ADVANCED MAGNESIUM ALLOYS CORPORATION a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. ALAIN DERY an individual, et al., Defendants No. 1:20-cv-02247-RLY-MJD United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division Signed April 19, 2021 Counsel Alexander Pape Orlowski, Matthew B. Barr, Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Irving M. Geslewitz, Pro Hac Vice, Much Shelist, P.C., Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff. John A. Drake, Patrick F. Mastrian, III, Todd J. Kaiser, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Indianapolis, IN, for Defendant Alain Dery. Robert F. Seidler, Jackson Lewis PC, Indianapolis, IN, Robert D. Shank, Jackson Lewis PC, Cincinnati, OH, for Defendant Alliance Magnesium Inc. Dismore, Mark J., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL *1 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery from Defendant Alliance Magnesium, Inc. (“Alliance”).[1] [Dkt. 83.] The Court, being duly advised, rules as follows. I. Background Plaintiff is in the business of magnesium recycling. Plaintiff alleges that while Defendant Alain Dery was vice president of Plaintiff, Dery conspired with Alliance to “jump start” Alliance's entry into the market for magnesium recycling. Plaintiff further alleges that Dery provided Plaintiff's confidential information and trade secrets to Alliance in furtherance of this conspiracy. Plaintiff asserts claims against Dery for conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, and against Alliance for aiding and abetting Dery's breaches of fiduciary duties, tortiously interfering with Dery's contract with Plaintiff, and conspiracy. [Dkt. 67.] Plaintiff served its First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production on Alliance in October 2020. Alliance served written responses to the interrogatories and the requests in December 2020. [Dkt. 84-1, Dkt. 84-2.] Alliance supplemented some of its responses in January 2021. [Dkt. 84-3, Dkt. 84-4.] Plaintiff filed the instant motion on March 5, 2021, asserting that Alliance had: (1) failed to provide complete answers to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, and 17; (2) refused to search for copies of documents Dery took from [Plaintiff]; (3) indicated that it will refuse to produce one of its directors for deposition; (4) failed to produce thousands of documents it already identified as being responsive to agreed-upon search terms; (5) improperly designated as “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” copies of documents that were in the possession of and already produced by [Plaintiff]; and (6) failed to produce a privilege log. [Dkt. 84 at 4-5.] On the same day the instant motion was filed, Alliance served additional supplemental interrogatory responses. [Dkt. 90-1.] A few days later, Alliance served additional supplemental responses to Plaintiff's document requests. Alliance also produced a privilege log after the instant motion was filed. II. Discussion Alliance's post-motion supplemental responses have resolved some, but not all, of the issues raised in Plaintiff's motion. The Court will address the remaining issues, in turn, below. A. Deposition of Tomoo Shirabe *2 Plaintiff wishes to depose Tomoo Shirabe. Shirabe is an employee of Marubeni Corporation, which invested in Alliance's magnesium recycling business. Because Shirabe is listed as a “non-executive director” of Alliance on Alliance's website, Plaintiff argues that Alliance is required to produce him for a deposition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30. There is no dispute that a corporate party's officer, director, or managing agent is treated like a party for purposes of a deposition and therefore must appear for a properly noticed deposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1)(A)(i) (providing that a party may be sanctioned if its officer, director, or managing agent fails to appear for a properly noticed deposition). However, the parties dispute whether Shirabe is a “director” of Alliance for purposes of Rule 37. Based on the information currently before it, the Court finds that he is not. Alliance states unequivocally that Shirabe is not and has never been a member of Alliance's Board of Directors. [Dkt. 90 at 12.] Plaintiff responds that “Alliance's argument that Mr. Shirabe does not sit on its board (as opposed to a committee) makes no difference—a director is a director.”[2] [Dkt. 95.] However, the case cited by Plaintiff for that proposition, Murata Mfg. Co. v. Bel Fuse Inc., 2004 WL 2211608, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2004), does not support it. In Murata, the issue was whether the defendant, BLF, had properly been served. Service had been made by serving an individual, Bernstein, who served as a non-executive director of BFL, a Hong Kong corporation. Pursuant to the relevant statute, service was proper if Bernstein was a “director” of BFL. Bernstein's “only role on the BFL board [was] to monitor BFL's activities on behalf of” BFL's parent company. Nonetheless, the court found that service was proper, because the “non-executive director” position held by Bernstein was “analogous to a typical outside director for a U.S. corporation,” that is, a director who is not an employee of the company. Id. The court noted that “a book called ‘Hong Kong Company Law’ define[d] the term “non-executive” director as follows: ‘If a director does no more than the tasks primarily associated with the office of director—ie attending board meetings—he is not an employee of the company and is described as a non-executive director.’ ” In this case, the parties have not provided any information regarding Shirabe's role as a non-executive director of Alliance. The Court is left with Alliance's unequivocal representation that—unlike Bernstein in Murata, Shirabe is not a member of Alliance's Board of Directors. Absent evidence to the contrary, the Court finds that Shirabe is not a director of Alliance and therefore may not be compelled to attend a deposition by means of a Rule 30 notice. Cf. In re Kunz, 489 F.3d 1072, 1077-78 (10th Cir. 2007) (“When the term ‘director’ is used in reference to a corporation, as it is used in the statutory definition of ‘insider,’ the term plainly means a person who is a member of the governing board of the corporation and participates in corporate governance.’ ”) (citing Webster's Third New Internat'l Dictionary 641 (1993); Black's Law Dictionary 472-73 (7th ed. 1999)). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel is DENIED as to this issue. B. Attorneys’ Eyes Only Designations *3 Next, Plaintiff objects to the fact that Alliance has designated certain documents as Attorneys’ Eyes Only (“AEO”) under the Stipulated Protective Order in this case. This dispute is easily resolved. No document (or information within a document) may be designated as AEO by a party if the opposing party possesses the document or information independently of the discovery process in this case. Therefore, Plaintiff's access to documents that were recovered by Plaintiff from devices or servers it owned or controlled cannot be restricted by an AEO designation, even if Alliance produced the documents during the course of discovery in this case. This is evident in Alliance's own argument that it should not be subjected to a competitive disadvantage because it produced sensitive information in discovery. Obviously, if Plaintiff possessed the sensitive information through other means, any competitive disadvantage that may result from its disclosure was not caused by the discovery process and cannot be remedied by the protective order that governs that process.[3] Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel is GRANTED as to this issue. Plaintiff shall provide Alliance with a list of documents that fall into the category discussed above. Alliance shall, within seven days of receiving the list from Plaintiff, serve redesignated copies of the documents on Plaintiff, replacing the AEO designation with a “Confidential” designation. C. Interrogatories Despite Alliance's supplemental responses, Plaintiff asserts that the responses to Interrogatories Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, and 17 are still deficient. The parties’ arguments with regard to these interrogatories are addressed, in turn, below. 1. Interrogatories Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 Interrogatories Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 all seek extensive information regarding various communications. As set forth below, Plaintiff's motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART with regard to these interrogatories. Interrogatory No. 2 reads as follows: Identify all Communications, including phones calls, videoconferences, and/or meetings, between You and Dery occurring from January 1, 2018, to the present and with respect to each state: (a) The date of communication; (b) The mode of communication (e.g. verbal, e-mail, letter, etc.); (c) Who was present; (d) What as stated and by whom; and (e) Identify any Documents evidencing the communication. [Dkt. 90-1 at 3.] Interrogatory No. 3 asks for the same information with regard to communications between Alliance and any investor that Dery participated in or helped Alliance prepare for that occurred between January 1, 2018, and the present. Id. at 4-5. Interrogatories Nos. 4 and 5 ask for the same information with regard to communications in the same time period between Alliance and Wogen and Seneca,[4] respectively, that Dery participated in or helped Alliance prepare for. Id. at 7, 8. Alliance initially asserted various boilerplate objections[5] to each of these interrogatories and stated that, subject to its objections, it would produce responsive written communications that related to magnesium recycling. In its supplemental responses, Alliance stated that it would “produce written communications with Dery” in response to Interrogatory No. 2 and “written communications with [Wogen and Seneca] in which Dery participated or for which Dery assisted Alliance's