Rouse v. H.B. Fuller Company
- John Docherty
- 0:22-cv-02173
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 12
In Rouse v. H.B. Fuller Company, Judge Docherty partly granted and partly denied a motion to compel discovery, took two requests under advisement, and extended a deposition deadline.
The ruling affects the plaintiffs’ ability to obtain discovery from HBF, requires HBF to provide specified customer-feedback information and Power Grout case numbers, leaves requests 163 and 164 unresolved pending further argument, and extends the corporate representative deposition deadline to January 5, 2025.
What was alleged
The complaint alleges that the defendants' TEC Power Grout product is defective and fails to perform as advertised. Specifically, it claims the product does not harden properly, cracks, crumbles, and disintegrates when wet, contrary to defendants' representations that it is crack-resistant, never needs sealing, and performs well in wet and high-traffic conditions. The complaint alleges claims including breach of express and implied warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and violations of various consumer protection statutes. It further alleges that defendants' warranty improperly limits consumer remedies to the cost of the product itself, even though product failure damages a much more expensive integrated tile installation.
What happened
In Rouse v. H.B. Fuller Company, the plaintiffs asked the court to require H.B. Fuller Company and H.B. Fuller Construction Products Inc. to produce documents about their products, customer complaints, testing, alleged defects, payments, stock sales, and procedures. The requests covered periods before 2016 and after April 1, 2023.
The court said its prior rulings generally limited discovery to January 1, 2016, through April 1, 2023, and did not allow broad, ongoing requests for newer information. It denied the motion for requests 159, 160, 166, and 167. It denied the request for 165 as moot without prejudice.
The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part for requests 161 and 162, requiring an understandable customer-feedback spreadsheet and the number of Power Grout cases opened between January 1, 2016, and April 1, 2023. Judge Docherty took requests 163 and 164 under advisement and extended the deadline for the corporate representative deposition to January 5, 2025.
The detailed version
- Rouse v. H.B. Fuller Company · No. 0:22-cv-02173
- John F. Docherty
- Dec. 4, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs moved to compel, meaning they asked the court to order H.B. Fuller Company and H.B. Fuller Construction Products Inc. (collectively, HBF) to produce documents responsive to their Fifth Requests for Production. The court addressed requests 159 through 167 and also extended the deadline for a deposition of HBF’s corporate representative under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6).
Prior discovery limits
The court stated that its previous rulings generally limited discoverable material to documents created between January 1, 2016, and April 1, 2023. Requests for material outside that period could be allowed only when focused on specific documents or questions. The court also had prohibited broad “rolling discovery,” meaning continuing production of general categories of information created after April 1, 2023. The court noted that the plaintiffs had objected to the temporal limit and that District Judge Jeffrey Bryan was reviewing that objection.
Rulings on the requests
- Requests 159, 160, and 167: The motion to compel was denied. Request 159 sought all documents collected under the electronic-discovery protocol from April 1, 2023, to the present. Request 160 sought all documents relating to the products. Request 167 sought procedures relating to the products from 2009 to the present. The court found these requests insufficiently focused and inconsistent with its prior discovery limits. - Requests 161 and 162: The motion to compel was granted in part and denied in part. HBF was required to provide an easily readable customer-feedback spreadsheet and disclose the number of “cases” involving Power Grout that it opened between January 1, 2016, and April 1,
- The motion was otherwise denied as to these requests. The court explained that, for purposes of this order, a “case” was created when a customer contacted HBF about unsatisfactory performance of a Power Grout product, while a “claim” was a case developed further by a customer seeking some type of remedy. - Requests 163 and 164: The requests concerned testing and alleged product defects. The conclusion states that the motion was taken under advisement pending arguments at the December 9, 2024 case-management conference. The opinion’s discussion stated that previously unproduced documents created between January 1, 2016, and April 1, 2023, concerning testing and alleged defects were relevant and proportional, but it also said the plaintiffs would have an opportunity to explain why material outside that period was needed. The final disposition was that the requests were taken under advisement. - Request 165: The motion to compel was denied as moot without prejudice. HBF had stated that it agreed to supplement information about payments to customers through August
- The court said the plaintiffs could refile concerning this request if another discovery dispute arose after the required conference between the parties. - Request 166: The motion to compel was denied. This request sought documents about stock sales by members of HBF’s executive management team or board of directors after August 12,
- The court found that speculation about possible relevance was not enough to expand discovery into those corporate actions. It said the plaintiffs could revisit the issue if they identified something beyond speculation suggesting relevance.
Deposition deadline and overall disposition
The court extended to January 5, 2025, the deadline for the plaintiffs to complete HBF’s corporate representative deposition. In conclusion, Judge John F. Docherty ordered that the motion to compel was granted in part and denied in part: requests 159, 160, 166, and 167 were denied; requests 161 and 162 were granted in part and otherwise denied; requests 163 and 164 were taken under advisement; and request 165 was denied as moot without prejudice.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.