BORDER STATES INDUSTRIES INC v. NISEWONGER et al

Page 1 of 22
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
BORDER STATES
INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
ERIC NISEWONGER, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________/
ORDER
The parties in this trade secrets misappropriation case are before the Court
once again on yet another discovery dispute – Defendant Gateway Electrical Supply,
LLC’s (“Gateway”) motions to compel better answers to interrogatories and requests
for production from Plaintiff Border States Industries, Inc. (“Border States”). Docs.
96, 97. Despite instructing the parties to act reasonably and cordially, and to engage
in a good faith meet-and-confer, even suggesting they talk in-person at the
conclusion of the June 29, 2026 hearing, and offering the courtroom for them to do
so, it appears the Court’s instructions have yet again fallen on deaf ears. The parties
did not narrow the issues in the motions to compel in any meaningful way – they
continue to disagree on every request for production and interrogatory that has been
served. Thus, the Court will resolve the issues for them.
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 108 Filed 07/08/26 Page 1 of 22

Page 2 of 22
Case No. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
After thoroughly reviewing and considering the motions and Border States’
omnibus response (Doc. 103), as well as the individual discovery requests at issue,
the Court finds the motions to compel should be GRANTED as set forth herein.
Border States shall provide amended discovery responses, including a privilege log,
by no later than July 10, 2026.
I. 	Objections and Other Issues that Permeate the Responses
Gateway 	has 	filed 	two 	motions: 	a 	Motion 	to 	Compel 	Answers 	to
Interrogatories (Doc. 96) and a Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for
Production (Doc. 97) from Border States. In the motions, Gateway takes issue with
the entirety of Border States’ responses, from its general objections to the manner in
which Border States produced documents, to Border States’ habit of answering each
discovery request only after lodging a lengthy missive of objections. The Court will
first address the issues attendant to all the responses and then address the specific
discovery responses.
A. Responding “Subject to” objections or “Without waiving” objections
In most of Border States’ discovery responses, Border States lodges a host of
objections, incorporates the general objections, and then responds “subject to” or
“without waiving” the objections. Gateway argues this is improper and results in a
waiver of any objections. The Court agrees.
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 108 Filed 07/08/26 Page 2 of 22

Page 3 of 22
Case No. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
As Gateway argues, the practice of lodging objections and nonetheless
responding is disfavored and, generally, results in a waiver of the objections. 	See
Ellis v. Pilot Travel Ctrs. LLC, No.: 4:19cv219-MW/CAS, 2019 WL 13198255, at
*2 (N.D. Fla. Sep. 26, 2019) (finding that the practice of providing discovery
responses “subject to” or “without waiving” objections is improper and preserves
nothing); see also In re: 3M Combat Arms Earplug Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 3:19-md-
2885, 2020 WL 8617616, at *2 (N.D. Fla. July 17, 2020) (“These objections are also
disfavored and a legal nullity to the extent Bellwether Plaintiffs responded to the
interrogatories, even though the responses were purportedly ‘subject to and without
waiving’ the objections because that exclusion means nothing.”); Nationwide Mut.
Fire Ins. Co. v. Kelt, Inc., 2015 WL 1470971, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2015)
(“Courts in this district and elsewhere have explained that producing documents (or
saying that no responsive documents exist) ‘notwithstanding’ objections preserves
nothing and wastes the time and resources of the parties and the court.”) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
With regard to requests for production, such responses fail to inform the
requesting party of whether the discovery requests, as propounded, were fully
answered; whether Border States withheld any material; or which documents were
withheld based on which objection. See Network Tallahassee, Inc. v. Embarq Corp.,
4:10cv38RH/WCS, 2010 WL 4569897 at *1 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 20, 2010) (noting that
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 108 Filed 07/08/26 Page 3 of 22

