Chavez v. Blue Sky Natural Beverage Co. et al

Filing 292

ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUR-REPLY (Dkt. Nos. 272, 289). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 10/11/2011. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/12/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

CHRIS CHAVEZ, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
BLUE SKY NATURAL BEVERAGE
CO., et al.,

Case No.: 06-06609 JSW (JSC)
ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AND (2)
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUR-REPLY
(Dkt. Nos. 272, 289)

Defendants.

17
18

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions. (Dkt. Nos. 258, 287.)

19
20

Plaintiff requests “monetary, evidentiary and instructional sanctions” on the grounds that

21

Defendants’ late and deficient production of documents prejudiced Plaintiff by preventing him

22

from taking depositions and authenticating documents. Defendants respond that Plaintiff’s

23
24

motion is untimely, Defendants did not engage in discovery violations, and Judge Chen

25

already ruled against Plaintiff on these issues. After a careful review of the materials provided

26

by both parties, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED, although the Court will allow Plaintiff limited

27
28

1
2

discovery to address the prejudice to Plaintiff from Defendants’ belated production of three
documents.

3
4

BACKGROUND
1.

Procedural History

5
6

Plaintiff Chavez brings this action on behalf of himself and other individuals who

7

purchased any beverage in the United States bearing the Blue Sky mark or brand, alleging that

8

Defendants mischaracterized New Mexico as the origin of the “Blue Sky” beverage line. This

9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12
13

action was initially brought in San Francisco superior court, but Defendants subsequently
removed the case to federal court. The district court thereafter granted Defendants’ motion to
dismiss. (Dkt. No. 40.) On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. (Dkt. No. 50.)
The district court later granted Plaintiff’s motion for class certification (Dkt. No. 120), and by

14
15

order filed September 27, 2011, the court denied Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ motions for

16

summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 291.)

17

After the case was remanded from the Ninth Circuit, Plaintiff again raised discovery
18
19

issues initially made in a motion to compel filed before the lawsuit was dismissed. (Dkt. Nos.

20

58, 36.) The district court thereafter ordered Defendants to comply with certain of Plaintiff’s

21

discovery requests. Specifically, the district court directed Defendants to “on or before

22
23

October 15, 2009, produce documents in response to the outstanding document requests listed

24

in Doc #58 at 2. In the event of further dispute regarding the adequacy of defendants’

25

production, the parties shall bring the matter to the court’s attention . . . not later than October

26
27

30, 2009.” (Dkt. No. 61.) The document requests to which the order referred were Hansen

28

2

1
2
3

Beverage Company production numbers 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-20 and Blue Sky Natural Beverage
Company production numbers 4 and 6-9. (Dkt. No. 58 at 2.)
On October 30, 2009, Plaintiff contacted the district court to enumerate complaints

4
5
6
7

about Defendants’ compliance with the court’s order. (Dkt. No. 73.) Defendants
acknowledged that several discovery disputes remained, but denied wrongdoing. (Dkt. No.
74.) After additional briefing and a hearing, the district court issued a second order on

8
9

December 30, 2009, which compelled Defendants to produce certain documents. Although

Northern District of California

Plaintiff requested sanctions, the district court deferred a ruling “until defendants are given an

11
United States District Court

10

opportunity to comply with the compelled production. If defendants’ supplemental

12

production is unsatisfactory, plaintiff may serve and file a memorandum requesting the court
13
14
15

to decide whether sanctions may be appropriate.” (Dkt. No. 87 at 7.)
Discovery closed on September 3, 2010. Under Civil Local Rule (“L.R.”) 37.3, any

16

motion to compel fact discovery must be filed not more than seven days after the fact
17
18

discovery cutoff. Plaintiff filed no such motion but instead, on November 11, 2010, filed a

19

“Motion for Discovery Sanctions.” (Dkt. No. 170.) Among other things, Plaintiff complained

20

that notwithstanding the district court’s 2009 orders, Defendants refused to identify which

21
22

sources of discoverable material they had examined, but it was nonetheless apparent that

23

Defendants had “failed adequately to search for and produce discoverable materials from even

24

easily accessible sources.” (Dkt. No. 170 at 2.) Defendants opposed Plaintiff’s contentions

25
26
27
28

(Dkt. No. 177), and the district court referred the issue to then-Magistrate Judge Chen, who
considered substantial briefing by both sides (Dkt. Nos. 171,177, 192, 198-201, 205-06, 21327, 230, and 244) and held two hearings on these and other discovery issues.
3

1

Judge Chen issued an order on January 26, 2011 and another on February 1, 2011

2

disposing of all pending motions, including the motion for discovery sanctions. (Dkt. Nos.

