Vitello v. Natrol LLC

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Natrol's Motion to Compel ECF No. 31 is GRANTED as it pertains to Interrogatories 14(b) and 15(i) and RFP 26, subject to Natrol's offer to limit the scope of RFP 26 to only inclu de information related to Vitello's memory, concentration, and cognition, including her ADD diagnosis and treatment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Natrol's Motion to Compel 31 is DENIED as it pertains to RFPs 12 and 13. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 8/7/19. (ARL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CHRISTINE VITELLO, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated
Plaintiff,
v.
NATROL, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
) No. 4:18 CV 915 RWS
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
This matter is before me on Defendant Natrol, Inc.’s motion to compel.
Natrol requests that I order Plaintiff Christine Vitello to produce (1) information
related to her cognitive condition, including her disclosed diagnosis of Attention
Deficit Disorder (ADD); and (2) documents that support her claim that Cognium
does not work and is worthless (or a certification that none exist). Natrol argues
that the information is relevant during the class certification phase of the litigation,
because it relates to Vitello’s adequacy to serve as a class representative and her
ability to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Vitello argues
these discovery requests represent an attempt by Natrol to begin merits discovery
during the class discovery stage of the litigation. For the reasons below, I will
grant Natrol’s motion in part and deny it in part.

I.

Legal Standard
When responding to discovery requests, parties must produce any

nonprivileged, responsive materials that are “relevant to any party’s claim or
defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). As
applied by federal courts, Rule 26(b) is “liberal in scope and interpretation.” Hofer
v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 981 F.2d 377, 380 (8th Cir. 1992). The party seeking
discovery, however, must still make “[s]ome threshold showing of relevance.” Id.
Once the requesting party makes that showing, “the burden is on the party resisting
discovery to explain why discovery should be limited.” CitiMortgage, Inc. v.
Allied Mortg. Grp., Inc., No. 4:10CV01863 JAR, 2012 WL 1554908, at *2 (E.D.
Mo. May 1, 2012).
II.

Analysis
The discovery requests at issue in this motion fall into two categories:

information and documents related to Vitello’s cognitive ability, including her
Attention Deficit Disorder diagnosis, and documents that support her claim that
Cognium is ineffective. Specifically, Natrol requests that Vitello:
• “Identify and describe in detail any medical condition affecting Your
memory, concentration or cognition, including . . . (b) the name and
address of any physician or other medical professional who diagnosed
the medical condition or from whom you have received treatment for
the medical condition.” [Def.’s Memorandum, Exh. B, ECF No. 31,
Interrogatory 14(b)]

2

• “Identify and describe in detail each prescription or non-prescription
medication that you have used to improve memory, concentration or
cognition in the last five years, including, without limitation . . . (i) the
name, address and occupation of the person who prescribed the
medication, if applicable.” [Id. at Interrogatory 15(i)]
• Authorize “the release of employment, medical, and pharmacy
records” related to “Plaintiff’s cognitive state, including memory and
concentration.” [Id. at RFP 26]
Natrol also requests that Vitello provide:
• “All Documents that You contend discredit the effectiveness of
Cognium or Cera-Q (or BF-7)” [Id. at RFP 12]
• “All Documents relating to consumer views and/or opinions relating
to Cognium, Cera-Q (or BF-7), and/or Natrol that You have viewed.”
[Id. at RFP 13]
The first three requests relate to Vitello’s cognitive condition and should be
produced. The final two seek information from Vitello in support of the merits of
her claim, and Vitello is not required to produce those documents at the class
certification stage.
a. Discovery Related to Vitello’s Cognitive Condition
The requested discovery materials related to Vitello’s cognitive condition
are relevant at this stage, non-privileged, and proportional to the needs of the case.
Vitello resists Natrol’s request for the medical information related to her cognitive
condition both on the grounds it is merits discovery that is inappropriate at the
class certification stage and that it is covered by doctor-patient privilege.

3

As an initial matter, class certification “analysis will frequently entail
overlap with the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claim.” Comcast Corp. v.
Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 33–34 (2013) (internal citation omitted). As a corollary,
discovery that may relate to the merits of Plaintiff’s claim is not necessarily offlimits if it is also relevant to class certification questions.
I do not now address whether the potential discovery will actually affect my
class certification determination, but Defendant has met the threshold showing that
discovery about Plaintiff’s particular cognitive function and ADD diagnosis is
relevant at the class certification stage of the case. The impact Vitello’s cognitive
function has on her ability to fairly represent a class—in a case about a supplement
that purports to improve cognitive function—is a fair topic of inquiry for Natrol to
pursue. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2, 3) (requiring that “there are questions of law
or fact common to the class” and “the claims or defenses of the representative
parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class”).
The requested discovery about Vitello’s cognitive condition is not
privileged. By filing this lawsuit, Vitello put her cognitive condition at issue. C.f.
Schoffstall v. Henderson, 223 F.3d 818, 823 (8th Cir. 2000) (holding that a
plaintiff waived the psychotherapist-patient privilege by placing her medical
condition at issue). The timeframe in the requests, which seek medical information

4

from the past five years, is reasonably tailored and proportional to the needs of the
case.
The Plaintiff’s remaining arguments that the discovery requests place an
unfair burden on her are not persuasive. She analogizes her situation to a person
who seeks a refund, or an individual litigant whose injury is challenged, and argues
that the requested discovery would not be ordered in either of the other two
situations. First, Vitello is not simply seeking a refund; she is seeking to represent
a class that she alleges is entitled to punitive damages against Natrol. Second,
Natrol represents that the requested medical discovery does not only go to her
injury, but also to her ability to fairly represent a class in this lawsuit. Vitello’s
allegations were sufficient to survive Natrol’s Motion to Dismiss, but at the class
certification stage, Natrol is entitled to limited discovery that bears directly on
certification. I will grant Natrol’s motion as it pertains to Interrogatories 14(b) and
15(i), as well as RFP 26, subject to Natrol’s offer to limit the scope to records that
relate to Vitello’s memory, concentration, or cognition, including her disclosed
diagnosis of ADD.
b. Discovery Supporting Vitello’s Claims
Natrol’s requests for production 12 and 13, which ask that Vitello provide
documents related to the substance of her allegations, go beyond the scope of the
class certification phase. Natrol asserts the requested documents are relevant to
5

Vitello’s ability to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
However, Natrol does not adequately explain how “Plaintiff’s reliance on her own
unverified impression of Cognium’s efficacy implicates issues relating to
causation, commonality, typicality, and adequacy.” [Def’s Memorandum at 10]
The requested documents may well be relevant at a later stage of this
litigation, but it is my finding that Natrol has not made a threshold showing of
relevance as to these documents and their relation to class certification. I will deny
Natrol’s motion as it pertains to Requests for Production 12 and 13.
III.

Conclusion
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Natrol’s Motion to Compel

[ECF No. 31] is GRANTED as it pertains to Interrogatories 14(b) and 15(i) and
RFP 26, subject to Natrol’s offer to limit the scope of RFP 26 to only include
information related to Vitello’s memory, concentration, and cognition, including
her ADD diagnosis and treatment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Natrol’s Motion to Compel
[31] is DENIED as it pertains to RFPs 12 and 13.

RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 7th day of August, 2019.
6