*1 THIS CAUSE is before me upon the above-referenced Motion seeking to compel Plaintiff White Cap, L.P. (“Plaintiff” or “White Cap”) to provide further responses to Defendants’ First Request for Production (“RFP”) and Interrogatories. DE 308. Plaintiff filed a response. DE 313. Being fully advised, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth below.

This case involves two competing construction supply companies with one, White Cap, claiming that its former employees unlawfully solicited customers and transferred its proprietary trade secret protected material to the other, Heyden Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Heyden Supply (“Heyden”). White Cap sells and distributes construction supply products throughout the U.S. including, for example, concrete, rebar, lumber, nails, and similar building products and equipment. DE 14 ¶ 28. Heyden similarly sells and distributes construction supply products such as concrete tools and supplies to customers across the southeast U.S. Id. ¶¶ 38-40; DE 217-9, Heyden Dec. ¶¶ 3-4. The five individual Defendants—Brian Welsh, Miguel Rivan, Wayne Rosenblum, Timothy Kavney, and Gomer Black (“Individual Defendants”) previously worked for White Cap and later worked for Heyden. DE 14 ¶¶ 16-20, 49-54.

On August 23, 2023, White Cap filed its operative Amended Complaint alleging that Defendants engaged in the improper diversion of White Cap's customers and misappropriation of White Cap's trade secrets. See generally DE 14. White Cap alleges claims for violation of Florida's Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“FUTSA”), Fla. Stat. § 688.001 et seq. against Defendants (Count I); Theft of Trade Secrets, Fla. Stat. §§ 812.035, 812.081 against Defendants (Count II); Violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1836 against Defendants (Count III); Tortious Interference with White Cap's Business Relationships (Employees) against Heyden and Welsh (Count IV); Tortious Interference with White Cap's Business Relations (Customers) against Defendants (Count V); Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Breach of Duty of Loyalty against Rivan, Rosenblum, Kavney, and Black (Counts VI and VII); Aiding and Abetting a Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Breach of Duty of Loyalty against Defendants (Counts VIII and IX); Violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.001, against Defendants (Count X); Breach of Contract against Welsh (Count XI); Breach of Contract against Black (Count XII); Tortious Interference With Contracts against Heyden (Count XIII); and Civil Conspiracy against Defendants (Count XIV). Id. ¶¶ 143-271.

“Parties 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(b)(1). “Rule 26(b)(1) indicates that ‘[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure strongly favor full discovery whenever possible.’ ” Republic of Ecuador v. Hinchee, 741 F.3d 1185, 1189 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting Farnsworth v. Procter & Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545, 1547 (11th Cir. 1985)). To sustain a discovery objection, the party opposing the production must show that the requested discovery either is not relevant under Rule 26(b)(1) or that the potential harm occasioned by the discovery outweighs its relevance. 26 Plaza Corp. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2016 WL 8677196, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2016).

*2 Heyden, Welsh, Rivan, Rosenblum and Kavney (together, the “Heyden Defendants” or “Defendants”) move to compel discovery relating to White Cap's responses to certain interrogatories and RFPs posed in their First Set of Discovery. I resolve the parties’ disputed discovery scope and requests as follows.

The Heyden Defendants seek responsive information to interrogatories and RFPs dating from October 1, 2021 through the present date. They chose this time period because October 1, 2021 is when White Cap merged with a predecessor company, Construction Materials, Inc. (“CMI”). Since Plaintiff brings this lawsuit partially based on rights it acquired from merging with CMI, Defendants assert that documents and information dating back to the merger are relevant. Plaintiff responds that the relevant time frame should be January 1, 2022, but makes no showing Defendants’ proposed time frame is irrelevant, overbroad, overly burdensome, or otherwise disproportionate to the needs of this case. Thus, the motion to compel is GRANTED as to temporal scope.

The Heyden Defendants claim Plaintiff's objections should be overruled insofar as they contain boilerplate language. My Order Setting Discovery Procedures makes clear that nonspecific, boiler plate objections are meaningless and will be found meritless. DE 53 at 3. That Order further provides that a party objecting on grounds that a discovery request is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, disproportionate, or irrelevant must explain the specific and particular way in which the request is as described. Id. I have reviewed Plaintiff's responses to Defendants’ at-issue discovery requests, DE 308-1, DE 308-2, and find that Plaintiff has complied with my Order Setting Discovery Procedures. In every response, Plaintiffs’ objections are accompanied by specific and particular explanations of the basis for each objection. Defendants’ motion to compel on this basis is therefore DENIED.