3

236, 247 (the “Orders”).) Among other directions, the court ordered Defendants to search

4
5
6
7

their central file server for searchable documents based on the custodian and search list agreed
to by the parties and to search the local hard drives of additional custodians as agreed upon by
the parties. (Dkt. No. 236 at 2.) The court did not, however, award any sanctions. (Dkt. Nos.

8
9

236, 247.) Indeed, at oral argument the court explained that he was not “sympathetic to

Northern District of California

hearing a sanctions motion . . . because that should have been addressed by traditional motions

11
United States District Court

10

to compel.” (Dkt. No. 209 at 4:11-13.)

12

Defendants appear to have complied with Judge Chen’s order; indeed, Plaintiff notes

13
14

that after Judge Chen’s order, Defendants produced “an additional 11,633 pages of

15

documents, which dwarfs the 8270 pages of documents they had produced in the entire case

16

until that point.” (Dkt. No. 258 at 1.) Plaintiff nonetheless filed a further motion on April 8,

17
18

2011 seeking enforcement of the Orders and additional relief (Dkt. No. 258), which led to

19

additional briefing by both parties (Dkt. Nos. 262-63, 266, 269, 271-72) as well as

20

administrative motions (Dkt. Nos. 268, 270, and 272), all of which were transferred to this

21
22

Court on June 9, 2011. (Dkt. No. 274.) At the request of the Court, the parties filed a joint

23

statement outlining eight issues ripe for decision by this Court. (Dkt. No. 278.) The Court

24

held a hearing on July 7, 2011 which resolved all the issues, except for issues 6-7, related to

25
26
27
28

4

1
2

Plaintiff’s renewed request for sanctions, and issue 8, related to the cost of discovery.1 (Dkt.
No. 282.) The remaining issues are as follows:

3

6.

Whether the Court should recommend an adverse inference instruction, similar
to the instruction plaintiff referenced in Dkt. #258, pp. 14-15?

7.

Whether the Court should award Plaintiff attorneys’ fees and costs in the
amount of $137,516.67?

4
5
6
7

(Dkt. No. 278 at 2.)

8

Following the hearing, the parties filed supplemental briefs on Plaintiff’s sanctions

9
10

request (Dkt. Nos. 283, 287), and Defendants moved to file a sur-reply. (Dkt. No. 289.)

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

DISCUSSION

12

There are two sanctions issues before this Court: whether an adverse inference is

13
14

appropriate and whether monetary sanctions in the form of attorneys’ fees and costs are

15

warranted. At the July 7, 2011 hearing, and in light of Judge Chen’s denial of Plaintiff’s

16
17

November 2010 sanctions request, the Court limited Plaintiff’s sanctions motion to the

18

argument that documents Defendants produced in response to Judge Chen’s January and

19

February 2011 orders reveal that Defendants did not comply with the district court’s August

20

2009 discovery order and that Plaintiff has been prejudiced by the failure—in other words, to
21
22

arguments that Plaintiff could not have made to Judge Chen in connection with his earlier

23

orders.

24

1. The Newly Produced Documents

25

Plaintiff complains that it was not until March 2011, in response to Judge Chen’s

26
27
28

Orders, that Defendants produced over 11,000 pages of documents, including at least three
1

As neither party briefs issue 8, the Court concludes the parties resolved this issue among themselves.
5

1
2
3

material documents that should have been produced earlier. First, Defendants belatedly
produced “Talking Points” related to the design of the Blue Sky cans because, Plaintiff
alleges, Defendants initially unreasonably narrowed their electronic search query in local hard

4
5

drives to documents that matched “Blue Sky and Santa Fe and (New Mexico or N.M. or

6

NM).” Second, Defendants failed to search the documents of custodian Russell Stirmell, who

7

was Defendants’ former Midwest Regional Sales Manager, until ordered by Judge Chen to do

8
9

so. After the ordered search, Defendants produced what Plaintiff contends is a material email

Northern District of California

from Mr. Stirmell dated August 23, 2006. Finally, Defendants failed to produce an email

11
United States District Court

10

from Marketing Vice President Gregg Arends to website designer The Buddy Group, which

12

Plaintiff contends is highly relevant. Plaintiff asserts that all of these documents should have
13
14

been produced, at the latest, in response to the district court’s 2009 orders. Plaintiff therefore

15

argues he is entitled to an adverse instruction and monetary sanctions because Defendants’

16

late production cost Plaintiff the ability to take depositions about the documents or even
17
18
19

authenticate them. (Dkt. Nos. 258 at 5-7, 287.)
2. The Requested Sanctions

20
21
22
23

a. Adverse Inference
“An adverse inference instruction may be appropriate where a party’s bad faith or gross
negligence has resulted in either the spoliation of evidence or failure to turn over relevant

24
25

evidence.” Karnazes v. County of San Mateo, 2010 WL 2672003 at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 2,

26

2010). In Karnazes, despite repeated court orders to do so, the plaintiff failed to make her

