” (Id. at 33.) Plaintiffs asserted a contention interrogatory objection, but said:
Plaintiffs claim damages from CRC's tortious interference with the SPA in the form of actual lost profits. At this time, Plaintiffs estimate their actual loss as lost profits relating to lost customers and prospective customers at $26,656,545 or alternatively as lost enterprise value at $25,061,383. See SYMBRIA 0001279-81, SYMBRIA0005519-5611 and SYMBRIA0005859. Plaintiffs will produce additional documents showing their damages calculations. In addition, Plaintiffs have suffered actual loss in the form of price erosion because of price concessions that they have given to clients it has retained as a result of CRC's tortious interference with the SPA, currently estimated at $330,000 per year over the expected remaining life of the business relationships. Plaintiffs have not yet determined those time periods or calculated the discounted present value of price erosion over those time periods and will supplement accordingly. Plaintiffs will seasonably supplement the answer to this interrogatory. Investigation continues.
(Id. at 33-34.) For now, plaintiffs’ answer is sufficient. Interrogatory 18 states:
Describe with particularity the factual and legal basis for Plaintiff Symbria Rehab's contention that CRC aided and abetted any breach of fiduciary duty by Dilmas, including in your response without limitation (a) the specific breaches of fiduciary duty by Dilmas that you contend CRC aided and abetted, including the dates of such breaches and the conduct by Dilmas constituting such breaches, (b) the agreements and/or relationship between Symbria Rehab and Dilmas giving rise to the subject fiduciary duties; (c) the specific conduct by CRC, including the date(s) of such conduct and the CRC employees that participated in such conduct, that aided or abetted Dilmas in the breach of such fiduciary duties; and (d) any benefit allegedly flowing to CRC by aiding and abetting Dilmas in such breaches of fiduciary duty.
*6 (Id. at 34.) Plaintiffs asserted a contention interrogatory objection and provided no further answer. (Id.) The Court overrules plaintiffs’ objection. This interrogatory asks for the bases of plaintiffs’ aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary claim. Plaintiffs must answer this interrogatory.
Interrogatory 19 states: “Identify and provide calculations for each element of the damages claimed by Plaintiff Symbria Rehab as a result of CRC's aiding and abetting of Dilmas's breaches of fiduciary duty.” (Id.) Plaintiffs asserted a contention interrogatory objection, but said:
Symbria Rehab claims damages from CRC's aiding and abetting Dilmas’ breaches of fiduciary duty in the form of actual lost profits. At this time, Symbria Rehab estimates its actual loss as lost profits relating to lost customers and prospective customers at $26,656,545 or alternatively as lost enterprise value at $25,061,383. See SYMBRIA 0001279-81, SYMBRIA0005519-5611 and SYMBRIA0005859. Plaintiffs will produce additional documents showing their damages calculations. In addition, Symbria Rehab has suffered actual loss in the form of price erosion because of price concessions that it has given to clients it has retained as a result of CRC's aiding and abetting Dilmas’ breaches of fiduciary duty, currently estimated at $330,000 per year over the expected remaining life of the business relationships. Plaintiffs have not yet determined those time periods or calculated the discounted present value of price erosion over those time periods and will supplement accordingly. Symbria Rehab will seasonably supplement the answer to this interrogatory. Investigation continues.
(Id. at 34-35.) For now, that answer is sufficient.
Interrogatory 20 states:
Describe with particularity the factual and legal basis for Plaintiff Symbria Rehab's contention that CRC tortiously interfered with Dilmas's Employment Contract with Symbria Rehab, including in your response without limitation (a) the date and manner in which you contend that CRC became aware of Dilmas's subject Employment Contract; (b) whether Symbria Rehab ever put CRC on notice of Dilmas's Employment Contract, and if so the date and manner in which Symbria Rehab provided such notice to CRC; (c) the specific conduct by Dilmas that breached Dilmas's Employment Contract with Symbria Rehab; (d) the specific conduct by CRC, including the date(s) of such conduct and the CRC employees that participated in such conduct, that tortiously interfered with and/or induced Dilmas to breach his Employment Agreement; and (d) any benefit allegedly flowing to CRC by inducing Dilmas to breach his Employment Agreement.
(Id. at 35.) Plaintiffs asserted that this interrogatory was overly broad, unduly burdensome, and a premature contention interrogatory and did not answer further. (Id. at 35-36.) The Court overrules plaintiffs’ objections. This interrogatory asks for the bases of the tortious interference claim plaintiffs assert against Chicago Rehab. As to the burden posed by the interrogatory, plaintiffs have not demonstrated “undue burden,” considering the nature of the claims and the nature of the information sought in the interrogatory. Plaintiffs must answer this interrogatory.
