E. Hanlin BAVELY, Chapter 7 TRUSTEE OF AAA SPORTS, INC., Plaintiff, v. PANINI AMERICA, INC., Defendant Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-093 United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division Signed January 09, 2023 Counsel Brian Lawrence King, James Robert Perkins, Timothy J.H. Craddock, Gary R. Sorden, Niky R. Bagley, Vishal Hemant Patel, Cole Schotz, PC, Dallas, TX, Donald A. Ottaunick, Jacob S. Frumkin, Matteo Percontino, Gianna Zapata, Jeffery M. Sauer, Cole Schotz P.C., Hackensack, NJ, for Plaintiff. Charles Edward Phipps, Andrew Tucker Davison, Chase Tyler Cobb, Seth Michael Roberts, Locke Lord LLP, Dallas, TX, Bradley Clay Knapp, Locke Lord LLP, New Orleans, LA, Christopher Gentry Garcia, Locke Lord LLP, Austin, TX, Elizabeth Kelly, Locke Lord LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant. Mazzant III, Amos L., United States District Judge ORDER *1 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendant (Dkt. #61). Having considered the Motion and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motion should be DENIED. BACKGROUND In the mid-1990s, AAA Sports, Inc. began manufacturing and distributing sports trading cards. Part of its collection included the “Stat Smashers” card inserts. However, the company's success was short-lived and, within two years, AAA Sports, Inc. shut down its operations and declared bankruptcy. E. Hanlin Bavely was appointed as the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee. Over two decades later, in 2020, Panini America, Inc. released a collection of cards that included a set of “Stat Smashers” card inserts. On February 10, 2022, Plaintiff E. Hanlin Bavely, Chapter 7 Trustee of AAA Sports, Inc., filed its Complaint (Dkt. #1). In its Complaint, Plaintiff accuses Defendant Panini America, Inc. of copyright infringement and violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the “DMCA”) (Dkt. #1). Defendant's release of its “Stat Smashers” card inserts in 2020 and 2021 form the basis for Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff alleges that it is the owner of the copyrights for 166 sports trading cards it created, authored, published, sold, and distributed (Dkt. #1 at p. 9). According to Plaintiff, Defendant has, and continues to, infringe on Plaintiff's intellectual property rights by reproducing, distributing, adapting, and publicly displaying AAA Sports, Inc.’s copyrighted works and derivative works based on those copyrights (Dkt. #1 at p. 1). On March 14, 2022, Defendant filed its Answer and Counterclaims, denying Plaintiff's allegations and asserting nineteen defenses (Dkt. #10). On November 2, 2022, Defendant filed its Amended Answer (Dkt. #63). Since litigation in this case began, discovery between the parties has been contentious. Indeed, the current dispute is only one of many that the parties have asked the Court to resolve. On October 24, 2022, the Court held a telephone conference to handle a number of discovery disputes. During the conference, the Court requested that the parties submit briefing regarding the production, or lack thereof, of documents pertaining to Defendant's sales records and third-party contracts. Accordingly, on October 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed the current motion to compel (Dkt. #61). On November 11, 2022, Defendant filed its response (Dkt. #71). On October 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed its reply (Dkt. #77). On November 23, 2022, Defendant filed its sur-reply (Dkt. #80). LEGAL STANDARD Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), parties “may obtain discovery regarding any non[-]privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense....” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). “Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). The Court's scheduling order requires that the parties produce, as part of their initial disclosure, “documents containing, information ‘relevant to the claim or defense of any party.’ ” (Dkt. #26 at p. 4). Moreover, the Local Rules of the Eastern District of Texas provide further guidance suggesting that information is “relevant to any party's claim or defense [if]: (1) it includes information that would not support the disclosing parties’ contentions; ... (4) it is information that deserves to be considered in the preparation, evaluation or trial of a claim or defense....” LOCAL RULE CV-26(d). It is well established that “control of discovery is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Freeman v. United States, 556 F.3d 326, 341 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Williamson v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 815 F.2d 368, 382 (5th Cir. 1987)). *2 Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a discovering party, on notice to other parties and all affected persons, to “move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery.” FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(1). The moving party bears the burden of showing that the materials and information sought are discoverable. Export Worldwide, Ltd. v. Knight, 241 F.R.D. 259, 263 (W.D. Tex. 2006). Once the moving party establishes that the materials requested are within the scope of permissible discovery, the burden shifts to the party resisting discovery to show why the discovery is irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome, or oppressive and, thus, should not be permitted. Id. