INTERSTATE SOUTHERN PACKAGING, LLC, Plaintiff, v. BRUCE KORMAN et al., Defendants 2:20-CV-207 United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, GREENEVILLE DIVISION November 30, 2021 Counsel Vernon Phillip Hill, IV, Pro Hac Vice, Chad A. Shultz, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff. Kendell Garrett Vonckx, Michael J. King, Paine Tarwater & Bickers LLP, Knoxville, TN, for Defendant Bruce Korman. W. Tyler Chastain, Bernstein, Stair & McAdams, LLP, Knoxville, TN, for Defendant Dave Konieczny. Celeste Huffman Herbert, Herbert, Meadows & Wall, Knoxville, TN, for Defendants Packaging Services, LLC, Doug McKee, Packaging Supplies, LLC. Wyrick, Cynthia Richardson, United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 Before the Court are pending discovery motions. [Docs. 167, 181, 183, 184]. The Court has reviewed the motions and conducted a hearing with counsel to further consider those filings. This matter comes before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and standing orders of the District Court. The pending motions are ripe for resolution. I. BACKGROUND The Court will briefly provide background on the instant motions and related pleadings. In doing so, the Court will omit a retelling of the underlying facts in this matter as those were addressed in the Court's Report and Recommendation and will be further expounded upon in the District Court's preliminary injunction order. See [Doc. 196]. a. Defendants' Joint Motion for a Protective Order On June 18, 2021, Defendants jointly filed a Motion [Doc. 167] requesting issuance of a protective order to limit the scope of discovery. In a contemporaneously filed Memorandum [Doc. 168], Defendants advise that Plaintiff has submitted requests for admission regarding compliance with discovery in this matter which they deem improper. [Doc. 168, p. 1]. Specifically, Defendants direct the Court's attention to the following request as reflective of the type of discovery being requested from all three individual Defendants: “Please admit that YOU have failed to produce in THIS LAWSUIT a single email that was sent or received by YOU at any point in time between January 13, 2020 and June 5, 2020.” Id. (citing Exhibits 8 and 10) (emphasis in original). Defendants previously advised Plaintiff that the requested records no longer exist because they have a practice of automatically deleting them. [Doc. 168, p. 6]. Defendants say that they stopped using this process once they received a preservation letter from Plaintiff. [Doc. 168, p.6]. In requesting relief, Defendants chronicle the ongoing discovery disputes that have impacted this case and their attempts to satisfy Plaintiff's discovery requests. [Doc. 168, p. 3-7]. According to Defendants, the requests for production underlying the instant dispute were answered on April 26, 2021. [Doc. 168, p. 8]; see also [Doc. 142-43, 145]. Defendants McKee and Korman thereafter served amended responses to remedy errors in their initial responses. Id.; see also [Doc. 149-50]. A second set of requests for admissions was served by Plaintiff on individual Defendants in late-April and early-May. [Doc. 168, p. 8 (citing Exh. 10)]. Following email communications between counsel and Defendants' receipt of Plaintiff's deficiency letter, Defendants filed the instant Motion [Doc. 168, p. 9 (citing Exh. 11 & 12)]. Defendants now ask the Court for a protective order to prevent this type of request and further ask the Court to more broadly limit the scope of discovery given the significant discovery already undertaken in this matter. [Doc. 168, p. 2]. In response, Plaintiff notes that it has only taken four depositions; served 11 Requests for Production on Defendant McKee, 11 Requests on Defendant Konieczny, 12 Requests on Defendant Korman, 17 Requests on Defendant Supplies and 19 Requests on Defendant Services; and served 18 Requests for Admission on Defendant Konieczny, 14 Requests on Defendant Korman, and 29 Requests on Defendant McKee as of July 2, 2021. [Doc. 178, p. 5-7]. Plaintiff advises its requests for admissions serve to remedy holes in disclosed text messages and emails. [Doc. 178, p. 7-14]. *2 On July 9, 2021, Defendants filed a Reply. [Doc. 180]. Therein, Defendants aver that (1) Plaintiff is already in possession of all email and text messages that have been requested, (2) all relevant facts have been discovered, (3) Rule 26(c)(1) certification should be waived because it would not be beneficial to meet and confer further in this matter, and (4) Defendants' joint motion is timely and warranted. Id. b. Plaintiff's Motions to Deem Defendants' Requests for Admissions Admitted, or, in the Alternative, to Compel Responses to Requests for Admissions On July 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed three discovery Motions [Docs. 181, 183, 184], requesting the Court to find that Defendants Konieczny [Doc. 181], Korman [Doc. 183], and McKee [Doc. 184] have admitted unanswered portions of the requests for admission submitted to them by Plaintiff. Alternatively, the Motions request that the Court compel Defendants to submit complete answers to Plaintiff's requests. Id. Each motion is accompanied by a supporting Memorandum [Docs. 182, 185, 186] specifying the responses to requests for admission that Plaintiff characterizes as improper under applicable law. Defendants filed individual Responses in opposition. [Docs. 188, 189, 190]. Plaintiff thereafter filed Replies. [Docs. 192, 193, 194]. All pending motions referenced above are ripe for resolution and are addressed below. II. ANALYSIS In evaluating pending discovery-related motions, the Court notes that “[d]iscovery is the lifeblood of litigation and, as such, it ‘must be initiated and responded to responsibly, in accordance with the letter and spirit of the discovery rules, to achieve a proper purpose (i.e., not to harass, unnecessarily delay, or impose needless expense).’ ” Siser N. Am., Inc. v. Herika G. Inc., 325 F.R.D. 200, 202 (E.D. Mich. 2018) (quoting Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Servs. Co., 253 F.R.D. 354, 360 (D. Md. 2008)). The scope of discovery is within the sound discretion of the Court. Canter v. Ankermes Blue Care Elect Preferred Provider Plan, 328 F.R.D. 485, 495 (S.D. Ohio 2018). The Court is tasked with ensuring that discovery is transparent and proportional and will address the discovery disputes at issue here with an eye toward this obligation. a. Sufficiency of Responses to Requests for Admission At the heart of the pending motions is the question of whether Defendants' have fulfilled their duty to respond to Plaintiff's requests for admission. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 authorizes requests for admissions, and those requests may cover “facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either,” and may also touch on “the genuineness of any described documents.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1). The party upon which a request for admission is issued may respond with: (1) an unqualified admission; (2) an unqualified denial; (3) a statement that the respondent has conducted a reasonable investigation into the substance of the request but that the information known or readily available to him or her is nonetheless insufficient to enable him or her to admit or deny the request; (4) a qualified admission which explains the need for and substance of the qualification or explanation; and (5) an objection to the request. Moore v. Rees, No. 06 CV 22 KKC, 2007 WL 1035013, at *13 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 30, 2007). In providing a response, “[p]arties are not required to admit or deny requests that consist of statements that are vague or ambiguous.” Moore, 2007 WL 1035013, at *15. Rule 36(a)(6) permits the requesting party to challenge the sufficiency of a response. The party requesting that responses be compelled bears the burden of demonstrating that the requested information is relevant. Gruenbaum v. Werner Enters., 270 F.R.D. 298, 302 (S.D. Ohio 2010). Additionally, the Court cannot permit a challenging party to use its motion to compel as a vehicle to address the factual accuracy of the opposing party's response. Brown v. Mohr, No. 2:13-CV-0006, 2017 WL 2832631, at *3 (S.D. Ohio June 30, 2017), aff'd, No. 2:13-CV-06, 2017 WL 10056799 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 6, 2017). *3 As in all discovery contexts, parties are under an ongoing obligation to attempt to resolve disputes extrajudicially. O'Malley v. NaphCare Inc., 311 F.R.D. 461, 464 (S.D. Ohio 2015). While the Court understands the reason for Defendants' request to waive the duty to confer as to the motions at issue, the Court observes that, absent a resolution by agreement of the parties, this case is in its early stages. The parties must strive diligently to work cooperatively with one another and after the Court has addressed this matter, the parties will be required to meet and confer before raising any further discovery dispute with the Court. Here, Plaintiff has laid out, one-by-one, the errors it finds in Defendants' responses to its requests. The Court has reviewed each response and will briefly address the sufficiency of each answer below. For reasons articulated in the following subsections, Plaintiff's Motions to Compel [Docs. 181, 183, 184] are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. i. Bruce Korman Requests No. 7, 10-14 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Korman inadequately responded to Requests for Admission numbers 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. [Doc. 186]; and see [Doc. 178, Exh. 17]. For clarity, the Court will restate the challenged responses and then address whether each comports with the Rules. First, the Court considers Request No. 7 and Defendant Korman's response which state the following: Request: Please admit that YOU have failed to produce in THIS LAWSUIT a single email that was sent or received by YOU at any point in time between January 13, 2020 and June 5, 2020. Amended Response: Mr. Korman objects to Request Number 7 as it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to this litigation. Whether Mr. Korman used any email address to communicate with anyone about any subject unrelated to this litigation is not relevant to the instant litigation. Notwithstanding this objection, Mr. Korman admits Request for Admission 7 for the reasons stated above in his amended response to Request for Admission 6. “[A] discovery request is considered overly broad or unduly burdensome on its face if it “(1) uses an omnibus term ... and (2) applies to a general category or group of documents or a broad range of information.” Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Moore, 274 F.R.D. 602, 609 (E.D. Ky. 2011). Here, Plaintiff is seeking information about the disclosure of any emails sent or received by Defendant Korman over a specific period. As Defendant Korman notes, this request could fairly be read to cover email communications unrelated to litigation which he was under no obligation to disclose. Despite this overbreadth, Defendant Korman admits this request to the extent it relates to emails covering the underlying facts of this case and cites emails disclosed in his response to Request 6. The Court finds Defendant Korman's admission to be clear and to mean that to the extent any existed, Defendant Korman deleted all email communications between January 13, 2020 and June 5, 2020 which are relevant to the instant litigation except one sent to his counsel on January 30, 2020. Request No. 10 is also at issue. The request and Defendant Korman's response are as follows: Request: Please admit that YOU have failed to produce in THIS LAWSUIT a single text message that was sent or received by YOU at any point in time between January 3, 2020 and August 31, 2020. Amended Response: Mr. Korman objects to Request Number 10 as it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to this litigation. Whether Mr. Korman sent any text message to communicate with anyone about any subject unrelated to this litigation between January 3, 2020 and August 31, 2020, is not relevant to the instant litigation. Notwithstanding this objection, Mr. Korman admits Request for Admission 10 for the reasons stated above in response to Request for Admission 9. *4 The Court agrees that this request is overly broad. See 274 F.R.D. at 609; see also Roden v. Floyd, No. 2:16-CV-11208, 2019 WL 1098918, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 8, 2019) (request pertaining to all emails is overly broad). Defendant need not address text messages sent that fall outside the scope of matters covered by this litigation. The Court further finds the qualification that adopts the statement contained in Request No. 9 is appropriate. There, Defendant admitted to sending or receiving texts between January 3, 2020 and August 31, 2020 that were related to the instant litigation and notes he utilized an automatic delete function that removed texts that were over thirty days