Page 4 of 22
Case No. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
this type of response allows an “unscrupulous attorney” to withhold “properly
discoverable information – a smoking gun document, for example – and assert later
that he did nothing dishonest because he had, after all, objected to the discovery
request and simply withheld the information based on the (unwaived) objection.”).
Border States argues in its response that this issue is moot because it has
produced or is actively producing all non-privileged, relevant documents. Doc. 103
at 10. 	The Court finds this response to be insufficient. 	Because Border States
contends that it is not withholding any documents from production, other than those
that might be privileged, Border States shall amend its responses to RFPD Nos.
1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15-34, 40-41, to withdraw all objections, except objections
based on the attorney-client or work product privileges, as applicable, and for
any document withheld on the basis of such privilege, shall contemporaneously
produce a privilege log. If Border States does not have documents responsive
to a request, such as to RFPD 24 and 25 because those have not been identified,
then it shall state so in the supplemental response. 	If Border States has
produced documents, it shall identify the documents by description or, if
available, by Bates number (see Section I.F., below). And, if Border States has
responsive documents which it has not produced, those shall be produced by
July 10, 2026.
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 108 Filed 07/08/26 Page 4 of 22

Page 5 of 22
Case No. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
Border States provides similar responses to interrogatories. 	That is, after
lodging a host of objections, Border States responds, “without waiving the foregoing
[objections].” See Doc. 96-2 at 8-9 (response to Interrogatory No. 3). Border States
argues that this practice is acceptable because the objections are not boilerplate
objections, but specific objections, and it is not waiving the objections by responding
to that part of the interrogatory to which no objection is lodged. The Court finds that
argument to be unpersuasive.
While Border States is correct that Rule 33 provides that “Each interrogatory
must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing,”
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 (emphasis added), that is not what Border States has done.
Border States objects to multiple parts of an interrogatory, and then when it
responds, it is not clear which part it is responding to because the objections swallow
the response.
For example, Interrogatory No. 3 simply asks Border States to “identify all
recorded or written statements by any party or potential witness in this lawsuit.”
Border States’ response, however, is anything but simple. 	First, Border States
incorporates all its general objections, then it objects because the interrogatory
exceeds the 25-interrogatory limit when considered with other interrogatories and
their subparts; then it objects to the terms “recorded,” “written,” “statements,”
“potential witnesses,” and “lawsuit” as vague and ambiguous; then it objects to the
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 108 Filed 07/08/26 Page 5 of 22

Page 6 of 22
Case No. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
interrogatory as irrelevant and overly broad, and finally it objects to the extent the
request seeks information in the possession, custody, or control of the defendants.
After all those objections, Border States identifies a few documents it already
provided to the Court, “without waiving the foregoing” objections. Doc. 96-2 at 9.
This practice of responding “notwithstanding objections” does not work for
requests for production and it does not work for interrogatories. 	See Tallahassee,
2010 WL 4569897, at *1 (a “party may object to discovery or not, but the party
cannot have it both ways”); Se. Power Corp. v. Brady, 2023 WL 3791466, at *1
(M.D. Fla. June 2, 2023) (“in general, answering a discovery request subject to an
objection is improper, and courts have found this tactic to result in a waiver of the
party’s objections”); see also, Elite Mitigation Servs., LLC v. Westchester Surplus
Lines Ins. Co., No. 5:19-CV-381-TKW/MJF, 2020 WL 6122069, at *3 (N.D. Fla.
Apr. 10, 2020) (“an answer that is made ‘subject to or without waiving an objection’
is routinely found to have waived the objection”); Sharbaugh v. Beaudry, No. 3:16-
cv-126/MCR/EMT, 2017 WL 5988221, at *4 (N.D. Fla. May 5, 2017) (collecting
cases).
Border States shall amend its interrogatory responses as set forth below
in Section II.B.
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 108 Filed 07/08/26 Page 6 of 22

