Summary:The court granted the plaintiff's motion to compel discovery against all defendants in part and denied it in part. The court ordered Heartland to supplement its responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents, and ordered Midkiff and Urzendowski to amend their answers to interrogatories to provide bates numbers identifying responsive documents. The court also denied the plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees and costs, and denied the plaintiff's request for leave to take additional depositions.
Court:United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Date decided:
Judge:Brisbois, Leo I.
Marco Technologies, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Keith Midkiff, et al., Defendants Court File No. 19-cv-2323 (PJS/LIB) United States District Court, D. Minnesota Filed October 08, 2020 Counsel Dean A. LeDoux, Dion Farganis, Neil S. Goldsmith, Lathrop GPM LLP, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff. John Pavelko, Lukas Boehning, Pamela Abbate-Dattilo, Fredrikson & Byron, PA, Mpls, MN, for Defendants. Brisbois, Leo I., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 This matter comes before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to a general assignment made in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636, and upon Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Against All Defendants. [Docket No. 79]. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Against All Defendants. [Docket No. 79]. I. BACKGROUND AND RELEVANT FACTS For a more complete account of the facts that give rise to the present case and its procedural history, see this Court's prior Order at [Docket No. 76]. On August 14, 2019, Plaintiff initiated the present case by filing its original Complaint in Stearns County. (Compl. [Docket No. 1]). In its original Complaint, Plaintiff named Keith Midkiff (“Midkiff”) and Dan Urzendowski (“Urzendowski”) as Defendants and asserted claims for Breach of Contract for allegedly breaching their non-compete agreements, Breaches of Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty, Tortious Interference with Contract, and Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage. (Id. ¶¶ 65–71). On August 22, 2019, the case was removed to this Court. (Notice of Removal [Docket No. 1]). On October 4, 2019, Plaintiff served Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on Midkiff and Urzendowski. (Farganis Decl. [Docket No. 81] ¶ 26). On October 8, 2019, Plaintiff served discovery requests via subpoena on Heartland business Systems, LLC (“Heartland”) as a non-party to this case. (Id. ¶ 4). On November 4, 2019, Heartland responded to Plaintiff's discovery requests. (Id. ¶ 5). On November 15, 2019, Midkiff and Urzendowski responded to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Production. (Id. ¶ 27; see also, Ex. J [Docket No. 81-10]). Based on this discovery, on December 31, 2019, Plaintiff moved to amend its original Complaint to add Heartland as a Defendant. (Mot. for Leave to Am. Compl. and Add Def. [Docket No. 32]). On February 24, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion to amend. (Order [Docket No. 51]). On February 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint which adds Heartland as a Defendant and asserts six claims against Defendants Midkiff, Urzendowski, and Heartland. (First Am. Compl. [Docket No. 54]). Counts I and II allege Breach of Contract against Midkiff and Urzendowski, respectively. (Id. ¶¶ 49–58). Counts III and IV allege Breaches of Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty against Midkiff and Urzendowski, respectively. (Id. ¶¶ 59–68). And Counts V and VI allege Tortious Interference with Contract against Urzendowski and Heartland, respectively. (Id. ¶¶ 69–80).[1] On March 11, 2020, Plaintiff served its First Set of Interrogatories and its First Set of Requests for Production of Documents on Heartland. (Farganis Decl. [Docket No. 81] ¶ 6). *2 On April 2, 2020, Plaintiff sent Midkiff and Urzendowski a deficiency letter which outlined several purported deficiencies in Midkiff and Urzendowski's November 15, 2019, Responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests. (Farganis Decl. [Docket No. 81] ¶ 29; see also, Ex. K [Docket No. 81-11]). On April 9, 2020, the Parties met and conferred regarding the purported deficiencies. (Farganis Decl. [Docket No. 81] ¶ 30). On April 24, 2020, after Plaintiff agreed to extend the deadline for Heartland to respond, Heartland served its Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. (Id. ¶¶ 7–8; see also, Ex. A [Docket No. 81-1]; Ex. B [Docket No. 81-2]). On May 7, 2020, Midkiff served his Amended Answers to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, and Urzendowski served his Amended Answers to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, as well as, his Amended Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents. (Id. ¶ 40; see also, Ex. Q [Docket No. 81-17]). On May 13, 2020, Plaintiff sent Midkiff and Urzendowski a letter requesting that they clarify their positions on certain issues related to their May 7, 2020, Responses. (Farganis Decl. [Docket No. 81] ¶ 41; see also, Ex. R [Docket No. 81-18]). To date, neither Midkiff nor Urzendowski have clarified their positions as requested in the May 13, 2020, letter. (Farganis Decl. [Docket No. 81] ¶ 43). On May 15, 2020, Plaintiff sent Heartland a deficiency letter which outlined several purported deficiencies in Heartland's April 24, 2020, Responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests. (Id. [Docket No. 81] ¶ 9; see also, Ex. C [Docket No. 81-3]). On May 22, 2020, the Parties met and conferred regarding the purported deficiencies. (Farganis Decl. [Docket No. 81] ¶ 10). On June 17, 2020, Heartland served its Amended Answers to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories, and Heartland supplemented its production by providing an additional two pages of documents. (Id. ¶ 25; see also, Ex. I [Docket No. 81-9]). On June 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed the present motion to compel. (Plf.’s Mot. to Compel Disc. Against All Defs. [Docket No. 79]). On July 2, 2020, Plaintiff requested that this Court's grant Plaintiff permission to file a Reply memorandum in reference to the present motion. (Plf.’s Request for Permission to File Reply [Docket No. 93]). On July 6, 2020, this Court denied Plaintiff's request. (Text-Only Order [Docket No. 95]). On August 10, 2020, this Court cancelled the telephonic Motions Hearing on the present motion, and the Court took this matter under advisement on the Parties’ written submissions. (Text-Only Order [Docket No. 102]). On August 11, 2020, Plaintiff again requested this Court's permission to file a Reply memorandum in reference to the present motion. (Plf.’s Second Request for Permission to File Reply [Docket No. 103]). Plaintiff argued that a Reply memorandum was necessary due to recent developments in the present action, including that Defendants had produced additional documents subsequent to the filing of this motion. (Id.). On August 13, 2020, this Court granted Plaintiff permission to file an 8-page Reply memorandum, plus supporting declarations and exhibits, and this Court granted Defendants permission to file and 8-page Sur-reply memorandum, plus supporting declarations and exhibits. (Order [Docket No. 103]). The Court Ordered Plaintiff's Reply memorandum due on August 20, 2020, and Defendants’ Sur-reply memorandum due on August 27, 2020. (Id.). On August 27, 2020, this Court considered the present motion resubmitted as amended and again took it under advisement. (Id.). II. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS. [DOCKET NO. 79]. *3 On June 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed the present motion to compel. (Plf.’s Mot. to Compel Disc. Against All Defs. [Docket No. 79]). Plaintiff seeks an Order of this Court “compelling Defendants to fully and adequately respond to [Plaintiff's] written discovery requests.” (Id.). Specifically, Plaintiff requests that Heartland be compelled to supplement its Responses to Request for Production of Documents Nos. 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 21 and its Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 13. (Mem. in Supp. [Docket No. 84], at 10–28). Plaintiff further requests that Midkiff be compelled to supplement his Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9, that Urzendowski be compelled to supplement his Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 13, and 14, and that both Midkiff and Urzendowski be compelled “to produce all responsive documents, whether or not maintained in their Heartland email accounts, and to confirm they are not withholding any documents on a hyper-technical ‘custody’ objection.” (Id. at 28–31).[2] A. Standard of Review Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that “[p]arties 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, 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). Courts construe Rule 26(b)(1) broadly. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978); see also, Hofer v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 981 F.2d 377, 380 (8th Cir. 1992) (Rule 26 “is liberal in scope and interpretation, extending to those matters which are relevant”). However, the scope of discovery is intended to focus on the actual claims or defenses that are at issue in the litigation. See e.g., Sierrapine v. Refiner Prods. Mfg., Inc., 275 F.R.D. 604, 609 (E.D. Cal. 2011). As such, the party seeking discovery is required to make a threshold showing of relevance before production of information is required. Hofer, 981 F.2d at 380. In addition, “even if relevant, discovery is not permitted where no need is shown, or compliance would be unduly burdensome, or where harm to the person from whom discovery is sought outweighs the need of the person seeking discovery of the information.” Miscellaneous Docket Matter #1 v. Miscellaneous Docket Matter #2, 197 F.3d 922, 925 (8th Cir. 1999) (quoting Micro Motion, Inc. v. Kane Steel Co., 894 F.2d 1318, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). “The party resisting production bears the burden of establishing lack of relevancy or undue burden.” St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Commercial Fin. Corp., 198 F.R.D. 508, 511 (N.D. Iowa 2000) (citations omitted). “On notice to other parties and all affected persons, a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3) provides for various motions to compel disclosure or compel discovery depending on the failure of the other party. Specifically, the Court may compel a discovery response if “a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33” or “fails to produce documents ... as requested under Rule 34.