*1 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Sage Water's Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Defendant National Renovations LLC (“Repipe Specialists”) (Dkt. No. 193). Plaintiff's Motion is fully briefed (see Dkt. Nos. 194, 196–97), and the Court dispenses with a hearing on the Motion because oral argument would not aid in the decisional process. See L. Civ. R. 7(J). Upon review of Plaintiff's Motion, the memoranda in support and opposition thereto, and the entire record in this matter, the Court will DENY Plaintiff's Motion.

Briefly, Plaintiff's Motion asks the Court to compel Defendant Repipe Specialists to provide Plaintiff with a “forensic image of Daniel Johnston's Repipe Specialists issued computer and Johnston's Repipe Specialists issued OneDrive for forensic analysis by its expert.”[1] (Dkt. No. 193 at 1.) In support of its request, Plaintiff asserts that (1) Defendant Repipe Specialists is required to produce the requested forensic images pursuant to the Court's April 3 Order regarding the parties' Joint Report on Forensic Protocols (Dkt. No. 174), including because Defendant David Hossfeld likely “transferred” Sage Water documents to Johnston's accounts/devices; and (2) even if Johnston's accounts/devices are outside the scope of the Court's April 3 Order, the forensic images are responsive to SageWater's Fourth Request for Production to Repipe Specialists and should be compelled as relevant responsive discovery. (See Dkt. No. 194 at 1; Dkt. No. 197 at 3–4.) Defendant Repipe Specialists opposes Plaintiff's Motion, arguing that (1) Plaintiff's request for forensic images of Johnston's accounts/devices is outside the scope of the Court's April 3 Order, including because that Order dealt only with a request for production of Defendant Hossfeld's accounts/devices; and (2) Plaintiff is otherwise not entitled to the forensic images under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) because Repipe Specialists has already designated Johnston as a custodian and produced his relevant documents and communications in response to Plaintiff's prior document requests. (See Dkt. No. 196 at 2.)

The Court notes its familiarity with the facts, claims, defenses, and other issues raised in this case, having decided numerous discovery disputes involving dozens of RFPs, Interrogatories, and other discovery issues, and dispenses with a summary of the claims and allegations underlying the lawsuit. Taking Plaintiff's arguments in turn, the Court first finds that Plaintiff's interpretation of the April 3 Order is incorrect. On March 15, 2024, Plaintiff moved to compel forensic images of Defendant Hossfeld's personal accounts and devices—such as iCloud, email, and storage devices— as well as Hossfeld's Repipe Specialists issued devices, so that its forensic expert could review those accounts/devices for the existence and manipulation of SageWater documents and information that allegedly constitute Plaintiff's trade secrets.[2] On March 29, pursuant to the Court's March 22 and March 26 Orders (Dkt. Nos. 155 & 157), the parties filed a Joint Report presenting the remaining issues in dispute regarding Plaintiffs imaging requests. (See Dkt. No. 161.) Notably, while Defendant Repipe Specialists agreed to provide Plaintiff with forensic images of “the laptop that Repipe Specialists issued to Hossfeld” and “the iPad that Repipe Specialists issued to Hossfeld” (Dkt. No. 161 at 2), Defendant Hossfeld objected to producing forensic images of several of the personal accounts/devices requested by Plaintiff in RFPs 133 and 134.[3] (Id. at 4.) Accordingly, on the issue of which accounts/devices were to be provided to Plaintiff for forensic imaging, the only issue before the Court related to Plaintiff's RFPs 133 and 134 to Defendant Hossfeld. (See id. at 4–6.) Indeed, in support of its requests for the at-issue accounts and devices, Plaintiff argued that the “forensic images of Hossfeld's personal devices (iMac, iPad, Smart Phone, thumb drives inserted into Hossfeld's computers, email accounts, and internet storage applications) are central to the issues in the case” because “[t]hese are the very devices used by Hossfeld to access, copy and store SageWater's trade secrets.” (Id. at 8 (emphasis added).)

