UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants 2:21-CV-022-Z United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Amarillo Division Filed November 17, 2022 Counsel Kenneth G. Coffin-DOJ, J. Scott Hogan-DOJ, Jamie Yavelberg, United States Attorney's Office, for Plaintiff, United States of America Andrew Bowman Stephens, Heather Gebelin Hacker, Hacker Stephens LLP, for Plaintiff, Alex Doe, Relator Christopher D. Hilton, Amy S. Hilton, Halie Elizabeth Daniels, Raymond C. Winter, Reynolds B. Brissenden, IV, Office of the Texas Attorney General, for Intervenor, The State of Texas Joseph Scott St. John, Office of the Attorney General, for Movants, Louisiana Department of Health, Stephen Russo and Kimberly Sullivan Leah Godesky, Amanda Santella, Anton Metlitsky, Craig P. Bloom, Danny S. Ashby, Justin Roel Chapa, Megan Renee Whisler, Ross Galin, O'Melveny & Myers LLP and Ryan Patrick Brown, Ryan Brown Attorney at Law, for Defendant, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., Christopher Mohr Odell, Alyssa Gerstner, Christian Sheehan, Craig D. Margolis, Diana Mahoney, Emily Reeder-Ricchetti, Jayce Lane Born, Marcus Asner, Matthew R. Diton, Megan Pieper, Meghan Martin, Paula R. Ramer, Ralf Owen Dunn, Tirzah Lollar and Valarie Hays, Arnold & Port Kaye Scholar LLP, and Ryan Patrick Brown, Ryan Brown Attorney at Law, for Defendants Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast Inc., Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Inc., Planned Parenthood South Texas Inc., Planned Parenthood Cameron County Inc., Planned Parenthood San Antonio Inc. Kacsmaryk, Matthew J., United States District Judge ORDER *1 On October 14, 2022, Relator filed its Motion to Compel Production and Appointment of Forensic Examiner to Conduct a Review and Examination of Defendants’ Computer Systems and Electronic Data, and for Expedited Consideration (“Motion”) (ECF No. 220). The Court deferred ruling on the Motion and instead ordered Defendants to show cause. See ECF No. 263. Having considered the Motion, briefing, and relevant law, the Court DENIES the Motion. However, the Court deems that supplemental discovery may be necessary. The Court rests its ruling on PPFA's express willingness to conduct supplemental searches of additional custodians. See ECF No. 279 at 20. PPFA also “remains willing to conduct additional searches if Relator's counsel identifies additional documents that PPFA may have inadvertently omitted....” Id. at 27. Likewise, Affiliate Defendants have committed to continue making rolling productions, including a production this week that will include over 100,000 documents. ECF No. 277 at 14–16. The Court ORDERS parties to meet and confer in good faith regarding any pending or future discovery issues. The Court also reminds parties of the numerous discovery orders that have already been issued and clarified. To the extent Relator alleges any deficiencies in Defendants’ forthcoming productions and files any subsequent motions to compel, the Court expects Relator to provide proof that Relator's concerns have first been brought to Defendants’ attention. Additionally, if Relator further identifies any other custodians that may possess responsive documents or ESI, Relator must articulate a basis for the Court to find that ESI in the possession of the additional custodians would be different from — and not simply duplicative of — information that Defendants have already produced. See, e.g., Enslin v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 2:14-CV-06476, 2016 WL 7042206, at *2 (E.D. Pa. June 8, 2016). SO ORDERED.