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii)–(iv). B. Analysis As noted above, Plaintiff requests that Heartland be compelled to supplement its Responses to Request for Production of Documents Nos. 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 21 and Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 13. (See, Mem. in Supp. [Docket No. 84], at 10–28). Plaintiff further requests that Midkiff be compelled to supplement his Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9, that Urzendowski be compelled to supplement his Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 13, and 14, and that both Midkiff and Urzendowski be compelled “to produce all responsive documents, whether or not maintained in their Heartland email accounts, and to confirm they are not withholding any documents on a hyper-technical ‘custody’ objection.” (Id. at 28–31). i. Heartland 1. Interrogatory No. 1 *4 INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify all persons who you believe have knowledge regarding any of the allegations set forth in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, for each such person, summarize then pertinent knowledge and provide their e-mail address, phone number, and home address. ANSWER: Heartland states that it believes the following people have knowledge regarding claims and defenses in this case: Heartland also states that any individuals identified in documents produced in this litigation may have information regarding the claims and defenses in this case. Heartland also incorporates by reference here Midkiff and Urzendowski's Initial Disclosures. AMENDED ANSWER: Heartland states that it believes the following people have knowledge regarding claims and defenses in this case: (Ex. I [Docket No. 81-9], at 3–5). Plaintiff asserts that “Heartland's document production includes numerous communications clearly establishing that there are other Heartland employees and/or officers (including Peter Helander, Denny Armantrout, Sue May, and Jason Nuss) with knowledge regarding [Plaintiff's] claims.” (Mem. in Supp. [Docket No. 84], at 26–27). And Plaintiff contends that “Heartland must provide [Plaintiff] with the identities of all individuals with knowledge of [Plaintiff's] allegations.” (Id. at 27) (emphasis in original). Heartland contends that it already “has identified the individuals it believes have knowledge related to the claims.” (Mem. in Opp'n [Docket No. 85], at 23–24). And Heartland asserts that its position is the additional persons whom Plaintiff has identified “do not have any knowledge of [Plaintiff's] claims.” (Id. at 24). Accordingly, on the present record, Heartland represents that it has fully answered Interrogatory No. 1. The Interrogatory seeks the identities of all persons whom Heartland believes have information regarding the allegations set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint, and Heartland asserts that it has provided the identities of all such persons.[3] The Court cannot order the production of evidence that does not exist.[4] See, e.g., Farmers Ins. Exch. v. West, No. 11-2297 (PAM/JJK), 2012 WL 12894845, at *5 (D. Minn. Sept. 21, 2012); Struzyk v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., No. 99-1736 (JRT/FLN), 2003 WL 21302966, at *2 (D. Minn. May 16, 2003). Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Against All Defendants, [Docket No. 79], is DENIED to the extent that it seeks an Order of this Court compelling Heartland to amend its Answer to Interrogatory No. 1. 2. Request for Production of Documents Nos. 12, 14, and 21. *5 REQUEST NO. 12: Produce all documents and communications regarding any bids or proposals Heartland submitted to customers or prospective customers who were also customers or prospective customers of Marco with whom Urzendowski, Midkiff, or Shepherd previously worked while at Marco (including but not limited to Catholic Archdiocese of Omaha, Crawford County Memorial Hospital, First State Bank, Greater Regional Medical Center, Great West Casualty Company, Hillcrest Health Systems, James Skinner Baking Company, Leo A. Daly Company, Lindsay Corporation, Memorial Health Care Systems, Midwest Laboratories, OrthoNebraska, Phelps Memorial Health Center, Physicians Laboratory Services, Pinnacle Bank, Team Software, Transwood, and McGrath North Mullin & Kratz) from January 1, 2019 to the present, including but not limited to documents and communications pertaining to anticipated revenue, profits, and pricing, and the products, software, solutions, and services proposed. RESPONSE: Heartland objects to this Request because it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not proportional, vague, ambiguous, and seeks documents that are irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Heartland further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents related to Chad Shepherd, as such documents are irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Heartland further objections to this Request as duplicative of the previous Request. Subject to these Objections and the General Objections, Heartland states it will not produce documents responsive to this Request. (Ex. B [Docket No. 81-2], at 7–8). REQUEST NO. 14: Produce all documents concerning or relating to any communications that Midkiff or Urzendowski has had since June 28, 2019 with any customer or prospective customer of Marco, including but not limited to customers and prospective customers for whom Midkiff or Urzendowski did any work or with whom Midkiff or Urzendowski had any contact while an employee of Marco. RESPONSE: Heartland objects to this Request because it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not proportional, vague, ambiguous, and seeks documents that are irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Subject to these Objections and the General Objections, Heartland states it will not produce documents responsive to this Request. (Id. at 8–9). REQUEST NO. 21: Produce all documents concerning or relating to any communications that Midkiff, Urzendowski, or Shepherd had with any person regarding any effort by Heartland to provide services to any customer, former customer, or prospective customer of Marco. RESPONSE: Heartland objects to this Request because it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not proportional, vague, ambiguous, and seeks documents that are irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Heartland further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents related to Chad Shepherd, as such documents are irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Subject to these Objections and the General Objections, Heartland states it will not produce documents responsive to this Request. (Id. at 11). Request for Production of Documents Nos. 12, 14, and 21 each seek the production of documents related to communications with Plaintiff's customers. Although Heartland initially refused to provide any responsive documents to these Requests, Heartland has represented that subsequent to the filing of Plaintiff's Reply memorandum on this matter, Heartland provided Plaintiff with “all initial communications with the at-issue customers.” (Sur-reply [Docket No. 117], at 2). However, Heartland contends that it should not be required to produce communications with at-issue customers after they moved their business to Heartland because “[t]hose communications are irrelevant and producing them would be unduly burdensome and disproportionate.”[5] (Id. at 2–3). The Court disagrees. *6 The threshold inquiry with regard to discovery issues is whether the moving party seeks discoverable material. Prokosch v. Catalina Lighting, Inc., 193 F.R.D. 633, 635 (D. Minn. 2000) (citing Shelton v. Am. Motors, 805 F.2d 1323, 1326 (8th Cir. 1986)). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), the scope of discoverable material is limited to that which is relevant to the parties’ claims or defenses. See, e.g., Mallak v. Aitkin Cty., No. 13-cv-2119 (DWF/LIB), 2016 WL 8607391, at *6 (D. Minn. June 30, 2016), aff'd, 2016 WL 8607392 (D. Minn. Sept. 29, 2016) (citing Sierrapine v. Refiner Prods. Mfg., Inc., 275 F.R.D. 604, 609 (E.D. Cal. 2011)). And the party seeking discovery is required to make a threshold showing of relevance before production of information is required. Hofer, 981 F.2d at 380. Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Midkiff and Urzendowski breached their non-compete agreements by engaging in sales activity on behalf of Heartland and by soliciting Plaintiff's customers “in an attempt to bring their business to Heartland.” (See, Am. Compl. [Docket No. 54]). Plaintiff's alleged damages arise from any profits that it lost when its customers left as a direct result of Midkiff and Urzendowski's alleged breach of their non-compete agreements. (See, Id.). Request for Production No. 14, seeks documents related to communications that Midkiff and/or Urzendowski have had, since June 28, 2019, with any of Plaintiff's customers or prospective customers. (Ex. B [Docket No. 81-2], at 8–9). This Court finds that any documents related to communications that Midkiff and/or Urzendowski have had with customers that Plaintiff had a business relationship with prior to June 28, 2019,[6] are clearly relevant to Plaintiff's claim that Midkiff and Urzendowski solicited Plaintiff's customers, as well as, to proving Plaintiff's alleged damages.