MAXIMUM HUMAN PERFORMANCE, LLC v. SIGMA-TAU HEALTHSCIENCE, LLC

Filing 29

OPINION/ORDER granting Deft's motion to compel the production of No-Bomb discovery from Pltf. & shall begin immediately on a rolling basis.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion on 8/27/13. (DD, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Civil Action No.:
MAXIMUM HUMAN PERFORMANCE,
LLC,

12-cv-6526-ES-SCM
OPINION AND ORDER ON
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
NO-Bomb DISCOVERY

Plaintiff,
v.
SIGMA-TAU HEALTHSCIENCE,
LLC,

[D.E. 27]

Defendant.
I.

INTRODUCTION
Pending before this Court is a discovery dispute informally

raised by plaintiff Maximum Human Performance, LLC (MHP or
“Plaintiff”) and defendant Sigma-tau HealthScience, LLC
(“Defendant”) concerning Defendant’s discovery of documents
concerning NO-Bomb.
MHP opposes.

Defendant seeks to compel the discovery and

(D.E. 27).

The Court has considered the parties’ joint submission and
the August 13, 2013 oral arguments of counsel, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78, and for the reasons set
forth below the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel.

BACKGROUND1

II.

The underlying facts of this case are set forth in a recent
Opinion from this Court and will not be restated here. (D.E.
28).

Suffice it to say that plaintiff Maximum Human

Performance, LLC claims that Glycocarn, a product that it
purchased from Defendant, was not fit for their intended use.
(D.E. 9).

Plaintiff alleges that it purchased Glycocarn for use

in a powder as a pre-workout supplement, but Glycocarn absorbs
moisture and caused Plaintiff's finished product to harden and
become useless to Plaintiff's customers.

III. DISCUSSION
Defendant Sigma-tau seeks to compel plaintiff MHP to
produce documents concerning NO-Bomb, a pre-workout capsule
product containing GlycoCarn that MHP and non-party Vitaquest
made before launching Code Red. (D.E. 27).

MHP objects to

producing NO-Bomb discovery that do not concern GlycoCarn. (Id.)
A.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 defines the bounds of
relevant discovery.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26.

Pursuant to subparagraph

(b)(1), “parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not
1

At this stage of the proceedings we are required to accept the
facts alleged in the Amended Complaint as true.

2

privileged that is relevant to the claim or defense of any
party.”

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).

The Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure “allow broad and liberal discovery.” Pacitti v.
Macy’s, 193 F.3d 766, 777 (3d Cir. 1999).

Courts have

interpreted the federal rules to mean that discovery encompasses
“any matter that bears on or reasonably could lead to other
matters that could bear on any issue that is or may be in the
case.” Kopacz v. Del. River and Bay Auth., 225 F.R.D. 494, 496
(D.N.J. 2004).
In interpreting Rule 26(b)(1), district courts must remain
mindful that relevance is a broader inquiry at the discovery
stage than at the trial stage.

Nestle Foods Corp. v. Aetna Cas.

& Sur. Co., 135 F.R.D. 101, 104 (D.N.J. 1990).

Accordingly,

Rule 26(b)(1) provides that “[f]or good cause, the court may
order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter
involved in the action.”
“When a party fails to make disclosure of discovery, the
opposing party may file a motion to compel.

When a motion to

compel is filed and asks the court to overrule certain
objections, the objecting party must specifically show how each
discovery request is objectionable.”

Kannaday v. Ball, 2013

W.L. 1367055 at 2 (D.Kan. 2013).
“Although the scope of discovery under the Federal Rules is
broad, this right is not unlimited and may be circumscribed.”
3

Bayer AG v. Betachem, Inc., 173 F.3d 188, 191 (3d Cir. 1999).
While relevant information need not be admissible at trial, the
party seeking discovery must “show that the information sought
is relevant to the subject matter of the action and may lead to
admissible evidence.”
159 (D.N.J. 2000).

Caver v. City of Trenton, 192 F.R.D. 154,

That is because the sole purpose of

discovery is to add flesh for trial on the parties’ respective
claims and defenses in the given action.

Discovery is not a

fishing expedition for potential claims or defenses.

Smith v.

Lyons, Doughty & Velduius, P.C., 2008 WL 2885887, at *5 (D.N.J.
July 23, 2008).

Thus, Rule 26(b)(2) vests the District Court

with authority to limit the parties’ pursuit of otherwise
discoverable information.

B.

Analysis

Defendant argues that “all documents concerning the
formulation and production of NO-Bomb are highly relevant.

An

essential element of MHP’s implied warranty claim is that Sigmatau knew MHP was relying on Sigma-tau’s skill and judgment in
selecting GlycoCarn for Code Red. Documents concerning NO-Bomb,”
it contends, “will likely show whether and to what extent MHP
relied on Sigma-tau (as opposed to relying [upon] Vitaquest and
on its own expertise) in formulating and packaging NO-Bomb.
that course of conduct is highly probative of the parties’
4

And

reasonable expectations for the subsequent product with
GlycoCarn, Code Red.” (D.E. 27).
Plaintiff counters that “it has produced all NO-Bomb
documents that are relevant to this case.

Sigma-tau’s stated

purpose in demanding documents concerning NO-Bomb is to “show
what MHP knew about GlycoCarn and when, and the extent to which
MHP relied on Sigma-tau in how to make and package NO-Bomb, and
any consideration of its stability.”

This purpose is achieved

by MHP’s production of documents concerning NO-Bomb that also
concern GlycoCarn.

As an example, the document described above

– an email a Vitaquest employee sent the CEO of MHP – was
produced by MHP, because it concerns NO-Bomb and concerns
GlycoCarn. On the other hand, documents concerning the
formulation and packaging of NO-Bomb – a separate product that
is sold in a capsule form – simply are not relevant to any claim
or defense in this case, and searching for and producing those
documents would be unduly burdensome to MHP.” (D.E. 27).
Defendant has shown that the information sought is
discoverable and may lead to relevant evidence.

Whether the

discovery will be admissible is a matter to be addressed by the
trial judge.

Plaintiff has not met its burden to specifically

show how the discovery sought is objectionable.

5

IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, and good cause shown,
IT IS on this 27th day of August, 2013,
ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to compel the production of
NO-Bomb discovery from Plaintiff is granted and shall begin
immediately on a rolling basis.

8/27/2013 10:23:54 AM

6