Jones v. Nutiva, Inc.

Filing 66

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore regarding parties' 57 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re: Requests for Admission. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PRESTON JONES,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00711-HSG (KAW)

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER REGARDING 9/22/16 JOINT
LETTER RE: REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSION

v.
9
10

NUTIVA, INC.,

Re: Dkt. No. 57

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
On September 22, 2016, the parties filed a joint discovery letter in which Plaintiff seeks to

12
13

compel supplemental responses to several of his requests for admission. (Joint Letter, Dkt. No.

14

57.)

15

Upon review of the joint letter, the Court deems this matter suitable for disposition without

16

oral argument pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-1(b), and denies Plaintiff’s request to compel Defendant’s

17

supplemental responses.

18

I.

BACKGROUND

19

On January 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed this putative class action case alleging that Defendant

20

Nutiva, Inc. misleadingly markets various coconut oil products as both healthy and as a healthy

21

alternative to butter and other oils, and that Nutiva’s coconut oil labeling and advertising violates

22

several federal and California state food regulations. (Compl., Dkt. No. 2-1 ¶ 1.) Specifically,

23

Plaintiff accuses Nutiva Organic Virgin Coconut Oil, Nutiva Organic Extra Virgin Coconut Oil,

24

and Nutiva Refined Coconut Oil of being misleading. (Compl. ¶ 49.) Currently, the parties are

25

engaged in pre-class certification discovery.

26

On September 22, 2016, the district court ruled that Plaintiff had standing to pursue claims

27

against all three products, because they are sufficiently similar for the purposes of his claim that

28

they are misbranded as a matter of law. (9/22/16 Or., Dkt. No. 55 at 8.)

1

On September 16, 2016, the parties filed a joint administrative motion seeking leave to file

2

a joint discovery letter that exceeds five pages, which was granted. On September 22, 2016, the

3

parties filed the instant joint letter, in which Plaintiff seeks to compel responses to several requests

4

for admission. (Joint Letter at 1.)
II.

5
6

LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure broadly interpret relevancy, such that each party has

7

the right to the discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or

8

defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Discovery need not

9

be admissible to be discoverable. Id.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 authorizes a party to serve “a written request to admit .

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

. . the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to . . . facts, the application of

12

law to fact, or opinions about either.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1)(A). Requests for admission “are

13

sought, first, to facilitate proof with respect to issues that cannot be determined from the case, and

14

second, to narrow the issues by eliminating those that can be.” Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d

15

616, 622 (9th Cir. 2007). The reason to propound requests for admission is to “eliminate from the

16

trial matters as to which there is no genuine dispute.” People of the State of California v. The Jules

17

Fribourg, 19 F.R.D. 432, 436 (N.D. Cal. 1955). “Requests for admissions cannot be used to

18

compel an admission of a conclusion of law.” Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles, 60 F. Supp. 2d

19

1050, 1057 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (citing Reliance Ins. Co. v. Marathon LeTourneau Co., 152 F.R.D.

20

524, 525 (S.D. W.Va. 1994)).

21
22
23

III.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks to compel supplemental responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 1, 3, 5,
7, 9, 11, 14, 17, 19, 33-36, and 49-52.

24

A.

25

These requests ask Nutiva to admit that specific challenged advertising claims were

Request Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 17, and 19

26

intended to “influence consumers’ purchasing decisions” or “to influence consumers.” (Joint

27

Letter at 2.) Nutiva raised identical objections to each request:

28

Nutiva raises its objection to Definition 7, stated above. Subject to
2

and without waiving the foregoing objection, Nutiva answers as
follows: Nutiva has performed a reasonable inquiry into this request
and at this time lacks the knowledge or information required to
admit or deny the request.

1
2
3
4

(Joint Letter at 2-4.)
Plaintiff contends that the requests only require Nutiva to admit or deny its own state of

5

mind, which is possible after conducting a reasonable inquiry. (Joint Letter at 4.) Defendant

6

argues that the phrase “to influence consumers’ purchasing decisions” is a stand-in phrase for the

7

materiality requirement for alleged misrepresentations under the UCL. (Joint Letter at 5.)

8
9

Generally, requests for admission are improper when they concern disputes at the heart of
the litigation, because those disputes should be resolved at trial. Stokes v. Interline Brands Inc.,
2013 WL 6056886, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2013)(citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff’s requests

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

essentially seek the admission of the UCL claim, which is improper.

12
13

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to compel supplemental responses to Request Nos. 1, 3, 5,
7, 9, 11, 14, 17, and 19 is denied.

14

B.

15

These requests ask Nutiva to admit that the challenged coconut oil labels violated certain

16

federal regulations. (Joint Letter at 6.) Again, Nutiva raised identical objections to each request:

17
18
19
20

Request Nos. 33-36 and 49-52

Nutiva raises its objection to Definition 7, stated above. Nutiva
further objects to this request as vague and ambiguous, as calling for
information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence, and as calling for information not
proportional to the needs of this case. Nutiva also objects to this
request on the grounds that it improperly seeks to compel the
admission of a conclusion of law.

21

(Joint Letter at 6-8.) Nutiva has since waived all objections with the exception of the objection

22

that the requests, as written, improperly seek to compel a legal conclusion. (Joint Letter at 9.)

23

Under Rule 36, requests for admission may properly relate to “the application of law to

24

fact,” but “requests for admissions cannot be used to compel an admission of a conclusion of law.”

25

Google Inc. v. Am. Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., 2006 WL 3290402, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13,

26

2006)(quoting Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles, 60 F. Supp. 2d 1050, 1057 (S.D. Cal. 1999)).

27

Plaintiff’s attempts to characterize these requests as calling for an application of law to fact are not

28

persuasive. (Joint Letter at 8.) Here, the requests call for Nutiva to admit or deny that it violated
3

1

certain FDA regulations, which, therefore, improperly seeks the admission of conclusions of law.

2

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to compel supplemental responses to Request Nos. 33-36

3

and 49-52 is denied.
IV.

4
5
6
7
8

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request to compel supplemental responses to the
requests for admission is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 11, 2016
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4