DOUGLAS F. EATON, United States Magistrate Judge.

          I am responding to the August 20 joint letter from Mr. Scully and Mr. Schott (13 pages plus 16 exhibits).

          Defendants complain that plaintiffs have given discovery that is incomplete in three categories. Defendants make very strained arguments that some of the discovery is relevant to their counterclaims. For example, at page 5 of the joint letter they say: ". . . E-gold has a right to investigate the source code [of Plaintiffs] to see if Mr. Grigg, or perhaps Mr. Evans, gave trade secrets to the Plaintiffs . . . ." But there is no such claim in the counterclaims. In reality, defendants are asking me to order discover which is merely relevant to the "subject matter" of this lawsuit. For this type of discovery, F. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(b)(1) requires "good cause." I find that defendants have failed to show good cause. I am satisfied that plaintiffs have provided adequate responses with respect to each of the three categories in dispute.