CENTENNIAL BANK, Plaintiff, v. SERVISFIRST BANK INC., GREGORY W. BRYANT, GWYNN DAVEY, PATRICK MURRIN and JONATHAN ZUNZ, Defendants Case No. 8:16-cv-88-T-36JSS United States District Court, M.D. Florida Filed September 05, 2019 Counsel Dominic Anthony Isgro, Dale R. Sisco, P.A. D/B/A Sisco-Law, John A. Anthony, Lydia Marie Gazda, Stephenie Biernacki Anthony, Andrew James Ghekas, Anthony & Partners, LLC, Eduardo A. Suarez, Rachel May Zysk, The Suarez Law Firm, P.A., Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff. John Morgan Brunson, Law Office of John Morgan Brunson, St Petersburg, FL, Michael Sansbury, Pro Hac Vice, Morgan B. Franz, William Thomas Paulk, Spotswood Sansom & Sansbury, LLC, Birmingham, AL, Sean Estes, Hoyer Law Group, LLC, Ailen Cruz, Wiand Guerra King, PL, Tampa, FL, for Defendant ServisFirst Bank Inc. George L. Guerra, Jared J. Perez, Peter B. King, Guerra King P.A., Robert A. Stines, Freeborn & Peters LLP, Chemere Ellis, Lawrence Joseph Dougherty, Tampa, FL, Burton Webb Wiand, Law Office of Burton W. Wiand PA, Clearwater, FL, for Defendant Gregory W. Bryant. Wiand Guerra King, Robert A. Stines, Freeborn & Peters LLP, Tampa, FL, for Defendant Gwynn Davey. Gregg Moran, Dade City, FL, for Defendant Jonathan Zunz. Sneed, Julie S., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Gregory W. Bryant's Motion to Compel Discovery (“Motion to Compel”) (Dkt. 404), with Centennial Bank's response in opposition (Dkt. 417), and Gregory W. Bryant's Motion to Determine Sufficiency of Centennial Bank's Reponses to Bryant's First Requests for Admission (“Motion to Determine Sufficiency”) (Dkt. 411), with Centennial Bank's response in opposition (Dkt. 416). For the reasons set forth below, both motions are granted in part and denied in part. BACKGROUND Defendants Gregory Bryant, Patrick Murrin, Gwynn Davey and Jonathan Zunz were all officers at Bay Cities Bank (“Bay Cities”). (Dkt. 199 ¶ 10.) In 2015, Plaintiff, Centennial Bank (“Centennial”) acquired Bay Cities. (Dkt. 199 ¶ 10.) However, shortly after the acquisition, the individual defendants were hired by the corporate defendant, ServisFirst Bank (“ServisFirst”). (Dkt. 199 ¶ 10.) In the Second Amended Complaint, Centennial alleges numerous “statutory, contractual, and common law causes of action tied to a pattern of wrongful conduct by the [d]efendants to deprive Centennial of the benefit of the bargain in acquiring Bay Cities and hiring” the individual defendants. (Dkt. 199 ¶ 10.) In the motions at issue, Gregory Bryant moves to compel Centennial Bank to produce discovery and moves the Court to determine the sufficiency of Centennial Bank's responses to his requests for admission. (Dkts. 404, 411.) APPLICABLE STANDARDS The court has broad discretion in managing pretrial discovery matters and in deciding to compel discovery. Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc., 662 F.3d 1292, 1306 (11th Cir. 2011); Perez v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 297 F.3d 1255, 1263 (11th Cir. 2002). Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the case's needs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Proportionality requires counsel and the court to consider whether relevant information is discoverable in view of the needs of the case.” Tiger v. Dynamic Sports Nutrition, LLC, 2016 WL 1408098, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2016). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36, requests for admission may be served on a party to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of discovery relating to: (1) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and (2) the genuineness of any described documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1). A party may not, however, request an admission of a legal conclusion. In re Tobkin, 578 F. App'x 962, 964 (11th Cir. 2014). Rather, a request for admission may only request an admission of “ ‘facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either.’ ” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1)). Rule 36 further addresses the requirements in answering requests for admission: If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny. *2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Rule 36(a)(6) also provides that the “requesting party may move to determine the sufficiency of an answer or objection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(6). On finding that an answer does not comply with Rule 36, “the court may order either that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served.” Id. ANALYSIS A. Motion to Compel In the Motion to Compel, Gregory Bryant moves the Court to compel Centennial Bank to provide discovery responsive to numerous requests for production. (Dkt. 404.) In response, Centennial Bank alleges that it produced responsive documents before and after the Motion to Compel was filed, making the motion largely moot. (Dkt. 417 at 1.) Gregory Bryant acknowledges the additional production, but asserts that he included all disputed requests in the Motion to Compel in light of the June 7, 2019 discovery deadline and to “preserve his rights to compel Centennial's production on these issues.” (Dkt. 404 at 3.) The