In Re: Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation This Document Relates to: Alcon Vision, LLC v. Lens.com, Inc. No. 3:19-cv-706-HES-LLL Nos. 3:15-md-2626-HES-LLL, 3:19-cv-706-HES-LLL United States District Court, M.D. Florida Filed December 23, 2022 Lambert, Laura L., United States Magistrate Judge Order Granting in Part Alcon's Motion to Compel Production and Supplemental Responses *1 Before the Court is Alcon Vision, LLC's Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Lens.com, Inc., Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories and Supporting Memorandum of Law, MDL doc. 1269.[1] Lens.com, Inc. opposes the motion, MDL doc. 1277. The Court has also considered Alcon's reply, MDL doc. 1288, and Lens.com's sur-reply, MDL doc. 1289. Background In 2015, a consolidated class action complaint was filed in Multidistrict Litigation No. 2626 (MDL) involving allegations of anticompetitive behaviors aimed at setting the sale price for disposable contact lenses in the United States. See TA doc. 72 (citing In Re: Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litig., 109 F. Supp. 3d 1369 (J.P.M.L. 2015)). MDL plaintiffs alleged defendants, including Alcon, conspired with each other (and others not named in the lawsuit) by imposing unilateral pricing policies (UPPs) on certain contact lenses; the UPPs set minimum resale prices. The use of the UPPs reduced or eliminated price competition from big box stores, buying clubs, and internet-based retailers because they were unable to discount the contact lenses. MDL doc. 395 ¶ 2. The conduct alleged, according to plaintiffs, constituted per se or rule-of-reason violations of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 3, as well as violations of California and Maryland law. MDL doc. 395. In December 2018, Judge Schlesinger certified several classes of plaintiffs to include numerous retail purchasers of disposable contact lenses between 2013 and 2016 when the UPP was in place. See TA doc. 72, MDL doc. 940 at 174-76. Since Alcon filed its motion to compel, MDL doc. 1269, the claims in the underlying class action have been resolved, see, e.g., MDL doc. 1362. As the parties are aware, on January 19, 2018, Alcon sued Lens.com in the Eastern District of New York (EDNY) for, among other claims, trademark infringement, false advertising, and unfair competition, TA doc. 1.[2] Lens.com responded and filed 11 counterclaims. Counterclaims three and four related to Alcon's UPPs, TA doc. 67. Count three is captioned as a “per se violation related to UPPs” and alleges that Alcon “ ‘implemented UPPs’ threatening non-ECP [eye care professional] vendors of contact lenses with the loss of the ability to sell the products covered by the UPP if they refused to abide by the UPP's terms.” TA doc. 67 ¶ 332 (italics in the original). Count four is captioned as a “Rule-of-Reason Violation Related to UPPs” and alleges that Alcon, acting with other entities (including contact lens manufacturers), violated federal antitrust law by adopting, implementing, and enforcing UPPs for contact lenses. Id. ¶ 343. As a result of these actions, Lens.com was “unable to maintain a full product line, suffered damage to its reputation, lost customer goodwill” and was “forced to purchase lenses through grey-market sellers and other alternative suppliers.” Id. ¶ 336; see also id. ¶ 345. *2 The remaining nine counterclaims brought by Lens.com were for per se and rule-of-reason violations of the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and Donnelly Act, related to Alcon's “Post-UPP Actions, including Tying Arrangements, Group Boycott, and Trademark Misuse” (counts 1 and 2, TA doc. 67 at 77-79); unlawful monopolization (count 5, id. at 84-85); attempted monopolization (count 6, id. at 86-87); unlawful use of exclusive dealing agreements (count 7, id. at 88-89); false advertising and deceptive trade practices under New York General Business Law (count 8, id. at 89-90); false or misleading description or representation of fact (count 9, id. at 91-93); declaratory judgment of non-infringement of trademark (count 10, id. at 93-94); and declaratory judgment of invalidity of the trademark (count 11, id. at 94-95). See generally TA doc. 72. On February 28, 2019, Lens.com informed the Honorable Nina Gershon, the district judge presiding over the action in EDNY, that it had filed a Notice of Potential Tag-Along Action before the United States Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (Panel), TA doc. 45, which requested that the action, in its entirety, be transferred to the MDL assigned to Judge Schlesinger in the Middle District of Florida, id. at 4. On June 6, 2019, the Panel transferred only counterclaims three and four related to Alcon's UPPs, TA doc. 72 at 2. The Panel noted that Lens.com would be a unique party to the MDL because its counterclaims involve resellers, instead of consumers. Id. The remaining nine counterclaims were separated by the Panel and remanded to EDNY pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). Id. On August 5, 2020, while this case was pending, Lens.com voluntarily dismissed the antitrust (post-UPP) counterclaims pending in the EDNY. See Case No. 1:18-cv-00407-NG-RLM, doc. 258 (voluntarily dismissing its “antitrust counterclaims” one, two, five, six, and seven, and explaining “non-antitrust counterclaims 8-10 will remain active and pending in [the EDNY] action and Lens.com's two antitrust counterclaims ... that were transferred by [the Panel] to join [the] MDL ... will remain active in the MDL.”).