Team Cam, LLC v. Reliable Contracting Company, Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
TEAM CAM, LLC.
v.
RELIABLE CONTRACTING
COMPANY, INC., et al.
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
*
Civil No. 1:24-01545-TDC
* * *
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Now pending is Plaintiff Team Cam’s Motion to Compel Defendant Midlantic’s
responses to Team Cam’s request for production of documents. ECF 123. I have
considered the relevant matters in this case and the parties’ briefs (ECFs 123-1, 123-2,
123-3).1 I find that no hearing is necessary. See D. M. Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2025). For
the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS in part the Motion. A separate order shall
follow.
I. BACKGROUND
On May 28, 2024, Team Cam, LLC (“Team Cam” or “Plaintiff”) filed a complaint
against several companies, including Midlantic Marking, Inc. (“Midlantic” or
“Defendant”), alleging that, in violation of federal and Maryland antitrust laws, the
companies conspired to (1) “eliminate Team Cam as competitor” in the Eastern Maryland
Pavement Market; and (2) fix the asphalt prices by “impos[ing] extractive price terms on
1 Judge Theodore Chuang, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rules 301 and 302, referred
this case to me for “[a]ll discovery and related scheduling matters.” ECF 118.
Case 1:24-cv-01545-TDC Document 163 Filed 03/03/26 Page 1 of 8

2
Team Cam in the form of provisions requiring pass-through of state price adjustments
and incentives.” Complaint, ECF 1, at ¶¶ 130, 140 (“Compl.”); see also Team Cam’s
Motion to Compel, ECF 123-1, at 3 (“MTC”). As part of this alleged conspiracy, Team Cam
contends that Midlantic worked with other defendants to inhibit or eliminate Team Cam’s
bonding capacity, negatively affecting Team Cam’s ability to secure government
contracts. Compl., at ¶ 86; MTC, at 3. Defendants collectively filed a Motion to Dismiss
the claims on September 20, 2024. ECF 59. Regarding Midlantic, the Court granted in
part and denied in part the motion, dismissing the claim of conspiracy to fix asphalt prices
but allowing litigation to proceed on the claim of conspiracy to eliminate Team Cam from
the eastern Maryland paving market. ECF 79, at 29.
In discovery, among other things, Team Cam propounded requests for production
(“RFP”) on Midlantic. MTC, at 3-4. Relevant here, Team Cam argues that the responses
to RFPs 2, 3, and 8 lacked the requested email communications with co-defendants,
contained only one internal email, and lacked numerous emails between Midlantic and
Team Cam. Id. After Team Cam asserted these alleged deficiencies, the parties conferred
on September 4, 2025 without resolution. Id., at 4. The following week, Team Cam served
its Motion to Compel on Midlantic. Id. Contemporaneous with its response to the Motion
to Compel, Midlantic produced an additional 280 documents consisting of the missing
emails between Midlantic and Team Cam. Reply in Support of Motion to Compel, ECF
123-3, at 1 (Team Cam’s Reply”). Because of this late production, Team Cam requests, in
addition to an order compelling production, that the Court order Midlantic to “explain its
process for collecting and reviewing discovery and supplement its document productions
to correct the deficiencies.” Id., at 11.
Case 1:24-cv-01545-TDC Document 163 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 8

3
II. LEGAL STANDARD
“District courts enjoy substantial discretion in managing discovery, including
granting or denying motions to compel.” Pac. Life Ins. Co. v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 702
F. Supp. 3d 370, 376 (D. Md. 2023) (citing Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Alpha
of VA., Inc., 43 F.3d 922, 929 (4th Cir. 1995)). As a general matter, Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(b)(1) establishes the scope of discovery as allowing the parties to “obtain
discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or
defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” Discovery is relevant if there is “any
possibility that the information sought may be relevant to the claim or defense of any
party.” O’Malley v. Trader Joe’s East, Inc., No. RDB-19-3273, 2020 WL 6118841, at *3
(D. Md. Oct. 15, 2020) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because
relevance determines whether a matter is discoverable, “[d]iscoverable evidence is
broader than admissible evidence[.]” Est. of Bryant v. Balt. Police Dep’t, No. ELH-19-
384, 2020 WL 6161708, at *3 (D. Md. Oct. 21, 2020) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted). Where defendants have “lost their motion to dismiss, and discovery
has commenced” a plaintiff is “entitled to investigate its claims and Defendants’
defenses.” FG Hemisphere Assocs., LLC v. Democratic Republic of Congo, No.PJM-22-
2369, 2024 WL 4553371, at *3. In determining whether discovery is proportional, courts
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
whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its
likely benefit.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “The requesting party bears the burden of establishing relevance
and proportionality, while the party resisting discovery bears the burden of
Case 1:24-cv-01545-TDC Document 163 Filed 03/03/26 Page 3 of 8