27

treating physician available for deposition and failed to produce the physician’s treatment

28

6

1

notes. Here, Plaintiff cites numerous examples to justify a finding that Defendants acted in

2

bad faith or with gross negligence (Dkt. No. 258 at 14), but even assuming Plaintiff is correct

3

that the district court’s 2009 orders required Defendants to produce all electronically stored

4
5
6
7

information (“ESI”), including responsive documents located on Defendants’ central server,
the argument that Defendants should be sanctioned for failing to do so were expressly made to
and ruled on by Judge Chen. (Dkt. Nos. 170, 174, 226, 244.) The only new issue—production

8
9

of documents in response to Judge Chen’s orders and any prejudice arising from the content

Northern District of California

of these newly produced documents—does not justify the adverse inference Plaintiff seeks.

11
United States District Court

10

Plaintiff is, in effect, asking the Court to impose an adverse inference sanction because

12

Defendants complied with Judge Chen’s orders.

13
14
15

Although Plaintiff speculates as to what documents may have been destroyed or not
produced, there is no evidence of spoliation at this juncture. See Hamilton v. Signature Flight

16

Support Corp., 2005 WL 3481423 at *8 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2005) (stating that to determine
17
18

prejudice in the context of spoliation, the test “is whether there is a reasonable possibility,

19

based on concrete evidence, that access to the evidence which was destroyed or altered, and

20

which was not otherwise obtainable, would produce evidence favorable to the objecting

21
22
23
24

party”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
b. Monetary Sanctions
Plaintiff also “renews his previous request” for attorney’s fees and costs in the amount

25
26
27
28

of $137,516.67. (Dkt. No. 258 at 15.) This is the amount of sanctions Plaintiff requested in
his November 2010 motion for sanctions. He contends that such monetary sanction is
mandatory under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2).
7

1
2
3

As explained above, however, Judge Chen previously ruled on Plaintiff’s November
2010 motion in two orders after additional briefing and two hearings, and he chose not to
order monetary sanctions; instead, he ordered Defendants to perform additional searches and

4
5

produce additional documents. (Dkt. Nos. 236, 247.) Plaintiff now makes the same

6

argument he made then: that Defendants made “inadequate, half-hearted and belated efforts to

7

search for electronic or paper documents.” (Dkt. No. 170-1 at 28.) The only difference is that

8
9

in response to Judge Chen’s Orders issued in response to Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions,

Northern District of California

Defendants now have produced relevant, material documents. Thus, without forthrightly

11
United States District Court

10

saying so, or complying with Local Rule 7-9, Plaintiff is essentially asking this Court to

12

reconsider Judge Chen’s implicit denial of Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions. Plaintiff gives this

13
14

Court no reason to do so. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s renewed request for monetary sanctions is

15

denied.

16

c. Prejudice From the Late Production
17
18
19
20

While the Court concludes that an adverse inference and monetary sanctions are not
appropriate in these circumstances, the bottom line is that Defendants produced certain
relevant and responsive documents long after the discovery cut-off. While Plaintiff bears

21
22

some of the responsibility for this delay, Defendants, too, share responsibility as they had to

23

be ordered—at least four times—to produce responsive discovery. (Dkt. Nos. 61, 87, 236,

24

247.) The question then is what to do about Plaintiff’s asserted inability to authenticate and

25
26
27

obtain information about the three material documents produced in March 2011. Now that it
is apparent that—short of a negotiated resolution—the case is going to trial, the Court

28

8

1
2
3

concludes that the proper approach is to allow limited, narrow discovery regarding these three
documents.
Accordingly, the parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding additional limited

4
5
6
7

discovery on the three documents, should Plaintiff desire to proceed with such discovery.
First, the parties should consider the question of authentication, an issue that can be addressed
by stipulation. Second, the parties should address the question of the authorship and approval

8
9

of the “Talking Points.” This, too, is a question that can be addressed informally by

Northern District of California

stipulation, and the Court encourages the parties to consider such a resolution. Third, the

11
United States District Court

10

parties should discuss depositions, if necessary, of Russell Stirmell and Gregg Arends. Any

12

such limited discovery shall take place forthwith. The parties are therefore ordered to provide
13
14

the Court with a written joint status report on any further limited discovery arising from the

15

three documents on or before October 21, 2011.

16

CONCLUSION
17
18
19
20

For the reasons explained above, the Court in its discretion denies Plaintiff’s motion for
monetary and other sanctions. Plaintiff, however, is allowed to take limited discovery on the
three material documents identified in Docket No. 258 as discussed above. The parties shall

21
22

provide the Court with a joint written update on such discovery and their meet and confer

23

efforts on or before October 21, 2011. Defendants’ motion for leave to file a sur-reply (Dkt.

24

No. 289) is GRANTED.

25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 11, 2011

_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28

9