Interrogatory No. 3 asks Plaintiff to “identify and describe any policies, standards of procedure, and rules that were implemented or changed by White Cap at the Fort Pierce branch since its acquisition of CMI” and RFP Nos. 6 and 71 seek those policies, standards of procedure, and rules. Plaintiff objects to these requests as overly broad. I agree with Plaintiff and take this opportunity to narrow the scope of Interrogatory No. 3 and RFP Nos. 6 and 71 to encompass only that responsive information related to the claims or defenses at issue in this case. Specifically, White Cap shall identify, describe, and produce any policies, standards of procedure, and rules that were implemented or changed by White Cap at the Fort Pierce branch since its acquisition of CMI relating to (1) how confidential, trade secret, or customer information is maintained, used, marked, or handled; (2) the safekeeping of such information; and (3) the measures taken to protect the information and maintain its secrecy. Plaintiff need not provide information regarding irrelevant policies, standards, and rules. Plaintiff must produce responsive information dating back to October 1, 2021. Defendants motion to compel as to these requests is GRANTED in part.

Interrogatory No. 12 asks Plaintiff to “identify and describe the customer relationship management software used by White Cap, including which White Cap employees have access to such software, the extent of those employees’ access to such software, and whether Rivan, Kavney, or Rosenblum had access to such software.” The Heyden Defendants complain that Plaintiff provided an incomplete answer to this interrogatory by failing to provide the extent of sales-related employees access to such software. See DE 308-2 at 14. (Plaintiff responding that “sales-related employees are granted certain permissions within Oracle based on their job descriptions” but failing to specify what permissions). Defendants claim the need to understand specifically what permission and access was provided to the Individual Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's claims that the Individual Defendants engaged in the improper diversion of White Cap's customers and misappropriation of White Cap's trade secrets. I agree. Plaintiff shall specify what permission and access was provided to the Individual Defendants in the Oracle system. Defendants’ motion to compel further response to Interrogatory No. 12 is therefore GRANTED, except that Plaintiff is not required to provide responsive information regarding employees not named as Defendants in this case.

*3 The Heyden Defendants generally describe these five requests as seeking “policies regarding confidential information,” DE 308 at 4, but – as Plaintiff points out – that is not a complete description. RFP Nos. 10-14 seek: all documents supporting Plaintiff's allegation that certain documents are marked as confidential (RFP No. 10); copies of White Cap documents marked as confidential (RFP No. 11); all documents related to White Cap policies regarding confidential information, access, and personal use (RFP No. 12); copies of policies regarding confidential information, access, and personal use Plaintiff alleges its employees agreed to (RFP No. 13); and all evidence showing that the Individual Defendants plus nine other individuals agreed to White Cap's policies regarding confidential information, access, and personal use (RFP No. 14). See DE 308-1 at 13-16.

White Cap says it has produced applicable policies and the employee files of the individuals named in RFP No. 14 but asserts that the wholesale production of every document ever marked as confidential by White Cap and “all documents” supporting that White Cap marks certain documents as confidential is vastly overbroad because it lacks any geographic or subject-matter limitation. I agree with White Cap's position. Such broad requests encompass many categories of confidential documents that are entirely irrelevant to the claims and defenses at issue in this case, such as documents regarding employee investigations, privileged communications, and employee health/medical records, to name a few. As written, Heyden's requests are too broad and I cannot feasibly narrow them for Defendants. The motion to compel further responses to RFP Nos. 10-14 is therefore DENIED.

In RFP Nos. 16-19, the Heyden Defendants seek documents regarding the creation of rebar takeoffs and placement plans done by White Cap detailers and third-party detailers, the procedure of providing customers with these documents, and any confidentiality agreements pertaining to these documents. Defendants say these documents are relevant because White Cap asserts that takeoff and placement plans are trade secrets, so information pertaining to their confidentiality, dissemination, and maintenance is discoverable.

White Cap objects to these Requests because they are not limited to the Fort Pierce branch or to third-party detailers in Fort Pierce. I agree with White Cap's objections in part. Specifically, I will narrow the scope of these requests to documents relating to the Fort Pierce branch office since the Heyden Defendants have not identified how documents beyond that branch office would be relevant. I will not, however, limit the scope to third-party detailers in Fort Pierce because there is no reason to believe the Fort Pierce White Cap branch only worked with third-party detailers in Fort Pierce. Therefore, Heyden's motion to compel documents responsive to RFP Nos. 16-19 is GRANTED IN PART.