4
demonstrating why discovery should not be permitted.” Hall v. Balt. Police Dep’t, No.
24-1137-RDB, 2025 WL 509130, at *6 (D. Md. Feb. 13, 2025); McNulty v. Casero, No.
SAG-16-2426, 2019 WL 5454900, at *3 (D. Md. Oct. 24, 2019) (“The party resisting
discovery generally carries the burden to ‘clarify and explain precisely why its objections
are proper given the broad and liberal construction of the federal discovery rules.’”)
(quoting United Oil Co. v. Parts Ass’n, 227 F.R.D. 404, 411 (D. Md. 2005)).
III. ANALYSIS
The Court will grant Team Cam some of its requested relief based on what appear
to be Midlantic’s inappropriate alterations to the requests’ scope and/or previous
deficient productions. This conclusion focuses on the language of the responses and the
parties’ arguments; on this second point, Midlantic does not appear to resist the RFPs as
written on proportional or burdensome grounds. And the Court is not moved by
Midlantic’s arduous denial of any wrongdoing; discovery is not dictated by the ultimate
merits of a case. However, the Court stops short of wading into the treacherous waters of
“discovery on discovery” at this point. As discussed below, should additional, specific
facts demonstrate specific, material deficiencies warranting deployment of a disfavored
mechanism, Team Cam may revisit the issue.
a. RFP 2
The Court will order additional production in response to this request because
Midlantic’s response appears to narrow the scope of the request. In essence, Team Cam
seeks communications with other co-defendants that (1) relate to “Team Cam, its bids or
projects, asphalt supply to Team Cam, [or] Ryan Blades,” or (2) otherwise relate to “any
of the allegations contained in the Complaint.” MTC, at 22, Exhibit 1. Midlantic
responded to the RFP noting its intent to produce responsive communications “related to
Case 1:24-cv-01545-TDC Document 163 Filed 03/03/26 Page 4 of 8

5
road striping, which is Midlantic’s business.” Midlantic’s Response, ECF 123-2, at 7
(“Midlantic’s Response”). The Court finds this verbiage inappropriate. It may be that all
of Midlantic’s documents relate to road striping because that is the only topic of any
business record it has. Or it may not. Its alteration of the language provides little comfort
that reality is the former, not the latter. Further, Team Cam’s concerns appear justified
by both Midlantic’s narrowing of the language and its initial deficient production that it
supplemented after receiving the pending Motion to Compel. To resolve the parties’
disagreement about what the RFP requires, the Court will grant the Motion on RFP 2.
Midlantic should produce all non-privileged communications with any defendant that
falls within the scope of the RFP as read by the Court.
b. RFP 3
The Court will compel further action for many of the same reasons above.
Primarily, Midlantic’s response being tethered to “road striping, which is Midlantic’s
business” fails as incongruous with the scope of the request. Midlantic’s Response, at 9.
While Midlantic could ultimately prevail in its insistence that as a road striping
competitor, it had no part in the alleged conspiracy, that intention does not justify its
response. If anything, it raises doubt that may not otherwise exist had Midlantic provided
a small set of documents after acknowledging the breadth of the request as written.
Midlantic should produce all non-privileged communications with any defendant that
falls within the scope of the RFP as written, regardless of whether the documents involve
the road striping business. So long as documents “concern the allegations in the
Complaint, the Action, or its subject matter,” they are responsive. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1); Team Cam’s Reply, at 8.
Case 1:24-cv-01545-TDC Document 163 Filed 03/03/26 Page 5 of 8

