*1 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel Discovery [Doc. No. 171]. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ motion is denied.

This putative class action lawsuit involves the transmissions on Defendant Ford Motor Company's Model Year 2017-2020 Ford F-150 vehicles. Plaintiffs bring the action individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons who purchased or leased the subject vehicles. Plaintiffs allege that the subject vehicles have “defects contained in the Vehicles’ 10R80, a 10-speed automatic transmission that can shift harshly and erratically, causing the vehicle to jerk, lunge, and hesitate between gears.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs assert that, despite Ford's knowledge of the transmission defects, the company “has refused to recall or replace the defective Transmissions.” (Id. at ¶ 5.) According to Plaintiffs, had they “known about the Transmission Defect at the time of sale or lease,” they “would not have purchased” the subject vehicles “or would have paid less for them.” (Id. at ¶ 10.) Several discovery disputes have arisen between the parties and they were not able to resolve their disputes through the required Local Rule 37.2 procedure. Plaintiffs now move for an order compelling Ford to answer an interrogatory and to produce documents in response to certain requests for production. The disputed discovery requests will be addressed below in turn.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that “[p]arties 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, considering 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 34; Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). “The party requesting discovery bears the initial burden of establishing its relevancy.” Eternity Mart, Inc. v. Nature's Sources, LLC, No. 19-cv-02436, 2019 WL 6052366 at *2, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198880 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2019) (citations omitted); see also Art Akiane LLC v. Art & SoulWorks, LLC, No. 19 C 2952, 2020 WL 6509228, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2020) (collecting cases). If the requesting party meets its burden, “the party opposing discovery has the burden of proving that the requested discovery should be disallowed.” Sols. Team v. Oak St. Health, MSO, LLC, No. 17 CV 1879, 2021 WL 3022324 at *3, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132847 at *7 (N.D. Ill. July 16, 2021) (citation omitted).

I. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FORD AND GENERAL MOTORS

Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 23 and Requests for Production Nos. 62, 63, and 64 seek information pertaining to Ford's relationship with General Motors with respect to the design and development of the 10R80 transmission. Specifically, Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 23 asks Ford to:

[Doc. No. 171-1 at 1.] Ford states in its response brief that it agrees to provide a supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 23 and “will describe its agreement with General Motors and identify the Ford personnel who worked with General Motors on the 10R80 transmission.” (Def.’s Resp. at 2.) Plaintiffs concede that “Ford's proposed supplemental response appears to resolve Interrogatory No. 23.” (Pls.’ Reply at 9.) In light of Ford's agreement to provide a supplemental answer, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel as to Interrogatory No. 23 is denied as moot. However, the Court expects Ford to provide the promised supplemental answer within 14 days of this Order.

Turning to the pertinent document requests, Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production Nos. 62 and 64 seek communications between Ford and General Motors. Specifically, Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 64 asks Ford to:

[Doc. No. 171-1 at 4.]

More pointedly, Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 62 asks Ford to:

[Id. at 3.]

With respect to these document requests, Ford indicates in its response brief that it “agrees to supplement its custodial document collection and production by adding five additional custodians who were involved in the design and development of the 10R80 transmission, and who were the primary individuals who communicated with General Motors regarding the 10R80 transmission.” (Def.’s Resp. at 11.) In light of these substantial ESI efforts Ford has agreed to undertake, the Court at this time denies Plaintiffs’ motion to compel with respect to Requests for Production Nos. 62 and 64 as moot. However, the Court expects Ford to produce the promised documents within 45 days of this Order. Though Plaintiffs complain that they “are unable to gauge whether Ford's offered compromise for RFP nos. 62 and 64 is sufficient” (Pls.’ Reply at 9.), nothing prohibits Plaintiffs from filing a subsequent motion to compel in the future if they determine that Ford's supplemental production is inadequate.

Finally, Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 63 seeks documents pertaining to the commercial terms of Ford's agreement with General Motors regarding the companies’ alleged joint development of the transmission. Specifically, this document request asks Ford to:

[Doc. No. 171-1 at 4.] Ford has objected to Request for Production No. 63 on grounds of relevance, proportionality, overbreadth, undue burden, and confidentiality. [Id.] In its response brief, Ford maintains its objections to the document request.

Plaintiffs argue that “[t]he terms of this agreement [between Ford and General Motors] are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims as they outline the parties’ respective responsibilities concerning the development of the product at issue in this case.” (Pls.’ Reply at 10.) However, as addressed above, Ford has agreed to provide a supplemental interrogatory answer in which it will fulsomely describe its agreement with General Motors and identify the Ford personnel who worked with General Motors on the 10R80 transmission. The Court finds that the provision of that answer is sufficient to give Plaintiffs an “outline of [Ford and General Motors’] respective responsibilities concerning the development” of the transmission, which is the information Plaintiffs seek. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is denied as to Request for Production No. 63.

II. FORD'S FIELD SERVICE ENGINEERS

*3 Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 61 seeks information pertaining to Ford's Field Service Engineers. Specifically, the document request asks Ford to:

[Doc. No. 171-1 at 2.] As characterized by Ford, Request for Production No. 61 seeks “email maintained by Ford Field Service Engineers (FSEs) who worked at dealerships where the named Plaintiffs’ vehicles were serviced.” (Def.’s Resp. at 1.) Ford has objected to this request on grounds of relevance, proportionality, overbreadth, and undue burden. [Doc. No. 171-1 at 2-3.]

In describing the roles of Ford's Field Service Engineers, Plaintiffs maintain that the Field Service Engineers “are not only recipients of escalated concerns by dealerships and technicians, but they also conduct inspections of vehicles with issues in the field, which includes incidents involving shifting issues related to defective 10R80 transmissions.” (Pls.’ Mot. at 7.) Pertinent to information held by Field Service Engineers, Ford maintains a Global Common Quality Indicator System (GCQIS) database, which “provides access to selected vehicle concern information originating from dealerships and internal Ford sources” and allows Ford employees to “record information regarding vehicle concerns identified at the dealership.” (Def.’s Resp. at 7.) Ford has already “produced communications between Ford and its dealers (including Field Service Engineers) regarding technical inquiries to Ford regarding the 10R80 transmission in putative class vehicles through its production of data from its [GCQIS database].” (Id. at 1.) Despite that production, Plaintiffs argue that Ford should now be required to run searches of the Field Service Engineers’ ESI.

However, Ford represents to the Court that “the searches contemplated by Plaintiffs would require Ford to contact each Field Service Engineer, copy their computer hard drives, run searches on their computers (because there is no central database where the information Plaintiffs seek is maintained) and then review and produce responsive documents, which would likely take several hundred hours.” (Def.’s Resp. at 10.) Under the circumstances, and considering the production of GCQIS information Ford has already made, the Court agrees with Ford that requiring the company to “collect and produce email from at least nine (but likely more) Filed Service Engineers who worked at eleven dealerships over a seven-year time period (from 2016 through present) would be unduly burdensome” and would likely “be largely duplicative of the GCQIS data that Ford has already produced.” (Def.’s Resp. at 1.) Along those lines, the Court finds that the burden or expense of Plaintiffs’ proposed ESI discovery outweighs its likely benefit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel as to Request for Production No. 61 is denied.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel Discovery [Doc. No. 171] is denied.

SO ORDERED.