Lifevantage v. Domingo et al

Filing 237

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 116 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 2/12/16 (alt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

LIFEVANTAGE CORPORATION,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:13-CV-01037-JNP-PMW
v.
JASON DOMINGO et al.,
Defendants.

District Judge Jill N. Parrish
Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner

Before the court is Defendants and Counter-Claimants Jason Domingo and Ovation
Marketing Inc.’s (“Defendants”) motion to compel production of documents, or further
production of documents, in connection with a subpoena duces tecum to non-party Garry Mauro
and request for production of documents to Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant LifeVantage
Corporation (“Plaintiff”).1
Defendants seek to compel Mr. Mauro to produce:
(1) “Any and all emails, text messages, Facebook (or any other social media)
posts or messages, or other types of non-privileged communications . . . about
Jason Domingo, or Ovation Marketing, or the termination of Domingo’s
distributorship between January 1, 2013” and November 10, 2014 between
Mr. Mauro; and
a. Any employee or representative of LifeVantage Corporation
b. Any employee LifeVantage distributor, and
c. Any person or entity not included in (a) and (b) above; as well as

1

Docket no. 116.

(2) “Any and all documents, including Word, PowerPoint, Excel or other formats,
about Jason Domingo, or Ovation Marketing, or the termination of Domingo’s
distributorship between January 1, 2013” and November 10, 2014.2
Defendants seek to compel Plaintiff to produce:
(1) Documents from Mr. Mauro’s LifeVantage email account about Jason
Domingo, or Ovation Marketing, or the termination of Domingo’s
distributorship between January 1, 2013 and November 10, 2014.3
From a review of review of the court’s records, it does not appear that any opposition to
the motion was filed.
Under rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[p]arties may obtain discovery
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and
proportional to the needs of the case . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevant information need
not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence.”

Id.

A party may request the production of documents “in the

responding party’s possession, custody, or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). “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).
Based on the record before it, the court finds that the documents sought appear
reasonably relevant to the claims and defenses in the case. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to
compel is GRANTED.

2

Id. at 4.

3

Id. at 6.
2

Mr. Mauro is ORDERED to comply with the subpoena and produce all responsive
documents not previously produced, to the extent that they exist, within twenty-one days of the
date of this order. Defendant shall promptly notify Mr. Mauro of this order and provide a copy
of the order to him within five days of the date of this order.
Within twenty-one days of the date of this order, Plaintiff is ORDERED to produce all
relevant documents not previously produced from Mr. Mauro’s LifeVantage email account, to the
extent they exist, within twenty-one days of the date of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 12th day of February, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

PAUL M. WARNER
United States Magistrate Judge

3