R Power Biofuels, LLC v. Chemex LLC

Filing 97

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re 94 Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 1. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

R POWER BIOFUELS, LLC,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

Case No.5:16-cv-00716-LHK (HRL)
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
JOINT REPORT NO. 1

v.
CHEMEX LLC,

Re: Dkt. No. 94

Defendant.

17

INTRODUCTION

18

R Power Biofuels, LLC (“R Power”) sues Chemex, LLC (“Chemex”) for breach of

19

contract (and other claims) relating to defendant’s design and fabrication of seven modular

20

production components for a biodiesel plant in Watsonville. Basically, plaintiff alleges that

21

Chemex used shoddy parts and bad engineering to build a plant that could not meet the specified

22

production requirements.

23

In Discovery Dispute Joint Report (“DDJR”) #1, defendant seeks an order compelling

24

plaintiff to produce documents from previous, third party litigation that ended in a settlement that

25

included assignment to R Power of the claims it now asserts against Chemex in this litigation. R

26

Power says that, with respect to the prior litigation, it has (or will) turn over anything that

27

discusses Chemex or the construction or operation of the biodiesel plant, and anything beyond that

28

1

is too much.1
DISCUSSION

2
3

R Power had an ownership interest in a company called AGRON. AGRON had

4

proprietary technology for an improved process for manufacturing biodiesel. R Power formed a

5

company named North Star to use the AGRON technology to build unique biodiesel production

6

plants on a commercial scale. The first one was to be built in Watsonville. To finance the project,

7

AGRON borrowed money from a subsidiary of a company called Agri Beef. R Power guaranteed

8

the loan. It was contemplated that the loan would be paid off from the revenue stream to be

9

generated by the Watsonville plant.
Chemex had previously successfully built a pilot biodiesel plant for AGRON using

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

AGRON’s technology, and, on the strength of that success, AGRON and Chemex entered into two

12

contracts: Chemex would design the seven modules that would be integrated to comprise the

13

Watsonville facility, and it would then fabricate and install them. The project did not turn out

14

well, and despite much effort and expense, the plant never achieved anything close to the required

15

production level.

16

Because the Watsonville plant failed to measure up to expectations, the Agri Beef loan

17

went into default. Agri Beef sued R Power in federal court in Idaho to foreclose on R Power’s

18

assets under the loan guarantee. R Power filed a derivative action (nominally on behalf of North

19

Star) in Alameda County Superior Court against Agri Beef and others for a variety of claimed

20

legal transgressions. No discovery was ever done in either suit. They were both mediated before

21

the Honorable Vaughn Walker (ret.), and the parties reached a confidential settlement. One piece

22

of the settlement was that AGRON (and Agri Beef as well) assigned whatever claims they had

23

against Chemex to R Power. According to R Power, both lawsuits were only about the lender-

24

borrower/guarantor relationships and associated documentation. Chemex’s work was not an issue.

25
1

26
27
28

Noting that discovery is set to close on April 28, Chemex asks this court for an “immediate
production of all the documents discussed above within two weeks of the filing of this joint
report” (filed on March 17). The claimed unsatisfactory response to the request for production of
documents has been on the table for months. The court refers counsel to the first paragraph in its
Standing Order Re: Civil Discovery Disputes that cautions against waiting until “some important
looming deadline” before seeking help from the court that it may not be able to offer right away.
2

1

In the present lawsuit, Chemex propounded to R Power Request for Production of Documents

2

(“RFP”) No. 12: “All documents, including but not limited to communications, relating to the

3

alleged assignment of AGRON’s ‘claims against Chemex arising out of Chemex’s work,’ . . .

4

including without limitation all documents relating to [R Power’s] Confidential Settlement

5

Agreement entered May 21, 2015 [with AGRON and Agri Beef].” (Dkt. 94 at 41).
In its response, R Power agreed to produce the documentation of the assignment to it of

6
7

AGRON’s rights. It also agreed to produce any pleadings in the two earlier lawsuits that reference

8

Chemex or the biodiesel plant’s construction or operability. There was no discovery. Any other

9

documentation would be about preparing to defend one lawsuit and about filing the other one, plus

10

mediation-related material. R Power argues such information is irrelevant or privileged (or both).
Chemex argues that documents “related to the settlement” of the two prior lawsuits are

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

“potentially relevant” to the claims and defenses in this suit. The word that counts is

13

“potentially.” Defendant goes on to opine that the documents “may contain information” that

14

relates to the alleged defects at the Watsonville plant and who caused them. The key word there is

15

“may.” This appears to the court to be a fishing expedition into an incidental topic and not a

16

focused inquiry on relevant subject matter. It does not meet either the relevance or the

17

proportionality requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(b)(1).
R Power makes a pretty good argument that a mediation privilege applies. And, although

18
19

it has not offered a privilege log, the attorney-client privilege would surely be implicated if the

20

court were to order production as requested by Chemex. The court does not need to reach these

21

questions.
Chemex’s request for an order requiring further production responsive to RFP #12 is

22
23

denied.

24

SO ORDERED.

25

Dated: March 28, 2017

26
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

27
28
3

1

5:16-cv-00716-LHK Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Alyson A. Foster

[e-mail], [e-mail]

3

Ashley Brooke Vinson Crawford [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]

4
5
6
7
8
9

Crystal Roberts

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Daniel R.C. Mortensen [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]
Danielle C. Ginty [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]
Gretchen M. Nelson

[e-mail], [e-mail]

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Nicole C. Andersen

[e-mail], [e-mail]

12

Stuart R. Fraenkel

13

[e-mail]

Wade Laurence Woodard

[e-mail]

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