LeGrand v. Abbott Laboratories

Background

The court considered three discovery disputes identified in docket entries 107, 108, and 109.

Abbott’s motion concerning damages disclosures

Abbott argued that LeGrand’s initial disclosures did not adequately disclose her damages claims. The disclosures listed seven possible damages models, including the full purchase price, the difference in product value, a price premium, Abbott’s sales or profits, increased market share, statutory damages, and punitive damages, along with attorney’s fees and costs. The disclosures stated that information needed to calculate damages was in Abbott’s possession or might be held by third parties.

The court explained that a party may not need to provide precise damages calculations in initial disclosures when expert testimony will be required. But Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) still requires the party claiming damages to provide the best information then available and identify the documents or other evidence supporting its estimates. The court rejected the view that LeGrand had to choose between prematurely providing a complete expert analysis and providing no numbers or estimates. It ruled that she must disclose what she can currently estimate and identify the supporting materials, while updating the disclosure as discovery continues.

Abbott’s motion concerning LeGrand’s health

Abbott sought responses to interrogatory 7 and production of documents requested in request for production 16. The interrogatory asked about adverse health effects that LeGrand believed were caused by added sugar in the Ensure Products and whether she experienced those effects. The document request sought medical records and other documents relating to or supporting claimed adverse health effects from consuming the products.

The court denied the motion to compel. It relied on the stated nature of the claims as seeking economic damages rather than damages for bodily injury, and on the conclusion that an individual class member’s health did not bear on whether the challenged health statements were false, deceptive, or materially misleading.

LeGrand’s additional interrogatories

LeGrand served interrogatories 16, 17, and 22. Abbott declined to answer, arguing that LeGrand exceeded the 25-interrogatory limit that generally applies under Rule 33(a)(1). LeGrand argued that she had not exceeded the limit and alternatively requested permission to serve the three interrogatories under Rules 33(a)(1) and 26(b)(1) and (2).

The court declined to resolve the dispute about counting interrogatories. Instead, it granted LeGrand’s alternative request and authorized her to serve interrogatories 16, 17, and 22. The court found that the interrogatories sought relevant information and were proportional to the needs of the case. It also found that LeGrand’s request complied with Civil Local Rule 33-3 because the joint discovery letter brief summarized the proposed interrogatories, included their full text in exhibits, and explained why they were necessary.

Overall result

The order granted Abbott’s motion concerning damages disclosures, denied Abbott’s motion concerning LeGrand’s health, and granted LeGrand’s alternative request for additional interrogatories. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson.