Opinion
22-cv-4008-JWB-TJJ
02-01-2023
UNITED CAPITAL MANAGEMENT OF KANSAS, INC., and CHAD M. KOEHN, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL E. NELSON, Defendant.
ORDER
Teresa J. James U.S. Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Second Motion to Compel (ECF No. 363). Defendant requests the Court enter an order compelling Plaintiffs to reproduce documents in PDF format as previously ordered by the Court on November 3, 2022. Plaintiffs indicate in their Response (ECF No. 389) they uploaded “the pdf version of the contents of the thumb/flash drive as well as maintained all audio recordings into a Dropbox accessible to the Defendant,” and included a link to the materials. On January 27, 2023, the Court entered an Order (ECF No. 397) permitting Defendant to file a Reply solely for purpose of addressing whether Plaintiffs served their documents as represented in their Response. Defendant filed his Reply (ECF No. 406) on January 30, 2023. In his Reply, Defendant raises an issue with Plaintiffs' inclusion of a Dropbox link in their publicly filed Response, stating that he is unable to retrieve the documents in this manner and asks that the Response be sealed immediately to prevent public access to these documents thru the referenced link. On January 31, 2023, the Court entered an Order (ECF No. 408) requiring Plaintiffs to file a certificate of service stating the date and manner in which the thumb/flash drive referenced in their Response was served upon Defendant and the date(s) and manner(s) in which the Dropbox link(s) were sent to Defendant. Plaintiffs filed their Notice of Compliance (ECF No. 414) clarifying the date and manner of their production. With respect to the Dropbox link, Plaintiffs state they know who has logged into the link as well as who downloaded from the link. They allege Defendant accessed and downloaded the documents from the link. They further state the link was subsequently terminated for safety measures.
The Court finds Plaintiffs have sufficiently complied with the Court's prior November 3, 2022 Order (ECF No. 306) requiring Plaintiffs to “reproduce the documents discussed during the conference in PDF format.” Although it appears Plaintiffs did not produce and certify service of the documents before the November 18, 2022 deadline for doing so, the Court will excuse the late production given the intervening events during that time frame.
Defendant does not dispute that he received the thumb/flash drive produced by Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing that Defendant accessed the Dropbox link and a download was made from the link. Plaintiffs have further addressed Defendant's concerns regarding the inclusion of the Dropbox link in Plaintiffs' publicly filed Response, by showing the link is now expired and can no longer be accessed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Second Motion to Compel (ECF No. 363) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED each party bear its own costs related to the motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.