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 governs requests for production of documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things. Rule 34 requires responses to “either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons.” FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(2)(B). “An objection [to the entire request] must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection.” FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(2)(C). On the other hand, “[a]n objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.” FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(2)(C). After responding to each request with specificity, the responding attorney must sign their request, response, or objection certifying that the response is complete and correct to the best of the attorney's knowledge and that any objection is consistent with the rules and warranted by existing law or a non-frivolous argument for changing the law. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(g). This rule “simply requires that the attorney make a reasonable inquiry into the factual basis of his response, request, or objection.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(g) advisory committee note (1983). The federal rules follow a proportionality standard for discovery. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). Under this requirement, the burden falls on both parties and the court to consider the proportionality of all discovery in resolving discovery disputes. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1), advisory committee note (2015). This rule relies on the fact that each party has a unique understanding of the proportionality to bear on the particular issue. Id. For example, a party requesting discovery may have little information about the burden or expense of responding. Id. “The party claiming undue burden or expense ordinarily has far better information—perhaps the only information—with respect to that part of the determination.” Id. ANALYSIS Plaintiff makes several requests for production in its motion to compel. First, Plaintiff requests that the Court order Defendant produce third-party contracts with its manufacturers and distributors.[1] Second, Plaintiff requests that the Court order Defendant produce sales information, including all sale contracts, records, and purchase orders, for Defendant's physical and digital cards. Plaintiff argues that these records are necessary to establish actual damages relating to its copyright infringement claim and the alleged DMCA violations. Furthermore, Plaintiff argues that Defendant must produce these records so that Plaintiff can confirm the accuracy of documents Defendant already produced. According to Plaintiff, instead of producing the sales contracts, sales records, or purchase orders, Defendant produced the single spreadsheet, the veracity of which Plaintiff questions. Because Plaintiff does not trust the accuracy of the spreadsheet, Plaintiff claims that Defendant must produce the underlying records, i.e., third-party contracts, sale contracts, sales records, and purchase orders. *3 Additionally, Plaintiff argues it is also entitled to Panini Digital, Inc.’s third-party contracts and sales information relating to the Defendant's digital cards because it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant. Finally, Plaintiff also argues that it is entitled to Defendant's licensing agreements with the National Football League (the “NFL”) and National Football League Players Association (the “NFLPA”). According to Plaintiff, these licensing agreements are likely to reveal relevant quantitative information pertaining to the allegedly infringing cards and will demonstrate Defendant's experience with copyright works. Defendant argues that Plaintiff is not entitled to any of the requested records. To start, Defendant contends that it does not have third-party contracts with its manufacturers and, therefore, cannot produce such records. As for its third-party contracts with manufacturers, Defendant argues it has already produced these documents. Likewise, Defendant asserts that it has already produced its sales reports for 2020 and 2021, which reveal that Defendant sold its entire inventory of cards in both years, and all associated revenues. Indeed, in response to Plaintiff's motion, Defendant provided the Bates numbers of the documents Plaintiff is currently requesting but which Defendant has already produced. According to Defendant, “the