Interrogatory 21 states: “Identify and provide calculations for each element of the damages claimed by Plaintiff Symbria Rehab as a result of CRC's tortious interference with Dilmas's Employment Contract with Symbria Rehab.” (Id. at 36.) Plaintiffs objected that this interrogatory was premature, but said:
*7 Symbria claims damages from CRC's tortious interference with Dilmas’ Employment Contract in the form of actual lost profits. At this time, Symbria Rehab estimates its actual loss as lost profits relating to lost customers and prospective customers at $26,656,545 or alternatively as lost enterprise value at $25,061,383. See SYMBRIA 0001279-81, SYMBRIA0005519-5611 and SYMBRIA0005859. Plaintiffs will produce additional documents showing their damages calculations. In addition, Symbria Rehab has suffered actual loss in the form of price erosion because of price concessions that it has given to clients it has retained as a result of CRC's tortious interference with Dilmas’ Employment Contract, currently estimated at $330,000 per year over the expected remaining life of the business relationships. Plaintiffs have not yet determined those time periods or calculated the discounted present value of price erosion over those time periods and will supplement accordingly. Symbria Rehab will seasonably supplement the answer to this interrogatory. Investigation continues.
(Id.) For now, that answer is sufficient.
Interrogatory 22 states:
Describe with particularity the factual and legal basis for Plaintiff Symbria Rehab's contention that CRC tortiously interfered with Irvine's Employment Contract with Symbria Rehab, including in your response without limitation (a) the date and manner in which you contend that CRC became aware of Irvine's subject Employment Contract; (b) whether Symbria Rehab ever put CRC on notice of Irvine's Employment Contract, and if so the date and manner in which Symbria Rehab provided such notice to CRC; (c) the specific conduct by Irvine that breached Irvine's Employment Contract with Symbria Rehab; (d) the specific conduct by CRC, including the date(s) of such conduct and the CRC employees that participated in such conduct, that tortiously interfered with and/or induced Irvine to breach her Employment Agreement; and (d) any benefit allegedly flowing to CRC by inducing Irvine to breach her Employment Agreement.
(Id. at 37.) Plaintiffs asserted that this interrogatory was overly broad, unduly burdensome, and a premature contention interrogatory and did not answer further. (Id.) The Court overrules plaintiffs’ objections. This interrogatory asks plaintiffs for the bases of the tortious interference claim they assert against Chicago Rehab. Again, plaintiffs made no showing of “undue burden” considering the claims and information sought. Plaintiffs must answer this interrogatory.
Interrogatory 23 states: “Identify and provide calculations for each element of the damages claimed by Plaintiff Symbria Rehab as a result of CRC's tortious interference with Irvine's Employment Contract with Symbria Rehab.” (Id.) Plaintiffs asserted a contention interrogatory objection, but said:
At this time, Symbria estimates its actual loss as lost profits relating to lost customers and prospective customers at $26,656,545 or alternatively as lost enterprise value at $25,061,383. See SYMBRIA 0001279-81, SYMBRIA0005519-5611 and SYMBRIA0005859. Plaintiffs will produce additional documents showing their damages calculations. In addition, Symbria Rehab has suffered actual loss in the form of price erosion because of price concessions that it has given to clients it has retained as a result of CRC's tortious interference with Irvine's Employment Contract, currently estimated at $330,000 per year over the expected remaining life of the business relationships. Plaintiffs have not yet determined those time periods or calculated the discounted present value of price erosion over those time periods and will supplement accordingly. Symbria Rehab will seasonably supplement the answer to this interrogatory. Investigation continues.
(Id. at 37-38.) For now, that answer is sufficient.
Interrogatory 24 states:
Describe with particularity the factual and legal basis for Plaintiff Symbria Rehab's contention that CRC aided and abetted any breach of fiduciary duty by Irvine, including in your response without limitation (a) the specific breaches of fiduciary duty by Irvine that you contend CRC aided and abetted, including the dates of such breaches and the conduct by Irvine constituting such breaches, (b) the agreements and/or relationship between Symbria Rehab and Irvine giving rise to the subject fiduciary duties; (c) the specific conduct by CRC, including the date(s) of such conduct and the CRC employees that participated in such conduct, that aided or abetted Irvine in the breach of such fiduciary duties; and (d) any benefit allegedly flowing to CRC by aiding and abetting Irvine in such breaches of fiduciary duty.
