Wieczorek v. The Coca-Cola Company

Filing 121

ORDER granting (136) plaintiffs' Sealed Motion. Parties to complete discovery on an expedited basis on or before 6/23/15. Documents (108) motion for summary judgment, (113) Sealed Motion, (115) Sealed Motion, and (120) Sealed Motion in case 4: 12-md-02361-FJG are denied w/o prejudice to supplementation upon completion of the expedited discovery. Once discovery is complete, the Court will reopen the motions for summary judgment and motions to strike expert testimony and will set deadlines f or filing supplements to same. [denying (77) Sealed Motion.; denying (82) Sealed Motion.; denying (84) Sealed Motion.; denying (89) Sealed Motion. in case 4:12-cv-00308-FJG; denying (72) Sealed Motion.; denying (77) Sealed Motion.; denying (79 ) Sealed Motion.; denying (84) Sealed Motion. in case 4:12-cv-00765-FJG; denying (80) Sealed Motion.; denying (85) Sealed Motion.; denying (87) Sealed Motion.; denying (92) Sealed Motion. in case 4:12-cv-00766-FJG; denying (69) Sealed Motion.; denying (74) Sealed Motion.; denying (76) Sealed Motion.; denying (81) Sealed Motion. in case 4:12-cv-00769-FJG; denying (68) Sealed Motion.; denying (73) Sealed Motion.; denying (75) Sealed Motion.; denying (80) Sealed Motion. in case 4:12-c v-00770-FJG; denying (79) Sealed Motion.; denying (84) Sealed Motion.; denying (86) Sealed Motion.; denying (91) Sealed Motion. in case 4:12-cv-00771-FJG; denying (77) Sealed Motion.; denying (82) Sealed Motion.; denying (84) Sealed Motion.; d enying (89) Sealed Motion. in case 4:12-cv-00789-FJG; denying (77) Sealed Motion.; denying (82) Sealed Motion.; denying (84) Sealed Motion.; denying (89) Sealed Motion. in case 4:12-cv-00790-FJG; denying (55) Sealed Motion.; denying (60) Seale d Motion.; denying (62) Sealed Motion.; denying (67) Sealed Motion. in case 4:12-cv-00931-FJG; denying (53) Sealed Motion.; denying (58) Sealed Motion.; denying (60) Sealed Motion.; denying (65) Sealed Motion. in case 4:12-cv-00932-FJG; denying (52) Sealed Motion.; denying (57) Sealed Motion.; denying (59) Sealed Motion.; denying (64) Sealed Motion. in case 4:12-cv-00963-FJG; denying (63) Sealed Motion.; denying (68) Sealed Motion.; denying (70) Sealed Motion.; denying (75) Sealed Motion. in case 4:12-cv-00994-FJG; denying (78) Sealed Motion.; denying (83) Sealed Motion.; denying (85) Sealed Motion.; denying (90) Sealed Motion. in case 4:12-cv-01247-FJG; denying (47) Sealed Motion.; denying (52) Sealed Motion.; denying ( 54) Sealed Motion.; denying (59) Sealed Motion. in case 4:13-cv-00080-FJG; denying (31) Sealed Motion.; denying (19) Sealed Motion.; denying (24) Sealed Motion.; denying (26) Sealed Motion. in case 4:14-cv-00645-FJG]. Signed on 4/23/15 by Dis trict Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. Associated Cases: 4:12-md-02361-FJG, 4:12-cv-00308-FJG, 4:12-cv-00765-FJG, 4:12-cv-00766-FJG, 4:12-cv-00769-FJG, 4:12-cv-00770-FJG, 4:12-cv-00771-FJG, 4:12-cv-00789-FJG, 4:12-cv-00790-FJG, 4:12-cv-00931-FJG, 4:12-cv-00932-FJG, 4:12-cv-00963-FJG, 4:12-cv-00994-FJG, 4:12-cv-01247-FJG, 4:13-cv-00080-FJG, 4:14-cv-00645-FJG(Enss, Rhonda)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION

IN RE: SIMPLY ORANGE ORANGE
JUICE MARKETING AND SALES
PRACTICES LITIGATION

MDL No. 2361
Master Case No. 4:12-md-02361-FJG

This Document Relates To: ALL CASES

ORDER
Pending before the Court are (1) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. No. 108), (2) Defendant’s Motion to Strike the Expert Reports and Testimony of
Dan Kimball and John Specchio (Doc. No. 113); (3) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 115); and (4) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Certain
Testimony of Russell Rouseff (Doc. No. 120).

Also before the Court is Plaintiffs’

Affidavit in Support of a Continuance and Discovery Pursuant to Rule 56 (Doc. No.
136).
On April 3, 2015, the Court held oral argument on the pending motions for
summary judgment.

On April 17, 2015, the parties filed supplemental memoranda

regarding their pending motions for summary judgment, including written responses to
the oral arguments made by opposing counsel.

See Defendant’s Supplemental

Memorandum (Doc. No. 151) and Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memorandum (Doc. No.
152).

Upon consideration of the arguments made in the above-cited motions and
related briefs, as well as those arguments made on April 3, 2015, the Court finds that
additional discovery is needed before it can make a ruling, as the specific composition
of the “modified orange oil” add-back in defendant’s products is unclear from the record.
Therefore, plaintiffs’ request for additional discovery (Doc. No. 136) is
GRANTED. Plaintiffs will be allowed to seek limited discovery (both written discovery
and 30(b)(6) depositions) from both Coca-Cola and its third-party suppliers (Firmenich
and Givaudan) as to the process used to modify ordinary orange oil into the “modified
orange oil” added to the products. Plaintiffs will also be allowed to seek discovery from
both Coca-Cola and its third-party suppliers (Firmenich and Givaudan) as to the source
of the contents of the “modified orange oil,” including the source of the ethyl butyrate
fraction added to same. However, to the extent plaintiffs seek discovery concerning
their marketing claims (see Doc. No. 152, p. 15), that request will be deferred until the
Court has made a determination about preemption.
Although plaintiffs request 90 days to conduct this discovery (see Doc. No. 136, ¶
14), the Court ORDERS the parties to complete this discovery on an expedited basis so
that this issue can be put to rest. The parties are to complete discovery as to the
composition and contents of the “modified orange oil” on or before June 23, 2015. If
the parties believe additional time to be necessary, they are directed to file a motion,
setting forth in specific detail why additional time is needed and providing a detailed
schedule for completion of all discovery tasks. The parties are cautioned that such a
request will not automatically be granted.

2

Furthermore, given that additional discovery is needed prior to considering the
remaining pending motions (Doc. Nos. 108, 113, 115, and 120), the Court finds that the
motions to strike experts and motions for summary judgment should be DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE to supplementation upon completion of the expedited
discovery. Once discovery is complete, the Court will reopen the motions for summary
judgment and motions to strike expert testimony and will set deadlines for filing
supplements to same.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: April 23, 2015
Kansas City, Missouri

S/ FERNANDO J. GAITAN, JR.
Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr.
United States District Judge 

3