information sought is completely contained in Defendant's business records produced prior to the filing of Plaintiff's motion,” and if Defendant did not produce a document, it is because the document does not exist (Dkt. #71 at p. 2). Defendant further argues that any request for backup data, i.e., individual purchase orders, to support that the documents Defendant produced are true and accurate is unnecessary because the veracity of the spreadsheet-at-issue is not in question. Rather, Defendant clarified confusion about the spreadsheet months ago. Moreover, according to Defendant, this request is nothing more than a “make-work request” and is unreasonably cumulative and duplicative. In other words, Defendant claims that these individual purchase orders would not provide any additional information beyond the records already produced. The Court will address each issue presented in Plaintiff's motion to compel in turn, beginning with Plaintiff's request that the Court order Defendant produce its third-party contracts and sales records regarding Defendant's physical sales. I. Third-Party Contracts and Sales Records Regarding the Sale of Physical Cards According to Plaintiff, Plaintiff is unable to ascertain the exact number of allegedly infringing cards Defendant produced, distributed, and/or sold to third parties unless the Court orders Defendant to produce its third-party contracts and the sales information related to Defendant's physical sales of the “Stat Smashers” cards. Defendant maintains that it has already produced all relevant documents relating to its sales records and purchase orders relating to the physical cards. Accordingly, Defendant argues that there is nothing left for it to produce. The Court agrees with Defendant. First, regarding Plaintiff's request that the Court order Defendant to produce sales records and third-party contracts with Defendant's distributors, the Court cannot grant that request. Indeed, Defendant does not have contracts with its distributors (Dkt. #71 at p. 13) (“Panini does not have contracts with distributors, so this request is moot as well.”). And the Court cannot order Defendant to produce documents that it does not have and do not exist. Sanchez v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., L.L.C., No. PE: 15-CV-15, 2016 WL 10587204, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2016), on recons., No. PE: 15-CV-15, 2016 WL 10590452 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2016) (“The Court cannot order Defendants to produce what they do not have. Because Defendants do not possess any responsive documents ... the Motion to Compel is denied.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for Defendant's third-party contracts with its distributors is denied. *4 Secondly, the Court cannot order Defendant to produce sales records and third-party contracts with its manufacturer, GC Packaging, because it has already produced all the documents in its possession. To be sure, Defendant has consistently responded to Plaintiff's requests for production. Nonetheless, in its reply, Plaintiff continues to argue that Defendant has “no intention of independently producing all relevant evidence in a timely manner” (Dkt. #77 at p. 2). Confusingly, in the very same paragraph, Plaintiff admits that, after deposing GC Packaging (the manufacturer of Defendant's physical cards), Plaintiff “determined that [Defendant] has fulfilled its obligation to date as to documents regarding GC Packaging” (Dkt. #77 at p. 2). In other words, Plaintiff agrees that documents that reveal the number of physical trading cards produced and distributed were given to Plaintiff during discovery. Specifically, Defendant produced manufacturing purchase orders between itself and GC Packaging (Dkt. #71, Exhibits 8–12), as well as confirmation reports that reflect the actual number of boxes manufactured and shipped by GC Packaging (Dkt. #71, Exhibits 13, 14) (PANINI-3906-AEO) (PANINI-3910-AEO). Additionally, Defendant produced its complete sales records for all product configurations for its 2020 and 2021 Certified Football collections (Dkt. #71, Exhibits 8–14) (PANINI-4012-AEO) (PANINI-4015-AEO) (PANINI-4020-AEO) (PANINI-4024-AEO) (PANINI-4028-AEO) (PANINI-3906-AEO) (PANINI-3910-AEO) and its records for the online sale of physical cards through its website and direct app (Dkt. #71, Exhibit 6, 7) (PANINI-4134-AEO) (PANINI-4135-AEO). As for the 2020 physical cards, Defendant produced Fact Sheets and Form Breaks, which indicated that Defendant requested 983 Stat Smashers cards to be manufactured by GC Packaging (Dkt. #71 at p. 8). Defendant produced those documents on May 31, 2022, and October 5, 2022, (Dkt. #71 at p. 8; Dkt. #72, Exhibits 18, 19) (PANINI-3941–62-AEO) (PANINI-3963-AEO). And, for the 2021 physical cards, Defendant produced Fact Sheets and Form Breaks, which indicated that Defendant requested 839 Stat Smashers cards to be manufactured by GC Packaging (Dkt. #71 at p. 8). Defendant