[3] In the EDNY, Alcon moved for sanctions on the ground that Lens.com brought and maintained (post-UPP) antitrust counterclaims in bad faith before dropping them to avoid providing court-ordered discovery; and on July 7, 2022, Judge Gershon granted Alcon's motion and dismissed Lens.com's post-UPP antitrust counterclaims with prejudice. See id. at doc. 341. Arguments Alcon argues Lens.com's production and interrogatory responses are deficient, grouping its motion into three categories, MDL doc. 1269. Alcon asks the Court to compel: (1) documents responsive to Alcon's requests for production nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8; (2) transactional data responsive to request for production no. 3; and (3) “full and complete responses” to interrogatories nos. 1, 2, 4, and 7, MDL docs. 1269 at 20-23; 1288 at 7. Lens.com opposes the motion because, it argues, Alcon did not meet and confer regarding the issues raised; its document production complies with its obligations under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 34; and its interrogatory responses similarly satisfy its obligations under Rules 26 and 33, MDL docs. 1277, 1289. Standards “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure strongly favor full discovery whenever possible.” Farnsworth v. Procter & Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545, 1547 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). The Court maintains broad discretion under Rule 26 to grant or deny a motion to compel discovery. Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc., 662 F.3d 1292, 1307 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Sanderlin v. Seminole Tribe of Fla., 243 F.3d 1282, 1285 (11th Cir. 2001)). “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[;]” with a court considering these factors in making its determination: “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 of expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). *3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a) allows a party to serve on any other party a request for production within the scope of Rule 26(b). A party may also propound interrogatories to an opposing party relating to any matter within the scope of Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). Dish Network LLC v. Fraifer, No. 8:16-cv-2549-T-17TBM, 2017 WL 3701140, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 24, 2017). “A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, ... or inspection .... if a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33; or ... fails to produce documents ... requested under Rule 34.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii)-(iv). A party's answers to interrogatories must be “true, explicit, responsive, complete and candid.” Weaver v. Mateer and Harbert, P.A., 277 F.R.D. 655, 657 (M.D. Fla. 2011) (citations and quotations omitted). Alcon, as the party seeking the discovery, has the initial burden of proving the information it seeks is relevant. Gober v. City of Leesburg, 197 F.R.D. 519, 521 (M.D. Fla. 2000) (citations omitted); Callaway v. Lee Mem. Health Sys., No. 2:19-cv-745-SPC-MRM, 2021 WL 6125445, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2021) (citations omitted)). Lens.com must then show why the discovery sought is overbroad, unreasonable, or unduly burdensome. Panola Land Buyers Ass'n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1559-60 (11th Cir. 1985) (additional citations omitted). Relevancy in the realm of discovery is construed broadly; it includes “any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978) (additional citation omitted). A. Requests for Production At issue here are Alcon's Requests for Production (RFPs) nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. In response to each of the RFPs and in its opposition, Lens.com globally argues that the discovery sought is duplicative of discovery turned over in the EDNY litigation. MDL doc. 1269-2. See also MDL doc. 1277 at 2-3 (“[A]lthough Alcon implies that Lens.com has ... shirked its discovery obligations by referring Alcon to its production in the EDNY litigation, that assumption is unfounded. Lens.com's production overlaps with the production in the New York case as, to date, Lens.com has produced nearly 1.5 million pages of documents in that case. Alcon has access to all those documents, and they subsume most of the documents requested by Alcon here ....”). Alcon responds that the documents Lens.com produced in response to these RFPs are unresponsive and irrelevant to the UPP counterclaims (as opposed to the claims in the EDNY action). MDL doc. 1269 at 2-3. Initially, I find Lens.com's practice of generally referring Alcon to the production in the EDNY case insufficient to comply with its discovery obligations. Lens.com is directed to specifically identify the documents in its EDNY production responsive to RFP nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8, by Bates number or specific identifier. See Bank of the Ozarks v. Just Kids Child Care Ctr., Inc., No. 4:11-cv-0522-HLM, 2012 WL 13020706, at *4-*5 (N.D. Ga. May, 23, 2012) (holding that to the extent defendants rely on documents already provided to plaintiff to satisfy a request for production, the defendant had to identify those documents); Middle District Discovery (2021) at III(A)(5)(d) (explaining that a party complies with a document request when it has “produced the documents ... [,] specifically identified those documents that are being or will be produced, or specified precisely where the documents can be found and when they can be reviewed.”). *4 Lens.com also argues that Alcon's efforts to meet and confer on issues related to this motion were deficient. MDL docs. 1277 at 7-9; 1289 at 1-3. I similarly find that argument without merit. The parties have engaged in extensive conferral as required by both the Federal Rules and the Local Rules. I see no reason, therefore, to deny Alcon's motion to compel on that basis. I now take up each challenged RFP in turn. RFP No. 1 RFP no. 1 is a request for “all documents and communications concerning this action and any allegation contained in the counterclaims, including all documents and communications concerning any [UPP] or minimum retail/resale price policy;” about “any conspiracy, agreement or collusion alleged