*1 Before the Court is HonorSociety.Org, Inc.'s (“Honor Society”) [184] Motion to Compel. On June 26, 2024, the Court held an in-person discovery hearing. See Minute Entry (06/26/2024). After beginning in the courtroom, the undersigned and the parties proceeded to the undersigned's chambers and conducted an informal discovery conference. Various discovery and scheduling issues were discussed, one of which concerned Phi Theta Kappa Honor Society's (“PTK”) responses and supplemental responses to Honor Society's Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents (“RPDs”). Doc. [184-2]; [184-3]. Honor Society intended to review PTK's most recent document production to determine whether it would file a motion to compel on this discovery issue. Honor Society represents that its review was able to resolve some outstanding issues but numerous disputes remain between the parties. Doc. [184] at 2.

Given the impending expert designation deadlines and the Court's reluctance to extend them any further, the Court set a deadline for the filing of Honor Society's Motion to Compel on this specific discovery issue, if necessary, and established an expedited briefing schedule so that the issue could be addressed promptly. Doc. [170]. As authorized by the Court, Honor Society filed its Motion to Compel on July 12, 2024. Doc. [184]. Honor Society requests an order striking PTK's allegedly improper objections and compelling production. Id. at 3. Honor Society contends that the objections are boilerplate and that the responses fail to state whether any documents have been withheld on the basis of each objection as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C). Id. at 15, 22–23, 29, 33, 35–36, 38, 41–42, 45, 47, 49, 52–53, 55. Honor Society also requests an extension of the current case management deadlines by the length of time between PTK's responses were due on May 30th through when its eventual production is complete.[1] Id. at 3, 56–57. Honor Society represents that some issues are no longer in dispute, such as the number of requests agreed to among the parties[2] and PTK's privilege or work-product objections. Id. at 6–7. Therefore, the Court will not address these objections. PTK filed its Response in Opposition. Doc. [194]. And Honor Society filed its Reply. Doc. [198].

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) governs a motion to compel discovery responses. A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling production against another party when the latter “fails to produce documents or to respond that inspection will be permitted—or fails to permit inspection—as requested under Rule 34.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv). As previously stated, the issue here concerns responses to RPDs, which is governed by Rule 34.

Foster v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2023 WL 9181333, at *3 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 13, 2023) (quoting Jones v. McDonough, 2022 WL 704210, at *4 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 8, 2022)). Responses are due thirty days after service of the requests, but the parties may stipulate to a shorter or longer time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A).

When responding, “[f]or each item or category, the response must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). When objecting, “[a]n objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. An objection to part of a request must specificy the part and permit inspection of the rest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C). However, “[a]n objection that states the limits that have controlled the search for responsive and relevant materials,” i.e., search terms or temporal scope, “qualifies as a statement that the materials have been ‘withheld.’ ” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, Advisory Committee Notes to 2015 Amendment. This is intended to “end the confusion that frequently arises when a producing party states several objections and still produces information, leaving the requesting party uncertain whether any relevant and responsive information has been withheld on the basis of the objections.” Id.

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to the 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). “The moving party bears the burden of showing that the materials and information sought are relevant to the action or will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” RealPage, Inc. v. Enter. Risk Control, LLC, 2017 WL 1165688, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2017) (citing Export Worldwide, Ltd. v. Knight, 241 F.R.D. 259, 263 (W.D. Tex. 2006)). Once the moving party establishes that the materials requested are within the scope of permissible discovery, “[t]he party resisting discovery must show specifically how each discovery request is not relevant or otherwise objectionable.” Foster, 2023 WL 9181333, at *3; see McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482, 1485 (5th Cir. 1990). Therefore, “[a] party resisting discovery must show how the requested discovery is overly broad, unduly burdensome, or oppressive by submitting affidavits or offering evidence revealing the nature of the burden.” Id. (citing Jones, 2022 WL 704210, at *4). “Failing to do so, as a general matter, makes such an unsupported objection nothing more than unsustainable boilerplate.” Id. (quoting Jones, 2022 WL 704210, at *4).

