Prusin v. Canton's Pearls, LLC et al

Filing 51

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 45 Motion to Modify Discovery Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Gallagher on 3/28/2017. (dass, Deputy Clerk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHAMBERS OF
STEPHANIE A. GALLAGHER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

101 WEST LOMBARD STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201
[phone]
Fax [phone]

March 28, 2017
LETTER TO COUNSEL
RE:

Kristofer Prusin v. Canton’s Pearls, LLC, (d/b/a “Canton Dockside”), et al.;
Civil No. JKB-16-605

Dear Counsel:
On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff Kristofer Prusin filed a complaint against Defendants
Canton’s Pearls, LLC (d/b/a “Canton Dockside”) and its owner, Eric K. Hamilton, under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and Maryland State law. [ECF No. 1]. Presently pending is
Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify the Discovery Order and to Compel Discovery, and the opposition
and reply thereto. [ECF Nos. 45, 47, 49]. No hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D.
Md. 2016). For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s Motion will be GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART.
I.

BACKGROUND

On May 17, 2016, Judge Bredar entered a scheduling order providing a discovery
deadline of October 17, 2016. [ECF No. 7]. On July 28, 2016, Judge Bredar extended the
discovery deadline to November 17, 2016. [ECF No. 12]. On October 7, 2016, Plaintiff served
Defendants with a set of discovery requests seeking the production of all gross income receipts
for the years 2013 through 2015. [ECF No. 17, Ex. 1]. On November 7, 2016, the parties
submitted a joint status report informing the Court that they would be unable to complete
discovery by November 17, 2016. [ECF No. 19]. On November 9, 2016, the Court approved the
parties’ joint status report and ordered that dispositive motions were to be due 30 days after the
new discovery deadline as modified by the Court. [ECF No. 20].
On February 7, 2017, the Court held a hearing to set a revised scheduling order and
resolve the parties’ discovery issues. [ECF No. 43]. Following the hearing, the Court entered a
revised scheduling order providing a discovery deadline of April 20, 2017. [ECF No. 44]. On
February 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion. [ECF No. 45].
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) permits discovery of “any nonprivileged matter
that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). In determining proportionality, the Court must consider “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

Kristofer Prusin v. Canton’s Peals, LLC, (t/a “Canton Dockside”), et al.
Civil No. JKB-16-605
March 28, 2017
Page 2
whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Federal Rule 34, which governs requests for document production, permits
parties to request the production of any documents or electronically stored information within
another party’s possession, custody, or control. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a).
III.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff asks this Court to (1) modify its revised scheduling order, and (2) to compel
Defendants’ production of Canton Dockside’s Quickbooks data. [ECF No. 45]. Defendants join
Plaintiff’s scheduling requests, but contend that they are not required to produce Canton
Dockside’s Quickbooks data because Plaintiff has failed to adequately specify the records he
seeks to compel. [ECF No. 47].
Beginning with the proposed schedule modifications, Plaintiff requests that the Court
“allow [him] until May 1, 2017 to file [his] rebuttal report,” and until May 19, 2017 to file
“supplementation of the expert reports.” [ECF No. 45]. Plaintiff also seeks to extend the close
of discovery to May 31, 2017. Id. Defendants do not object to Plaintiff’s request to extend the
rebuttal report deadline, and join Plaintiff’s other proposed scheduling order modifications.
[ECF No. 47]. Additionally, Defendants “specifically request an extension for their expert
supplements deadline to May 19, 2017.” Id. In light of the parties’ agreement, Plaintiff’s
proposed schedule modifications will be GRANTED. The following schedule shall control the
progress of the case: (1) Plaintiff’s rebuttal expert report will be due on May 1, 2017; (2)
supplementation of the parties’ expert reports will be due on May 19, 2017; and (3) the discovery
deadline will be May 31, 2017.
Turning to the parties’ discovery dispute, Plaintiff seeks to compel production of
Defendants’ Quickbooks data. Specifically, Plaintiff “requests ‘the regular back up copy’ (not
the accountant version) of Canton Dockside’s Quickbooks account, in electronic format.” [ECF
No. 45]. In response, Defendants argue that “Plaintiff’s counsel’s demand…completely
disregards the Court’s direction for a ‘specific indication’” of the records it requests. [ECF No.
47]. I agree that Plaintiff has failed to adequately specify the Quickbooks records he seeks to
compel. Notably, on February 7, 2017, the Court held a hearing to resolve the parties’ discovery
obligations. [ECF No. 43]. At the hearing, Plaintiff requested “production of [Defendants’]
[Quickbooks] records.” [ECF No. 47, Ex. 1 at 51:2-10]. However, when pressed by the Court to
provide more specific information about the Quickbooks records he was requesting, Plaintiff
merely noted that “it would be…the financial statements.” Id. at 52:2-3. Consequently, the
Court deferred ruling on Plaintiff’s request until Plaintiff provided “a specific indication of
which particular records from QuickBooks [Plaintiff] want[ed].” Id. at 51:6-53:3. Subsequently,
following the hearing, on February 12, 2017, Plaintiff amended his request to specify that
Defendants produce “a regular back-up copy of the Quickbooks account for Canton Dockside,
for all applicable years (2013, 2014, and 2015).” [ECF No. 49, Ex. 1] (emphasis in original).
Regardless, Plaintiff still fails to adequately identify the Quickbooks records he seeks to
compel. Quickbooks programs maintain and analyze a wealth of sensitive financial information.
2