*2 On April 3, 2024, having considered the parties' respective positions, the Court ordered that Plaintiff be provided with some (but not all) of the Hossfeld accounts/devices requested in RFPs 133 and 134. Those included forensic images for two of Hossfeld's personal accounts, as well as “[a]ny other storage device or accounts, including thumb drives ... to which [Hossfeld] transferred any SageWater material during or after [his] SageWater employment.” (Dkt. No. 174 at 1–2.) The Court specifically clarified, however, that “Defendant Hossfeld is not required to provide the portion of item (m) on page 4 of the Joint Report covering all devices that ‘at any time [were] maintained’ by Hossfeld—just those to which any SageWater material was transferred.” (Id. at 2 (emphasis added).) To be clear, therefore, the Court's April 3 Order compelled Defendant Hossfeld to provide forensic images of “[a]ny other storage device or accounts ... to which [he] transferred any SageWater material,” in response to Plaintiff's RFPs 133 and 134. (See Dkt. No. 161 at 4 (Item (m)).) It bears noting, again, that Plaintiff's RFPs 133 and 134 were directed to Defendant Hossfeld only.

Despite this context and the plain language of the Court's April 3 Order, Plaintiff now contends that Mr. Johnston's devices are “well within the devices that the Court ordered Repipe Specialists to produce for forensic analysis” because it is “highly likely that Hossfeld shared SageWater files with Johnston.” (Dkt. No. 194 at 8 (emphasis added).) That is incorrect. As noted above, the part of the April 3 Order regarding “any other storage device or accounts” applied only to those that were in Defendant Hossfeld's possession, custody, or control in response to RFP Nos. 133 and 134—it was not directed to Repipe Specialists. It is indisputable that Plaintiff's RFPs 133 and 134, which were directed to Defendant Hossfeld, did not and could not reach the devices Plaintiff now seeks to compel from Defendant Repipe Specialists—devices that were used by and reportedly issued to Mr. Johnston. Accordingly, neither the plain language nor the surrounding context of the April 3 Order support Plaintiffs interpretation of it, and the Court denies Plaintiff's Motion on that basis.

The Court also denies Plaintiff's Motion on the basis that Plaintiff's forensic imaging requests are outside the scope of permissible discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). On April 26, 2024, (the same date that Plaintiff filed the pending Motion to Compel), Plaintiff served its Fourth Set of Requests for Production of Documents on Defendant Repipe Specialists requesting the forensic images of Johnston's computer and OneDrive Account. (See Dkt. No. 197-1, Exhibit 4.)[4] Although the Court typically would not be in a position to rule on the appropriateness of an RFP served just one week prior (see, e.g., L. Civ. R. 26(C)), Plaintiff specifically states in its Reply that because Defendant Repipe Specialists “will not produce a forensic image of the Johnston devices ... in response to SageWater's Request for Production,” the “Court is in a position ... to compel the production of the forensic images in response to SageWater's Fourth Request for Production.” (Dkt. No. 197 at 4.) Defendant Repipe Specialists addressed the scope of Rule 26 in its opposition, arguing that “[e]ven leaving aside the [Court's April 3 Order], SageWater has not demonstrated that requiring Repipe Specialists to provide a forensic image of Johnston's OneDrive and laptop is warranted here.” (Dkt. No. 196 at 9.) The Court thus finds that the parties are at an impasse as to Plaintiff's Fourth Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant Repipe Specialists and that this issue is ripe for disposition.

*3 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, parties are entitled discovery “regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,” considering a variety of factors including the importance, likely benefit, and potential burden or expense of the discovery requested. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Although Rule 26 should be read broadly, “discovery, like all matters of procedure, has ultimate and necessary boundaries.” Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947); accord Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). The Court may thus “limit the frequency or extent of discovery,” including when “it determines that ... the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative,” or “the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). The Fourth Circuit has repeatedly stated that a “district court has wide latitude in controlling discovery and ... its rulings will not be overturned absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion.” Ardrey v. United Parcel Service, 798 F.2d 679, 682 (4th Cir. 1986) (citing Rabb v. Amatex Corp., 769 F.2d 996, 999 (4th Cir. 1985)).

Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff's request for forensic images of Mr. Johnston's accounts/devices is not proportional to the needs of this case, a finding that is bolstered by the significant discovery that already has been exchanged between the parties, including forensic imaging of multiple devices and accounts.[5] The production of forensic images is “a drastic discovery measure,” and the cases that Plaintiff cites in support of its position are inapposite to the facts and issues presented here. Cross by & Through Steele v. XPO Express, Inc., 4:15-CV-2481-BHH, 2016 WL 11519221, at *7 (D.S.C. May 3, 2016) (discussing the production of forensic imaging and considering the Sedona Principles and Advisory Committee Notes). Unlike this case, those cases involved requests for forensic imaging in the face of the actual or potential destruction of evidence and a demonstrated likelihood of irreparable harm to the requesting party. (See Dkt. No. 194 at 8 (citing Quetel Corp. v. Abbas, l:17cv0471 (AJT/JFA), 2017 WL 11380134 (E.D. Va. Oct. 27, 2017) (ordering forensic imaging in case where device used to develop source code had been “disposed of”); Physicians Interactive v. Lathian Sys., Inc., CA 03-1193-A, 2003 WL 23018270, at *10 (E.D. Va. Dec. 5, 2003) (ordering forensic imaging because the case presented “unusual circumstances or conditions that would likely prejudice the party if they were required to wait the normal time to initiate discovery” where “[e]lectronic evidence can easily be erased and manipulated”). By contrast, here, Plaintiff has not explained why Repipe Specialists' production of Johnston's documents, communications, and other information in response to its prior discovery requests is insufficient such that forensic imaging is necessary.

To be clear, there is no dispute that Plaintiff is receiving discovery from Johnston's Repipe-issued devices and accounts. Repipe Specialists designated Johnston as a custodian in this matter and must produce any non-privileged documents and communications from Johnston's accounts and devices that are responsive to Plaintiff's RFPs. Plaintiff's RFP No. 37 to Defendant Repipe Specialists requested “[a] 11 SageWater Documents and Communications obtained from any former or current SageWater employee, including, but not limited to, Hossfeld and Dan Johnston.” (Dkt. No. 145-1 at 13 (emphasis added).) As Plaintiff itself explains in its Reply, Defendant Repipe Specialists is complying with its discovery obligations and producing responsive documents. Specifically, “Repipe Specialists produced a document bates labeled RS EDVA 00007981 (“Repipe 7981”),” which, Plaintiff explains, “is an estimating spreadsheet used to assist in submitting a bid for a repiping project” created by SageWater. (Dkt. No. 197 at 5.) Plaintiff's analysis of this spreadsheet produced by Repipe Specialists reflects that the document “was last modified by Johnston on March 10, 2023,” thus confirming that productions from Repipe Specialists include documents edited by Johnston. (Id.) Plaintiff does not assert that Repipe Specialists is not complying with its discovery obligations and otherwise cites no authority demonstrating it is entitled to forensic images of Defendant's employee accounts and devices that are already subject to search and production through the normal document discovery.[6] Put simply, Plaintiff does not establish that the normal discovery process is insufficient. Thus, while the Court previously determined that certain of Defendant Hossfeld's accounts and devices were appropriately subject to forensic imaging given Plaintiffs allegations that Hossfeld himself improperly downloaded and transferred SageWater materials (see, e.g., Dkt. No. 170 ¶ 70), the Court finds, on the record before it, that Plaintiff is not similarly entitled to the forensic images of Mr. Johnston's accounts and devices.[7]

*4 For these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff's request for forensic images of Mr. Johnston's Repipe Specialists-issued accounts and devices is not proportional to the needs of the case under Rule 26. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED; it is further

ORDERED that both parties' request for costs and fees pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(A) are DENIED.