MS Health, Inc. v. Catholic Charities, Diocese of St. Petersburg, Inc., 8:20-cv-02118

MS Health, Inc. sued Catholic Charities, Diocese of St. Petersburg, Inc., alleging copyright infringement, breach of contract, and DMCA violations.
Catholic Charities served interrogatories and requests for production on Nov. 24, 2020; MS Health served initial disclosures on Nov. 30, 2020 and amended discovery responses on Jan. 25, 2021.
Catholic Charities notified MS Health of alleged discovery deficiencies; MS Health promised supplementation but produced limited supplemental material (e.g., two-page “Unofficial Certificate Preview” and some voicemails/emails).
Catholic Charities moved to compel further discovery, identifying four remaining disputes: (1) a detailed computation of a $500,000 development-fee damage claim, (2) fuller answers to Interrogatories Nos. 2 and 3, (3) documents responsive to Requests for Production Nos. 1–3 (copyright registration/application/communications), and (4) attorney’s fees for bringing the motion.
The court reviewed the supplemented responses and limited production and set the remaining issues for resolution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (MS Health)	Defendant's Argument (Catholic Charities)	Held
1. Detail of $500,000 damages computation in initial disclosures	MS Health provided an initial computation and will amend as discovery proceeds; estimates may suffice	Catholic Charities says Rule 26 requires a computation and supporting materials now, not vague statements	Granted — MS Health must provide a detailed computation and supporting materials by April 23, 2021
2. Interrogatories Nos. 2 & 3 (factual basis for access/infringement allegations)	Objection as premature contention interrogatories; provided limited facts and will supplement later	Catholic Charities contends answers lack factual detail and more exists	Denied — MS Health’s current responses were sufficient; must supplement if additional information arises
3. Requests for Production Nos. 1–3 (copyright certificate, application, communications with Copyright Office)	MS Health produced a two-page “Unofficial Certificate Preview” and said it would produce responsive non-privileged docs	Catholic Charities says the two-page document is insufficient and more responsive materials likely exist	Granted — MS Health must produce documents responsive to RFPs 1–3
4. Award of attorney’s fees for motion to compel	MS Health opposed fees, arguing partial compliance and ongoing discovery	Catholic Charities sought fees because some requests were not fully answered	Denied — court exercised discretion and ordered each party to bear its own fees

ACLU of Fla., Inc. v. City of Sarasota, 859 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2017) (discovery’s scope includes nonprivileged, relevant, and proportionate information)
Panola Land Buyers Ass’n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550 (11th Cir. 1985) (responding party must specifically demonstrate that discovery is unreasonable or unduly burdensome)