old. See Roden, 2019 WL 1098918 at *4 (“[A] party cannot be compelled to produce what he does not have.”). The Court finds Defendant's response to be clear, i.e., Defendant took the affirmative action of engaging an auto-delete function on his phone to delete messages. Defendant states that he did so at a time when he did not anticipate litigation and stopped using auto-delete once he became aware of this litigation. Plaintiff is free to argue at trial that Defendant Korman's actions were unreasonable under the circumstances and that the deletion was for an improper motive but as stated above, the Court cannot order the production of something that no longer exists. Next, the Court turns to Request No. 11 and Defendant Korman's response thereto which states as follows: Request: Please admit that text messages that were sent or received between January 3, 2020 and August 31, 2020 that were RELATED to any allegation made in THIS LAWSUIT were deleted from YOUR phone. Amended Response: Mr. Korman denies that he affirmatively deleted any text messages on his phone for any time period, including the time period between January 3, 2020, and August 31, 2020. Any text messages on his phone during this time period were automatically deleted for the reasons stated above in Mr. Korman's Response to Request for Admission 9. This response does not answer the question; however, based upon the response provided by Defendant Korman, the Court deems Request No. 11 admitted. Defendant Korman admits that messages were automatically deleted from his cellphone over this period, including those related to this lawsuit. How they were deleted is not the subject of this request. Moreover, even if it were, the Court's ruling would not change as Defendant Korman admits he set his phone to auto-delete his messages, which was an affirmative action. Plaintiff also contends that the response to Request No. 12 is inadequate, with that request and Defendant Korman's response being as follows: Request: Please admit that YOU did not produce in THIS LAWSUIT a single email from YOUR brucekorman@aol.com e-mail account that was sent or received at any point in time between February 1, 2020 and June 1, 2020. Response: Mr. Korman objects to Request Number 12 as it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to this litigation. Whether Mr. Korman used any email address to communicate with anyone about any subject unrelated to this litigation is not relevant to the instant litigation. Mr. Korman further objects to Request No. 12 as it is redundant to previous Requests for Admissions that have been answered by Mr. Korman. Subject to this objection, Mr. Korman asserts there are no emails relevant to THIS LAWSUIT in the brucekorman@aol.com e-mail account during the period set forth in this Request. While the Court agrees that this request is overly broad and overlaps somewhat with Request No. 7, the Court further notes that this request addresses a specific email address. [Doc. 178-17]. Plaintiff correctly notes that Defendant Korman's answer does not specifically respond to the request. The request asks Defendant Korman to admit that he produced no email from the email account referenced during the timeframe referenced. After appropriately objecting to the overbreadth of the request, Defendant Korman says that there are no responsive emails rather than simply admitting he did not produce them. The Court finds that Defendant Korman's response is an admission that he produced no email communications from the email account at issue during the timeframe set forth and contends that there were none which are responsive. *5 Next, the Court considers Request No. 13 and Defendant Korman's response which state the following: Request: Please admit that YOU did not produce in THIS LAWSUIT a single email that was sent or received by YOU at any point in time between February 1, 2020 and June 1, 2020. Response: Mr. Korman objects to Request Number 13 as it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to this litigation. Whether Mr. Korman used any email address to communicate with anyone about any subject unrelated to this litigation is not relevant to the instant litigation. Mr. Korman further objects to Request No. 13 as it is redundant to previous Requests for Admissions that have been answered by Mr. Korman. Subject to this objection, Mr. Korman asserts there are no emails relevant to THIS LAWSUIT during the period set forth in this Request. While this request addresses a narrower timeframe than what is covered by Request No. 7, it is fully encompassed within the timeframe set forth in Request No. 7; therefore, the Court agrees that this Request is redundant, and Defendant Korman will not need to supplement his response. Moreover, the Court reads Defendant Korman's response as an admission that he produced no email communications for the relevant time and claims that none exist. Plaintiff is certainly free to test the representation that none exist through vigorous cross examination and argument but as referenced above, the Court cannot order Defendant Korman to produce something he says he does not have. Finally, the Court considers Request No. 14 and Defendant Korman's response which state the following: Request: Please admit that YOU did not delete the email or emails with counsel dated January 30, 2020 from YOUR brucekorman@aol.com e-mail account referenced in YOUR response to ISP's Request for Admission Number 5 and Number 6 that YOU served on April 26, 2021. Response: Mr. Korman objects to Request Number 14 as it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to this litigation. Whether Mr. Korman used any email address to communicate with anyone about any subject unrelated to this litigation is not relevant to the instant litigation. Mr. Korman further objects to Request No. 14 as it is redundant to previous Requests for Admissions that have been answered by Mr. Korman. Mr. Korman objects to this Request as it is designed to harass this Defendant and is meant to suggest that Mr. Korman deleted other emails relevant to THIS LAWSUIT; an allegation that is denied. Subject to these objections, Mr. Korman admits he did not delete emails with counsel as referenced in Request 14. The Court has reviewed Defendant Korman's response and his responses to Requests No. 5 and 6. [Doc. 178-10, p. 2]. The Court agrees that the objection to the request being overly broad and the boilerplate language that follow are improper. At the same time, this request seeks the same basic admission sought