in the counterclaims;” any documents referenced or quoted in the counterclaims;” as well as any documents and communications relied upon in counterclaims; and any documents or communications “produced or received from any third party concerning this action or the allegations in your counterclaims ....” MDL doc. 1269-1 at 5-6. In its opposition, Lens.com alleges it has fulfilled RFP no. 1. MDL doc. 1277 at 3. Alcon argues, however, that Lens.com “failed to produce documents and communications concerning Lens.com's own allegations, including its allegation that Alcon's UPP in some way affected Lens.com's supply of lenses and reputation.” MDL doc. 1269 at 6. Upon review, I find RFP no. 1 impermissibly overbroad. Requests for production should be clear, concise, and reasonably particularized. Middle District Discovery (2021) at III(A)(1). Alcon's request in RFP no. 1 amounts to a request for all the documents it believes supports Lens.com's claim, which is improper. Id. (“For example, a request for ‘each and every document support supporting your claim’ or a request for ‘the documents you believe support Count I’ is objectionably broad in most cases.”). See also Manual for Complex Litig., Fourth (2004) § 11.443 at 75 (instructing a court to avoid indiscriminate demands such as “ ‘sweeping requests’ like ‘all documents relating or referring to an issue, party, or claim.’ ”); Houston Specialty Ins. Co. v. Titleworks of Sw Fla., Inc., No. 2:15-cv-219-FtM-29MRM, 2016 WL 7130939, at *6 (M.D. Fla. July 19, 2016) (explaining a request for the production of “any and all documents” is problematic). Thus, Alcon's motion to compel a response to RFP no. 1 is denied. RFP No. 2 RFP no. 2 requests, in relevant part, “all documents and communications” regarding the purchase and sale of contact lenses by Lens.com that were produced by Alcon and subject to the UPP, including documents and communications about: Lens.com's “sourcing, acquisition, obtainment, supply chain, and distribution of such products,” its pricing policies,[4] the pricing lists or schedules related to the products at issue, “budgets, forecasts, analyses, studies, projections, strategic plans, comparisons, or profit-and-loss statements about such products;” Lens.com's “actual or potential retail pricing” and profit margins on such products; and finally, Lens.com's competitive assessments and customer feedback about such products. MDL doc. 1269-1 at 7-8. Lens.com's position with regard to RFP no. 2 is somewhat confusing: first, it asserts it has complied with RFP no. 2 and produced all responsive documents to this request; next, it complains that it does not have additional responsive documents because “Alcon assumes that more of these documents exist, but many do not, as Lens.com is a small company and does not maintain regulated versions of all the documents Alcon seeks;” and finally, Lens.com says it “has produced (or will soon produce) them.” MDL doc. 1277 at 3. *5 Alcon maintains that, to date, Lens.com has not produced any of the following responsive documents related to Lens.com's purchase of Alcon lenses: pricing policies, lists, or schedules; budgets, forecasts, strategic plans, or profit and loss statements; actual or potential retail pricing; actual or potential margins; and competitive assessments. MDL doc. 1288 at 5-6. The outstanding documents requested in RFP no. 2 are relevant to Lens.com's claims that Alcon committed violations of antitrust laws related to the UPP. The remaining material are relevant to whether “non-ECP [eye care professional] vendors of contact lenses” have “los[t]... the ability to sell the products covered by the UPPs.” TA doc. 67 ¶ 332. Additionally, RFP no. 2 is not overbroad; the documents requested are tailored to test Lens.com's allegation that “as a direct result of the conduct of Alcon ..., Lens.com has been injured ... in that it has been unable to maintain a full product line, suffered damage to its reputation, lost customer goodwill, and has been forced to purchase lenses through grey market sellers and other alternative suppliers.” Id. ¶ 336. See also id. ¶¶ 344-45 (count 4) (rule-of-reason violation related to the UPPs alleging the UPPs forced non ECP vendors to honor the UPPs or risk losing the ability to sell lenses covered by the UPP and contending that Alcon's conduct injured Lens.com's business). Given the centrality of this issue to Lens.com's claims, I find RFP no. 2 relevant and proportional to the needs of this case. Panola Land Buyers, 762 F.2d at 1559 (citing Rule 26 and explaining that when determining whether a request constitutes an undue burden, a court should consider several factors including the importance of the issues and the amount in controversy). Moreover, I find RFP no. 2 is not unduly burdensome. It is unclear what Lens.com means by its assertion that it does not maintain “regulated versions of all the documents Alcon seeks.” MDL doc. 1277 at 3 (emphasis added). “Claims of overbreadth and undue burden should be supported by specific information demonstrating how the request is overly broad and unduly burdensome.” Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Hardin, No. 8:14-cv-775-T-23AAS, 2019 WL 3082608, at *5 (M.D. Fla. July 15, 2019) (citations omitted). See also Trinos v. Quality Staffing Servs. Corp., 250 F.R.D. 696, 698 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (additional citation and quotations omitted) (“[C]ourts should only limit discovery based on evidence of the burden involved, not on a mere recitation that the discovery request is unduly burdensome.”). The Court does not discount that properly responding to RFP no. 2, or many of the RFPs at issue, may be time-consuming for Lens.com; but the discovery Alcon requests coincides with the nature of the violations and the treble damages Lens.com requests. TA doc. 67 ¶¶ 337, 347. Further, the documents sought are paramount to the ultimate issue raised in the litigation—i.e., that the UPPs negatively impacted Lens.com's business. Id. ¶¶ 336, 345. Rosen v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 308 F.R.D. 670, 682 (N.D. Ala. 2015) (explaining that a request was not unduly burdensome considering the RICO claims at issue involving an “extensive multi-state pattern of racketeering activity in the handling of disability claims.”); Fla. VirtualSchool v. K12, Inc., No. 6:11-cv-831-Orl-KRS, 2015 WL 12843837, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2015) (explaining that, because plaintiff was an organization serving forty-nine states in sixty-five countries, compilation of the documents would be time-consuming but ultimately the discovery sought was “part and parcel of [p]laintiff's broad damages request.”);. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) (“The parties and the court have a collective responsibility to consider the proportionality of all discovery and consider it in resolving discovery disputes.” Comment, 2015 Amendment). If Lens.com does not have in its possession documents that are responsive to the RFP, then it must amend its responses to unequivocally state so. See Middle District Discovery (2021) at III(A)(5)(e) (“A party and counsel ordinarily have complied with the duty to respond to a document request if they have ... stated specifically that no responsive documents have been found.”). For these reasons, Alcon's motion to compel a response to RFP no. 2 is granted. RFP No. 4 *6 RFP no. 4 asks for “all documents and communications concerning the relevant product market, relevant geographic market, market share, cross-elasticity of demand, substitutability of contact lenses, and market power alleged in the Counterclaims.” MDL doc. 1269-1 at 8. Lens.com responds that it has fulfilled RFP no. 4 because it searched for “these terms, and if such documents exist, they have been produced or are forthcoming in Lens.com's ongoing productions.” MDL doc. 1277 at 3. In exhibit 2 to its opposition, Lens.com identifies the search terms used in its search for responsive documents. MDL doc. 1277-2. Alcon contends that the search terms used by Lens.com were insufficient because they failed to produce most of the requests within RFP no. 4. MDL docs. 1269 at 6; 1288 at 6. RFP no. 4 is relevant and proportional to Lens.com's claim of anticompetitive conduct related to the UPPs. See, e.g., Ohio v. Am. Express Co., 138 S. Ct. 2274, 2284 (2018) (citations and quotations omitted) (explaining that “[t]he rule of reason requires courts to conduct a fact-specific assessment of ‘market power and market structure ... to assess the restraint's actual effect’ on competition.”); Spanish Broad. Sys. of Fla., Inc. v. Clear Channel Commc'ns, Inc., 376 F.3d 1065, 1074 (11th Cir. 2004) (“Many antitrust cases turn on the precise definition of this market, as defendants contest whether they possess market power or whether the restraint at issue affected the market as a whole.”); U.S. Anchor Mfg. v. Rule Indus., Inc., 7 F.3d 986, 994 (11th Cir. 1993) (“[T]he principal judicial device for measuring actual or potential market power remains market share[.]”). Upon review of Lens.com's search protocols, I find Lens.com's search did not include all terms that may have yielded relevant, responsive documents to RFP no. 4. Lens.com is directed to conduct a further search for documents responsive to RFP no. 4, including the examples provided by Alcon: ((product or geograph* or relevant) w/10 market) or (substitute* w/10 (contacts or lens* or Alcon)) or (demand* w/10 (contacts or lens or Alcon)) or (change* w/10 price* w/10 (contacts or lens* or Alcon)). MDL doc. 1288 at 6. RFP No. 5 In RFP no. 5, Alcon requests “all documents and communications concerning, relating to, or evidencing any theory of injury, causation and/or damages that [Lens.com] assert based on the conduct alleged in the counterclaims, including any data or method used in calculating any injury or damages alleged to have been suffered by [Lens.com].” MDL doc. 1269-1 at 8-9. In its opposition, Lens.com alleges that it has fulfilled RFP no. 5 by specifically producing documents relevant to the sourcing of its contacts lenses and communications about the harms caused by the UPPs. MDL doc. 1277 at 3-4. Alcon avers that Lens.com refused to provide documents regarding how it has quantified or calculated damages; nor has it, according to Alcon, used search terms that would yield responsive documents. MDL doc. 1288 at 6 (citing MDL doc. 1277-2 at 2). I find RFP no. 5 relevant and proportional to the needs of the case because it requests information supporting Lens.com's theory of injury and extent of the damages sought, a common request in lawsuits. See, e.g., Sunoptic Techs., LLC v. Ushio Am., Inc., No. 3:10-cv-930-J-37-JRK, 2011 WL 13295438, *4-*5 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 9, 2011) (citations omitted) (finding that documentation such as receipts, invoices, and purchase orders illustrating the plaintiff's alleged damages relevant and outlining that such a production is appropriate if the information is not subject to privilege). Besides generally responding to RFP no. 5, Lens.com is directed to conduct a further search for documents responsive to RFP no. 5, including the examples provided by Alcon: “((reputation or goodwill or harm* or injur* or damage* or defend*) w/20 (Alcon or dailies or optix or DT1 to DACP or AOC))” or “((business or supply or customer*) w/10 (suffer* or delegitimatiz* or destroy* or diminish* or interrupt* or harm” or injur* or damage*)).”MDL doc. 1288 at 6. RFP No. 7 *7 In RFP no. 7, Alcon requests a series of documents showing Lens.com's “location and organizational or corporate structure, including organizational charts.” MDL doc. 1269-1 at 10. In its opposition, Lens.com states it has fulfilled the request and attests that no such documents exist and that it has informed Alcon of the same. Doc. 1277 at 4. I find RFP no. 7 relevant to Lens.com's claims and proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. Rule Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Because there were various responses provided to this RFP,[5] to the extent the documents requested in RFP no. 7 do not exist, Lens.com is directed to formally amend its responses to indicate the same. RFP No. 8 In RFP no. 8, Alcon requests documents showing Lens.com's retention, destruction, disposal, document preservation, policies, and practices, including any changes or modifications to such policies and practices during the relevant time. MDL doc. 1269-1 at 9. In its opposition, however, Lens.com maintains it has fulfilled RFP no. 8, reiterating that it has explained to Alcon that Lens.com does not retain a written document retention policy. MDL doc. 1277 at 4. To the extent Lens.com maintains, or has recorded document retention policies and practices relevant to RFP no. 8 that are not subject to attorney-client privilege, I direct Lens.com to turn those documents over as they may assist Alcon “to evaluate the existence ... custody ... and location of any documents.” In re Takata Airbag Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 15-02599-MD-Moreno, 2017 WL 8812734, at *5 (S.D. Fla. July 5, 2017) (quoting the pre-2015 version of Rule 26(b) and citing the advisory committee note (2015) in interpreting the current version of Rule 26(b)). Document retention policies and like materials are relevant because “discovery of such policies will help [p]laintiffs evaluate the ... [d]efendants’ document production, identify any documents that are missing, and focus and refine their future discovery requests.” Id. at *6. To the extent the documents requested in RFP no. 8 do not exist, Lens.com is directed to formally amend their responses to indicate the same. RFP No. 3 RFP no. 3 requests data of a different nature; Alcon asks for transactional data and other similar documents “kept or created in the normal course of business concerning the data and fields available in the databases” that would show certain, specific information about Lens.com's purchases, sales, and related associated returns or exchanges of contact lenses, including: customer names/addresses; transaction type (such as sales, returns, exchange, rebate, surcharge, discount, etc.); transaction ID or invoice number; dates of transaction including shipment date; product characteristics; unit of measurement; unit price; total quantities returned or exchanged; retail prices paid or charged; price adjustments; any third-party payments received in connection with any sale; any terms governing purchases or sales; any terms governing returns or exchanges; and for returns and exchanges, an indication of the original transaction identifier(s) against which the return or exchange should be applied. MDL doc. 1269-1 at 8-9 *8 In its opposition, Lens.com explains that it has “produced extensive transactional information and detailed financial data regarding each Lens.com sale of Alcon products, including the specific products at issue in this case, from 2014 through 2019,” including purchaser name, transaction ID, transaction date, price adjustments, and shipping date for each purchase, in the form of a spreadsheet, Bates number LENS0143026. MDL doc. 1277 at 4. Alcon responds that the spreadsheet is missing transactional data from years 2012-2014 and does not contain or address all of the fields requested, which are relevant here. MDL doc. 1288 at 6. Upon review, I find RFP no. 3, and the specific data fields requested, see MDL doc. 1269-1 at 8-9, relevant to Lens.com's theory of damages because sales and transactional data would tend to show how the UPPs affected Lens.com's business and help the parties access and calculate damages. As Alcon explains, the data fields requested, such as terms governing purchases or sales, and total quantities returned or exchanged, would also illustrate how Lens.com was “unable to maintain a full product line, suffered damage to its reputation, lost customer goodwill,” and was “forced to purchase lenses through grey-market sellers and other alternative suppliers.” TA doc. 67 ¶¶ 336, 345. In other words, the data fields requested relate to Lens.com's claims that the UPPs negatively affected their business. Further, while Alcon's request is broad and may not be easy to produce, RFP no. 3 is proportional to the needs of the case and the material is central to this litigation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). See also Coleman v. Lennar Corp., No. 18-mc-20182-Williams/Torres, 2019 WL 3672251, at *7 (S.D. Fla. June 14, 2018) (explaining that the RFPs (data from purchase and sales agreements, disclosures, and other documents identifying how long homes remained on the market) were relevant to claims about reduction in home value and were not unduly burdensome where the requests “carefully target[ed] an identifiable group of documents” such that the defendant would not have to make “qualitative judgments as to which include or exclude.”); Polycarpe v. Seterus, Inc., No. 6:16cv1606-ORL-37TBS, 2017 WL 2257571, at *4 (M.D. Fla. May 23, 2017) (additional quotations and citation omitted) (explaining “[a]ny application of the proportionality factors, [the non-exclusive list of factors in Rule 26(b)(1)], must start with the actual claims and defenses in the case, and a consideration of how and to what degree the requested discovery bears on those claims and defenses.”). Lens.com must fully produce transactional data or other documents in response to RFP No. 3, including the years 2012-2014 and data fields outlined in RFP no. 3: (i) customer address/number;[6] (ii) transaction type; (iii) date of transaction; (iv) characteristics of the product, including SKU, UPC, description, prescription; (v) unit of measurement; (vi) unit price; (vii) total quantities returned or exchanged; (viii) prices paid or charged for