produced those documents on May 31, 2022 (Dkt. #71 at p. 8) (PANINI-3967–93-AEO) (PANINI-3963-AEO). Additionally, GC Packaging's corporate representative corroborated all the numbers in the Fact Sheets and Form Breaks during his deposition (Dkt. #72, Exhibit 17 at pp. 12–15). According to Defendant, because it has already produced all the documents Plaintiff requests regarding the production and manufacturing of Defendant's physical cards, the issue is moot. That is, Defendant cannot continue to produce documents if Defendant has already produced all the documents in its possession. The Court agrees. Defendant does not possess any more responsive documents pertaining to the physical cards Defendant produced, distributed, and/or sold. Therefore, the Court cannot order Defendant to produce anything more than it already has. Sanchez, 2016 WL 10587204, at *3. II. Third-Party Contracts and Sales Records Regarding the Sale of Digital Cards Concerning the sale of Defendant's digital cards, Plaintiff contends that Defendant must produce its third-party contracts and sales information related to Panini Digital Inc., the Blitz App, the Panini direct app, and Panini's website. Plaintiff's reasoning for this request is two-fold. First, Plaintiff argues that it is entitled to digital sales information pertaining to when Defendant sold its digital cards and how Defendant recorded those transactions to establish its damages claim. Second, Plaintiff argues the records Defendant already produced are insufficient. Indeed, Plaintiff argues that there is reason to question the veracity of the spreadsheet Defendant produced because, according to Plaintiff, Defendant's counsel created the spreadsheet. *5 Defendant argues that it has already produced the documents that Plaintiff requests regarding its third-party contracts related to Panini Digital Inc., the Blitz App, the Panini direct app, and Panini's website. If Defendant has not produced any documents, Defendant argues it is because they do not exist. Furthermore, Defendant argues that the spreadsheet it produced summarizing the sales data for its digital cards is accurate and authentic. According to Defendant, there is no reason to question the veracity of the spreadsheet and Defendant has already clarified this issue with Plaintiff. The Court agrees with Defendant. The Court will address each different request from Plaintiff in turn, beginning with the direct app and website. A. Panini's Direct App and Website Plaintiff requests the Court order Defendant to produce all third-party contracts and digital sales information related to any infringing cards sold on its direct app or website. According to Plaintiff, “the Panini Direct App and website are fertile grounds for digital and physical Infringing Cards’ sales information” (Dkt. #61 at p. 13). Plaintiff contends that Defendant sold physical infringing cards and digital infringing cards (using blockchain cards) on the app and website. Defendant counterargues that Defendant does not sell any NFT or blockchain Stat Smashers cards on its website or otherwise. Moreover, Defendant already produced the records regarding its physical card sales made through its website and the app. Furthermore, according to Defendant, there is no exclusive content for the website versus the app or vice versa. Rather, the app “is simply an application based ‘replica’ of the paniniamerica.net website” (Dkt. # 71 at p. 9). As the Court has already discussed, Defendant produced all records relating to the sale of Defendant's physical cards (Dkt. #71, Exhibit 6, 7) (PANINI-4134-AEO) (PANINI-4135-AEO). Additionally, neither the website nor the app sells digital trading cards. Instead, all digital trading cards are issued through the NFL Blitz App. Accordingly, there is nothing more Defendant can produce relating to the sales from Defendant's app and website. Sanchez, 2016 WL 10587204 B. Panini Digital Inc. Plaintiff requests all Panini Digital Inc.’s third-party contracts and sales information related to Defendant's digital cards. According to Plaintiff, because Panini Digital Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant, Defendant must produce third-party contracts and sales information on all infringing sales made through Panini Digital Inc. Defendant argues that, as with Plaintiff's other requests, Defendant has already produced all relevant documents. The Court agrees with Defendant; there is nothing more Defendant can produce as to Panini Digital. Panini Digital Inc. is a limited liability company whose sole member is Panini America, Inc., the defendant in this lawsuit. Defendant has already produced copies of the corporate documents (Dkt. #73, Exhibit 23) (PANINI-4462-475-AEO). Furthermore, in another discovery issue before the Court, Defendant has assured the Court that Panini Digital Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary with no separate employees. During that dispute, the Court ordered Defendant to provide a certification