*8 (Id. at 38.) Plaintiffs asserted that this interrogatory was overly broad, unduly burdensome, and a premature contention interrogatory and did not answer further. (Id.) The Court overrules plaintiffs’ objections. This interrogatory asks for the bases for the aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claim plaintiffs assert against Chicago Rehab. Plaintiffs must answer this interrogatory.
Interrogatory 25 states: “Identify and provide calculations for each element of the damages claimed by Plaintiff Symbria Rehab as a result of CRC's aiding and abetting of Irvine's breaches of fiduciary duty.” (Id. at 39.) Plaintiffs asserted a contention interrogatory objection, but said:
Symbria Rehab claims damages from CRC's aiding and abetting Irvine's breaches of fiduciary duty in the form of actual lost profits. At this time, Symbria Rehab estimates its actual loss as lost profits relating to lost customers and prospective customers at $26,656,545 or alternatively as lost enterprise value at $25,061,383. See SYMBRIA 0001279-81, SYMBRIA0005519-5611 and SYMBRIA0005859.
Plaintiffs will produce additional documents showing their damages calculations. In addition, Symbria Rehab has suffered actual loss in the form of price erosion because of price concessions that it has given to clients it has retained as a result of CRC's tortious interference with Irvine's breaches of fiduciary duty, in the amount of currently estimated at $330,000 per year over the expected remaining life of the business relationships. Plaintiffs have not yet determined those time periods or calculated the discounted present value of price erosion over those time periods and will supplement accordingly. Symbria will seasonably supplement the answer to this interrogatory. Investigation continues.
(Id.) This answer is sufficient for now.
Requests for Production (“RFPs”)
RFP 3 asks for “[a] complete and accurate copy of the email file(s) for Christos Dilmas's email account referenced in the July 1, 2020 Declaration of Edwin Svoboda (the “Svoboda Declaration”), both in compressed format and in the format after extraction of the compressed data as referenced in the Svoboda Declaration.” (Id. at 47.) Plaintiffs responded: “See documents previously produced as bates numbers SYMBRIA0000007-SYMBRIA0001259.” (Id.) Chicago Rehab does not explain why this answer is insufficient. Thus, its motion to compel as to this RFP is moot.
RFP 4 asks for “[a]ll images, partial images and/or backups of Dilmas's hard drive on his Symbria Rehab-issued computer.” (Id.) Plaintiffs raised overbreadth, undue burden, and relevance objections, but said that “Symbria is not in possession of any images, partial images, and/or backups of Dilmas’ hard drive from his Symbria-issued computer.” (Id.) Plaintiffs cannot produce something they do not have. Accordingly, their answer is sufficient.
RFP 5 asks for “[c]omplete and accurate copies of all analyses, summaries, markups, workpapers, notes and related materials pertaining to Christos Dilmas's email account prepared by or at the direction of Edwin Svoboda or any other employee, agent, consultant or expert retained by any Plaintiff.” (Id. at 47-48.) Plaintiffs objected to this request as being overly broad and seeking irrelevant or privileged information. (Id. at 48.) The Court overrules the overbreadth and relevance objections. As for privilege, if plaintiffs are withholding any documents on that basis they must: “(i) expressly make the claim; and (ii) describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed--and do so in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A). Plaintiffs must either comply with this request fully or produce to Chicago Rehab a privilege log that comports with Rule 26.
*9 RFP 6 asks for “[a]ll other documents and communications regarding any investigation or analysis of Dilmas's email accounts or his Symbria Rehab-issued computer.” (Id.) Plaintiffs objected that requested material was irrelevant and/or privileged. (Id.) For the reasons discussed above, plaintiffs must fully comply with this request or produce to Chicago Rehab a privilege log that comports with Rule 26.
RFP 7 asks for “[a] complete and accurate copy of all email file(s) for Christine Irvine's email account, both in compressed format and in the format after extraction of the compressed data as referenced in the Svoboda Declaration.” (Id.) Plaintiffs answered by identifying a Bates stamp range of documents they had previously produced. (Id.) Because Chicago Rehab does not explain why that answer is insufficient, the Court denies its motion to compel as to this request.
RFP 8 asks for “[a]ll images, partial images and/or backups of Irvine's hard drive on her Symbria Rehab-issued computer.” (Id. at 49.) Plaintiffs asserted overbreadth, relevance and burden objections, but said, “Symbria is not in possession of any images, partial images, or backups of Irvine's hard drive from her Symbria-issued computer.” (Id.) As noted above, plaintiffs cannot produce something they do not have. Thus, Chicago Rehab's motion to compel as to this request is denied.