*3 Regardless of whether objections are boilerplate, “a party will still not be compelled to produce documents if the request is overbroad or unduly burdensome on its face.” RealPage, Inc., 2017 WL 1165688, at *5. “At some point, ... discovery yields diminishing returns, needlessly increases expenses, and delays resolution of the parties' dispute.” Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. Moore, 2022 WL 1072881, at *2 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 8, 2022) (quoting Willis v. City of Hattiesburg, 2016 WL 918038, at *2 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 10, 2016)). “Discovery is not a license for the [parties] to ‘go fishing' and is limited to information that ‘is relevant to any party's claim or defense.’ ” Id. (quoting Barnes v. Tumlinson, 597 F. App'x 798, 799 (5th Cir. 2015)). Therefore, it is the Court's responsibility to find “a just and appropriate balance in the discovery process.” Id. (quoting Willis, 2016 WL 918038, at *2). “[C]ontrol of discovery is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court ....” Id. (quoting Van Duzer v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 582 F. App'x 279, 283 (5th Cir. 2014)).

On April 30, 2024, Honor Society propounded its Third Set of RPDs to PTK, which included a total of 59 RPDs. Doc. [184-1]. Honor Society's requests seek documents related to the claims added in its Second Amended Counterclaim and Third-Party Complaint, which includes attempted monopolization under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and cybersquatting under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d). Doc. [184] at 3–4; see Doc. [138]. Honor Society's requests also seek documents related to PTK's claims added in its Second Amended Complaint, which includes false advertising and tortious interference. Doc. [184] at 3–4; see Doc. [136]. PTK timely responded to Honor Society's Third Set of RPDs on May 30, 2024. Doc. [184-2]. PTK then supplemented its responses on June 11, 2024. Doc. [184-3]. Twenty-eight of Honor Society's requests, and PTK's responses and supplemental responses to those requests, are at issue here. Doc. [184] at 8–56.

A. RPDs Nos. 63–68

Honor Society states that these six RPDs “seek critical information about PTK's anticompetitive conduct and market conditions [such as information about intent] which are central to its attempted-monopolization claim.” Doc. [198] at 9. PTK's principal objections to these six RPDs concern the temporal scope. PTK objects because the RPDs are “not reasonably limited in scope or time, overly broad and unduly burdensome.” Doc. [184-2] at 6–11. In the interim, Honor Society revised the temporal scope here in that it seeks documents dating back to only 2010 rather than 2000. Doc. [184] at 17. But PTK contends this is still unreasonable. Doc. [194] at 14. PTK acknowledges that “courts relax the restrictions on discovery in antitrust matters” but argues that “Honor Society attempts to relax the restrictions well beyond its breaking point.” Id. PTK represents that it has searched approximately 7.7 million records over a period of 7.5 years, i.e., January 1, 2016 to October 2, 2023, which cost more than $400,000. Id. at 14–15; see Doc. [194-4]. Honor Society contends the basis for PTK's claimed expense is dubious: “The previous search used as a comparison covered discovery relating to all of PTK and HonorSociety's then-asserted claims. In contrast the search prior to 2016 at issue here is limited to just six [RPDs], which are highly focused, and, as PTK concedes, significantly overlapping in subject matter.” Doc. [198] at 9.

PTK's supplemental responses state the limits that have controlled the search for responsive and relevant materials, i.e., “PTK will engage in a reasonable search for responsive documents within the date range of January 1, 2016 through April 21, 2022.” Doc. [184-3] at 6–15. Therefore, this “qualifies as a statement that the materials have been ‘withheld.’ ” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, Advisory Committee Notes to 2015 Amendment. Moreover, “a party will ... not be compelled to produce documents if the request is overbroad or unduly burdensome on its face” even if objections are found to be boilerplate. RealPage, Inc., 2017 WL 1165688, at *5. For these reasons, Honor Society's request that the Court strike PTK's objections is denied.

