1.800. Vending v. Wyland et al

Filing 39

MEMORANDUM DECISION & SHORT FORM DISCOVERY ORDER- granting #36 Motion to Compel; terminating #36 Motion to Expedite. The Court Orders the following: Within twenty (20) days from the date of this Order Defendant shall clarify its answer to Plaintiff's Interrogatory Number 1 and specifically identify the requested computers and electronic devices used by Defendant and Defendant's representatives from January 1, 2010 through the date of Defendant's response. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 4/21/15. (jmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
1.800.Vending, a Utah Corporation,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION & SHORT
FORM DISCOVERY ORDER

v.
CHRIS WYLAND, an individual, GROW
FRANCHISE GROUP, LLC, a California
limited liability company; SPROUT
HEALTHY VENDING, LLC, a Wyoming
limited liability company, GROW
HEALTHY INCORPORATED, a
California corporation,

Case No. 1:14-cv-00121
United States District Court Judge Clark
Waddoups
Magistrate Judge Dustin Pead

Defendants.

I.BACKGROUND
This case is before the above entitled Court pursuant to a 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)
referral from District Court Judge Clark Waddoups (doc. 11).
On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff 1.800.Vending (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against
Defendants Chris Wyland, Grow Franchise Group, LLC, Sprout Healthy Vending, LLC and
Grow Healthy Incorporated (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging causes of action for defamation,
commercial disparagement, violations of the Lanham Act and intentional interference with
economic relations (doc. 31).
Plaintiff is a corporation engaged in the sale and distribution of vending machines.
Defendants Grow Franchise Group, Sprout Healthy Vending and Grow Healthy Incorporated are
an associated set of businesses who also engage in the sale and distribution of vending machines.
Individual Defendant Chris Wyland is the principal owner of one or more of Defendant business

entities.
II. DISCOVERY DISPUTE
On March 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed a “Motion To Compel” related to Interrogatory
Number 1 of its “First Set Of Interrogatories” (doc. 36-2). Interrogatory Number 1 states:
Identify by make, model and serial number all computer or electronic devices
used to access the Internet by you and/or your representatives, including but
not limited to sales representatives, from January 1, 2010, through the date
of your response, including but not limited to desktop computers, laptop
computers, tablets, and smartphones.
(doc. 36-2, p.4). In response, Defendants identified all computers and electronic devices used by
Defendant Wyland located at 936 SW Davenport Street, Portland, Oregon, and at 44 Waterworks
Way, Irvine, California (doc. 38). Defendants object, however, to the identification of electronic
devices used by other Defendant representatives asserting that the interrogatory “seeks
information beyond the allegations in the complaint or amended complaint” (doc. 36-2).
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The motion before the court relates to discovery. “The district court has broad discretion
over the control of discovery, and [the Tenth Circuit] will not set aside discovery rulings absent
an abuse of that discretion.” Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Merrill Scott & Assocs., Ltd., 600 F.3d
1262, 1271 (10th Cir. 2010 ) (quotations and citations omitted).
The general scope of discovery is governed by rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which provides that “parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter
that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. . . . For good cause, the court may order discovery
of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not
be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

2

admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
IV. RULING
Upon consideration, the Court concludes that the information requested is, for purposes
of discovery, relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and therefore discoverable. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1). Although Defendant objects by arguing that the interrogatory improperly seeks
information outside the complaint and discovery should be limited to computers and electronic
devices utilized by Mr. Wyland in Portland, Oregon, the court disagrees.
Under rule 26, the scope of discovery is broad and “discovery is not limited to issues
raised by the pleadings, for discovery itself is designed to help define and clarify the issues.”
Gomez v. Martin Marietta Corp., 50 F.3d 1511 (10th Cir. 1995) (citing Oppenheimer Fund, Inc.
v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978) (emphasis added)). Additionally, Plaintiff has specifically
traced a defamatory comment posted on the internet to an IP address assigned to a Ms. Dawna
Wyland of Portland, Oregon. Plaintiff alleges that Dawna Wyland is the wife of Mr. Wyland and
acts as an employee and/or agent for one or more of the named Defendants (doc. 31, ¶19). Given
Ms. Wyland’s status as an employee or agent of Defendants, along with the fact that Plaintiff has
identified additional “defamatory and disparaging posts,” it is appropriate to allow discovery of
additional Defendant representatives’ devices regardless of their location in Portland, Oregon or
Irvine, California.
Finally, while Defendants seek to limit the object of the discovery request, they do not
seek temporal limitations and accordingly the court affirms the scope of the interrogatory request
seeking the identified electronic devices used from “January 1, 201, through the date of your
[Defendants’] response.”

3

V. ORDER
Upon review, the Court hereby grants Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel (doc. 36).
Consistent therewith the Court Orders the following:
1.

Within twenty (20) days from the date of this Order Defendant shall clarify its
answer to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory Number 1 and specifically identify the
requested computers and electronic devices used by Defendant and Defendant’s
representatives from January 1, 2010 through the date of Defendant’s response.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 21st day of April, 2015
_______________________________
Dustin Pead
U.S. Federal Magistrate Judge

4