RFP No. 47 seeks information “sufficient to identify those customers with active rebar orders being fulfilled by Rivan, Kavney, and Rosenblum while employed at the White Cap Fort Pierce branch.” White Cap objects on grounds that the request (1) requires them to speculate concerning what Defendant considers to be “sufficient”; (2) seeks production of documents already in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control; (3) fails to include a “custodian-based limitation”; (4) includes information prior to January 1, 2022; and (5) broadly encompasses the production of irrelevant, cumulative, and voluminous emails and order correspondence for the entirety of these individuals’ employment with White Cap.

I overrule some but not all of White Cap's objections. RFP No. 47 is not vague because it uses the term “sufficient.” Indeed, the Heyden Defendants likely used that term in an effort to narrow the request so it does not result in a broad production of duplicative, voluminous, and irrelevant information regarding countless rebar orders. Nor is it apparent why this request should be limited to any particular custodian, or why it should not extend to the time period Heyden proposes. That said, White Cap is not required to produce documents already in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control, or to produce every single document related to rebar ordered from Rivan, Kavney, and Rosenblum during the relevant time period. Thus, Defendants’ motion to compel regarding RFP No. 47 is GRANTED, except Plaintiff need not produce documents already in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control, or documents beyond what is sufficient to identify Rivan, Kavney, and Roseblum's rebar customers since October 1, 2021.

*4 RFP No. 50 seeks information received by White Cap from customers expressing dissatisfaction with the service they received from the White Cap Fort Pierce branch. White Cap responds that general customer complaints regarding sales representatives or customers that are not at issue in this case are not relevant. I disagree. White Cap claims throughout their Complaint that Defendants tortiously interfered with White Cap's customer relationships, intentionally delayed orders to cause customer dissatisfaction, made false and misleading statements about White Cap's operations, and falsely told customers and prospective customers that White Cap's operations were in disarray and White Cap could not provide adequate service. Defendants respond that customer and employee dissatisfaction were caused by how the White Cap Fort Pierce branch was managed, not by any actions of the Individual Defendants. Customer complaints about White Cap's Fort Pierce branch generally are therefore relevant to claims and defenses in this case. This request is not overly broad or unduly burdensome since the time period is limited and it relates to complaints regarding White Cap's Fort Pierce branch only. Defendants’ motion to compel regarding RFP No. 50 is therefore GRANTED.

RFP No. 62 seeks documents and communications related to orders placed by customers that Plaintiff alleges were stolen by the Individual Defendants. The Heyden Defendants say this information is relevant to understand the order history and customer relationships relating to those particular customers. White Cap objects to this request on grounds of overbreadth and burden, because it would require voluminous email productions when historical order information can be provided on a “consolidated basis.” White Cap also objects to the extent that certain responsive documents are within the Defendants’ possession, custody, or control.

I agree with White Cap that this request is unnecessarily broad since it would require all communications related to all orders placed by these customers, regardless of whether the communications or orders actually relate to this case. The motion to compel does not suggest any way to meaningfully narrow this request. As already agreed to by White Cap, White Cap is ordered to produce the historical order information on a consolidated basis. If Defendants find this response insufficient, Defendants may file a narrowly tailored motion for my consideration specifying why they find it so. Otherwise, Defendants’ motion to compel as to RFP No. 62 is DENIED.

RFP No. 73 seeks information related to the merger and acquisition of CMI by White Cap. The Heyden Defendants say information regarding the merger and acquisition is relevant to determine whether CMI assigned any rights to Plaintiff regarding protection of trade secret materials or enforcing employment agreements.[1]

White Cap responds that this request, as written, is overbroad and unduly burdensome, because it requires the production of all documents and communications related to the merger, including documents and correspondence relating to negotiations, the due diligence process, finance, etc., all of which would be largely irrelevant. I agree. Defendants’ request is not appropriately narrowed. White Cap shall produce merger-related documents regarding White Cap's right to enforce restrictive covenant agreements between CMI and employees of the Fort Pierce branch and the assignment of intellectual property. To the extent the Heyden Defendants seek other merger-related information, the motion to compel is DENIED.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Motion to Compel, DE 308, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth above. By or before October 21, 2024, Plaintiff shall produce to the Heyden Defendants documents and information complying with this Order's requirements.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 7th day of October, 2024.