Now, the Court addresses the temporal scope. Courts have generally allowed liberal discovery in antitrust cases, such that “the scope of discovery should not be defined by the limitations period or [a party's] alleged damages.” Cyntegra, Inc. v. IDEXX Lab'ys, Inc., 2007 WL 9701999, at *4 (C.D. Cal. June 29, 2007) (collecting cases).[3] The reasoning is that “[p]articularly where allegations of conspiracy or monopolization are involved ... broad discovery may be needed to uncover evidence of invidious design, pattern or intent.” Id. (citation omitted). And “direct evidence of an anticompetitive conspiracy is often difficult to obtain, and the existence of a conspiracy frequently can be established only through circumstantial evidence, such as business documents and other evidence.” In re Urethane Antitrust Litig., 261 F.R.D. 570, 573 (D. Kan. 2009).

*5 As a result, “[a]ntitrust litigation is expensive,” Corr Wireless Commc'ns, L.L.C. v. AT & T, Inc., 893 F. Supp. 789, 809 (N.D. Miss. 2012), and can involve “far-reaching discovery,” Dowdy & Dowdy P'ship v. Arbitron Inc., 2010 WL 3942755, at *5 (S.D. Miss. Oct. 6, 2010); see Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Delta Comm'ns Corp., 408 F. Supp. 1075, 1111 (S.D. Miss. 1976) (describing the amount of discovery in antitrust action as a “paper mountain”). “[D]iscovery in antitrust litigation is most broadly permitted and the burden or cost of providing the information sought is less weighty a consideration than in other cases.” New Park Ent., LLC v. Elec. Factory Concerts, Inc., 2000 WL 62315, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 13, 2000) (quoting United States v. Int'l Bus. Mach. Corp., 66 F.R.D. 186, 189 (S.D.N.Y. 1974)). But the “defendant should not be subjected to discovery from unreasonably remote time periods.” Cyntegra, Inc., 2007 WL 9701999, at *5. “[W]here the production would be so unreasonably burdensome considering its likely benefit, courts have ... limited the scope of discovery.” Id.

In sum, “[t]he question ... is what is a reasonable period under the circumstances.” Quonset Real Estate Corp. v. Paramount Film Distrib. Corp., 50 F.R.D. 240, 241 (S.D.N.Y. 1970). Honor Society alleges that a 2011 letter indicates PTK engaged in a long-term pattern of intentional anticompetitive conduct. Doc. [184] at 17; [198] at 10–11; see Doc. [138] at 13. PTK contends this 2011 letter is not evidence of intent to monopolize: “it certainly is a weak thread on which to demand PTK undertake an expensive and unnecessary search for documents[.]” Doc. [194] at 22–23. The instant motion ultimately concerns discovery issues and not the merits of Honor Society's attempted-monopolization counterclaim.[4] Still, the Court considers both the benefit and the burden of document production going back to 2010.

The Court finds that Honor Society's request to order PTK to produce complete nonprivileged responses as to RPDs Nos. 63–68 is granted in part. Under the circumstances of this case, the temporal scope with respect to these six RPDs should not exceed approximately 10 years. First, this period is particularly appropriate since Honor Society was formed in January 2014.[5] Second, this period should be sufficient to uncover evidence, if any, of invidious design, pattern, intent. On that note, the Court declines to extend the temporal scope to April 30, 2024, or further as to these six RPDs. Third, this period is limited to six RPDs; it follows then that document production will not be as costly as PTK's previous search because that search included other RPDs. In any event, “the burden or cost of providing the information sought is less weighty a consideration than in other cases.”[6] New Park Ent., LLC, 2000 WL 62315, at *3 (quoting Int'l Bus. Mach. Corp., 66 F.R.D. at 189).

*6 Accordingly, the Court compels PTK to produce documents it has not already provided that are responsive to these RPDs for the period of January 1, 2014 to October 2, 2023. PTK shall produce these documents within 30 days of entry of this Order. As a final matter, the Court agrees with PTK that Honor Society requests asking for “all documents” is problematic in scope. Doc. [194] at 13. Therefore, unless the parties can agree otherwise, PTK is directed to use “search terms or key words likely to generate responsive documents” which were used in the previous search for responsive documents.