[7] This relevancy is not limited to “initial communications” as Heartland contends. If the initial solicitation is successful, then subsequent communications, including but not limited to, those related to negotiations, agreements, ongoing services, and initial, subsequent, or reoccurring sales are all clearly relevant to whether Midkiff and Urzendowski violated their non-compete agreements, as well as, to proving their damages. Accordingly, Heartland must produce all documents related to communications that Midkiff and/or Urzendowski have had with Plaintiff's customers with whom Plaintiff had a business relationship prior to June 28, 2019. *7 However, this Court further finds that Plaintiff has not made a threshold showing that communications Midkiff and/or Urzendowski have had with generically prospective customers with whom Plaintiff did not have a business relationship prior to June 28, 2019, are relevant to any claims or defenses in the present case. As such, Heartland is not required to produce documents, if any, related to communications that Midkiff and/or Urzendowski have had with prospective customers, if any, with whom Plaintiff did not have a business relationship prior to June 28, 2019. See, e.g., Hofer, 981 F.2d at 380. Request for Production No. 21 seeks documents related to communications that Midkiff, Urzendowski, or Chad Shepherd (“Shepherd”) have had with any person regarding an effort by Heartland to provide services to Plaintiff's customers, former customers, and prospective customers. (Ex. B [Docket No. 81-2], at 11). This Court finds that any documents related to communications that Midkiff and/or Urzendowski have had regarding efforts by Heartland to provide services to Plaintiff's customers and former customers with whom Plaintiff had a business relationship prior to June 28, 2019, are relevant to Plaintiff's claim that Midkiff and Urzendowski solicited Plaintiff's customers, as well as, to proving Plaintiff's alleged damages. This information is relevant for the same reasons that the similar information sought by Request No. 14 is relevant. However, this Court further finds that any such documents related to communications that Shepherd has had are only relevant to the extent that they relate to efforts by Midkiff or Urzendowski to provide Heartland services to Plaintiff's customers and former customers with whom Plaintiff had a business relationship prior to June 28, 2019.[8] Plaintiff has not made a threshold showing that such documents related to communications that Shepherd has had, which are independent of and do not relate to efforts undertaken by Midkiff or Urzendowski, are relevant to any claims or defenses in the present case. In addition, this Court finds that Plaintiff has not made a threshold showing of relevance regarding communications, if any, that Midkiff, Urzendowski, or Shepherd have had regarding an effort by Heartland to provide services to generically prospective customers with whom Plaintiff did not have a business relationship prior to June 28, 2019. Accordingly, Heartland must produce all documents related to communications that Midkiff and/or Urzendowski have had regarding efforts by Heartland to provide services to Plaintiff's customers and former customers with whom Plaintiff had a business relationship prior to June 28, 2019, and Heartland must produce all documents, if any, that relate to communications Shepherd has had which relate to efforts undertaken by Midkiff or Urzendowski to provide Heartland services to Plaintiff's customers and former customers with whom Plaintiff had a business relationship prior to June 28, 2019. See, e.g., Hofer, 981 F.2d at 380. *8 Request for Production of Documents No. 12 seeks documents and communications regarding bids or proposals that Heartland has submitted, from January 1, 2019, to the present, to customers or prospective customers of Plaintiff with whom Midkiff, Urzendowski, or Shepherd had previously worked while employed by Plaintiff. (Ex. B [Docket No. 81-2], at 7–8). The Court finds that documents and communications regarding bids and proposals Heartland has submitted, within the specified timeframe, to customers or prospective customers of Plaintiff with whom Midkiff and/or Urzendowski had worked while they were employed by Plaintiff are relevant to Plaintiff's claim that Midkiff and Urzendowski solicited Plaintiff's customers, as well as, to proving Plaintiff's alleged damages. This information is relevant for the same reasons that the similar information sought by Request No. 14 is relevant. Thus, Heartland must produce such documents. However, Plaintiff has not made a threshold showing that any documents and communications regarding bids and proposals Heartland has submitted to Plaintiff's customers or prospective customers with whom only Shepherd, but not Midkiff and/or Urzendowski, worked while he was employed by Plaintiff are relevant to the present case. As noted above, Shepherd is not a party to the present case, nor is he subject to a non-compete agreement with Plaintiff. See, Supra, note 8. As such, Heartland is not required to produce documents, if any, regarding bids and proposals Heartland has submitted to Plaintiff's customers or prospective customers, if any, with whom only Shepherd, but not Midkiff or Urzendowski, had contact while employed by Plaintiff. See, e.g., Hofer, 981 F.2d at 380. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Against All Defendants, [Docket No. 79], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set forth above, to the extent that it seeks an Order of this Court compelling Heartland to amend and supplement its Responses to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 12, 14, and 21. 3. Request for Production of Documents No. 15 REQUEST NO. 15: Produce all documents concerning or relating to any communications that Midkiff or Urzendowski has had, on or after June 28, 2019, with any vendor, supplier, or contractor who has also been engaged in business with Marco, including but not limited to vendors, suppliers, or contractors with whom Midkiff or Urzendowski had any contact while an employee of Marco. RESPONSE: Heartland objects to this Request because it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not proportional, vague, ambiguous, and seeks documents that are irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Subject to these Objections and the General Objections, Heartland states it will not produce documents responsive to this Request. (Ex. B [Docket No. 81-2], at 9). Request for Production of Documents No. 15 seeks the production of documents related to Midkiff and Urzendowski's communications with vendors, suppliers, or contractors who made sales to Plaintiff with whom they had contact while employed by Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff fails to provide this Court with any explanation as to how such communications are relevant to the present case. (See, Mem. in Supp. [Docket No. 84], at 13–14; Reply [Docket No. 107], at 3–4). Moreover, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint only references its customers, and it is devoid of any allegations regarding its vendors, suppliers, or contractors. (See, Am. Compl. [Docket No. 54]). As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not made a threshold showing that the information sought by Request for Production of Documents No. 15 is relevant to the claims or defenses in this case. See, e.g., Hofer, 981 F.2d at 380. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Against All Defendants, [Docket No. 79], is DENIED to the extent that it seeks an Order of this Court compelling Heartland to amend and supplement its Response to Request for Production of Documents No. 15. 4. Request for Production of Documents No. 11 *9 REQUEST NO. 11: Produce all documents containing financial and product, software, solutions, and services for Heartland customers with whom Urzendowski, Midkiff, or Shepherd had contact on behalf of Heartland who were also customers of Marco (including but not limited to Catholic Archdiocese of Omaha, Crawford County Memorial Hospital, First State Bank, Greater Regional Medical Center, Great West Casualty Company, Hillcrest Health Systems, James Skinner Baking Company, Leo A. Daly Company, Lindsay Corporation, Memorial Health Care Systems, Midwest Laboratories, OrthoNebraska, Phelps Memorial Health Center, Physicians Laboratory Services, Pinnacle Bank, Team Software, Transwood, and McGrath North Mullin & Kratz) from January 1, 2019 to the present, including but not limited to documents showing revenue, profit amounts, pricing, and employee commissions paid for any products, software, solutions, and services that were proposed and/or provided. RESPONSE: Heartland objects to this Request because it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not proportional, vague, ambiguous, and seeks documents that are irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Heartland further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents related to Chad Shepherd, as such documents are irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Subject to these Objections and the General Objections, Heartland states it will produce documents responsive to this Request. (Ex. B [Docket No. 81-2], at 7). Request for Production of Documents No. 11 seeks financial and sales information regarding at-issue customers. On July 23, 2020, subsequent to the filing of the present motion, Heartland produced several invoices for sales made to at-issue customers. (Farganis Decl. [Docket No. 109] ¶ 9). Heartland represents that it has “produced every single invoice for the at-issue customers.” (Sur-reply [Docket No. 117], at 3–4). Nevertheless, Plaintiff continues to assert that Heartland's production in response to Request for Production of Documents No. 11 