in Requests No. 5 and 6. Plaintiff has already admitted he retained the January 30, 2020 email communication at issue and the Court finds that no further response will be required. ii. Doug McKee Requests No. 3, 6-7, 10-11, 14, 17, 19, and 25-29 *6 Plaintiff alleges Defendant McKee inadequately responded to Requests for Admission numbers 3, 6-7, 10-11, 14, 17, 19, and 25-29. [Docs. 184-85]; and see [Docs. 178-13]. As above, the Court will restate the challenged responses and then address whether each comports with the Rules. Defendant McKee's response to Request No. 3 is at issue and the request and response state the following: Request: Please admit that YOU received the documents bates stamped Korman-01131 through Korman-01146 attached hereto as Exhibit B in December 2019. Response: Admitted that Mr. McKee looked at Exhibit B, but he did not retain this document. Plaintiff submits the above response evades the requested information. The Court finds that the response admits that Defendant McKee had the opportunity to review the information, which constitutes receipt; thus, the Court deems Request No. 3 admitted by Defendant McKee. At the same time, the Court understands Defendant McKee providing the clarification to prevent Plaintiff from suggesting that he possessed but did not produce the documents at issue. The response to Request No. 6 is also at issue, with the request and response reading as follows: Request: Please admit that YOU have failed to produce in THIS LAWSUIT a single email from YOUR doug.mckeeclassicdistribution.us, doug.workemailqmail.com, doug.mckeeitdec.com, or doug.mckee@greenpacktechnologies.com e-mail accounts that was sent or received at any point in time between October 1, 2019 and December 17, 2019. Response: Mr. McKee objects to Request No. 6 as it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to this litigation. Whether Mr. McKee communicated via any e-mail account about any subject matter unrelated to this litigation between October 1, 2019, and December 17, 2019, is not relevant to the instant litigation. Furthermore, Mr. McKee has not and does not send or receive e-mail from doug.mckeeclassicdistributon.us or doug.mckee@itdec.com as stated previously. In addition, e-mail communications for this time period in which Mr. McKee was involved have been produced by Bruce Korman (“Korman”) (See Korman 00001, 00659, 00003 and 00661). Notwithstanding the just stated objection and explanation, Mr. McKee admits Request No. 6. As explained above, requests pertaining to all emails may be considered overbroad, and that is true in the case at hand. See Roden, 2019 WL 1098918, at *4. Additionally, the Court finds the qualifications to the response appropriate given that Mr. McKee admits he did not produce any emails from the above accounts during the stated period. Next, the Court considers Request No. 7 and Defendant McKee's response which state as follows: Request: Please admit that YOU have failed to produce in THIS LAWSUIT a single email that was sent or received by YOU at any point in time between October 1, 2019 and December 17, 2019. Response: See response, objection and explanation stated in response to Request No. 6 which is incorporated by reference herein. Notwithstanding the same, Mr. McKee admits Request No. 7. This request is overly broad to the extent that it questions whether Defendant McKee failed to disclose emails unrelated to the instant litigation. Defendant McKee nevertheless admits he has not produced any emails during the listed period related to the litigation. The response is sufficient. *7 Next the Court considers Request No. 10 and Defendant McKee's response which state the following: Request: Please admit that YOU have failed to produce in THIS LAWSUIT a single email from YOUR doug.mckee@classicdistribution.us, doug.workemailqmail.com, doug.mckee@itdec.com, or doug.mckeereenpacktechnologies.com e-mail accounts that was sent or received at any point in time between December 19, 2019 and April 20, 2020. Response: Mr. McKee objects to Request No. 10 as it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to this litigation. Whether Mr. McKee communicated via any e-mail account about any subject matter unrelated to this litigation between December 17, 2019, and April 20, 2020 is not relevant to the instant litigation. Furthermore, Mr. McKee has not and does not send or receive e-mail from doug.mckeeclassicdistributon.us or doug.mckeeitdec.com as explained previously. In addition, e-mail communications for this time period in which Mr. McKee was involved have been produced by Korman (See Korman 00037-00107). Notwithstanding the just stated objection and explanation, Mr. McKee denies this statement (See Doug McKee privilege log for items dated January 7, 2020 and January 30, 2020 withheld for attorney-client privilege). Here, Defendant McKee argues the request is overbroad as it covers all emails sent or received from the listed accounts over the stated period, and the Court agrees. Even so, Defendant McKee denies failing to produce any emails from the listed accounts, noting the withheld emails are the subject of attorney-client privilege and recorded the existence of those emails in his privilege log. The Court finds Defendant McKee's response to this request to be improper. While denying that he has failed to produce any email communications from these accounts, Defendant McKee's response makes it clear that the opposite is true. Defendant McKee has disclosed on a privilege log that certain email communications exist which are not subject to disclosure. It appears that neither those email communications nor any others have been produced to Plaintiff; therefore, the Court instructs Defendant McKee to provide an amended response to this request specifically addressing whether any email communications have been produced from these accounts to Plaintiff. Request No. 11 is at issue as well, and the request and Defendant McKee's response which state the following: Request: Please admit that YOU have failed to produce in THIS LAWSUIT a single email that was sent or received by YOU at any point in time between December 19, 2019 and April 20, 2020. Response: See response, objection and explanation stated in Request No. 10 which is incorporated by reference herein. Notwithstanding the same, Mr. McKee denies Request No. 11. For the same reasons set forth in addressing Request No. 10 above, Defendant McKee shall file an amended response to this request specifically addressing whether any email