B. RPD No. 69, 71–75, 78

Similar to the previously addressed RPDs, Honor Society's request that the Court strike PTK's objections is denied. PTK's supplemental responses state the limits that have controlled the search for responsive and relevant materials, which qualifies as a statement that the materials have been withheld. Doc. [184-3] at 16, 19–24, 28. However, Honor Society's request to order PTK to produce complete nonprivileged responses as to RPDs Nos. 69, 71–75, 78 is granted in part. PTK has already provided responsive documents for the period of January 1, 2016 through October 2, 2023. But PTK appears to somewhat concede that Honor Society is entitled to responsive documents up to the date of service of its Third Set of RPDs. Doc. [194] at 27. Therefore, the Court extends the temporal scope to include up to April 30, 2024, but PTK need not search for responsive documents prior to 2016. The Court compels PTK to produce documents it has not already provided that are responsive to these RPDs for the period of January 1, 2016 to April 30, 2024. PTK shall produce these documents within 21 days of entry of this Order. Unless the parties can agree otherwise, PTK is directed to use “search terms or key words likely to generate responsive documents” which were used in the previous search for responsive documents.

C. RPD No. 87

*7 PTK produced its annual financial statements but does not maintain monthly profit and loss statements or monthly financial statements in the ordinary course of business. Doc. [194] at 31–32. This is confirmed by Dr. Tincher-Ladner. Doc. [194-3] at 3–4. Therefore, PTK represents that the monthly financial statements Honor Society seeks do not exist and would have to be manually created.[7] Doc. [194] at 32–33. The Court cannot compel PTK to produce documents that it does not have. Bailey v. Monitronics Intern., Inc., 2014 WL 3867498, at *7 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 6, 2014). “Rule 34 only requires a party to produce documents that are already in existence.” Alexander v. F.B.I., 194 F.R.D. 305, 310 (D.D.C. 2000).

Dr. Tincher-Ladner states that such documents would have to be created. Doc. [194-3] at 4. “Rule 34 cannot be used to require the adverse party to prepare, or cause to be prepared, a writing to be produced for inspection, but can only be used to require the production of things in existence.” Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. H. Wolfe Iron & Metal Co., 576 F. Supp. 511, 513 (W.D. Pa. 1983) (quoting Soetaert v. Kansas City Coca Cola Bottling Co., 16 F.R.D. 1, 2 (W.D. Mo. 1954)). Honor Society argues “the idea that PTK does not have responsive documents that reflect monthly financial activity is implausible.” Doc. [198] at 15. But the Court shall hold PTK to its representation and take it at its word. Bautista v. MVT Servs., LLC, 2017 WL 2082925, at *9 (D. Colo. March 20, 2017). Honor Society's request that the Court strike PTK's objections and order PTK to produce complete nonprivileged responses as to RPD No. 87 is denied. But PTK must produce any annual financial statements in accordance with its obligation to supplement to the extent it has not already done so.

D. RPDs Nos. 92–93

PTK represents that these documents sought by Honor Society do not exist.[8] Doc. [194] at 34. The Court cannot compel PTK to produce documents that it does not have. Bailey, 2014 WL 3867498, at *7. “Rule 34 only requires a party to produce documents that are already in existence.” Alexander, 194 F.R.D. at 310. Again, Honor Society states it is implausible that these documents do not exist. Doc. [198] at 16. And again, the Court shall hold PTK to its representation and take it at its word. Bautista, 2017 WL 2082925, at *9. Honor Society's request that the Court strike PTK's objections and order PTK to produce complete nonprivileged responses as to RPDs No. 92–93 is denied.

E. RPDs Nos. 95–96

The Court finds that these RPDs are relevant as Honor Society alleges a cybersquatting claim. See Doc. [138] at 37–38. PTK fails to show specifically how these RPDs are not relevant, making only conclusory assertions such as “anything beyond that is irrelevant and unnecessary” and “anything beyond that is not relevant to the proceeding.” Doc. [194] at 35. However, PTK's point about the irrelevancy of some of its domain names, such as careerfish.org or ccccorps.org, is well-taken. Id. at 34. Furthermore, PTK's objections that the RPDs are overly broad and unduly burdensome are well-taken. PTK maintains over 100 domain names. Doc. [194] at 34. Requiring PTK to produce responsive documents for more than 100 domain names, some which are likely irrelevant, for a period of several years would be unreasonably burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the case. Therefore, the Court shall limit the scope of discovery as to these RPDs. Honor Society's request that the Court strike PTK's objections is denied. However, Honor Society's request to order PTK to produce complete nonprivileged responses as to RPDs Nos. 95-96 is granted in part.

