Chavez v. Blue Sky Natural Beverage Co. et al

Filing 145

ORDER Re 142 Parties' Joint Letter of August 27, 2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on 9/3/2010. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2010)

Chavez v. Blue Sky Natural Beverage Co. et al

Doc. 145

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. BLUE SKY NATURAL BEVERAGE CO., et al., Defendants. ___________________________________/ CHRIS CHAVEZ, Plaintiff, ORDER RE PARTIES' JOINT LETTER OF AUGUST 27, 2010 (Docket No. 142) No. C-06-6609 VRW (EMC) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The Court has received the parties' joint letter dated August 27, 2010. Having considered that letter, the Court hereby rules as follows. (1) Interrogatory No. 17 (3d Set). This interrogatory concerns whether or not certain

information related to Defendants' "other beverages" should be provided. Plaintiff means "other beverages" to be only those beverages that are of the same type as Blue Sky beverages -- e.g., natural sodas. "Other beverages" do not include the Monster Energy line, which apparently represents 90% of Defendants' sales. According to Plaintiff, it needs the information about "other beverages" to show that Blue Sky products were sold at a premium because targeted to niche purchasers. Defendants note that they have produced to Plaintiff the price lists for their "other beverages" and argue that these lists should be "sufficient to show any price differential and `premium' that may exist between [the] brands." Joint Letter at 2. Plaintiff in turn contends that the price lists are not sufficient because they show only standard prices for standard quantities "without

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

showing the real price sold to particular distributors, taking into account discounts, rebates, etc." Joint Letter at 2. Plaintiff adds that there is no burden on Defendants to provide the information about "other beverages" as they are already providing the information for the Blue Sky products and Defendants may obtain the information for the "other beverages" simply by expanding their query. Defendant has not explained or documented the burden posed on Defendants were it to provide information about the "other beverages" as that term has been clarified by Plaintiff. Hence, the documentation Plaintiff seeks shall be produced. (2) Interrogatories No. 17 (4th Set) and 18. Defendants have stated that they will provide

responses. Therefore, it is, as a practical matter, irrelevant whether or not Plaintiff previously asked for the information in other discovery requests. (3) Request for Production No. 17. As a practical matter, it does not appear that there is

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

any dispute remaining because Defendants have stated that they will provide responses to Interrogatories Nos. 17 (3d Set), 17 (4th Set), and 18, with respect to the Blue Sky products. (4) Request for Production Nos. 21 and 22. The Court shall not require Defendants to

produce documents. The information to be produced in subjects (1) - (3) is sufficient. The information sought by RFP Nos. 21 and 22 will be of little additional probative value. (5) Request for Production No. 23. Defendants shall produce or certify that they have

already produced the price lists for the "other beverages." This order disposes of Docket No. 142.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 3, 2010 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States Magistrate Judge

2