*1 This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff MacSouth Forest Products LLC's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions Directed to Defendants Current Builders Inc., et al. DE 192. The Current Builder Defendants (all Defendants except for Defendant Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America) filed a response, DE 194, Plaintiff filed a reply, DE 195, and this Court held a Discovery Hearing for Plaintiff's Motion on October 2, 2024. Having carefully considered the briefing, the record, and arguments made by counsel and being otherwise fully advised, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions [DE 192].

Previously, this Court granted in part and denied in part one of Plaintiff's motions to compel directed at the Current Builder Defendants. DE 111. The Current Builder Defendants appealed that Order, DE 130, the Honorable Jacqueline Becerra, United States District Judge, denied the appeal, DE 163, the Current Builder Defendants requested an extension of time to produce the financial documents as required by Judge Becerra's denial of their appeal, DE 167, and Judge Becerra ordered the Current Builder Defendants to produce the financial documents by August 8, 2024. DE 168. Now, Plaintiff has filed the present Motion to Compel and for Sanctions, seeking: (1) to compel the Current Builder Defendants to produce certain documents they were purportedly already ordered to produce, and (2) fees and costs for having to review roughly 7,000 pages of duplicate documents the Current Builder Defendants produced in discovery. DE 192.

Starting with Plaintiff's request for the Court to compel the Current Builder Defendants to produce certain documents, the Current Builder Defendants have committed to producing all of the documents Plaintiff seeks and represented to the Court that all issues raised in Plaintiff's Motion were resolved prior to the filing of the Motion. See DE 194. To make sure, the Court went through the list of documents Plaintiff requests from the Current Builder Defendants with the parties at the October 2 Discovery Hearing, and the parties confirmed that all documents Plaintiff requests have been or will be produced.

Additionally, Plaintiff expressed a concern that the Current Builder Defendants have not and will not be diligent with their search for responsive documents. Thus, Plaintiff requested an Order requiring the Current Builder Defendants to conduct a diligent search. See DE 195 at 2. Such an order is not necessary. The Court already ordered the Current Builder Defendants to produce certain documents. See DE 111. Unless ordered otherwise, they must produce all responsive documents in their possession, custody, or control under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1). And Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e) imposes an obligation on the Current Builder Defendants to supplement their disclosures should they learn that their disclosures are incomplete. If the Current Builder Defendants fail to meet these obligations, sanctions are available for Plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) (providing possible sanctions for a party's failure to supplement discovery as required by Rule 26(e)).

*2 Lastly, the Court sees no basis to award Plaintiff any fees or costs it incurred from reviewing duplicate documents the Current Builder Defendants produced in discovery. In addition to providing this Court with no authority supporting its request for an award of fees and costs, the Current Builder Defendants agreed to remove those duplicate documents prior to Plaintiff filing its Motion. See DE 194-1 at 3 (email from the Current Builder Defendants’ counsel committing to remove the duplicate documents by July 31, 2024). Moreover, the Court can understand why the Current Builder Defendants, consisting of five separate Defendants, produced at least some duplicate copies of the various versions of Plaintiff's Complaints as part of their discovery production.[1] See DE 80-1 at 6 (Plaintiff's Request for Production asking for “[a]ll written claims or complaints received by any DEFENDANTS”); DE 111 at 11–12 (Order from this Court noting Plaintiff's definition of “complaints,” as used in its Request for Production, as meaning “formal, judicial communications”).

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and For Sanctions is DENIED. As the Court explained in its last Discovery Order, the numerous discovery disputes in this case have caused the Court to begin to question whether the parties are complying with their discovery obligations in good faith. DE 188 at 4. As a result, the Court cautioned the parties that it would seriously consider awarding fees as part of any future rulings on discovery disputes. Id. The Court strongly considered awarding the Current Builder Defendants their fees and costs incurred from opposing Plaintiff's Motion under Rule 37(a)(5)(B). However, seeing as the Current Builder Defendants do not request any fees or costs, see DE 194, and this is the first time the Court has denied a discovery motion by Plaintiff on the merits, the Court finds that the circumstances make an award of expenses unjust at this juncture.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 8th day of October, 2024.