preparation” in response to Interrogatories Nos. 4. and 5. Id. at 4, 8, 9. With regard to Interrogatory No. 5, Alliance added “Alliance will also produce (1) all communications about the April 14, 2020 meeting with Seneca, whether or not such communications involved Dery; and (2) all documents showing that Alliance did not use Dery's alleged suggestion about [Plaintiff's] timing intervals.” Id. at 9-10. With regard to Interrogatory No. 3, Alliance stated: *4 Notwithstanding and without waiving its prior objections, Defendant Alliance will produce written communications with Investors in which Dery participated or for which Dery assisted Alliance's preparation. Alliance will also produce (1) documents showing the portion of total investment related to magnesium recycling; (2) documents relating to Dery's meeting with investor ACG; and (3) documents relating to Dery's dinner with Marubeni. Id. at 6.[6] In its second supplemental response, Alliance provided information about several phone calls and meetings between Alliance and Dery (Interrogatory No. 2); three calls and one lunch meeting with investors (Interrogatory No. 3); two calls with Wogen (Interrogatory No. 4); and four meetings with Seneca. Id. at 4-10. In its reply brief, Plaintiff argues that Alliance's second supplemental responses are still insufficient for several reasons. First, to the extent that Alliance refers to its document production generally without identifying the specific documents that are responsive to each interrogatory, Plaintiff is correct that this does not satisfy Alliance's obligations under Federal Rule 33(d), which permits a party to respond to an interrogatory by providing business records that contain the responsive information, but requires “specifying the records that must be reviewed, in sufficient detail to enable the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the responding party could.” Within fourteen days of the date of this Order, Alliance shall identify, by Bates number, each document that that it believes provides information responsive to each interrogatory.[7] Plaintiff also asserts that Alliance has failed to provide information about all of the relevant communications, pointing to documents that suggest that additional communications took place. Alliance states that its counsel “understood the Court's comments during the discovery conference to be that if Alliance recalls such communications, then Alliance should describe the communications recalled. Alliance has done so” with regard to Interrogatory No. 2 [Dkt. 90 at 6-7.] Alliance implies in its brief that it has done so with regard to Interrogatories Nos. 2, 4, and 5 as well. Id. at 8. Alliance's obligation with regard to these interrogatories is to make a “reasonable inquiry” and provide a “complete and correct” response, and by signing the interrogatory responses, Alliance has certified that it has done so. That is all the Court can require. The Court reminds Alliance that it is under a continuing obligation to supplement its interrogatory responses, which would include providing information about additional relevant communications if they come to its attention during the discovery process. *5 Finally, Plaintiff objects to the lack of specificity Alliance has provided with regard to the communications it has identified. With regard to the request for “what was stated and by whom,” the Court finds Alliance's responses to be adequate. It is not reasonable to require Alliance to attempt to essentially create a transcript of the various verbal communications it identifies. Alliance has provided sufficient information from which Plaintiff may determine which of the communications are relevant to its claims and to conduct follow-up discovery with the appropriate parties or non-parties regarding those communications. Requiring Alliance to provide more detail in response to the interrogatories would serve no practical purpose. However, to the extent that it has not done so, as to each identified communication Alliance shall, within fourteen days of the date of this Order, provide the date—approximate, if necessary—and a list of all of the participants[8] of which Alliance is aware. In addition, by the same date, Alliance shall search for and identify in a supplemental response any documents that evidence each of the identified communications, including documents relating to the scheduling of the meeting or conversation as well as any notes or minutes that document what occurred during the conversation or meeting and any other documents discussing what occurred during the conversation or meeting. 