6
c. RFP 8
Midlantic shall also search for and produce, to the extent they exist, documents
related to bond claims filed by Team Cam. Midlantic claims that it responded as such,
despite first claiming that the RFP is flawed by including this language. Midlantic’s
Response, at 9-10. Thus, this issue may be moot. But to the extent that Midlantic comes
into possession of any documents that may involve claims by Team Cam (including
through discovery of any other archives), it must supplement its production in accordance
with its discovery obligations.
d. The request for “discovery on discovery”
The Court exercises great caution before ordering “discovery on discovery.” LKQ
Corp. v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 345 F.R.D. 152, 161-62 (N.D. Ill. 2023) (“Discovery on
discovery should be the exception, not the norm.”). Since the 2015 amendments placed
proportionality at the “center stage,” discovery about a producing party’s efforts to
preserve evidence or respond to requests—“discovery on discovery”—is disfavored but
permitted in limited circumstances. Black v. W. Va. State Police, No. 3:22-cv-96, 3:22-
cv-203, 2023 WL 4834948, at *9-10 (S.D.W. Va. July 27, 2023). Across the nation, courts
express concern about such discovery continuing ad infinitum—and undermining the
focus on proportionality—when permitted without close scrutiny, if at all. See LKQ, 345
F.R.D. at 161-62 (collecting authority). Nonetheless, courts may venture, carefully, down
this path “‘where a specific deficiency is shown in a party’s production, or where a party’s
efforts to comply with proper discovery requests are reasonably drawn into question.’” FS
Med. Supplies, LLC v. TannerGAP, Inc., No. 21-501-RJC-WCM , 2024 WL 4896697, at
*2 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 26, 2024) (quoting Black, 2023 WL 4834948, at *10); see also LKQ,
345 F.R.D. at 163 (requiring “specific and tangible evidence of a material failure of an
Case 1:24-cv-01545-TDC Document 163 Filed 03/03/26 Page 6 of 8

7
opponent’s” discovery obligations before authorizing discovery on discovery); Freedman
v. Weatherford Int’l Ltd., No. 12-2121-LAK-JCF, 2014 WL 4547039, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y.
Sept. 12, 2014) (discovery on discovery requires an “adequate factual basis”
demonstrating “specific reasons for believing that . . . production [was] deficient” (quoting
Freedman v. Weatherford Int’l Ltd., No. 12-2121, 2014 WL 3767034, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July
25, 2014) and then quoting Orillaneda v. French Culinary Inst., No. 07-cv-3206, 2011
WL 4375365, at *6-7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2011))).
To Team Cam’s credit, it identifies specific deficiencies in Midlantic’s sparse first
production based on the presence of responsive documents involving Midlantic that were
produced by other defendants. Team Cam’s Reply, at 6. And the fact that Midlantic
supplemented that production with a much larger number of documents raises some
question about its initial efforts and practices. Even so, the Court will not order the
requested collateral discovery at this time. Midlantic’s production occurred under too
narrow a construction of Team Cam’s RFPs. Now informed that it must supplement its
responses based on the Court’s construction, Midlantic has an opportunity to conduct a
proper search of items in its possession, custody, and control and to comply with its
discovery obligations. However, against the backdrop of the previous specified deficiency,
sufficient evidence of future deficiencies may warrant some limited inquiry. See Argopex
Int’l, Inc. v. Access World (USA) LLC, No. ADC-19-1232, 2021 WL 3090901, at *3 (D. Md.
May 20, 2021) (ordering a defendant to describe its discovery process and certify its
results when Plaintiff showed the court that Defendant should have produced certain
documents based on its discovery from third parties); Mayor & City Council of Baltimore
v. Priceline.com, Inc., No. MJG-08-3319, 2010 WL 11552861, at *2 (D. Md. Feb. 5, 2010)
Case 1:24-cv-01545-TDC Document 163 Filed 03/03/26 Page 7 of 8

8
(ordering an explanation regarding paper document retention and preservation in light
of demonstrated production failures).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Compel (ECF 123) is GRANTED in (large)
part. Midlantic shall supplement its discovery responses consistent with the Court’s
construction set forth above. However, Midlantic is not required, at this time, to provide
information about its document retention and search practices.
Date: March 3, 2026
/s/
Charles D. Austin
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:24-cv-01545-TDC Document 163 Filed 03/03/26 Page 8 of 8