Page 7 of 22
Case No. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
B. General Objections
Border States begins its response to Gateway’s discovery requests with a
number of “General Objections” that it then “incorporates and adopts” into each
specific response. Doc. 96-2 at 2-4; Doc. 97-2 at 1-3. The Court agrees that this is
improper and violates the Local Rules, which state “an objection to an interrogatory,
production request, or admission request must be set out specifically for the
individual interrogatory, production request, or admission request; an objection
cannot be set out generally for an entire set of discovery requests.” N.D. Fla. Loc.
R. 26.1(C) (emphasis added); see also All. Laundry Sys., LLC v. Adams, 2024 WL
3831409, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 15, 2024) (“‘General Objections’ violate the Local
Rules and are improper”). 	Border States’ General Objections “are akin to no
objection at all and fail to provide a basis for refusing to provide [Gateway] with the
requested discovery.” Id.
In Border States’ response, it states that the dispute over the “General
Objections” is moot because it has withdrawn its General Objections. If that is the
case, then Border States should have provided amended responses making that clear.
It shall do so now. Border States shall provide amended responses which remove
all reference to General Objections.
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 108 Filed 07/08/26 Page 7 of 22

Page 8 of 22
Case No. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
C. Objections Based on Vagueness or Ambiguity
Border States objects to some discovery requests as “vague or ambiguous,”
contending that it cannot “determine the nature of the information sought.” See e.g.,
Doc. 96-2 at 5. Gateway argues Border States must explain why the terms are vague
and should respond to the interrogatories based on the terms’ common meaning. The
Court agrees.
Border States must identify the term(s) it contends are vague or ambiguous
and explain why the term(s) are vague or ambiguous.1 See Cosby v. MHM Health
Prof’ls, LLC, No.5:20-cv-69-TKW/MJF, 2020 WL 13902554, at *2 (N.D. Fla. May
11, 2020) (“The party objecting to discovery as vague or ambiguous has the burden
to show such vagueness or ambiguity by demonstrating that ‘more tools beyond
mere reason and common sense are necessary to attribute ordinary definitions to
terms and phrases.’”) (quoting Thomas v. Cate, 715 F. Supp. 2d 1012, 1030 (E.D.
Cal. 2010)).
Also, Border States should respond to the discovery based on the terms’
ordinary and common meaning and state the definition they are using in the
response. 	See Elite Mitigation Servs., LLC v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co.,
No. 5:19-CV-381-TKW/MJF, 2020 WL 6127140, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2020) (“A
1 As explained further below, objecting to a request as “vague and ambiguous” without more
explanation may also be considered a “boilerplate” objection, which is highly disfavored.
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 108 Filed 07/08/26 Page 8 of 22

Page 9 of 22
Case No. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
party responding to discovery requests ‘should exercise reason and common sense
to attribute ordinary definitions to terms and phrases utilized in [discovery requests]
... . 	If necessary, to clarify its answers, the responding party may include any
reasonable definition of the term or phrase at issue.”) (citing Patrick v. Teays Valley
Tr., 297 F.R.D. 248, 258 (N.D. W. Va. 2013); Moss v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of
Kan., 241 F.R.D. 683, 697 (D. Kan. 2007); Pulsecard, Inc. v. Discover Card Servs.,
Inc., 168 F.R.D. 295, 310 (D. Kan. 1996)).
Border States responds that this issue is moot because it has responded to these
requests just as Gateway has asked. For example, in its response to RFPD No. 15,
Border States objected to the word “access” as vague, then stated (after other
objections) that it would “produce based on its interpretation and understanding of
what is responsive.” Doc. 97-2 at 23. Despite Border States’ contention otherwise,
such a response is not sufficient. Using its response to RFPD No. 15, as an example,
Border States does not explain why the term “access” is vague and responding
“based on its interpretation and understanding” does not tell Gateway how Border
States interpreted or defined the term or what it understood the request to mean.
Moreover, as discussed above, because the response was made “subject to” the
objections, it is not clear what Border States produced, if anything, in response to
the request.
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 108 Filed 07/08/26 Page 9 of 22