remains deficient. (See, Reply [Docket No. 107], at 4–6). Specifically, Plaintiff contends that the invoices that Heartland has produced “do not provide the gross profit or commission paid on each product or service sold.” (Id. at 4–5). Plaintiff further contends that such documents exist and must be produced by Heartland. (Id. at 5). Heartland contends that it has sufficiently responded to Request for Production of Documents No. 11. (Sur-reply [Docket No. 117], at 3–4). Regarding commissions, Heartland asserts that it “has not paid any commissions to Urzendowski and Midkiff,” but that it has provided documents that identify what the commission numbers would have been paid if Urzendowski or Midkiff had been paid commission. (Id. at 4). Request No. 11 seeks documents containing financial and sales information regarding Heartland customers who were also Plaintiff's customers and with whom Midkiff, Urzendowski, or Shepherd had contact on behalf of Heartland. (Ex. B [Docket No. 81-2], at 7). As a threshold matter, the Court finds that the documents sought by Request No. 11 are clearly relevant to Plaintiff's to proving Plaintiff's alleged damages to the extent that Request No. 11 seeks documents related to those of Plaintiff's customers with whom Midkiff and/or Urzendowski have had contact on behalf of Heartland. However, this Court finds that Plaintiff has not made a threshold showing of relevance regarding documents, if any, that relate to those of its customers, if any, with whom Shepherd has had contact on behalf of Heartland but with whom neither Midkiff nor Urzendowski has had any contact on behalf of Heartland. As already noted, Shepherd is not a Party to this case, and Shepherd did not have a non-compete agreement with Plaintiff. (See, e.g., Am. Compl. [Docket No. ¶ 34). Hence, any efforts by Shepherd, if acting alone, are not actionable in this case. As explained in this Court's prior Order, [Docket No. 76], the underlying documents that refer, relate, or pertain to Plaintiff's damages claims are discoverable. See, e.g., Hodges v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 14-4855 ADM/TNL, 2016 WL 1222229, at *3–4 (D. Minn. Mar. 28, 2016) (finding that financial documents were relevant to disputed damages claim). As such, documents that include information concerning Heartland's profits in connection with the at-issue customers are discoverable. See, e.g., Id. (ordering the production of documents containing gross and net profit information). Here, Midkiff stated during his deposition that he gets monthly reports which contain information regarding the gross profits that Midkiff's accounts have generated. (Ex. N [Docket No. 113], at 4–5). Nevertheless, on the present record, Heartland has not produced any such documents. (See, e.g., Reply [Docket No. 107], at 4–5). *10 Accordingly, Heartland must produce all documents that are responsive to Request No. 11 and related to those of Plaintiff's customers with whom Midkiff and/or Urzendowski have had contact on behalf of Heartland. See, e.g., Hodges, 2016 WL 1222229, at *3–4. However, Heartland is not required to produce documents, if any, that relate to those of Plaintiff's customers, if any, with whom Shepherd solely has had contact on behalf of Heartland and with whom neither Midkiff nor Urzendowski has had any contact on behalf of Heartland. See, e.g., Hofer, 981 F.2d at 380. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Against All Defendants, [Docket No. 79], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part accordingly to the extent that it seeks an Order of this Court compelling Heartland to amend and supplement its Response to Request for Production of Documents No. 11. 5. Interrogatory Nos. 2, 12, and 13 INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify all Heartland customers with whom Midkiff or Urzendowski have worked while at Heartland, including but not limited to Catholic Archdiocese of Omaha, Crawford County Memorial Hospital, First State Bank, Greater Regional Medical Center, Great West Casualty Company, Hillcrest Health Systems, James Skinner Baking Company, Leo A. Daly Company, Lindsay Corporation, Memorial Health Care Systems, Midwest Laboratories, OrthoNebraska, Phelps Memorial Health Center, Physicians Laboratory Services, Pinnacle Bank, Team Software, Transwood, and McGrath North Mullin & Kratz. For each such customer, identify and describe in detail: what products or software was sold, leased, or licensed to them; the services provided; the revenue and profit received from each customer by project or, if the charges are monthly recurring charges, by month; and the dates upon which the revenue was received. ANSWER: Heartland objects to this Interrogatory because it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, not proportional and seeks information that is irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Subject to these Objections and the General Objections, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), Heartland states that Marco may ascertain the identity of the customers that Midkiff or Urzendowski have sold products or services to while at Heartland and the revenue and profit from those sales at KMDU000669 and KMDU000670. (Ex. I [Docket No. 81-9], at 5–6). INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Identify all documents containing financial and product, software, solutions, and services information for Heartland customers with whom Urzendowski, Midkiff, or Shepherd had contact on behalf of Heartland who were also customers of Marco (including but not limited to Catholic Archdiocese of Omaha, Crawford County Memorial Hospital, First State Bank, Greater Regional Medical Center, Great West Casualty Company, Hillcrest Health Systems, James Skinner Baking Company, Leo A. Daly Company, Lindsay Corporation, Memorial Health Care Systems, Midwest Laboratories, OrthoNebraska, Phelps Memorial Health Center, Physicians Laboratory Services, Pinnacle Bank, Team Software, Transwood, and McGrath North Mullin & Kratz), including but not limited to documents showing revenue, profit amounts, pricing, and employee commissions paid for any products, software, solutions, and services that were proposed and/or provided. ANSWER: Heartland objects to this Interrogatory because it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, and seeks information that is irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Heartland further objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information related to Shepher[d] and such information is irrelevant to Marco's tortious interference claim and Heartland's defenses to that claim. Subject to these Objections and the General Objections, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), Heartland direct Marco to KMDU000664, and KMDU000669-KMDU000670. *11 INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify all bids or proposals Heartland submitted to customers or prospective customers who were also customers or prospective customers of Marco with whom Urzendowski, Midkiff, or Shepherd previously worked (including but not limited to Catholic Archdiocese of Omaha, Crawford County Memorial Hospital, First State Bank, Greater Regional Medical Center, Great West Casualty Company, Hillcrest Health Systems, James Skinner Baking Company, Leo A. Daly Company, Lindsay Corporation, Memorial Health Care Systems, Midwest Laboratories, OrthoNebraska, Phelps Memorial Health Center, Physicians Laboratory Services, Pinnacle Bank, Team Software, Transwood, and McGrath North Mullin & Kratz), including but not limited to documents and communications pertaining to anticipated revenue, profits, and pricing, and the products, software, solutions, and services proposed. ANSWER: Heartland objects to this Interrogatory because it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, and seeks information that is irrelevant to Marco's tortious interference claim and Heartland's defenses to that claim. Heartland further objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information related to Shepherd and such information is irrelevant to Marco's tortious interference claim and Heartland's defenses to that claim. Subject to these Objections and the General Objections, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), Heartland direct Marco to KMDU000664, and KMDU000669-KMDU000670. (Id. at 13–14). Interrogatory Nos. 2, 12, and 13 each seek financial and sales information regarding at-issue customers. In reference to these Interrogatories, Plaintiff asserts that it seeks “an invoice-by-invoice breakdown reflecting: (i) the specific product sold or service provided by Heartland to the customer, along with (ii) the sale amount, (iii) profit, and (iv) commission amount for each product or service.” (Reply [Docket No. 107], at 4). In opposition to this motion, Heartland does not dispute the relevancy of the information sought by these Interrogatories.