The opinion of the court was delivered by: Alan Kay United States Magistrate Judge
This case was referred to the undersigned for the resolution of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. (See Judge Richard W. Roberts Order  at 2; Pl.'s Supp. Mem. .) Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Memorandum on December 21, 2011, seeking to compel Aegis Defence Services Limited ("Aegis UK") to produce four categories of documents. (Pl.'s Supp. Mem. at 2-3.) Aegis Defense Services, LLC ("Aegis LLC") and Aegis UK (collectively, "Defendants") filed a Response objecting to Plaintiff's demand for production. (Defs.' Response.  at 2.) The undersigned held a hearing regarding the parties' briefings on August 2, 2012. Upon consideration of the Supplemental Memorandum and Response, and for the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
On May 25, 2004, the U.S. Department of the Army awarded Contract No. W911SO-04-C-002 ("Contract") to Aegis UK for the period from June 1, 2004, through November 30, 2007. (Aegis LLC's Mot. for Summary Judgment  at 5.) The Contract was negotiated and signed in the United Kingdom. (Id. at 2.) Pursuant to the terms of the Contract, Aegis UK provided security-management services, protective services, and anti-terrorism support to various entities involved in reconstruction efforts in Iraq. (Id. at 5.)
On June 3, 2005, United States Sergeant Khadim Alkanani ("Plaintiff") was returning from an intelligence mission in Baghdad to the United States Military Facility ("Facility") at the Baghdad International Airport. (Pl.'s Compl.  at 2.) Plaintiff's vehicle approached a military checkpoint approximately one mile from the Main Gate of the Facility. (Id.) Shortly after Plaintiff's vehicle travelled through the checkpoint, an unidentified Aegis UK security guard fired his weapon at Plaintiff's vehicle. (Id. at 3.) One of the bullets struck Plaintiff in the right foot. (Id.)
As a result of these events, Plaintiff filed a complaint on August 24, 2009 in the District of Columbia against Aegis UK and Aegis LLC. (Pl.'s Compl. at 1.) Aegis UK is based in London, England, and incorporated under the laws of England and Wales. (Deposition of Jeffery Day [17-1] at 1.) Aegis UK owns a 99% share of Aegis LLC. (Id. at 4.) Aegis LLC was incorporated in Delaware on May 30, 2006, with its principal place of business in the District of Columbia.*fn1 (Id.; Aug. 2, 2012 Hr'g.) Defendant Aegis UK filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and Aegis LLC filed a motion for summary judgment. (Joint Status Report  at 1.) Plaintiff, in his Opposition, made substantive arguments, but also argued that Defendants had not yet produced documents that would aid Plaintiff in making a showing of personal jurisdiction. (Pl.'s Opp. to Aegis UK's Mot. to Dismiss  at 7; Pl.'s Opp. to Aegis LLC's Mot. for Summary Judgment  at 9.) Judge Richard W. Roberts, the trial court judge, denied both motions without prejudice and referred the discovery dispute, styled as a motion to compel, to a magistrate judge. (Judge Roberts' Order,  Nov. 30, 2011 at 2.)
Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Memorandum asking Aegis UK to produce the following four categories of documents to establish personal jurisdiction:*fn2
1. Income Tax Returns for the last seven (7) years for the United States, any State, local municipal government, and the Country of England.
2. Communications, correspondence, and contracts in reference to Paragraph No. 34, of the Declaration of Jeffrey Day, stating that "Prior to the incorporation of Aegis, LLC, Aegis UK subcontracted this recruiting and vetting work to an unrelated third party based outside the District of Columbia."
3. A list of all vendors that Aegis UK has conducted business with, for the last seven (7) years, and
4. A list of all United States customers that Aegis UK has conducted business with, for the last seven (7) years.
(Pl.'s Supp. Mem. at 5-6.)
Regarding Plaintiff's first request, Defendant objects to producing any income tax returns. (Defs.' Response at 2.) Relating to Plaintiff's second request, Defendants agree to "produce a contract, redacted to remove confidential business information, showing that the unrelated third party referred to by Mr. Day was based in the State of Georgia," but objects to producing further information regarding activities outside the District. (Id. at 6.) Regarding Plaintiff's third and fourth requests, Defendant notes that it has already produced lists of its vendors and customers in the ...