Page 10 of 22
Case No. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
D. Boilerplate Objections
Border States raised several objections that Gateway argues are “boilerplate”
objections, such as objections to requests as “irrelevant,” “unduly burdensome,”
“overly broad in time and scope,” or “vague and ambiguous.” 	See, e.g., Doc. 96-2
at 17. Border States admits boilerplate objections are not favored in this district but
argues that its objections are specific to each discovery request and are not
boilerplate. 	See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 26.1(C) (“Boilerplate objections are strongly
disfavored.”); 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	33(b)(4) 	(“The 	grounds 	for 	objecting 	to 	an
interrogatory must be stated with specificity.”) (emphasis added); Fed. R. Civ. P.
34(b)(2) (“For each item or category, the response must 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.”) (emphasis added).
Based on the Court’s review of the disputed discovery responses, the Court
finds the objections are impermissible boilerplate objections. 	Take Border States’
response to RFPD No. 30, for example, which Border States points to as an example
of how its objection is “specific” and not boilerplate. RFPD No. 30 asks for “each
document that evidences and relates to the presence of a USB drive or lack thereof
on the Nisewonger Device at any time during the period from January 1, to August
5, 2025.” Doc. 97-2 at 38. Border States objects to the request as “overbroad and
unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks all documents identifying or relating
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 108 Filed 07/08/26 Page 10 of 22

Page 11 of 22
Case No. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
to the referred to USB device without regard to whether those documents have any
bearing on this Action.” 	Id. at 39. 	Contrary to Border States’ assertion otherwise,
that response leaves a lot to be “decod[ed]” and does not make clear “the basis for
any objections or what is withheld.” Doc. 103 at 7. First, the explanatory phrase is
a relevancy objection - not a breadth or burden objection. Second, it is not clear why
the request is overly broad – it is limited to the insertion of a USB device within an
8-month period. Third, it is not clear why this request is burdensome – what does
Border States have to do to find responsive documents? 	Fourth, it is not clear
whether there are even any responsive documents to produce or any that are being
withheld.
Just because Border States may have provided some purportedly explanatory
language with respect to a few of its objections, that does not make the objection any
less boilerplate. See Harvard v. Inch, No. 4:19cv212-MW/CAS, 2020 WL 701990,
at *2 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2020) (finding that boilerplate objections are improper
because “they do not provide Plaintiffs a reasonable roadmap to correct any defect
in their requests before asserting their remedies through a motion to compel.”); see
also, Walton Constr. Co., LLC. v. Corus Bank, No. 4:10cv137-WS/CAS, 2012 WL
13029592, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 18, 2012) (a responding party must explain the
“specific 	and 	particular 	ways 	a 	request 	is 	vague, 	overly 	broad, 	or 	unduly
burdensome,” when such objection is raised).
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 108 Filed 07/08/26 Page 11 of 22

Page 12 of 22
Case No. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
E. Interrogatory Subparts
Border States objects to all interrogatories on the basis that they consist of
“numerous discrete subparts, or compound or conjunctive questions,” and thereby
violate the 25-interrogatory limit prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
33(a)(1). Because Border States does not specifically identify for each interrogatory
to 	which 	this 	objection 	is 	raised 	how 	many 	subparts 	are 	contained 	in 	the
interrogatory, or explain why the subparts do not meet the “related to” test,2 this
objection is not properly raised. 	The objection is, therefore, overruled and
considered waived. 	See Rivera v. 2K Clevelander, LLC, No. 16-21437-Civ, 2017
WL 5496158, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 2017) (boilerplate objections are no
objections at all and thus waived).
F. Document Dump
Gateway argues Border States engaged in an improper “document dump” by
producing approximately 30,000 documents or files without specifying which
documents and files are responsive to which RFPs.
2 When determining whether any subparts of an enumerated interrogatory are discrete, courts in
the Eleventh Circuit apply the “related question” test, where they ask whether “the subparts are
subsumed and necessarily related to the primary question.” In re: 3M Combat Arms Earplug Prod.
Liab. Litig., No. 3:19-md-2885, 20ff.20 WL 2029977, at *4; see also, Am. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Omega
Flex, Inc., 2016 WL 7188894, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 12, 2016) (interrogatories “containing
subparts directed at eliciting details concerning a ‘common theme’ should generally be considered
a single question”).
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 108 Filed 07/08/26 Page 12 of 22

