Brown et al v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc.

Filing 64

ORDER by Judge Beeler granting Plaintiff's request for discovery and denyuing Hain Celestial's opposition to discovery (JUDGE BEELER, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
ROSMINAH BROWN, et al.,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

No. C 11-03082 LB

Plaintiffs,

ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY
LETTER

v.
13
THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC.,

[ECF No. 52]

14
15

Defendant.
_____________________________________/

16

I. INTRODUCTION

17

Plaintiffs Rosminah Brown, on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated individuals (defined as

18

those who purchased products from Defendant during the four-year period defined in the complaint)

19

allege that Defendant The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. manufactures, distributes and/or sells in

20

California cosmetic products (also referred to as personal care products) that are marketed, labeled

21

and sold as “organic,” but that in fact contain less than 70% organic ingredients. Complaint, ECF

22

No. 1 at 13, ¶¶ 14-15.1 Plaintiffs claim that this violates California Health & Safety Code section

23

110838, California’s Unfair Competition Law, California Legal Remedies Act, and California

24

Commercial Code § 2313.

25
26

After meeting and conferring pursuant to this court’s standing order, the parties submitted a joint
letter brief regarding five discovery disputes. Broadly, Plaintiff complains that Defendant has

27
28

1

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronic page
numbers at the top of the document.
C 11-03082 LB
ORDER

1

improperly objected to Plaintiff’s discovery requests and refused to answer certain interrogatories or

2

produce the documents Plaintiff requests.

3

On August 1, 2012, after the parties filed their joint letter brief, the court issued an order denying

4

Defendant’s motion to dismiss. ECF No. 58. On the evening before the hearing in this matter,

5

Defendant filed a motion asking the court to (1) certify for interlocutory appeal its order denying

6

Defendant’s motion to dismiss and (2) stay the case during the pendency of such an appeal. ECF

7

No. 60. Bearing in mind the changes to procedural posture of the litigation, the court will address in

8

turn the discovery disputes raised in the parties’ joint letter brief.

9

II. DISCUSSION

10

A. Whether Defendant must respond to discovery at all
Defendant first argues in the letter that it should not have to produce documents while the court

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

considers Defendant’s motion to dismiss, but the court denied the motion, so the objection is moot.

13

See 7/2/12 Joint Letter Brief, ECF No. 52 at 2-3.

14

Similarly, Defendant argues that a stay is appropriate because it will seek (and now has sought)

15

leave to file an interlocutory appeal (which they have done). Id. at 3. Defendant also argues that a

16

stay is appropriate because Plaintiff intends to amend the complaint. Id. Plaintiff counters that

17

Defendant waited almost a year after stipulating to a case management schedule to bring the motion

18

to dismiss and that Defendant has not moved for a protective order or a stay. Id. at 2.

19

The court agrees with Plaintiff and sees no good cause to stay discovery entirely. Even a

20

successful interlocutory appeal (if permitted) would not necessarily dispose of all Plaintiff’s claims.

21

For example, if the court decided that the primary jurisdiction doctrine applied to Plaintiff’s COPA

22

claim, her other claims could still proceed (though the court understands that Defendant takes a

23

different view). As the court explained in its order denying the motion to dismiss, the court does not

24

see this as a preemption case, and it sees no real conflict between the NOP and COPA. Order, ECF

25

No. 58 at 24. As the Eighth Circuit said in In re Aurora Dairy Corp. Organic Milk Marketing and

26

Sales Practices Litigation, 621 F.3d 781, 792 (8th Cir. 2010), OFPA does not bar state consumer

27

protection laws that do not conflict with OFPA’s provisions. For these reasons, the court does not

28

see a basis for staying the basic discovery that Plaintiffs seek.

C 11-03082 LB
ORDER

2

1
2

B. Discovery requests regarding Avalon Organics products
Plaintiff seeks discovery about the Avalon Organics products. Defendant has not produced that

3

information because it says that Plaintiff did not allege in the complaint that she bought the products

4

and thus has no standing. Plaintiffs have a different view of the facts that are relevant to standing

5

(and the parties disagreed back and forth at the hearing about what the facts were).

6

The court observes that Defendant argued in its motion to dismiss that invoking the primary

7

jurisdiction doctrine was appropriate because Plaintiff’s claims against Avalon Organics conflicted

8

with the NOP. See Def.’s Suppl. Brief, ECF no. 49 at 8. And if the complaint is insufficient, then

9

Defendant should have challenged it with a motion. It did not. In the court’s view, claims survive
even if Defendant is right. The court denies Defendant’s motion on this record.

11

C. Requests regarding the content of Defendant’s products

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

Plaintiffs say they want information about the recipes and formulations of the products.

13

Defendant says that the labels provide sufficient information, the issue is only whether the products

14

are made of at least 70% organic ingredients (and thus the recipe is irrelevant), and information

15

about changes over time have no impact on the percentages.

16

Again on this record, the recipe seems relevant to the actual composition of the products. There

17

is no ascertainable burden. Discovery is appropriate.

18

D. Requests regarding Defendant’s representations to the public regarding the products

19

Plaintiffs seek marketing information about Defendant’s representations to the public about the

20

products. Defendant says generally that the information that Plaintiffs seek “is not relevant to any of

21

the claims in the case, particularly in that they are not restricted to marketing that asserted that the

22

products were organic.” ECF No. 52 at 5.

23
24
25
26
27

This is a false advertising case. The marketing information seems relevant.
E. Requests regarding Defendant’s pricing of the products
Plaintiffs want information about the pricing of products and information about consumer
attitudes. Defendant says that generally this seeks a huge amount of information.
The information is relevant. The court cannot assess burden from what Defendant says.

28

C 11-03082 LB
ORDER

3

1
2
3

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court rejects Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s discovery
requests and denies the motion to stay discovery.

4

The court observes that most of Defendant’s letter is about staying discovery entirely. That’s

5

fair under the situation, but the court rejects that position. Then, the parties make very high-level

6

objections and attach documents, but they do not call out the specific issues in the letter. The court’s

7

five-page limit is not meant to be a “one letter for all discovery disputes” approach. The idea of a

8

letter is that it allows the parties to set out their positions side by side. And not that the parties are

9

doing it here, but cutting out pages cuts out unnecessary rhetoric and attacks and makes the parties

subsequent letters with other issues. But the court does not plan to delve into the attachments to

12
For the Northern District of California

focus on the issues. That being said, it is fine to file a letter with an issue or two and then

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

figure out what the parties’ arguments are. The parties need to say specifically what the issues are

13

in the letter.

14

The court will consider issues in the motion to stay at the hearing on September 20, 2012 and in

15

the context of full briefing. The court observes that it tried to set the discovery hearing on August 8,

16

2012, and the strategic filing of the motion on August 9 is of course fine but the court does not

17

intend to consider new arguments and new cases without giving Plaintiffs an opportunity to respond.

18

That is the point of the court’s joint discovery letter process. Thus, on this record, the motion to stay

19

discovery is denied.

20

This disposes of ECF No. 52.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated: August 10, 2012

23

_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
28

C 11-03082 LB
ORDER

4

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

C 11-03082 LB
ORDER

5