Pizana v. Sanmedica International LLC

Filing 137

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESUMPTION OF THE DEPOSITION OF SANMEDICA INTERNATIONAL 30(b)(6) (GINA DAINES). Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/14/2021. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

RAUL PIZANA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

10
11

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL RESUMPTION OF
THE DEPOSITION OF SANMEDICA
INTERNATIONAL 30(b)(6) (GINA DAINES)

Plaintiff,

8
9

No. 1:18-cv-00644-DAD-SKO

v.
SANMEDICA INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

(Doc. 111)

Defendants.

12
13

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Raul Pizana’s “Motion to Compel

14

Resumption of the Deposition of SanMedica International 30(b)(6) (Gina Daines)” (the “Motion

15

to Compel”). (Doc. 111.) Plaintiff and Defendant SanMedica International, LLC filed their joint

16

statement directed to the Motion to Compel (the “Joint Statement”), as required by this Court’s

17

Local Rule 251, on December 16, 2020. (Doc. 114.) The Court reviewed the parties’ papers and

18

all supporting material and found the matter suitable for decision without oral argument. The

19

hearing set for December 23, 2020, was therefore vacated. (Doc. 116.)

20
21
22

Having considered the Joint Statement and its exhibits, and for the reasons set forth
below, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel will be granted in part.
I.

BACKGROUND

23

Plaintiff Raul Pizana filed this putative class action on May 9, 2018, challenging the

24

advertising and efficacy of SeroVital-hgh (the “Product”), a purported Human Growth Hormone

25

(“HGH”) supplement produced by Defendant that was purchased by Plaintiff in early 2017.

26

(Doc. 53, Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”) at ¶¶ 1, 6, 9.) The Second Amended Complaint, filed on

27

November 13, 2019, asserts three causes of action: (1) a violation of California Civil Code §

28

1750, et. seq., the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”); (2) a violation of California
1

1

Business & Professions Code § 17500, et. seq., the False Advertising Law (“FAL”); and (3) a

2

violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et. seq., the Unfair Competition

3

Law (“UCL”). (SAC at ¶¶ 60–121.).

4

The crux of Plaintiff’s suit is that Defendant’s Product, despite being marketed as an

5

HGH supplement that can “make users look and feel decades—not years, but DECADES—

6

younger,” is “no more effective for its advertised purposes than a placebo[] and is therefore

7

worthless to California consumers[.]” (SAC at ¶¶ 1–5.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges:

8

(1) [T]he Product cannot increase HGH levels whatsoever, let alone by 682%; (2)
the Product does not reduce wrinkles, “decrease[] body fat,” “increase[] lean
muscle mass,” strengthen bones, “improve[] mood,” “heighten[] sex drive,” or
make “users look and feel decades . . . younger” because the oral administration
of amino acids like SeroVital does not increase growth hormone bioactivity; (3)
there is no causal link between increased HGH levels and most of the claimed
uses, including wrinkle reduction, increased lean muscle mass, stronger bones,
improved mood, [or] heightened sex drive; and (4) if SeroVital were to increase
HGH levels as claimed, it would cause significant health risks.

9
10
11
12
13

(Id. at ¶ 2.)

14

Plaintiff seeks to assert claims on behalf of a proposed class defined as:

15

17

All persons residing in California who purchased the Product for personal use and
not for resale during the time period May 9, 2014, through the present. Excluded
from the Class are Defendant’s officers, directors, and employees, and any
individual who received remuneration from Defendant in connection with that
individual’s use or endorsement of the Product.

18

(SAC ¶ 50.) On March 6, 2020, the Court entered a scheduling order that bifurcated merits from

19

class certification discovery and set a deadline of December 18, 2020, for class discovery only. 1

20

(See Doc. 74.)

16

21

On November 19, 2020, the parties commenced a remote deposition by videoconference

22

of Gina Daines (“Daines”), one of Defendant’s corporate designees pursuant to Federal Rule of

23

Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). (Volume I of Deposition Transcript of Gina Daines (“Vol. I”) at 6

24

(filed under seal); see Doc. 120, sealing order.) The deposition began at 10:17 a.m. and

25

concluded at 5:50 p.m. after reported difficulties with the document sharing program the parties

26
27
28

1 The parties agreed in their joint scheduling report that discovery in this case should be bifurcated. (See Doc. 71 at

5.)

2

1

used to display exhibits. 2 (Vol. I at 6, 207–10.) The parties agreed to resume the deposition of

2

Daines on a later date. (Id. at 209–10.)