Page 13 of 22
Case No. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
Despite the Court’s admonition at the June 29 hearing that Border States
should ensure that it identifies what documents are responsive to which request,
Border States continues to engage in playground antics. Border States maintains it
has no obligation to tie the documents to a particular request (Border States clearly
disregarded the Court’s admonition) and then proceeds to point the finger at
Gateway, yelling across the playground, “they did it too” – referring to Gateway’s
most recent production. Both arguments fall flat.
First, as Border States acknowledges, Rule 34(b)(2)(E) requires a producing
party to produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or to
organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i). Rule 34 applies to documents and to ESI. 	Id. 	Although Border
States contends it has satisfied the Rule by producing documents as they are kept in
the ordinary course of business, even so, “the production cannot be simply a
relentless document dump intended to hide the ball or obfuscate the discovery
process.” See United States ex rel. Edler v. Escambia County, 2022 WL 23011221,
at *2; see also Henderson v. Holiday CVS, L.L.C., 2010 WL 11505168, at (S.D. Fla.
Aug. 11, 2010) (Rule 34(b) “requires the production provide the requesting party
with the requisite information they need to match the documents to their requests.”).
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 108 Filed 07/08/26 Page 13 of 22

Page 14 of 22
Case No. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
Second, Border States’ failure to identify which documents are responsive to
which request is particularly problematic here since it is wholly unclear from Border
States’ responses what they have produced, will produce, or are withholding.
Border States shall amend its discovery responses to specifically identify
by either Bates number, when available, or by description, what documents are
responsive to which request.
II. 	Rule 26
The starting point for most discovery disputes is Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(b), which sets forth the scope of discovery in civil litigation. Under
Rule 26, parties are entitled to discover information relevant to the parties’ claims
and defenses in the case. 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); McArdle v. City of Ocala, FL,
451 F. Supp. 3d 1304, 1308 (M.D. Fla. 2020) (“Relevancy and proportionality are
the guiding principles [of Rule 26.]”).
“Relevance in the context of discovery ‘has been construed broadly to
encompass 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.’” 	Marbury v. Warden,
2022 WL 17175549, at *2 (11th Cir. Nov. 23, 2022) (quoting Oppenheimer Fund,
Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978)). 	“Though information need not be
admissible in evidence to be discoverable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), ‘the
discovery rules do not permit [parties] to go on a fishing expedition.’” 	Turner v.
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 108 Filed 07/08/26 Page 14 of 22

Page 15 of 22
Case No. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
Office Depot, Inc., 2019 WL 11278355, at *2 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 25, 2019) (quoting
Porter v. Ray, 461 F.3d 1315, 1324 (11th Cir. 2006)).
Whether information is relevant, however, does not end the inquiry under
Rule 26. The discovery at issue must also be “proportional to the needs of the case,
considering 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 or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Although relevance should be broadly construed, under the 2015
amendments to Rule 26, the Court must weigh those liberal standards against
proportionality considerations. 	See In re Arby’s Rest. Group Inc. Litig., 2018 WL
8666473, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 16, 2018).
A court has considerable discretion in determining whether discovery is
relevant and proportional. 	See e.g., United States v. Esformes, 2018 WL 3617311,
at *4 (S.D. Fla. July 20, 2018); see also Pediatric Servs. of Am., Inc. v. Kendrick,
2019 WL 7347183, at *2 (N.D. Fla. June 12, 2019) (courts have broad discretion in
deciding discovery disputes). Having reviewed the interrogatories and the requests
in dispute, which were not otherwise resolved above, the Court finds as follows:
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 108 Filed 07/08/26 Page 15 of 22