each transaction; (ix) price adjustments; (x) any third-party payments received in connection with any sale; (xi) current type; (xii) terms governing purchases or sales; and (xiv) any information about returns and exchanges, including terms or an indication of the original transaction identifier(s) against which the return or exchange should be applied. B. Interrogatories *9 Alcon maintains Lens.com has failed to provide sufficient responses to its first set of interrogatories, MDL docs. 1269-6, 1269-7; and moves to compel responses to interrogatories, nos. 1, 2, 4, and 7,[7] on the grounds Lens.com's responses were insufficient and “stand on improper objections.” MDL doc. 1269 at 21-22. Lens.com maintains it has properly answered each interrogatory and supplemented its responses. MDL doc. 1277 at 5. Interrogatory No. 1 In interrogatory no. 1, Alcon asked Lens.com to provide a “detailed and complete description of the factual and legal bases” for its allegations that Lens.com's business and property has been injured. MDL doc. 1269-8. It also requests Lens.com identify all documents, evidence, and sources of information from which Lens.com alleges it has “lost the ability to purchase, an identification of all persons with knowledge of the facts” supporting Lens.com's allegations, and the knowledge attributable to each person identified. Id. Lens.com identified several documents as responsive to this request, including Bates numbered documents ALCONMDL0087496, LENS.COM00025465, ABB_MDL00026780, as well as the Distributor Agreements that allow for implementation of a “Do Not Sell” list. MDL doc. 1269-8 at 4-5. Lens.com further responded that it expected the link between Alcon's conduct and the injury suffered would be explained by expert testimony; it identified Cary Samourkachian as the person most knowledgeable to testify. Id. at 5. Lens.com argues this response was appropriate because it was made in good faith, explained its position, and directed Alcon to the relevant three, responsive documents supporting its claims. MDL doc. 1277 at 5-6. Alcon counters that Lens.com's response to interrogatory no. 1 is inappropriate because it “failed to provide a detailed and complete description of the factual bases concerning Lens.com's allegations, including its allegation that Alcon's UPP in some way affected Lens.com's supply of lenses and reputation.” MDL doc. 1269 at 13. A party must provide “responsive, full, complete and unevasive” answers to interrogatories and “cannot limit his answers to matters within his own knowledge and ignore information immediately available to him or under his control.” Essex Builders Grp., Inc. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 230 F.R.D. 682, 685 (M.D. Fla. 2005) (citation omitted). If the party does not have the “necessary information to make a full, fair and specific answer to an interrogatory, it should so state under oath and should set forth in detail the efforts made to obtain the information.” Id. Additionally, it is generally “insufficient to answer an interrogatory by a reference to an extrinsic matter, such as ‘see deposition of James Smith’ .... Similarly, a reference to a single document is not necessarily a full answer, and the information in the document—unlike the interrogatory answer—is not ordinarily set forth under oath.” Middle District Discovery III (2021) at IV(C)(3). Upon review, I find Lens.com's response to interrogatory no. 1 deficient. First, the interrogatory is relevant. Harm to reputation and damage to its supply chain are some of the alleged damages Lens.com claims it suffered. TA doc. 67 at 81 ¶¶ 333, 337, 347. And given the centrality of these issues to this lawsuit, a more fulsome response to interrogatory no. 1 would substantiate Lens.com's claims. Id; Essex Builders Grp., 230 F.R.D. at 685. Further, a mere reference to responsive documents is not sufficient to comply with Lens.com's discovery obligations. Middle District Discovery (2021) at III(C)(3). To the extent Lens.com does not possess the information sought, it should say so under oath, see Essex, 230 F.R.D. at 685, and outline its efforts to obtain the information. Therefore, Lens.com is ordered to supplement its answer to interrogatory no. 1, as outlined here. Interrogatory No. 2 *10 Interrogatory no. 2 requests Lens.com to provide a “detailed and complete description of all damages or other harm” Lens.com claims were caused by the UPP counterclaims. MDL doc. 1269-8 at 5. Interrogatory no. 2 further requests Lens.com identify: 1) each person knowledgeable about damages and harm; 2) the knowledge attributable to each person; 3) the amount of the damages and harm; and 4) all documents by production number supporting Lens.com's claims for damages and harm. Id. Lens.com objected to interrogatory as premature, overbroad, and as seeking information better gained through expert testimony and opinion. MDL doc. 1269-8 at 5. It also responded that it produced information outlining the basis for damages and harm, including communications between Alcon and its distributors, two emails and an additional document related to sales lost as a result of Alcon's anticompetitive conduct (with responsive Bates number), and the distributor agreement allowing a “do not sell” list. Id. at 5-6. Lens.com further identifies that responsive information would come from Alcon and witnesses previously deposed by the parties. Id. Last, Lens.com responds that the relationship between Alcon's conduct, the harm to competition, and the damages suffered will be subject to expert testimony and opinion; and that the most knowledgeable person about these issues is Mr. Samourkachian. Id. at 6-7. Lens.com maintains it has provided a “detailed and complete description of all damages or other harms” related to the counterclaims. MDL doc. 1277 at 6. See also MDL doc. 1289 at 7-8. Upon review, I find Lens.com's response to interrogatory no. 2 deficient. I find the