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)

Download PDF
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THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 For the Northern District of California NOT FOR CITATION 8 United States District Court 7 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 CHAD BRAZIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 No. C12-01831 LHK (HRL)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?