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

Filing 85

AMENDED ORDER. Signed by Judge Laporte on 10/17/12. (edllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

SKYE ASTIANA and TAMAR DAVIS
LARSEN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated,

13

Plaintiffs,

14

Civil Case No.: CV 11-06342-PJH (EDL)
AMENDED ORDER REGARDING
MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY

vs.

15
16

THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, and JASON
NATURAL PRODUCTS, INC., a California
Corporation;

Date: September 25, 2012
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Judge: Hon. Elizabeth D. Laporte
Courtroom: E, 15th Floor

17
Defendants.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AMENDED ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY

Civil Case No.: CV-11-06342-PJH (EDL)

1

Having duly considered Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery

2

dated August 21, 2012, the supporting and opposing papers, and the arguments of counsel at the

3

September 25, 2012 hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

The Motion to Compel is denied to the extent it seeks discovery as to products

5

that Plaintiffs did not purchase. September 25, 2012 Transcript of Proceedings (“Transcript”),

6

p. 3:21-23. The scope of the case for discovery purposes will be determined at such time as the

7

Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss the Revised Second Amended Complaint is considered

8

and resolved by the Court. Until such time, discovery shall remain restricted to the products

9

purchased by Plaintiffs or matters that are not product specific. Upon a ruling by the Court on

10

Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss the Revised Second Amended Complaint, Defendants

11

shall supplement their production of documents and answers to any interrogatories consistent

12

with Judge Hamilton’s ruling, unless the case is dismissed with prejudice. If necessary, within

13

five (5) days of Judge Hamilton’s ruling, the Parties shall confer regarding the timing and scope

14

of such supplemental production. If the Parties cannot agree on the timing and scope of such

15

production, they shall submit a joint letter setting forth their respective positions to this Court

16

for resolution within ten (10) days of the Judge Hamilton’s order. Transcript, pp. 23:25-24:5.

17
18
19

Subject to the meet and confer between the parties regarding the submission of a
draft order subsequent to the September 25, 2012 hearing, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
The Motion to Compel as to Document Request No. 11 is granted in part and

20

denied in part. Defendants agree to produce a complete ingredient list for each product

21

allegedly purchased by Plaintiffs in the State of California. Defendants shall also produce

22

documents regarding the designation of the ingredients as natural or unnatural to the extent such

23

documents exist and are within the possession, custody, or control of Defendants, and

24

documents sufficient to identify the suppliers of each ingredient to the extent such documents

25

exist and are within the possession, custody or control of Defendants. Transcript p: 23:13-19.

26

Defendants shall supplement their production to conform to any ruling by Judge Hamilton on

27

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Revised Second Amended Complaint subject to the post-

28

ruling conferral process described above.
AMENDED ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY

1

Civil Case No.: CV-11-06342-PJH (EDL)

The Motion to Compel as to Document Request No. 13 is granted. Defendants

1
2

agree to search for and produce Defendants’ written return policy for unused or unsold

3

merchandise to the extent such policy exists and is within the possession, custody, or control of

4

Defendants.

5

The Motion to Compel as to Document Request No. 17 is granted in part and

6

denied in part. Defendants agree to search for and produce an administrative complaint filed

7

with the United States Department of Agriculture by the plaintiffs in All One God Faith v. Hain

8

Celestial Group, Inc., No. C 09-3517, a case previously before this Court, to the extent such

9

documents exist and are within the possession, custody, or control of Defendants. Defendants’

10

counsel represented to the Court that no discovery has been taken in the following cases: All

11

One God Faith, Inc. v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Case No. CV-09-3517-SI (N.D.Cal.), or

12

Crivier v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al., Case No. CV-12-3054-GW(PLAx) (C.D. Cal.).

13

The Motion to Compel as to Document Request No. 18 is granted in part.

14

Defendants agree to search for and produce documents concerning Celestial Seasonings, Inc. v.

15

R.C. Bigelow, Inc., Case No. 1:95-cv-1549-EWN (D. Colo.), and any other action brought by

16

Defendants against competitors based on the use of the word “natural” to the extent such

17

documents exist and are within the possession, custody, or control of Defendants. Transcript, p.

18

24:10-19. If no such documents are within Defendants’ possession, custody or control,

19

Defendants will provide a declaration stating this fact. Transcript, pp. 6:8-8:14.

20

The Motion to Compel as to Document Request No. 19 is granted in part and

21

denied in part. Defendants shall produce documents related to the value of sales in California

22

during the putative class period limited to sales of the products identified at paragraphs 9 and 11

23

of the Revised Second Amended Complaint (“RSAC”) to the extent such documents exist and

24

are within the possession, custody or control of Defendants. Transcript p. 13:13-17. Consistent

25

with the limitation set forth at the beginning of this Order, those paragraphs of the RSAC

26

identify those products within the Jason brand which Plaintiffs purchased. Defendants shall

27

supplement their production to conform to any ruling by Judge Hamilton on Defendants’

28
AMENDED ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY

2

Civil Case No.: CV-11-06342-PJH

1

Motion to Dismiss the Revised Second Amended Complaint subject to the post-ruling conferral

2

process described above.

3

The Motion to Compel as to Interrogatory No. 1 is granted in part and denied in

4

part. Defendants will provide an answer with regards to the products Plaintiffs purchased.

5

Defendants shall supplement their production to conform to any ruling by Judge Hamilton on

6

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Revised Second Amended Complaint subject to the post-

7

ruling conferral process described above.

8
9

The Motion to Compel as to Interrogatory No. 3 is granted in part and denied in
part. Defendants agree to state, to the extent possible, the value of sales in California for the

10

products allegedly purchased by Plaintiffs during the putative class period. Transcript p. 13:13-

11

17. Defendants shall supplement their production to conform to any ruling by Judge Hamilton

12

on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Revised Second Amended Complaint subject to the post-

13

ruling conferral process described above.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

DATED: ___October 17_____, 2012

By: _______________________________
The Honorable Elizabeth D. Laporte
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AMENDED ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY

3

Civil Case No.: CV-11-06342-PJH