stating as much to Plaintiff. Finally, and as discussed more fully in the following section, Defendant has already produced the third-party contract between Panini Digital Inc. and PurpleTalk pursuant to a previous order from the Court (Dkt. #73, Exhibit 22) (PANINI-4476-557-AEO). Accordingly, there is nothing more that Defendant can produce. Sanchez, 2016 WL 10587204 C. The NFL Blitz App *6 Plaintiff contends that third-party contracts and sales information regarding the NFL Blitz App is highly likely to reveal the number of digital infringing Stat Smashers cards that Defendant produced, distributed, and/or sold. Therefore, Plaintiff argues that Defendant should produce the requested records. Defendant argues that the relevant agreement is between Panini Digital Inc. and PurpleTalk and that it has already produced a copy of that agreement. Accordingly, Defendant argues that there are no more third-party contracts that it can produce. Similarly, Defendant argues it has already produced all sales information pertaining to the sale of digital cards on the NFL Blitz App. The Court agrees. Defendant has already produced all third-party contracts and sales information regarding the NFL Blitz App. The NFL Blitz App is the only avenue by which a consumer can obtain digital cards. The NFL Blitz App is developed, maintained, and hosted by a third party called [x]cube LABS, a division of PurpleTalk. Plaintiff seeks third-party contracts relating to the sale of Defendant's 2020 and 2021 digital Stat Smashers card inserts. As Defendant has pointed out, though, the third-party contracts Plaintiff seeks are between Panini Digital and PurpleTalk. Pursuant to a previous order from the Court, Defendant already produced this contract (Dkt. #73, Exhibit 22) (PANINI-4476-557-AEO). Accordingly, there is no other third-party contract relating to the NFL Blitz App for the Court to order Defendant to produce. Defendant has also already produced the NFL Blitz App digital card sales records, so there is no sales information relating to the NFL Blitz App that the Court can order Defendant to produce. Plaintiff argues that, although Defendant could have easily accessed the total number of infringing cards pulled from the Blitz App by asking [x]cub LAB, Defendant failed to do so. Defendant contends that both itself and [x]cube LABS have already produced the requested documents; therefore, there is nothing left that Defendant can produce. The Court agrees with Defendant. In 2020, the digital Stat Smashers cards were randomly inserted into digital packs for the 2020 Certified Football digital cards. And, in 2021, the digital Stat Smashers cards were randomly awarded through a spin-wheel game featured on the NFL Blitz App. As to the 2020 digital cards, [x]cube produced documents showing how the packs containing the Stats Smashers cards could be purchased (Dkt. #74, Exhibit 24) ([X]CUBE-41). Furthermore, [x]cube LABS and Defendant produced records showing the precise number of digital 2020 Stat Smasher cards that were “pulled” on the NFL Blitz App, including all associated revenues (Dkt. #74, Exhibits 25–27) (PANINI-3290-AEO) ([X]CUBE-37-AEO) ([X]CUBE-202-AEO). The same is true for the 2021 digital cards. Panini and [x]cube LABS produced records showing the exact number of digital cards that were “pulled” on the NFL Blitz App in 2021, including the associated revenues (Dkt. #74, Exhibits 25–27) (PANINI-3290-AEO) ([X]CUBE-37-AEO) ([X]CUBE-202-AEO). Since Defendant has already produced the third-party contracts and sales information regarding the NFL Blitz App, there is nothing that the Court can order Defendant to produce as to the NFL Blitz App. D. The Veracity of Already Produced Records As discussed, Plaintiff also argues that Defendant has produced possibly inauthentic, attorney-produced documents (PANINI-2302-AEO) (PANINI-3290-AEO) regarding its digital sales. Plaintiff argues that it needs Defendant's “third-party contracts regarding the sales of the digital cards to determine the veracity of the insufficient Spreadsheet produced by Panini and created by Panini's counsel” (Dkt. #61 at p. 10). According to Plaintiff, the document provided by Defendant was an unsubstantiated hard-coded spreadsheet Defendant's counsel created. In its Motion, however, Plaintiff fails to note that the issues with the spreadsheet Defendant originally produced (PANINI-2302-AEO) were dealt with. Indeed, Plaintiff brought its concerns about the spreadsheet to Defendant's attention and Defendant both clarified the confusion as to who created the document and provided an unredacted version of the spreadsheet (PANINI-3290-AEO). Defendant argues, and Plaintiff does not dispute, that Defendant's counsel, Tucker Davison, had originally redacted URLs from the spreadsheet, mistakenly believing the URLs were links to an active internal database belonging to Defendant. Upon realizing Plaintiff was concerned about the authenticity and authorship of the spreadsheet, Defendant