Flodin v. Central Garden & Pet Company

Background

This putative class action involved a joint discovery letter in which Central Garden & Pet Co. and Breeder’s Choice Pet Foods, Inc. moved to compel documents from putative class representatives John Flodin and Aaron Brand. The court considered the parties’ letter, deposition transcripts, and declarations from Flodin, Brand, and plaintiffs’ counsel Courtney Vazquez.

The defendants sought two categories of documents. Requests for Production 23, 28, 29, and 30 sought information about the class representatives’ fee arrangements, engagement letters, costs and expenses, and communications with counsel about joining the case. Request for Production 32 sought documents and communications concerning how Flodin and Brand became parties to the action, including advertisements, news articles, solicitations, emails, notices, and correspondence.

Category One: Fee Arrangements and Related Documents

The defendants argued that the engagement letters and related documents could show a conflict between the named plaintiffs and the class they sought to represent. The court explained that such documents generally are not relevant unless defendants provide evidence of a conflict beyond speculation.

The court distinguished between an incentive agreement and an incentive award. An incentive agreement guarantees compensation to a class representative from the beginning of the case and can create a conflict with the class. An incentive award is discretionary, is requested after a settlement or verdict, and is meant to compensate a representative for work performed for the class.

The court found that the record showed no incentive agreements between the plaintiffs and their counsel. The plaintiffs’ declarations stated that their engagement letters did not contain such agreements. The court also found that Brand’s friendship with one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, and the plaintiffs’ limited knowledge of their retainer agreements and possible compensation, did not establish an incentive agreement or another conflict requiring production.

The court therefore denied the defendants’ motion to compel responses to Requests for Production 23, 28, 29, and 30.

Category Two: Documents About Joining the Case

In response to Request 32, the plaintiffs stated that they had conducted a reasonable search and diligent inquiry and that no non-privileged responsive documents were within their possession, custody, or control.

The defendants argued that this response was inadequate, particularly because Flodin testified that he heard about the lawsuit online, contacted plaintiffs’ counsel, and did not remember the website where he saw the information. He also testified that he learned about the case after purchasing a bag of AvoDerm dog food but before feeding it to his dog, and that he received an email from plaintiffs’ counsel on August 31, 2020.

The court was not fully satisfied that plaintiffs’ counsel had conducted a reasonable search, at least regarding Flodin. It held that the plaintiffs could not simply state that no documents existed in Flodin’s possession. They had to determine whether their counsel’s records contained announcements or communications that Flodin might have seen before joining the case.

The court granted the defendants’ motion to compel a further response to Request 32. The plaintiffs were ordered to promptly conduct a reasonable inquiry into documents within their possession, custody, or control, including documents within their counsel’s control. They had to produce responsive documents by September 6, 2024. If no documents were found, plaintiffs’ counsel had to send defense counsel a letter by that date confirming that a reasonable and diligent search had been conducted and no responsive documents were found.

Disposition

The court’s order on the joint discovery letter granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to compel. Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu issued the order on August 16, 2024.