Nurture, LLC v. PBM Nutritionals LLC
- Katherine Failla
- 1:24-cv-02390
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Nurture v. PBM Nutritionals, Judge Failla scheduled a conference about a proposed subpoena challenge and terminated the pending motion.
Nurture, LLC and PBM Nutritionals LLC, in connection with Nurture’s subpoena to the Food and Drug Administration.
What happened
In Nurture, LLC v. PBM Nutritionals LLC, PBM Nutritionals sought a conference before filing a motion to cancel or limit Nurture’s subpoena to the Food and Drug Administration. Nurture opposed the request and argued that any subpoena challenge belonged in the District of Columbia.
Nurture also argued that the requested records were relevant and protected by an existing confidentiality order. It disputed PBM Nutritionals’ claims about prior discovery rulings, the records already produced, and whether some information would be admissible at trial.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla did not decide those arguments. She directed the parties to attend a telephone pre-motion conference on February 7, 2025, and directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 55.
The detailed version
- Nurture, LLC v. PBM Nutritionals LLC · No. 1:24-cv-02390
- Katherine Failla
- Jan. 31, 2025
What was before the court
PBM Nutritionals sent a letter seeking a pre-motion conference concerning an anticipated motion to quash or for a protective order regarding Nurture’s subpoena to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A pre-motion conference is a meeting the court may require before a party files a motion. Nurture submitted a response opposing the request.
Nurture’s arguments
Nurture argued that any motion to quash—meaning a motion asking the court to cancel or modify a subpoena—had to be filed in the federal district where the subpoena required compliance. Nurture said the subpoena required the FDA to produce documents in Washington, D.C., and therefore argued that the Southern District of New York was not the proper court for PBM Nutritionals’ challenge. Nurture also argued that changing the proposed motion’s label to a motion for a protective order would not avoid that issue.
Nurture further argued that PBM Nutritionals lacked standing to challenge at least some requests, that an existing confidentiality order could protect sensitive information, and that the subpoena sought relevant discovery. Nurture disputed PBM Nutritionals’ characterization of earlier discovery rulings and argued that information about FDA records, infant-formula manufacturing, FDA approval requirements, and another manufacturer’s facility shutdown could be relevant to Nurture’s claims or to PBM Nutritionals’ defenses.
These arguments were made in Nurture’s letter. The court’s endorsement did not resolve whether PBM Nutritionals had standing, whether the subpoena should be quashed or limited, or whether the requested information was discoverable.
Court’s action
The court stated that it had reviewed PBM Nutritionals’ pre-motion letter and Nurture’s response. Judge Katherine Polk Failla directed the parties to discuss the issues raised in those letters at a telephone pre-motion conference scheduled for February 7, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 55. The text does not state that the court granted or denied the anticipated motion to quash or protective-order motion.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.