RFP 9 asks for “[c]omplete and accurate copies of all analyses, summaries, markups, workpapers, notes and related materials pertaining to Christine Irvine's email account prepared by or at the direction of Edwin Svoboda or any other employee, agent, consultant or expert retained by any Plaintiff.” (Id.) Plaintiffs objected on the grounds of overbreadth, relevance, and privilege. (Id.) The Court overrules the overbreadth and relevance objections. Moreover, for the reasons discussed above, plaintiffs must fully comply with this request or produce a privilege log that comports with Rule 26.
RFP 10 asks for “[a]ll other documents and communications regarding any investigation or analysis of Irvine's email accounts or her Symbria Rehab-issued computer.” (Id.) Plaintiffs objected on the grounds of relevance, overbreadth, and privilege. (Id.) The Court overrules the overbreadth and relevance objections. Moreover, for the reasons discussed above, plaintiffs must fully comply with this request or produce a privilege log that comports with Rule 26.
RFP 11 asks for “[a] complete and accurate copy of all email file(s) for the email accounts of any other existing or former Symbria or Symbria Rehab employee reviewed or analyzed by Plaintiffs in connection with this action, including if applicable and without limitation for John Callen, Amanda Ambrose, Brad Miller, Tammy Buckley, Kathleen Rice and/or Vic Arellano, both in compressed format and in the format after extraction of the compressed data as referenced in the Svoboda Declaration.” (Id. at 49-50.) Plaintiffs objected that this RFP is “overly broad, unduly burdensome, not relevant to any claim or defense, and not proportional to the needs of the case and would require the production of hundreds of thousands of documents.” (Id. at 50.) Because this request seeks email from accounts plaintiffs analyzed in connection with this suit, the Court overrules plaintiffs’ relevance and overbreadth objections. Moreover, plaintiffs’ bare assertion that compliance would require them to produce hundreds of thousands of documents is not enough to substantiate a burden objection. See, e.g., Jenkins v. White Castle Mgmt. Co., 2014 WL 3809763 at *2 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 4, 2014) (“What is required is affirmative proof in the form of affidavits or record evidence.”); Burton Mech. Contractors, Inc. v. Foreman, 148 F.R.D. 230, 233 (N.D. Ind. 1992) (“An objecting party must specifically establish the nature of any alleged burden, usually by affidavit or other reliable evidence.”). Accordingly, plaintiffs must comply with this request.
*10 RFP 12 asks for “[c]omplete and accurate copies of all analyses, summaries, markups, workpapers, notes and related materials pertaining the email account(s) of any other existing or former Symbria or Symbria Rehab employee in connection with this action prepared by or at the direction of Edwin Svoboda or any other employee, agent, consultant or expert retained by any Plaintiff, including if applicable and without limitation for the email accounts John Callen, Amanda Ambrose, Brad Miller, Tammy Buckley, Kathleen Rice and/or Vic Arellano.” (Id.) Plaintiffs objected on the grounds of overbreadth, relevance, and privilege. (Id.) For the reasons discussed above, the Court overrules plaintiffs’ overbreadth and relevance objections. Plaintiffs must respond fully to this request or produce to Chicago Rehab a privilege log that comports with Rule 26.
RFP 13 asks for “[a]ll documents and communications related to any monitoring of Dilmas's emails or email account prior to his resignation of his employment with Symbria Rehab.” (Id.) Plaintiffs objected that this request was vague, cited the Bates stamp numbers of the employee handbooks in which plaintiffs inform their employees that plaintiffs have the right to monitor and review e-mail messages, and said, “Plaintiffs are not aware of any ‘monitoring’ of Dilmas’ emails or email account prior to his resignation of his employment with Symbria Rehab.” (Id.) Plaintiffs’ answer is sufficient.
RFP 15 asks for “[c]opies of all emails that Dilmas emailed to his personal account at any time.” (Id. at 51.) Plaintiffs objected that the request was overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks irrelevant information. Nonetheless, plaintiffs agreed “[to] produce any emails sent from Dilmas’ Symbria email address to “cdilmas@icloud.com” for the time period May 1, 2017, to September 25, 2019.” (Id.) Because Chicago Rehab does not explain why plaintiffs’ answer is insufficient, the Court denies its motion as to this request.
