1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-23104-Civ-WILLIAMS/TORRES

WOODARD-CM, LLC,

a Delaware limited liability 

company,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SUNLORD LEISURE PRODUCTS, INC.

d/b/a PATIO RENAISSANCE,

a California corporation,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

 DISCOVERY ORDER

This matter was before the Court on Plaintiff’s, Woodard-CM, LLC (“Plaintiff”) 

request for a discovery hearing to compel better discovery responses, which was held 

on Thursday, January 28, 2021 (the “Notice”). The Notice pertained to Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Compel Discovery, and more specifically, to compel the Defendant Sunlord 

Leisure Products, Inc. d/b/a Patio Renaissance (“Defendant”) to provide full and 

complete responses and accompanying documents to Plaintiff’s First Request for 

Production and First Set of Interrogatories (collectively Plaintiff’s “Motion”). The 

parties reached agreement on the following Order, together with supplemental 

rulings from the Court. The Court announced its rulings on the disputed issues on 

the record. This Order memorializes those rulings and the parties’ agreed disposition 

of the remaining issues. The Court being otherwise advised in the premises, it is 

Case 1:20-cv-23104-KMW Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2021 Page 1 of 5
2

hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED as follows:

2. Defendant has represented that on January 27, 2021, Defendant 

produced all electronically stored information from August 29, 2019, with the 

exception of any electronically stored information that Defendant believes may be 

protected by the attorney/client privilege, based upon the search terms Plaintiff’s 

counsel provided to defense counsel on Tuesday, January 5, 2021, and that those 

search terms were applied across the following custodians’ electronic devices: Ching 

Chuan Lin, Ai Ping Luo a/k/a Albert Lord, Julia Yang, Alex Chiu, Alisha Ortiz, and 

Mark Gorr. Plaintiff’s Motion on this issue is therefore rendered moot. 

3. Through the parties’ meet and confer discussions, Defendant has 

confirmed that it will amend its responses to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production 

and First Set of Interrogatories, and withdraw the boilerplate objections asserted in 

response to Nos. 12, 26, 27, 28, 36, 37, 46-51, 56, 57, 58, and 59, and Plaintiff’s First 

Set of Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 7, and 9. Defendant has also confirmed that it is not 

withholding any documents based upon those objections, which Defendant will 

withdraw by no later than Thursday, February 4, 2021.

4. Through the parties’ meet and confer discussions, Defendant has 

confirmed that by no later than Thursday, February 4, 2021, Defendant shall either

provide amended responses to Interrogatory Nos. 10, 11, 12, and 13 (which fully 

answer those interrogatories in written form), or identify by specific bates-number 

which documents in Defendant’s production contain the responsive information as it 

Case 1:20-cv-23104-KMW Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2021 Page 2 of 5
3

relates to those specified interrogatories. See Rubenstein Law, P.A. v. Friedman Law 

Assocs., P.L., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42163, at *8 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2017) 

(“Defendants are directed to supplement their responses to Interrogatories Number 

4, 5, and 6 to specifically identify responsive documents by Bates label.”).

5. Through the parties’ meet and confer discussions, Defendant has 

confirmed that by no later than Thursday, February 4, 2021, Defendant will provide 

full and complete responses to Interrogatory Nos. 8, 9, 13, and 14. See Developmental 

Techs., LLC v. Valmont Indus., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43765, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 

31, 2016) (“An evasive or incomplete answer to an interrogatory is treated as a failure 

to answer.”). More specifically:

a. Defendant shall fully identify the legal entity or entities, and the 

address(es) of the company or companies that Defendant referred to 

as “Prestige Patios” or “Prestige Patio” in response or affidavits 

submitted in response to Plaintiff’s expedited motion for 

preliminary injunction. See Interrogatory No. 8. To the extent that 

the affidavits incorrectly referred to “Prestige Patio,” rather than 

other entities, Defendant will identify the legal entity or entities that 

it claims it intended to refer to. 

b. Defendant shall fully identify the legal, familial, and business 

relationships, including but not limited to ownership, between 

Sunlord and Prestige, including all their subsidiaries, affiliated 

companies under common control, and related companies, as well as 

Sunlord’s employees, officers, and directors, and if known, Prestige’s 

employees, officers, and directors. See Interrogatory No. 9.

c. Defendant shall identify for each of Defendant’s Products(s), each 

person or entity in the chain of distribution from manufacturers and 

importers, to vendors or suppliers of products or product components, 

to wholesale or retail outlets or distributors at which the public may 

purchase obtain the products or services. Defendant’s response shall 

include individual names, and each person’s specific role in the 

distribution chain. See Interrogatory No. 13.

Case 1:20-cv-23104-KMW Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2021 Page 3 of 5
4

d. Defendant shall describe and specify how it arrived at the 

determined that the “Aberdeen line of patio furniture is 

manufactured, sold and distributed by Prestige Patio.” See 

Interrogatory No. 8.

6. In certain of Plaintiff’s Requests for Production and First Set of 

Interrogatories, Plaintiff requested documents and information from January 1, 2018 

to the present. Defendant objected to the temporal scope of certain requests, and 

instead provided information “from August 29, 2019, the effective date of the 

Settlement Agreement, to the present.” The Court sustained Defendant’s objection 

and found that the presumptive discovery period under the current complaint begins 

August 29, 2019. That ruling is without prejudice to later reconsideration as to 

specific individualized requests/issues or based upon amended pleadings that may be 

filed. That ruling also applies to only party discovery that was at issue at the hearing. 

Third party discovery is not affected by that limitation. 

7. Through the parties’ meet and confer discussions, Plaintiff and 

Defendant have resolved the issue relative to Plaintiff’s award of attorneys’ fees and 

costs pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5). By no later than March 1, 2021, Defendant shall pay 

$2,000.00 to the Plaintiff, which shall be sent to Plaintiff’s counsel’s office. See 

Airbnb, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57274, at *5 (S.D. Fla. 

Apr. 3, 2019); see also Procaps S.A. v. Patheon Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170299, 

at *11-13 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 3, 2013) (“An award is required even if the non-producing 

party ultimately agrees to produce discovery. That's because the Rule also includes a 

provision for an award if ‘the disclosure or requested discovery is provided after the 

motion was filed.’”).

Case 1:20-cv-23104-KMW Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2021 Page 4 of 5
5

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 28 day of 

January, 2021.

___________________________________

EDWIN G. TORRES

United States Magistrate Judge

Copies furnished to: All Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-23104-KMW Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2021 Page 5 of 5