2. Interrogatory No. 9 Interrogatory No. 9 asks: Did You communicate with Dery prior to January 1, 2018? If so, state and describe in detail that period of Your relationship with Dery, including how the relationship began, who communicated with Dery, and the purpose of such communications. [Dkt. 90-1 at 13.] In its initial response, Alliance asserted boilerplate objections and then stated: “Notwithstanding and without waiving these objections, Defendant Alliance will produce written communications with Dery wherein he provided information regarding magnesium recycling, if any. See also documents previously produced by Alliance, AM 1-304.” [Dkt. 90-1 at 13.] Alliance has not supplemented its response. In response to the instant motion, Alliance argues: Dery did not even begin working for AMACOR until May 2018. Yet, Interrogatory 9 seeks detailed information about a period of time prior to January 1, 2018. Alliance's objections that Interrogatory 9 is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, not proportional, and unduly burdensome are valid ones. Moreover, Alliance has produced some pre-January 1, 2018 communications with Dery where he provided information to Alliance regarding magnesium recycling. [Dkt. 90 at 9.] This argument is without merit. The information sought in Interrogatory No. 9 is relevant to Plaintiff's claims; in light of Plaintiff's claims, the fact Dery was employed by Alliance at the time a communication took place render such communications particularly relevant to this case. Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED with regard to Interrogatory No. 9; Alliance shall provide a complete and unequivocal response to it within fourteen days of the date of this Order. 3. Interrogatory No. 10 Interrogatory No. 10 reads as follows: For the time period of January 1, 2018 to present, Identify each owner, shareholder, officer, director, and employee of Alliance. For each person, Identify his or her title, start and end dates at Alliance, job description, whether he or she communicated with Dery prior to May 22, 2018, and if so, the dates of each such Communication. *6 [Dkt. 90-1 at 13.] Alliance responded with its boilerplate objections, and added: Notwithstanding and without waiving these objections, Alliance states that the following owners, shareholders, officers, directors or employees received information from Dery regarding magnesium recycling prior to May 22, 2018: Dery had communications with shareholder ACG (Karl Philippe) prior to May 22, 2018. At the time of those communications, Dery worked for Standard Resource. See also documents previously produced by Alliance, AM 1 - 304, and those documents that will be produced with these interrogatory responses. Id. at 14. Alliance added in its supplemental response: Notwithstanding and without waiving its prior objections, Defendant Alliance also identifies Joel Fournier, Michel Gagnon, Remi Belliveau, and Karine Vallieres as employees who have had communications with Dery. They are identified more particularly in the parties’ respective initial disclosures, incorporated herein by reference. Id. In response to the instant motion, Alliance argues: [Plaintiff] is not entitled to discover every owner, shareholder, officer, director and employee of Alliance for the last 3 years. This Interrogatory must be tied and limited to Dery in some way, and it is not. Despite these legitimate bases for objections, Alliance has identified the employees with whom Dery had communications and the shareholder with whom Dery had communications. [Dkt. 90 at 10.] “Relevance in discovery is broader than relevance at trial; during discovery, ‘a broad range of potentially useful information should be allowed’ when it pertains to issues raised by the parties’ claims.” Bank of Am., Nat'l Ass'n v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2014 WL 3639190, at *3 (N.D. Ill. July 23, 2014) (quoting N.L.R.B. v. Pfizer, Inc., 763 F.2d 887, 889-90 (7th Cir. 1985)). Given the broad definition of relevance in the discovery context, and the failure of Alliance to make more than boilerplate objections with regard to burden and proportionality which, as noted above, have been overruled, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to compel with regard to Interrogatory No. 10; Alliance shall provide a complete and unequivocal response to it within fourteen days of the date of this Order. 4. Interrogatory No. 14 Interrogatory No. 14 reads: Identify each investment or financing commitment You have received or secured relating to the business of magnesium recycling. For each instance, Identify the date of the investment or financing commitment, the persons or entities supplying funds, the amount promised and paid, and all Documents relating to Alliance's efforts to obtain it. [Dkt. 90-1 at 16.] Alliance's initial response consisted only of boilerplate objections. Id. Alliance's supplemental response stated: “Notwithstanding and without waiving its prior objections, Alliance will produce documents showing the portion of total investment it has received related to magnesium recycling.” Id. In its response brief, Alliance argues: During the January 28, 2021 informal discovery conference, [Plaintiff] did not even raise Interrogatory 14 as an issue. However, [Plaintiff] did raise Request for Production 42 as an issue.