RFP 16 asks for “[c]opies of all emails that Irvine emailed to her personal email account at any time.” (Id.) Plaintiffs objected that the request was overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks irrelevant information. Nonetheless, they agreed “[to] produce any emails sent from Irvine's Symbria email address to christine.lanciloti@gmail.com for the time period May 1, 2017, to February 22, 2019.” (Id.) Because Chicago Rehab does not explain why plaintiffs’ answer is insufficient, the Court denies its motion as to this request.
RFP 17 asks for “[c]opies of all emails that Dan Lanciloti caused to be emailed from Christine Irvine's Symbria Rehab email account to any other email account, including without limitation Dan Lanciloti's email accounts.” (Id. at 52.) Plaintiffs asserted that this request is overly broad, assumes facts not in evidence, and seeks irrelevant and confidential information. (Id.) The Court agrees that this request, which is not limited to Mr. Lanciloti's emailing from Ms. Irvine's Symbria Rehab email account materials plaintiffs contend contain their trade secrets or confidential information, is overly broad. Thus, plaintiffs need not produce documents responsive to this request.
RFP 21 asks for “[a]ll analyses, summaries, markups, workpapers, notes and related materials pertaining [sic] any practice by any employees of Symbria or Symbria Rehab of emailing, copying, forwarding, backing up or otherwise transferring any Symbria or Symbria Rehab materials to their home computers or related devices, including for the purpose of working with those materials from their homes.” (Id. at 53.) Plaintiffs objected on the grounds of overbreadth, relevance, and privilege. (Id.) For reasons already explained, the Court overrules the relevance and overbreadth objections. Moreover, for the reasons discussed above, plaintiffs must comply fully with this request or produce a privilege log that comports with Rule 26.
*11 RFP 35 asks for “[a]ll emails and other communications by which any Symbria, Symbria Rehab or any other Plaintiff published to any third party any trade secret allegedly misappropriated by CRC, including without limitation the emails from Symbria Rehab's Linda Kolleng to third parties.” (Id. at 57.) RFP 37 asks for “[a]ll emails and other communications by which any Symbria, Symbria Rehab or any other Plaintiff published to any third party any confidential information allegedly misappropriated by CRC, including without limitation the emails from Symbria Rehab's Linda Kolleng to third parties.” (Id. at 58.) Plaintiffs objected to both requests on the grounds of overbreadth and relevance but said, “Symbria will conduct a reasonable search of its electronically stored information (ESI) within agreed-upon parameters upon receipt of reasonable search terms and custodians as to whose document repositories those search terms will be applied, and produce non-privileged documents responsive to this request beginning on or after May 1, 2017.” (Id. at 57-58.) Chicago Rehab says it cannot give search terms to plaintiffs because plaintiffs have not answered its interrogatories. Further, Chicago Rehab says, plaintiffs should not be able to dictate the terms on which they will comply with discovery. The Court agrees and orders plaintiffs to respond to this request.[2]
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants in part and denies in part Chicago Rehab's motion to compel [ECF 394 as amended by ECF 431]. Plaintiffs must comply with this Order within thirty days of its date.
SO ORDERED.

Footnotes

Even if it were a contention interrogatory, the Court would exercise its discretion to require plaintiffs to answer it now to narrow the scope of the issues. Ziemack v. Centel Corp., No. 92 C 3551, 1995 WL 729295, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 7, 1995) (stating that “courts have the discretion to allow use of contention interrogatories before discovery is complete”); see Edward Lowe Indus., Inc. v. Oil-Dri Corp. of Am., No. 94 C 7568, 1995 WL 399712, at *3 (N.D. Ill. July 7, 1995) (“[C]ontention interrogatories may be proper even early in discovery when ‘there is good reason to believe that answers ... will contribute meaningfully to clarifying issues in the case, narrowing the scope of the dispute, or setting up early settlement discussion.’ ”) (quoting Fischer & Porter v. Tolson, 143 F.R.D. 93, 96 (E.D. Pa. 1992)). See also Pratt v. Tarr, 464 F.3d 730, 733 (7th Cir. 2006) (suggesting that contention interrogatories are an appropriate means to better comprehend an opposing party's claim early on in the discovery process).
Nonetheless, the Court encourages the parties to consider the mutual benefits of limiting ESI through the use of appropriate search terms. While Chicago Rehab may “win the battle” by forcing plaintiffs to produce a large sum of emails, the “war may be lost” because Chicago Rehab will receive a trove of emails that it cannot usefully process or review.