[9] (Mem. in Opp'n [Docket No. 85], at 16–19; Sur-reply [Docket No. 117], at 3–4). Rather, Heartland asserts that it has sufficiently Answered these requests. Specifically, Heartland contends that it has sufficiently provided the sought after information by generically invoking Rule 33(d), and Heartland further contends that by producing invoices for “all sales made to the at-issue customers, [it has] negat[ed] the necessity of a detailed, invoice-by-invoice breakdown.” (See, Mem. in Opp'n [Docket No. 85], at 17–18; Sur-reply [Docket No. 117], at 3–4). As a threshold matter, the Court finds that the financial and sales information sought by Interrogatory Nos. 2, 12, and 13 is relevant to Plaintiff's claim that Midkiff and Urzendowski solicited Plaintiff's at-issue customers, as well as, to proving Plaintiff's alleged damages to the extent that these Interrogatories seek information related to those customers with whom Midkiff and/or Urzendowski have had contact. However, Interrogatory No. 12 also seeks information regarding Heartland customers with whom Shepherd alone has had contact on behalf of Heartland, and Interrogatory No. 13 seeks information regarding bids or proposals Heartland has submitted to customers with whom Shepherd only worked while employed by Plaintiff. In reference to Interrogatory No. 12, this Court finds that Plaintiff has not made a threshold showing of relevance regarding information that relates to those of its customers, if any, with whom Shepherd alone had contact on behalf of Heartland but with whom neither Midkiff nor Urzendowski has had any contact on behalf of Heartland. Likewise, in reference to Interrogatory No. 13, this Court also finds that Plaintiff has not made a threshold showing of relevance regarding information that relates to those customers, if any, with whom Shepherd alone worked while he was employed by Plaintiff but with whom neither Midkiff nor Urzendowski worked. *12 In each of its Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 12, and 13, Heartland generally purports to invoke Rule 33(d) by referring Plaintiff to documents KMDU000664, and/or KMDU000669-KMDU000670. (Ex. I [Docket No. 81-9], at 5–6, 13–14). Rule 33(d) gives a party the option to produce business records in lieu of a detailed Interrogatory Answer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). Rule 33(d) provides: If the answer to an interrogatory may be determined by examining, auditing, compiling, abstracting, or summarizing a party's business records (including electronically stored information), and if the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same for either party, the responding party may answer by: (1) 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; and (2) giving the interrogating party a reasonable opportunity to examine and audit the records and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries. (Id.). “Invocation of Rule 33(d) ‘requires first that the information actually be obtainable from the documents.’ ” E.g., Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc., No. 11-820 (ADM/JSM), 2015 WL 12781248, at *5 (D. Minn. Oct. 14, 2015) (quoting In re Sulphuric Acid Antitrust Litig., 231 F.R.D. 320, 325 (N.D. Ill. 2005)). “ ‘To answer an interrogatory, a responding party has the duty to specify, by category and location, the records from which answers to interrogatories can be derived.’ ” Aviva Sports, Inc. v. Fingerhut Direct Mktg., Inc., No. 9–cv–1091 (JNE/JSM), 2012 WL 12894846, *10 (D. Minn. May 11, 2012) (citation omitted); see also, Pulsecard, Inc. v. Discover Card Servs., 168 F.R.D. 295, 305 (D. Kan. 1996) (“[Parties] may not simply refer generically to past or future production of documents. They must identify in their answers to the interrogatories specifically which documents contain the answer. Otherwise they must completely answer the interrogatories without referring to the documents.”). Here, documents KMDU000669 and KMDU000670 are spreadsheets, created for this case apparently, that contain certain financial information. (See, Ex. A [Docket No. 87; Ex. B [Docket No. 88]). Document KMDU000664 is an income/loss document which contains certain financial totals. (See, Ex. C [Docket No. 89]). These referenced summary documents do not contain all of the information requested by Interrogatory Nos. 2, 12, and 13. (See, Ex. A [Docket No. 87; Ex. B [Docket No. 88]; Ex. C [Docket No. 89]). Interrogatory No. 2 seeks an invoice-by-invoice breakdown of specified financial and sales information regarding Plaintiff's at-issue customers with whom Midkiff and Urzendowski have worked while employed by Heartland. (Ex. I [Docket No. 81-9], at 5–6; see also, Reply [Docket No. 107], at 4). Although Heartland contends that any need for an invoice-by-invoice breakdown has been negated by the fact that Heartland has produced invoices for all sales with at-issue customers, Heartland does not refer Plaintiff to those source documents. Nor does Heartland refer Plaintiff to documents evidencing the profits that Midkiff and Urzendowski have generated. Rather, Heartland merely refers Plaintiff to the summary spreadsheets in its Answer to Interrogatory No. 2. The summary spreadsheets do not contain all of the information requested by Interrogatory No. 2. Heartland must refer Plaintiff to the source documents that do contain such information. *13 Accordingly, Heartland must amend its Answer to Interrogatory No. 2 to specifically identify every document that it relies on for its Answer. Interrogatory No. 12 requests that Heartland identify all documents containing certain financial and sales information regarding Heartland customers with whom Midkiff, Urzendowski, or Shepherd have had contact on behalf of Heartland who were also Plaintiff's customers. (Ex. I [Docket No. 81-9], at 13–14). In its Answer, Heartland only identifies summary documents KMDU000664, KMDU000669, and KMDU000670. The record presently before the Court demonstrates the existence of additional documents that containing the specified information, such as individual invoices. (See, e.g., Farganis Decl. [Docket No. 109] ¶ 9). Thus, Heartland's Answer to Interrogatory No. 12 is deficient. As such, Heartland must amend its Answer to Interrogatory No. 12 to specifically identify every document that contains the specified information regarding Heartland customers with whom Midkiff and/or Urzendowski have had contact with on behalf of Heartland who were also Plaintiff's customers. However, Heartland is not required to identify documents, if any, that contain financial and sales information regarding Heartland customers, if any, with whom Shepherd has solely had contact on behalf of Heartland but with whom neither Midkiff nor Urzendowski has had any contact on behalf of Heartland. See, e.g., Hofer, 981 F.2d at 380. Interrogatory No. 13 requests that Heartland identify all bids or proposals that it submitted to customers with whom Midkiff, Urzendowski, or Shepherd previously worked while employed by Plaintiff. (Ex. I [Docket No. 81-9], at 14). In its Answer, Heartland identifies summary documents KMDU000664, KMDU000669, and KMDU000670. However, the identified documents are not “bids or proposals,” nor do they identify any “bids or proposals.” (See, Ex. A [Docket No. 87]; Ex. B [Docket No. 88]). Hence, Heartland's Answer is deficient. This Court has already Ordered, in reference to Request for Production of Documents No. 12, Heartland to produce documents and communications regarding bids and proposals that Heartland has submitted, from January 1, 2019, to the present, to customers of Plaintiff with whom Midkiff and/or Urzendowski had worked while they were employed by Plaintiff. See, Supra, Part II.B.i.2. Accordingly, Heartland must amend its Answer to Interrogatory No. 13, to identify any such bids or proposals that Heartland has submitted, from January 1, 2019, to the present, to customers of Plaintiff with whom Midkiff and/or Urzendowski had worked while they were employed by Plaintiff.[10] However, Heartland is not required to identify bids and proposals, if any, that relate to those customers, if any, with whom Shepherd alone worked while he was employed by Plaintiff but with whom neither Midkiff nor Urzendowski worked. See, e.g., Hofer, 981 F.2d at 380. *14 Plaintiff also asserts that Heartland must supplement its Answers because Heartland continues to do business with the at-issue customers. (Reply [Docket No. 107], at 5–6). Heartland acknowledges its duty to supplement its responses and states that it will do so. (Sur-Reply [Docket No. 117], at 4). This Court finds that Heartland must supplement its Answers, as well as, its production of documents to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) for any additional responsive documents or information. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Against All Defendants, [Docket No. 79], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part accordingly to the extent that it seeks an Order of this Court compelling Heartland to amend its Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 12, and 13. 6. Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 8 INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify and describe in detail any effort by you to recruit Urzendowski, Midkiff, and Shepherd, including the dates and the contents of any communications that were made to or from Urzendowski, Midkiff, and Shepherd concerning their recruitment, and list the role and names of all persons who were involved in any aspect of any of their recruitments. ANSWER: Heartland objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information related to Shepherd because such information is irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Heartland further objects to this Interrogatory because it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not proportional, vague, ambiguous, and seeks information that is irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Subject to this Objection and the General Objections, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), Heartland states that Marco may ascertain the Answers to this Interrogatory at Heartland000020-23, Heartland000057, Heartland000262-68, Heartland000374-75, Heartland000401-411, Heartland000940-948, Heartland001086-90, and Heartland001100-08, KMDU000001-5, KMDU000014, KMDU000020, KMDU000025-48, KMDU000058-67, KMDU000084, KMDU000086, KMDU000092, and KMDU000130-133, KMDU000140-42, KMDU000154, KMDU000158-180, KMDU000181-191, KMDU000210-212, KMDU000425-KMDU000496, KMDU217-KMDU000291, KMDU000314-KMDU000508, KMDU000579-KMDU000581, and KMDU000545-KMDU000661. (Ex. I [Docket No. 81-9], at 7–8). INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Identify and describe in detail any discussions, conversations, or communications between or among any Heartland employees relating to the employment of Midkiff, Urzendowski, or Shepherd, including but not limited to any employment or restrictive covenant agreement between Marco and Midkiff, Marco and Urzendowski, or Marco and Shepherd. ANSWER: Heartland objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is