THE LANE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. SKANSKA USA CIVIL SOUTHEAST, INC. and SKANSKA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT, INC., Defendants Case No: 6:21-cv-164-RBD-DCI United States District Court, M.D. Florida Filed January 20, 2022 Counsel Robert Sowell, Denis L. Durkin, Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Orlando, FL, Brendan J. Hennessey, Pro Hac Vice, Gerald Zingone, Pro Hac Vice, Jeffrey R. Gans, Pro Hac Vice, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. Irick, Daniel C., United States Magistrate Judge Order *1 Before the Court are two motions to compel discovery. Plaintiff The Lane Construction Corporation (Lane) seeks to compel documents from Defendant Skanska USA Civil Southeast, Inc. (Skanska) in one motion (Doc. 121; the Skanska Motion); Lane seeks to compel documents from Counter Claimant Granite Construction Company (Granite) in the other (Doc. 130; the Granite Motion). On January 19, 2022, the Court held a hearing on both Motions, each of which had been subject to abbreviated briefing pursuant to the Standing Order on Discovery Motions.[1] In the Skanska Motion, Lane seeks to compel Skanska to provide documents in response to a request for production Lane served upon Skanska on May 5, 2021. Doc. 121. Lane asserts that, prior to a December 1, 2021, hearing held before the district judge in this case, Skanska had agreed to produce documents that Skanska would locate in the records of 24 agreed-to custodians using approximately 70 agreed-to search terms. See Doc. 121-11.[2] However, following that December 1, 2021, hearing, Lane asserts that Skanska unilaterally changed course based on its interpretation of the comments by the district judge concerning discovery. See Doc. 121-13. At the January 19, 2022, hearing, Skanska conceded the existence of the agreement concerning custodians and search terms. Skanska explained that it changed course concerning the agreement due to what occurred at the December 1, 2021, hearing. But Skanska also concedes, as it must, that the district judge was not aware of the agreement concerning discovery, let alone its terms. Thus, the undersigned finds that Skanska could not reasonably interpret the district judge's comments as addressing their discovery agreement or providing a basis for them to renege on that agreement. As such, the undersigned finds that the discovery agreement is due to be enforced concerning the custodians and search terms. Another issue remains. Lane and Skanska did not come to an agreement on the date range of the production. Lane seeks documents from March 1, 2013, through the present. Skanska contends that this date range is too broad and advocates for a date range of July 1, 2017, through May 31, 2020. However, Skanska—in its own discovery served upon Lane—requested documents ranging from January 1, 2014, through the present, thereby evidencing Skanska's own good faith belief that documents at least back to January 1, 2014, are relevant to this case. Doc. 121-14 at 11. And Lane complied with that request. Doc. 121-1 at 8–9. Further, based on the record before the undersigned and as stated on the record at the hearing, Lane has established that documents from March 1, 2013, to the present are relevant and proportional to the needs of this case. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b).[3] Thus, the Skanska Motion is granted to the extent that Skanska must produce documents within the date range of March 1, 2013, to the present concerning Lane's May 5, 2021, requests for production. *2 The Granite Motion raised several issues concerning requests for production that Lane served upon Granite on October 21, 2021; some of the issues the undersigned can resolve on the current record, others require additional conferral between the parties and, if necessary, additional briefing. First, as with Skanska, Lane seeks to compel Granite to produce documents from March 1, 2013, through the present. However, Granite and Skanska are not similarly situated on this issue. Granite's primary involvement in this case concerns its claim that Lane failed to contribute to the joint venture's capital calls starting in January 2021. Doc. 89 at 5–6. As such, Granite has only sought from Lane documents dating from January 1, 2020, through the present, which is the relevant date range concerning Granite, on this record. Thus, there is no basis for the Court to compel Granite to produce documents starting from March 1, 2013.[4] Second, Lane seeks to compel Granite to produce documents—or a privilege log—concerning certain of Granite's in-house lawyers identified in Lane's discovery requests as custodians. Granite seems to oppose this request based on a proportionality objection, but the undersigned finds that such an objection fails. However, the undersigned finds that neither Lane nor any other party must, in response to another party's discovery request, disclose on a privilege log any document created after the commencement of this litigation on which a party's in-house lawyer is copied and concerning which the attorney-client or work product privilege would apply. Third, Lane seeks to compel Granite to produce documents related to the settlement of a specified lawsuit. On this record, the undersigned finds no basis to compel such a production. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1) The Skanska Motion (Doc. 121) is GRANTED in part, such that: a. On or before February 10, 2022, Skanska must produce documents in response to Lane's May 5, 2021, requests for production utilizing the agreed-to custodians, the agreed-to search terms, and a date range of March 1, 2013, to the present; and b. The Skanska Motion is DENIED without prejudice in all other respects. 2) The Granite Motion (Doc. 130) is GRANTED in part, such that: a. Plaintiff and Granite shall confer and agree upon search terms to be applied; b. On or before March 21, 2022, Granite must produce documents in response to Lane's October 21, 2021, requests for productions utilizing the date range of January 1, 2020 to the present, and as otherwise limited by this Order; and c. The Granite Motion is DENIED without prejudice in all other respects. ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on January 20, 2022. Footnotes [1] Although the Skanska Motion violated the briefing requirements of the Standing Order, the Court held a hearing on the substance of this Motion to expedite the discovery process. [2] Indeed, this agreement resulted in Lane withdrawing a prior motion to compel the same discovery. See Docs. 54; 83; 84. [3] At the hearing, Skanska stated that it anticipated conducting a “responsiveness review” of any documents located through application of the custodians, search terms, and date range. It does not appear that Lane knew this would occur. At the request of the parties, the undersigned made no findings concerning the proposed responsiveness review—this issue may appropriately be the subject of further conferrals and, if necessary, a motion. [4] The Court notes that, unlike with Skanska, Granite is a more recent addition to this case and, as such, Lane and Granite have not yet agreed to things like search terms.