[9] Alliance's counsel understood the Court's comments about RFP 42 to be that it was an exceedingly broad request absent a showing that Dery obtained the investment, with the key inquiry being whether or not Dery was fundamental to securing the investment. *7 The same inquiry demonstrates why Interrogatory 14 is objectionable. Interrogatory 14 asks Alliance to identify every investment or financing commitment it has received or secured related to the business of magnesium recycling and, for each such investment or financing commitment, to provide a wide range of information about it. Interrogatory 14 is not limited to investments or financing commitments that Dery was fundamental to securing, which Alliance claims are none. Interrogatory 14 is not even limited to investments or financing commitments for which Dery had any communications about. As such, Alliance's objections are legitimate, and a supplemental answer is unnecessary. Nevertheless, Alliance has produced documents relating to the investors/financers with whom Dery had communications, namely Marubeni, UBS, and ACG. [Dkt. 90 at 5.] The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to a full and complete response to this interrogatory as it relates to any investment or financing commitment Alliance has received or secured relating to the business of magnesium recycling with regard to which Dery played any role. This does not just include any investors or financers with which Dery communicated directly. Rather, it includes all of Alliance's investors or financers except those that Alliance secured without any advice or assistance from Dery.[10] Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART with regard to Interrogatory No. 14. Alliance shall supplement its response as set forth herein within fourteen days of the date of this Order. 5. Interrogatory No. 17 Interrogatory No. 17 reads as follows: With respect to Your statement in the Case Management Order [Dkt. 37] that none of the information that Dery provided was [Plaintiff's] confidential information and trade secrets, state whether it is Your contention that none of the sources of any information he provided originated fro [sic] knowledge he obtained or documents or files he had access to at [Plaintiff]. If your answer is yes, state the basis for your contention. [Dkt. 90-1 at 18-19.] Alliance's original response read as follows: Defendant Alliance objects to mis-numbered Interrogatory No. 17 as seeking the mental impressions of its attorneys, overly broad, unduly burdensome, seeking information more appropriately obtained through deposition and to the extent it seeks discovery of its confidential and trade secret information. Notwithstanding and without waiving these objections, Alliance states that its assertion that none of the information that Dery provided was [Plaintiff's] confidential information and trade secrets was based on Dery's communications to Alliance to that effect. While Dery can speak to this issue better than Alliance, Alliance has no reason to believe that Dery's assertions were incorrect. Id. at 19. Alliance supplemented its response by adding: “Notwithstanding and without waiving its prior objections, Alliance further states that it never requested that Dery provide [Plaintiff's] confidential information or trade secrets, and has no reason to believe he did so.” Id. While Plaintiff argues that Alliance is required to identify “the source from which it believes the information originated” if it does not believe that it originated from Plaintiff, [Dkt. 95 at 7], the interrogatory does not ask for that information. Plaintiff's motion to compel therefore is DENIED as to Interrogatory No. 17. D. Documents Responsive to Agreed-Upon Search Terms *8 On February 16, 2021,[11] the parties agreed upon 159 search terms that Alliance would use to search for responsive documents. Alliance agreed to run the searches and produce the documents on a rolling basis; it produced one set of documents on March 3rd, prior to the filing of the instant motion, and two additional sets subsequent to the filing of the motion, on March 8th and March 12th. It is unclear from Alliance's response brief whether it believes it has completed its production of these documents or whether its rolling production is still ongoing. In its reply brief, Plaintiff describes the following categories of documents that “would have likely hit for the agreed-upon search terms, or should have been provided along with Alliance's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) initial disclosures of its insurance coverage,” but which had not yet been produced by Alliance: (1) documents related to its quality system (its procedure and operational manuals and the like for the receipt of scrap and manufacturing of magnesium recycling); (2) documents provided to prospective investors and financiers during due diligence and stored in data rooms or shared drives with numerous senior debt financing companies, as well as UBS O'Connor and Marubeni (e.g., references to data rooms at AM_071615, AM_072041, AM_075834 (all acknowledging the existence of an Alliance data room)); (3) the executed Credit and Guaranty Agreement with UBS O'Connor; (4) a complete set of business plans of Alliance from January 1, 2018 to present (e.g., sporadic versions of plans produced at AM_045128, AM_038416, and AM_051194, but no comprehensive set has been produced); (5) most of the financial models from January 1, 2018 to present (e.g., we received version 59 and 62, but few other versions; and we have not received version 57, which is the version that Marubeni relied on in deciding whether to invest in Alliance, Exhibit U); and (6) Alliance's insurance policies providing coverage for this litigation. [Dkt. 95 at 12-13.] Alliance did not address this issue in its surreply. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel is GRANTED as to this issue. If it has not done so already, Alliance shall complete its production of all of the responsive documents that were found by the searches agreed upon by the parties within 14 days of the date of this Order. Also by that date, Alliance shall confirm that all documents within the above-quoted categories have been produced and identify them by Bates number to Plaintiff. E. Document Request No. 26 Plaintiff's forensic expert has identified thousands of documents that Dery downloaded from Plaintiff's servers around the time his employment with Plaintiff was terminated. In order to determine which of these documents Dery provided to Alliance—a central issue in this case—Plaintiff served Request for Production No. 26, which requested that Alliance produce electronic devices used by executives Joel Fournier, Michel Gagnon, and Remi Belliveau for forensic inspection. [Dkt. 90-2 at 22.] Alliance objected, and as a compromise, Plaintiff “agreed to provide MD5 Hash numbers to Alliance for the documents Dery had taken from AMACOR, as one way Alliance could search its servers to locate any copies of the documents in its possession.” [Dkt. 95 at 8.] Plaintiff explains: An MD5 Hash is a unique identifier assigned by a computer to a file or document. Any change to a document, no matter how slight, results in a different MD5 Hash value being assigned. So, while a search of MD5 Hash values is insufficient in and of itself to determine whether Alliance has any of AMACOR's documents, it is an easy first step to determine if Alliance has any exact copies of AMACOR's documents. [Dkt. 84 at 10.] Plaintiff provided Alliance with the relevant MD5 Hash values on January 29, 2021. In its response to the instant motion, Alliance stated that it “produced the MD5 Hash information” on March 8, 2021, three days after the instant motion was filed, and thus “[t]here is nothing to compel Alliance to do, as Alliance has already produced the requested information after eventually receiving the requested MD5 Hash information from Plaintiff's counsel.” [Dkt. 90 at 12.] *9 Plaintiff disagrees. In its reply brief, Plaintiff asserts: Alliance's search of its servers using these MD5 Hash numbers identified thousands of document hits. Alliance, however, excluded most of these hits from its production, producing just 671 documents with MD5 Hash identification numbers matching those provided by [Plaintiff]. So at the very least, discovery to date has confirmed that at least 671 documents in Alliance's possession—and potentially thousands more—are identical to the documents Dery took from [Plaintiff]. Alliance's production of documents responsive to its MD5 Hash search—which, again, was sent to [Plaintiff] only after it filed a Motion to Compel Discovery—is incomplete and continues to stifle [Plaintiff's] ability to determine the extent to which Dery shared [Plaintiff's] proprietary information with Alliance. Alliance's production does not include relevant metadata, including file path data, that would show the folder structure where the documents can be found on Alliance's servers. Likewise, Alliance did not produce complete document families along with the documents identified using the MD5 Hash search. The parties’ ESI Supplement requires production of file path metadata and document families, [Dkt. 32-1 at 5-6], and production of the metadata and complete document families here is necessary to allow [Plaintiff] to determine how Alliance received the documents in the first instance and the extent to which Alliance shared that information with its employees, investors, and other third parties. [Dkt. 95 at 9.] Plaintiff also complains that Alliance did not search for responsive documents by file names, in addition to MD5 Hash numbers.