privileged. Heartland further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information related to Shepherd because such information is irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Heartland further objects to this Interrogatory because it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not proportional, vague, ambiguous, and seeks information that is irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Subject to and without waiving these Objections and the General Objections, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), Heartland states that Marco may ascertain the Answers to this Interrogatory at KMDU000215-KMDU000625. (Id. at 10). Plaintiff has limited Interrogatory No. 8 in scope to seek only information regarding “communications between or among Heartland employees regarding Midkiff, Urzendowski, or Shepherd's recruitment and/or their restrictive covenants or employment agreements.” (Farganis Decl. [Docket No. 81] ¶ 15). As limited, Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 8 seek information regarding the recruitment of Midkiff, Urzendowski, and Shepherd, their employment agreements with Heartland, and their non-compete agreements with Heartland. (Ex. I [Docket No. 81-9], at 7–8, 10). *15 As a threshold matter, the Court finds that the information requested by Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 8 is relevant to the extent that it pertains to Midkiff and Urzendowski. However, information related to the recruitment of Shepherd is only relevant insofar as that recruitment involved efforts by Urzendowski.[11] Further, this Court finds that Plaintiff has not made a threshold showing that information related to communications, if any, regarding Shepherd's employment agreement or non-compete agreement with Heartland are relevant to any claims or defenses in this case. See, Infra, Part II.B.i.8. Plaintiff contends that Heartland's Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 8 are deficient for two reasons. First, Plaintiff argues that Heartland's Answers are deficient because they do not meet the specificity requirements of Rule 33(d). (Mem. in Supp. [Docket No. 84], at 21–22). In response, Heartland asserts that it has identified by bates number every communication that relates to the recruitment of Midkiff and/or Urzendowski. (Mem. in Opp'n [Docket No. 85], at 20–21). Although Rule 33(d) gives a party the option to produce business records in lieu of a detailed Interrogatory Answer, simply referring the interrogating party generally to large numbers of documents does not satisfy a party's obligations under Rule 33(d). See, Schwendimann, 2015 WL 12781248, at *5. Rather, “ ‘[r]eferring to business records en masse, without specifying particular documents is an “abuse of the option [provided by Rule 33(d)].’ ”” Id. (alterations and emphasis in original) (citations omitted). As already noted, “[t]o answer an interrogatory, a responding party has the duty to specify, by category and location, the records from which answers to interrogatories can be derived.” Aviva Sports, Inc., 2012 WL 12894846, *10 (citation omitted); see, also, Pulsecard, Inc., 168 F.R.D. at 305. Here, Heartland asserts that it has not generally referred Plaintiff to a large number of documents, it has “reviewed its documents and identified specific documents by bates number that reflected a communication about the recruitment and hiring of Midkiff and Urzendowski.” (Mem. in Opp'n [Docket No. 85], at 21). Heartland further asserts that it has identified a large number of documents, but rather, due to the broad scope of Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 8, which seek information regarding all communications related to Midkiff and Urzendowski's recruitment. (See, Id. at 20–21). Accordingly, Heartland represents that it has fully answered Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 8 by specifically identifying each document that contains responsive information. Nothing in the record presently before the Court contradicts Heartland's assertion. Therefore, on the present record and considering the broad scope of Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 8, this Court finds that Heartland has provided enough specificity to satisfy the requirements of Rule 33(d). Second, Plaintiff argues that Heartland's Answers are deficient because they do not address oral communications. (Mem. in Supp. [Docket No. 84], at 21–23). In response, Heartland asserts that the documents identified in its discovery Answers provide Plaintiff “with the dates, times, and subject matters of oral communications that Heartland had with Midkiff during their recruitment,” and Heartland contends that it should not be required to summarize all such oral communications because “the majority of those communications are captured in email communications Defendants have provided to [Plaintiff].” (Mem. in Opp'n [Docket No. 85], at 21). The Court disagrees. *16 To the extent that oral communications regarding the recruitment of Midkiff and/or Urzendowski took place that are not identified in the documents Heartland refers Plaintiff to in its Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 8, Heartland must identify such communications, if any.[12] Moreover, Heartland must identify any oral communications, if any, regarding the recruitment of Shepherd by Heartland if those recruitment efforts involved Urzendowski. However, Heartland is not required to identify communications regarding recruitment efforts of Shepherd by Heartland if such efforts did not involve Urzendowski. Nor is Heartland required to identify communications regarding Shepherd's employment agreement or non-compete agreement with Heartland. See, e.g., Hofer, 981 F.2d at 380. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Against All Defendants, [Docket No. 79], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part accordingly to the extent that it seeks an Order of this Court compelling Heartland to amend its Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 8. 7. Request for Production of Documents No. 2 REQUEST NO. 2: Produce all personnel records and agreements relating to Midkiff or Urzendowski's employment with Heartland, including but not necessarily limited to: employment applications, résumés, offer letters, job descriptions, non-compete or confidentiality agreements, employment agreements, compensation information, any applicable commissions or bonus plan, and documents reflecting the basis for any commissions payments or other compensation. RESPONSE: Heartland objects to this Request as overbroad and vague. Subject to these Objections and the General Objections, Heartland will produce Midkiff's and Urzendowski's personnel files with Heartland. (Ex. B [Docket No. 81-2], at 4). Request for Production of Documents No. 2 seeks documents related to Midkiff and/or Urzendowski's employment at Heartland. In response to the present motion, Heartland has represented to the Court that it has “produced all responsive documents to Document Request No. 2.”[13] (Pavelko Decl. [Docket No. 86] ¶ 8). The Court cannot order the production of evidence that does not exist. See, e.g., Farmers Ins. Exch. v. West, No. 11-2297 (PAM/JJK), 2012 WL 12894845, at *5 (D. Minn. Sept. 21, 2012); Struzyk v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., No. 99-1736 (JRT/FLN), 2003 WL 21302966, at *2 (D. Minn. May 16, 2003). Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Against All Defendants, [Docket No. 79], is DENIED to the extent that it seeks an Order of this Court compelling Heartland to amend and supplement its Response to Request for Production of Documents No. 2. 8. Request for Production of Documents Nos. 3 and 10 REQUEST NO. 3: Produce all personnel records and agreements relating to Shepherd's employment with Heartland, including but not necessarily limited to: employment applications, résumés, offer letters, job descriptions, non-compete or confidentiality agreements, employment agreements, compensation information, any applicable commissions or bonus plan, and documents reflecting the basis for any commissions payments or other compensation. *17 RESPONSE: Heartland objects to this Request because it is overbroad, not proportional, vague, and seeks documents that are irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Subject to and without waiving these Objections and the General Objections, Heartland will not produce documents responsive to this Request. (Ex. B [Docket No. 81-2], at 4). REQUEST NO. 10: Produce any and all documents concerning or relating to Shepherd's job duties, responsibilities, requirements, and compensation for any job position offered to or accepted by Shepherd. RESPONSE: Heartland objects to this Request because it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, not proportional, and seeks documents that are irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Subject to these Objections and the General Objections, Heartland will not produce documents responsive to this Request. (Id. at 7). Request for Production of Documents Nos. 3 and 10 each seek documents related to Shepherd's employment at Heartland. Plaintiff has limited Request for Production Nos. 3 and 10 in scope to seek only “Shepherd's job application, offer letter, job description, non-compete or employment agreement, and commission or bonus documentation.” (Farganis Decl. [Docket No. 81] ¶ 17). Heartland has already voluntarily provided Plaintiff with Shepherd's offer letter, employment offer, and application for employment. (See, Ex. E [Docket No. 86-2]). Shepherd's offer letter contains his job description. (See, Id. at 4–5). Accordingly, the only responsive documents still at issue are Shepherd's non-compete agreement and commission or bonus documentation. Plaintiff generally contends that documents related to Shepherd's employment are relevant to the present case because Urzendowski recruited Shepherd, because Midkiff, Urzendowski, and Shepherd “worked