Kristofer Prusin v. Canton’s Peals, LLC, (t/a “Canton Dockside”), et al.
Civil No. JKB-16-605
March 28, 2017
Page 3
In particular, these programs generate reports that include detailed accounting records, cost and
budget reports, balance sheets, profit-and-loss statements, sales data, and individual customer
and vendor information. See Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., No. MJG-06-2662, 2016
WL 1597119, at *1-*11 (D. Md. Apr. 20, 2016). Accordingly, the production of entire
Quickbooks programs without further limitation is excessive in most cases in light of the amount
of irrelevant information contained therein. See id. at [ECF No. 107] (deferring ruling on claim
that defendant failed to produce its Quickbooks records without more information on records
requested); see id. at [ECF No. 131] (appointing third-party ESI consultants “to determine (1) the
information sought by [plaintiff] from [defendant’s] Quickbooks files; and (2) the structure of
those files.”). Indeed, facing a similar request in Victor Stanley, the Court ordered the requesting
party to “supply a list of specific queries for [the providing party’s Quickbooks] data,” including
the “[s]pecific date ranges,” and “[s]pecific type of information required, such as contact
between x and y, agreements between a and b, correspondence between c and d, and so forth.”
Id. at [ECF No. 135]. In this case, Plaintiff requests “a regular back-up copy of the Quickbooks
account for Canton Dockside” for years 2013-2015. [ECF No. 49, Ex. 1] (emphasis in original).
However, Plaintiff provides no additional information regarding the content or scope of this
discovery, and offers no metric by which to limit the universe of Defendants’ extensive financial
data. For example, Plaintiff fails to narrow his request to those files, folders, topics, or search
queries relevant to Defendants’ gross income receipts. Instead, Plaintiff appears to request
Defendants’ Quickbooks data in its entirety. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s amended discovery request
fails to satisfy this Court’s order that Plaintiff provide “a specific request” of the “particular
reports or printouts” sought. [ECF No. 47, Ex. 1 at 51:10- 52:10]. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion
to Compel Defendants’ Quickbooks data will be DENIED. [ECF No. 45].
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify Discovery Order, [ECF
No. 45], is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. A separate order as to the scheduling
amendments follows.
Despite the informal nature of this letter, it will be flagged as an Opinion and docketed as
an Order.
Sincerely,
/s/
Stephanie A. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge

3