*1 THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant/ Counterclaim Plaintiff, Dominion Aesthetic Technologies, Inc.’s (“Dominion”) Motion to Compel the Production of Documents, filed on January 9, 2024. (DE 45). The Motion requests the court to compel the production of “all documents that are responsive to Request Numbers 10, 11, 14, 17, and 27.” (Id. at 3). Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Body Details, LLC and Plaintiff Body Details Pembroke Pines, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) responded in opposition on January 23, 2024 (DE 50), to which Dominion replied on January 25, 2024 (DE 51). On January 30, 2024, Dominion filed a Second Motion to Compel Production of Documents. (DE 52). This second motion offers slightly different support and appears to be an effort by Dominion to supplement certain arguments made in its Reply to the first motion. The second motion requests the exact same relief as the first, asking the court to compel the production of “all documents that are responsive to Request Numbers 10, 11, 14, 17, and 27. (Id. at 3). Moreover, the second motion is not yet ripe. As Dominion's First Motion is fully briefed, and because Dominion has already had a full opportunity to raise all relevant arguments in its Reply, I will analyze the merits of Dominion's First Motion to Compel and deny the second as moot.

I. Background

Dominion's Motion to Compel stems from a contractual dispute over the sale of approximately 20 Eon Laser devices, a high-tech weight loss device. Plaintiffs claim in part that they suffered actual damages as a result of the alleged failure by Dominion to provide support for services rendered and because Dominion allows Plaintiffs’ competitors to sell services through the Eon Device at a price lower than what Plaintiffs were charging. (DE 45 at 2). Dominion also brought a counterclaim against Plaintiffs for failure to market the Eon Devices and failing to comply with the underlying Contract, including the obligation to transmit “before and after pictures” to Dominion. (Id.)

In its first motion to compel, Dominion states that as Plaintiffs are claiming lost profits as damages, Dominion requires documents showing the costs incurred, how Plaintiffs generated revenue, and the costs charged to customers. (DE 45 at 3). To that end, Dominion issued seventeen subpoenas duces tecum to Plaintiffs. Dominion represents that it met and conferred with Plaintiffs and to date Plaintiffs and the subsidiaries have failed to provide required responses. Dominion now requests that this court enter an order compelling Plaintiffs to produce all documents that are responsive to Request Numbers 10, 11, 14, 17, and 27. (DE 45).

Rule 26(b)(1) provides that the “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense... For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Courts construe relevancy “broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter[s] that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978) (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947)). Plaintiffs have filed an Opposition to the present motion (DE 50), claiming that many of the materials requested contain confidential patient information. Plaintiffs also represent that the Parties were negotiating an Agreed Confidentiality Order before Dominion filed the present motion. I'll address each of Plaintiffs’ objections in turn, with each of Dominion's document requests.

*2 Request No. 10: “Any and all photographs of patients relating to ‘Before and After’ treatments including the actual electronic file of such photographs.”

Plaintiffs object to this request on the ground that disclosure of the “Before and After” photos would violate doctor/patient confidentiality concepts as they constitute records relating to an examination or treatment by a healthcare practitioner. Plaintiffs further represent that the photographs would include customers and patients in a state of undress. Dominion represents that the transmission of these photographs is an obligation of the Parties’ underlying agreement. The plain text of the Parties’ contract, attached as an Exhibit, includes this language: “Body Details to provide Patient ‘Before & After’ imaging monthly (2 Patient/Month minimum) throughout Phase 1.” While the Parties’ contract might require this transmission, Dominion cannot use discovery as a means to enforce compliance with the contract. In other words, the mere existence of this contract provision does not obviate the need for Dominion to demonstrate that the information is relevant for purposes of discovery. Given that Dominion represented that it was seeking documents which relate to Plaintiffs’ overall operation, the amounts charged to customers, and revenue streams, I struggle to see how these images could be relevant to the merits of the litigation. \

Request No. 11: “Copies of any and all patient and customer complaints to [Plaintiffs] relating to the use of Eon Lasers subject to the Agreement and the Addendum.”

Plaintiffs object to this request on the grounds that disclosure here would also violate doctor/patient confidentiality concepts. Plaintiffs also state that presenting records of complaints for review is unreasonably burdensome and time consuming to Plaintiffs. Again, I agree that disclosure of patient names is irrelevant to this case and while the sale of the Eon Laser is the underlying factual scenario at issue here, Dominion has not represented that customer experiences with the Eon Laser are relevant.

Request No. 14: “Any and all documents and communication relating to payments received by [Plaintiffs] from patients for any Eon Lasers treatments.”

Plaintiffs do not appear to object to this request. In the filed Request and Responses (DE 45-2), Plaintiffs appear to have provided a document entitled “FatRemoval” including in a Google Drive Link. To the extent that Plaintiffs’ response was not complete, Plaintiffs are required to provide all responsive documents. I will permit Plaintiffs to redact patient names as the relevant information appears to be the payment amounts and payment organization.

Request No. 17: “Documents and communications reflecting any refunds issued by [Plaintiffs] to any patient in connection with any Eon Laser treatments.”

Again, Plaintiffs do not appear to object to this request. In the filed Request and Responses (DE 45-2), Plaintiffs appear to have provided a document entitled “Eon Refunds” in a Google Drive Link. To the extent that Plaintiffs’ response was not complete, Plaintiffs are required to provide all responsive documents. I will permit Plaintiffs to redact patient names as the relevant information appears to be if any refunds were issued and how those were organized and accounted for.

*3 Request No. 27: “Documents showing the costs that are incurred with respect to the operation of each Body Details Location.”

Plaintiffs object on relevance grounds stating that this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs did provide a document entitled “BillsandAppliedPayments” in a Google Drive link. As Dominion is seeking to discover the financial structure of Plaintiffs and their subsidiaries, I find that this request is relevant. To the extent that Plaintiffs’ response was not complete, Plaintiffs are required to provide all responsive documents.

Finally, Plaintiffs appear to request that this Court, in the alternative, enter a Confidentiality Order as the Parties have been negotiating putting one into place, given the sensitive patient information in some of these documents. To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking relief from the court, that cannot be done in the posture of a motion response. Pursuant to Rule 7(b)(1), “[a] request for a court order must be made by motion,” which must “state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1). Motions must also comply with all Local Rules of this court, including conferral and a memorandum of law.

Based on the forgoing, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

SIGNED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida this 2 day of February, 2024.