3

On November 30, 2020, the deposition of Daines recommenced at 8:12 a.m. (Volume II

4

of Deposition Transcript of Gina Daines (“Vol. II”) at 218 (filed under seal); see Doc. 120.) The

5

questioning of Daines concluded at 9:43 a.m. after counsel for Defendant stated that Daines had

6

given seven hours of testimony on the record, as allotted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

7

(Vol. II at 267–70.) Counsel for Plaintiff responded that at least an hour during the first

8

deposition had been committed to dealing with technological difficulties “and/or argument

9

against counsel,” so additional time was warranted. (Id. at 267.)

10

The parties subsequently conferred telephonically and via email regarding more time for

11

Plaintiff to question Daines. (Doc. 114 at 4, 6, 7.) Defendant offered Plaintiff an additional hour

12

to depose Daines, which Plaintiff refused. (Doc. 114 at 4, 7.) On December 2, 2020, Plaintiff

13

filed the instant motion. (Doc. 111.)

14

II.

DISCUSSION

15

Plaintiff moves to compel the resumption of the deposition of Daines, contending that he

16

requires more time to question Daines regarding the advertising, labeling, and packing of the

17

Product, due to technological difficulties and “Defendant’s counsel’s incessant argument and

18

obstruction” during the first deposition. (Docs. 111 & 114.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

19

30(d)(1) provides:

20
21
22

Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a deposition is limited to 1
day of 7 hours. The court must allow additional time consistent with Rule
26(b)(1) and (2) if needed to fairly examine the deponent or if the deponent,
another person, or any circumstance impedes or delays the examination.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1). A party seeking a court order to extend the deposition beyond seven

23
hours must show “good cause.” See Thomas-Young v. Sutter Cent. Valley Hosps., No. 1:12–CV–
24
01410–AWI–SKO, 2013 WL 3054167, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 17, 2013); Finjan, Inc. v. Eset,
25
LLC, No. 17CV183 CAB (BGS), 2020 WL 7396551 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2020) (noting that the
26
27
28

2 Multiple breaks, some due to technological difficulties, were taken off the record throughout the day. (See Vol. I

at 18, 95, 97–98, 129, 135, 162.)

3

1

Rule 30 Advisory Committee’s notes require good cause to justify a court order expanding the

2

seven-hour time limit).

3

The Court has reviewed the transcript of the deposition and finds that defense counsel’s

4

objections were generally in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(c)(2) 3 , so no

5

additional time is warranted on that basis.

6

technological difficulties impeding the initial examination of Daines (see Doc. 114 at 3, 5), and

7

the Court finds this to be good cause to grant Plaintiff additional time. (See Rouviere v. DePuy

8

Orthopaedics, Inc., 471 F. Supp. 3d 571, 575 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (granting one extra hour to

9

conduct a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition in anticipation of “delays during the deposition in the

10

handling of exhibits by the witness and counsel”). Plaintiff does not specify how much more

11

time he needs to complete the deposition, but based on the cases to which Plaintiff cites, he

12

appears to suggest five additional hours. (See Doc. 114 at 12 (citing Kress v. PriceWaterhouse

13

Coopers, LLP, No. 2:08–cv–0965 LKK AC, 2013 WL 2421704, at *5 (E.D. Cal. June 3, 2013);

14

Rubin-Knudsen v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., No. CV 18–6227–JGB (SPx), 2020 WL 2477687,

15

at *3–4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2020); Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., No. CV049049DOCRNBX,

16

2011 WL 13128607, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2011)).)

Both parties agree, however, that there were

17

The Court finds five additional hours to be excessive and will instead grant Plaintiff an

18

additional one-and-a-half hours to complete his deposition of Daines due to time lost to technical

19

difficulties. In addition to the issue with displaying exhibits that ultimately led to the termination

20

of the first deposition (Vol. I at 203–09), the Court notes ten instances where a party’s

21

video/audio either froze or cut out, thus requiring questions and statements to be repeated (see

22

Vol. I at 17–18, 38, 41, 60, 97, 115, 123, 124–25, 130, 134). As the parties’ window for class

23

certification discovery closed on December 18, 2020 (see Doc. 74), the Court will reopen

24

discovery for the limited purpose of completing the deposition of Daines.

25

///

26
27
28

3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(c)(2) provides in part:

“An objection must be stated concisely in a
nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner. A person may instruct a deponent not to answer only when necessa ry
to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3).”
4

1
2

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

3

1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 111) is GRANTED IN PART;

4

2.

Class certification discovery is reopened to February 12, 2021, for the limited

5

purpose of allowing Plaintiff one-and-a-half hours to resume and complete the

6

deposition of Gina Daines; and

7
8

3.

The parties are directed to meet and confer, and agree on a date for Daines’
deposition, to be taken on or before February 12, 2021.

9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 14, 2021

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5