For RPD No. 95, Dr. Tincher-Ladner states that “PTK does not track its domain traffic to its websites.” Doc. [194-3] at 6. But PTK suggested that it would be willing to provide responsive documents limited to traffic for its primary site, to the extent such information was available. Doc. [194] at 35. Therefore, the Court compels PTK to produce responsive documents limited to www.ptk.org and the five domain sites listed in RPD No. 96 to the extent documents showing total traffic on a monthly basis are within PTK's “possession, custody, or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) and 34(a)(1). The Court cannot compel PTK to prepare or create these documents if they are not already in existence. This relief is limited to the period from January 1, 2016 to April 30, 2024. PTK shall produce these documents within 21 days of this Order. Additionally, the Court compels PTK to produce a list of all its domain names if such a document exists, so Honor Society may determine what other, if any, domain names may allegedly fall within the scope of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d).[9] PTK shall do so within 21 days of entry of this Order.

RPD No. 96 appears to be mostly resolved at this time based on PTK's representations and the relief granted above. First, “PTK does not dispute that insofar as this request seeks documents relevant to the specific internet domains that are at issue in Honor Society's affirmative claim for cybersquatting under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d).” Doc. [194] at 35. Second, PTK represents that it already produced documents responsive to this request and that its production is complete. Id. But the Court extends the temporal scope to include up to April 30, 2024. Therefore, Honor Society's request to order PTK to produce complete nonprivileged responses as to RPD No. 96 is granted in part, such that PTK shall provide any documents not already produced to include up to April 30, 2024. PTK shall produce these documents within 21 days of entry of this Order.

F. RPDs Nos. 103–06

PTK objects to these RPDs because they are redundant or duplicative. PTK represents it has already produced responsive documents due to the false-advertising claim being present since the original Complaint was filed in April 2022. Doc. [194] at 35. The claim has been the subject of substantial discovery and PTK continues to supplement its discovery responses. Id. Thus, PTK represents it has already produced the responsive documents. Id. Based on this representation, Honor Society's request that the Court strike PTK's objections is denied; Honor Society's request that the Court order PTK to produce complete nonprivileged responses as to RPDs No. 103–06 is granted in part, such that PTK shall provide any documents not already produced to include up to April 30, 2024. PTK shall produce these documents within 21 days of entry of this Order. Additionally, the Court emphasizes that PTK is obligated to supplement its discovery responses in a timely manner when necessary. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).

G. RPD No. 107

PTK also objects to this RPD because it is redundant or duplicative, as it is entirely inclusive of RPDs No. 14, 31, and 50. Doc. [194] at 36–37. Therefore, PTK represents it has already provided documents responsive to this request. Id. at 36–37. Honor Society argues that this RPD asks for documents distinct from RPDs No. 14, 31, and 50. Doc. [198] at 18. Honor Society's request that the Court strike PTK's objections is denied. But Honor Society's request that the Court order PTK to produce complete nonprivileged responses as to RPDs No. 107 is granted . To the extent the documents are not redundant or duplicative, PTK shall engage in a reasonable search and produce documents responsive to this RPD as it is written. PTK shall provide responsive documents not already produced to include up to April 30, 2024. PTK shall produce these documents within 21 days of entry of this Order.[10] Again, the Court emphasizes that PTK is obligated to supplement its discovery responses in a timely manner when necessary. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).