[12] In its surreply, Alliance disputes Plaintiff's description of its production. Alliance explains: The MD5 Hash numbers Plaintiff's counsel provided erroneously included a generic hash number with no relationship to Dery's computer that returned thousands of hits for documents—like Michel Gagnon's resume—that Dery would not have had (and clearly would not have taken from Plaintiff). Still, Alliance's counsel reviewed all of the documents that hit on the MD5 Hash numbers Plaintiff's counsel provided and produced 671 of these documents that were arguably responsive to Plaintiff's discovery requests. Importantly, these 671 documents contained only 58 unique MD5 Hash numbers. Moreover, [Plaintiff] cannot reasonably argue even those 58 documents are confidential or proprietary, as even a cursory review reveals many to be publicly available. Plaintiff's suggestion that Alliance has “potentially thousands” of documents Dery allegedly took from Plaintiff is not true and mischaracterizes the types of “hits” the MD5 Hash numbers Plaintiff's counsel provided returned. *10 [Dkt. 105 at 2.] Apparently Alliance did not discuss this “error” with Plaintiff; perhaps if it had, the parties could have resolved this issue. The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding the MD5 Hash number(s) that Alliance believes were provided in error. If the parties are unable to resolve this issue, Plaintiff may file a motion for a hearing, at which the Court will hear the argument of counsel and the testimony of the parties’ forensic experts regarding the appropriateness of the MD5 Hash numbers in question. In addition, Alliance expressly denies that it agreed to search file names in addition to MD5 Hash numbers, and argues that the file names Plaintiff has asked it to search include generic names that will require Alliance to sort through thousands of irrelevant documents. Regardless of what Alliance agreed to, the fact remains that Plaintiff is entitled to discovery to determine which of Plaintiff's documents Dery provided to Alliance, and it is clear that Plaintiff has consistently maintained—correctly—that searching for MD5 Hash numbers is not sufficient on its own. See [Dkt. 84-7.] Accordingly, the parties are directed to meet and confer regarding the file names that Alliance believes are too generic to generate reasonable results. If the parties are unable to resolve this issue, Plaintiff may file a motion for a hearing, at which the Court will hear the argument of counsel and the testimony of the parties’ forensic experts regarding the appropriateness of the proposed search terms. With regard to document families and metadata, Alliance states that it will be producing the latter “forthwith,” but argues that it is not required to produce the former. First, Alliance argues that the Court should not consider the document families issue because Plaintiff did not raise it in its motion to compel. But Plaintiff could not possibly have raised in it its motion to compel, because at the time it was filed Plaintiff had not yet received Alliance's production of the documents identified by the MD5 Hash numbers search. Alliance also argues that the ESI Supplement in this case does not require “either party to produce ‘family member’ documents that are not themselves responsive to Plaintiff's discovery requests.” Id. at 3-4. However, Plaintiff's document requests specifically instruct: All documents that respond, in whole or in part, to any part of any request herein, should be produced in their entirety, in unredacted form, including all attachments and enclosures, as they are kept in the ordinary course of business. If any information specified in any request appears on any page of any document, all pages of the document should be produced in response to the request. To the extent you redact any document covered by this discovery request, furnish a list specifying: (i) the document and pages redacted; (ii) the nature of the material redacted; and (iii) the basis of the redaction. [Dkt. 112-1 at 2.] Alliance did not object to this instruction, which is not unreasonable, and Alliance offers no argument why it should not be required to comply with it. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel is GRANTED as to this issue. Alliance shall produce complete document families along with the documents identified using the MD5 Hash numbers search. *11 Alliance is also reminded of its obligation to supplement its response to Interrogatories Nos. 7 and 8 in light of the MD5 Hash numbers search it conducted and the documents revealed by it. III. Conclusion For the reasons and to the extent set forth above, Plaintiff's motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Any motion for a hearing as discussed above shall be made within fourteen days of the date of this Order. Given that the bulk of Alliance's substantive responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests occurred only after the motion was filed, and the fact that Plaintiff was successful with regard to most of the remaining issues, Plaintiff may file a motion for attorneys’ fees within twenty-eight days of the date of this Order or, if Plaintiff requests a hearing as set forth above, within fourteen days of the date the Court enters its order resolving the issues addressed at the hearing. Any motion for fees shall specifically account for those issues on which Plaintiff was not successful. SO ORDERED. Footnotes [1] The Court notes that some of Defendants’ filings in this case violate Local Rule 5-1(c), which requires documents filed via CM/ECF to be “converted to a .pdf file directly from a word processing