produced the unredacted version, the metadata of which revealed that Defendant's CFO authored the spreadsheet. Indeed, according to Defendant, the spreadsheet is an actual record from [x]cube Labs and Panini. *7 Nonetheless, Plaintiff argues that “it is justifiably reluctant to rely on the hard-coded numbers in the spreadsheet” because of the spreadsheet Defendant originally produced (Dkt. #77 at pp. 2–3). Given its reluctance, Plaintiff maintains that it is entitled to third-party contracts, sales information, and/or purchase orders related to the Infringing Cards’ sales to determine the veracity of the unsubstantiated hard-coded numbers Panini provided on the spreadsheets. However, courts only order parties to produce invoice-level data when the veracity of the summary data is genuinely in question. See Gyro-Trac Corp. v. King Kong Tools, LLC, No. 2:21-CV-2137-RMG, 2022 WL 3025736, at *4 (D.S.C. Aug. 1, 2022) (“In deciding whether to compel production of invoice-level data in patent cases, Courts have considered whether the veracity of the summary sales data is in question.”); see also Aquastar Pool Prods., Inc. v. Color Match Pool Fittings, Inc., No. 18-cv-094, 2019 WL 856860, *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2019) (denying a motion to compel printed invoices because “there is no reason the printed invoices would be more accurate than the spreadsheet”); Teles AG Informationstechnologien v. Quintum Techs., LLC., Nos. 06-cv-197, 09-cv-072, 09-cv-232, 2009 WL 3648458, at *3 n.6 (D. Del. October 30, 2009) (denying a motion to compel invoice-level data partly because there was no basis “to doubt the veracity of the aggregate sales data Defendants will provide”). Here, regardless of Plaintiff's contentions, the veracity of the documents is not in question. Defendant, through a sworn affidavit, clarified the confusion surrounding the spreadsheet and confirmed the resolution of that confusion (Dkt. #80, Exhibit A at p. 2) (“The spreadsheet bearing bates label PANINI-002302-AEO was created by Panini. I [Tucker Davison] did not create PANINI-002302-AEO.... On June 23, 2022, I redacted the URL links to an active Panini database from PANINI002302-AEO. I did not modify or redact any other information on PANINI-002302-AEO.”). According to the affidavit, “[o]n September 28, 2022, Panini produced an additional set of documents, which included an unredacted version of PANINI-002302-AEO designated as PANINI-3290-AEO, the underlying metadata of which identified Robert Hull, Panini's CFO, as the document's author” (Dkt. #80, Exhibit A at p. 4). Furthermore, Defendant made Plaintiff aware of these redactions as soon as the document was produced: “Additionally, you will notice that PANINI-002302 contains redacted cells. The redacted information relates to a URL address linking to an active Panini database. The information contained at these links were produced as PANINI-002303 through PANINI-002351” (Dkt. #80, Exhibit A at p. 7). Defendant's sworn affidavit and disclosure of the unredacted spreadsheet remedy any veracity issue. See Garan, Inc. v. Manimal, LLC, No. 3:20-CV-00623-IM, 2022 WL 225060, at *8 (D. Or. Jan. 25, 2022) (holding that Defendant clarified the question of a document's veracity when it submitted a declaration explaining what happened and submitting a genuine invoice and transaction record). III. Licensing Agreements with the NFL and the NFLPA Plaintiff argues it is entitled to Defendant's licensing agreements with the NFL and the NFLPA because they contain relevant information regarding the licensing of Defendant's allegedly infringing cards. According to Plaintiff, the agreements are likely to reveal relevant quantitative information, such as how many cards Defendant produced and sought to get licensed. Additionally, Plaintiff requests the Court order Defendant to produce its submissions of Stat Smashers to the NFL and NFLPA because “it demonstrates Defendant's deep experience in licensing and working with copyrighted works” (Dkt. #61 at p. 19) and that Defendant “knew or should have known they [sic] were infringing Plaintiff's copyrights” (Dkt. # 77 at p. 4). Indeed, according to Plaintiff, these records are likely relevant to Plaintiff's DMCA claims; “[f]or example, if the NFL and NFLPA said these cards were made by AAA Sports to Panini that would relate to the knowledge of Panini in ripping off the copyrighted works” (Dkt. #77 at p. 5). Defendant counterargues that the licensing agreements are irrelevant because Plaintiff's complaint excludes the NFL and NFLPA's images and logos. Additionally, Defendant argues that these licensing agreements do not mention the number of Stat Smashers cards that were manufactured or produced and do not contain information related to individual card designs from one single collection. The Court agrees with Defendant that “this is an improper fishing expedition” (Dkt. #80 at p. 6). *8 In support of Plaintiff's proposition that it is entitled to Defendant's