Brazil v. Dole Food Company, Inc. et al
Filing
123
ORDER re #113 Discovery Dispute Joint Report No.1. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 4/1/2014. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2014)
1
*E-Filed: April 1, 2014*
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
For the Northern District of California
NOT FOR CITATION
8
United States District Court
7
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
CHAD BRAZIL, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,
12
No. C12-01831 LHK (HRL)
ORDER ON DDJR #1
Plaintiff,
v.
13
[Re: Docket No. 113]
14
DOLE PACKAGED FOODS, LLC,
15
Defendant.
____________________________________/
16
Chad Brazil, on behalf of a putative class, sues Dole Packaged Foods, LLC (“Dole”) for
17
allegedly misbranding several of its food products. The hearing on Brazil’s motion for class
18
certification is currently set for April 17, 2014. Opening expert reports are due by June 13, 2014,
19
and the fact and expert discovery cutoff is July 10, 2014. In the parties’ Discovery Dispute Joint
20
Report No. 1 (“DDJR #1”), the Court is asked to determine (1) whether Dole should produce
21
“financial” data related to damages prior to class certification; and (2) whether Dole should produce
22
product labels that pre-date the asserted class period.
23
At the outset, the Court notes that DDJR #1 does not contain attestations of lead counsel that
24
they complied with the undersigned’s Standing Order re: Civil Discovery Disputes (“Standing
25
Order”), as it requires, and it is unclear whether they did otherwise comply by holding an in-person
26
meet and confer.1 Nevertheless, the Court will address the issues presented on their merits, but the
27
28
1
The cover page identifies March 5, 2014, as the “Date of In-Person Meeting.” However, it then
provides that the “parties spoke by telephone and resolved some issues but not others,” which
1
parties are admonished that any future DDJRs that do not strictly comply with the “Standing Order”
2
will not be heard.
First, Brazil seeks financial information, such as sales and revenue data, relevant to the issue
3
4
of damages. Brazil wants the information as soon as possible to ensure that its damages expert has
5
sufficient time to analyze the data and produce a report before the June deadline. Moreover, Dole
6
concedes the relevance of the information and has no justification for withholding it “aside from it
7
does not want to at this point.” According to Dole, the “issue is timing.” The production of
8
financial data is premature because the information pertains solely to damages, which is irrelevant to
9
class certification. Nevertheless, Dole offered to produce the financial information after the April
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
17, 2014 hearing, which it contends would provide Brazil with adequate time.
11
It is undisputed that the requested financial information is relevant to the ultimate issue of
12
damages. Moreover, Brazil has demonstrated a need for this information sooner rather than later,
13
while Dole has not even suggested that producing the information would be burdensome. Thus, the
14
Court sees no reason for delay, and Dole shall produce responsive financial data and documents
15
within five (5) days from the date of this order.
16
Second, Brazil requests the labels from 2004 to 2007 for the products listed in its motion for
17
class certification. Brazil asserts that these labels are relevant to damages, as well as Dole’s state of
18
mind and corporate practice. On the other hand, Dole points out that these labels predate Brazil’s
19
definition of class period, which begins in April 2013. Thus, they are irrelevant to the damages
20
calculation, which can only be based on sales within the class period. Similarly, the labels from
21
outside the class period are irrelevant to Dole’s state of mind and corporate practice during the class
22
period. Furthermore, the production of old labels would be burdensome, as Dole does not maintain
23
a central depository of retired product labels. Locating them would require “new custodial
24
collections and searches of ancient email archives,” which is not even guaranteed to uncover the old
25
labels.
26
27
28
“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
party’s claim or defense. . . . For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to
suggests that the “in-person meeting” was just a phone conversation. Additionally, among other
oversights, the parties also failed to include their “most reasonable” proposals.
2
1
the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if
2
the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed.
3
R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “It is also beyond dispute that discovery is not limited to the class period.” In
4
re Toyota Motor Corp. Sec. Litig., No. CV 10-922 DSF (AJWx), 2012 WL 3791716, at *5 (C.D.
5
Cal. March 12, 2012).
6
At first glance, it seems reasonable that product labels from 2004 to 2007 might be relevant
7
in discovery for claims based on the same products’ labels from 2008 and beyond. Yet, even given
8
the relatively low threshold for relevance at the discovery stage, Brazil fails to make an adequate
9
showing. His assertions that the labels are relevant to damages, state of mind and corporate practice
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
are entirely conclusory as they are not supported by any explanation, and the relevance is not so
11
apparent that none is needed. Moreover, the Court agrees with Dole that labels that predate the class
12
period are not relevant to the issue of damages. Accordingly, in view of Brazil’s failure to
13
demonstrate any relevance and Dole’s showing of at least some minimal burden, Dole is not
14
required to produce the requested products labels from 2004 to 2007.
15
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 1, 2014
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
1
C12-01831 Notice will be electronically mailed to:
2
Ananda N. Chaudhuri
3
Ben F. Pierce Gore pgore@prattattorneys.com, cotto@prattattorneys.com, dawn@cfbfirm.com,
ntmaddux@barrettlawgroup.com, PTaylor@barrettlawgroup.com, rtrazo@prattattorneys.com
achaudhuri@fleischmanlawfirm.com
4
Brian K Herrington
bherrington@barrettlawgroup.com, bherrington@pacernotice.com
5
Carol Nelkin
c.nelkin@nelkinpc.com, twhite@nelkinpc.com
6
Charles F. Barrett
charles@cfbfirm.com, dawn@cfbfirm.com
7
Claudia Maria Vetesi
cvetesi@mofo.com, bfuller@mofo.com
8
David Shelton
david@davidsheltonpllc.com
9
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
David Malcolm McMullan , Jr dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com,
bherrington@barrettlawgroup.com, ccmirick@barrettlawgroup.com
11
Dewitt Marshall Lovelace , Sr
12
J. Price Coleman
13
Jay P. Nelkin
14
Keith M. Fleischman
15
Richard Barrett
16
Stuart M Nelkin
17
William Francis Tarantino
18
William Lewis Stern wstern@mofo.com, jfogel@mofo.com, lsario@mofo.com,
lwongchenko@mofo.com, nwheatfall@mofo.com
courtdocs@lovelacelaw.com
colemanlawfirmpa@bellsouth.net
jnelkin@nelkinpc.com
keith@fleischmanlawfirm.com
rrb@rrblawfirm.net
snelkin@nelkinpc.com, twhite@nelkinpc.com
wtarantino@mofo.com
19
20
Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?