Mark Anthony International SRL et al v. Prime Hydration, LLC

Filing 56

ORDER denying 52 Letter Motion for Local Rule 37.2 Conference. The Court therefore rejects Mark Anthony's bid to block discovery of the survey-related documents on the basis of the case management plan, see Dkt. 52-1 at 3, 4. Such documen ts are timely discovered now, subject, of course, to document-specific objections, if any, that may be lodged. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D) (requiring production of expert discovery "at the time and in the sequence that the court orders"). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 3/7/2025) (vfr)

UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRJCT OF NEW YORK
MARK ANTHONY INTERNATIONAL SRL,
MARK ANTHONY BRANDS
INTERNATIONAL UNLIMITED
COMPANY, and MAS+ NEXT
GENERATION BEVERAGE CO.,

24 Civ. 7620 (PAE)
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
-v-

PRlME HYDRATION, LLC,
Defendant.
PRJME HYDRATION, LLC,
Counterclaimant and
Crossclaimant,
-vMARK ANTHONY INTERNATIONAL SRL,
MARK ANTHONY BRANDS
INTERNATIONAL UNLIMITED
COMPANY, and MAS+ NEXT
GENERATION BEVERAGE CO.,
Counterclaim Defendants,
LIONEL MESSI,
Crossclaim Defendant.
PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:
On March 3, 2025, defendant Prime Hydration, LLC ("Prime") moved to compel
production of certain documents by plaintiffs Mark Anthony International SRL, Mark Anthony
Brands International Unlimited Company, and Mas+ Next Generation Beverage Co.

(collectively, "Mark Anthony'). See Dkt. 52. On March 6, 2025, Mark Anthony filed an
opposition. Dkt. 55.
Specifically, Prime seeks documents related to a consumer survey commissioned by
Mark Anthony before filing this action, on which multiple allegations in Mark Anthony's
Complaint are based. Compare Dkt. 52-1 at 3, 4 (requests for production 3 and 4), with Dkt. 1

,r,r 60, 61 (Complaint filed Oct. 8, 2024). Mark Anthony does not dispute that these materials
are discoverable by Prime. See Dkt. 55 at 1 ("Mark Anthony has already agreed to produce such
materials .... "). Rather, Mark Anthony quarrels with the timing of Prime's request: Mark
Anthony argues that it need not produce these documents until the deadline for fact discovery
deadline set by the Court's Case Management Plan has passed, because the consumer survey was
conducted by a "survey expert." Id.
Mark Anthony's argument misconstrues the Case Management Plan. See Dkt. 42. It
merely sets an end date for fact discovery, May 8, 2025, and a later end date for expert
discovery, August 6, 2025. Id. at 1-2. The Case Management Plan does not state that expert
discovery may not begin during the period of fact discovery, which began on January 13, 2025.
And it does not entitle Mark Anthony to withhold disclosed and discoverable survey-related
materials until after the end date for fact discovery. That the deadline for completion of expert
discovery is set for after the close of fact discovery merely reflects the litigation reality that
documents exchanged in fact discovery often are necessary inputs for the reports to be prepared
by expert witnesses. But that is not true of the consumer survey. As Mark Anthony
acknowledges, it was completed before fact discovery began-indeed, before Mark Anthony
filed the Complaint. See Dkt. 55 at 1 ("[I]n anticipation of litigation, Mark Anthony engaged a
survey expert through counsel to conduct a likelihood of confusion survey (the "Survey"). Mark

2

Anthony's expert designed and conducted the Survey and then analyzed the results from that
Survey."). As Mark Anthony further acknowledges, it attempted to use the Survey offensively,
prior to the filing of the Complaint, to attempt to dissuade Prime from pursuing Lanham Act
claims against it. See Comp!. 11 60, 61.
The Court therefore rejects Mark Anthony's bid to block discovery of the survey-related
documents on the basis of the case management plan, see Dkt. 52-1 at 3, 4. Such documents are
timely discovered now, subject, of course, to document-specific objections, if any, that may be
lodged. 1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D) (requiring production of expert discovery "at the time
and in the sequence that the court orders").
SO ORDERED.

ER

PAUL A. ENGELMA
United States District Judge
Dated: March 7, 2025
New York, New York

1 To the extent that Mark Anthony claims that some of these documents reflect privileged

communications of Mark Anthony's, see Dkt. 55 at 3, Mark Anthony is to promptly provide
Prime with a privilege log enumerating such.
3