Page 16 of 22
Case No. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
A. 	Requests for Production
Request No. 	The Court’s determination
No. 3 	Border States’ objections are overruled. 	Border States shall
respond to the request as narrowed by Defendants to produce
documents identifying the duties or job description of each person
who had authorized access to a trade secret Border States alleges
Defendants misappropriated. 	Border States does not have to
produce biographies for those individuals.
No. 7 	Border States’ objections are overruled. 	Border States shall
produce responsive documents to the request as narrowed by
Defendants to documents that “evidence or reflect whether any
part of an alleged trade secret includes any information that can be
obtained by a third party from one of Plaintiff’s vendors or
customers.” Just because information may be a trade secret even
though some of its parts are publicly available does not mean that
the requested information has no relevance to this litigation. 	See
SCIGRIP, Inc. v. Engineered Bonding Solutions, Inc., 2015 WL
13792807, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 9, 2015) (“Information that is
publicly accessible or readily ascertainable … cannot qualify for
trade secret protection.” … “An allegation that a trade secret
‘derives economic value from not being readily ascertainable by
others,’ is required under the [Florida] statute.”).
No. 9 	Border States’ objections are overruled. Border States’ contention
that a request, which seeks to ensure that what Border States
alleges is a trade secret has not been disclosed to a third party,
could include information shared with counsel for purposes of
legal advice and thus, objectionable, is absurd. 	If that is Border
States’ concern, it could have easily addressed that in a meet and
confer. Had Border States considered this request using common
sense, rather than an adversarial lens, it would have easily
deciphered the purpose behind this request, which is the same as
Request 	No. 	7. 	Border 	States 	shall 	produce 	responsive
documents.
No. 13 	Border States’ objections are overruled. Border States alleges in
this case that it has been harmed by Defendants’ misappropriation
of trade secrets, including in the form of lost business, interference
with Border States’ business operations, damage to reputation,
and costs in securing client accounts. Doc. 79 at 47, ¶ 194. This
request seeks documents supporting that damages claim – it is
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 108 Filed 07/08/26 Page 16 of 22

Page 17 of 22
Case No. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
Border States’ obligation to support its damages, not Gateway’s.
Border States shall produce responsive documents.
No. 14 	Border States’ objections are overruled for the same reasons the
objections to RFPD No. 9 were overruled. Also, the Court does
not see how such a request could implicate emails about Border
States’ SAP software or references to a client on a client list.
Gateway seeks communications between Border States and a third
party reflecting the alleged trade secret. 	Border States had not
identified the identity of its customers or the SAP program as such
a trade secret. Border States shall produce responsive documents.
No. 26 	Border States shall amend its responses to withdraw its objections
to this request and to the extent any documents are withheld based
on privilege, unless otherwise agreed, those documents shall be
identified on a contemporaneously produced privilege log.
Nos. 35-37 	Gateway’s motion is denied as to these requests. Gateway has not
shown how these requests are relevant or proportional under Rule
26. The reason(s) the Individual Defendants may have left Border
States’ employment or why other individuals left have no bearing
on whether Defendants misappropriated trade secrets.
No. 38-39 	Border States’ objections are overruled. 	The motion to dismiss
has been denied. 	Regardless, discovery is not automatically
stayed pending a motion to dismiss, and Border States never
moved for a stay. See Zarnesky v. Adidas America, Inc., 2021 WL
3729230, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 10, 2021) (“There is no general
rule that discovery be stayed while a pending motion to dismiss is
resolved.”).
B. 	Interrogatories
As discussed above, the Court finds Border States has waived its objections
to any interrogatory exceeding the 25-interrogatory limit because of subparts. With
regard to Border States’ other objections, the Court finds as follows:
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 108 Filed 07/08/26 Page 17 of 22