program.” In addition, Defendants failed to comply with Local Rule 5-6's requirement that each exhibit be “given a title which describes its content” and Local Rule 5-1(b)’s requirement that “if [a document] has four or more exhibits, [it] include a separate index that identifies and briefly describes each exhibit.” The purpose of each of these rules is to allow the Court to review and resolve motions in a more efficient manner. Defendants are admonished to ensure that all of their filings comply with these rules in the future. Failure to do so may result in the violative filings being stricken. [2] This is clearly not literally true. Many corporations have various employees with the title of “director” that are not “directors” for purposes of Rule 37. For example, a hospital corporation could have a Director of Food Service, a Director of Marketing, a Director of Accounts Receivable, and a Director of Human Resources. Each of those individuals is a “director,” but that title alone does not mean that they are properly treated as the corporation itself for purposes of Rule 37, unlike members of the board of directors who, by virtue of their position, speak for the corporation for all purposes. See 8A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2103 (“A distinction must ... be drawn between a mere corporate employee and those who may be regarded as speaking for the corporation.”). [3] The Court recognizes that Alliance asserts that Plaintiff obtained the documents in question by improper means. If that is the case, Plaintiff may be liable to Alliance (and/or Dery) for its actions. However, how Plaintiff obtained the documents is irrelevant to whether Alliance's subsequent production of the documents in discovery can, by virtue of an AEO designation, prevent Plaintiff from seeing the documents. [4] Wogen is a marketing company and Seneca is an engineering firm. Both were engaged by Alliance to assist in its magnesium recycling operation. [5] The Court has repeatedly held that, given the broad construction of the federal discovery rules, general objections to discovery requests that merely recite boilerplate language without explanation do not satisfy a party's burden of explaining precisely why its objections are proper and therefore are properly overruled or disregarded by the Court. See, e.g., Avenatti v. Gree USA, Inc., 2021 WL 1034392 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 17, 2021); Swann v. Coakley, 2020 WL 8705751 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 21, 2020); Annie Oakley Enterprises Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2020 WL 4571742 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 7, 2020), aff'd, 2020 WL 6606428 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 12, 2020); Barker v. Kapsch Trafficcom USA, Inc., 2020 WL 3618945, at *1 (S.D. Ind. July 1, 2020). Accordingly, Alliance's boilerplate objections to the discovery requests at issue in the instant motion are overruled and—although the Court does not believe this to be the case—if Alliance has withheld any responsive information or documents based on its boilerplate objections, it must produce that information or documents. [6] Alliance has identified three investors: UBS O'Connor, Marubeni, and ACG. [7] This applies to all of the interrogatories at issue in the instant motion. [8] For example, stating that a meeting occurred “between Dery and Alliance” is not sufficient; Alliance shall identify the individuals who participated in the meeting on its behalf, as well as any other individuals who were present. [9] Request for Production No. 42 seeks “[a]ll correspondence exchanged between Alliance and Marubeni, including, but not limited to, all Documents and Correspondence in which Marubeni asked questions for Dery.” [Dkt. 90-2 at 32.] [10] Plaintiff has identified Integrated Asset Management as an additional financer that it believes Dery assisted Alliance in securing. [Dkt. 95 at 7.] Plaintiff also states—without explanation—that it is entitled to “communications with [Alliance's] contractors, Novopro and WSP.” Id. Alliance shall address these entities in its supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 14. [11] Plaintiff's brief erroneously recites dates in February and March 2020. [12] Alliance argues that Plaintiff did not request “that Alliance search for file names and MD5 Hash values related to the documents on Exhibits A to D of Schiff's Forensic Report” until Plaintiff's Second Set of Requests for Production, the responses to which were not due until March 22, 2021. [Dkt. 90 at 11-12.] While Plaintiff did make this specific request in its second set of document requests, [Dkt. 90-7], Plaintiff asserts—and Alliance does not deny—that the parties agreed that Alliance would conduct the search and produce the results in lieu of producing the electronic devices sought in Request No. 26, which was served in October 2020. Thus, it is disingenuous for Alliance to suggest that it had no obligation to produce these documents prior to March 22, 2021.