licensing agreements with the NFL and NFLPA, Plaintiff directs the Court to a single case from the Northern District of Illinois. GC2 Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech., IGT, Doubledown Interactive LLC, 391 F. Supp. 3d 828 (N.D. Ill. 2019). In GC2, a company known as IGT Holding entered into a licensing agreement with GC2, which permitted IGT Holdings to use GC2's copyrighted artwork. The parties entered into another contract in 2007, styled as the “seventh amendment to the parties’ original licensing agreement,” which wound up the parties’ relationship but gave IGT Holdings a perpetual license to use GC2's artwork in IGT Holding's physical machines. Notably, the seventh amendment expressly reserved the right of GC2 to use its artwork in the development and distribution of online games. Meaning IGT Holding's license to use the artwork was limited to physical machines. After the 2007 contract, IGT Holdings, altered the copyright management information on GC2's artwork and then used the artwork in the development and distribution of its new internet-based games, knowing that the copyright management information had been removed or altered. A jury found that IGT Holdings, along with its subsidiaries, had violated the DMCA. The defendants in GC2 moved for judgment as a matter of law, asserting, among other things, that there was no evidence to support the elements of knowledge or intent. The court disagreed. Instead, the court held that a jury could have inferred intent or knowledge from, among other evidence, the seventh amendment to the parties’ original licensing agreement because the expressly reserved GC2's right to use its artwork for online games. Importantly, the licensing agreement in the GC2 case was between the plaintiff and a defendant in the case, not an outside party. The facts of the case before this Court are distinguishable. Most notably, the licensing agreements Plaintiff seeks are not agreements between itself and Defendant. Instead, the licensing agreements Plaintiff seeks here are between Defendant and two third parties that are not involved in the current suit (Dkt. #1, Exhibit 15) (“Material excluded from this claim: The application excludes NFL team logos, NFL team names, NFL team uniforms, athlete names, the player photo and headshot, athlete statistics, the Team NFL logo, the National Football League Players Association logo, and The Wild Card logo”). Indeed, the Court fails to see how the license agreements between Defendant and both the NFL and NFLPA relate to intent or knowledge on the part of Defendant to violate Plaintiff's rights under the DMCA. Plaintiff's own example best demonstrates the relevancy, or lack thereof, of these licensing agreements. According to Plaintiff, “if the NFL and NFLPA said these cards were made by AAA Sports to Panini that would relate to the knowledge of Panini in ripping off the copyrighted works” (Dkt. #77 at p. 5). However, Plaintiff does not explain the basis for its belief that the NFL and NFLPA may have told Defendant that Stat Smasher cards were copyrighted by AAA Sports. Indeed, there is nothing to suggest that either the NFL or the NFLPA had any knowledge of Plaintiff's use of the term Stat Smashers from two decades prior. Moreover, even if the NFL or NFLPA had explicitly told Defendant it was infringing upon Plaintiff's copyright, Plaintiff does not explain the basis for its belief that the entities would memorialize this correspondence in a licensing agreement between themselves. Finally, as Defendant notes, nothing in the licensing agreements relates to any individual card designs or the specific number of designs, players, or cards for any individual collection or card insert, including the Stat Smashers card inserts. District courts have a duty to protect parties against abuses of the discovery tools. To be sure, the Fifth Circuit “trust[s] that district courts will guard against abusive discovery.” Id. To that end, “Rule 26(b) “has never been a license to engage in an unwieldy, burdensome, and speculative fishing expedition.” Crosby v. La. Health Serv. & Indem. Co., 647 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing Murphy v. Deloitte & Touche Grp. Ins. Plan, 619 F.3d 1151, 1163 (10th Cir. 2010)). Here, the request for the licensing agreements between Defendant, the NFL, and the NFLPA is a prime example of a fishing expedition. Plaintiff seeks these documents with nothing more than the speculative hope that the documents may uncover relevant evidence. See Id.; see also Mauldin v. Fiesta Mart, 114 F.3d 1184, at *1 (5th Cir. 1997). CONCLUSION *9 It is therefore ORDERED Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendant (Dkt. #61) is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Footnotes [1] Plaintiff requests any third-party contracts Defendant entered into regarding the NFL Blitz App, the Panini website, the Panini direct app, as well as all third-party contracts between Defendant and GC Packaging.