communications have been produced by Defendant McKee to Plaintiff. The Court must next determine whether the response to Request No. 14 is adequate, with that request and Defendant McKee's response being as follows: *8 Request: Please admit that YOU have failed to produce in THIS LAWSUIT a single text message that was sent or received by YOU at any point in time between October 8, 2019 and November 3, 2019. Response: Mr. McKee objects to Request No. 14 as it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to this litigation. Whether Mr. McKee communicated via text about any subject matter unrelated to this litigation between October 8, 2019, and November 3, 2019, is not relevant to the instant litigation. Notwithstanding the just stated objection, Mr. McKee admits Request No. 14. Here, the request is overbroad as it covers all text messages over the listed period. Despite the overbreadth of the request, Defendant McKee admits that he has produced no text messages to Plaintiff for the applicable period. That admission is sufficient. Next, the Court considers Request No. 17 and Defendant McKee's response which state the following: Request: Please admit that YOU have failed to produce in THIS LAWSUIT a single text message that was sent or received by YOU at any point in time between November 5, 2019 and December 8, 2019. Response: Mr. McKee objects to Request No. 17 as it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to this litigation. Whether Mr. McKee communicated via text about any subject matter unrelated to this litigation between November 5, 2019, and December 8, 2019 and is not relevant to the instant litigation. Notwithstanding the just stated objection, Mr. McKee admits Request No. 17. As is true of Request No. 16, the request is overbroad as it covers all text messages sent or received over a given period. Despite the overbreadth of the request, Defendant McKee admitted that he did not produce any text messages for the stated period. The response provided is sufficient. Defendant's response to Request No. 19 is at issue as well, and the request and response state as follows: Request: Please admit that YOU sent or received a text message on one or more occasions between January 7, 2020 and February 2, 2020 that was RELATED to any allegation made in THIS LAWSUIT. Response: Denied (see for example DM00103). Here, Plaintiff's request is tailored to text messages related to this lawsuit. Defendant McKee denies sending or receiving said messages but then tries to somehow qualify the response in a way that is unclear. Defendant McKee is ordered to provide an amended response which makes clear whether he admits or denies having sent or received relevant texts during the timeframe at issue. If he denies doing so, as he did in his original response, then it does not appear that any qualification would be appropriate. If he admits doing so and finds it necessary to qualify his response, he shall do so in a clear and concise manner which is readily understood rather than referring to what the Court assumes to be a Bate's number. Addressing the adequacy of Defendant McKee's response to Request No. 2, the Court first notes that the request and response are as follows: Request: Please admit that YOU did not produce in THIS LAWSUIT a single NON-PRIVILEGED EMAIL from YOUR doug.workemail@gmail.com email account that was sent or received at any point in time between December 19, 2019 and April 20, 2020. *9 Response: McKee objects to Request 25 as it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to this litigation. Whether McKee used any e-mail address to communicate with anyone about any subject unrelated to this litigation is not relevant to the instant litigation. McKee further objects to Request 25 as it is redundant to previous Requests for Admission that have been answered by McKee. Notwithstanding this objection, McKee asserts there are no e-mails relevant to this lawsuit during this time period in the doug.workemail@gmail.com available to be produced. Defendant McKee correctly asserts that the request is overly broad. At the same time, Plaintiff's assertion that Defendant's response is an attempt to evade appears to have some merit. [Doc. 85 (citing Hands on Chiropractic PL v. Progressive Select Insurance Company, No. 6:18-cv-192-Orl-37DCI, 2018 WL 6983622, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 20, 2018)]. Defendant McKee shall submit an amended response in which he may lodge the objection contained in the first two sentences of his original response but shall omit the third sentence as the Court finds that objection to be improper. Otherwise, in the amended response Defendant McKee shall simply admit or deny the request. Defendant McKee's response to Request No. 26 is in dispute as well and that request and response are as follows: Request: Please admit that YOU did not produce in THIS LAWSUIT a single NON-PRIVILEGED EMAIL that was sent or received by YOU at any point in time between December 19, 2019 and April 20, 2020. Response: See objections and Response to Request 25. There are no e-mails relevant to this lawsuit in any McKee e-mail account available to be produced. The Court orders Defendant McKee to submit an amended response to this request in the same manner as the amended response is to be submitted for Request No. 25. Defendant McKee's response to Request No. 27 is the next of the disputed responses, with the request and response stating as follow: Request: Please admit that YOU did not delete emails with YOUR counsel from YOUR doug.workemail@gmail.com email account dated January 7, 2020 and January 30, 2020 that are referenced in YOUR amended response to ISP's Request for Admission Numbers 10 through 11 that YOU served on April 28, 2021. Response: See objections and Response to Request 25. McKee further objects to this Request as it is designed to harass this Defendant and is meant to suggest that McKee deleted other e-mails relevant to this lawsuit which McKee denies. Notwithstanding these objections, Request 27 is admitted. The Court finds that Defendant McKee's objections to this request are improperly lodged. The Court finds that Defendant McKee's response should be treated as an unqualified admission to the request made. Next, Plaintiff challenges the sufficiency of Defendant McKee's response to Request No. 28 and the request and response are as follows: Request: Please admit that YOU sent or received a text message on one or more occasions between January 7, 2020 and January 31, 2020 that was RELATED to