Page 18 of 22
Case No. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
Interrogatory
No.
The Court’s determination
No. 1 	Border 	States 	shall 	amend 	its 	responses 	to 	answer 	this
interrogatory without objection, and now that the Court has
granted the request to modify the protective order to include an
attorney’s eyes only designation, shall include in its amended
answer 	the 	requested 	information 	regarding 	the 	“industry
counterpart.”
No. 2 	Border 	States 	shall 	amend 	its 	responses 	to 	answer 	this
interrogatory without objection.
No. 3 	Border States’ objections are overruled. 	Border States shall
amend 	its 	responses 	to 	answer 	this 	interrogatory 	without
objection. See discussion under Section I.A., above.
No. 4 	Border States’ objections are overruled. Once again, rather than
taking a reasonable and commonsense approach to answering this
interrogatory, Border States attempts to manufacture an issue
where there is none. 	This interrogatory does not contain 85
discrete subparts; the request for the date the trade secret was
maintained as such, the location of the trade secret, and the form
of the trade secret “elicit details” concerning the trade secret. See
The Mitchell Co., Inc. v. Campus, 2008 WL 2468564, at *7 (S.D.
Ala. June 16, 2008) (because “each subpart requests information
relating to the relationships identified by Plaintiff in response to
the 	interrogatory,” 	they 	are 	“directed 	at 	eliciting 	details
concerning 	a 	common 	theme” 	and 	thus 	are 	not 	separate
questions); 	see 	also, 	Oliver 	v. 	City 	of 	Orlando, 2007 	WL
3232227, at *2–3 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2007) (finding subparts
seeking names, addresses, claim numbers, and amounts paid as
“logically related to the information sought in the primary
question to be counted as a single interrogatory”). Border States
shall amend its responses to answer this interrogatory without
objection.
No. 5 	Border States’ objections are overruled for the same reasons its
objections 	to 	Interrogatory 	No. 	4, 	and 	RFPD 	No. 	3 	were
overruled. Border States shall amend its response to answer this
interrogatory without objection.
No. 6 	Border States’ objections are overruled. 	Border States shall
amend 	its 	responses 	to 	answer 	the 	interrogatory 	without
objection.
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 108 Filed 07/08/26 Page 18 of 22

Page 19 of 22
Case No. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
No. 7 	Border States’ objections are overruled. 	Border States shall
amend 	its 	responses 	to 	answer 	this 	interrogatory 	without
objection and shall provide in the amended answer the identity of
the policies and procedures and security plans or software that it
used to protect the alleged trade secrets.
No. 8 	Border States’ objections are overruled. 	Border States shall
amend its responses to answer the interrogatory without objection
and shall provide a complete answer. Border States’ reference to
Interrogatory No. 4 is not a sufficient response. 	These two
interrogatories are not duplicative and do not seek the same
information.
No. 9 	Border States’ objections are overruled for the same reasons its
objections to RFPD. No. 7 were overruled. 	Border States shall
amend 	its 	responses 	to 	answer 	the 	interrogatory 	without
objection.
No. 10 	Border States’ objections are overruled for the same reasons its
objections to RFPD No. 13 were overruled. Border States shall
amend 	its 	responses 	to 	answer 	the 	interrogatory 	without
objection.
No. 11 	Border States’ objections are overruled for the same reasons its
objections to Interrogatory No. 4 were overruled. Border States
shall amend its responses to answer the interrogatory without
objection.
No. 12 	Border States’ objections are overruled for the same reasons its
objections to Interrogatory No. 4 were overruled. Border States
shall amend its responses to answer the interrogatory without
objection. Additionally, Border States is the one who brought this
action – it cannot, therefore, contend that Defendants know more
about Border States’ claims than it does. 	It is not Defendants’
burden to meet the elements of a misappropriation of trade secrets
claim.
No. 13 	Border States’ objections are overruled. 	Border States shall
amend 	its 	responses 	to 	answer 	the 	interrogatory 	without
objection.
No. 14. 	Border States’ objections are overruled. 	While Border States
contends it always intended to produce a damages expert report,
that, alone, does not obviate the need for Border States to answer
this question to the extent that it is aware of the categories of
damages it seeks without expert assistance. Moreover, rather than
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 108 Filed 07/08/26 Page 19 of 22

