THE PICTSWEET COMPANY v. R.D. OFFUTT COMPANY, et al No. 3:19-cv-00722 United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division Filed September 21, 2020 Holmes, Barbara D., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 Pending before the Court are two motions filed by Plaintiff: a motion to compel discovery (Docket No. 77) and a related motion for a hearing on the motion to compel. (Docket No. 81.) Defendants R.D. Offutt Company-Northwest and CRF Frozen Foods, LLC (“Defendants”) have filed a response in opposition to the motion to compel. (Docket No. 80.)[1] For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's motions (Docket Nos. 77, 81) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff propounded two sets of discovery requests on Defendants, one on December 17, 2019 and one on April 30, 2020. Defendants lodged objections based on a variety of reasons to each of the requests contained within these sets. An impasse ensued and ultimately led the parties to file two joint discovery dispute statements – one on June 19, 2020 with respect to the first set of discovery requests and one on July 6, 2020 related to the second set. (Docket Nos. 58, 68.) The parties participated in a discovery conference with the undersigned Magistrate Judge on July 10, 2020, following which the Court entered an order that, among other things, set forth deadlines for Plaintiff to file any motions to compel in the event the parties were unable to resolve the respective discovery disputes. (Docket No. 69.) The order provided deadlines of July 24, 2020 for any motion related to the first discovery dispute statement and July 31, 2020 for any motion pertaining to the second discovery dispute statement. (Id. at 2.) On July 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend the deadline for filing a motion to compel relating to the first discovery dispute statement. (Docket No. 74.) Plaintiff requested that it be given an additional five days to file a motion to compel, which the Court granted. (Docket No. 75.) Plaintiff proceeded to file the instant motion to compel related to the first discovery dispute statement, in which it states that Defendants' “continued objection to producing the Starr Litigation deposition transcripts and refusal to clarify ... whether or not they maintain their objections with respect to the remaining requests at issue in the Joint Statements” has forced Plaintiff to file this motion.[2] In contrast, Defendants respond that there is currently no actual discovery dispute ripe for review by the Court. Defendants state that they have attempted to provide Plaintiff with a “reasonable expectation” of when the documents in question can be produced, which they claim is reasonable based on the sheer quantity of possible responsive documents – currently tallied at 588,535 – that Plaintiff seeks to obtain. (Docket No. 80 at 3-4.) Defendants specifically highlight their July 17, 2020 letter to counsel for Plaintiff, which outlined the scope of Defendants' “expected document submission” and an “actual timeframe” for the production of such documents. (Id. at 4.) *2 Despite Plaintiff's suggestion otherwise, the Court sees no reason to believe that Defendants have engaged in obfuscation or have improperly evaded Plaintiff's discovery requests. The exhibits accompanying Plaintiff's own brief confirm that Defendants' counsel have continued to cooperate in the discovery process and seek a reasonable amount of latitude to satisfy the expansive requests in question. (Docket No. 78-4 at 2-16.) Plaintiff's attempt to accelerate this process, though understandable, does not negate the breadth of its discovery requests, nor does it convince the Court that an order mandating more rapid production would be beneficial at this juncture. Nevertheless, the Court does find it useful to convey certain expectations to the parties regarding discovery in this case. First, the Court will not require either party to provide notice as to how far in advance of a deadline a particular document or set of documents will be produced. The discovery rules and the case management order currently governing this matter (Docket No. 84) provide sufficient guidance with respect to each party's discovery obligations. Because the parties are each represented by reputable counsel with years of litigation experience, the Court finds no need to implement such additional time constraints. Second, the Court must address Defendants' suggestion that Plaintiff should rely on third-party subpoenas to obtain certain information involved in the aforementioned Starr litigation in the Southern District of New York. (Docket No. 80 at 6.) The Court previously granted Defendants' motion to excuse compliance with Plaintiff's subpoena seeking production of numerous documents and communications from Houston Casualty Company and Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass, LLP (neither of which are parties to the instant action) in connection with the Starr litigation. (Docket No. 46.) However, if Defendants have since shifted away from their original position – in which they specifically argued that Plaintiff should seek such information from Defendants and not a third party – and now expect Plaintiff to issue subpoenas on any parties to the Starr litigation, the Court will seriously entertain any renewed motion by Plaintiff to modify its earlier order or to obtain other relief stemming from Defendants' mid-discovery pivot. In sum, the Court will DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's motions (Docket Nos. 77, 81), subject to refiling should Defendants fail to reasonably respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests in a manner that complies with operative orders. It is SO ORDERED. Footnotes [1] The third defendant in the current matter, R.D. Offutt Company, is not a target of Plaintiff's motions and is therefore excluded from the instant order. [2] The “Starr Litigation” documents refer to written transcripts and accompanying exhibits from a case in the Southern District of New York, Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company & Houston Casualty Company v. CRF Frozen Foods, LLC 1:17-cv-1030-PGG (S.D.N.Y.).