Obesity Research Institute, LLC v. Fiber Research International, LLC et al

Filing 255

ORDER granting 210 Joint MOTION for Discovery Regarding Fiber Research's Motion to Deem Matters Admitted. As provided herein, Defendant's motion to deem admitted Requests for Admission 4-8 and 18-19, presented in the instant Joint Motion, is GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 5/12/16. (Dembin, Mitchell)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

Case No. 15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD

OBESITY RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
FIBER RESEARCH
INTERNATIONAL, LLC,

16

Defendant.

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO
DETERMINE DISCOVERY
DISPUTE: DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DEEM MATTERS
ADMITTED (RFA Nos. 4-8, 18-19)
[ECF NO. 210]

17
Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Determine a Discovery Dispute,

18
19

filed on April 11, 2016, containing Defendant’s motion to deem certain

20

matters admitted based upon Plaintiff’s responses to certain requests for

21

admission served by Defendant. (ECF No. 210). Defendant claims that

22

Plaintiff’s responses are evasive and non-responsive and should be deemed

23

admitted. (ECF 210-1 *4).1 Plaintiff counters that its responses to the

24
25
26

Page pincites will be to the pagination provided in CM/ECF, rather than as
provided in the original document.

1

1
15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD

1

requests for admission were adequate because the requests themselves were

2

vague, ambiguous and overbroad, even as amended following discussions

3

between the parties. (Id. *7). Defendant’s motion is GRANTED as provided

4

below.

5

LEGAL STANDARD

6

Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs requests for

7

admission. The rule allows for a party to serve on another party a written

8

request to admit the truth of matters relating to facts, the application of law

9

to fact or opinions about either and genuineness of described documents.

10

Rule 36(a)(1)(A),(B), Fed. R. Civ. P.

11

matter, or “specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party

12

cannot truthfully admit or deny it.” Rule 36(a)(4). “A denial must fairly

13

respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a

14

party qualify an answer or deny only a part of the matter, the answer must

15

specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest.” Id. If an answer does

16

not comply with this rule, the court “may order either that the matter is

17

admitted or that an amended answer be served.” Rule 36(a)(6).

18
19
20

The answering party must admit the

ANALYSIS
1. Amended Requests for Admission (“RFA”) 4-8
Amended Requests for Admission 4-8 are straightforward and clear.

21

Plaintiff’s objections to the contrary are overruled. Each RFA requests

22

Plaintiff to admit that certain specified statements made in Plaintiff’s

23

advertising during the relevant time period refer solely to a particular

24

scientific study, the Kaat’s (2004) study. For example, RFA 4 asks Plaintiff

25

to “admit that 78% fat loss claims used in Lipozene advertising during the

26

statutory time period refer solely to the Kaat’s (2004) Study.” (ECF 210 *2).
2
15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD

1

RFA 5 asks the same question regarding Plaintiff’s reference to a “holiday

2

weight loss study.” (ECF No. 210 *12). RFA 6 relates to Plaintiff’s reference

3

to “a study wherein participants lost ‘4.93 lbs.’ of which ‘3.86 lbs.’ was body

4

fat.” (ECF No. 210 *19). RFA 7 relates to Plaintiff’s reference to a “major

5

university double blind study.” (ECF No. 210 *25-26). And RFA 8 relates to

6

Plaintiff’s reference to an “8 week university study.” (ECF No. 210 *32).

7

In response to RFA 4, Plaintiff admits that the claim of 78% weight loss

8

“is supported by the Kaat’s (2004) Study but other statements regarding

9

Lipozene in [the identified advertising], including other statements

10

concerning weight and fat loss, are substantiated by other studies.” (ECF No.

11

210 *2-3). Plaintiff did not directly answer the question. To say that the

12

weight loss claim is “supported” by the Kaat’s study is not the same as

13

admitting that the reference is solely to the Kaat’s study. The qualification

14

that there are other statements substantiated by other studies has no

15

bearing upon the admission and is not relevant. Having not properly

16

qualified its answer, for example, by stating that the specific statement also

17

is supported by other studies, the answer is insufficient under Rule 34(a)(4)

18

and the Court deems the request admitted.

19

In answering RFA 5, Plaintiff “admits that the reference to a “holiday

20

weight loss study” [in the specified material] is a reference to the Kaat’s

21

(2004) Study but other statements regarding Lipozene in that video,

22

including other statements concerning weight and fat loss, are substantiated

23

by additional studies. (ECF No. 210 *12). This is an admission to the fact

24

requested and will be so deemed. The qualification provided, that there are

25

other statements with other substantiation has no bearing on the admission

26

itself and is not relevant.
3
15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD

1
2

Plaintiff’s answers to RFAs 6-8 are virtually identical to that of RFA 5,
are admissions, and each RFA will be deemed admitted.

3

2. RFA’s 18-19
RFA 18 requests Plaintiff to admit that its advertising claims of clinical

4
5

proof of weight/fat loss for Lipozene were displayed on Internet websites

6

under Plaintiff’s control during the relevant period. (ECF No. 210 *39).

7

Plaintiff’s objections to the RFA are overruled. Plaintiff’s answer is that “it

8

made statements on Internet websites under its control regarding Lipozene’s

9

ability to reduce weight and fat loss during the statutory period.” (ECF No.

10

210*40). Plaintiff did not answer the question posed. The request related to

11

claims of “clinical proof” of weight and fat loss, not general statements of

12

Lipozene’s ability to reduce weight and fat. The answer is evasive, is

13

insufficient under Rule 36(a)(4) and the request is deemed admitted.
RFA 19 requests Plaintiff to admit that these advertising claims of

14
15

clinical proof of weight and fat loss “were intended to influence customers to

16

purchase Lipozene.” (ECF No. 210 *45). Plaintiff’s objections are overruled.

17

Plaintiff’s answer is that it “admits that advertising by definition, including

18

its own advertising, is intended to ‘inform’ customers.” (Id.). Plaintiff did not

19

answer the question posed. The question was whether the advertising was

20

intended to “influence” customers, not “inform.” This answer is evasive, is

21

insufficient under Rule 36(a)(4) and the request is deemed admitted.

22

//

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//
4
15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD

1
2
3
4
5

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to deem certain matters admitted, as
presented in the instant joint motion, is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 12, 2016

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
5
15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD