ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY REGARDING QUALCOMM'S RESPONSES TO APPLE'S SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

[ECF NO. 404]

MITCHELL D. DEMBIN, Magistrate Judge.

This Joint Motion was filed on April 4, 2018. The dispute involves Qualcomm's responses to 60 requests for production ("RFPs"). Apple does not challenge any specific response; it challenges all of them for not meeting the requirements of Rule 34, Fed. R. Civ. P. Qualcomm asserts that taken in context, considering that these RFPs are duplicative of earlier RFPs and considering the lengthy correspondence between the parties regarding Qualcomm's search methodology, its responses are sufficient.

LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize parties to obtain 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). "Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable." Id. District courts have broad discretion to limit discovery where the discovery sought is "unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).

A party may request the production of any document within the scope of Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). "For each item or category, the response must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state an objection to the request, including the reasons." Rule 34(b)(2)(B). If the responding party chooses to produce responsive information, rather than allow for inspection, the production must be completed no later than the time specified in the request or another reasonable time specified in the response. Id. An objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. Rule 34(b)(2)(C). An objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection or production of the rest. Id.

DISCUSSION

In this dispute, Apple is not challenging any particular production or withholding by Qualcomm. Apple's complaint is that the responses to these 60 RFPs are deficient as a matter of law under Rule 34, Fed. R. Civ. P. Apple asserts that it cannot tell what is being produced or withheld in response to these RFPs. Qualcomm responds that, in context, its responses are sufficient. Qualcomm has supplied to the Court, in a sealed filing, its correspondence with Apple regarding its approach to managing the hundreds of RFPs served, this far, in this case. The Court has reviewed the RFPs at issue, the responses, the arguments of the parties and the materials filed under seal.

Apple is correct that if viewed in vacuum, these responses are deficient. But, this is not a vacuum. The Court has held a hearing and a status conference regarding discovery in this matter and has ruled on several discovery disputes. The Court is familiar with the context behind this dispute.

Taken in context, the Court finds Qualcomm's responses sufficient under Rule 34. Apple's main thrust is that it cannot determine whether documents are being withheld. Qualcomm asserts that Apple has been provided a detailed explanation of Qualcomm's search parameters which, by exclusion, describe what it is not searching for. Documents outside of the search parameters are not being produced and need not be further described. See Rowan v. Sunflower Elec. Power Corp., No. 15-cv-9227-JWL-TJJ, 2016 WL 3743102 *5 (D. Kan. July 13, 2016). Qualcomm has stated that its production regarding these and the related RFPs will be completed by May 11, 2018. Apple has not challenged that assertion.

CONCLUSION

Apple's motion to compel, as presented in this Joint Motion, is DENIED.