any allegation made in THIS LAWSUIT. Response: McKee does not recall texting or receiving texts related to this lawsuit during the specified time period. Texts were deleted by McKee in the normal course of business as McKee has previously testified. Here, Defendant McKee avers he lacks knowledge of whether he sent or received text messages related to allegations made during this lawsuit. A party may assert lack of knowledge after making a reasonable attempt to obtain the information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4); see also Yoder & Frey Auctioneers, Inc. v. EquipmentFacts, LLC, 774 F.3d 1065, 1076 (6th Cir. 2014). Defendant McKee has admitted that he deleted any text messages which were sent or received; therefore, the Court cannot order Defendant McKee to produce something that he does not have in his possession. *10 Finally, the Court considers Defendant McKee's response to Request No. 29 with that request and response stating as follows: Request: Please admit that YOU did not produce in THIS LAWSUIT a single text message that was sent or received by YOU at any point in time between January 7, 2020 and January 31, 2020. Response: McKee objects to Request 29 as it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to this litigation. Whether McKee used any e-mail address to communicate with anyone about any subject unrelated to this litigation is not relevant to the instant litigation. McKee further objects to Request 29 as it is redundant to previous Requests for Admission that have been answered by McKee. Notwithstanding this objection, McKee does not recall texting or receiving texts related to this lawsuit during the specified time period. Texts were deleted by McKee in the normal course of business as McKee has previously testified. For the same reasons articulated pertaining to Request No. 28, the Court finds that the request is overly broad. At the same time, as to relevant texts, the Court finds it appropriate to treat Defendant McKee's response as an unqualified admission that he did not produce any text messages for this period and that if any existed, he deleted them. As such, no supplemental response is needed as to this request. iii. Dave Konieczny Requests No. 4-7, 9, 10, 12-13, and 15-16 Plaintiff alleges Defendant Konieczny inadequately responded to Requests for Admission numbers 4-7, 9, 10, 12-13, and 15-16. [Docs. 181-182]; and see [Docs. 178-12; 178-21]. For clarity, the Court will restate the challenged responses and then address whether each comports with the Rules. First, the Court considers Request No. 4 and Defendant Konieczny's response which state the following: Request: Please admit that YOU sent or received email on one or more occasions between October 1, 2019 and August 17, 2020 that were RELATED to any allegation made in THIS LAWSUIT from YOUR Konez2525@gmail.com account. Response: Admitted. As set forth in his privilege log, Mr. Konieczny used his Gmail account to communicate with counsel between December 30, 2019 and July 25, 2020. These emails were not produced and were withheld on the basis of attorney-client and work product privileges. Each of these emails were disclosed on Mr. Konieczny's privilege log. Here, the Court finds it appropriate to strike everything in Defendant Konieczny's response after “Admitted.” The remainder of the response is not an appropriate response to the request. Next, the Court considers Request No. 5 and Defendant Konieczny's response which state the following: Request: Please admit that YOU have failed to produce in THIS LAWSUIT a single email from YOUR Konez2525@gmail.com account that was sent or received by YOU at any point in time between October 1, 2019 and August 17, 2020. Response: Mr. Konieczny objects to Request Number 5 as it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to this litigation. Whether Mr. Konieczny used any email address to communicate with anyone about any subject unrelated to this litigation is not relevant to the instant litigation. *11 As the Court has articulated above, this request is overbroad as it covers all emails, including those not relevant to the instant litigation. Defendant Konieczny provided an appropriate objection and explanation of his objection. The Court notes that this subject matter is covered as to relevant communications in later requests. Next, the Court considers Request No. 6 and Defendant Konieczny's response which state the following: Request: Please admit that YOU have failed to produce in THIS LAWSUIT a single email that was sent or received by YOU at any point in time between October 1, 2019 and August 17, 2020. Response: Mr. Konieczny objects to Request Number 6 as it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to this litigation. Whether Mr. Konieczny used any email address to communicate with anyone about any subject unrelated to this litigation is not relevant to the instant litigation. For reasons articulated previously, the instant request is overbroad. The Court notes that this subject matter is covered as to relevant communications in later requests. Plaintiff objects to Defendant Konieczny's response to Request No. 7 and that request and response are as follows: Request: Further, please admit that YOU have deleted emails from YOUR Konez2525@gmail.com account that were sent or received between October 1, 2019 and August 17, 2020 that were RELATED to any allegation made in THIS LAWSUIT. Response: Denied. As was testified to in the December 3, 2020 deposition, Konieczny regularly deleted from his Gmail account email messages as regular cleanup. (Konieczny Deposition Pages 11-16). Further, there was no filed “Lawsuit” at any point during this time. As set forth in his privilege log, Mr. Konieczny used his Gmail account to communicate with counsel between December 30, 2019 and July 25, 2020. These emails were not produced and were withheld on the basis of attorney-client and work product privileges. Each of these emails were disclosed on Mr. Konieczny's privilege log. Here, the Court finds it appropriate to deem Defendant Konieczny's response an admission to Plaintiff's request. Defendant Konieczny clearly states that he did in fact delete emails messages related to this litigation as part of a “regular cleanup.” The fact that he claims this to have been his normal process does not allow him to deny responsibility for the deletions. Furthermore, the fact that he did not delete all relevant email communications still does not entitle him to deny this request. See Adelman