Page 20 of 22
Case No. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
saying that such information will be identified by its damages
expert, Border States stated that it “will not respond” to this
Interrogatory. Border States shall amend its responses to answer
the interrogatory without objection.
No. 15 	Border States’ objections are overruled for the same reasons its
objections to RFPD No. 13 were overruled. Border States shall
amend its responses to answer the interrogatory without objection
and shall provide a full and complete response, not one that is
limited solely to lost business.
No. 16 	Border States’ objections are overruled. 	Border States shall
amend 	its 	responses 	to 	answer 	the 	interrogatory 	without
objection.
No. 17 	Border States’ objections are overruled. 	Border States shall
amend 	its 	responses 	to 	answer 	the 	interrogatory 	without
objection.
No. 18 	Border States’ objections are overruled. 	Border States shall
amend 	its 	responses 	to 	answer 	the 	interrogatory 	without
objection.
No. 19 	Border States’ objections are overruled. 	Border States shall
amend 	its 	responses 	to 	answer 	the 	interrogatory 	without
objection.
No. 20 	Border States’ objections are overruled. 	Border States shall
amend its responses to answer the interrogatory without objection
and shall include in its amended answer a “yes” or “no” response
to whether it contends a USB storage device was connected to the
Nisewonger Device at any time between January 1 to August 5,
2025.
No. 21 	Border States’ objections are overruled. 	Border States shall
amend its responses to answer the interrogatory without objection
and shall include in the amended answer the time Nisewonger left
the branch, if known, (not just when he resigned) and the basis
for Border States’ determination.
No. 22 	Border States’ objections are overruled. 	Border States shall
amend its responses to answer the interrogatory without objection
and shall include in the amended answer the time Bradford, Jr.
left the branch (not when he was terminated), and the basis for
Border States’ determination.
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 108 Filed 07/08/26 Page 20 of 22

Page 21 of 22
Case No. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. 	Gateway’s Motions to Compel (Docs. 96, 97) are GRANTED to the
extent set forth herein.
2. 	Border States shall provide supplemental or amended responses as
directed herein to Gateway by no later than July 10, 2026.3
3. 	Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(A), the Court finds Gateway is entitled to its
reasonable expenses incurred in filing the motions, including attorney’s fees, and
does not find Border States’ responses or objections to be substantially justified.4
See Doc. 75 at 9 (“The Parties are advised that the Court shall award reasonable fees
and costs or impose sanctions against the losing party to a discovery motion unless
the Court finds the losing party’s position was substantially justified”). 	Thus, as
required by that Rule, Border States and their counsel shall reimburse Gateway for
those expenses. Within fourteen (14) days of this Order, the parties shall meet and
confer regarding those expenses, and if they cannot agree on an amount, Gateway
shall file a motion seeking those expenses within twenty-one (21) days of this Order,
and Border States shall file a response to the motion within three (3) days of service
3 The parties may agree to a different date but if they do so, they shall not be heard to complain of
it later or request any extensions based on that agreement.
4 The Court also previously advised the parties that it would be awarding fees and costs to the
prevailing party in future discovery disputes. Doc. 100 at 2.
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 108 Filed 07/08/26 Page 21 of 22

Page 22 of 22
Case No. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
of Gateway’s motion. If Gateway does not file a timely motion, the Court will deem
this matter as resolved.
DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of July, 2026.
/s/ Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 108 Filed 07/08/26 Page 22 of 22