as a team before, during, and after their employment with [Plaintiff], and because they “relate[ ] to Shepherd's role in soliciting and working with [Plaintiff's] former customers.” (Mem. in Supp. [Docket No. 84], at 25). Plaintiff further contends that it has been prejudiced by Heartland withholding Shepherd's non-compete agreement because during his deposition, Shepherd stated that it would be difficult to discuss the specifics of his non-compete agreement without it in front of him. (Reply [Docket No. 107], at 7–8). As already noted, Shepherd is not a Party to this case, and Shepherd did not have a non-compete agreement with Plaintiff. (See, e.g., Am. Compl. [Docket No. ¶ 34]). Any solicitation efforts by Shepherd, if acting alone, are not actionable in this case. Therefore, to the extent that any responsive documents do evidence efforts undertaken by Shepherd on behalf of Heartland to soliciting Plaintiff's customers, those documents are not relevant. This Court has already Ordered Heartland to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests to the extent that they seek materials that are related to any efforts by Midkiff and/or Urzendowski, including those where Shepherd actual cooperation with Midkiff and/or Urzendowski, to solicit Plaintiff's customers in violation of Midkiff and Urzendowski's non-compete agreements with Plaintiff. See, Supra, Parts II.B.i.2, 4–6. In addition, Shepherd is an engineer, not a salesperson like Midkiff and Urzendowski. (See, Ex. E [Docket No. 86-2]). The mere fact that he may have worked with Midkiff and Urzendowski while employed by Plaintiff, and may now work with Midkiff and Urzendowski while employed by Heartland, does not render Shepherd's own employment documents with Heartland relevant to the claims against Midkiff, Urzendowski, and Heartland in the present case. In addition, Plaintiff has not provided any explanation to this Court as to how Shepherd's non-compete agreement or commission and bonus documentation with Heartland, if any, are relevant to the claims and defenses in this case merely because Urzendowski recruited Shepherd on behalf of Heartland. *18 Moreover, the enforceability of Midkiff and Urzendowski's own non-compete agreements with Plaintiff do not hinge in any way on whether Heartland required Shepherd to sign a non-compete agreement when he joined Heartland. See, e.g., Bennet v. Storz Broad. Co., 134 N.W.2d 892, 899 (Minn. 1965). “[N]oncompete agreements are enforceable if they serve a legitimate employer interest and are not broader than necessary to protect this interest.” Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc., 573 N.W.2d 356, 361 (Minn. 1998). “The validity of the [non-compete agreement] in each case must be determined on its own facts and a reasonable balance must be maintained between the interests of the employer and the employee.” Bennet, 134 N.W.2d at 899–900. The test to determine the reasonableness of a non-compete agreement is an objective one, thus what Heartland subjectively considers to be a reasonable restrictive covenant is not relevant to the enforceability of Midkiff and Urzendowski's non-compete agreements with Plaintiff. See, e.g., Id. Accordingly, Shepherd's non-compete agreement with Heartland is not relevant in any way to the objective reasonableness and enforceability of the non-compete agreements signed by Midkiff and Urzendowski, neither of whom are even engineers. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not made a threshold showing that the information sought by Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 3 and 10 is relevant to the claims or defenses in this case. See, Hofer, 981 F.2d at 380. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Against All Defendants, [Docket No. 79], is DENIED to the extent that it seeks an Order of this Court compelling Heartland to amend and supplement its Response to Request for Production of Documents Nos. 3 and 10. ii. Midkiff and Urzendowski Plaintiff further requests that Midkiff be compelled to supplement his Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9, that Urzendowski be compelled to supplement his Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 13, and 14, and that both Midkiff and Urzendowski be compelled “to produce all responsive documents, whether or not maintained in their Heartland email accounts, and to confirm they are not withholding any documents on a hyper-technical ‘custody’ objection.” (Mem. in Supp. [Docket No. 84], at 28–31). 1. Heartland Emails Plaintiff seeks an Order of this Court “requiring Midkiff and Urzendowski to produce all responsive documents, whether or not maintained in their Heartland email accounts, and to confirm they are not withholding any documents on a hyper-technical ‘custody’ objection.” (Mem. in Supp. [Docket No. 84], at 29; accord, Reply [Docket No. 107], at 7). This Court finds that Plaintiff's request regarding Midkiff and Urzendowski's emails fails to comply with Local Rule 37.1. Pursuant to Local Rule 37.1, motions presenting a discovery dispute must include: “a specification of the disclosure or discovery in dispute;” “the text (which may appear in an exhibit to which the motion or memorandum refers) of any interrogatory, request, question, or notice in dispute, together with each answer, response, or objection to any such interrogatory, request, question, or notice;” and “a concise statement of why the disclosure, answer, response, production, or objection is insufficient, evasive, incomplete, or otherwise improper.” Local Rule 37.1 is intentionally designed to assist the Court in effectively and efficiently addressing discovery disputes by requiring the parties to specifically identify the precise nature and parameters of the subject dispute. In relation to Midkiff and Urzendowski's emails, Plaintiff fails to include the aforementioned requirements of Local Rule 37.1. Indeed, Plaintiff only generally contends that “Midkiff and Urzendowski appear to be improperly withholding relevant information on the grounds that they do not have possession, custody, or control of their Heartland emails.” (Mem. in Supp. [Docket No. 84], at 28). Plaintiff does not make any specific challenges to any discrete Response by Midkiff and/or Urzendowski, nor does Plaintiff actually claim that Midkiff and/or Urzendowski failed to respond to any particular Request for Production of Documents. This generalized type of motion practice is in violation of Local Rule 37.1, and it is entirely unhelpful to the Court.[14] *19 Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Against All Defendants, [Docket No. 79], is DENIED to the extent that it generally seeks an Order of this Court compelling Midkiff and Urzendowski to produce “all responsive documents,” including those in their Heartland email accounts, and to confirm they are not withholding any such documents on a custody objection. 2. Responsive Documents Plaintiff seeks an Order of this Court compelling “Midkiff and Urzendowski to confirm whether they have communications responsive to Interrogatory Nos, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 and Interrogatory Nos. 3, 7, 9, 13 and 14, respectively, and to provide Bates numbers identifying responsive documents.” (Mem. in Supp. [Docket No. 84], at 30). Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that during an April 9, 2020, meet and confer, Midkiff and Urzendowski represented to Plaintiff that they would provide bates numbers identifying any documents that contained written communications responsive to certain interrogatories. (Id.; Farganis Decl. [Docket No. 81] ¶ 32). And Plaintiff contends that because Midkiff's Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9, and Urzendowski's Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 7, 9, 13, and 14 do not include bates numbers, Midkiff and Urzendowski should be compelled to amend those Answers. (Mem. in Supp. [Docket No. 84], at 30). In response, Heartland contends that it only agreed to identify documents by bates number in reference to those Interrogatories to which Heartland invoked Rule 33(d) in its Answer. (Mem. in Opp'n [Docket No. 85], at 25; Pavelko Decl. [Docket No. 86] ¶ 7). Heartland asserts that it is not required to identify documents by bates number if it has not invoked Rule 33(d). (Mem. in Opp'n [Docket No. 85], at 25). Midkiff's Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9 and Urzendowski's Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 7, 9, and 14 do not purport to invoke Rule 33(d). (See, Ex. Q [Docket No. 81-17], at 6–9, 21–22, 24–25, 28–29). Nor do any of these Answers refer to any documents. (See, Id.). Each of these Interrogatories requests that Midkiff and Urzendowski describe in detail certain communications. More importantly, none of these Interrogatories specifically ask Midkiff and Urzendowski to identify any documents. (See, Id.). Accordingly, Midkiff and Urzendowski are not obligated to identify documents in their Answers to these Interrogatories. Plaintiff does not challenge the sufficiency of Midkiff and Urzendowski's narrative Answers beyond merely observing that they do not refer to any documents by bates number. (See, Mem. in Supp. [Docket No. 84], at 30). Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Against All Defendants, [Docket No. 79], is DENIED to the extent that it seeks an Order of this Court compelling Midkiff to amend his Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9 and Urzendowski to amend his Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 7, 9, and 14 to provide bates numbers identifying responsive documents. Urzendowski's Answer to Interrogatory No. 13 provides a narrative response, but also purports to “invoke[ ] his right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 to substitute access to documents for an answer because the burden of deriving the answer to this Interrogatory will be substantially the same for either party.” (Ex. Q [Docket No. 81-17], at 27–28). Despite his purported invocation of Rule 33(d), however, Urzendowski does not specifically identify any documents from which his Answer can be derived. Accordingly, Urzendowski must specifically identify every document that contains his Answer to Interrogatory No. 13. See, Aviva Sports, Inc., 2012 WL 12894846, *10; Pulsecard, Inc., 168 F.R.D. at 305. *20 Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Against All Defendants, [Docket No. 79], is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks an Order of this Court compelling Urzendowski to amend his Answer to Interrogatory No. 13. 