interrogatory is relevant and proportional for the reasons outlined in my analysis of interrogatory no. 1. See also Castro v. Fluor Daniel Servs. Corp., No. 5:19-cv-580-Oc-30PRL, 2020 WL 4474496, *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2020) (holding a plaintiff's response to an interrogatory was insufficient and explaining that “[a]t a minimum, [p]laintiff must provide a detailed calculation of all claims for any category of damage claimed, including the assumptions the calculation is based on .... plaintiff must also state the person who made the computations and the identity of any supporting documents.). Additionally, the factual basis responsive to interrogatory no. 2—description of all damages or other harm Lens.com claims was caused by the UPP—is within the possession of Lens.com. Compare Sprint Sols., Inc. v. 4 U Cell, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-605-FTM-38CM, 2016 WL 4815101, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2016) (noting that plaintiffs presented no evidence in support of an assertion that defendants had not fully disclosed information in its possession when defendants claimed they had no factual basis for their answers). Finally, that additional discovery will expand upon information provided or is available from a different source is not a way to avoid answering interrogatories. See, e.g., id. (“Plaintiffs’ opportunity to engage in depositions does not excuse [d]efendants’ duty to answer their interrogatory in good faith.”). Lens.com is directed to supplement its answer to interrogatory no. 2 with information, including a narrative response, “immediately available to it or under its control.” Essex Builders Grp, 230 F.R.D. at 685. To the extent the information sought is not in the possession of Lens.com, it should say so under oath, see id., and outline its efforts to obtain the information. Lens.com should supplement its answer to interrogatory no. 2 in accord with this order. Interrogatory No. 4 *11 Interrogatory no. 4 requests Lens.com provide “a detailed and complete description of all [its] efforts to purchase contact lenses that were subject to a UPP and any other lenses Lens.com purports to be relevant to its counterclaims.” MDL doc. 1268-6 at 10. Interrogatory no. 4 further requests Lens.com identify: 1) dates, 2) quantity, 3) product name(s), 4) potential supplier name and address, and 5) the terms for each such purchase sought or offered (including each set of terms rejected, if applicable). Id. Lens.com argues it already properly responded to interrogatory no. 4 because it produced emails, invoices, and a purchase order related to its purchase of Alcon contact lenses from its suppliers. MDL docs. 1277, 1269-8 at 10-11 (citing Bates range LENS.COM00033821–00142749 LENS.COM00143612–168829). Alcon complains that the Bates numbers identified by Lens.com amount to 134,000 pages produced in the EDNY matter—“with no further explanation,” so it is unclear how those documents respond to this matter or interrogatory no. 4. MDL doc. 1269 at 23. Alcon argues that Lens.com did not properly respond, because it “failed to provide a detailed and complete description of the efforts Lens.com undertook to purchase lenses that were subject to a UPP.” Id. at 13-14. To the extent Alcon seeks additional information, Lens.com invokes Rule 33(d); it complains that developing a complete response “is extremely burdensome” because it will “require Lens.com to gather unreasonable amounts of information about numerous purchases or attempted purchases,” that Alcon has access to the same information, and that the request is overbroad. MDL doc. 1269-8. at 10. See also MDL doc. 1277 at 6, 13-14 (arguing the interrogatory is overbroad and that although interrogatory no. 4 doesn't meet the requirements of Rule 33(d), Lens.com has “endeavored to respond to it” and identified corresponding, responsive Bates-numbered documents). Rule 33(d) provides that [i]f the answer to an interrogatory may be determined by examining, auditing, compiling, abstracting, or summarizing a party's business records (including electronically stored information), and if the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same for either party, the responding party may answer by: (1) specifying the records that must be reviewed, in sufficient detail to enable the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the responding party could; and (2) giving the interrogating party a reasonable opportunity to examine and audit the records and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries. Upon review, I do not find Lens.com properly invoked Rule 33(d). “[T]he burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer” is different for the parties; answering this interrogatory will be significantly more difficult for Alcon than for Lens.com. Id. See also Middle District Discovery (2021) at IV(C)(5) (explaining Rule 33(d) is utilized in “very limited circumstances.”). Alcon points out that the Bates range identified relates “almost entirely” to non-UPP lenses. MDL doc. 1288 at 9. Only Lens.com's counterclaims related to the UPPs are before this Court; the post-UPP antitrust claims are no longer pending in the EDNY. The interrogatory calls for a narrative response beyond just a data set. Thus, Alcon's burden of “deriving or ascertaining” the answer to interrogatory no. 4 is not the same as it would be for Lens.com. Further, even if Rule 33(d) were properly invoked here, Lens.com has not responded to interrogatory no. 4 in the way contemplated by Rule 33(d), which includes specifying the records that will be produced with enough detail that Alcon can locate and identify the records and gain the answers as quickly as Lens.com. Middle District Discovery (2021) III(A)(1) (outlining the practices to be followed when invoking Rule 33(d)). There is no evidence that Lens.com has provided Alcon with the information necessary to identify the relevant information within the 134,000-page reproduction. Compare Forte Young, Inc. v. Whiting-Turner Cont. Co., No. 6:18-cv-998-Orl-41LRH, 2019 WL 13062736, at *4 (M.D. Fla. May 17, 2019) (explaining a party's responses did not run afoul of Rule 33(d) where there were pinpoint citations along with descriptions of actions taken). Lens.com is directed to supplement its answer to interrogatory no. 4. Interrogatory No. 7 *12 In interrogatory no. 7, Alcon requests Lens.com identify its “inventory of all contact lenses that were subject to a UPP and any other lenses that Lens.com purports to be relevant to its [c]ounterclaims on a month-by-month basis.” MDL doc. 1269-8 at 9. Lens.com responds that the interrogatory is overbroad because it is not limited to a date range or time-based limitation, but that it has nevertheless “provided the data it has along these lines, both in its interrogatory responses and its document production.” MDL doc. 1269-7 at 11-12. See also MDL doc. 1277 at 14 (“Lens.com has produced all of its invoices related to its purchases of the relevant products.”). To the extent interrogatory no. 7 requests inventory of all contact lenses that were subject to a UPP on a month-by-month basis, I find the interrogatory relevant and proportional to the needs of the case because Lens.com alleges Alcon engaged in a conspiracy with other manufacturers and distributors to restrain trade by implementing UPPs and forcing non-ECP vendors into participating in the UPP or risk losing their ability to sell certain lenses to the public. TA doc. 67 ¶¶ 330, 332, 344.[8] Lens.com shall provide a more complete answer addressing both its inventory of contact lenses subject to a UPP for the relevant time frame, not just before Alcon's UPP was adopted. See MDL doc. 1269 at 23. To the extent interrogatory no. 7, however, requests Lens.com identify any other lenses that Lens.com purports to be relevant to Lens.com's counterclaims, I find such a request overbroad and not limited enough in scope. I therefore narrow the request by striking the following portion of interrogatory no. 7: “and any other lenses that Lens.com purports to be relevant to its [c]ounterclaims on a month-by-month basis.” As amended, interrogatory no. 7, reads: Identify your inventory of all contact lenses that were subject to a UPP on a month-by-month basis. Conclusion It is ordered: Alcon's Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Lens.com, Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories and Supporting Memorandum of Law, MDL doc. 1269, is granted in part, denied in part: 1. Alcon's Motion to Compel documents in response to RFP no. 1 is denied. 2. Alcon's Motion to Compel documents in response to RFP nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 is granted. On or before February 24, 2023, Lens.com shall produce to Alcon documents in its possession, custody, or control responsive to RFP nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 according to principles outlined in this order. 3. Alcon's Motion to Compel supplemental responses to interrogatories nos. 1, 2, and 4 is granted; Alcon's Motion to Compel supplemental responses to interrogatory no. 7 is also granted, as amended by this order. On or before, February 24, 2023, Lens.com shall supplement and produce to Alcon its answers to interrogatories nos. 1, 2, 4, and 7 (as amended) in accord with this order. 4. To the extent that Lens.com directs Alcon to documents previously provided in the EDNY litigation, it must reference those documents by Bates number or other identifier. *13 Ordered in Jacksonville, Florida on December 23, 2022. Footnotes [1] For ease of review, the Court will cite two Jacksonville Division dockets in this order: The larger, MDL docket No. 3:15-md-2626-HES-LLL and the docket specific to the tag-along (TA) action, docket No. 3:19-cv-706-HES-LLL. Citations to MDL doc. _____ are to 15-md-2626. Citations to TA doc. ______ are to the 19-cv-706 docket. Only some entries cited were filed on both dockets. Page number citations to docket entries refer to the CM/ECF page number, not the parties’ pagination. [2] Alcon amended the complaint on May 10, 2018. TA doc. 20. [3] On May 25, 2022, Judge Gershon also dismissed the three non-antitrust counterclaims. Id. at doc. 339 (Opinion & Order). [4] Including formulas, methods, guidelines, or factors used to determine or compute pricing. MDL doc. 1269-1 at 6, RFP no. 2 at (c). [5] Compare MDL doc. 1269-2 at 12-13 (opposing the RFP because it asked to reproduce documents and communications already produced in the EDNY) with doc. 1277 at 4 (attesting no responsive documents to RFP no. 7 exist). It also unclear whether Alcon, at this stage, maintains that there are responsive documents outstanding. Alcon does not discuss RFP nos. 7 and 8 in its reply, doc. 1288. [6] Lens.com complains that some data requested is confidential, such as customer addresses and phone numbers. MDL doc. 1289 at n.3. To the extent a customer's personal information is implicated in Lens.com's responses to any RFP outlined in this order, it may move for a protective order, to the extent there is not one in place already, covering the data at issue. Similarly, if Lens.com maintains that a response is privileged, it must follow the procedures outlined in Middle District Discovery (2015) at III(B)(9). [7] Alcon originally moved to compel Lens.com to provide more complete responses to interrogatory no. 3. Alcon indicates, however, Lens.com provided supplemental responses for certain interrogatories, but interrogatories nos. 1, 2, 4, and 7, “remain evasive and inadequate.” MDL doc. 1288 at 7. Thus, the Court views Alcon's motion, MDL doc. 1269, as it relates to interrogatory no. 3 to be withdrawn. Id. [8] To the extent Lens.com invokes Rule 33(d) in response to interrogatory no. 7, see MDL docs. 1277 at 15; 1289 at 8-9, I find its application here to be inappropriate for the reasons stated above.