Re: Dkt. Nos. 236, 246

The Court has considered the concerned parties’ joint submission, the relevant discovery history in this matter, relevant law and the documents provided for in-camera review. Dkt. 236, 246. The relevant background to this dispute is set forth in this Court’s previous order (Dkt. 246) and incorporated herein by reference. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs’ request is DENIED.

Upon review and consideration of the arguments of the concerned parties and the documents relied upon by Plaintiffs, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ request for ten additional individuals plus the Masters Committee, in addition to the eleven agreed-upon targets, is overly burdensome on the Subpoenaed Parties and not in proportion to the needs of the litigation. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26. The cited documents do not implicate in any way the Subpoenaed Parties. Nor do they reflect communications by or between the identified additional targets. Indeed, for the most part, the identified targets appear merely as names on lists or in other oblique references made by others. Any connection between an identified target and a Subpoenaed Party, based on the cited documents, is highly speculative. Against this backdrop, and in light of the narrow allegations directed to Augusta National and the Masters in the operative complaint (Dkt. 236 at 7), the agreed-upon list of eleven targets who the Subpoenaed Parties have reason to believe determine eligibility for the Masters is the appropriate scope for RFP No. 8. Plaintiffs request to add eleven additional targets is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 30, 2023