Cedar Bear Naturales v. Liquid Herbals Manufacturing et al

Filing 33

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING SHORT-FORM DISCOVERY MOTION-denying 31 Motion for Short Term Discovery. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells on 2/26/18. (jmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
CEDAR BEAR NATURALES, INC., a Utah
corporation,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
DENYING SHORT-FORM DISCOVERY
MOTION

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:17-cv-1076

LIQUID HERBALS MANUFACTURING
LLC, a Utah lmited liablity company, dba,
LIQUID NURA GROUP, et al.,

District Judge Clark Waddoups
Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells

Defendants.

Under DUCivR 37-1, Plaintiff Cedar Bear Naturales, Inc. (Cedar Bear) seeks an order
compelling Defendants (LNG) to produced electronically stored information (ESI) in response to
Cedar Bear’s First Set of Discovery Requests served on November 3, 2017. 1 The court denies
the motion.
This case involves companies that are “engaged in the business of manufacturing and
selling liquid herbal supplements in the United States.” 2 Cedar Bear alleges Defendants
misappropriated certain trade secrets, breached certain contracts, interfered with business
relationships and engaged in unfair competition. 3 The current dispute centers on the production
of ESI documents that Cedar Bear has requested. Cedar Bear made the discovery requests back
in November 2017 and LNG has been so slow in responding that now, “[t]wo months after the
deadline, LNG still has not produced ESI documents despite [Cedar Bear’s] good faith

1

Docket no. 31.

2

Complaint ¶ 1, 4.

3

See generally Complaint (setting forth the respective background and causes of action).

extensions of time and reasonable efforts to reach an agreement.” 4 Further, LNG has even
deposed Cedar Bear’s CEO regarding the basis of its claims so there is no excuse for any further
delay in producing the requested ESI. In response defendants provide they “anticipate having all
responsive ESI produced before March 15, 2018.” 5
The court is not persuaded that an order compelling compliance is necessary at this time.
March 15th is only approximately two weeks away and it appears based on the record that the
parties have been cooperating with each other. In addition, correspondence between the parties
indicates that search terms for the ESI were agreed upon by the parties on January 29th and
February 1st. So, a motion to compel compliance is at best premature at this time especially
given that LNG has already been producing discovery in accordance with the November request.
Accordingly, Cedar Bear’s motion is DENIED.

DATED this 26 February 2018.

Brooke C. Wells
United States Magistrate Judge

4

Mtn p. 2.

5

Op. p. 1, docket no. 32.

2