Motion to Compel is denied as moot, without prejudice, as to all requests for which Centennial Bank has produced documents and agreed to additional production. Accordingly, the Motion to Compel is denied without prejudice as to request for production numbers 31, 34, 46, 54, 71, 75, 76, 77 and 84. However, some specific disputes remain. In request for production numbers 48 and 49, Gregory Bryant requests minutes, including drafts and communications regarding the minutes, of Bay Cities Bank's and Centennial Bank's loan committee meetings. (Dkt. 404 at 8–9.) The Court finds these requests to be relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. Indeed, Centennial Bank agrees to produce unredacted versions of the loan committee meetings under the parties’ confidentiality agreement. (Dkt. 417 at 8.) Centennial Bank's objections are overruled. As such, the Motion to Compel is granted as to request for production numbers 48 and 49. In request for production numbers 50 and 51, Gregory Bryant requests loan production reports for Bay Cities Bank and Centennial Bank. (Dkt. 404 at 10.) Centennial Bank objected because the term “loan production reports” was not a defined term. (Dkt. 404 at 10.) In response to the Motion to Compel, however, Centennial Bank acknowledges producing “loan production reports.” (Dkt. 417 at 9.) Because the term is sufficiently specific, and the requests are relevant and proportional to the needs of the case, Centennial Bank's objections are overruled. As such, the Motion to Compel is granted as to request for production numbers 50 and 51. In request for production 72, Gregory Bryant requests documents relating to concentration limits for specific types of real estate loans. (Dkt. 404 at 11.) Gregory Bryant argues these documents are relevant because “Centennial instituted underwriting restrictions that led directly to the loss of lending opportunities and thus the very damages for which Centennial seeks to hold the defendants responsible.” (Dkt. 404 at 12.) The Court finds this request to be relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. As such, the Motion to Compel is granted as to request for production 72. In request for production 74, Gregory Bryant requests “[a]ll documents relating to communications with any current or former Centennial employee regarding any of the defendants from December 31, 2015, through to the present.” (Dkt. 404 at 13.) Centennial Bank argues this request is overbroad as it has over 1,900 employees. (Dkt. 417 at 10.) Additionally, Centennial Bank argues that its parent company has produced communications in response to a similar, narrower request. (Dkt. 417 at 10–11.) The Court agrees that the breadth of request for production 74 is not proportional to the needs of the case considering the discovery already obtained. Centennial Bank's objection is sustained and the Motion to Compel is denied as to request for production 74. B. Motion to Determine Sufficiency *3 In the Motion to Determine Sufficiency, Gregory Bryant alleges that Centennial Bank provided insufficient responses to numerous requests for admission. (Dkt. 411.) Gregory Bryant asks the Court to deem the disputed requests admitted or to order Centennial Bank to provide amended answers. (Dkt. 411 at 18.) In responding to a request for admission, the responding party must either admit the matter or “specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Additionally, a “denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest.” Id. The Court agrees with Gregory Bryant that several responses do not adequately respond to the requests in accordance with Rule 36(a)(4). As such, the Motion to Determine Sufficiency is granted as to request for admission numbers 44, 45, 53, 55, 65, 67, 69, 75, 97 and 125. Centennial Bank must specifically admit or deny the requests, and if denied, explain the denial in detail. However, the remaining requests have either been adequately answered or improperly seek admission of a legal conclusion. As such, the Motion to Determine Sufficiency is otherwise denied. Additionally, Gregory Bryant's request for attorney's fees and costs is denied. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. Gregory W. Bryant's Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt. 404) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Motion is denied without prejudice as to request for production numbers 31, 34, 46, 54, 71, 75, 76, 77 and 84. The Motion is granted as to request for production numbers 48–51, and 72. The Motion is denied as to request for production number 74. Centennial Bank shall provide amended discovery responses and produce the responsive documents by September 16, 2019. Any documents withheld on the basis of privilege should be identified on a privilege log; and 2. Gregory W. Bryant's Motion to Determine Sufficiency of Centennial Bank's Reponses to Bryant's First Requests for Admission (Dkt. 411) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Motion is granted as to requests for admissions 44, 45, 53, 55, 65, 67, 69, 75, 97 and 125. Centennial Bank shall provide amended responses by September 16, 2019. DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on September 5, 2019.