v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, No. 3:16-CV-2579-B, 2017 WL 11552662, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 5, 2017) (“[D]enials to requests for admission should not be made vague and evasive by the addition of qualifying language.”). Next, the Court considers the adequacy of Defendant Konieczny's response to Request No. 9, with that request and responses stating as follows: Request: Please admit that YOU have failed to produce in THIS LAWSUIT a single text message that was sent or received by YOU at any point in time between October 1, 2019 and September 1, 2020. Response: Mr. Konieczny objects to Request Number 9 as it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to this litigation. Whether Mr. Konieczny sent any text message to communicate with anyone about any subject unrelated to this litigation between October 1, 2019 and September 1, 2020, is not relevant to the instant litigation. Notwithstanding this objection, Mr. Konieczny admits Request for Admission 9 for the reasons stated above in response to Request for Admission 8. *12 Here, Defendant Konieczny has admitted that he has not produced any text messages sent or received over the requested period despite the overbreadth of this request. The reason why those text messages are not available is irrelevant to the response and shall be stricken. Defendant Konieczny's response to Request No. 10 is at issue as well and this request and response are as follows: Request: Please admit that text messages that were sent or received between October 1, 2019 and September 1, 2020 that were RELATED to any allegation made in THIS LAWSUIT were deleted from YOUR phone. Response: Mr. Konieczny denies that he affirmatively deleted any text messages on his phone for any time period, including for the time period between October 1, 2019 and September 30, 2020 as previously testified to. Any text messages on his phone during this time period were automatically deleted for the reasons stated above in Mr. Konieczny's Response to Request for Admission 8 and in his testimony of December 3, 2020 (Konieczny Deposition Pages 7-11). Here, the Court finds it appropriate to deem Defendant Konieczny's answer as an admission. While Defendant Konieczny attempts to wash his hands of the deletions by claiming that he had his phone set to automatically delete text messages, he took the affirmative action to set the phone to do so. Moreover, this request does not address itself to how or why text messages were deleted but rather only if they were deleted. Next, the Court turns to the dispute over Defendant Konieczny's response to Request No. 12, with that request and response stating the following: Request: Please admit that YOU have failed to produce in THIS LAWSUIT a single text message that was sent or received by YOU at any point in time between September 2, 2020 and March 17, 2021. Response: Denied. Mr. Konieczny objects to Request Number 12 as it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to this litigation. Whether Mr. Konieczny sent any text message to communicate with anyone about any subject unrelated to this litigation between September 2, 2020 and March 17, 2021, is not relevant to the instant litigation. Konieczny further relies on his Response to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents wherein texts for this time period were produced. Here, Defendant has denied that he has failed to produce a single text message over the listed period. In support of his denial, Defendant Konieczny directs Plaintiff to review his Response to Plaintiff's Request for Production. Given his clear denial of the request, the Court finds Defendant Konieczny's response sufficient. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Konieczny's response to Request No. 13 is improper with that request and response stating the following: Request: Please admit that text messages that were sent or received between September 2, 2020 and March 17, 2021 that were RELATED to any allegation made in THIS LAWSUIT were deleted from YOUR phone. Response: Konieczny admits sending or receiving text messages during the time stated related to the present action. As was testified to in the December 3, 2020 deposition, Mr. Konieczny did not reasonably anticipate litigation or take steps to preserve his text messages relating to this action until after he received the Complaint and a letter of preservation from Plaintiff's counsel. Prior to this time, Mr. Konieczny's phone was set to automatically delete text messages after thirty (30) days from the date they were sent or received. (Konieczny Deposition Pages 8-11). Text messages that related to this lawsuit in his custody and possession were produced by Konieczny in his Response to the Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents. *13 Here, Defendant admits texts related to facts underlying this litigation were sent and received over the stated period and were deleted. The Court finds it appropriate to deem this request admitted and to strike Defendant Konieczny's qualifications from the response. Defendant Konieczny's response to Request No. 15 is also in dispute, with that request and response stating as follows: Request: Please admit that YOU did not produce in THIS LAWSUIT a single NON-PRIVILEGED EMAIL from YOUR Konez2525@gmail.com account that was sent or received by YOU at any point in time between October 1, 2019 and August 17, 2020. Response: Konieczny objects to Request No. 15 as it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to this litigation. Whether Konieczny used any email address to communicate with anyone about any subject unrelated to this litigation is not relevant. Further, and not withstanding his objection, there are no other emails relevant to the Requests for Production for which production would need to be made from October 1, 2019 to August 17, 2020. Here, Defendant has objected to the overbreadth of emails covered by the specific request, and the Court finds that objection valid. With that qualification, the Court finds it appropriate to deem this request admitted. Finally, the Court considers Request No. 16 and Defendant Konieczny's response which state the following: Request: Please admit that YOU did not produce in THIS LAWSUIT a single NON-PRIVILEGED EMAIL that was sent or received by YOU at any point in time between October 1, 2019 and August 17, 2020. Response: Konieczny objects to Request No. 16 as it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to this litigation. Whether Konieczny