3. Additional Details Plaintiff seeks an Order of this Court “requiring Midkiff and Urzendowski to state whether they have additional details to provide regarding any non-written communications affiliated with ... [Interrogatory Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9] and, if such details do exist, to amend their answers accordingly. (Mem. in Supp. [Docket No. 84], at 31). Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that during an April 9, 2020, meet and confer, Midkiff and Urzendowski represented to Plaintiff that they “would consider revising their answers to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9.” (Id.) (emphasis added). And Plaintiff contends that because Midkiff has not amended his Answers to interrogatory Nos. 2, 5, 7, and 9 to include more details and Urzendowski has not amended his Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 5, 7, and 9 to include more details, and neither Midkiff nor Urzendowski have confirmed that they do not have any additional details to provide, they should be compelled to do so. (Id. at 30–31). This Court finds that Plaintiff's request fails to comply with Local Rule 37.1 because Plaintiff has not provided “a concise statement of why the disclosure, answer, response, production, or objection is insufficient, evasive, incomplete, or otherwise improper.” Indeed, Plaintiff has not specifically asserted that Midkiff and Urzendowski's Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9 are deficient in any way. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Against All Defendants, [Docket No. 79], is DENIED to the extent that it seeks an Order of this Court compelling Midkiff to amend his Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9 and Urzendowski to amend his Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 7, 9, and 14 to provide additional details or state no such details exist. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, and based on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Against All Defendants, [Docket No. 79], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set forth above. Defendants shall Amend their responses and supplement their production, as set forth above, within twenty-one (21) days of this Order. Defendants shall further Amend their responses and supplement their production on an ongoing basis as set forth above. Footnotes [1] The Court notes that Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint does not assert a claim for Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage against any Defendant. [Docket No. 54]. [2] In addition, Plaintiff requests that this Court award the costs and attorneys’ fees that Plaintiff has incurred in bringing the present motion, and Plaintiff requests that the Court grant Plaintiff leave to take additional depositions. (Plf.’s Mot. to Compel Disc. Against All Defs. [Docket No. 79]; see also, Mem. in Supp. [Docket No. 84], at 31–32). The Court DENIES Plaintiff's requests for attorneys’ fees and costs, and the Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for leave to take additional depositions. [3] However, Heartland necessarily makes such representations at its own peril should it ultimately become clear that the circumstances are otherwise. Lumber v. PPG Indus., Inc., 168 F.R.D. 641, 643 n.1 (D. Minn. 1996) (“In our view, the failure to produce evidence, without just cause, which is relevant within the context of Rule 26, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, bears a close relationship to the ‘spoliation of evidence,’ and should be sanctioned accordingly.”). [4] The Court notes that Heartland has continuing obligation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e) to supplement its Answer if it determines that additional people have knowledge of Plaintiff's allegations, and the Court encourages Heartland to consider reviewing its Answer and supplementing it if appropriate. [5] This Court notes that Heartland contends Plaintiff narrowed these Requests, in its Reply memorandum, to seek only “communications that ‘shed light on how the at-issue customers made their way from [Plaintiff] to Heartland.’ ” (Id. at 2). However, Plaintiff was merely providing an example of why Heartland's refusal to provide any responsive documents was “particularly problematic” because such information was “vital to [Plaintiff's] claims.” (Reply [Docket No. 107], at 4). Accordingly, this Court finds that Plaintiff did not narrow its Request for Production of Documents Nos. 12, 14, and 21 to seek only those communications evidencing how the at-issue customers left Plaintiff for Heartland. [6] Plaintiff alleges that Urzendowski's last day of employment with Plaintiff was June 28, 2019. (Am. Compl. [Docket No. 54] ¶ 28). [7] As explained in this Court's prior Order, [Docket No. 76], “[d]amages awarded for a breach of a noncompete covenant ‘are measured by the business loss suffered as a consequence of the breach.’ ” Hansen v. N'compass, No. A14-0869, 2015 WL 1514010, at *7 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 6, 2015) (quoting Faust v. Parrott, 270 N.W.2d 117, 120 (Minn. 1978)). To prove damages, Plaintiff must demonstrate “by a preponderance of the evidence that (a) profits were lost, (b) the loss was directly caused by the breach of the covenant not to compete, and (c) the amount of such causally related loss is capable of calculation with reasonable certainty rather than benevolent speculation.” Id. (quoting B & Y Metal Painting, Inc. v. Ball, 279 N.W.2d 813, 816 (Minn. 1979)). [8] Shepherd is not a Party to this case, and Shepherd did not have a non-compete agreement with Plaintiff. (See, e.g., Am. Compl. [Docket No. ¶ 34]). Therefore, any solicitation efforts by Shepherd, if acting alone, are not actionable in this case. Because Shepherd's solicitation efforts do not form a basis of liability, any communications that he may have had regarding Heartland's efforts to provide services to Plaintiff's customers are not relevant to this case, unless those communications relate to such efforts that were undertaken by Midkiff and/or Urzendowski on behalf of Heartland. [9] However, Heartland does generally dispute the relevancy of Shepherd to Plaintiff's claims in this case. (See, Sur-reply [Docket No. 117], at 8). [10] The Court notes that Interrogatory No. 13 does not contain the temporal limitation, of January 1, 2019, to the present, that is contained in Request for Production of Documents No. 12. (See, Ex. I [Docket No. 81-9], at 14). However, Plaintiff has not asserted any argument as to how such bids or proposals, if any, would be relevant prior to January 1, 2019. (See, Mem. in Supp. [Docket No. 84], at 19–20). Moreover, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint does not allege that Urzendowski discussed employment opportunities with Heartland prior to April 2019. (See, Am. Compl. [Docket No. 54] ¶ 23). Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not made a threshold showing that bids or proposals, if any, which predate January 1, 2019, are relevant to any claims or defenses in this case. [11] Plaintiff's Amended Complaint does not allege that Midkiff was involved in Heartland's recruitment of Shepherd, and Shepherd did not have a non-compete agreement of his own with Plaintiff. (See, Am. Compl. [Docket No. 54]). [12] Heartland is not required to “write a novel” summarizing any such oral communications. Nonetheless, Heartland must provide a brief summary of the communications, including the individuals who participated in the communication, when the communication took place, and the topics discussed. [13] However, Heartland necessarily represents that it does not possess any additional responsive documents at its own peril should it ultimately become clear that the circumstances are otherwise. Lumber v. PPG Indus., Inc., 168 F.R.D. 641, 643 n.1 (D. Minn. 1996) (“In our view, the failure to produce evidence, without just cause, which is relevant within the context of Rule 26, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, bears a close relationship to the ‘spoliation of evidence,’ and should be sanctioned accordingly.”). [14] In a similar fashion, Plaintiff generally refers to purported deficiencies in Heartland's Amended Interrogatory Answers. (See, Reply [Docket No. 107], at 6–7) Specifically, Plaintiff contends in a general manner that certain communications that were identified during depositions are not reflected in Heartland's Interrogatory Answers, and this Court should compel “Heartland to amend its interrogatory answers at issue in this motion to reflect the information revealed during depositions and any other knowledge or information that Defendants possess regarding the subjects of those interrogatories.” (See, Id.). However, Plaintiff does not challenge any discrete discovery Answer, nor does Plaintiff identify any specific Interrogatory that Plaintiff contends does not reflect communications identified during depositions. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Against All Defendants, [Docket No. 79], is DENIED to the extent that it genetically seeks an Order of this Court compelling Heartland to amend its Interrogatory Answers to reflect information revealed during depositions. However, the Court notes that Heartland does have a continuing obligation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e) to supplement its Answers if it discovers that they are incomplete or incorrect.