H. RPD No. 109

Among other reasons, PTK objected to this RPD on the basis that the Court has already determined that these documents are not relevant. Doc. [184-2] at 35. The previous magistrate judge assigned to this case addressed this issue in the Order entered on December 7, 2023. Doc. [95]. The Court granted PTK's Motion to Quash the Third-Party Subpoena to NAVEX Global, Inc. Id. As explained by PTK, complaints are logged in the NAVEX EthicsPoint® platform. Doc. [194] at 38; see Doc. [89-1]. In the Order granting the Motion to Quash, it was determined that the complaints “are fully accessible by select PTK administrators, and therefore, also under PTK's ownership, possession, and control.” Doc. [95] at 2. Nevertheless, the Court was unconvinced that the requested documents are relevant. Id. at 4. Additionally, the Court found that “the document requests are overbroad and, therefore, not proportional to the needs of the case.” Id. at 4–5. Honor Society did not file a Motion for Reconsideration nor did it appeal the Order to the District Judge. See L.U. Civ. R. 72(a)(1)(A). Therefore, RPD No. 109 is moot. See Forbis v. Exeter Fin., L.L.C., 2022 WL 17986689, at *1 n.3 (5th Cir. Dec. 29, 2022).

Lastly, Honor Society argues that the December 2023 Order (1) was entered prior to the parties' amended pleadings filed in April 2024, which dramatically expanded the scope of this lawsuit; and (2) specifically related to third-party discovery. Doc. [184] at 49; [198] at 20. Honor Society fails to elaborate further on how this request is relevant now that the parties have amended their pleadings. See RealPage, Inc., 2017 WL 1165688, at *1 (citing Export Worldwide, Ltd., 241 F.R.D. at 263) (“The moving party bears the burden of showing that the materials and information sought are relevant to the action or will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”). And although the Order related to third-party discovery, the Court found the ethics complaints were under PTK's ownership, possession, and control but was unconvinced the documents were relevant. Honor Society's request that the Court strike PTK's objections and order PTK to produce complete nonprivileged responses as to RPD No. 109 is denied.

I. RPDs Nos. 76, 116

PTK represents that it has produced responsive documents for these RPDs. Doc. [198] at 39–40. Similar to previously addressed RPDs, Honor Society's request that the Court strike PTK's objections is denied; but Honor Society's request to order PTK to produce complete nonprivileged responses as to RPDs Nos. 76, 116 is granted in part. The Court extends the temporal scope to include up to April 30, 2024. Therefore, the Court compels PTK to produce documents it has not already provided that are responsive to these RPDs for the period of January 1, 2016 to April 30, 2024. PTK shall produce these documents within 21 days of entry of this Order. Unless the parties can agree otherwise, PTK is directed to use “search terms or key words likely to generate responsive documents” which were used in the previous search for responsive documents.

J. RPDs Nos. 119–20

The Court finds these requests lack sufficient specificity. Johnson v. Simmons, No. 1:23-CV-205, 2014 WL 11444115, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 23, 2014). Therefore, PTK's objections are well-taken. Regardless, PTK is obligated to produce documents it “may use to support its claims or defenses,” and a party “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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) and 26(b)(1); see Marlow LLC v. Bellsouth Telecomms., Inc., No. 2:10-CV-135, 2011 WL 61176, at *2 (S.D. Miss. 2011).

Honor Society's request that the Court strike PTK's objections is denied, but its request to order PTK to produce complete nonprivileged responses is granted in part. Honor Society is directed to revise RPDs Nos. 119–20 to specify which denials and affirmative defenses it requests responsive documents for. Honor Society shall do so within 14 days of entry of this Order. Within 21 days of being served with Honor Society's revised requests, PTK shall provide its responses, as well as responsive documents to the extent any exist.

K. Extension of the Deadlines & Attorney's Fees

Based on the relief granted in the [219] Order granting [205] Motion to Extend/Modify Case Schedule Deadline, the request for extension of the current case management deadlines is denied. The parties have a duty to supplement their expert designations in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e) if necessary. See L.U. Civ. R. 26(a)(5) (“A party is under a duty to supplement disclosures at appropriate intervals under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) and no event later than the discovery deadline established by the case management order.”). Furthermore, the Court declines to award any attorney's fees or costs.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Honor Society's [184] Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 24th day of September 2024.