used any email address to communicate with anyone about any subject unrelated to this litigation is not relevant. Further, and not withstanding his objection, there are no other emails relevant to the Requests for Production for which production would need to be made from October 1, 2019 to August 17, 2020 The same analysis applies to this response as to the response to Request No. 15. Subject to the appropriate overbreadth objection, Defendant Konieczny's response is deemed an admission to this request. b. Propriety of Permitting Further Discovery Defendants urge the Court to limit further discovery in this matter. In support, Defendants characterize the above-described discovery as unnecessary discovery about discovery and suggest it is intended to harass and needlessly drive-up litigation costs. [Doc. 168]. For reasons set forth, Defendants' Motion [Doc. 167] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) requires that discovery of relevant information be “proportional to the needs of the case” which involves considerations such as “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.” A party subject to “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense” may move for a protective order on discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). The Court may in its discretion limit discovery. HLFIP Holdings, Inc. Smart Commc'ns IP Holdings v. Rutherford Cty., No. 3:19-CV-00714, 2020 WL 6481535, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. May 27, 2020), aff'd sub nom. Hlfip Holding, Inc. v. Rutherford Cty., Tennessee, No. 3:19-CV-00714, 2020 WL 6484254 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 13, 2020). For example, cumulative and duplicative discovery may be limited upon a persuasive showing of good cause. Bailey v. Kentucky Cmty., No. 5:14-CV-143-TBR-LLK, 2015 WL 4886089, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 17, 2015). *14 Here, the Court finds some of the questions about Defendants' text messages and emails to be duplicative and cumulative; however, Defendants have brought some of this upon themselves by, in certain instances, providing inappropriate qualifiers to the responses they provided and answering requests in a manner not permitted by applicable rules. Once Defendants have met their obligations under this Order, the Court finds that further written discovery as to texts and emails would be inappropriate as it would be duplicative, could be deemed harassing and would unnecessarily increase the cost of litigation. Should Plaintiff deem it necessary to propound any further written discovery related to those issues, Plaintiff must file a motion with the Court seeking leave to propound the discovery along with specific factual and legal support as to why Plaintiff believes the request to be appropriate. As such, Defendants' Motion seeking a protective order is GRANTED but only to the extent that future written discovery requests addressing the existence and disclosure of text messages and email communications shall not be submitted to Defendants without Plaintiff obtaining leave of Court. Defendants' Motion further requests a limitation on all discovery. Defendants are of the opinion that “[Plaintiff] has fully and completely pursued discovery on all facets of the case” which makes further discovery beyond the depositions, requests, and document production to date unnecessary and unduly burdensome to Defendants. While the Court is sympathetic to Defendants' interest in limiting the costs of litigation, a wholesale limitation of discovery at this juncture is unwarranted. The Court notes that this case is still relatively young. No trial date is yet set nor has a date been established for discovery to close. For these reasons, Defendants' Motion is DENIED to the extent it seeks to limit discovery beyond what is addressed above. c. Assignment of Attorney's Fees and Costs All parties have requested that the Court award them attorney's fees and costs. Here, each party requested a variety of relief and each was granted a portion of the relief sought. The Court acknowledges that it has discretion to award attorney's fees even when motions are only granted in part. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C); see e.g. Thomas v. Bannum Place of Saginaw, 421 F. Supp. 3d 494, 497 (E.D. Mich. 2019) and Morgan v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., No. 18-CV-2042-TLP-TMP, 2020 WL 4274586, at *5 (W.D. Tenn. July 24, 2020), aff'd, No. 218CV02042TLPTMP, 2020 WL 4917731 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 21, 2020). In considering whether to grant any of these parties such an award, the Court first observes that all parties bear a degree of fault as to these discovery disputes. As a result, the Court cannot find it appropriate to make an award of attorney's fees and cost to any party. Accordingly, all parties shall be responsible for their respective attorney's fees and costs accrued in litigating the instant motions. Despite this ruling, the Court notes that the failure of any party to comply with the Court's directives set forth herein could result in such an award. III. CONCLUSION The Court has considered the instant discovery disputes. For reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS the following: 1. Where supplemental responses to requests for admissions are required, Defendants shall have up to and including Monday, December 13, 2021 to submit those response to Plaintiff's counsel, 2. Written discovery shall be limited in this matter only as to the issue of the existence and production of text messages and email communications as set forth above, 3. All parties shall be responsible for their own attorney's fees and costs incurred in litigating these discovery disputes, 4. Counsel shall email Chambers at wyrick_chambers@tned.uscourts.gov and copy all counsel if future discovery disputes arise. The Court will then conduct a Chambers conference to resolve those disputes. No discovery-related filings shall be submitted in ECF/PACER before the above steps are taken. The only exception to this requirement will be if Plaintiff seeks to propound further written discovery to Defendants on the subjects of text messages and email communications, and in that event, Plaintiff shall file a written motion in accordance with the requirements set forth above. *15 The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to term ECF Documents 167, 181, 183, 184 as each has been addressed and resolved with the entry of this Order. SO ORDERED: